Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / April 2005

Believing is something we do. It's a behavior. We decide (on some
level) to do it or to refrain from doing it.

I do not believe there is a god or gods. I also do not believe there is
not a god or gods. I refrain from believing either way. It is my
opinion that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision. I've
had some experiences in my past which lead me to believe in the
possibility -- but not the probability -- of such a thing.

I've met people who believe there is one. I've met people who believe
there isn't one. Neither group can seem to establish for me a
sufficient evidence base for their position. I'm open for it.

To me, though, I think the theists have the edge. All they have to do
is produce a deity. The not-theists, to prove *their* position, would
have to be everywhere at once, know everything there is to know... in
short, they'd have to be a deity to prove there isn't one, and I wonder
if being a deity would change their perspective on their existence.

Until I have a reason to choose a belief, I'm going to refrain from it.

There are (at least) three groups:
(A) Those believing that there is a god.
(B) Those believing that there is no god.
(C) Those having neither of those beliefs.

Not believing in a god places one outside group A (that is, in B or
C).  Believing that there is no god places one in B (by definition).
If there were not category C, the two terms WOULD mean the same.  But
group C does exist.  Therefore, there is a difference in meaning
between "not believing that there is a god" and "believing that there
is no god".

Bill

Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address.

On 22 Jul 2004, raymond o'hara wrote

-snip-

Isn't the first an absence of belief, whilst the second is a belief in
absence?

It's not a binary situation.  There are at least three categories:

1.  those who believe that there is a god.
2.  those who believe that there is no god.
3.  those who hold neither of those beliefs.

Thus, one who does not believe that there is a god (is not in category
1) is in either category 2 or category 3.

Bill

Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address.

Ah.  Now I get you.  I was looking at the other definitions of that word.

Scott Jensen

That the dictionaries I've so far consulted do not raise the definition you
raise above indicates that your definition is a more rare definition for
such a word.  And your definition isn't an extension to the definition I'm
referring to doesn't take away from the definition I'm pointing to.  That
and its the best one I've found so far.

Scott Jensen

In alt.english.usage on Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:15:31 GMT Michael DeBusk
<m_debusk@despammed.com> posted:

Thank goodness.  I considered that, but I don't yet know much about
your sense of humor.

In December of my first year in school -- I was almost 6 -- my mother
told me not to tell any of my classmates that there was no Santa
Claus, and she reminded me every year afterwards, at least until she
was sure I remembered, 3rd or 5th grade maybe.

But I can't remember the topic ever coming up, either with the teacher
or just among us.  We had three big december projects in the first
grade, and each kid worked on one, for the most part the kid's choice,
but I'm sure some at the end were assigned.  One was a Christmas tree
and one was a model city, with carboard boxes as the office buildings.
I brought in the telephone poles from my toy train.  I can't remember
what the third one was.  There were 5 Jews out of 30 in the class,
public school, and the teacher didn't put any of us on the Christmas
tree.  So Christmas was acknowledged, but I don't remember any
discussion of Santa.  I would think I would remember because I would
have paid close attention after my mother had already raised the
topio.   I don't think any class ever had an Xmas tree after the first
grade, but there was always an Xmas assembly, where they would sing
songs. After I learned them, I would sing the parts that were not
philosophically problematic.  It wasn't until I got to north suburban
Indianapolis that there was one song for which they all stood up.
First time they all stood up at once it really surprised me.  So I
stood up too, but I think the song was too religious for me to sing
it.

s/ meirman    If you are emailing me please  
say if you are posting the same response.

Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
            Indianapolis,   7 years
            Chicago,        6 years
            Brooklyn NY    12 years
            Baltimore      20 years

Yes; we're not supposed to be all-knowing, etc.

Do religious Jews not pronounce (or fully write) the name "God"?  I thought
it was just the Tetragrammaton that was forbidden.  How about "Jehovah"?
That seems to me much closer to the forbidden name.                   CB

Well... it seems to me that actually hearing the voice of a deity would
be sufficient evidence for anyone. :) But I think my favorite portrayal
of any deity from any religion has to be George Burns' "Oh God". The
pretty, playful, childlike deity from the movie "Dogma" was good too.

That makes a lot of sense. And it meshes well with the voice from the
whirlwind in the book of Job, when it said, "Who the hell are you, you
little pipsqueak? You believe your mind and my mind, your perspective
and my perspective, are the same?" (That's translated, of course. ;) )

In alt.english.usage on Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:07:14 -0400 meirman
<meirman@invalid.com> posted:

A couple corrections to my own post:

IMO.  I wasn't speaking for Judaism here. I don't know how many sages
or rabbis or other religious Jews think the arguments I refer to below
are convincing, or should be convincing to others.

Oops.  I don't remember being *satisfied* by any of them.  No un-.

...

s/ meirman    If you are emailing me please  
say if you are posting the same response.

Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
            Indianapolis,   7 years
            Chicago,        6 years
            Brooklyn NY    12 years
            Baltimore      20 years

Pretty much. :)

It's possible, though, that something can be outside nature and still
exist, depending on the parameters you offer for "nature" and
"existence". If it's true that a deity created nature, then it
follows that that deity cannot be part of nature. Not really
SUPERnatural, but meta-natural.

I like the Hindu idea, myself. When God falls asleep, he dreams the
universe. So we're all thoughts in the mind of God. I've met a
sufficient number of people who may be an undigested bit of beef, a
blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, or a fragment of an underdone
potato to lend credence to the idea, anyway.

This I consider to be a religious belief in the power of science. Yet
another religion I find suspect. The ability of science to prove or
disprove anything that exists demonstrates the boundaries of science,
not of existence. (I realize I'm begging "exists".)

In my experience, a *real* scientist will insist that it is impossible
to use science to prove anything. That is to say, the scientific method
can only DISprove. Since no one has effectively DISproven the existence
of God, or chi, or ghosts, or reincarnation, or psychic phenomena, the
only thing a good scientist can say about them is "I don't know."

Having studied Taoism myself, I can offer that there's nothing really
mystical about it. The only reason I don't call myself Taoist is
because of the confusion it created when someone would ask me,
"But... but who do you pray to?" and I told them, "Nobody." My personal
set of beliefs is closer to Buddhism, but I'm too damned lazy to
practice, so I can't call myself Buddhist either. "Agnostic" it is.

The word is pretty specific (in etymology) in referring to deities. The
(from Greek) suffix "-theos" means "god".

Christians, for the most part, are pretty particular about drawing a
thick line between their deity and nature. They definitely do not
consider their god to be natural.

They haven't found a tool which can measure it. Kind of like the way
nobody could measure X-rays until someone figured out how. That doesn't
mean X-rays didn't exist before then.

I've seen it work, though. And I've made it work myself, though (as I
mentioned above) I don't practice, so my results are sporadic. It
usually depends on how good I feel.

For example, a friend of mine, who practices Chi Kung, was doing a bit
of work with it in a conference room at a hotel during a break. (We
were at a seminar.) At one point, she did something that, it is said,
causes a stream of energy to leave her body. She didn't mean to "aim"
it, but there was a woman across the room who happened to be facing
away from her and was in its "path". The woman reacted as if mildly
pushed, and turned around to see who had bumped her.

I did something similar with a nurse whom I found sleeping in her car
in the parking lot at the hospital. (Apparently it had been a difficult
shift for her.) It was after dark, so I didn't want her to be out there
alone, and she really did look tired, so I didn't want to wake her
right away. Besides, she was very pretty there as she slept. So I
stood there near her for a little while. When I needed to go, I decided
I didn't want to knock on her window and startle her, but I had to wake
her so she could go home. So I directed a "ball" of visualized energy
at her body. She immediately jolted a bit and woke up.

I have no idea what it is. It may be energy; it may be something else.
What it is is of no real interest to me. I find "energy" to be a useful
way to think of it. If, someday, someone discovers that it is not
energy but something else, then I'll call it that something else.

A researcher named Dr. Ian Stevenson has documented over 2600 cases of
children who spontaneously recall a past life. He does not claim he has
proven that reincarnation is a fact; he calls them "strongly suggestive
of reincarnation". Those cases I've read suggest to me, very strongly,
that SOMETHING is going on and it seems a whole lot like reincarnation.
I particularly enjoyed reading about the boy (I think he was five or
six years old) who could repair a machine he'd never seen before,
accurately told things about people whom he'd never met (apparently his
family from his previous life), and asked questions only the dead man
would know to ask.

The url http://www.childpastlives.org has a lot of information. I'll
say up front that I'm not a fan of the folks who put up that site and
call what they do "research" because they plainly state that they want
to believe the "reincarnation" model is true. To my way of thinking,
that's just as bad -- perhaps worse -- than those who want to use what
they call "research" to prove reincarnation is false.

"Skeptics" are quick with the "someone must have set that up" remark,
but note well that that is not scientific (and not accurate). Dr.
Stevenson has eliminated far more than he has accepted. His standards
for his work are very high. (Too bad the stuff is such a dull read.)

Is it reincarnation? I don't know. If it isn't, it's close enough to it
that "reincarnation" is a useful model. "Proof" still eludes us all. Of
course, nobody has proven that if a = b and b = c then a = c either,
but we still think it's true.

We still don't have an experiment that can consistently verify memories
from our CURRENT life, after all. Dr. Michael Yapko, for one, has done
a great deal of work in the area of false memories. If that's the case,
can you suggest a machine that could measure a memory from a PAST life?

In my training and work with hypnosis, I've inadvertently done a couple
of "past life regressions". I don't do them explicitly, but if
something presents as a "past life memory" I treat it as if it is a
memory. The reason I do this is: if it *is* a memory, it only makes
sense to treat it as one, and if it isn't, there's some reason why the
person's other-than-conscious mind is presenting the fantasy as if it
is remembered, and it's therefore only respectful to treat it as such.
Either way, the results are the same: astoundingly effective.

Religion thrives on mass hysteria and suspension of rational thought.