I read in sci.electronics.design that Aunty Kreist kittens.net> wrote (in <35br09F4lrnajU1@individual.net>) about 'What Is
God?', on Fri, 21 Jan 2005:

>I must say that I am totally baffled as to how someone who professes to
>be a man of science ( Fields) can spout such ridiculous dogma, claiming
>that God is this or that, that God created the universe, etc. I just
>cannot grasp how someone who's lifestyle revolves around the science of
>things can so blindly believe what's told to them by a religion, and not
>base opinions on actually proof, and fact.
>
>It's just hypocritical, I guess.

No, it's not always hypocritical, I'm sure in JF's case it's entirely
sincere. This ability to hold two entirely different 'operating systems'
in one mind is certainly a puzzle, but there are so many examples that
it cannot be illusory. George Orwell called it 'double-think', which
looks superficial, but the phenomenon is actually profound.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

From:	Scott Stephens
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:51:36 -0600

John Woodgate wrote:

This ability to hold two entirely different 'operating systems'
> in one mind is certainly a puzzle, but there are so many examples that
> it cannot be illusory. George Orwell called it 'double-think', which
> looks superficial, but the phenomenon is actually profound.

Its been called "explanatory style". Phenomena are limited,
compartmentalized, in cognitive scope, in world-view, in conceptual
framework.

Implications are not considered, probably because implications of
sorting through beliefs would lead to troubling conclusions about self
and others, so ignorance is bliss.

If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each other?

From:	James Knott
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:13:38 -0500

Scott Stephens wrote:

> If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
> loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each
> other?

And if you think you're going to see them and discover it's all a hoax?
As for the other, treating others properly has nothing to do with religion.
Over the centuries, the church has done more than it's share of lies,
stealing and murder. Even today, you've got plenty of people, who are
ready to kill others, over something as stupid as religious belief.

"God" and all that goes with religion is absolute B.S..

From:	John Larkin
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:51:50 -0800

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:13:38 -0500, James Knott
wrote:

>Scott Stephens wrote:
>
>> If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
>> loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each
>> other?
>
>And if you think you're going to see them and discover it's all a hoax?
>As for the other, treating others properly has nothing to do with religion.
>Over the centuries, the church has done more than it's share of lies,
>stealing and murder. Even today, you've got plenty of people, who are
>ready to kill others, over something as stupid as religious belief.
>
>"God" and all that goes with religion is absolute B.S..

I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
subverted and co-oped religion.

Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
some god, and that doen't always go over well.

John

From:	James Knott
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:22:01 -0500

John Larkin wrote:

> I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
> impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
> hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
> subverted and co-oped religion.
>
> Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
> some god, and that doen't always go over well.

Some religion may be good metaphor, but it's still fiction.

From:	John Larkin
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:42:07 -0800

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:22:01 -0500, James Knott
wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>
>> I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
>> impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
>> hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
>> subverted and co-oped religion.
>>
>> Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
>> some god, and that doen't always go over well.
>
>Some religion may be good metaphor, but it's still fiction.

Dignity, consciousness, human rights, love may all be fiction. We live
for fiction.

John

From:	Kevin Aylward
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:51:35 GMT

John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:22:01 -0500, James Knott
> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally
>>> savage impulses. People who blame religion are in fact complaining
>>> that it hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery
>>> has subverted and co-oped religion.
>>>
>>> Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name
>>> of some god, and that doen't always go over well.
>>
>> Some religion may be good metaphor, but it's still fiction.
>
> Dignity, consciousness, human rights, love may all be fiction. We live
> for fiction.
>

In principle, but very unlikely for some of the above. Consciousness may
be taken to exist absolutly, but it is not provable to exist. The
evidence for this is simply to kick anyone in the balls and get them to
say they didnt feel it becuse they didnt exist. Simerly for "love". This
is an emotion, i.e. a feeling experianced by conscious enities and may
be taken to exist. However, dispite the reality of consciousness it has
some illusionary aspects to it. e.g.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm

The real world requires acceptance of some ideas without proof. However,
this is not the same as acceptance by faith. Acceptance by faith is
accepting something with *no* evidence whatsoever. The kick in the balls
is usually quite convincing evidence to most.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

From:	Parse Tree
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:43:15 GMT

John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:13:38 -0500, James Knott
> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Stephens wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
>>>loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each
>>>other?
>>
>>And if you think you're going to see them and discover it's all a hoax?
>>As for the other, treating others properly has nothing to do with religion.
>>Over the centuries, the church has done more than it's share of lies,
>>stealing and murder. Even today, you've got plenty of people, who are
>>ready to kill others, over something as stupid as religious belief.
>>
>>"God" and all that goes with religion is absolute B.S..
>
> I think religion has been a moderating force against naturally savage
> impulses.

I think religion has spawned out of naturally savage impulses.

> People who blame religion are in fact complaining that it
> hasn't done a perfect job, that fairly often the savagery has
> subverted and co-oped religion.

It has done a terrible job, and often encouraged the savagery.

> Nearly all religions teach humility before and service in the name of
> some god, and that doen't always go over well.

That's a good example of savagery.

From:	Kevin Aylward
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:14:23 GMT

> I read in sci.electronics.design that Aunty Kreist
> wrote (in
> <35br09F4lrnajU1@individual.net>) about 'What Is God?', on Fri, 21
> Jan 2005:
>
>> I must say that I am totally baffled as to how someone who professes
>> to be a man of science ( Fields) can spout such ridiculous dogma,
>> claiming that God is this or that, that God created the universe,
>> etc. I just cannot grasp how someone who's lifestyle revolves around
>> the science of things can so blindly believe what's told to them by
>> a religion, and not base opinions on actually proof, and fact.

I'm with you there. It is an amazing contradiction that some may hold.

Sure, around 25 years ago I was a bit confused, like mixing up science
with some not so science concepts. One thing that did it for me was the
realisation that if my attempts to back up a view point were vague,
nebulous or waffally, then that view point was wrong. This is
crystallised in my "No magic Axiom"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/magic.html

My axiom could be wrong, in principle, but I know exactly where my
arguments can fail due though the clear identification of what my
arguments are based on.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

From:	Aunty Kreist
Subject:	Re: What Is God?
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:31:34 -0500

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news:ju5Id.185106$48.116391@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > I read in sci.electronics.design that Aunty Kreist
> > wrote (in
> > <35br09F4lrnajU1@individual.net>) about 'What Is God?', on Fri, 21
> > Jan 2005:
> >
> >> I must say that I am totally baffled as to how someone who professes
> >> to be a man of science ( Fields) can spout such ridiculous dogma,
> >> claiming that God is this or that, that God created the universe,
> >> etc. I just cannot grasp how someone who's lifestyle revolves around
> >> the science of things can so blindly believe what's told to them by
> >> a religion, and not base opinions on actually proof, and fact.
>
> I'm with you there. It is an amazing contradiction that some may hold.
>
> Sure, around 25 years ago I was a bit confused, like mixing up science
> with some not so science concepts. One thing that did it for me was the
> realisation that if my attempts to back up a view point were vague,
> nebulous or waffally, then that view point was wrong. This is
> crystallised in my "No magic Axiom"
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/magic.html
>
> My axiom could be wrong, in principle, but I know exactly where my
> arguments can fail due though the clear identification of what my
> arguments are based on.
>
> Kevin Aylward
> salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
>

Kevin, thank you for posting the links to your articles here. I've saved
them for perusal later...they look quite thought provoking.