Question:
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jerry Patterson (Jerry alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks?
Organisation, I would have thought, as it were… — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Response:
Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jerry Patterson (Jerry alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? Organisation, I would have thought, as it were…
JP What organization? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill
JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be?
Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank
JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? When life disappeared, what existed?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause?
Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition. When life disappeared, what existed?
All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time. Honkey Bill Honkey Bill
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition.
JP Oh? How do you recognize reality without definitions? When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be?
JP What caused them; themselves? You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time.
JP Consult your god for directions. If you can’t answer questions, just cast insults, huh? Why on earth do you believe in ontological arguments? Jerry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Honkey Bill Honkey Bill
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition. JP Oh? How do you recognize reality without definitions?
Definitions limit what something actually is. Definitions help to put things in little boxes so that the human brain can assimilate into an understanding. But to confuse the definition with absolute reality is to confuse the road map with the actual territory. When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves?
What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living. You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time. JP Consult your god for directions. If you can’t answer questions, just cast insults, huh? Why on earth do you believe in ontological arguments?
How does one consult his god Jerry? That makes no sense to me. If we had the same god and we posed the same question to that god, would be both get the same answer? Or are there different realities? I belive that perception is reality. Nothing more. honkey Bill
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition. JP Oh? How do you recognize reality without definitions? Definitions limit what something actually is. Definitions help to put things in little boxes so that the human brain can assimilate into an understanding. But to confuse the definition with absolute reality is to confuse the road map with the actual territory.
JP We can know adequately for use only what we can define. It is interesting that you use the term "absolute reality." What do you mean by that term? When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves? What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living.
JP That seems to be conflicted. What do you mean by "mind?" Does your understood continuum admit choice? Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time. JP Consult your god for directions. If you can’t answer questions, just cast insults, huh? Why on earth do you believe in ontological arguments? How does one consult his god Jerry? That makes no sense to me. If we had the same god and we posed the same question to that god, would be both get the same answer? Or are there different realities? I belive that perception is reality. Nothing more. honkey Bill
JP I have no idea how one consults god. It seems that you should know. Until you tell me about your god, I will not know how to consult. If your perception is reality, then what would you call your perception of stepping on a blade of grass, among millions of such blades, which trips a mine blowing your leg off? Was your perception adequate to understand reality? Jerry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition. JP Oh? How do you recognize reality without definitions? Definitions limit what something actually is. Definitions help to put things in little boxes so that the human brain can assimilate into an understanding. But to confuse the definition with absolute reality is to confuse the road map with the actual territory. JP We can know adequately for use only what we can define. It is interesting that you use the term "absolute reality." What do you mean by that term?
By absolute reality I suppose I am suggesting that our personal reality, that which we percieve is a reflection of our minds interpretation however, absolute realtiy is the underlying nature to material and energy that I believe is unknowable. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves? What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living. JP That seems to be conflicted. What do you mean by "mind?" Does your understood continuum admit choice?
Choice is a fascinating thing, how could one know if one is really choosing when simple motivation can be confused with intentional decision? I believe that choice is simply motivation. We don’t pick our motivations. They are conditioned from birth. The will is not free from anything. Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change.
change IS, it does not need initiation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time. JP Consult your god for directions. If you can’t answer questions, just cast insults, huh? Why on earth do you believe in ontological arguments? How does one consult his god Jerry? That makes no sense to me. If we had the same god and we posed the same question to that god, would be both get the same answer? Or are there different realities? I belive that perception is reality. Nothing more. honkey Bill JP I have no idea how one consults god. It seems that you should know. Until you tell me about your god, I will not know how to consult.
I don’t have a god. I don’t know of any god. I am however familiar with aspects of organised religion as I have been raised as a Roman Catholic. If your perception is reality, then what would you call your perception of stepping on a blade of grass, among millions of such blades, which trips a mine blowing your leg off? Was your perception adequate to understand reality?
What I am suggesting is that one’s perception of the world is the only "measure" we have of what we consider to be reality. I am not suggesting that our perception is identical with anything but our minds perception. regards, Honkey Bill
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition. JP Oh? How do you recognize reality without definitions? Definitions limit what something actually is. Definitions help to put things in little boxes so that the human brain can assimilate into an understanding. But to confuse the definition with absolute reality is to confuse the road map with the actual territory. JP We can know adequately for use only what we can define. It is interesting that you use the term "absolute reality." What do you mean by that term? By absolute reality I suppose I am suggesting that our personal reality, that which we percieve is a reflection of our minds interpretation however, absolute realtiy is the underlying nature to material and energy that I believe is unknowable.
JP Your comments on "absolute" are substitutes for "relative!" This is a misuse of our language and is contrary to reason. What is your definition of "mind?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves? What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living. JP That seems to be conflicted. What do you mean by "mind?" Does your understood continuum admit choice? Choice is a fascinating thing, how could one know if one is really choosing when simple motivation can be confused with intentional decision? I believe that choice is simply motivation. We don’t pick our motivations. They are conditioned from birth. The will is not free from anything.
JP More fundamental confusion! Motivation is a cause for choice; it is not choice. Choice is that act by which creatures select from alternative acts. If the will is not free, then we are unable to improve our lives. Some choose to improve and others don’t. Some choose to be lazy. If the will is not free, then laws are a waste of time. Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change. change IS, it does not need initiation.
JP Change requires time and cause. For that reason, it has a beginning and an end and cannot exist without cause. If that were not true, we could not reason. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time. JP Consult your god for directions. If you can’t answer questions, just cast insults, huh? Why on earth do you believe in ontological arguments? How does one consult his god Jerry? That makes no sense to me. If we had the same god and we posed the same question to that god, would be both get the same answer? Or are there different realities? I belive that perception is reality. Nothing more. honkey Bill JP I have no idea how one consults god. It seems that you should know. Until you tell me about your god, I will not know how to consult. I don’t have a god. I don’t know of any god. I am however familiar with aspects of organised religion as I have been raised as a Roman Catholic.
JP You learned your lessons with considerable confusion. If you don’t have a god, where do you get your values? If your perception is reality, then what would you call your perception of stepping on a blade of grass, among millions of such blades, which trips a mine blowing your leg off? Was your perception adequate to understand reality? What I am suggesting is that one’s perception of the world is the only "measure" we have of what we consider to be reality. I am not suggesting that our perception is identical with anything but our minds perception.
JP That is confusing. How do you differentiate between "perception" and "understanding?’" How do you differentiate between "perception " and "apprehension?" Jerry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -regards, Honkey Bill
Response:
You learned your lessons with considerable confusion. If you don’t have a god, where do you get your values?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This basic rule encompasses all morals without the need for any god. — Bush Lied. Anybody But Bush. Regime change begins at home.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people assert that matter is solely responsible for thought. Then, what is the difference between matter (material) that thinks and matter that does not think? For instance, what is the difference between petroleum and matter that thinks? . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ In case you don’t have the intellegence to imagine what the difference between a brain and a rock is, it has something to do with order. Material order. Mess with that order and reality changes. Its that simple. Your brain is complex (assumption) and a rock is less complex. Honkey Bill JP Yes, indeed, 2+2 = 4. How did order come to be? Are you assuming it wasn’t always there? How do you prove that? I don’t think anyone knows where order comes from but you can be sure that order can occur out of chaos. A snowflake is an example. Life is an expression of what is possible within an unimaginably vast universe. Living things contain atoms that came from that universe. They are highly arranged an in a continuous struggle to survive and everything essentially eats everything else. All life dies as a part of the renewal process that marches toward ever increasing change. Go back in time and life gets less complex until you go back as far as possible and the traces of life dissapear. That sounds a lot like an evolutionary process. Hank JP How on earth do you define chaos? Are you insisting chaos means without cause? Chaos, is without apparent order. All things have an "apparent cause" if one is willing to distill reality into constructs of definition. JP Oh? How do you recognize reality without definitions? Definitions limit what something actually is. Definitions help to put things in little boxes so that the human brain can assimilate into an understanding. But to confuse the definition with absolute reality is to confuse the road map with the actual territory. JP We can know adequately for use only what we can define. It is interesting that you use the term "absolute reality." What do you mean by that term? By absolute reality I suppose I am suggesting that our personal reality, that which we percieve is a reflection of our minds interpretation however, absolute realtiy is the underlying nature to material and energy that I believe is unknowable. JP Your comments on "absolute" are substitutes for "relative!" This is a misuse of our language and is contrary to reason. What is your definition of "mind?"
Awareness and perception that results from the activity of a living brain. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves? What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living. JP That seems to be conflicted. What do you mean by "mind?" Does your understood continuum admit choice? Choice is a fascinating thing, how could one know if one is really choosing when simple motivation can be confused with intentional decision? I believe that choice is simply motivation. We don’t pick our motivations. They are conditioned from birth. The will is not free from anything. JP More fundamental confusion! Motivation is a cause for choice; it is not choice. Choice is that act by which creatures select from alternative acts.
What is controlling the act of selecting between acts? IE what controls the controller? People make bad choices, why would a person willfully make a bad choice if the will is free to make a good choice? If the will is not free, then we are unable to improve our lives. Some choose to improve and others don’t. Some choose to be lazy. If the will is not free, then laws are a waste of time.
Laws are not without the consequence for breaking them. The consequence of breaking a law is what provides the motivation for the not so free will to make a choice. IE the choice is made not from free will but from the avoidance of consequence. That is a motive. Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change. change IS, it does not need initiation. JP Change requires time and cause. For that reason, it has a beginning and an end and cannot exist without cause. If that were not true, we could not reason.
Cause is an oximoron. IE a chicken causes an egg. But an egg causes a chicken. Which is the effect? Everything is a cause and everything is an effect. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -You are attempting to engage me on a sophomoric argument for the logical existance of god. You don’t yet realise that there is no logical argument for god. You should at least review the fallacies of ontological argument before wasting your time. JP Consult your god for directions. If you can’t answer questions, just cast insults, huh? Why on earth do you believe in ontological arguments? How does one consult his god Jerry? That makes no sense to me. If we had the same god and we posed the same question to that god, would be both get the same answer? Or are there different realities? I belive that perception is reality. Nothing more. honkey Bill JP I have no idea how one consults god. It seems that you should know. Until you tell me about your god, I will not know how to consult. I don’t have a god. I don’t know of any god. I am however familiar with aspects of organised religion as I have been raised as a Roman Catholic. JP You learned your lessons with considerable confusion. If you don’t have a god, where do you get your values?
Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. If your perception is reality, then what would you call your perception of stepping on a blade of grass, among millions of such blades, which trips a mine blowing your leg off? Was your perception adequate to understand reality? What I am suggesting is that one’s perception of the world is the only "measure" we have of what we consider to be reality. I am not suggesting that our perception is identical with anything but our minds perception. JP That is confusing. How do you differentiate between "perception" and "understanding?’" How do you differentiate between "perception " and "apprehension?"
How you come to *understand* your perceptioin is not fixed or immutable. It is based on many factors such as culture, education and experience to name a few. IE One can easily perceive the suffering in the world and some people *understand* this to be an example of gos’s love. As far as the difference between perception and apprehension, a dictionary may help. Honkey Bill
Response:
Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists.
It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. — Bush Lied. Anybody But Bush. Regime change begins at home.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. — Bush Lied. Anybody But Bush. Regime change begins at home.
I can totall understand why an atheist would take responsiblity for their actions and enrole in any 12 step program that develops internal growth and or solves a life problem. No surprise there. Hank
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. I can totall understand why an atheist would take responsiblity for their actions and enrole in any 12 step program that develops internal growth and or solves a life problem. No surprise there.
Very few remain atheists when working a 12-step program. — Bush Lied. Anybody But Bush. Regime change begins at home.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. I can totall understand why an atheist would take responsiblity for their actions and enrole in any 12 step program that develops internal growth and or solves a life problem. No surprise there. Very few remain atheists when working a 12-step program.
That’s because to work the program you have to admit that thre is a higher power. The kilts swirl when you say that someone who does not do this is not "really" working a 12 step program. I have a *lot* of friends who consider themsleves alcoholic. I’ve noticed that the friends of Bill W are far more likely to bring it up early in a relationship while those that have stopped on their own usually mention it in passing after they know you are a friend.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. I can totall understand why an atheist would take responsiblity for their actions and enrole in any 12 step program that develops internal growth and or solves a life problem. No surprise there. Very few remain atheists when working a 12-step program.
So religion is an act of desparation? Not surprised again. Hank
Response:
@corp.supernews.com: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. I can totall understand why an atheist would take responsiblity for their actions and enrole in any 12 step program that develops internal growth and or solves a life problem. No surprise there. Very few remain atheists when working a 12-step program. So religion is an act of desparation? Not surprised again.
Very few 12-steppers are a religious. Most are merely spiritual. Religion is for those afraid to go to hell, spirituality is for those who have been there. — Bush is not my President.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @corp.supernews.com: Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. It is interesting that many of the people going into 12-step programs do claim to be atheist. I can totall understand why an atheist would take responsiblity for their actions and enrole in any 12 step program that develops internal growth and or solves a life problem. No surprise there. Very few remain atheists when working a 12-step program. So religion is an act of desparation? Not surprised again. Very few 12-steppers are a religious. Most are merely spiritual. Religion is for those afraid to go to hell, spirituality is for those who have been there.
How true Hank
Response:
You learned your lessons with considerable confusion. If you don’t have a god, where do you get your values? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This basic rule encompasses all morals without the need for any god.
JP Why do you believe that is good? What do mean by "god?" . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Response:
<snip By absolute reality I suppose I am suggesting that our personal reality, that which we percieve is a reflection of our minds interpretation however, absolute realtiy is the underlying nature to material and energy that I believe is unknowable. JP Your comments on "absolute" are substitutes for "relative!" This is a misuse of our language and is contrary to reason. What is your definition of "mind?" Awareness and perception that results from the activity of a living brain.
JP That is not a definition! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves? What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living. JP That seems to be conflicted. What do you mean by "mind?" Does your understood continuum admit choice? Choice is a fascinating thing, how could one know if one is really choosing when simple motivation can be confused with intentional decision? I believe that choice is simply motivation. We don’t pick our motivations. They are conditioned from birth. The will is not free from anything. JP More fundamental confusion! Motivation is a cause for choice; it is not choice. Choice is that act by which creatures select from alternative acts. What is controlling the act of selecting between acts? IE what controls the controller? People make bad choices, why would a person willfully make a bad choice if the will is free to make a good choice?
JP Thy don’t if they understand the results of all possible choices . I will answer in your terms. Bad electro-chemical activity. If the will is not free, then we are unable to improve our lives. Some choose to improve and others don’t. Some choose to be lazy. If the will is not free, then laws are a waste of time. Laws are not without the consequence for breaking them. The consequence of breaking a law is what provides the motivation for the not so free will to make a choice. IE the choice is made not from free will but from the avoidance of consequence. That is a motive.
JP Sounds to me that is a completely free choice. Choice is for the best outcome. None if your chemicals needed here to improve choice. Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change. change IS, it does not need initiation. JP Change requires time and cause. For that reason, it has a beginning and an end and cannot exist without cause. If that were not true, we could not reason. Cause is an oximoron. IE a chicken causes an egg. But an egg causes a chicken. Which is the effect? Everything is a cause and everything is an effect.
JP Causes are defined. If that were not true, then the physical sciences would be out of business and societal good would not exist. <snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JP I have no idea how one consults god. It seems that you should know. Until you tell me about your god, I will not know how to consult. I don’t have a god. I don’t know of any god. I am however familiar with aspects of organised religion as I have been raised as a Roman Catholic. JP You learned your lessons with considerable confusion. If you don’t have a god, where do you get your values? Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists.
JP You are wrong about the prisons. I know them very well as I have many years experience in serving prisoners. Why choose that philosophy as opposed to getting all you can that is legal? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If your perception is reality, then what would you call your perception of stepping on a blade of grass, among millions of such blades, which trips a mine blowing your leg off? Was your perception adequate to understand reality? What I am suggesting is that one’s perception of the world is the only "measure" we have of what we consider to be reality. I am not suggesting that our perception is identical with anything but our minds perception. JP That is confusing. How do you differentiate between "perception" and "understanding?’" How do you differentiate between "perception " and "apprehension?" How you come to *understand* your perceptioin is not fixed or immutable. It is based on many factors such as culture, education and experience to name a few.
JP Those are not distinguishing factors. Definitions are needed here. IE One can easily perceive the suffering in the world and some people *understand* this to be an example of gos’s love. As far as the difference between perception and apprehension, a dictionary may help. Honkey Bill
JP A dictionary sometimes uses scientific terms, but not always. It seems that you don’t understand what you are asserting because you can define your terms. Also, you have yet to define "god!" . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip By absolute reality I suppose I am suggesting that our personal reality, that which we percieve is a reflection of our minds interpretation however, absolute realtiy is the underlying nature to material and energy that I believe is unknowable. JP Your comments on "absolute" are substitutes for "relative!" This is a misuse of our language and is contrary to reason. What is your definition of "mind?" Awareness and perception that results from the activity of a living brain. JP That is not a definition!
mind (miend) n., v. <mind-ed, mind-ing n. 1. the element, part, or process in a human or other conscious being that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When life disappeared, what existed? All of matter and energy existed. What else could there be? JP What caused them; themselves? What do you mean by cause? Nothing is really caused, it is a contunuum of unbroken reality. Only when the human mind steps in is there arbitrary events in time. That is the work of the mind. Thats what the mind does for a living. JP That seems to be conflicted. What do you mean by "mind?" Does your understood continuum admit choice? Choice is a fascinating thing, how could one know if one is really choosing when simple motivation can be confused with intentional decision? I believe that choice is simply motivation. We don’t pick our motivations. They are conditioned from birth. The will is not free from anything. JP More fundamental confusion! Motivation is a cause for choice; it is not choice. Choice is that act by which creatures select from alternative acts. What is controlling the act of selecting between acts? IE what controls the controller? People make bad choices, why would a person willfully make a bad choice if the will is free to make a good choice? JP Thy don’t if they understand the results of all possible choices . I will answer in your terms. Bad electro-chemical activity.
And if one does not understand the results of all possible choices, should that person be blamed? So in order to choose the right thing, one must have the benifit of experience? I agree with Einstien: " One can always do as they will, but they can never will as they will" That about sums it up for me. If the will is not free, then we are unable to improve our lives. Some choose to improve and others don’t. Some choose to be lazy. If the will is not free, then laws are a waste of time. Laws are not without the consequence for breaking them. The consequence of breaking a law is what provides the motivation for the not so free will to make a choice. IE the choice is made not from free will but from the avoidance of consequence. That is a motive. JP Sounds to me that is a completely free choice. Choice is for the best outcome. None if your chemicals needed here to improve choice.
You are motivated to choose that which brings you the most benifit however you define benifit. And that can and often does include short term pain for long term gain. What in your opinion is the will free from? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change. change IS, it does not need initiation. JP Change requires time and cause. For that reason, it has a beginning and an end and cannot exist without cause. If that were not true, we could not reason. Cause is an oximoron. IE a chicken causes an egg. But an egg causes a chicken. Which is the effect? Everything is a cause and everything is an effect. JP Causes are defined.
Yes they are, by the human observer. It is that observer that puts the event into a box for purposes of understaning the world. It is very effective. The external world functions quite well without the definitions and preceptions of what is causing it however. It is simply a flow. A continuous unbroken flow that only has starting and stoping points once a mind arbitrarily inserts the boundary conditions. If that were not true, then the physical sciences would be out of business and societal good would not exist.
Yes you are correct. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip JP I have no idea how one consults god. It seems that you should know. Until you tell me about your god, I will not know how to consult. I don’t have a god. I don’t know of any god. I am however familiar with aspects of organised religion as I have been raised as a Roman Catholic. JP You learned your lessons with considerable confusion. If you don’t have a god, where do you get your values? Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. JP You are wrong about the prisons. I know them very well as I have many years experience in serving prisoners. Why choose that philosophy as opposed to getting all you can that is legal?
What? Not sure I follow. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If your perception is reality, then what would you call your perception of stepping on a blade of grass, among millions of such blades, which trips a mine blowing your leg off? Was your perception adequate to understand reality? What I am suggesting is that one’s perception of the world is the only "measure" we have of what we consider to be reality. I am not suggesting that our perception is identical with anything but our minds perception. JP That is confusing. How do you differentiate between "perception" and "understanding?’" How do you differentiate between "perception " and "apprehension?" How you come to *understand* your perceptioin is not fixed or immutable. It is based on many factors such as culture, education and experience to name a few. JP Those are not distinguishing factors. Definitions are needed here.
What ever. IE One can easily perceive the suffering in the world and some people *understand* this to be an example of gos’s love. As far as the difference between perception and apprehension, a dictionary may help. Honkey Bill JP A dictionary sometimes uses scientific terms, but not always. It seems that you don’t understand what you are asserting because you can define your terms. Also, you have yet to define "god!"
Which god? I have no personal experience with god. If there is a god, I know nothing about that god. Honkey Bill
Response:
<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JP Your comments on "absolute" are substitutes for "relative!" This is a misuse of our language and is contrary to reason. What is your definition of "mind?" Awareness and perception that results from the activity of a living brain. JP That is not a definition! mind (miend) n., v. <mind-ed, mind-ing n. 1. the element, part, or process in a human or other conscious being that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.
JP I doubt if you considered that carefully. It doesn’t include your requirement that it is material. It also fails to consider the specifics of the "etc." <snip What is controlling the act of selecting between acts? IE what controls the controller? People make bad choices, why would a person willfully make a bad choice if the will is free to make a good choice? JP Thy don’t if they understand the results of all possible choices . I will answer in your terms. Bad electro-chemical activity. And if one does not understand the results of all possible choices, should that person be blamed? So in order to choose the right thing, one must have the benifit of experience? I agree with Einstien: " One can always do as they will, but they can never will as they will" That about sums it up for me.
JP If they have tried do understand to the best of their ability, no. Why did you bring up the topic of "blame?" What has that to do with whether the will is free? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the will is not free, then we are unable to improve our lives. Some choose to improve and others don’t. Some choose to be lazy. If the will is not free, then laws are a waste of time. Laws are not without the consequence for breaking them. The consequence of breaking a law is what provides the motivation for the not so free will to make a choice. IE the choice is made not from free will but from the avoidance of consequence. That is a motive. JP Sounds to me that is a completely free choice. Choice is for the best outcome. None if your chemicals needed here to improve choice. You are motivated to choose that which brings you the most benifit however you define benifit. And that can and often does include short term pain for long term gain.
JP I certainly agree. What in your opinion is the will free from?
JP I don’t understand your question. Do you mean free to do? It is certainly influenced by understanding. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Cause(s) is that which is necessary to initiate change. change IS, it does not need initiation. JP Change requires time and cause. For that reason, it has a beginning and an end and cannot exist without cause. If that were not true, we could not reason. Cause is an oximoron. IE a chicken causes an egg. But an egg causes a chicken. Which is the effect? Everything is a cause and everything is an effect. JP Causes are defined. Yes they are, by the human observer. It is that observer that puts the event into a box for purposes of understaning the world. It is very effective. The external world functions quite well without the definitions and preceptions of what is causing it however. It is simply a flow. A continuous unbroken flow that only has starting and stoping points once a mind arbitrarily inserts the boundary conditions.
JP Flow? Stopping points? Boundary conditions? If that were not true, then the physical sciences would be out of business and societal good would not exist. Yes you are correct.
JP Then why are causes to understood as oxymorons? <snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Most intellegent men, who are born with the faculty of self-awareness, will with little difficulty and some ernest contemplation, derive good rules to live by. IE: treat others as you would have them treat you. A very old philosophy. An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists. JP You are wrong about the prisons. I know them very well as I have many years experience in serving prisoners. Why choose that philosophy as opposed to getting all you can that is legal? What? Not sure I follow.
JP You wrote, "An atheist does good for the sake of goodness. Others need the carrot and the stick to guide their not so free will. The prisons don’t harbour many atheists" That is interesting. How do you define "good?" Also, I can assure you that there are many non believers in prisons. <snip How you come to *understand* your perceptioin is not fixed or immutable. It is based on many factors such as culture, education and experience to name a few. JP Those are not distinguishing factors. Definitions are needed here. What ever.
JP So you can’t define them – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -IE One can easily perceive the suffering in the world and some people *understand* this to be an example of gos’s love. As far as the difference between perception and apprehension, a dictionary may help. Honkey Bill JP A dictionary sometimes uses scientific terms, but not always. It seems that you don’t understand what you are asserting because you can define your terms. Also, you have yet to define "god!" Which god? I have no personal experience with god. If there is a god, I know nothing about that god. Honkey Bill
JP So you are discussing what doesn’t exist? What do you mean by "god?" . . . Blessings, Jerry http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/ Never let your aircraft take you somewhere your brain didn’t take you five minutes earlier.
Response:
Posted in Roman Catholic Religion | 
No Comments » |
Blessings Bren — Mary had a little lamb, The midwife was surprised! 
