Re: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >

> > I know enough about it to know that mainstream quantum

> > physics says nothing at all about the probability that the

> > 'facts' about religion that we are talking about - say, even

> > simply the one about the existence of a Supreme Being are

> > simply not addressed. I do not need to be a scholar on

> > quantum physics to know that.

>

> The point that Quantum Physics is used improperly in the macro world is well

> taken and correct. It is an interesting, model however, and does seem to

> apply on the macro level to some degree.

It does not apply as science. Any application is totally fanciful, and not part

of mainstream quantum physics. It is new age speculation. To use this in an

argument about whether the beauty of a flower constitutes circumstantial

evidence that God exists, when you believe yourself that the probability is that

God does not exist because the evidence does not support it is simply

contradictory, bad science, and bad logic.

> Simply stated, we are saying that

> those things which are not being observed are unknown and exist only as

> probabilities. A kind of mathematical representation of the implications of

> the question, " If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? "

>

> That discussion goes directly to the heart of the atheist issue.

>

>

I believe wholeheartedly that this discussion no longer exists, and that this

belief is a strong as any faith that any proponent of any religion has ever had.

[Guest guest]

>

> > So, a person who believes that there is no God at all, is a

> > religious as the most devout believer, who lives his religion

> > in every way and worships God? If this is the superficiality

> > that you assign to the meaning of religion, I am simply

> > astounded. You simply ignore any of the deeper, complex

> > elements, and say that religion is simply ANY belief in

> > something that can't be proved. A silly and trivial

> > discussion. I'm done with it.

>

> Ahh. We get to the core issue.

>

> I say to you that you ARE living your life with the same devotion to your

> ideas as a non-believer as any person who worships God. Your worldview is

> shaped by this model. Your patterns of behavior are defined by it. Your

> thought patterns constantly revolve around this belief system. You create

> your social world to match this thought. You exclude those who you perceive

> as incorrect and you gravitate towards others of like mind. You make every

> decision in your life based on this belief.

>

> That you do not use ritual to live the life of your belief makes you think

> that you are somehow different than those you oppose. You are not. And

> there is nothing trivial about this issue! It defines you as my beliefs

> define me!

>

Last response on this, since this is a substantive point. I would argue that the

atheist, who believes on the importance of living an ethical and moral life,

simply uses other presuppositions to give a foundation for his/her actions.

There are no atheistic rituals, and there is no worship, and other than than,

you could map an atheists life to a believers life pretty exactly I think, i.e.

they would not be differentiable. An atheist is not by essence devoted to

atheism. The notion is somewhat ridiculous and self-contradictory, and arises

out of your attempt to include it amongst the world's religions.

[Guest guest]

I heard a quote many years ago, which I love, on this subject: " No religion

has the corner on God, God owns the whole block " .

Irene

At 09:49 AM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>It makes a whole lot of sense to me.

>

>As I said earlier, there is one true religion for each person. There is no

>one religion that is right for all people.

>

>Judith Alta

>

>-----Original Message-----

>

>Excellent and fair question. I don't know how to answer this within the

>time constraints that I'm willing spend posting on this subject. It has

>taken me a lifetime of experience, questioning and thought to come to this

>conclusion. I started out a non-practicing protestant, became a

>fundamentalist Christian for two years in my late teens and then spent the

>rest of my life so far sorting out the implications of all of that.

>

>Generally speaking, though, it seems to me that all of the various religions

>evolved to fill the needs of the communities from which they sprung. That

>there are billions of people simultaneously believing that their truth is

>the one true truth for all eternity and has always been and always will be

>true strikes me an expression of the psychology of human beings and makes

>the likelihood that any of them are correct in their entirety very, very

>small.

>

>Does this make sense to you?

>

>Ron

>

>

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

[Guest guest]

Subject: RE: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

> > Very easily. I don't think that the evidence supports the

> conclusion that

> > there is a god despite the fact that I clearly see the

> power of the argument

> > that there is one.

> >

>

> Very curious and self contradictory. You believe that there

> is no God, despite the evidence.

I have clearly argued that there is evidence to support multiple models. My

personal conclusion is that there is no god. The difference between you and

me is that I understand that I cannot know the answer and I understand that

I'm making a decision based on probabilities. I understand that to be an

atheist you must faithfully believe in no-god. I do not hold that position.

> I also believe that there is

> no personal God (I find other conceptions to be far more

> attractive), but I don't believe that the arguments (which

> can be quite compelling, I agree) are as you state that they

> are, and I also don't find that they are compelling at all as

> far as concluding that there is this personal God who guides

> human events and torments people in Hell for all eternity.

This is the position of an agnostic. On your statements above we are, to a

degree, in agreement.

If you call yourself an atheist you are as religious as those you oppose.

Which is where this conversation started.

----------

I hope I can jump in this science/religion discussion without having read

the complete thread. I hope I'm in the right one.

It seems science/religion discussions are going on all over the net and on

all types of e-groups. People are thinking People are analyzing and

reflecting. That is all good; people are waking up. These discussions are by

far the longest. They are also the most stimulating, encouraging,

frustrating, and heated.

Anyway, on to the relevant comment.

As an agnostic myself, I would like to present this perspective. Which is

more of a stretch: to assert the existence of something without evidence to

support its existence (religion), or to assert the non-existence of

something without evidence to support its non-existence (atheism)? A totally

unbiased answer might appear to be that there is no difference (that they

are both " belief " / " faith " / " religion " ). But a more scientific viewpoint may

prefer to answer that religion is more of a stretch, because of these

reasons: Non-existence is like innocence; it is presumed until proven

otherwise. The burden of proof has to lie upon proving existence because,

for one thing, there is not mechanism for proving a negative. The only way

to prove innocence or non-existence is for the other side to disprove it by

proving guilt/existence.

Therefore, asserting that there is surely no god is a stretch and a belief

and a faith of sorts, but not as much as the inverse. Is " presume " very

different than " assert " / " believe " / " have faith " : not really. Religion is

a presumption of the more complex and the less likely, for no good reason.

Atheism is a presumption of the simpler and more likely (for no good reason

- LOL).

An agnostic with more sympathy for atheism than religion,

-Mark

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:17:20 -0500, mark robert <colowe@...> wrote:

>

> As an agnostic myself, I would like to present this perspective. Which is

> more of a stretch: to assert the existence of something without evidence to

> support its existence (religion), or to assert the non-existence of

> something without evidence to support its non-existence (atheism)? A totally

> unbiased answer might appear to be that there is no difference (that they

> are both " belief " / " faith " / " religion " ). But a more scientific viewpoint may

> prefer to answer that religion is more of a stretch, because of these

> reasons: Non-existence is like innocence; it is presumed until proven

> otherwise. The burden of proof has to lie upon proving existence because,

> for one thing, there is not mechanism for proving a negative. The only way

> to prove innocence or non-existence is for the other side to disprove it by

> proving guilt/existence.

>

> Therefore, asserting that there is surely no god is a stretch and a belief

> and a faith of sorts, but not as much as the inverse. Is " presume " very

> different than " assert " / " believe " / " have faith " : not really. Religion is

> a presumption of the more complex and the less likely, for no good reason.

> Atheism is a presumption of the simpler and more likely (for no good reason

> - LOL).

The thing is, for those of us who believe in God, we *have* seen

enough evidence so that the leap of faith is not all that great. We

don't need to prove it to you or to anyone else for that matter, so

there's no burden of proof weighing on our shoulders. For me, it would

take tons more faith (which to me would have no basis) to say there

isn't a God than to believe that there is, and that He loves and cares

very deeply about me.

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of

things not seen.... Through faith we understand that the worlds were

framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made

of things which do appear.... But without faith it is impossible to

please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and

that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. " (From Hebrews

11 of the Bible)

" For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;

but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. " (From 1

Corinthians 1 of the Bible)

" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because

they are spiritually discerned. " (From 1 Corinthians 2 of the Bible)

Fern

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Quantum mechanics views the world as a

>swirling cloud of probabilities. Therefore it _must_ be possible that the

>Primitive Baptists have got the complete and total picture, however

>improbable, if you accept that Quantum Mechanics is true.

I've really got to stop posting in this thread, because it's overwhelming

the list and that's got to stop, but no, that's not actually true. First,

all the probabilities still obey natural laws, and second, the past is not

a territory of infinite possibility, and third, religions make (some)

claims which are falsifiable.

-

[Guest guest]

Yes. Nicely said.

I only disagree with the last line and that is simply because I have found

most atheists to be as strident, rigid and unpleasant as the worst

fundamentalist Christian.

Gene generally behaved in a way consistent with my experience while was

courteous and polite even though he bailed early on the discussion.

Ron

> As an agnostic myself, I would like to present this

> perspective. Which is

> more of a stretch: to assert the existence of something

> without evidence to

> support its existence (religion), or to assert the non-existence of

> something without evidence to support its non-existence

> (atheism)? A totally

> unbiased answer might appear to be that there is no

> difference (that they

> are both " belief " / " faith " / " religion " ). But a more scientific

> viewpoint may

> prefer to answer that religion is more of a stretch, because of these

> reasons: Non-existence is like innocence; it is presumed until proven

> otherwise. The burden of proof has to lie upon proving

> existence because,

> for one thing, there is not mechanism for proving a negative.

> The only way

> to prove innocence or non-existence is for the other side to

> disprove it by

> proving guilt/existence.

>

> Therefore, asserting that there is surely no god is a stretch

> and a belief

> and a faith of sorts, but not as much as the inverse. Is

> " presume " very

> different than " assert " / " believe " / " have faith " : not

> really. Religion is

> a presumption of the more complex and the less likely, for no

> good reason.

> Atheism is a presumption of the simpler and more likely (for

> no good reason

> - LOL).

>

> An agnostic with more sympathy for atheism than religion,

>

> -Mark

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ron-

> was

>courteous and polite even though he bailed early on the discussion.

I still plan a response to you, but I've been busy, and as the list-owner,

I'm also reluctant to contribute to an enormous off-topic thread which is

probably bothering a fair number of members.

-

[Guest guest]

> I still plan a response to you, but I've been busy, and as

> the list-owner,

> I'm also reluctant to contribute to an enormous off-topic

> thread which is

> probably bothering a fair number of members.

>

I would be interested to hear your response should you be willing to make

it. I will not continue the discussion though. Thanks for your time.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes. Nicely said.

>

> I only disagree with the last line and that is simply because I have found

> most atheists to be as strident, rigid and unpleasant as the worst

> fundamentalist Christian.

>

> Gene generally behaved in a way consistent with my experience while was

> courteous and polite even though he bailed early on the discussion.

>

> Ron

>

Thank you. Nice touch.

[Guest guest]

Ron,

Yes, well the temperament of the believer is a separate issue from whether

atheism is more/less believable than religion. My perspective, reworded:

Take two believers, both just as certain of their beliefs. One believes that

there is a god. The other believes there is no god. Which belief, based on

the reasonable evidence, is the least likely? I vote the former.

-Mark

******************************

The active misidentification of evil

is the worst kind of evil.

-MRN

RE: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

Yes. Nicely said.

I only disagree with the last line and that is simply because I have found

most atheists to be as strident, rigid and unpleasant as the worst

fundamentalist Christian.

Gene generally behaved in a way consistent with my experience while was

courteous and polite even though he bailed early on the discussion.

Ron

> As an agnostic myself, I would like to present this

> perspective. Which is

> more of a stretch: to assert the existence of something

> without evidence to

> support its existence (religion), or to assert the non-existence of

> something without evidence to support its non-existence

> (atheism)? A totally

> unbiased answer might appear to be that there is no

> difference (that they

> are both " belief " / " faith " / " religion " ). But a more scientific

> viewpoint may

> prefer to answer that religion is more of a stretch, because of these

> reasons: Non-existence is like innocence; it is presumed until proven

> otherwise. The burden of proof has to lie upon proving

> existence because,

> for one thing, there is not mechanism for proving a negative.

> The only way

> to prove innocence or non-existence is for the other side to

> disprove it by

> proving guilt/existence.

>

> Therefore, asserting that there is surely no god is a stretch

> and a belief

> and a faith of sorts, but not as much as the inverse. Is

> " presume " very

> different than " assert " / " believe " / " have faith " : not

> really. Religion is

> a presumption of the more complex and the less likely, for no

> good reason.

> Atheism is a presumption of the simpler and more likely (for

> no good reason

> - LOL).

>

> An agnostic with more sympathy for atheism than religion,

>

> -Mark

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Gene generally behaved in a way consistent with my experience while was

>courteous and polite even though he bailed early on the discussion.

>

>Ron

Maybe it's time all those interested move to NT_politics? Really, this is WAY

too much

politics and religion for this list, people have complained ... but it's a good

discussion,

so to please both sides, go move there? Please?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> RE: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

>

>

>

> Hi Suze,

>

>> Just curious Ron - why do you think the chances of any one

>> religion being

>> true are *small*?

>>

>

>Excellent and fair question. I don't know how to answer this within the

>time constraints that I'm willing spend posting on this subject. It has

>taken me a lifetime of experience, questioning and thought to come to this

>conclusion. I started out a non-practicing protestant, became a

>fundamentalist Christian for two years in my late teens and then spent the

>rest of my life so far sorting out the implications of all of that.

>

>Generally speaking, though, it seems to me that all of the various

>religions

>evolved to fill the needs of the communities from which they sprung. That

>there are billions of people simultaneously believing that their truth is

>the one true truth for all eternity and has always been and always will be

>true strikes me an expression of the psychology of human beings and makes

>the likelihood that any of them are correct in their entirety very, very

>small.

>

>Does this make sense to you?

>

>Ron

>

The part about religions evolving to fill the needs of the communities from

which they sprung does make sense. I've often thought that myself. I guess I

just don't see why that makes the likelihood of any one of them being true,

unlikely. For example, it's unlikely that any specific individual will win

the powerball either. But eventually, someone always wins. So *somebody*

gets it right even though the probability is against everyone who plays.

Just something I've been thinking about. I don't have answers, I was just

curious as to your reasoning. Thanks for sharing :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

>

>

>

>In a message dated 12/15/04 11:04:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>> That is a really good point. I think people do a lot of things

>in the name

>> of their religion which is NOT a part of their religion's

>teachings at all,

>> and thus it's unfair to judge the religion on the person's

>actions. It's

>the

>> *person* and their interpretation of their religion that should

>be judged.

>I

>> don't know, but I sometimes get the sense that religions are more often

>> MISrepresented by people's actions that represented by them!

>_____

>

>That might be true, but I wouldn't be so quick to sugget that

>those Muslim's

>who are not intent upon using violence to take over non-Muslim

>territory are

>more in line with the teachings of Islam than those who are...

>

>Chris

Well I think the original post I was responding to was referring to Muslim

*terrorists*, as in 911. I don't know much about the Quran (although I do

have a copy!) but I don't recall anything in there that would support an

attack like that. I suppose it could be argued though, if one could make an

argument that the 911 attack was defensive in nature.

Do you happen to know if the Quran teaches that it's OK to take over

non-Muslim territory with violence, as your response suggested?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:41:00 -0500, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Well I think the original post I was responding to was referring to Muslim

> *terrorists*, as in 911. I don't know much about the Quran (although I do

> have a copy!) but I don't recall anything in there that would support an

> attack like that. I suppose it could be argued though, if one could make an

> argument that the 911 attack was defensive in nature.

>

> Do you happen to know if the Quran teaches that it's OK to take over

> non-Muslim territory with violence, as your response suggested?

Suze,

I used to be friendly with a community of Muslims once upon a time,

and as I recall, typically, the holy book reads a bit different than

many people quote it. I can't absolutely vouch for accuracy, but this

page:

http://www.emayhem.org/print/1038808893.html

seems to follow what I remember from talking with my old friends.

B.

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

>

> >

>

>

> <HTML>

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " >

> <BODY>

> <FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> Important <B>Native Nutrition</B> Addresses

> <UL>

> <LI>Native Nutrition on the <A

HREF= " / " >WEB</A>

> <LI>Search the message <A HREF= " http://onibasu.dyndns.org/ " >ARCHIVE</A>

& mdash; <B>NEW FEATURE!</B></LI>

> <LI>Change your group <A

HREF= " /join " >SETTINGS</A></\

LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " mailto: " >POST</A> a

message</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -subscribe " >SUBSCRIBE</A> to the

list</LI>

> <LI><A

HREF= " mailto: -unsubscribe " >UNSUBSCRIBE</A> from

the list</LI>

> <LI>Send an <A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >EMAIL</A> to the List Owner

& Moderators</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >List Owner: Idol

> Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>The part about religions evolving to fill the needs of the communities from

>which they sprung does make sense. I've often thought that myself. I guess I

>just don't see why that makes the likelihood of any one of them being true,

>unlikely. For example, it's unlikely that any specific individual will win

>the powerball either. But eventually, someone always wins. So *somebody*

>gets it right even though the probability is against everyone who plays.

Umm, your own example should clearly illustrate the principle. Say that

the odds of winning a given powerball game are 1 in 50 million. Say that

each possible entry represents one religion. That means that in a universe

of 50 million religions, only 1 is " correct " , and therefore the odds of any

given " religion " being " correct " are very, very tiny -- 1 in 50 million.

The actual universe of possible explanations for the universe (and history

and humanity and so on) (and by " possible " I mean " potentially

describable " , not " actually theoretically possible " ) is almost infinitely

vaster than the set of possible entries in a powerball game. Therefore,

without some kind of special guidance, the chances that a particular

religion is going to happen on the actual truth are vanishingly slim. And

just to make things more fun, virtually all religions claim special

knowledge -- despite the fact that pretty much all of them conflict with

each other.

-

[Guest guest]

Actually this statement is both true and false. On a superficial level this

is of course true. However if you look at the deep underlying beliefs of

most religions they are for the most part the same. For instance, in every

religion you find some form of the statement " Love thy neighbor as

yourself " . This is no more or less true whether stated by a Christian,

Buddhist, Jew or Pagan. You can argue all day whether or not Jesus is

really the son of God or whether the Bible is the word of God but " Love thy

neighbor " , well that is accepted by every religion that I know of. This is

the kind of thing scholars of comparative religion do all the time. For

myself, I find the parts that conflict are not terribly important to me,

but the parts that one finds universally, that is the stuff I want to

really understand.

Irene

At 09:50 PM 12/16/2004, you wrote:

>And

>just to make things more fun, virtually all religions claim special

>knowledge -- despite the fact that pretty much all of them conflict with

>each other.

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

>

>

>

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:41:00 -0500, Suze Fisher

><s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

>> Well I think the original post I was responding to was referring

>to Muslim

>> *terrorists*, as in 911. I don't know much about the Quran (although I do

>> have a copy!) but I don't recall anything in there that would support an

>> attack like that. I suppose it could be argued though, if one

>could make an

>> argument that the 911 attack was defensive in nature.

>>

>> Do you happen to know if the Quran teaches that it's OK to take over

>> non-Muslim territory with violence, as your response suggested?

>

>Suze,

>I used to be friendly with a community of Muslims once upon a time,

>and as I recall, typically, the holy book reads a bit different than

>many people quote it. I can't absolutely vouch for accuracy, but this

>page:

>

>http://www.emayhem.org/print/1038808893.html

>

>seems to follow what I remember from talking with my old friends.

> B.

Very interesting, . Thanks for posting this. It supports my general

impression of how the Quran is perhaps being misused by terrorists to

support their violent acts. Religious texts are always open to different

interpretations, though. So someone out there probably has a rebuttal!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

> RE: POLITICS White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit (Fern)

>

>

>

>Suze-

>

>>The part about religions evolving to fill the needs of the

>communities from

>>which they sprung does make sense. I've often thought that

>myself. I guess I

>>just don't see why that makes the likelihood of any one of them

>being true,

>>unlikely. For example, it's unlikely that any specific individual will win

>>the powerball either. But eventually, someone always wins. So *somebody*

>>gets it right even though the probability is against everyone who plays.

>

>Umm, your own example should clearly illustrate the principle. Say that

>the odds of winning a given powerball game are 1 in 50 million. Say that

>each possible entry represents one religion. That means that in a

>universe

>of 50 million religions, only 1 is " correct " , and therefore the

>odds of any

>given " religion " being " correct " are very, very tiny -- 1 in 50 million.

Ah, you are right - my example does show that the *likelihood* of any one

religion being the true one (or the winning ticket) is not very likely.

However, let's look at the most important part of the ananlogy in regards to

whether or not one religion is, in fact, THE true one - one of them

(powerball tickets) ALWAYS wins. One of them IS the right ticket in any

given lottery, despite_the_odds. So, even though the odds are stacked

against it, there is always a correct ticket. So maybe the fact that the

odds against there being any one true religion is small, doesn't negate the

possible fact that one of them IS THE one.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 9:42:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> The part about religions evolving to fill the needs of the communities from

> which they sprung does make sense. I've often thought that myself. I guess

I

> just don't see why that makes the likelihood of any one of them being true,

> unlikely. For example, it's unlikely that any specific individual will win

> the powerball either. But eventually, someone always wins. So *somebody*

> gets it right even though the probability is against everyone who plays.

_____

To turn it flipside, if there is a God, what is the probability that he would

not choose to reveal himself in any way?

Socrates preached that there could only be one God. When one of his

disciples asked him how they were to know of this God, he replied that he

guessed he'd

have to come down and speak to us. They built an altar to " the unknown God, "

and when St. preached Christianity in Greece they asked who this God was

he spoke of, and said it was this one.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/04 9:45:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> Do you happen to know if the Quran teaches that it's OK to take over

> non-Muslim territory with violence, as your response suggested?

____

No. It teaches that Muslims have a *responsibility* to take over new

territory. That, and that they are free to kill Christians and Jews until they

submit to paying a head tax. Christians and Jews have the privilege under this

system of being " people of the book, " and thus are allowed to practice their

religion in peace (although not " freely " ) so long as they submit to paying the

head tax. Other non-Muslim religions are to be continually persecuted.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 12:32:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

teresa.blazey@... writes:

> I used to be friendly with a community of Muslims once upon a time,

> and as I recall, typically, the holy book reads a bit different than

> many people quote it. I can't absolutely vouch for accuracy, but this

> page:

>

> http://www.emayhem.org/print/1038808893.html

____

I suspect that there interpretation of " jihad " is true. Not knowing much

about Islam, I suspect the word has both practical and spiritual meanings. I

noticed that oddly absent from this article was any mention of the separation of

the world into the Land of Peace (Muslim territory) and the Land of War

(non-Muslim) territory, the jizya (a head tax on Christians and Jews), the

command

to " Kill, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them " or to " Fight those who

do not profess the true fatith till they pay the jizya with the hand of

humility. " Referring, in the last quote, to Jews and Christians, the only ones

blessed by Islam to remain with live and relative freedom once they submit to

Muslim rule and the special head tax laid on non-believers.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 9:48:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> >Umm, your own example should clearly illustrate the principle. Say that

> >the odds of winning a given powerball game are 1 in 50 million. Say that

> >each possible entry represents one religion. That means that in a

> >universe

> >of 50 million religions, only 1 is " correct " , and therefore the

> >odds of any

> >given " religion " being " correct " are very, very tiny -- 1 in 50 million.

>

> Ah, you are right - my example does show that the *likelihood* of any one

> religion being the true one (or the winning ticket) is not very likely.

____

Not really, because the the lottery is random, whereas most religions *claim*

divine revelation. If there is a God, than divine revelation could be taken

quite seriously, which would change the odds much in a way that someone

rigging the lottery and passing on insider information to someone playing the

lottery would.

Say by random probability the odds of God existing are 50/50. Suddenly it

looks like a better shot than the lottery.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>However, let's look at the most important part of the ananlogy in regards to

>whether or not one religion is, in fact, THE true one - one of them

>(powerball tickets) ALWAYS wins. One of them IS the right ticket in any

>given lottery, despite_the_odds. So, even though the odds are stacked

>against it, there is always a correct ticket. So maybe the fact that the

>odds against there being any one true religion is small, doesn't negate the

>possible fact that one of them IS THE one.

Now you're putting too much weight on some technical particulars of the

illustration. In reality the possible entries in a powerball game don't

actually map to anything -- they're just numbers. And when playing, people

select entries from the full set of possible entries, so any randomly

chosen entry has the same chance as winning as any other randomly chosen

entry. (IOW I'm ruling out foreknowledge, successful predictive systems

based on analysis of the winning-number generation apparatus and other such

factors.)

Even so, consider the illustration a little further. In any given game of

powerball, regardless of the actual odds, there's no guarantee that

there'll be a winner. Even if the odds were as stipulated, 1 in 50

million, and even if 100 million people played, the winning number might

*still* not be chosen.

Unfortunately, I don't think the problems with your analysis end

there. Religions generally have been and are anthropomorphic and

anthropocentric, and yet the universe is unimaginably vast, and what we

know of as " the universe " might only be a small part of the full extent of

physical reality. This universe might be one period in a cycle, one

element in a metaverse or even a multiverse, both, all three, something

else... Physics is coming up with theories, but nothing's solid yet. So

imagine that in coming up with a powerball entry, there's an overwhelming

likelihood that your entry will prove to be " anthropocentric " in some

sense. Say that means a small number, easily grasped -- something between

1 and 100. Yet the actual " correct " number may be anywhere from 1 to 50

million. Furthermore, look over the history of religion. Religions and

their doctrines have been forced to retreat, adapt and fight back over and

over and over again as new science and information have developed which

contradicted key religious tenets. Imagine it as an ongoing modification

and expansion of the subset of possible powerball numbers eligible for

religionhood. While it's technically possible that any given religion

might be correct -- to the degree the religion hasn't already been

falsified by science -- the odds are awful, because reality and the plenum

of theoretical possibilities are sets almost infinitely vaster than our

powerball example.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/04 7:26:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> >Say by random probability the odds of God existing are 50/50. Suddenly it

> >looks like a better shot than the lottery.

> >

> First it's a discussion of the chance of one religion being spot on, but

> then has to go off the deep end with math again. Uh, what about

> the possibility of more than one God? That's not considering all

> possibilities.

____

I was just making up numbers put to an inaccurate usage. Sorry. I concede

this point. You win.

What I was trying to say, aside from the stupid probability comment, is that

it is silly to apply probability to the subject, because no religion claims to

be doing guesswork. If all or most religions claim divinely imparted

knowledge, IF one of them is true it would not be random at all.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian