OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

let me surprise you with this.

far from dawkins and removed from the extremes of atheism, i think religion
is the most profound expression of human-kind. science and logic are fine
activities in which we find ourselves sometimes engaged, however they are
not endeavors that speak to the more central, the more essential nature of
man. man is inquisitive, yes, and science and reason help satisfy that vent.
neither, though, speak more closely to that which defines us best and
distinguishes us most from any other animal than does religion. it is the
fulfilment of our most basic traits that have made us stand out like no
other. those traits are our overwhelming desire and capacity to infer
meaning and purpose.

it is of no surprise that we, the tool makers, determine the best way to
solve problems with solutions outside of ourselves. should it be any less of
a revelation that we would in introspect look at ourselves to ask, what is
our purpose? and to solve a problem, we must understand the causes and
effects in which it occurs. we must know the nature of the problem; its
meaning. it should only be expected that we too are no less grounded and
that one should be afforded to us. bertrand russell once said that without
god, there is no meaning to life. how ironic that he affirms religion in
that statement. whether there is or is not meaning in life, it is
irrelevant. it is the desire felt by all to have it that is! religion
affords man the ability to affect his own meaning. religion, in fact, is
more an expression of what we value most in life. that is, after we consider
our purpose and have settled our meaning, we hope.

being an atheist myself, it may be interesting for you to consider that i
find at the core, the heart of religion, the grandest of hope and the
aspirations that man can be liberated from himself and reach a more noble
existence. i find in myself, the hope that man can actually become more than
a noble savage. i see, oddly enough, that at the core of me is what i find
at the heart of religion. i see that though the question of god's existence
is irrelevant to me, religion is uniquely human. and, though not religious,
i find myself with the same end desire i believe characterist of religion.
it is not atheism that is correct. it is not religion that is correct.
neither are as important as, that both for different reasons, are doing and
thinking about the same things - at the heart of it, being human.

truly, it doesn't matter from what source i think those terms are derived
whether human or divine, for it is, either way, what i believe man does
value most. i believe hope is most simply expressed through religion and
impossible to describe through logical processes or scientific methods. man
cannot with ease quantify hope or observe its nature.

religion should not be condemed as passe. long after we have lost a need to
'say god did this, see his mark?', we will still have need to reason that
our meaning is not limited to an era of existence on this planet, but that
there is more. we will always hope. that is how we understand our purpose
and on what our meaning is based. i believe russell did not consider human
nature deeply enough. would he have, surely he would have said, without
hope, there is no purpose for man and without purpose, there can be no
meaning. for that would have spoken to the heart of us all, and to the hope
within us all.

cheers.

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet. We are the
first to know of our mortality almost from birth. I don't believe any
other animal realizes that they, too, will die someday in the future.

It is this knowledge of our own mortality that drove us to ask the question
"why are we here?". In answer to that, we formulated the concept of "god".
As we matured as civilizations, and our scientific understanding grew, a
"god" explanation was needed less and less and so the concept became more
and more sophisticated.

I believe, though, that there is an ultimate limit to our understanding
(even though I love science fiction). Let's call that "god". I believe we
formulated something that actually exists. That is where you, Steve, and I
differ. Does it change the way we live our lives? No. Does it make either
of us a bad person? No.

So, is there an afterlife? I doubt it, but cannot say with certainty. In
the meantime, I will live my life the best way I can, and be the best person
I can be. I will do it in ever increasing circles. First there is my
immediate family. Next it is my relatives and close friends. Next it is my
community, followed by my country. Finally it will encompass the entire
world. I will do it for its own reward of "feeling good about myself". If
there is an afterlife, then I will qualify simply by doing what I am doing
now. If not, I still gain the rewards that I have and continue to have. Do
I have to literally or figuratively "bow down" to some dead man and accept
him as "god" to get there if it exists? Absolutely not!

I am a practicing member of my religion because I (a) believe there is a God
and, (b) far more importantly, want to associate myself with the group of
people who are like me. I respect what religion has given me and take pride
in associating with it and passing it down to my children. Does that blind
me to other views and questioning? If it did, then I would lose that
wonderful essence of what being human is all about. It is why I pity people
like Herb and am disappointed in people like Jerry -- people who simply
cannot remove their blinders and step out of their comfort zone.

Steve, I disagree with you on atheism, but I fully understand your point of
view. It is more rational than mine, but I am willing to take that "leap of
faith", albeit from a point far, far futher down the road of logic that
those others. Also, and most important, it works for me.

Shelly

P.S. How is it that the spelling in this post of yours is about 1000% better
than most of your other posts? :-)


"Steve" wrote in message
news:1HJIi.95$Sl1.81@newsfe06.lga...
> let me surprise you with this.
>
> far from dawkins and removed from the extremes of atheism, i think
> religion is the most profound expression of human-kind. science and logic
> are fine activities in which we find ourselves sometimes engaged, however
> they are not endeavors that speak to the more central, the more essential
> nature of man. man is inquisitive, yes, and science and reason help
> satisfy that vent. neither, though, speak more closely to that which
> defines us best and distinguishes us most from any other animal than does
> religion. it is the fulfilment of our most basic traits that have made us
> stand out like no other. those traits are our overwhelming desire and
> capacity to infer meaning and purpose.
>
> it is of no surprise that we, the tool makers, determine the best way to
> solve problems with solutions outside of ourselves. should it be any less
> of a revelation that we would in introspect look at ourselves to ask, what
> is our purpose? and to solve a problem, we must understand the causes and
> effects in which it occurs. we must know the nature of the problem; its
> meaning. it should only be expected that we too are no less grounded and
> that one should be afforded to us. bertrand russell once said that without
> god, there is no meaning to life. how ironic that he affirms religion in
> that statement. whether there is or is not meaning in life, it is
> irrelevant. it is the desire felt by all to have it that is! religion
> affords man the ability to affect his own meaning. religion, in fact, is
> more an expression of what we value most in life. that is, after we
> consider our purpose and have settled our meaning, we hope.
>
> being an atheist myself, it may be interesting for you to consider that i
> find at the core, the heart of religion, the grandest of hope and the
> aspirations that man can be liberated from himself and reach a more noble
> existence. i find in myself, the hope that man can actually become more
> than a noble savage. i see, oddly enough, that at the core of me is what i
> find at the heart of religion. i see that though the question of god's
> existence is irrelevant to me, religion is uniquely human. and, though not
> religious, i find myself with the same end desire i believe characterist
> of religion. it is not atheism that is correct. it is not religion that is
> correct. neither are as important as, that both for different reasons, are
> doing and thinking about the same things - at the heart of it, being
> human.
>
> truly, it doesn't matter from what source i think those terms are derived
> whether human or divine, for it is, either way, what i believe man does
> value most. i believe hope is most simply expressed through religion and
> impossible to describe through logical processes or scientific methods.
> man cannot with ease quantify hope or observe its nature.
>
> religion should not be condemed as passe. long after we have lost a need
> to 'say god did this, see his mark?', we will still have need to reason
> that our meaning is not limited to an era of existence on this planet, but
> that there is more. we will always hope. that is how we understand our
> purpose and on what our meaning is based. i believe russell did not
> consider human nature deeply enough. would he have, surely he would have
> said, without hope, there is no purpose for man and without purpose, there
> can be no meaning. for that would have spoken to the heart of us all, and
> to the hope within us all.
>
> cheers.
>

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13f78iu4crq850c@corp.supernews.com...
> Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet. We are the
> first to know of our mortality almost from birth. I don't believe any
> other animal realizes that they, too, will die someday in the future.

This week, here in Dallas, a story is breaking about a dig in which the
remains of several Wooly-Mammoth type elephants was discovered.

After studying the site, the scientists determined that several of the
larger animals died in a mud slide during which they teamed together to try
to lift the younger animals out of the pit.

Animals know what death is.

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

On 21.09.2007 12:51 Shelly wrote:
> [spam]

Please don't change the thread title. My spam filters delete everything
titled "Oh, so OT", keep it like this.


--
gosha bine

makrell ~ http://www.tagarga.com/blok/makrell
php done right ;) http://code.google.com/p/pihipi

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:RNNIi.766$6p6.67@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13f78iu4crq850c@corp.supernews.com...
>> Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet. We are
>> the first to know of our mortality almost from birth. I don't believe
>> any other animal realizes that they, too, will die someday in the future.
>
> This week, here in Dallas, a story is breaking about a dig in which the
> remains of several Wooly-Mammoth type elephants was discovered.
>
> After studying the site, the scientists determined that several of the
> larger animals died in a mud slide during which they teamed together to
> try to lift the younger animals out of the pit.
>
> Animals know what death is.

That is not what I said. I said that I believe that we are the only animals
that know with certainty of our OWN EVENTUAL death and that we know of it
early on in our lives. Certainly animals know of death, but that is not
what I said. I don't believe any other animal thinks "someday in the
distant future I will eventually die".

Shelly

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"gosha bine" wrote in message
news:46f3a910$0$31118$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
> On 21.09.2007 12:51 Shelly wrote:
>> [spam]
>
> Please don't change the thread title. My spam filters delete everything
> titled "Oh, so OT", keep it like this.

I didn't do it.

Shelly

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13f7bam4j9g621c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> Animals know what death is.
>
> That is not what I said. I said that I believe that we are the only
> animals that know with certainty of our OWN EVENTUAL death and that we
> know of it early on in our lives. Certainly animals know of death, but
> that is not what I said. I don't believe any other animal thinks "someday
> in the distant future I will eventually die".

Maybe not in English, but...
Today, in Africa and SE Asia, are "elephant graveyards".
The dying elephants go there to die, and adult elephants take their young on
trips to visit the graveyards.

I don't think they go there to collect ivory.

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

On 21.09.2007 13:39 Shelly wrote:
> "gosha bine" wrote in message
> news:46f3a910$0$31118$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
>> On 21.09.2007 12:51 Shelly wrote:
>>> [spam]
>> Please don't change the thread title. My spam filters delete everything
>> titled "Oh, so OT", keep it like this.
>
> I didn't do it.
>

Ah, that was another stupid troll. Should I really care?
Please stop spamming this group.


--
gosha bine

makrell ~ http://www.tagarga.com/blok/makrell
php done right ;) http://code.google.com/p/pihipi

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

Shelly wrote:
> Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet.

That we are aware of.

> We are the
> first to know of our mortality almost from birth. I don't believe any
> other animal realizes that they, too, will die someday in the future.
>
> It is this knowledge of our own mortality that drove us to ask the question
> "why are we here?". In answer to that, we formulated the concept of "god".
> As we matured as civilizations, and our scientific understanding grew, a
> "god" explanation was needed less and less and so the concept became more
> and more sophisticated.
>
> I believe, though, that there is an ultimate limit to our understanding
> (even though I love science fiction). Let's call that "god".

Let's not. Understanding is always necessarily limited: Its been
formally indicated by such as Heisenerg, Godel and others in different
ways, but it all boils down to one thing really: The nature of the beast
doing the understanding of a system whilst being part OF that system
necessarily precludes complete objective analysis of that system, since
the beast is not OUTSIDE of that system.

Positing a point utterly outside the system and calling it God is a bit
dumb, I don't have a problem with the point, or the hypothesis, but
confusing it with a supernatural entity who has *interest in mortal
affairs* is a deep mistake:

There are two meanings to God if you distil the mumbo jumbo down to the
basics. One is some necessaarily philospohical addition to provide a
complete philosophical system - the 'god of the gaps' - wherever
understanding breaks down, paper over the cracks and call it 'god' - and
the other is the entity who has interest in and affects human affairs.

If you take the first then all of religion is completely irrelevant: You
are merely coining a word that is shorthand for 'what we finally can't
and wont ever be able to understand' and the only response to that is to
learn to accept the uncertainty like an adult human being. Worship is
useless.


The second aspect may or may not exists. I have my own ideas about why
prayer works for some in a sort of way, but God in the accepted sense,
it ain't.


What I dislike intensely is, that because the fact of uncertainty and a
necessarily unknown and unknowable quality to the Universe is intrinsic
to the way we understand it, that fact is given the SAME LABEL as an
anthropomorphic Being with interest in human affairs, to whom obeisance
is due, and to whose rules, adherence will produce some notable effects
after death. This is worse than any politicians scam.


> I believe we
> formulated something that actually exists. That is where you, Steve, and I
> differ. Does it change the way we live our lives? No. Does it make either
> of us a bad person? No.
>
> So, is there an afterlife? I doubt it, but cannot say with certainty. In
> the meantime, I will live my life the best way I can, and be the best person
> I can be. I will do it in ever increasing circles. First there is my
> immediate family. Next it is my relatives and close friends. Next it is my
> community, followed by my country. Finally it will encompass the entire
> world. I will do it for its own reward of "feeling good about myself". If
> there is an afterlife, then I will qualify simply by doing what I am doing
> now. If not, I still gain the rewards that I have and continue to have. Do
> I have to literally or figuratively "bow down" to some dead man and accept
> him as "god" to get there if it exists? Absolutely not!
>
> I am a practicing member of my religion because I (a) believe there is a God
> and, (b) far more importantly, want to associate myself with the group of
> people who are like me. I respect what religion has given me and take pride
> in associating with it and passing it down to my children.

Does it matter to you one jot whether any of it is true though?

I man if the world was made by pan dimensional white mice to see if
humans would invent religion, so they could have a good laugh while we
went to church, make a difference?

Are you after truth, or a nice life in a cosy lie? That's the issue.

I have no problem with people who say the latter, and say it honestly.

I do have issue with people who cannot accept that much of ones life -
to quote Castaneda - has to be lived AS IF such and such were the case,
without ever knowing that it is, or isn't. If Chrsitainatity simply said
'It behoves us to act *as if* there were a God and Eternal Life, because
it makes life much better for everyone' then I would be a Christian
tomorrow. Its this insistence on Faith that gets me. Even if they said
'faith consists in temporary suspension of disbelief, and belief in
something that isn't there in order to get you to perform the magical
ritulas of prayer in the right frame of mind' I could just about accept
it. Its the literalness that bugs me.

"God is a fact" "The Bible is accurate in every detail and a historical
fact: It is not in any sense allegorical"

Bollocks.




> Does that blind
> me to other views and questioning? If it did, then I would lose that
> wonderful essence of what being human is all about. It is why I pity people
> like Herb and am disappointed in people like Jerry -- people who simply
> cannot remove their blinders and step out of their comfort zone.

Jerry is simply a bigot. H has allowed religion to feature so largely in
his life that it has transformed him from a logical person into a
moralising self righteous idiot. He is ADDDICTED to God. He could not
actually face life without it. Not for him any crisis of faith, and a
rediscovery of the truth.. He is confirmed in his positions, and will
never ever question anything or attempt any radical reorganisation of
his wordvieew ever again.



>
> Steve, I disagree with you on atheism, but I fully understand your point of
> view. It is more rational than mine, but I am willing to take that "leap of
> faith", albeit from a point far, far futher down the road of logic that
> those others. Also, and most important, it works for me.
>

A sensible person makes his leaps of faith as small as possible.

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13f78iu4crq850c@corp.supernews.com...
> Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet. We are the
> first to know of our mortality almost from birth. I don't believe any
> other animal realizes that they, too, will die someday in the future.
>
> It is this knowledge of our own mortality that drove us to ask the
> question "why are we here?". In answer to that, we formulated the concept
> of "god". As we matured as civilizations, and our scientific understanding
> grew, a "god" explanation was needed less and less and so the concept
> became more and more sophisticated.
>
> I believe, though, that there is an ultimate limit to our understanding
> (even though I love science fiction). Let's call that "god". I believe
> we formulated something that actually exists. That is where you, Steve,
> and I differ. Does it change the way we live our lives? No. Does it
> make either of us a bad person? No.
>
> So, is there an afterlife? I doubt it, but cannot say with certainty. In
> the meantime, I will live my life the best way I can, and be the best
> person I can be. I will do it in ever increasing circles. First there is
> my immediate family. Next it is my relatives and close friends. Next it
> is my community, followed by my country. Finally it will encompass the
> entire world. I will do it for its own reward of "feeling good about
> myself". If there is an afterlife, then I will qualify simply by doing
> what I am doing now. If not, I still gain the rewards that I have and
> continue to have. Do I have to literally or figuratively "bow down" to
> some dead man and accept him as "god" to get there if it exists?
> Absolutely not!
>
> I am a practicing member of my religion because I (a) believe there is a
> God and, (b) far more importantly, want to associate myself with the group
> of people who are like me. I respect what religion has given me and take
> pride in associating with it and passing it down to my children. Does
> that blind me to other views and questioning? If it did, then I would
> lose that wonderful essence of what being human is all about. It is why I
> pity people like Herb and am disappointed in people like Jerry -- people
> who simply cannot remove their blinders and step out of their comfort
> zone.
>
> Steve, I disagree with you on atheism, but I fully understand your point
> of view. It is more rational than mine, but I am willing to take that
> "leap of faith", albeit from a point far, far futher down the road of
> logic that those others. Also, and most important, it works for me.
>
> Shelly
>
> P.S. How is it that the spelling in this post of yours is about 1000%
> better than most of your other posts? :-)

because i actually hit f7...a sure sign that i felt what i was saying was
important enough to check spelling. ;^)

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:ztOIi.51190$Um6.19667@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13f7bam4j9g621c@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> Animals know what death is.
>>
>> That is not what I said. I said that I believe that we are the only
>> animals that know with certainty of our OWN EVENTUAL death and that we
>> know of it early on in our lives. Certainly animals know of death, but
>> that is not what I said. I don't believe any other animal thinks
>> "someday in the distant future I will eventually die".
>
> Maybe not in English, but...
> Today, in Africa and SE Asia, are "elephant graveyards".
> The dying elephants go there to die, and adult elephants take their young
> on trips to visit the graveyards.
>
> I don't think they go there to collect ivory.

i certainly don't want to start another huge thread, however, the pov i'd
take is that distinct from the elephants, who very well may know what death
is, humans ascribe purpose and meaning to things that are completely
unrelated to survival. further, they reflect that same prescriptive on
themselves.

you probably still have me killfiled, sanders. so i'm pretty sure my fears
of me promoting another huge thread are unfounded.

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news:1190379568.28184.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> Shelly wrote:
>> Well said. We are the most intelligent animal on this planet.
>
> That we are aware of.

ah, but being rational, the expectation that there exists more intelligent
life forms on our planet while we are absent of evidence for them leaves the
expectations irrelevant. even outside of our world, the same applies.

i would say that what we know of the universe, there is a very high
probability that *other* life forms may exist given the environmental
opportunities of this vast space. still, however, until we meet them or have
signs by which to evaluate them, we shouldn't make estimates of their mental
capacities.

to me though, those potentialities are irrelevant in the same way god is.

;^)

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

"Steve" wrote in message
news:EzPIi.6$NW5.3@newsfe02.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

> i certainly don't want to start another huge thread, however, the pov i'd
> take is that distinct from the elephants, who very well may know what
> death is, humans ascribe purpose and meaning to things that are completely
> unrelated to survival. further, they reflect that same prescriptive on
> themselves.
>
> you probably still have me killfiled, sanders. so i'm pretty sure my fears
> of me promoting another huge thread are unfounded.

PC burned up.
Got a new one.
Kill file is clean again.

DAMN prices are loooow.
Got a nice little P4 with a half gig for $250.
A year ago - that would barely have covered the memory stick.

I gotta say - this failing economy may suck for the rest of America, but
it's goood times for Texans!

Re: OT - Jerry/Shelly - Final Thought

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:EzPIi.6$NW5.3@newsfe02.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>> i certainly don't want to start another huge thread, however, the pov i'd
>> take is that distinct from the elephants, who very well may know what
>> death is, humans ascribe purpose and meaning to things that are completely
>> unrelated to survival. further, they reflect that same prescriptive on
>> themselves.
>>
>> you probably still have me killfiled, sanders. so i'm pretty sure my fears
>> of me promoting another huge thread are unfounded.
>
> PC burned up.
> Got a new one.
> Kill file is clean again.
>
> DAMN prices are loooow.
> Got a nice little P4 with a half gig for $250.
> A year ago - that would barely have covered the memory stick.
>
> I gotta say - this failing economy may suck for the rest of America, but
> it's goood times for Texans!
>
>
>
Its great for IMPORTERS in Europe, as stuff priced in dollars has never
been cheaper.

Its probably very good for US farmers too, as they are the main exporters.

However no one buys anything else from the US much these days.
Overpriced poor quality rubbish for the most part.

Farm machinery excepted. That IS good.

I see the loonie is worth more than a greenback as of yesterday.. haha.

But what isn't, these days?