The pet Vatican biologist is really struggling. The goalposts are being moved so 
far that that the teams aren't even playing in the same stadium any more. 
Ludicrous article, makes them look even sillier than they do already.

This from the Catholic News Service a couple of days back:

<<< VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, 
it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in 
the Vatican newspaper said.

"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution by God, 
though it remains that their emergence was brought about by natural causes" of 
evolution, it said.

The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was 
written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini.

The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting 
a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the 
creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."

The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from 
chimpanzees?

"No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of 
intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into 
existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability 
to decide freely," it said.

So rather than picturing it as humans descending from the apes, it said, humans 
ascended or rose up from the animal kingdom to a higher level, thanks to the 
hand of God.

As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God 
wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the 
article said.

The emergence of the human is neither a casual or accidental event, nor is it 
something that was "strictly necessary," demanded by God or the evolutionary 
process, it said.

Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the 
free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.

This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of 
theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design --  
but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot 
come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said.

The movement from being a creature of the animal and physical world to also the 
spiritual was a gift from God "even if it came at the end of a natural process 
of evolution," it said.>>>

That"s about as feeble as it gets.

My translation:

"An entirely imaginary deity for whom their is no evidence whatsoever, for no 
apparent reason woke up one fine celestial morning and decided that the previous 
recipe was wrong, and he should add a magic ingredient (for which there is no 
evidence whatsoever). This is the sole reason why we evolved from apes into 
thinking, conscious, aware creatures".

Give us a break, sometimes I think the traditional religious movements are more 
dangerous than the fundavangelists.

pga

"PG"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
48453808$0$930$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...

<snip>

| My translation:
|
| "An entirely imaginary deity for whom their is no evidence whatsoever, for no
| apparent reason woke up one fine celestial morning and decided that the 
previous
| recipe was wrong, and he should add a magic ingredient (for which there is no
| evidence whatsoever). This is the sole reason why we evolved from apes into
| thinking, conscious, aware creatures".
|
| Give us a break, sometimes I think the traditional religious movements are 
more
| dangerous than the fundavangelists.

oops, "there".

The message <48453808$0$930$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
from "PG"  contains these words:

> That"s about as feeble as it gets.

It is so feeble that one wonders if there really could be people who are
so dim that they can actually believe such utter nonsense!   Their
problem is that evolution is no loner deniable which means that their
god's role as a creator has ended.  They then desperately need to find a
function for their god.  Previously this was restricted to providing the
souls!

-- 
********
David WG
********

On Jun 3, 7:54 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> The message <48453808$0$930$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>
> from "PG"  contains these words:
>
> > That"s about as feeble as it gets.
>
> It is so feeble that one wonders if there really could be people who are
> so dim that they can actually believe such utter nonsense!   Their
> problem is that evolution is no loner deniable which means that their
> god's role as a creator has ended.  They then desperately need to find a> fcunction for their god.  Previously this was restricted to providing the
> souls!
> ve
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists and
controverts established scientific laws of Biology (in particular).
Unless you can offer another alternative, then the only one left is
Creationism -- a Theistic Personal Creator .  What personal
implications does this hold for your life David ;  can you name a few
in particular ?   There was a few for me too when i labeled myself 'an
atheist' .

X-No-Archive: yes

 wrote in message 
news:97a12b67-9d8f-460d-ad24-444c583acc4c@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 7:54 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:


REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists and
controverts established scientific laws of Biology (in particular).
Unless you can offer another alternative, then the only one left is
Creationism -- a Theistic Personal Creator .  What personal
implications does this hold for your life David ;  can you name a few
in particular ?   There was a few for me too when i labeled myself 'an
atheist' .



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Desperation indeed with the same old argument from incredulity trotted
out once again.  700 out of several hundred million scientists is not
very impressive and I wonder how many of them had any relevant knowledge
of human biology.

I wonder why some people seem to need an imaginary friend to help them
through life?    It is common among children to have an imaginary friend
but most people grow out of such pretence.

Are theists just children who cannot grow up?

-- 
********
David WG
********

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:25:19 +0100, David Wynne-Griffiths
 wrote:

>Desperation indeed with the same old argument from incredulity trotted
>out once again.  700 out of several hundred million scientists is not
>very impressive and I wonder how many of them had any relevant knowledge
>of human biology.

Thunderf00t or one others on youtube who regularly debunk  this sort
of thing looked at the list (Ben Stein?) and concluded that it was
only one of them. The majority weren't in any related field and most
of those that were didn't even know they were on the list.

>I wonder why some people seem to need an imaginary friend to help them
>through life?    It is common among children to have an imaginary friend
>but most people grow out of such pretence.
>
>Are theists just children who cannot grow up?

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:54 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> The message <48453808$0$930$ba4ac...@news.orange.fr>
>> from "PG"  contains these words:
>>
>>> That"s about as feeble as it gets.
>> It is so feeble that one wonders if there really could be people who are
>> so dim that they can actually believe such utter nonsense!   Their
>> problem is that evolution is no loner deniable which means that their
>> god's role as a creator has ended.  They then desperately need to find a
>> fcunction for their god.  Previously this was restricted to providing the
>> souls!
>> ve
>> --
>> ********
>> David WG
>> ********
> 
> REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
> denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists and
> controverts established scientific laws of Biology (in particular).

Only 700? Project Steve now has 887:

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

... and they only allow you to sign if your name is Steve, which is 
only about 1% of the population. So, you appear to be able to get 
less than 1% of "leading scientists" signing! Your list is so 
pathetically small that it just serves to underline the total 
failure of your position.

> Unless you can offer another alternative, then the only one left is
> Creationism -- a Theistic Personal Creator .

But that's the whole point. It isn't an alternative. It is a failed 
hypothesis. Even when repeatedly challenged, you fail to provide any 
real positive evidence to support this notion.

So, in summary macro evolution has infinitely more evidence to 
support it that your discredited alternative.

regards, Ian

mark wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> 
>  wrote in message 
> news:97a12b67-9d8f-460d-ad24-444c583acc4c@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 7:54 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> 
> 
> REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
> denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists

Denounced? No it isn't. What they were asked to sign is this:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and 
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful 
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

It doesn't denounce macro evolution (it doesn't mention macro 
evolution) and it doesn't support your proposition. All it indicates 
is that these are religious people who would like to leave the door 
open to some guiding hand from their deity in the process of 
evolution. This is exactly the Vatican position - and they accept 
evolution as a fact.

regards, Ian

On Jun 3, 10:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
more of his standard BULLSHIT

>
> REPLY:  (the same tired old crap)

On Jun 3, 1:25 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> Desperation indeed with the same old argument from incredulity trotted
> out once again.  700 out of several hundred million scientists is not
> very impressive and I wonder how many of them had any relevant knowledge
> of human biology.
>
> I wonder why some people seem to need an imaginary friend to help them
> through life?    It is common among children to have an imaginary friend
> but most people grow out of such pretence.
>
> Are theists just children who cannot grow up?
>
> --it,
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:  Theists  are people who have weighed up the evidence
carefully ... often former atheists like myself...  and who are
willing to go  where the evidence points regardless of personal
agenda.  If theres evidence of design and engineering, then Theists
naturally give that cause to an intelligent Being .  Conversely,
'atheists'  arent truly concerned about the evidence, dont want to go
investigating it,,protect thier personal agenda, and make everything
fit into the Natural Cause box .  Now...why do you suppose atheists
operate like this David ???

On Jun 3, 2:25 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> mark wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >  wrote in message
> >news:97a12b67-9d8f-460d-ad24-444c583acc4c@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> > On Jun 3, 7:54 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>
> > REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
> > denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists
>
> Denounced? No it isn't. What they were asked to sign is this:
>
> "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and
> natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
> examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
>
> It doesn't denounce macro evolution (it doesn't mention macro
> evolution) and it doesn't support your proposition. All it indicates
> is that these are religious people who would like to leave the door
> open to some guiding hand from their deity in the process of
> evolution. This is exactly the Vatican position - and they accept
> evolution as a fact.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  If they dont uphold it, then they denounce it by default.  You
dont uphold Theism and you denounce it . I dont uphold atheism any
longer and i denounce it.  Youre either for it or you see something
which makes you unable to embrace its totality.  If it cant be totally
trusted, then its not entirely credible and true.  These 700 plus PHD
Scientists know it is not entirely credible.   Bottom line.

Atheists are very interested in evidence or in this case the apparent
lack of it!  So far only the idiot has only been to produce invalid
arguments based incredulity or ignorance.  The idiot alleges that there
is credible evidence to support his belief that his god exists.  Why can
he not produce that evidence to us? 

-- 
********
David WG
********

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> REPLY:  If they dont uphold it, then they denounce it by default.

skeptical  adj. (Brit. sceptical) inclined to doubt accepted 
opinions; critical; incredulous.

There is no way "inclined to doubt" means denounce (accuse publicly; 
condemn).

If the word "denounce" had been in there, you'd have had even fewer 
signatures.


> These 700 plus PHD
> Scientists know it is not entirely credible.   Bottom line.

The bottom line is, that with less than 1% of the number of 
signatures from the list that confirms evolution, the vast majority 
of your own side don't agree with you.

So, you are here parading a result which shows that you are losing 
by more than 99 to 1 ... ? That you even bother to post this here 
really does expose how bankrupt your position is.

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
> denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists and
> controverts established scientific laws of Biology (in particular).

OK, after little research I found this:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/list-of-scienti.html

Watch the video.

This is an analysis of the list when it had 101 names on it.

This demolishes the list as any sort of credible representation. Few 
work in the biological sciences, many had asked for their names to 
be removed - the list of doubters comes down to about 2 from the 101 
and neither of these turn out to be credible.

The list isn't just "not credible", it is a complete laughing stock.

regards, Ian

a écrit dans le message de news: 
504d3e9e-307a-4880-9785-e1752b389c50@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 2:25 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> mark wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes

>REPLY:  If they dont uphold it, then they denounce it by default.

Sorry, you really should make an effort and try to understand this issue. You 
have just demonstrated a perfect and blatant sophism ... a logical fallacy ... a 
false dichotomy ... hum, how can I put it in terms you will understand ...

If I don't come out and say that I fully support the theory of evolution, then 
this certainly doesn't imply that I completely denounce it in all its forms. All 
theories can by definition be superceded, and I do indeed have minor 
reservations about certain aspects. I am sure things will become much clearer as 
research continues, particularly in the field of evolutionary psychology.

However, by your logic, I categorically dismiss evolution. How moronic can you 
get, DILV?

>You
>dont uphold Theism and you denounce it . I dont uphold atheism any
>longer and i denounce it.  Youre either for it or you see something
>which makes you unable to embrace its totality.  If it cant be totally
>trusted, then its not entirely credible and true.  These 700 plus PHD
>Scientists know it is not entirely credible.   Bottom line.

Make your mind up. Either they "denounce it", or think it "not entirely 
credible". Are you able to see the huge difference between these two different 
interpretations?

"Ian Smith"  a écrit dans le message de 
news: GtadndR71Icy0NvVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet...
| IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
|
| > REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
| > denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists and
| > controverts established scientific laws of Biology (in particular).
|
| OK, after little research I found this:
|
| http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/list-of-scienti.html
|
| Watch the video.
|
| This is an analysis of the list when it had 101 names on it.
|
| This demolishes the list as any sort of credible representation. Few
| work in the biological sciences, many had asked for their names to
| be removed - the list of doubters comes down to about 2 from the 101
| and neither of these turn out to be credible.
|
| The list isn't just "not credible", it is a complete laughing stock.

Thanks a lot Ian, I've bookmarked that one, a good find. The Jerry Falwell 
University indeed, who in their right mind would go there to study biology.

pga

X-No-Archive: yes

"PG"  wrote in message 
news:48464dd3$0$864$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>
>  a écrit dans le message de news:

>>You
>>dont uphold Theism and you denounce it . I dont uphold atheism any
>>longer and i denounce it.  Youre either for it or you see something
>>which makes you unable to embrace its totality.  If it cant be totally
>>trusted, then its not entirely credible and true.  These 700 plus PHD
>>Scientists know it is not entirely credible.   Bottom line.


> Make your mind up. Either they "denounce it", or think it "not entirely
> credible". Are you able to see the huge difference between these two 
> different
> interpretations?


I doubt it.
It's clear that these types of fundamentalists are in a 'siege' mentality... 
that mentality is unbending and unwaverable (..for fairly obvious reasons..) 
and draws into two camps..Those that believe this stuff and those that 
don't.
Have you ever noticed they are unable to concede on the most minor point in 
a discussion.... instead, preferring to assert the most ridiculous and 
outrageously false positioning to defend what is often, indefensible..
Then we have the almost obligatory intellectual capability of 
fundamentalist dogmatists.
To the screaming preacher that addresses dilv from his 'pulpit' there would 
be no difference between "denounce it"  and "not entirely credible" ..... 
they all, in the minds of  these religious bigots,  fall into the *us* 
camp......and that's enough for them..
It's mindless claptrap, esposed by brainwashed and pyschologically 
conditioned religious foot soldiers..


Mark

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:GtadndR71Icy0NvVRVnyvwA@posted.plusnet...
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> REPLY: Not only is macro evolution deniable, it is scientifically
>> denounced by over 700 of the worlds leading PHD Scientists and
>> controverts established scientific laws of Biology (in particular).
>
> OK, after little research I found this:
>
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/list-of-scienti.html
>
> Watch the video.
>
> This is an analysis of the list when it had 101 names on it.
>
> This demolishes the list as any sort of credible representation. Few work 
> in the biological sciences, many had asked for their names to be removed - 
> the list of doubters comes down to about 2 from the 101 and neither of 
> these turn out to be credible.
>
> The list isn't just "not credible", it is a complete laughing stock.


Well done... and thanks for that ian.
It demolishes this list as completely erroneous.  We have every reason to 
believe the current list will contain, pro rata, exactly the same 
statistics...
It is meaningless, it is, and has been, compiled disingenuously and I trust 
that dilv does not offer this up as evidence of anything whatsoever in the 
future...
Why is it one distrusts *these* religious fruitcakes so much...?   Is it 
that we can show their dispicable underhanded attempts at supporting their 
fallen message as being knowingly false...?


Mark

PG wrote:

> 
> Thanks a lot Ian, I've bookmarked that one, a good find. The Jerry Falwell 
> University indeed, who in their right mind would go there to study biology.

Err... a creationist?

Someone who doesn't want to know about evolution, cares nothing for 
integrity and yet wants to have a PhD in biology after his name so 
he can campaign against it using the argument from authority - 
probably by adding his name to some list of bogus experts.

It reminds me of a report I saw from a scientist about a visit to 
the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The visitors noticed that 
there were no labs, just 2 classrooms and, apparently, not even a 
microscope! This probably explains the paucity of research 
publications from the creationist camp.

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  a écrit dans le message de 
news: xrGdnWrHUrBqPNvVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
| PG wrote:
| >
| > Thanks a lot Ian, I've bookmarked that one, a good find. The Jerry Falwell
| > University indeed, who in their right mind would go there to study biology.
|
| Err... a creationist?

Ah, as I thought - no one in their right mind then ;)

pga

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:08:53 +0100, Ian Smith
 wrote:

>PG wrote:
>
>> 
>> Thanks a lot Ian, I've bookmarked that one, a good find. The Jerry Falwell 
>> University indeed, who in their right mind would go there to study biology.
>
>Err... a creationist?
>
>Someone who doesn't want to know about evolution, cares nothing for 
>integrity and yet wants to have a PhD in biology after his name so 
>he can campaign against it using the argument from authority - 
>probably by adding his name to some list of bogus experts.

They are however accredited to give law degrees.

>It reminds me of a report I saw from a scientist about a visit to 
>the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The visitors noticed that 
>there were no labs, just 2 classrooms and, apparently, not even a 
>microscope! This probably explains the paucity of research 
>publications from the creationist camp.
>
>regards, Ian

On Jun 3, 1:34 pm, "PG"  wrote:
> "PG"  a écrit dans le message de news:

> | Give us a break, sometimes I think the traditional religious movements are
> more
> | dangerous than the fundavangelists.

They are more dangerous beause they are cleverer. The crux of the
argument is:

"This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion
(of
theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent
design --
but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit"
which cannot
come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said."

Notice how they accept 'evolution', but carefully suggest there might
be something else - "spirit".

There is something to explain besides the material world, i.e.,
subjective consciousness. Explaining this has proved incredibly
difficult for philosophers of mind, they have called it the 'hard
problem of consciousness". We can know nothing about subjective
consciousness, at least not in the way we can know about plants and
animals and other stuff -- all we can know is what we see.

They have pulled a fast one by exploiting philosopher's bemusement
about the "hard problem" (and scientific materialist's total blank on
this subject) and have replaced our necessary total ignorance by
replacing the ignorance with the whole sad infrastructure of RC
theology.

But, as PG says, there is *no evidence* for God, spirit or the whole
theological shebang.

Nice try vatican, but no dice.

Paul Grieg wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:34 pm, "PG"  wrote:
>> "PG"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> 
>> | Give us a break, sometimes I think the traditional religious movements are
>> more
>> | dangerous than the fundavangelists.
> 
> They are more dangerous beause they are cleverer. The crux of the
> argument is:
> 
> "This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion
> (of
> theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent
> design --
> but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit"
> which cannot
> come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said."
> 
> Notice how they accept 'evolution', but carefully suggest there might
> be something else - "spirit".

There is! The human spirit. What has this got to do with any sort of 
mythical deity?

regards, Ian

On Jun 6, 7:50 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Paul Grieg wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 1:34 pm, "PG"  wrote:
> >> "PG"  a écrit dans le message de news:
>
> >> | Give us a break, sometimes I think the traditional religious movements are
> >> more
> >> | dangerous than the fundavangelists.
>
> > They are more dangerous beause they are cleverer. The crux of the
> > argument is:
>
> > "This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion
> > (of
> > theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent
> > design --
> > but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit"
> > which cannot
> > come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said."
>
> > Notice how they accept 'evolution', but carefully suggest there might
> > be something else - "spirit".
>
> There is! The human spirit. What has this got to do with any sort of
> mythical deity?

I don't like the words spirit or soul as they are too much loved by
the theists. People tend to imagine 'souls going to heaven' or spirits
'walking' the earth. Much better to use words like 'subjective
consciousness' or 'self consciousness' methinks, and other such words
that tie what you are trying to say to the human mind.

Paul Grieg wrote:

> 
> I don't like the words spirit or soul as they are too much loved by
> the theists. People tend to imagine 'souls going to heaven' or spirits
> 'walking' the earth. Much better to use words like 'subjective
> consciousness' or 'self consciousness' methinks, and other such words
> that tie what you are trying to say to the human mind.

I do think that we should try to reclaim these words. if you were to 
say "I really like her - she is a real free spirit" it wouldn't have 
any religious connotations would it?

Similarly, we can have experiences that are "spiritual" - for me, 
listening to Elgar's Enigma Variations. There is nothing religious 
whatsoever in it.

regards, ian

On Jun 8, 9:10 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Paul Grieg wrote:
>
> > I don't like the words spirit or soul as they are too much loved by
> > the theists. People tend to imagine 'souls going to heaven' or spirits
> > 'walking' the earth. Much better to use words like 'subjective
> > consciousness' or 'self consciousness' methinks, and other such words
> > that tie what you are trying to say to the human mind.
>
> I do think that we should try to reclaim these words. if you were to
> say "I really like her - she is a real free spirit" it wouldn't have
> any religious connotations would it?

As
> Similarly, we can have experiences that are "spiritual" - for me,
> listening to Elgar's Enigma Variations. There is nothing religious
> whatsoever in it.

My OED dictionary has the main definition of spiritual as "of spirit
as opposed to matter, of the soul as especially as acted on by God; of
or proceeding from God, holy divine..." ... and on it goes ...

There are a few words not related to religion -- 'higher qualities of
the mind'.

So you are in grave danger of being misunderstood and perpetuating
words closely associated with religion.

Surely there are better words, more related to emotions and pleasure,
that could be used? Was Elgar pleasant, orgasmic, calming, all of
these? "Spiritual" tells me nothing, but makes me want to ask
(mockingly) "So Elgar out you in touch with God then did he?"

If you are going to reclaim a word you have to do more than use it, if
the other side have commandeered the main definitions. For example you
need to say:  "Elgar is a spiritual experience for me, by which I mean
he gives me feelings of great tranquillity punctuated by near orgasms.
Nothing to do with God, of course, it's just the music and my mind
leading to a great experience." If you haven't time to say all this
you *must* use more down to Earth words or risk spreading religiosity.

Paul Grieg wrote:

> 
> As
>> Similarly, we can have experiences that are "spiritual" - for me,
>> listening to Elgar's Enigma Variations. There is nothing religious
>> whatsoever in it.
> 
> My OED dictionary has the main definition of spiritual as "of spirit
> as opposed to matter.... <snip>

That's fine. That describes it precisely without the need for religion.

Clearly our human spirit isn't "...matter", it is part of our 
consciousness.

Again, this confirms what I said - there are plenty of historical 
reasons to include the religious definitions and plenty of reason 
for us to reclaim the words for the rational amongst us.

Don't forget, dictionaries only reflect the common usage - it wasn't 
long since I saw a copy of a US English dictionary that listed one 
usage of Atheist as "Anti-Christ". It doesn't make it right and 
isn't a definition.

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  a écrit dans le message de 
news: Xf-dncDyo7MI3tPVnZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@plusnet...
| Paul Grieg wrote:
|
| >
| > As
| >> Similarly, we can have experiences that are "spiritual" - for me,
| >> listening to Elgar's Enigma Variations. There is nothing religious
| >> whatsoever in it.
| >
| > My OED dictionary has the main definition of spiritual as "of spirit
| > as opposed to matter.... <snip>
|
| That's fine. That describes it precisely without the need for religion.
|
| Clearly our human spirit isn't "...matter", it is part of our
| consciousness.

If there is the possibility that consciousness is solely the end process of 
unimaginably complicated interractions of signals generated by synapse 
chemistry, I would be reluctant to make assertions separating 'spirit' (as part 
of consciousness) from matter.

pga

PG wrote:

> 
> If there is the possibility that consciousness is solely the end process of 
> unimaginably complicated interractions of signals generated by synapse 
> chemistry, I would be reluctant to make assertions separating 'spirit' (as part 
> of consciousness) from matter.

I take your point entirely and I don't believe I did assert that the 
spirit could be separated from the matter (grey, or otherwise). I'm 
sure that it exists within it.

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  a écrit dans le message de 
news: JcydnXkE69HtDdPVnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@plusnet...
| PG wrote:
|
| >
| > If there is the possibility that consciousness is solely the end process of
| > unimaginably complicated interractions of signals generated by synapse
| > chemistry, I would be reluctant to make assertions separating 'spirit' (as 
part
| > of consciousness) from matter.
|
| I take your point entirely and I don't believe I did assert that the
| spirit could be separated from the matter (grey, or otherwise). I'm
| sure that it exists within it.

That's fine, I just wasn't sure what you meant by the << "human spirit isn't 
"...matter", it is part of our consciousness >> comment, previously made ...

pga