.

Dear One under God,

.

I appreciatze your efforts on my behalf.

I have carefully examined your links and I see what you mean when you write:

"i reason jesu/..the christ..is either in our heart...or not ..."

and also:

"the importance of belief..is that to keep the family together/
in the after-life..."

However, in my view, the love one receives has no value unless it is offered freely, without the slightest external constraint or influence.

The same goes for beliefs.

You indicate:

"its important they/..hold the same beliefs..
so as to be able to/..live in the same realm/room..after rebirth"

As I have the greatest respect for the freedom of my loved ones, I do consider it important that they "hold the same beliefs" as I do.

It does seem to me, however, that we do, more or less, share the same sense of moral values.

If this is what you mean, then I prefer to qualify it as "pleasant" rather than "important".

Once again, thank you for your input.

.

.

ooups !

.

Obviously, I meant to write "... I do NOT consider it important ..."

Sorry about that.

.

Dan,

If you do not accept the historical fact of biological evolution then you are a twit.

If you do not regard Darwinian natural selection as the fundamntal best and demonstrated theory explaining said evolution, you are very malignantly uninformed.

got it?

Do take your extensive education in philosophy and *apply* it. Correcting this severe deficiency in your education is *your* problem, as a philosopher you surely agree, or do you think "earning your stripes" relieves you of meeting minimal requirements of competance, as so many fundies do?

The *consequences* of the fact of evolution, proceeding according to well established averages of mutation and natural selection are obvious.

That they are deeply threatening to those who make a living from religion is obvious too.

Biological evolution makes a theistic "god" not compulsory, even unlikely.
That throws out all existing theology as meaningful in any but a literary sense *and* the limited sense that *some* ethical thought may have snuck in, while the primary (wasted) effort has been to divine what "god" wants.

*other* documents include "history" insofar as they were embedded in their culture, so what?

Do tell us when religion has advanced to the point of addressing reality, rather than looking over it's shoulder for an imaginary "god".

Tell us about the deity we might really have rather than tribal fantasies of the "god" we clearly don't. It might take a few hundred years so don't panic if you only have splutter in the meantime.

Rusty

no worries banjo...what i was clumsily getting at...re it being important..for keeping families/loved ones together..[if they so wish]..is that there are realms..some use the term planes...[jesus used the words..many-rooms/..in our fathers house..]

to try to explain...the christian realm..has christ central in it
and the mahamoud realm has mahamoud central in it..

each is their own/room/realm/plane..of beliefs...
via the messenger who led them to god..i cant specificly point to where/in which writings i came across this..but it has been reported..in part more than a few times

thing is your either...in christs realm...or budda'..or mahamouds..according as to how you believe..clearly if your whole family claims christ..they will be in the christ/heaven...but if your following budda...well you can se how this would divide a family

but take that to the next level...say one comes ftrom a line of thieves...all will be in hell..[the realm of thieves]...or the many other realms..according to the particular..love of vile..or good..or messanger..we chose

perhaps i should more reply oliver..quote..<<..n dimensions cannot directly experience n + 1 dimensions.>>as n is a vairiable why not

but as reportedly there are only 9 dimentions...
these nine=1...ie god..so the math is fuzzy oliver

<<A two dimensional being..does not expirience a solid cube>>.quite correct...
but a cube completly..comprehended two planes...in its EVOLUTION..into a square..of course there are much more than 3 dimentions..but in total..they are a unity of one

though each realm...may include many parts..
comming from/going into..all sorts of angles and dire-ections

to make it even more complicated the realms inter-sect..at crossover points...where intrests interact...like music/art/architecture...this has been decribed in gone-west...as well as other links i have posted over time

anyhow im deciphering..the miracles link presently
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3858&page=0

and now move on to
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3855&page=0

so continue bits and pieces of the conversation in other places
cheers all

god is great...buit in total god is one
love/life/light/logic/grace/mercy/nurture/nature...
god how great thou art

Dear Oliver,

I do not think Lakatos spoke of doubt in connection with religious faith or the lack of it. I can doubt the validity of e.g. a theorem in mathematics and try to disprove, rather than prove it. I might or might not succeed. This is not what I meant by the mental state of doubt (about matters of religion): as I stated somewhere before, if one defends zealously his/her religious or anti-religious stance, he/she might have severe doubts, probably in his/her subconscious. Well, I am not a psychologist.

What you call “a priori fixations” might “arrest advancement of knowledge” only if both are on the same level. That is the case - I am again repeating myself - when religious beliefs or theology try to answer questions only science can hope to answer, and vice versa when science is used to answer questions that only philosophy/metaphysics/theology can ask and try to answer (“scientism”).

Again a metaphor: Physicist, looking for new theories, have to accept, not test, the mathematics they use, although they might suggest to mathematicians to explore new branches or venues of mathematics, because the available ones cannot be used to model new phenomena. Another thing is that also mathematics is not fixed forever, it also has to be explored and deeper insight gained, however this can be done irrespective of experimental physics.

Science and (pure) mathematics correspond to different levels of reality, whether this distinction be “objective” or just in the way we understand them; the same with physics and metaphysics (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#175072).

>>Some of our OLO theists friends … will stay with the God of the Gaps<<
Yes, some theists are, and will remain, naive in their understanding of religion, the same as some atheists are, and will remain, naive in their rejection of religion. I have come to know both kinds, also on this OLO, and am glad I can make use of the fact that you are not one of them.

Dear all,
can I submit what Freud had to say on this specific topic in his last lecture: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud.htm
Very pertinent, especially from the sixth paragraph on. He sets up a powerful challenge to your position particularly, George.. I'd be interested in you're thoughts?
And yours, One Under God?

I would defend modern existential philosophy (neo-scepticism) from Freud's criticism.