link/quote<<..By Weltanschauung,/then,..I mean/an intellectual construction..>>ie a theory

<<which gives a unified solution/of all..the problems of our existence>>in theory god could be one of them...but clearly...e=mc2..cannot be

<<..in virtue of a comprehensive hypo-thesis,..a construction, therefore,..in which no question is left open/and in which everything in which we are interested..finds a place.>>>is that one step too far

every cause..cannot be encompased with one uni-fied-theory...however much..we might like to simplify..it for those/not comprehending it in its full complexity...every event..has its specific cause/reason/one size cannot cover it all

<<..The unified/nature..of the explanation/of the universe..is,..it is true,..accepted by science,>>peers..yet..not validatable/verifyable/faulsifyably so..recall..[this..was/wrote..when pluto/..was THOUGHT/believed/trusted..by many..to be-many times...bigger..than it..really proved to be

accepted by science[peers][and faithfull public/taught to children....<<..but only/as a programme whose fulfilment..is postponed to the future.>>and disproved/by others..REALLY doing/the science

<<Otherwise it is distinguished/by negative characteristics>>IE FRAUD

<<by a limitation/to what is,..at any given time,..knowable,>>>egsactly

<<and>>>BY..<<..a categorical rejection/of certain elements..which are alien to it>>>egsactly...as his-try has revealed

<<..It asserts>>>fropm fauls omnipotabnt premise..<<that there is/no other source/of knowledge..of the universe/but the intellectual manipulation>>>lol...<<of carefully verified observations,..in fact,>>Or that deduced from arbuitary/incomplete fact[premise]

via..<<..what is called research,..and that/..no knowledge can be obtained..from revelation,..intuition..or inspiration.>>clearly dreams are excluded too..[so too the dreamers]...just the facts/maam

<<..It has been reserved/for the present century..to raise the objection/..that such a Weltanschauung..is both empty and unsatisfying,..that it overlooks..all the spiritual demands/of man,..and all the needs/..of the human mind>>>egsactly

<<..It cannot be supported/for a moment,..for the spirit and the mind are/the subject..of scientific investigation..in exactly the same way as any non-human/entities>>>and i have put much of it/up..on screen/in this topic

The contribution/of psychoanalysis..to science/consists precisely in having/extended-research..to the region of the mind.>>material/mind

<<Certainly/without such a psychology..science..would be very incomplete.>>it still is/in ignoring the other realms

<<But/if..we add/to science..the investigation..of the intellectual/and emotional..functions of men..(and animals),..we find that nothing/has been altered..as regards the general-position..of science,>>it still accredits/material/..abouve the spi-ritual

unaltered/science...<<..that there are/no new sources..of knowledge or methods of research>>well quantum/mechanics..certainly rebutted that one...

i havnt/got to your point...yet..
but the numbers..[350]..keep comming to mind

Dear david f,

>>I feel that the God in that story must be rejected if justice and compassion are valued<<
Or, alternatively, that story, if interpreted verbatim must be rejected as providing a one-sided picture of a god jealous ad absurdum:

“Christianity and Judaism have one vision of God as being self-sacrificing love - God the merciful, the compassionate, according to the Islamic formula - and another vision of God as being a jealous God. … The jealous God’s chosen people easily fall into becoming intolerant persecutors … Perhaps the two visions of God, which I have called irreconcilable in the Judaic group of higher religions, have their roots in nature-worship and in man-worship respectively … the vision of God as being self-sacrificing love has, at any rate, one of its roots in the previous worship of a vegetation-god who dies to give Man sustenance … The vision of God as being a jealous god undoubtedly has at least one of its roots in the worship of the tribe in the form of the god of the Chosen People, representing their colective power.” (Arnold Toynbee, Christianity among the religions of the world).

[May I add that also the visions of mater as particles and matter as waves seemed irreconcilable until mathematical physicists worked their way around the controversy.]

“The Western attitude is expressed by the words of Yahweh on Sinai: “You shall have no other gods before me”; in the Bhagavad Gita, the incarnate god Krishna says, “`Whatever god a man worships, it is I who answer the prayer”. (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

I think this “Krishna model” of God is compatible - or could be seen as such - also with the Abrahamic model, in spite of our one-sided “visions” of God as jealous.

<<..Weltanschauung/have a purely..emotional-basis...Science takes account/of the fact>>>

KNOWN..OR KNOWABLE/VERIFYABLE..BY SENSES/OR INSTRUMENTATION...affects...[even computer..'modeling]..or pictures of trees/..of life...'..lol

<<that/the mind of man..creates>>is another furphy

mind/creates..<<..such demands/and is ready/to trace their source,>>but not within their own minds..or that induced upon/their mind

<<but/it..has not the slightest-ground..for thinking/them..justified.>>even if witnessed or repeatable..via science method...wow..the science pers realkly did a job on their followers/flock

thinking/justified..<<On the contrary,it does well/to..distinguish carefully..between illusion..(the results..of emotional/demands of that kind)..and knowledge.>>>..while blissfully/decieving their flock..with theories

<<This does/not..at all imply/that we need push..these wishes contemptuously aside,>>how has thought/become..wish?...[moving the target?]

<<or..under-estimate/their value>>...[thoughts/or wishes?}

<<in the lives of human beings...We are prepared/to take notice..of the fulfilments..they*..have achieved/for themselves..in the creations of art/and in the systems of religion/and philosophy;

<<..but we cannot/overlook..the fact..that it would be wrong/and highly inexpedient...>>>TO WHO?..<<..to allow>>>ALLOW?..HA

<Welt-an-schauung[to]..have a purely-emotional basis.>>LOL

<<Science takes account/of the fact>>..THEN SELLS THE PUBLIC..on a theory

<<that the mind/of man creates..such demands>>for answers/knowability..to reinforce his own feelings of omnipotance...lol

<<and is ready/to trace their source,..>>excluding those deemed untennable/by their peers

<<but it has/not..the slightest ground/for thinking them justified.>>egsactly..nor the faulsifuiables..their own measure REQUIRES

<<to distinguish carefully between illusion..>>and colluded deciet/like the evidence..for gloabal/warming..and the new tax

<<the results of emotional/demands of that kind>>except to make money for ever more expensive research/while suppressing cetain areas of research..like harmonics/that cures cancer..or high ph that kills many diseases..peers have subverted so much

<<and knowledge.>>

This does-not at all imply/that we need/push these wishes contemptuously aside,/or under-estimate/their value>>only hide the cost

<in the lives of human beings./We are prepared/to take notice/of the fulfilments/they have achieved*for themselves?in the creations of art>>ARTS of deception?

<must adopt/an uncompromisingly critical-attitude/towards any other power/that seeks to usurp/any part of its province.>>it has done/this

<<Of the three/forces/which can dispute/the position of science,/religion alone/is a really serious enemy>>LOL

Dear George,

You wrote: >>I feel that the God in that story must be rejected if justice and compassion are valued<<

Or, alternatively, that story, if interpreted verbatim must be rejected as providing a one-sided picture of a god jealous ad absurdum:

In the first part you quoted me. Rather than trying to pick out which of the many Gods in the Bible carries the 'real' spirit and what is to be interpreted verbatim and what is to be treated as allegory, homiletic or esoteric I found it easier to just treat the collection of narratives in the Bible as something of interest that is largely irrelevant and applied to a past society.

I think there are parts that are still valid, but it is not history, science, philosophy nor of much use as a moral guide.

A lot that is in the Bible is nonsense. eg Matt.18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Biblical religion keeps us as little children. The above are words attributed to Jesus. I think we should grow up.

Mr George,

I had a conciliatory post all ready to go since I felt a little bad about clearly having you rattled. But then I read your passive aggressive attack on myself and others in your post to Oliver and figured I owe it to myself and others to continue...

<<So I thought by now we should have learned not to call irrational (againt reason) those who see these things differently, both ways.>>

Again, you’re equating the two as if they were equally opposing views. It’s like I’ve said before: One is a faith-based assertion; the other is a reason-based response to that assertion. So I think your analogy using Christian apologists is horribly inaccurate.

<<I am not trying to take away your world-view certainties...>>

Yes, and it’s a pity. What better way for me to help ensure that my beliefs are as close to true as possible?

Although I think “views on religion” would be a better way to put it rather than “world-view certainties” as we’re not talking about world-views in general, but religious belief specifically.

This is yet another reason I mistook your arguments as coming from the perspective of a Presuppositionalist. Presuppositionalists also overuse term “world-view” in an attempt to downplay the absurdity of religious belief.

<<...nor your feelings of being more reasonable (rational) than I.>>

I don’t think it’s a question of who’s more rational. No one acts/thinks very rationally when they let their emotions guide their behaviour and/or beliefs, and I think if there’s one thing we’ve established quite clearly here, it’s that the gap that lies between the belief in the existence of something not reducible to the physical and Jesus, is a purely emotional journey.

<<Then I broke my promise, and now I take your last four posts as a punishment for that.>>

I was going to say that you broke your promise because you’re too polite to continuously ignore someone, but I’m having second thoughts about the “polite” bit now.

I really have pulled you out of your comfort zone if you can refer to my posts as “punishment” though.

Continued...

...Continued

Just imagine what it was like for me having to pull myself out of my comfort zone with no one to help? It wasn’t easy.

<<I am indeed sorry that so many words had to be used to express the simple fact that we cannot understand each other, and I cannot help it.>>

You can’t help it? But hang on, you didn’t even try!

There’s a block here, George. You put up a, “You just don’t understand”, “Sorry I couldn’t express myself better” wall that you use as a protection mechanism whenever I pull you out of your comfort zone.

If you’re still having difficulties understanding where I’m coming from, then I’m only too happy to clarify if you’d like. Just ask away. But I’m afraid I don’t buy the whole bit about not being able to communicate your point-of-view better. You’re vocabulary is twice that of mine, you speak English better than I do - and it’s not even your mother tongue - and yet I manage fine. Perhaps you should consider what the differences are about our points-of-view that make this so...

Although I do detect an insincerity on your behalf here unfortunately. For someone who allegedly wants to understand others, and have others understand him, you certainly don’t ask too many questions and spend a lot of time dodging the questions that are asked of you.

Don’t feel like you’ve failed though at communication though; god is omnipotent and he can’t even communicate basic rules so that his followers agree on what he wants! Not to mention the poor atheists who will miss out on eternal bliss because god doesn’t talk to those who - at no fault of their own - have been unfortunate enough to not presuppose him. Kind of makes heaven a bit of a lucky dip when you think about it.

Continued...