Grant--:CARL-- Been trying to broaden my horizons by reading some non-atheist/naturalist philosophy, but it's a tough go because it strikes me as unregulated speculation. If one disagrees with the basic premises it's hard to see any meaning in the subsequent details. I ventured into the world of theochat not with intent to argue, but hoping to be pointed toward an apologetics or theology discussion board other than C.A.R.M. which I dislike, where I could request some reading recommendations. No luck, but most Xtians were friendly and courteous, including PRISM. --- I disagree that religion and theism replace human instincts. I think human instincts remain unscathed whatever we think or do. We don't recognize them in ourselves. - 11:46:30 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:I seem to have run Cristy off. Not my intent. Guess I shouldn't post when irritated, and should acquire some tact. - 12:07:36 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- At one time I purchased _Discover_ regularly but I haven't in the last few years, has it turned into junk science? I don't think anyone can actually "run" anyone off a discussion on the net. I think your post to Cristy was quite tactful while expressing the fact that posters who post here are free to express themselves the way they are most comfortable doing. Political correctness, is just another form of control, most atheists don't want someone controlling their every word. Cristy may just be on holidays, we hope. - 15:27:43 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Well, as you know she was a Texan chick, so she prob just flipped you off jumped inta'a four wheel drive pick-up and went out to check the herd. heheh On a more serious note, when I read your post the first thing that came to my thoughts concerned her pro-death penalty POV. What seems to me typical of such individuals is a psychosomaticism o'some kind which quickly prevails enabling such to "easily see", simply pulling the death-lever. Somewhere in that I'll have wondered what POVs have been considered? I wonder, of your post above if true, what matters were allowed and given a full contemplation? - 16:11:12 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Well, as you know she was a Texan chick, so she prob just flipped you off jumped inta'a four wheel drive pick-up and went out to check the herd. heheh On a more serious note, when I read your post the first thing that came to my thoughts concerned her pro-death penalty POV. What seems to me typical of such individuals is a psychosomaticism o'some kind which quickly prevails enabling such to "easily see", simply pulling the death-lever. Somewhere in that I'll have wondered what POVs have been considered? I wonder, of your post above if true, what matters were allowed and given a full contemplation? - 16:13:10 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Maybe religion is actually a way to express and try to control human instincts in those who don't recognize them as such. It's very true that all idols of religions are vessels for human emotional virtues and vices whether those idols be of animal, human or a combination of animal/human. - 17:48:44 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: well heck, had to run out, I see I inadvertently DP'd the entry! MARLENE the point you make of mental expressions is very much what totems and taboos are all about, that we agree on I'm sure. Of GRANT's line that instincts are unscathed that statement must be allowed for the human thing "they say" has an everactive unconscious state. Therein weighty things happen. But still I've learned of other stated matters that enable me to see something of what that author refers to when he utilises the idea of replacement. While the instincts can be at least said still in one's unconscious, for the "conscious" state they have been subordinated by the abstract mental activity unique to the human experience. Above the humanimal mentioned some observation favorable to the same mental activity in Orangutans. That experience over the ages, can we agree includes the assorted godthing images conjured by the human animal? If one's instincts prevailed, would there be a 'special olympics'? - 18:42:27 on 1 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Actually Carl, that's a good question being that "special olympics" would be held for somewhat physically or mentally disabled people. On one hand, mating with someone who is disabled wouldn't be in the best interest in the survival of our species then on the other hand, we've come as far as we have because we are an extremely social species . Social qualities include empathy and caring for others so maybe the special olympics would be a result of our instincts. Something happened recently in my family which has me thinking about instinct. My little grand baby is now 19 months old. She hasn't seen her mom since she was 13 months old. She was away from her dad also from the time she was 13 months until 15 months. It took three visits with her dad before she would go to him. This weekend she had the first visit with her mom. She went to her mom, sat on her mom's knee, searched her mom's face with her little eyes for appoximately three minutes, then started touching her mom all over and hugging her. It seemed to me, instinctively she recalled what memory she had of her mom. It was a very happy reunion and I was relieved and thrilled but I also found this extemely interesting. She didn't remember anyone else, or any toy but she seemed to remember her mom. - 3:11:52 on 2 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- This is all just personal opinion, mind you. I have a favorite magazine, which I savor: _The Sciences_ published by the New York Academy of Sciences. I'm sure it's circulation is comparatively miniscule for the very reason that it's not like _Discover_, which hypes its stories to the point of misrepresentation, includes sloppy science- or even non-science like the Sheldrake stuff, and just generally represents science inaccurately. In the August issue, the cover story is about parasites. On the cover it reads "Do Parasites Rule the World? New research shows that parasites not only control the behavior of their hosts, they can change entire ecosystems to suit their needs". On the title page below the title is printed "New evidence indicates our idea of how nature really works could be wrong." None of this represents what is stated in the article. No such claims are made or implied. A caption under the title of another article about the possible discovery of an ancient meteor impact crator reads "The more time you spend with Yngvar Isachsen, the more you wonder when the next killer meteorite will head our way". I suppose this could be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. There's more, but I'm sure you get the idea. Popularization of science may be good but bad science and hype aren't. - 4:18:16 on 2 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I suppose it comes down to what one considers instinct. You say "While the instincts can be at least said still in one's unconscious, for the "conscious" state they have been subordinated by the abstract mental activity unique to the human experience." I don't see this as true, that is, I don't think instinct is subordinated by the conscious state or abstract mental ability. I think it only seems to us to be so. There is, of course, much disagreement on pretty much everything among those who study the mind, but everyone seems to agree that the workings of the mind are not apparent from within a mind. How the mind seems to us to work is a poor indicator of how it actually works. If you think of the brain as a machine (sans ghost) It is easy to think of brainmachines merely doing what brainmachines do. It's possible that consciousness, emotions, and even the feelings of independence and conscious control are merely parts of, or products or byproducts of the machinery or its workings (not precisely the epiphenomena of Betty fame, but related). Obviously I don't have this all figured out-- just making conversation. As to the special olympics question, or kind behavior in general, it is conceivably just associated with one of the cogs in the machine. - 12:02:39 on 2 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The child's instincts still so very alive and real are exactly why it is in the interests of the religious to instruct them of a godthing's ways, ASAP! GRANT, that is the point- it appears, of the replacement idea. In that regard it looks as tho'that is the purpose of theism- at an individual level, which in the broader wider spectrum of the community of humanity- it becomes the like-mind comfort of religion. And o'course it this very point of recognising the obvious human element that always prompts the question, is there really a godthing? MARLENE, whatever the children simply know, they surely know their maker. Your grandchild, did it ever ask where is its god? - 16:28:52 on 2 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Not yet and hopefully she will be secure enough not to do so. - 17:42:31 on 2 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Looks like the Kansan citisens will rebuke the state ed.dept. anti-evolution actions. A report or two, however, says many people "think" it would be ok to teach in schools creation 'storys' as well as the evolution 'theorys'. The reports usually, it seems, portray such accounts as issues in terms of an "of". While such journalistic syntax is supposed to create reader interest, for those preferring religious ignorance it fuels their fire. The problem of placing religious creation storys in schools are two-fold, at least. What is a qualified creation story and who would be qualified to teach these accounts? On this point I wonder, is that idea of 'qualified' not the crux of the religious interests, since they've mentally bound themselves to a synthesised system of 'authority'- their religious faith? In that very regard, perhaps the public forum might be the beginning of the end of religion? MARLENE's answer would be exactly why kids in school who do ask questions would eventually castoff religion as a way to communicate among themselves. I am sure we have heard the story of the emperors clothes. It would be difficult for a questioning child to disregard the various experiments that appear to have no other term of explanation than that which is conveyed by the word- evolution. What is conveyed by prayer? To who is prayer conveyed? If it is said prayer concerns god, who saw it last? If it is to a spirit, what is that? And surely it ain't a ghostthing. Who believes in ghosts? - 19:05:19 on 2 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:AND where has DOUG been these days???? - 0:48:21 on 3 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I think Doug is off "taking a lichen to Vermont". - 1:34:06 on 3 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Now THAT topped all of Jaywilson's by far, lol! - 2:57:34 on 3 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- That was jaywilson's! ****** "jaywilson--you'll take a lichen to Vermont--:DOUG: Thanks. I'll be in touch.[...]" - 0:33:53 on 26 Jun 100 GMT - 3:23:46 on 3 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Apologies! I must have sped-read over that when I was catching up. Jaywilson retains the champion status on word play! - 16:29:35 on 3 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I wonder if the horizon for religion among humans wavers and the horizon for a world with a lessening of religious faith can be made out, somewhere? The Kansas type people, did they officially vote-out the people who were seen as anti-evolution? I suspect that happened, as barely a peep has been heard from the mainstream media. Of that same resounding peep- bordering ignore, from the mainstream media is that the republican VP candidate has a lesbian daughter. I read one short report that those close to the Cheney camp, like the mother of all people, once said of that offspring she has not made an "official declaration" of being a lesbian. While these actions are noteworthy what does the barely audible accounts of them represent? Do they represent real facts of life and for the media such reports do not connote acts or actions of progress? Are these only a bore? - 17:51:46 on 3 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Hey All. Just peeking in again. I know you're all pretty sick of what I have to say, so I'll simply leave this URL for anyone to check out. It's a link to a book called "Closer To Truth" which is based on a PBS series. It includes the views of about 20 professional opinion-makers on such things as (Yes!) the consciousness/mind/body debate. Just to show you that these ideas are relevant to today's top thinkers and that I'm not just spinning up a "word salad" of thoughts and ideas. The views expressed pretty much cover all the issues/sides of the debate. If Grant allows, I'll check in again and see who has what to say. - 0:50:09 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Good to see that you are A-OKAY and back in top notch form! - 0:51:46 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

S HH ALYOUSUF: ALLAH IS OUR CREATOR ALLAH IS NOT A FOOL! Our hearts are his domain: He who REJECTS him is REJECTED by his very own HEART. No alcohol! No drugs! Nothing else! will suffice. No doubt he who loses his heart is a LIVING CORPSE! Please read "THE HOLY QUR'AN" Dr. Saeed H H Alyousuf - 3:46:43 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..I'll a not be a fool for allah:D-R-SAEED- And peace be on you too! - 3:53:27 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Didn't go anywhere! Always A-okay Betty! I read a few reviews on the book you suggested and also some reviews on the PBS series. Although most were multi-star, one review mentioned that many ideas were suggested but none were explored in any depth. I haven't seen the series nor read the book, what do you think of the latter review? - 4:08:21 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DR. SAEED H H ALYOUSUF-- Your link does not work. It goes to the Emirates Internet and Multimedia main site. We don't get many (any?) Muslims here, but I've read several Muslim websites. I think there are cross-culture difficulties. I hope you stay around and talk a little. - 4:14:53 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY/OPEN-- I've linked the PBS program's site. If you pick a topic in the "topics" box to the right of the photo, you'll go to a page with a menu offering a button for a transcript of that particular program. - 4:15:13 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- I thought this one was particularly interesting. Do you not see any problems with any of the statements or views expressed by the, er, non-materialists? --- - 4:15:29 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- What the hell did you do? Betty can't come by without making a dig at you. I banned her and still don't get that kind of attention! :-) - 4:19:50 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene and Grant: just got back for the Green Mountain State, Vermont. My talk went over very well on Monday afternoon. After that I just enjoyed the break. Everyone from the Boston area is saying it rained all week , so it looks like the timing couldn't have be better. Only one day of steady rain, but it didn't stop me from going out and collecting lichens. Burlington, VT. is a really nice town; out of the way and laid back. .I made a ton of professional contacts and their wasn't one creationist in the bunch. We were all talking about systematics and evolutionary biology. Those Vermont microbrews tasted really good after a long days conference.LOL! - 4:22:05 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Man-made poster makes the BIG TIME :DOUG-- That's outstanding. You must have missed jaydoubleyah? I think he's off on vacation. So read us your speech. :-) - 4:35:20 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I agree. I've read other texts that certainly delve deeper into those topics, but that wasn't the point of mentioning that series. I was simply noting another source for revelance to the issues I mention. Besides that, the series also happens to be a good first step into a general understanding of these things as well. I think it was designed that way to mostly attract further curiosity so I wouldn't hold that against it, if that was your reason for pointing it out. - 6:42:29 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, "Do you not see any problems with any of the statements or views expressed by the, er, non-materialists?" --- A loaded question indeed. I could reverse it and we could play all sorts of games back and forth. Instead I will point out what I found interesting: That the materialists didn't convince me all that much that they were so convinced of their views. In fact, most of them left it open that indeed there may be a lot more to the "mind" than the physical and truth in reductionism. I also was quite tickled that Fred Wolf and the Marilyn woman were very focused on drawing attention to the fact of materialism as a paradigm ( a certain, collective perception ) and not a directly, evidenced feat of nature.-- So now I have to suppose that you have found problems with what the non-materialists have said, and I would like to hear what and why and we can see where we might agree.... - 6:54:48 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Example (from "What is Consciousness"): "MARILYN: We make certain assumptions, and right now--at this point in human history, in this culture--we have a materialist worldview and a physicalist, reductionist approach to existence, whereby all explanations are reduced to fundamental physical properties. Therefore the questions that scientists commonly ask today about the nature of consciousness derive from this materialist worldview. They ask physical kinds of questions." - 7:07:36 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- There's nothing new in the transcripts for us to discuss. The various positions are merely being presented and defined. I was just wondering if you were willing to look critically at anyone in your camp. The materialists were basically saying their beliefs are provisional; all it would take to change their minds is one piece of direct evidence. Contrast this with the position of non-materialists, including yourself. They won't even answer the question of whether or not there is anything, any new evidence that could cause them to take up a materialist position. This really appears to me to be due to the fact that their beliefs are not based on evidence at all. So we can assume your tacit agreement to all non-materialist statements? - 13:27:58 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

DR. SAEED H H ALYOUSUF: ALLAH IS OUR CREATOR ALLAH IS NOT A FOOL! Our hearts are his domain: He who REJECTS him is REJECTED by his very own HEART. No alcohol! No drugs! Nothing else! will suffice. No doubt he who loses his heart is a LIVING CORPSE! Please read "THE HOLY QUR'AN" Dr. Saeed H H Alyousuf - 13:43:11 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

DR. SAEED ALYOUSUF:MARLENE, it is not to make fool of any one; but just to know your very own self. If you just dare to search into your very own heart, provided that you still have your heart, you undoubtedly wil know that it is just for Allah and nothing else. - 14:14:19 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Can't really tell what your sweetheart BETTY want's for her POV or of the participants here. She a psychologist of some strain? She an educator gone awry? She a writer who has a particular objective for which she seeks to disrupt the subjectives of others? She trying to set-up a knowledge telling thing here? Or, is she trying to set-up a knowledge transforming affair among the others here? If its knowledge is it with or without an independent means to verify what she inscribes here, or does one simply "trust" that whatever she puts forth is true? Can you determine or have you already determined what BETTY is up to? - 15:04:49 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Maybe you have to be a female. Betty hasn't had the opportunity for awhile, I hope "she" feels better now. BTW, thanks for the transcript, I'm checking it out now. - 15:06:32 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:SAEED- Strange that your name is the very same as that of the muslim fundie in the HBO series OZ. I have some very good friends who are muslim, I have yet to see them or have them trying to convert me or anyone else to islam. My experience is, unlike xtianity, muslims don't seek to control the world. - 15:12:04 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Adding to Grant's response, the non-materialists of this debate, are saying that no matter what evidence that may be available in the future, they are still holding with their philosophical dualist view. This isn't very scientific minded IMO. The more materialistic debaters seemed to be much more open minded saying that when evidence supports a non-physical component to "mind" they will accept that evidence. - 17:36:26 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Do you understand the concept of determining that a certain paradigm ( a certain interpretation ) is being used? Being objective means to analyze all the components of the argument, including one's methodology being used. I don't think you understand this point the non-materialists make. The non-materialist position comes from strong objectivity. Just for example, Marilyn Schlitz pointed to empiricism as her reasoning. She says that EMPIRICISM forces her NOT TO BE a materialist. Her field in parapsychology is only considered to some to be pseudoscience because it does not fit in with materialism's locality principle. Materialists consider this field unimportant even against the surrounding evidence. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but I know that parapsychology shows evidence for some sort of an immaterial connection between human beings. In this case, the evidence is there that materialism CANNOT handle such things. The evidence is not the problem, however. It's the current paradigm or bias. Please read the quote above again. Do you not see that there is a certain bias like she states and that materialists simply discard what doesn't fit into their paradigm of reality? - 18:52:15 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, "So we can assume your tacit agreement to all non-materialist statements?" --- Please don't over-generalize. What I agree to is that materialism as a single source for truth is not sufficient -- as it currently stands, as an overwhelming accepted paradigm, this needs to be reconsidered. - 18:55:25 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, If you read that transcript more fluidly you'll see that the dualist view is only one of the theories involved. Fred Wolf's book suggests that mind and consciousness may be the one true reality - a monism, as compared to dualism. --- As far as being open-minded, please read this quote again from the parapsychologist: "MARILYN: A complete science has to speak to all the data, including the internal sense of everyday experience, rather than assuming that we can fit everything into a purely physical scheme that simply reduces mind to brain. A reductionist model just doesn't include all the data." --------Like I mentioned to Grant, materialists like to pretend they are open-minded -- only so far as it fits their particular paradigm. Do you at all see that this materialism paradigm may be limiting as they suggest? - 19:15:06 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, How about just take a relaxed "POV". I'm not up to anything. If you have anything to add to the discussion topic itself that might be more along what I "intend" - all sorts of opinions on a certain topic. Afterall, this is a discussion board. Did you have a chance to read the text? Or how about a response to the following link? This is a site for real scientists to post spiritual and paranormal claims without the prejudice and bias of current scientism.... the ball's in your court... - 19:56:39 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:oops... here it is: www.issc-taste.org - 19:57:24 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- On the Marilyn quote, yes, I agree, a complete science has to examine all the data. Where I disagree with her is that all the data hasn't been examined throughly, yet, and how can she be so sure that a reductionist method can not be done on all this data. I would think this is just speculation on her part. - 20:28:06 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW BETTY, have you had a chance to read more transcripts on the site Grant left? - 20:29:12 on 4 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Do you really think that these scientists who have posted their stories on this website are for real, excuse me for asking, of course you do! The few stories I've read have all referred to this consciousness dogma. It seems to be a site promoting this new age religion you're desperately attached to. - 0:40:46 on 5 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Welcome back and congrats on the successful meeting. I bet it was a relief not to be stuck with some religious jerks too. Just watch out for those fellow biologists if they start claiming lichens are communicating with them. If you do meet up with such people, you can direct them to that address Betty left, lol! I watched a really interesting show on lichens on the Discovery channel the other day. Amazing how beautiful some are! - 3:23:22 on 5 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- Your posts really are word salad. Quite aside from the materialist/idealist question, your posts are riddled with contradictions, misdefinitions, and misconstrued arguments. I'm not going down this same street yet again. Frankly, there's nothing in it for me. - 5:01:26 on 5 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: Here's the outline for my talk.Just kep in mind that the numbers correspond to the slide presentation. ************1. Hello, Good afternoon this presentation is about "The Lecanora symmicta complex in New England and adjacent Canada". There are two other authors; Scott LaGreca and Thorsten Lumbsch. (Harvard University Herbaria and University of Essen) 2. The Genus Lecanora is an large classical genus. A overveiw, is the Class Lecanoromycetes*** The order Lecanorales*** The family Lecanoraceae*** The genus lecanora*** The characteristics are: Hyaline, simple spores*** Lecanora type asci*** crustose habit*** Usually a thalline apothecial margin, that means to have algae here. ( point to the diagram of apothecia and the algae in the margin) Lecanora has in the past been a very large genus that has been split into other genera. About 800 species world wide are in the genus Lecanora "sensu lato" Lecanora 'sensu stricto' is about 300 species according to Thorsten Lumbsch. As you can see much more splitting needs to be done. 3. The Lecanora symmicta group is defined by having the following; Chemistry: usnic acid and zeorin.*** Morphology: usnic acid gives it it's yellow-green thallus color, also proper margins or exciples in mature apothecia (usually) , narrow elipsoid spores. The Lecanora symmicta group can be found on the following substrates: saxicolous (on rocks), terricolous (on soil), lignicolous (on dead wood), and corticolous (on bark). 4. Here are some examples of the Lecanora symmicta group: Lecanora ochraceorubescens is on saxicolous substrates.(show on slide) Lecanora orae-frigidae is found in coastal marine habitats on lignicolous substrates(show on slide). And the subject of our study the lecanora symmicta complex(show on slide). 5. The first grouping has no margin or a proper margin (no algae in the margin).*** The 2nd grouping has a thalline margin.*** The 3rd grouping also has a thalline margin and also a granular thallus.*** 6. "Various European names have been applied in North America"*** Lecanora symmicta*** Lecanora symmictera*** Lecanora strobilina*** and other names have been variously applied. 7. The questions of our study are "can European concepts be applied to New England and adjacent Canada taxa in this species complex?" or we can ask what are the appropriate names for these taxa?*** Yes, We examined over 250 specimens from New England and adjacent Canada.*** We compared to European material for the appropriate names.*** In the past there has been confusion over names in various keys. We decided that the answer was with chemistry and morphology. Lichens produce unique chemical compounds that as far a we know aren't produced anywhere else in nature. This makes them very useful for chemical taxonomy. 8. The first group has no margins or sometimes a proper margin in mature apothecia(show slide). 9. This is a thin layer chromatography or TLC plate, where each row is a different sample (point out in picture) Here is usnic acid (point), zeorin (point), and thiophanic acid (point). Notice that not all samples on this plate have thiophanic acid. 10. The second group has thalline margins(show slide). 11. The TLC plate for the 2nd group contains usnic acid (point), zeorin (point), and a unknown depside (point). 12. The 3rd group has a granular thallus and thalline margin(show slide). 13. The TLC plate for the 3rd group contains usnic acid (point), zeorin (point), and a unknown depside (point). 14. (correct the mistaken position of the thiophanic acid) Let me walk you through this table. Out of 259 specimens from New England and adjacent Canada our results are for the first grouping are 157 specimens with proper or no margin. And let me correct the chemistry again; usnic acid, zeorin, and thiophanic acid should be here in the 1st grouping. The European name is Lecanora symmicta . We propse to call this Lecanora symmicta "sensu stricto".**** The 2nd grouping with 68 specimens; with proper margin or no margin, the chemistry; usnic acid, zeorin and a mistake thiophanic acid shouldn't be printed here. The European name of Lecanora symmictera. We propose the name of Lecanora symmictera as a chemo type of Lecanora symmicta.*** The 3rd grouping with 20 specimens have a thalline margin: the chemistry, usnic acid, zeorin, and a unknown depside. No European name. Christian Printzen in a study of the Lecanora symmicta complex of the Sonoran Desert has proposed the new species name Lecanora incognita for the chemo type of what we believe to be of the Lecanora strobilina.*** The 4th grouping with 14 specimens has a thalline margin and a granular thallus. the chemistry, usnic acid, zeorin, and a unknown depside. Christian Printzen has proposed that this grouping and the 3rd grouping be combined for the new species name Lecanora incognita for the chemo type of what we also believe to be of the Lecanora strobilina. The thalline margins can vary in the degree of granular thalline material from the specimens examined.**** We propose two species in New England and adjacent Canada: one Lecanora symmicta (point out) and it's chemo type to Lecanora symmictera be synonymized with Lecanora symmicta. The second species in New England and adjacent Canada: it is in our opinion Lecanora incognita a chemo type of the European species of Lecanora strobilina.***** Thank you very much, and are there any questions? - 14:57:35 on 5 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:May I ask where you work doug? you seem kinda smart... - 15:44:00 on 5 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: On this paper; Harvard University Herbaria. - 16:09:20 on 5 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: It was really nice not to have pseudoscience and magic gods injected into every conversation. Do you know what the title of the show was? Darn, I was driving haome and missed it.I see that Bird Brain Betty (BBB) is still trolling her way onto the site.LOL! - 5:10:54 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I never even thought to get the title of the show but it will be shown again, I'm sure and I will this time pay attention. I may even be wrong on what channel it was on, I think it was Discovery but it could have been the Learning Channel also. BBB seems to be a fairly accurate description, lol! - 14:32:49 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I did read more of those texts. Did you read the ones on the effects of ESP? The experts don't seem to disagree that ESP is real, only the potential effects it has and what it means to our current thoughts in science, including the role reductionism has in the interpretation of reality. I suppose you skipped over those parts, or didn't find them that important. That's why I asked you a very specific question. The question itself has keys to why you make take certain obviously biased judgements on things. You subvert true, honest inquiry, only you don't like to admit it. Marilyn's position is based on the evidence you claim to be looking for, but when it doesn't fit your paradigm of the world, you think it doesn't matter. Hell, you don't have to be honest to me, but it's this kind of blatant bigotry that I've been pointing to as the major obstacle to progress in the world. If you're not willing to step back once and awhile and reconsider your total outlook, you have fallen into one of the worst kinds of solipsism. I'm sure, however, that it brings you great comfort to surround yourself with 3 or 4 other people who feel the same way about the world. No, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but doesn't it ever get to you that after all these materialistic "scientific" skepticisms, that you're still nothing more than a sack of bumbling cells? This is what I mean about wasting your time with a sour outlook, but you probably still don't get it. Change your pessimism into optimism and the value of your opinion is worth that much more.. Just some things to think about. Thanks for your time. - 17:02:30 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..maybe you can't teach old bird's new tricks??:BETTY- It's my opinion that I'm nothing more than a sack of cells. There is nothing pessimistic about this at all. It's your opinion that the sack of cells you're made up of is bumbling and that's why you choose to go outside the physical to try to convince yourself that you're more than the physical. If you'd have more respect for the physical, you wouldn't be so damn pessimistic about it. You can't seem to realize it, but most of us here are quite optimistic, you, Betty, are the one that seems to be putting forth a pessimistic attitude. Time to step back and take a really good look at yourself or learn to live with the BBB label. - 17:53:36 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, This is my impression of you when faced with a challenge against your beliefs: "(ahem) I think I'll back into a corner now.* It's so pathetic how you so gayly jump from roles as the lowly Janitor to Mr. Administrator, posting your "humble" opinions here and there. Don't think we don't notice how desperate you are either. Not like it matters. Look at the motley crew you've assembled in this room. Boy, that's something sure to be proud of. Don't bother trying to ban this ISP. I'm really finished in here now. It's gotten to where my mere presence fills those with superficial superiority complexes, and that's not something I want to contribute to anymore.--- I was curious though if it really makes you happy to have acquaintances such as these? Your emails to me obviously suggested otherwise. Anyway, thanks for the pleasure of your company, when it was at its best. Take care. - 17:57:28 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Betty:"Respect for the physical"?? Lol. Oh, Marlene! Next time around I'll wear a yamulkah and pray to your physical god. Take care. Don't bother posting anything I'm not gonna be around to read, hun. But keep trying!! Lol! I just hope Grant keeps your sacred little church here still going so even people like you can feel important some of the time... - 18:13:48 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..I think it's time for in the time out chair:BETTY- You're not going to be around....give me a break LOL! I just lurve it when you do those foot stompin tantrums! - 19:20:51 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Looks like Betty doesn't want you for a friend if you can't be all hers...looks like you're gonna have to choose LOL! Really, I wonder how old Betty really is...20 going on 12? - 19:25:09 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..religion and religious nuts:BETTY- Just reading your post to Grant " Don't think we don't notice how desperate you are either". Is the "we" all those personalities of yours or members of your little new age collective. Actually I suspect the former. A little touched, I think, Betty Baby! - 19:32:10 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Bird Brain Betty: Is that a promise or a threat!LOL - 19:50:48 on 6 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- Thanks for posting the talk outline. Most of us are only able to read about science and learn what we can, but you seem to be actively making a contribution. You've got me looking at lichen websites, too. :-) - 2:03:24 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- Relax. Take a pill. Get a hobby. Go for a walk. Take up some new interests. Pick out a book to read at random. Fly a kite. - 2:14:35 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

MARLENE: of your sweetheart BETTY, in your 05 AUG.post you say, it seems to me, that she handles- makes relevant to herself and others, her understanding of "consciousness" as if she were a mere xian talkin'jc and godstuff? I seems ta'c the same also. Its an ego trip. The only diff'between sugar-pie BETTY and someone like PRISM(above) is that the latter individual has a social setting wherein she can set aside her own ego. BETTY wants a similar community. The idea she champions has the same indicators as the religious xians. - 14:52:27 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: of your sweetheart BETTY, in your 05 AUG post you inscribe it seems to me, that she makes relevant to herself and others "her own understanding" of consciousness as if she were a mormon talkin'jsmith and godstuff? Several weeks ago I mentioned ego-tripping which is just a human whatever but when that idea is attached to other ideas, the trip begins. Its probably a fun ride, like whatever may be one's favorite amusement park ride. Of the idea of consciousness, recall the article I mentioned about the loss of synaptic activity, it reported half was lost by the age o'18! So after that kind of loss, what is it that one can never be conscious of and how does one know and who is there to say that there is any difference? Or, is that to become the new priesthood? - 15:59:58 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: It amazes me without fail, even tho'its probably been happening for eons, when someone appears among others with a 'better way'. The BETTY exemplifies that kinf of act here for us others as she sought to disengage how others saw and knew things. When that disengaging process was refuted she next sought to muddy the waters, poison the well. A good example of that muddying was in the site of GRANT's link. In the transcript on 'What is Consciousness' within the first several statements I saw obfuscation. In about the second statement one o'the participants ask why is 'C' a mystery; next another says they don't have an adequate theory o'how 'C' fits in the universe. Then someone says 'C' is the single most important "fact" about our exitence. Hmmm?? How did 'C' get from being a "mystery" and an inadequate "theory" to being a "fact"? Looks like somebody better get ready for a fun ride. Could someone tell me why such muddied beginnings which usually forewarn me of some ulterior motivation, am I wrong? I still have to read the Do Brains make Minds article, I wonder if its gonna be a fun mental ride too? - 18:56:23 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL-Are we stuttering today, lol! These new agers seem to love to use the word mystery and give the word a supernatural meaning. I think you may be on target with the ego tripping thing. All this consciousness stuff seems to make her feel important. She?he is likely already important just being their physical selves but more than likely it isn't enough if he/she is somewhat insecure, which I suspect. To make matters worse for themselves.... or maybe to test how strong their beliefs already are....or maybe even an attempt at examining those beliefs...he/she comes here and attacks our lack of beliefs. Strange.... - 19:15:53 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Good point! The BETTY poster may be simply testing the wherewithal of their own very personal belief-system. I began reading the brain/mind article and some of the issues of that question, for me, seemed to shed some light on what I think is BETTY's position. That she seems inclined to the newageishness o'wanting others to accept an out of body experience, etc., it must needs include the conceptual manipulations and assorted utilisations that become available via the idea of a mystery. That word I wonder if its use makes it sound to the user like a fun thing? Kind o'like that state of "anticipation" of knowing a gift is to be had. The gift per se is not as much fun as the wait and wanting. Me, I like it all the work the anticipation the having and the keeping to an end to finally just the thought and memory, its all good. - 21:12:15 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: You set up a church here, and we sometimes get to feel important? Imagine that, and we here have yet to even meet and see each other, are we really that simple minded? - 22:30:55 on 7 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Maybe we'll all have to start calling him Great Grantpoobah, lol! - 0:39:20 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Ain't that an idea! The Grantpoobah Gathering! LOL! - 0:41:28 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--something Wiccan this way comes--:ALL: Should this vaunted celebration come to pass, may I sacrifice the first chicken--with a liberal slathering of honey-mustard Sauce of True Repentance--on the sacred gas-fired Rotisserie of Eternal Redemption? - 0:59:59 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene with my poultry advice:JAYWILSON- Chickenths! Chickenths! What kind of sacrifice is that to the Great Grantpoobah! Chickenths, even with honey mustard sauce...may cause internal redemption, ye though the Sacred Gas-Fired Rotisserie may add to the decor of the church. - 3:21:44 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Grantpoobah ( Accolades and superlatives optional except during rituals (and victuals)) :I'm liking this all so far but we'll have to work out some minor details in our origin myth, like how I set up this church when half or more of you were here when I discovered the place, which incidentally had been operating for a couple of years or so already and had changed custodians once before, and how I acquired this uncanny supernatural ability to write these long Dostoevskyan sentences. But no worries. Religions have been pulling this type of thing off for centuries. - 4:06:50 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- You can use some half-assed theory of qm to explain it all. - 14:31:34 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: If the words of BETTY's 06 AUG post convey her true plan then we see her second to last effort o'communication here. It appears her opinion is, factual or not, someone here filled up their sense of superiority tanks. Who was it that leached off o'BETTY in that way? That was awful small and insignificant of whoever you know. Maybe, it was just that consciousness thingy BETTY knew so well? Perhaps BETTY misinterprets the benefits she shared here, its not superiority but its an expanded consciousness and she is responsible. Well, before she left she at least left GRANT with the knowledge that he is like the king here. heheh, that BETTY was she sane? - 15:52:58 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Carrl:MARLENE: Footstomping tantrums! Thats a fitting, good even, example except that BETTY is not a material kinda'gal. That footstompin'is impossible for her and outta'sight out of body thing that she is - 19:05:41 on 8 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: You can bet Bird Brain Betty will be back. She can't resist the temptation to put her foot in her big mouth. I'm begining to compare fundies and new agers as being just as belligerent. - 4:31:51 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Collective consciousness meets God :Found this on a philosophy discussion page, of all places: You' in your John Doe identity ... your 'outer identity', are but an illusion! That which is God,that which God is, is what a man is ... is what you are. The 'ocean' is the reality of every wave. Man was not born to die. 'Man' was meant to be an Eternal Being! But here's the catch.So long as he persists in living in his John Doe identity he will surely die, for in that identity he is but an illusion. Through our ignorance ... as we believe in the existence of good and evil ... we destroy the temple! How could 'man' die, when he is Eternal Life embodied! He must, however, LIVE AND FUNCTION IN THAT CONSCIOUSNESS. To live and function in that consciousness is to function in the Christ Mind. The Christ Mind is the Divine Mind personified. In that consciousness He has eternal life. In that consciousness lies man's salvation. - 13:23:46 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- This is why while philosophy is interesting at times, I don't agree with many philosophers. - 13:46:54 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: Here's the site for lichen links and pictures: NORTH AMERICAN LICHEN PROJECT - 14:14:37 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Grant:This site and this one have great illustrations and keys to the macrolichens. **** You might want to look at this page for local lichen lists. **** and for the mid-atlantic - 14:24:05 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Philosophy is just examination of meaning. We are all guilty of seeing meaning where there is none. It's appears to be how brain functions. One brain scientist says that the brain is a pattern detecting machine. It goes about its business detecting patterns whether they really exist or not. Philosophy does better at asking, defining, and refining questions than it does at providing answers, IMO. Anyway, I think you're ass-deep in it. :-) - 14:39:20 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Thanks very much, DOUG. I'll check them out tonight. It's off to work I go. (Hi-ho) - 14:40:59 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: The inter-neural activity that such expressions can but represent is also an example of out of control neural activity! Humans were meant to live forever? Forever, is that as in the constraints o'time whatever, or is forever something outside the constraints o'time? Have you ever tried to count just clock time without any medium of or means for reference? If yes perhaps that disorienting state of being is that very thing which such mental activity seeks to leave. Then too, speaking for myself, I am pretty sure of how I got here, to live and be alive, it was in much the same way my offspring got here; sexual interaction, electrochemical cell duplication, then a process of expulsion. Do the people who think in such ways want to ignore the pleasures overlook the similaritys o'the process of and act for reproduction of the human to other so-called animals? Do such 'imaginative people' really find that animal comparison a prospect so repulsive that they have to must think-up such scenarios? So if the religious types are not the ones to fix taboos on the human sexual interaction then these other people seek to ignore it completely? The religious tenets and actions of instilling a misunderstanding of sex are not at all psychologically healthy, how will ignoring the way humans are made any better? - 15:49:08 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Likely, only the brain isn't registering the pattern. - 17:27:30 on 9 Aug 100 GMT

Mallory:I can't look outside and believe that molecules bumped together and just formed everything- it seems way too impossible for their not to be a creater. - 0:07:56 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:MALLORY- Why does it seem that way to you? - 0:30:51 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Everybody's a wiseguy. LOL! - 4:15:17 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Send us a sign :JOETTE-- Are you out there? - 4:16:00 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- I've lost your email address. Would you drop me a line? grant@man-made.net - 13:35:43 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Nearly everyone seems to think they can determine metaphysical truths just by feeling the vibes or something. It doesn't seem to bother them that the vast majority of others doing the same thing get contradicting results. - 13:41:53 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So MALLORY says,"I can't look outside and believe...etc" this looks like MALLORY very simply puts him/herself in a most untenable position. Such self-abuse is unhealthy. Its almost as if MALLORY drops their pants and bends over saying to any nearby,"go ahead and F'-me". The conclusion that,"its impossible for there not to be a creator." That looks like a position from which for an impossible its assumed only an impossible answer will suffice! That appears as nonsensical as the initial view for self-abuse. - 17:54:41 on 10 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Somebody get up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday? :-) - 13:58:42 on 11 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Not at all, there was no personal anger involved, no hostile arousals were sparked alive. It seemed like if one seeks a discussion- the exchange of one's experience and conceptual activity, it should begin as honestly as humanly possible. That post seemed like it could be treated, headed into a direction that could be setup dominated by, personal responsibility? You kno'a discussion without, e.g., the bible says, etc., god says, etc.etc. I don't know what you think and the nature of your struggles to convey your E&C as a fact[s] true to you and this world, but I have never seen a godthing and there is no way it could prove it to me except make me a god too[but what would I be?]. So why do we- as atheists, allow the waste, of our limited time? I do not know about you but the words of any scripture and the subject of such does not change, the utterer may change but the meanings are just examples for a static state. Consider; its said that this galaxy with this solar system in it speeds through the greater space destination unknown, where is that godthing or jc or that holy ghost on this suppposed journey? It seems to me any response in favor of an account for any of just those worded ideas, and others similar, invites unbounded human dishonesty. - 15:21:43 on 11 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:I don't know, CARL. I can tell you what I personally do and don't consider a waste of time in regard to discussion with religious people. I read an exchange between some Jews and some Christians elsewhere. The xtians, as is often their way, were commenting on how obviously Jesus is the messiah of Jewish scripture, and that it's so obvious that no rational person could deny it. blah, blah, blah. The Jewish persons of course were danged offended. One xtian apologized saying he meant no offense, he was just trying to help. I consider it a waste of time to talk to this type of person. He not only doesn't comprehend other views, but hasn't a clue that he doesn't, and likely never will. He has no interest in or use for other views. But sometimes a religious person will wonder how anyone can possibly not believe, or will think they have worked out an air-tight argument against non-belief. Though talking with such a person probably never changes anything, I think it can be interesting and don't consider it a waste of time. Just my .02. BTW, what is "E&C"? - 19:22:08 on 11 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: E&C, was a reference to "experience and conceptual" both terms too alphabet ladden to, at the time, to incribe again. Sometimes the word and ideas processes o'trying to write electrically short out each other. Well, in regard to what the majority-religious adherents, and the minority- theistic types, have to say about matters I have heard it said and read it in a number of books of various interests, that if either, in and of itself, was significantly meaningful humanity would have been better off long, long ago. My own humble opinion is that I can, perhaps some few others can begin to make a difference in at least what and how we address matters and such action, should be ought to begin honestly. That was all I meant to suggest. - 20:55:56 on 11 Aug 100 GMT

Joette:GRANT - I've sent you two e-mails in the last few weeks that have come back as undeliverable...I'm back in the hospital again and am spending my pass trying to catch up here right now :). The other important piece of business is this...the name of the movie you asked me about is "Naked Lunch" by David Cronenberg (spent many a sleepless night trying to come up with it) - 19:03:55 on 12 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:JOETTE! So happy you are still kicking! :-) I'm impressed that you came up with the movie title. (Should anyone be wondering, all she had to go on was "a dark SOB in which the protagonist's typewriter occasionally comes to life in an odd, organic sort of way"). Now I just gotta find a copy. --- We now return you to your regularly scheduled, er, silence. - 19:46:43 on 12 Aug 100 GMT

Propitation:Do you guys believe in an ultimate reality? - 1:22:32 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--ultimate realtor--:PROP: You mean as opposed to this one? - 2:12:08 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Propitation:I mean as I say...opposed to nothing... - 2:32:27 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:PROP and JAYWILSON- Like in Remax? - 2:33:24 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Propitation: you mean magic gods and quartz crystals are giving us power from the unknown? Question, if answer is yes: then how do you know? - 3:49:25 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Propitation:Doug: I mean an ultimate reality...consult your dictionary if you have problems. - 5:58:12 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Propitation:*Sigh* I guess I'll just look it up in the dictionary myself to save the time and confusion Ultimate: incapable of further analysis, division, or seperate. Reality: the totality of real things and events. - 6:03:17 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Mwedzi:Someone help! I don't know where to go. I'm in Korea now, but I will be going back to Southern California soon. The point is, there are religious people all around me. I can't even have a conversation without someone saying "well, one day, when you have your 'experience,' you will know." I can't get away! And not a variety of religious people. Primarily, the one. You know what I'm talking about. The big group that feels its purpose is to spread its religion everywhere to save souls from eternal suffering, crushing out religous diversity (however silly it might be) everywhere. Where can I go? What can I do? Sometimes I just want to chat. Do you know a good chat site (not message board)? Maybe a local group with which I can affiliate? A special theist-repellant spray? Email me: mwedzi@altavista.net - 9:52:36 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

DR. SAEED H H ALYOUSUF:Eve: Islam versus Atheism ISLAM: Woman in Islam is the complementary half of the man. She is the MOTHER, the SISTER, the WIFE, and the DAUGHTER. She is the HONOUR of the man, which is sacrificed by their lives. Although she has the right to work and earn, her living expenses are the responsibility of either her father or the husband. ATHEISM: In atheist secular societies women have become: commercial items - sextoys - minefields for venereal diseases - slaughter houses for infants - fertile ground for incest, rape, sex abuse, alcoholism, drugs, and suicides. CONCLUSION: These facts probably explain the scandals plaguing even the most prominent houses of the atheist secular houses. They also explain the large numbers of people embracing Islam; the natural faith of humanity DR. SAEED H H ALYOUSUF - 11:28:55 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

TO>>>DR. SAEED...:...I tried your URL without luck. Can you post it again. - 13:49:55 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Here's another one::) - 14:04:05 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:DR. SAEED H H ALYOUSUF: First off there is no "atheist secular society". You say atheism is fertile ground for incest, and rape...but in your religion the woman is "WIFE, and the DAUGHTER"...if that's the case the DAUGHTER would have SEX with her FATHER. Thus incest...Plus you have no proof in your claim, you are just throwing words around. You say all this about atheists yet Islamic people are known around the world for their brutal acts of terrorism. - 15:50:46 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:208.34.238.30-- What is the point of posting as both PROPITIATION and IAN? Ever consider a more open approach? - 16:28:25 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--whassup, doc?--:SAEED: What are you a doctor of? And if Islam is the "natural faith of humanity", just what was "natural" for the few hundred thousand years before Mohammed, anyway? Amd PROP, why don't you sign on as IAN--at least you can spell it. - 16:49:22 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--a prety gud speler usulee--:"And". - 17:18:08 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- How typo-cal to err at such moments. - 17:21:48 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--Afreud you're right on that one--:GRANT: Still, Sigmund won't mind my wearing his slip. - 17:53:09 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Grant: I use the university lab computers(I can use them for free and it's DSL)...They just opened yesterday. I don't know who else is looking at the history of that computer and posting messages. - 18:27:42 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:and yes I can spell Propitation... - 18:29:03 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:and yes I can spell Propitation... - 18:29:07 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Damn, didn't mean to post that 2 times. - 18:29:53 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- Freuderick's of Hollywood now has Pinker cognitive underthingies.... - 18:38:52 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

You can propit-a-te, but can you propit-i-a-te? :IAN-- Posts from "IAN" and "PROPITIATION" also both appeared on July 12 from this same IP#. Forgive me if I am too suspicious. - 18:51:34 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Oops-- that be me with psycho-underwear. - 18:53:22 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- I was just about to post the July 12th incident too. So..just what do you mean by ultimate reality? - 19:01:10 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:SAEED- Yuck! - 19:03:51 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--the whore of psycho-Babble-on--:GRANT: You're forgiven and then some. IAN has to do better than that. - 19:06:25 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Well...I guess I'll tell the truth...I went to this friends house...He saw me posting messages and he wanted to post one of his own...He posted his messages under Propitation...Then I posted those crazy messages as a practical joke on him...but it was also to piss you guys off. The main reason I did it was to learn...Alot of times christians say stupid stuff...and I wanted to know how to combat that without asking you guys. - 19:31:55 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: I see :IAN-- So it was just an innocent attempt to manipulate people for sport? Gosh, why didn't you say so? Is the game still on? - 20:45:11 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...:WELL THEN, Ian, sport! I'm sure your "friend" explained ultimate reality to you, what is it? - 20:51:01 on 13 Aug 100 GMT

Machiavelli:Have any of you ever wondered why there isn't a identified author of atheism and time period of its origin? This phenomenon is quite suggestive. It implies that no human is its author and that it did not have its origin in this earthly sphere. It is a doctrine of the demons whose author is none other than the one atheism denies exists, namely the old serpent the devil. http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens5.shtml - 0:58:38 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Oh My Gawd, if good ole RTL isn't back haunting the place! Hey, how come you kicked me off your chat page? - 1:00:53 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...RTL the fifth horse:Doesn't that site bring back nightmares..."Greeting Class", LOL! - 1:07:42 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Just when I thought there were no objective xtians in the world RTL comes along to brighten up the day with his jihad update. - 2:16:06 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:DR. SAEED H H ALYOUSUF; Islam is a insult to all human dignity.THE KORAN AND MOSLEM WOMEN The principal injunctions of the Koran on Moslem women are as follows: II/223: Your women are a filth for you (to culti- vate) so go to your filth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will tone day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to be- lievers, O Muhammad). IV/23: Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your father's sisters, and your mother's sisters, and your brother's daughters and your sis- ter's daughters, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and your mothers- in-law, and your step-daughters who are under your protection (born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in- but if ye have not gone in unto them, then it is no sin for you (to marry their daughters)- and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins. And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together, except what bath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. IV/15: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). II/230: And if he bath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she bath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He manifesteth them for people who have knowledge. II/221: Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believeing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believ- ing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire, and Allah inviteth unto the Garden, and unto forgiveness by His grace, and ex- poundeth thus His revelations to mankind that haply they may remember. IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah bath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah bath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [1] them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. XXIII/1-11: Successful indeed are the believers Who are humble in their prayers, And who shun vain conversation, And who are payers of the poor-due; And who guard their modesty- Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right [2] hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors - And who are shepherds of their pledge and their covenant, And who pay heed to their prayers. These are the heirs Who will inherit Paradise. There they will abide. XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testi- monies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. XXIV/60: As for women past child-bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment but to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower. LX/10: O ye who believe! When believing women come unto you as fugitives, examine them. Allah is best aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them. And give the disbelivers that which they have spent (upon them). And it is no sin for you to marry such women when ye have given them their dues. And hold not to the ties of disbelieving women; and ask for (the return of) that which ye have spent; and let the disbelievers ask for that which they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah. He judgeth between you. Allah is Knower, Wise. Note: Ghazzali, the renowned Islamic thinker had summed the eighteen pains that had been visited on Moslem women as a punishment of Eve's transgression in Para- dise. The list eloquently shows the position of women in Islam and how the social customs were backed up by the prophet's religion. They are: menstruation, childbirth, separation from parents to get married to a stranger, pregnancy, not having control over her own person, smaller share in inheritance, liability to get divorced and inability to divorce herself, having only one husband at a time while the husband can have four wives at the same time not counting the concubines, having to keep her head covered within the four walls, having to stay secluded within the four walls, her testimony having only half the strength of a man's testimony, not being able to go out alone but only when accompanied by a near rela- tive, not being able to take part in Friday and festive day prayers and at funerals, not being able to serve as a judge or ruler, having to wait four months and ten days after the death of a husband before remarrying [3] , having to wait three months after getting divorced by a husband before remarrying, having very little merit when compared to men and having half the sentence of punishment for profligacy [4] when compared to that of a man. Footnotes 1. N.J. Dawood's Koran tanslates 'scourge' es 'beet'. 2. 'right hand' signifies 'won in battle by force of arms'. 3. the waiting period is to ensure that the woman does not carry the child of the dead husband or the husband that divorced her. 4. this punishment is really a relief instead of a 'pain'. - 3:06:21 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Strange how Muhammad, himself, treated women very well but the Koran, which was supposed to be written by him, is so anti-female. Do you think ole Paul/Saul may have snuck over to muslimville and lent them a hand writing the Koran? - 3:12:22 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I still can't get over how he needs to use quotes from this page to fill in his, lol! Have you read some of the other urban legends he's created! - 3:14:56 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:I've never heard of other mammals praising RTL's god but here's a story of some praising for OUR devil, lol....from the Weekly World News: WHALE SOUNDS PLAYED BACKWARD PRAISE THE DEVIL! DALLAS -- Scientists have discovered 60 different whale songs recorded between 1987 and 1999 that, when played backward, appear to contain messages praising the Devil. - 3:19:48 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- That's hilarious about the whales! --- Is this site being strange for you today, or is it just my computer? - 4:15:13 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Muhammad was a pig when it came to his treatment of women. He had new revelations from god everytime he wanted a new wife. Lots of his concubines wouldn't convert to islam, he was 30 second wonder. That's why he needed so many wives; one would realize he didn't have the right stuff to satisfy her.LOL! - 7:17:09 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: No kidding, those fundies have finally gone off the "deep end". Or is this a green light to kill whales from the nazi xain right wing. I wonder if any whales are freethinkers; they certainly are smarter than fundies. LOL!! "Scientists" like creationist religious fanatic. I also heard "whale scientists"(whales not people) have proven that fundies are a form of human mental retardation. - 7:23:53 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Interesting it is that someone apparently a muslim type brings to fore here the topic of women and the koran, the latter being a matter for religious-belief. I have held for some time the hunch that the notion of "belief" is only a word that describes a very natural act. That religion has connected its interests to this idea is an original deed buried, o'course, in the hoariness of the human animal's existence as an earthly lifeform. The human animalform I've recently suggested has displaced its instincts almost forcefully via the idea it knows as consciousness. Somehow religion has assumed a position from which it defines and then conveys the important stuff of the human-animal which via it also makes the human-devine, via a "theism". One of the most important parts of human existence is its reproduction. No reproduction means no more human lifeform. So religionists say human reproduction must be done in manners and methods its says so its rules replace the human-animal's instincts. From that first and most basic "displacement" process numerous other belief systems are possible including political processes. Like WJC saying Gore shouldn't be held responsible for WJC's conduct and behavior. WJC hisself seeks to establish some process to renew belief in him by aligning himself with claims that connect him to invisible spiritual things, his renewed spirit. Hmmm? May we suppose that the koran's views on reproduction require the female to "believe" in the male human-animal because waaaay back when, the male human-animal instead believed in the all powerful female that he saw produce and issue forth, the human lifeform? - 17:56:14 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: I don't mean for any to figger I'm trying to turn this into a pornchat site, but if a clearer perspective on sex as matters of fact could begin, a lot of the religious views would be easily and eventually fully dispelled. Once the religious view is recognised for what it isn't, proper sex-education can be gained. Then matters such as the Wisconsin issue won't be seen as matters of "lewdness". Seems they there have issues with some nude beaches. At reading the news report I had to wonder who the paper was editing its words "for" and was truth at all a concern. - 18:37:32 on 14 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..update:More on those satan worshipping whales....Analysis of the tapes confirms they haven't been altered in any way. And while experts say it's possible for phrases like "God is dead" and "Lucifer is my lord" to crop up in whale songs entirely by chance, the odds of it happening more than once in a collection of just 60 tapes are astronomically against it. "The supernatural connection, the link to Satan, is crystal clear," declares Dr. John Saltersetts, evangelist and founder of Soldiers Against Satan, a Dallas-based Christian outreach that blew the lid off the satanic whale tapes in the July issue of its newsletter, Gabriel's Horn. "Make no mistake," he continues, "the Devil is at work in the world, not just on land but even in the sea. "Not content to spread his darkness through mere demons and human beings, he is now working his evil through innocent mammals, whales -- the majestic and gentle giants of the deep." Dr. Saltersetts says the terrifying messages came to light when producers making a "sounds of nature" album in Los Angeles rewound a tape of whale songs -- and heard a frail, feminine voice chanting "Satan is God" over and over again. Intrigued, they pulled other whale tapes from their archives and discovered 117 words and phrases on 60 of 200 tapes they checked. The tapes were recorded over a 12-year period that began in 1987 and ended in 1999. Even eerier, they are said to include songs from at least a dozen whale species living in every ocean on earth. According to Dr. Saltersetts, the messages range from the relatively mild "Devil man good" to the hideously savage "Satan kill God" refrain that reportedly is hidden away in a song sung by a blue whale in 1997. "Even though you can't hear the messages consciously, unless you play the songs backward, the subconscious mind processes the words as if they were being spoken to you directly," explains Dr. Saltersetts. "If you hear the phrase 'Satan is lord' often enough, pretty soon you begin to believe it. The sinister thing about hidden messages is that you don't even know you're being exposed." - 0:37:49 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Is absolutely everyone watching Clinton tonight? I did for awhile but then got rather bored. Could be because I'm a Canuk but I admit, I'd rather watch Clinton bullshit the Americans than watch Jean try to bullshit us. - 3:43:07 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp dog ma i em esiarp - 4:36:15 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:IAN-- You can speak Whalsh! I listened to some whale tapes but all I could make out was ".ydaerla snooprah eht htiw hguonE" At least they speak English backwards. - 5:22:18 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:LOL - 5:32:35 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Doug: I don't think that Muhamad was a 30 sec wonder. Arabian men are known for having large cocks. Infact an Arabian has the record with so many inches(I forget). So he was probably more of a pimp...but still didn't treat women good. - 7:43:59 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: in a hospital huh, well, walk out whole. - 15:54:16 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I missed the first lady's appearance WJC mentioned her NY effort, guardedly. I was more interested with the methods with which WJC was going to work Gore into the spot-light. Another interesting matter, the treatment of the political dissidents. The republicans seemed to have the word out those people weren't to be filmed, acknowledged in anyway. The Democratic thing allowed a snipet of some views to be heard. What I heard and read the dissidents have one real concern, the involvement of the corporate being in the USA political process. Both party's however, exist on such money sources. It is a terrible thing for people when they- the partys, treat people as the demo's do with those mounted armed gaurds. The media is told and then reports that the mounted gaurds are actually "protecting the people". Go figure - 16:39:59 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:IAN-- Are we confusing men with horses? Neigh, I want to see the source data. - 17:18:17 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Whatever happens, I too am wishing you well. - 17:25:20 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--no cocktales for me, just a beer--:IAN: Any penis, once it reaches 12 inches in length, is called a foot. I think those vaunted Arabian Nights camouflaged a lot of store-bought kielbasa, myself. And GRANT, if comparing/confusing men w/horses explains Ivan the Terrible, it also made Catherine the Great. - 17:30:12 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Be the hospital for a physical "or" a mental, come out whole. - 17:31:12 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Speaking of urban legends, over the weekend I read an article in a local newspaper about an auto accident. the fella opted to drive home along one of the picturesque back-roads, after work, fell asleep while driving came to after an accident. He then went down the roadway to a local ranch house where a dog ran him back to the roadway. He resumed walking the roadway when an elderly couple picked him up and left him at one of the hospitals located in one of the ritzier neighborhoods. Realising he hadn't asked for their names or anything he placed an ad-like notice in a local paper describing the couple and car asking them to contact him. Another woman noted the ad, the story goes, she informed that fellow the people and car he described had recently died on that same back-road! The spirits are they real or non? - 17:57:38 on 15 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Unbridled lust :JAYWILSON-- Though the "horse story" is historically false, if Catherine didn't think Peter was so Great, there does remain the little matter of the statue (The Bronze Horseman). - 0:59:03 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think that's just a remake of a very old urban legend. I think the Twilight Zone (the old one) did numerous shows with this theme. BTW does anyone here remember the old Twilight Zone. There is one episode that I'll remember forever. - 1:42:55 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: I do, I do!:MARLENE-- Well now you gotta tell us about the episode. - 4:28:21 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I'll have to review the paper and see what section it appears, perhaps it was an early halloween thing. If it was in the horoscope section or something such I got duped. I rarely and usually mistakenly read such horsecrap. Its no diff than those xmas newsaccounts of when those people see the v-mary thing - 16:45:41 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I don't remember all of this particular episode but this is how it began (I think)...A family was offered a home by a very wierd stranger. The home had everything in it a family could want. The family enjoyed their home that evening and all slept well. When they awoke the next day, they tried to go out the door but the door was locked or it wouldn't open. Behind the curtains there weren't any windows. All of a sudden, one wall of the living room opened and there were bars preventing them from leaving. They looked outside to see that there were other habitants with other strange looking creatures in them. On the outside of their habitant was a sign saying "humans from earth". After a few moments the "people" from that world came to the "zoo" to view the collection of creatures from all the worlds. - 20:20:30 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I used to eat that stuff up back when I was a wee one. The Outer Limits and Twilight Zone episodes seemed so profound. Can't distinguish individual episodes from one and the other now in memory. Remember one in which aliens come and give earthlings a book and want to take everyone back to their planet? Scientists start to translate the book and determine that the title is "How to Serve Man". Everyone clamors to get aboard the ships. At the end the scientists rush to the ships. Upon further translation the book turns out to be a cookbook. Too late. Like the pulp science fiction of that time, they always had that little twist at the end. I've since read of sci-fi authors saying they hated those "goofy" plot twists at the end, but one couldn't sell stories in those days without them. We hadn't yet progressed to cyber-punk. :-) - 22:07:09 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: At another site I suggested that in the USA racism could be ended via religion if the Jewish creation myth was rejected outright. That suggestion seemed to frighten some. O'course it wasn't anti-semitic but does that not seem like a place to begin addrsssing the USA race problem? In this regard lets consider what the political party's do with the "hispanic" term. What is a hispanic? On that count all I see done at the conventions is the parading of a kind of white person but as a kind of ethnic individual, hmm? This brings to mind a book I read that mentioned a law passed in the late 1800's that had assorted country's clamoring for a "white" recognition at such people's immigrating, into the USA. Now the USA political religious adherents say this country was founded on judeo-xian whatever. Here is where I step-in with that suggestion because does not the jewish-religious types say that they are the chosen people? That looks like racism. In the Rigveda I have read throughout its storys it refers also to the assorted characters and peoples as somehow special. That has the look of stuff to argue is or becomes racism. Religion and race go back into time of long long ago. Can the human creature rid its mind of both? - 22:50:58 on 16 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: maybe true, but but they still perfer camel boys over women.LOL!(Doug has no love nor any respect for islam; it reminds him of xian fundism at it's finest dark hour). - 0:41:44 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Gotta agree with you there. I think most of the fundies would love to bring xtianity back there. The the "nice guy" thing was to get Saeed to respond but it looks like he thinks he's done his thing here. - 0:49:11 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I somewhat remember that one. I still like the plots of those old jobbers, even old movies. The new ones rarely have an actual plot..just a lot of violence and sexual stuff (not that I'm against sexual stuff but it just shouldn't be the theme of the movie). - 0:51:39 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You just have to have more control over those fingers, lol! Of the Hindi people I know, most are openly racist. I guess they just aren't into politcal correctness, at least western political correctness. The jews are the chosen, the hindi are the chosen, the xtians are the chosen, the native americans are the chosen, the first nations are the chosen...almost every religious and racial group consider themselves above everyone else. I think that is very egotistical thinking when the person or persons doing the chosing is/are themselves. I'm totally sick of this religion/race/culture bull. It's really time people move beyond this stuff. There is no god/gods/goddess( well maybe me)/goddesses..color will eventually blend and I love to see a First Nations person to has never had a TV or ate hamburger. - 1:10:02 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: over on another board is a nut who calls himself an atheist, hate's jews, hates western democracy, loves islamic fundamentalism, and loves liberitarism.he justifies his support of islamic extremists as a unified front against the western imperialism. The dude is a nazi type with an arab background. He can't see why we despise him and his cause. Islam is willing to enslave half it's population(they say they're trying to protect women.)But it's a cowards way to enslave the victim rather than the perpetrator; if they are really sincere about it. I say they are latent homosexuals who hate women and are so insecure that they fear the women will leave islam and them. - 3:50:25 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Hundi people LOL! My former neighbors were Hundi. We went over there for lunch one day. Well the men sat in the living room while the women served the men from the kitchen. The women stayed in the kitchen unless serving. the only women who was allowed to sit with the men was the grandmother (Matriarch); a place of honor.The next time i hear about us westerners not being open to other cultures from a liberal; I swear I'm going to bring this up.LOL! And in Hispanic culture the men can murder their wives for being too independent; is that the culture that I'm supposed to not be bias about or I'm a bigot. LOL! - 3:58:27 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

: ALLAH IS NOT A FOOL! & Eve. ISLAM vs. ATHEISM: For a serious and relatively conclusive discussion of these topics it is recommended to visit the following website: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb541827&MyNum=966398331&P=Yes&TL=966174313 - 13:31:16 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

RECOMMENDED SITE: ALLAH IS NOT A FOOL! & Eve. ISLAM vs. ATHEISM: For a serious and relatively conclusive discussion of these topics it is recommended to visit the following website: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb541827&MyNum=966398331&P=Yes&TL=966174313 - 13:32:13 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Allah is not a fool anymore than the blue fairy is a fool for how can an non-entity possess human vices. The only fool is he that believes in either. - 14:24:04 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Allah is Myth and those who follow this brainless hate are either monsters or pathetic fools.Long live the camel who went through the eye of the needle! - 15:10:26 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: another double-post is the doc and me birds of a feather? - 15:48:04 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: What is there to do that will please any religious group of adherents as examples we consider just RT Lee and the muslim Dr.Saed? Both strike me as examples of insanity! Then, from another point of view of the human animal, there are the racist types of which there are several examples of such groups. Looks like both are extremists in the worst of possible ways. But, are they extremist in or as idealistic terms extend to such mental gyrations or are they really abberations of personal behavior? - 18:00:22 on 17 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: anyone else have problems logging-in here this morning? - 19:07:36 on 18 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I'm trying it now. Haven't been around all day and it looks like no one else has either. - 4:14:07 on 19 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: (Looking over the fence) :Been out making the rounds of the other atheist discussion boards since it's so dead here. There are lots of them now. Anyway, I've noticed a couple of things-- there is very little humor, and DOUG is everywhere! - 20:39:38 on 19 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--king of comity--:GRANT: Good call; the way I see it, if one can't laugh at it, one can't take it all that seriously, either. BTW, I think DOUG's looking for a scrap--but so am I from time to time. - 23:00:36 on 19 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Doug just one of those social butterflies, lol! I love his posts, yours too Jaywilson! - 23:22:23 on 19 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Grant: what are some of the "other" atheist discussion boards? - 2:59:13 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Sending customers away :-( :Hello, Dan. Have a look here... - 3:49:31 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Ending the evening with a little Willy stuff "Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. -- William Shakespeare - 3:57:19 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Hello DAN! - 3:58:01 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Joette:GRANT - sorry to use this venue for personal reasons but I want to let you know that each time I send you an e-mail it comes back within a week saying it is "undeliverable". I just don't get it, but I don't want you to think I've been ignoring your letters. Could there be a reason why I can't get through? - 15:38:52 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, Jo. This is a puzzler- can't find anything wrong with my email setup. Try an ...@man-made.net address. Anything-at-all@man-made.net comes to me. Should be able to have some fun with that! :-) - 16:00:56 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Why don't you people believe God exists? - 17:52:36 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Long sentence competition :DAN-- Such a belief would require acceptance of the proposition that there is a parallel supernatural universe populated by disembodied conscious entities which is subject to different (non-physical)laws and is only detectable to us by means of our emotions, which presumably are sufficiently reliable for detecting ultimate realities despite the fact that everyone elses emotions appear to detect slightly or unslightly different ones. - 18:39:51 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Where do you get the notion that a belief in God requires acceptance of a supernatural universe populated by disembodied conscious entities? - 21:29:03 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Grant the Blue Ox:DAN-- Have you a non-supernatural god? Is he some sort of PaulBunyan-esque character? - 21:57:28 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Quick into a nearby phone booth,oops! how about a cellular phone in a tinted windowed SUV. Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings wiyh a single bound. Look; up in the sky, It's a bird, It's a plane, No, It's non-supernatural god. - 22:32:42 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:God is a mystery. He(it has no sex but I will refer to it as he) is everything. God described by the bible is the way that the ancients were able to describe God. Atheists seem to think that Christians think of God as a white bearded man that sits up in the clouds, it is not so. God is as complex as the person is. Ask anybody what God is and you will get a different definition. A person of a low intelligence may think of God as an entity, others may see it completely different. God is a knowing. Try to grasp something other than what you can actually perceive with sensory perception. - 23:45:57 on 20 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--here we go again--:DAN: You seem like a young man with both feet firmly planted in the air. - 0:21:16 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Is this an insult discussion board, or is it a discussion board open to debate? I read this at the top: "This is intended as a casual discussion board for such topics as atheism, religion, and anything related." Nowhere in that statement do I see the word insult or anything that would relate to that. It would be appreciated if you followed along with this sites use. Thank you. - 0:36:11 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:And by the way I am not a young man, I am 46 years old and have acquired my Phd.. - 0:37:37 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene the Materialist:DAN- Is your god conscious, if so, how do you know? Has he physical attributes? Can you show me any physical evidence that your god exists? - 0:49:33 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- BTW, I promise not to insult you if you don't insult me. We'll see who breaks their promise first. - 0:52:22 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- I'm 50 and have acquired many things. What we acquire doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with intelligence. Why would you suggest that someone of low intelligence would think of this god as an entity. I'm sure there are many very intelligent people out there that believe the god of the bible is an entity. Although you can't possibly mean me as I'm atheist, you've just insulted a great many people....but I won't count that, the promise is between you and me. - 0:59:01 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Well it certainly isn't the Concord, lol! He doesn't fly, silly, he hides in storm clouds. That's why we can't see him...or hear him...or touch him...or smell him...But we know he's with us when that big black cloud is hanging overhead. - 1:03:20 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Sensory perception...meaning....???? - 1:07:00 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Speaking of this stuff, ya'll just got to check this out. - 1:10:24 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Sensory perception: Feeling, Hearing, Seeing, ect...Thought you learned that in preschool. Guess not. - 1:39:16 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Perhaps I worded it wrong. I regard a persons' intelligence as a combination of what they are exposed to and their IQ or ability to evaluate data. There are many people with high IQs and open minds who have not been exposed to many concepts and ideas. They don't know about it, but they are still smart. - 1:42:30 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Physical evidence it seems is always wanted, but is not always needed. A vast majority of science has no proof but is based on what we already know and what can come from it. For example in Physics, the super string theory. There is no physical proof, it is just a theory based on what we already know. God is like this,it is impossible to prove him physically by current means, but based on what we see here on earth he probably does exist. - 1:46:26 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--to tell the truth--:DAN: You are a liar. You might be 46 years old, but you're no Ph.D. I do not insult you--only call you what you are. Better get used to it--here and elsewhere--'doc'. GRANT: Has IAN changed his name again? Or is fellow doctoral wannabe SAEED in on this? Why the hell do folks think they can fake a formal education in cyberspace? - 2:05:14 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:I am wasting my time. This is no discussion board, just a big joke. - 2:28:36 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Didn't go to preschool, actually there wasn't such a thing in my day. Now was that an insult Dan? I'm sure you learned the definition of "insult" in your preschool so...was that an insult or was that just a very uninformed, ridiculous assumption you made? - 2:32:20 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- You're wasting YOUR time! Based on what things we see here on earth? - 2:35:39 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- You're wasting YOUR time! Based on what things we see here on earth? - 2:36:16 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- You're wasting YOUR time! Based on what things we see here on earth? - 2:36:32 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Oops! I must have Carl disease! - 2:37:11 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: For something unknowable, you certainly have oodles of information about this mythical creature. How did you come about these?"For example in Physics, the super string theory. There is no physical proof, it is just a theory based on what we already know." Dan, Dan ,Dan; We have mathamatical theory and formulars for these.*****"God is like this,it is impossible to prove him physically by current means, but based on what we see here on earth he probably does exist." yes, I agree it's a half baked idea that should never have been given any creedence until they could prove that (deity)it exists.The trouble this nonsense has caused in the world throughout history is just incredible. - 2:46:39 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Doug: Nobody has found, or has any physical proof that super strings exist. As you said, your OWN words, "WE have mathamatical theory and formulars for these." Key word, theory. To think that your(or anybodies) tiny little neocortex could be able to comprehend God is outlandish. - 3:06:47 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: I figured that after about 5 distasteful insults from you that it was time to give you sum. All you do is insult. Why can't you debate like Doug here? You obviously have ego issues that need to be dealt with. - 3:08:30 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene ..what a $%^&* wimp,:DAN- Go back in all my posts to you and find one distasteful insult to Dan. Is reminding you that a theory is only a theory a debate? I would think that would be a given. If you've been posting under another name then all I can say is that you deserve to be insulted and then "sum". I haven't even started to debate with you. Narrow it down to an issue and let's start and then you can see who has ego issues and who doesn't. - 4:03:07 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Yewsta couldn't spell Ph.D. Now I are one. :JAYWILSON-- Yes, Dan also goes over to Ian's friend's house to play cyber-dress up. - 4:10:05 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN?Ian? Stan? how about Ann- Let's begin with your claim that "To think that your(or anybodies) tiny little neocortex could be able to comprehend God is outlandish". Our brains are able to create abstract unpractical concepts like god. It's very easy to do this, children do it all the time. But our brains are also able to investigate if these concepts are an accurate picture of reality or inaccurate description of reality. This is a much more difficult task for the human brain and is achieved only through learning the proper method and maturing. - 4:16:33 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..stung on spellin b's:GRANT- Cum on! sumtimes I don't spell no better but then again I don't claim to have me a PH.D... - 4:20:47 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Oooo! cyber-dress up! Sounds kinky! Maybe it's a good thing Ann is over there too. - 4:25:10 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Only if claiming letteracy :MARLENE-- I like to keep my options open when it comes to spelling. Who is to say that their way is the right way anyway? - 4:30:01 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: superstrings are way beyond bronze age myths. So are you saying that you have a mathamatical formula for deity. Let's have your proof; don't be shy.You certainly know lots about this unknowable thing. Where is you source? Just remember Dan, we aren't impressed with your huffing and puffing. You claim to know so much about something that you yourself said "God is like this,it is impossible to prove him physically by current means, but based on what we see here on earth he probably does exist." such as? And please not a wish and and faith: Faith presupposes belief so that's not a proof. - 6:11:29 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: thats an interesting site for other atheist chat sites GRANT. One site there I thought had gone bellyup was the OK chat site. I see its still online somewhere. Heheh, that was a humorous observation, DOUG is everywhere. Looks like to me this DAN ain't exactly the star-mouth on any debate team. What part of a debate is the,"god is like this, etc"? Looks like just a velcro-point, something that he gets to stick on anybody- as a dunce, who won't or doesn't agree with his, dare it be called so at this time, with some part of his 'argument'. Its about the same as the former BETTY utilised the matter of materialism. If this DAN stays for awhile I bet we know already how he and his position will end up. - 14:55:44 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: of late I've suggested that to rid humanity of its racial problems religion had to go. The next question must be what could or can be utilised to gain that lofty social goal? Well, science in the honest mind has denuded religion and theism of the smoke and mirrors that served either so well in the dark ages. Science can also be used and seen as a means to handle racism. The recent example of the OJ trial is a good example when considered next to the Dupont trial. Per science he- Dupont, was considered insane dispite outright simply killing another human being. OJ via science was considered not guilty but his case still annoys some, here I suggest its on a racial note. OJ is black and was accused of killing white people. Dupont a white killed a white. The common point for both, supposedly the process of science created doubt and led to the conclusions as they were for both cases. The point is not the heinousness of the crimes but that a procedure for consideration of other factors which can take one beyond the simpler matters of what we already know. The what we already know types, are of course the religious adherents and the racially fueled. The scientific method of extending the human mind beyond its fundamental senses can lead to good things, I bet. {just something on my mind} - 18:17:23 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Carl: What's this? "DOUG is everywhere." - 21:59:35 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: Yes I make the rounds, but most boards are dead with the occasional fundy or Betty type spicing up the feed.There is a libertarian who thinks social darwinism is pretty cool on the OK site. I read up on them a few years ago and I am appalled at their lack of human concern and understanding of history.They're just a bunch of drugged out conservatives looking for the good old days of the robber barons. - 22:06:40 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: I used to get around also, but the religious theist points o'contention were so weak and quickly redundent that the fun of poking them with sharp pointed stuff got boring. I got to admit, it has been so, so long since I last saw an interesting POV on theism that it still stands out. It was the TONY fellow at this site of several years ago. Of late as i've pointed out above, I've been pondering of ways to put to sleep religious theistic views. I think this can be done. - 22:27:31 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Makin'frens still huh, wonder in what our new fren DAN got the phd? Well, I finally broke down and purchased R.Dawkins other book,"The Extended Phenotype". I think its gonna be a fairly easy read but at the same time fairly influential. When I first wanted to buy it several years back I stopped because I didn't want to have what he had to say in mind when I read the other books I wanted to read. I think its difficult to read religious books if one has good stuff already in mind or if the mind has been exposed to such. Religious and religious-like points of view almost absolutely require an empty or an emptied mind for their ideas to stay. For religious adherents and advocates of theistic POVs, the words for either simply do not and cannot allow the hearer to know how to get along with the material world. - 22:51:18 on 21 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:*yawn* you guys get way to upset over this stuff... - 0:24:48 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:stop stressing yourself...lighten up...go get laid every once in a while...have fun... - 0:26:00 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Propitiation:i would like to see you disprove gawds existernce - 0:26:43 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Ian-masterbating:you guys look so funny when u mad hehehe I was trying to take a different christian concept and see how you would deal with it...but it never got off the ground...oh well...try somewhere else...thx - 0:28:54 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Go play with the phone :Your mother is calling, Ian - 1:22:41 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...row..row ..row:IAN- If you carry on like this, you'll likely end up paddling the other side of Betty's canoe. - 1:32:19 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Last I saw, Betty already had 99 monkeys paddling. - 2:08:40 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Well, Ian will be number 100. He'll automatically know how to pick up the oar and start paddling as a result of the string theory. He'll also spend his life and maybe all the ones following being bombarded by the endless dogma of universal consciousness from the captain of the ship. - 2:56:56 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Hey, I like that, Captain Betty Blye! - 2:59:42 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:PROPITIATION: if you say a godthing is something, where is it now? I can ask if it is something it can't be disproven, except that it could be nothing. Nothing is the closest one can attribute to that which is truely unknowable but it is, nevertheless. - 17:22:57 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: Seriously, why are you so nice? - 21:59:07 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists in the form it does, reasonlessly. It seems at least worth trying to construct a metaphysical theory that reduces some of the arbitrariness of the world. But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible....If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation. Possibly the MYSTICAL PATH is a way to such an understanding. - 22:02:46 on 22 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..I think she's something like allah, she's known by many names:IAN- I went to charm school. I've noticed you and your cyber dress-up partner, dear Dan, HAVE been assimilated by universal consciousness. Let me guess, Betty is your mom. - 1:07:47 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:God never shows himself in full. He only manifests himself on the level that his creation can understand. Jesus is a manifestation of God, not God himself, but a piece of him. Many of the "contradictions" in the bible are mearly just the evolving of the Hebrews' concept of God. Just because something is constantly changing doesn't make it a false idea. Science is always changing(that doesn't make the concept invalid), so humankind's understanding of God is also changing. God can't be explained rationally, for he is beyond ration. Don't ask me what is beyond ration...that we shall find out. Assuming the evoloution that we have undergone in the past 100 years, there is no reason that our brains can't develop into organs. The area of the brain that deals with mathematical computation in Einstein's brain was 30% large than in the average human. If such profound logic can come out of that small increase, could you imagine what could happen if you increased it by say 200%? Would the idea of logic crumble? How far can it go? - 1:23:56 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:These "Dan" posts are cut-and-past jobs. The 22:02:46 one is from the end of Davies _The Mind of God_. - 1:34:55 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene,,charming as ever, really I am:DAN?IAN? Whomever...do you go to school in Kansas? - 1:58:16 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Grant: I did paste the first, sorry for not quoting. He was saying the concept I was trying to project. - 2:00:58 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: Your a bitch. - 2:01:21 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: Your a bitch. - 2:01:23 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: Your a bitch. - 2:01:23 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Oops, I have Carl's disease. HAR HAR HAR HAR - 2:01:46 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DAN & COMPANY-- The second is obviously a paste as well. Don't you have ANY class? - 2:11:09 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Doug: "MYSTICAL PATH" that's Josh and Betty talk. Why don't you stroke harder and maybe you'll realize that this is all there is: excepting imagination.Metaphysics: an alternative to hard, smart work. - 2:33:51 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..string along with me:DAN- Gee Dan, I seem to push your buttons just like I seemed to push Betty's, must be that universal consciousness thing at work, LOL! - 3:32:48 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I would wager that Dan/Ian/Betty/Josh (and I forget that other stupid name, are all the same idiot. There really can't be THAT many people with this particular "intelligence" out there. - 3:41:58 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Hasn't it been demonstrated that over the last six months this person lacks more than just class? - 3:45:58 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- While religion is a real problem in the world, I'm not sure it's race that you are actually getting at, maybe culture? This might be an interesting read for you. - 3:53:05 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Nah, Josh/Betty/Jake is the consciousness collective-- Ian/Prop/Dan is but a fledgling. There could still be hope. - 3:53:31 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Looks like a mindful site, I think my whole point is that yes religion is not real, and neither is race. I've read a book awhile back called the ethnic myth. What seems to me to be the problem is that race has been made into a negative issue. It seems to me also, that at one time it was the simple pleasure in being what one was, or is. I suspect the velvety hand of religion began the process of coloring one's race into the negative view it is today. I have several books on the inquisition but one traces that topic back into time. Throughout its research it regularly refers to "special" and "chosen" people, of specific interests is the implication of exclusion. It appears that is where or how it could be contended that one's race grew or was developed into today's negative issue. Elsewhere, usually [almost only] in nonreligious accounts race is for a simple celebration of existence as whatever. Religion has probably assumed the reins of such celebration and well, now as result there is confusion such as what or where is the separtion of church and state? - 15:15:46 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Saw an interesting but simple act this morning. While walking along a tree lined pathway set over a small stream I heard a sqirrel chatter. It was in the tree that I walked beneath, it chattered again. I stopped looked up at it then looked about for some dogs or whatever. Seeing none I looked up at the animal again. It turned to look down at me chattered again then stopped. I watched it some more it then crept down the slender angled tree trunk and stopped. It chattered again and then extended its forepaws. It then crept down a few more feet stopped, chattered and extended its paws again. It wanted food. As I turned to resume my trek I thought, wow! Is that the beginning, the rudimentary elements of religion? - 15:32:01 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN; Hmmm? I've yet to measure Albert's brain. Is that organ available yet so I can do that very thing? Or, am I and others here to incredulously so, "ok", to that account? Is that brain alive yet? Was it measured when Albert was alive? Did he sit still for that measurement, as in without protest? DAN, do you merely seek of others their "belief" and or acceptance in whatever you inscribe? - 17:10:15 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Race in my opinion is but a very slight difference in a certain groups genetic makeup which normally has happened as a result of with enviroment and choice. Culture on the other hand seems to be a certain groups' ideas and beliefs which religion is but one part of. Culture has little or nothing to do with genetic makeup but most or all to do with enviroment. - 19:02:01 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Since maybe Dan wants to talk about the brain, maybe we can do this for awhile. The brain as Grant suggested earlier seems to make patterns where there aren't really patterns. It also can fill in the blanks with some of the most bizzare answers. Everyone is capable of this. How about some personal stories from each of us that demonstrates this? We've been doing this since childhood and believed during childhood that the answers were correct but as we matured have correcting the answers with the same brain but making it calculate a little better. - 19:08:24 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: did you catch that passage above,"God never shows himself in full." Horseshit talk exactly like that is what the term racism has become. The environmental references you've made as what make up or what "once" made up specific kinds of people did lead to those various extensions of the particular people. The current 'globalisation' notion I suspect frightens the religious types in that it removes the specialness of a race and the significance which a godthing once gave religion. Of course that is a sweeping statement or POV, and the only comprehension of it is to note the various terms the human animal has made of and for its utter dynamics in history. Its noteworthy, is it not, that with every advance of most kinds of humans religious types blessed such advance? However, as we know science has disspelled in time much if not all of that which religion once held before those who followed that advance. Where on the earth does the human animal have left to advance today? For the most part nowhere, except under the oceans or into space. It seems to me safe to figure we'll see first a brief struggle by religion to maintain its special place but with some honest views science will overcome that brief delay. That is how I envision science will overcome the current common consensual meaning of racism. - 20:48:51 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Grant: Either I paste or I am dumb, you give me no credit. And I DID NOT paste the 2nd. Geesh...what a jerk. - 22:01:17 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Doug: Perhaps the "MYSTICAL PATH" is a bit out there, but the rest of the article was interesting. Also, I can't buy that we won't evolve further. I read somewhere(I forget where, it goes something like this) that the same length of time has been between the earth forming an atmosphere and the worm appearing, and the worm forming and humans appearing. The worm had no idea(it couldn't even comprehend it's own existance at all)that it was alive. We have no idea what is to come. Frequently in Science, and life in general we will think that we know something pat, but then something totally different comes along and changes our idea completely. For you to say that this is it, and that we will not evolve any more in our understanding of the universe and biologically is absolutely insane. - 22:10:48 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl: My source is some Seattle TV station about Einstein's brain. I was there on vacation and saw it on the news, please trust me on this one. - 22:14:02 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan:And Some humans still believe in the supernatural and magic gods.Yes, we still have a ways to go to pull the rest of the species into reality. - 22:45:50 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..I know, I know, according to you "the bitch" but that's your problem:DAN- Gee, Dan, I've seen a whole bunch of things on the news. This doesn't mean they are fact or even any substance. We may evolve further but we haven't evolved in the last 10,000 years. If it were possible, we could bring a child from that era, stick him in school and he would learn as much as any other child. We've been through this conversation before here. You're already going down the wrong path. - 22:51:24 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- God hasn't shown himself, period, not to date anyway, LOL! - 22:52:21 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: I'm going down the wrong path in saying that we won't evolve? Call my crazy, but what makes you think that we will stop evolving? New species will derive from humans, it is inevitable. New species have derived from just about every species known to man(except of course new ones). How can I get the concept to you that God can't be comprehended by you or any other human? - 23:49:05 on 23 Aug 100 GMT

nancy:I just have to get this off my chest, I work with a bunch of idiots pandering and praying to a non-existent god. If they get what they want god answered their prays. If not god has a plan. How can anyone buy this crap. - 0:07:17 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, NANCY. This is just the place for venting. - 1:22:04 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:NANCY- How about telling them that it's in gods plan that they give you what ever you ask for. Let them argue with that. Like you, I'll never understand how people can delude themselves to that extent. - 1:25:51 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Did I not say we may evolve or...we may become totally extinct. My point is, we haven't physically evolved in the last 10,000 or more years and that includes our brains. Thoughts, of course are always changing or "evolving" if you want to use that word. - 1:28:34 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:"DAN"-- What was it I was supposed to give you credit for again? Your approach here? Sorry but it's bullshit. - 1:30:41 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- You tell me why this god can't be comprehended by a human. Humans are the ones that make these so called entities up. - 1:30:50 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Heya Marlene. How'd you get in there between my posts? - 1:32:05 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I dunno, maybe something to do with the string theory. - 1:35:19 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- How about you, you ever fill in the blanks with whatever lazy part of the brain decided to put there only to later make the brain work and correct the wrong answer? - 1:38:05 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- No, I figure whatever pops into my head must be true unless somebody can disprove it against my will. :-) - 1:42:27 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:One of the instances that has happened to me in the past....I was driving down the backroad here at night and out the window to my right just over the trees, I saw a red flashing light. It was so low, it looked as if it only just cleared the trees. I automatically thought it was some kind of plane or something so I stopped the car, got out and looked...nothing there. After thinking about it, there was no noise like there should have been from an aircraft and on my way home, I noticed the battery light flashing (ended up needing some repairs BTW). So after some thought on the incident, I likely saw a reflection of the light on the window I was looking out of. - 1:44:24 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Come on GRANT, Play the game, nothin else to do. - 1:45:32 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Grant: So its bullshit huh? Nice claim but I see no arguement. Alot of boasting(Marlene & Grant). Marlene obviously has nothing else to do so she treats it like a game. I really feel sorry for a 52 year old woman who has such hate inside of her. Kind of pitiful if you ask me. - 2:11:01 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DAN-- It's bullshit because you're not being straightforward. What have you got against being open with us? Can't you see that you've put us in the position where we have to view what you say with suspicion? Conversation is a two-way street. You have to offer us something too. - 2:58:09 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Grant: So you are being suspicious because you know that I am really an atheist and that I am trying to argue from a Christian point of view? - 3:05:22 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DAN-- I'm suspicious because you will not be open with me. - 3:08:15 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...the woman you love to hate:DAN- Your string theory isn't working, I'm not 52 and.. really..are you absolutely sure I'm a woman? I do think though that you're one of those bible thumper. Only they come up with the "hate" argument the minute someone disagrees with them. If you want to play the game and add some story in your life where your brain wasn't functioning to capacity, go head...oops, I see you already have entered a few things. Anyway, you're playing it right. - 4:10:59 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...Buzzzzzzzzz..you can get off your soapbox now:DAN- You're REALLY an atheist arguing from a christian point of view? Maybe Ian would believe that, lol! BTW, I have posted a few arguments to your weak ones, aren't you going to defend your position or are you just going to whine about me being hateful? Good thing you're not in the political arena, cry once and you're out of the game. - 4:16:40 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So "we" will evolve? Disregarding the religious POVs, what does the concept of evolution mean to you DAN? As you see it do it mean things improve via a process o'evolution; in time thing[s] get better? Do you hope that is true? Or, have you prayed and in a dream you were informed that, that was true? Will you be around to see or know that better, whatever? Or, are you here as prophet o'some kind? What do you see your presence and contribution here to be, good or bad, what stimulations do you bring here? - 16:05:08 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

HereWeGo!!!:... - 16:55:38 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: to continue the play against religion and racism to advocate the end of both, lets pretend-step into the quasi-idea both are at an end. What will become of the to do with the notions of faith and responsibility? The faith matter could not it be best placed in knowing better the human creature? Of responsibility instead of belief in mysticisms it would become real live, here and now belief in the responsible conduct and behavior of other people and knowledge of general matters related to existence? For example, there was the Diallo killing by armed police. Fear they are saying was a factor, more or less, in that killing. Fear, of what? Or, in another example there was the police killing of that female seated in her car in the So.CA area. They say things that perhaps could be attributed to a lack of response to authority by the now dead female; unsure. Well in a world w/out religious faith and belief and probably with violence and agression in it yet, what if the police force that is armed yet, is armed for a period of time when the human organism is itself at its healthiest state of being? That physically healthier state could be set at ages 25 - 35 during which time only, the police force could be armed. Why then? Perhaps it could argued or was found, they are healthy and physically sound and as such those selected to be armed would have no fears. The view could be at less than 25 mental stability is lacking, those older than 35 lack the physical wherewithal to still feel personally safe in certain situations. Any police member that kills takes on some other function. The point for this imaginative scenario, no more swearing in and oath taking on some nonsense holy scripture, it is just me or you telling true. - 17:32:41 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Fill in the blanks is bull shit. I have answered all of your questions. - 22:26:59 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:And I haven't cried bitch. You do all the bitching. Also you said you were 52 earlier. So who is the liar? You are just a hypocrit. Marlene, I have never seen you get in a debate, all you do is complain. Are you trying to make up for the lazy part...no wait...the whole part of your brain? LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL Now back to the substance... - 22:29:43 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl:OPEN: So "we" will evolve? ***Yes we will, most likely.*** Disregarding the religious POVs, what does the concept of evolution mean to you DAN? ***Evoloution means to be just what it is, the process by which through a series of changes or steps a living organism has acquired its distinguishing morphological and physiological characters.*** As you see it do it mean things improve via a process o'evolution; in time thing[s] get better? ***I sure hope it "do" mean things will improve. Nobody knows for sure.*** Do you hope that is true? **Yes*** Or, have you prayed and in a dream you were informed that, that was true? ***No, I have not. I have never based any of my actions on dreams. Prayer is a way to clear your mind, similar to meditation.*** Will you be around to see or know that better, whatever? ***No, I won't be around but I can tell you what will most likely happen*** Or, are you here as prophet o'some kind? ***No. Nice cheap shot.*** What do you see your presence and contribution here to be, good or bad, what stimulations do you bring here? *** I am trying to bring you a new understanding of what Christianity is.*** - 22:40:21 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:That "HereWeGo!!!" is sickening. Those are the people that make me sick. - 22:44:53 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:SICK I SAY SICK. - 22:58:48 on 24 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Do you believe everything you read on a discussion page too? LOL! Dan, leaving sites like the porno one...I think your days are numbered here. Again, you haven't responded to anything I posted. All you seem to want to do is whine about what a bitch I am. I truly think you're also known as Josh. Maybe this time you are exhibiting your real intelligence though. - 0:19:49 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- You haven't answered any of them, are my questions to hard for you. I'll ask again. If you're not here to discuss your claims, what in hell are you doing here. "You tell me why this god can't be comprehended by a human. Humans are the ones that make these so called entities up. - 1:30:50 on 24 Aug 100 GMT" - 0:24:04 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

- 0:31:58 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Ahem...a catalog of Marlene and Ian/Dan/Propitation... - 0:41:41 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Wait just a fucking minute, lets see your nice posts and me responding to your posts: Marlene...the woman you love to hate:DAN- Your string theory isn't working, I'm not 52 and.. really..are you absolutely sure I'm a woman? I do think though that you're one of those bible thumper. Only they come up with the "hate" argument the minute someone disagrees with them. If you want to play the game and add some story in your life where your brain wasn't functioning to capacity, go head...oops, I see you already have entered a few things. Anyway, you're playing it right. - 4:10:59 on 24 Aug 100 GMT ***Ok you admit to lying. First off I have no string theory dumbass.*** Marlene...Buzzzzzzzzz..you can get off your soapbox now:DAN- You're REALLY an atheist arguing from a christian point of view? Maybe Ian would believe that, lol! BTW, I have posted a few arguments to your weak ones, aren't you going to defend your position or are you just going to whine about me being hateful? Good thing you're not in the political arena, cry once and you're out of the game. - 4:16:40 on 24 Aug 100 GMT Dan:Grant: So you are being suspicious because you know that I am really an atheist and that I am trying to argue from a Christian point of view? - 3:05:22 on 24 Aug 100 GMT ***God damn, you are stupid. You ask me a question about something I already clearly stated.***Marlene:GRANT- I dunno, maybe something to do with the string theory. - 1:35:19 on 24 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:GRANT- How about you, you ever fill in the blanks with whatever lazy part of the brain decided to put there only to later make the brain work and correct the wrong answer? - 1:38:05 on 24 Aug 100 GMT ***No stubstance. Try to write an entry more than 10 characters.*** Marlene the Materialist:DAN- Is your god conscious, if so, how do you know? Has he physical attributes? Can you show me any physical evidence that your god exists? - 0:49:33 on 21 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:DAN- BTW, I promise not to insult you if you don't insult me. We'll see who breaks their promise first. - 0:52:22 on 21 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:DAN- I'm 50 and have acquired many things. What we acquire doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with intelligence. Why would you suggest that someone of low intelligence would think of this god as an entity. I'm sure there are many very intelligent people out there that believe the god of the bible is an entity. Although you can't possibly mean me as I'm atheist, you've just insulted a great many people....but I won't count that, the promise is between you and me. - 0:59:01 on 21 Aug 100 GMT ***Your answer*** Dan:Sensory perception: Feeling, Hearing, Seeing, ect...Thought you learned that in preschool. Guess not. - 1:39:16 on 21 Aug 100 GMT Dan:Perhaps I worded it wrong. I regard a persons' intelligence as a combination of what they are exposed to and their IQ or ability to evaluate data. There are many people with high IQs and open minds who have not been exposed to many concepts and ideas. They don't know about it, but they are still smart. - 1:42:30 on 21 Aug 100 GMT Dan:Physical evidence it seems is always wanted, but is not always needed. A vast majority of science has no proof but is based on what we already know and what can come from it. For example in Physics, the super string theory. There is no physical proof, it is just a theory based on what we already know. God is like this,it is impossible to prove him physically by current means, but based on what we see here on earth he probably does exist. - 1:46:26 on 21 Aug 100 GMT Marlene...row..row ..row:IAN- If you carry on like this, you'll likely end up paddling the other side of Betty's canoe. - 1:32:19 on 22 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:GRANT- Well, Ian will be number 100. He'll automatically know how to pick up the oar and start paddling as a result of the string theory. He'll also spend his life and maybe all the ones following being bombarded by the endless dogma of universal consciousness from the captain of the ship. - 2:56:56 on 22 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:Hey, I like that, Captain Betty Blye! - 2:59:42 on 22 Aug 100 GMT Marlene,,charming as ever, really I am:DAN?IAN? Whomever...do you go to school in Kansas? - 1:58:16 on 23 Aug 100 GMT Marlene..string along with me:DAN- Gee Dan, I seem to push your buttons just like I seemed to push Betty's, must be that universal consciousness thing at work, LOL! - 3:32:48 on 23 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:DOUG- I would wager that Dan/Ian/Betty/Josh (and I forget that other stupid name, are all the same idiot. There really can't be THAT many people with this particular "intelligence" out there. - 3:41:58 on 23 Aug 100 GMT Marlene:GRANT- Hasn't it been demonstrated that over the last six months this person lacks more than just class? - 3:45:58 on 23 Aug 100 GMT *** Now look at that shit….None of those posts are more than six fucking lines, how pathetic.*** Marlene:DAN- You tell me why this god can't be comprehended by a human. Humans are the ones that make these so called entities up. - 1:30:50 on 24 Aug 100 GMT ***Answered it earlier dumb fuck.*** Dan:God never shows himself in full. He only manifests himself on the level that his creation can understand. Jesus is a manifestation of God, not God himself, but a piece of him. Many of the "contradictions" in the bible are mearly just the evolving of the Hebrews' concept of God. Just because something is constantly changing doesn't make it a false idea. Science is always changing(that doesn't make the concept invalid), so humankind's understanding of God is also changing. God can't be explained rationally, for he is beyond ration. Don't ask me what is beyond ration...that we shall find out. Assuming the evoloution that we have undergone in the past 100 years, there is no reason that our brains can't develop into organs. The area of the brain that deals with mathematical computation in Einstein's brain was 30% large than in the average human. If such profound logic can come out of that small increase, could you imagine what could happen if you increased it by say 200%? Would the idea of logic crumble? How far can it go? - 1:23:56 on 23 Aug 100 GMT ***Thank you*** - 0:43:28 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- All that tantrum and still you haven't answered my question. Fitting. - 1:00:17 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW DAN- Absolutely no one reads those long posts, you wasted your time. - 1:08:44 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- "I'm 50 and have acquired many things", look like 52 to you? Don't you tire of making an ass of yourself, of course Josh and Betty didn't either so I guess that was a silly question, don't bother to answer that one. Not like you plan to, you haven't answered any others. - 1:11:33 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: Einstein also couldn't find his way around the block.Is your brain 30% smaller now? - 6:03:11 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: Now why do you opt to inscribe that "nobody knows" of the theory of evolution that it will improve? That is a creationist perspective of evolution. The creationist types say evolution is their godthing's worktool. As a godthing's worktool these folk have assumed, in whatever way they do, evolution is a tool to improve things. These views seem to typically have the outstanding distinction of also being anthropomorphic. What I've seen of such views is that they are easily rendered subservient to the creationist's godthing. That subservience they then claim as evidence of that godthing. That may rest well for the credulous minded individual, but only if one does not question where or what you mean when you say "nobody knows" what evolution will bring. As far as I can tell evolution has no concern with a prophesising of things to come. As an idea or word of how things are connected to the all, the term 'evolution' does it not merely encapsulate and convey an account of a things relation to an environment? Now where in that environment is or have you seen the xian godthing? - 16:30:54 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Gee, perhaps we will be or are witnesses to love, this DAN and MARLENE game. - 19:58:52 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl:DAN: Now why do you opt to inscribe that "nobody knows" of the theory of evolution that it will improve?***I never said nobody knows of the theory of evoloution, I said that it will most likely lead to better things.*** That is a creationist perspective of evolution. The creationist types say evolution is their godthing's worktool. As a godthing's worktool these folk have assumed, in whatever way they do, evolution is a tool to improve things. These views seem to typically have the outstanding distinction of also being anthropomorphic. What I've seen of such views is that they are easily rendered subservient to the creationist's godthing. That subservience they then claim as evidence of that godthing. That may rest well for the credulous minded individual, but only if one does not question where or what you mean when you say "nobody knows" what evolution will bring. As far as I can tell evolution has no concern with a prophesising of things to come.***I do not believe in creationism, it is a book of poetery, not science. I think it is quite the opposite, Science is connected to God*** As an idea or word of how things are connected to the all, the term 'evolution' does it not merely encapsulate and convey an account of a things relation to an environment? Now where in that environment is or have you seen the xian godthing?***Sigh. did you read my other post? I said baically that God can't be experienced in full on the basis of ration.(look at it for a more descriptive account). Sometimes I get the feeling that you Atheists do not read my posts and regard me as some creationist. You always claim that we Christians are closed minded, but you are being obviously closed minded.*** - 16:30:54 on 25 Aug 100 GMT - 21:49:24 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Doug: What is your source? Einstein was brilliant; no two ways to it. He saw no importance in regular everyday things(ie. counting money for the bus,ect.). If Einstein had placed values on regular everyday and material pleasures you wouldn't see the person you see now. - 21:53:59 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: I will no longer respond to your childish posts. It just occured to me that you probably some 9 year old little boy playing on your daddies computer. Such ignorance...what a waste of a human. - 21:58:28 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: Closed minds, I've never said that of your efforts here because you not said anything of any significance yet. But like others who seek to promote a philosophic idealism, to be fair I must inform you I simply reject your notion of a godthing. If you really are a religious xian then what I see you have accepted are the rhetorical tenets for that group of people. I am finding it more and more difficult to see that question in terms of "religious tenets". Its a rhetorical tenet. The latter is the sort of reference which seems more apllicable where or whenever the religious xians are concerned. That is also why it seems to you that we end up with closed minds, we is both sides of the fence. What it looks like you've come here bearing is merely a philosophic ideal for which you accept its rhetorical sponsorship; rhetoric as you apply it ought to be understood as a argument meant for deception. That is why you scurry about to squeek that the godthing can't be fully known. Or if not, where is that godthing? - 22:42:33 on 25 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: He had to be towed in every time he went sailing. Saturday Evening Post, I think.He also saw no intellegence in a personal deity. he thought only morons would buy that nonsense. - 1:03:01 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl. Can we agree that if there is a God,whatever it may be, is impossible for humans to comprehend? You don't have to agree that there is a God. - 1:06:55 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- No, Dan, you're not answering my questions because you can't. You can try to the "turn the table" thing all you want but the reality is you are afraid to get into an actual debate with me. Why is that Dan, do I remind you of a teacher you didn't like? - 1:44:53 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Joette:DAN - why would anyone waste time on something that is incomprehensible? Reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. - 1:48:43 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - thanks so much for your phone calls. I'm sorry I missed them. Can you e-mail me, as I seem to have misplaced your new address? (I had it on a little slip of paper that went missing after my nice hubby went on a cleaning frenzy) - 1:50:42 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Joette:GRANT/CARL - thanks for your well-wishes. I'm out of the hospital now and I'm hoping that I'll soon be back to my old ways of being a regular contributor to this site (provided the words aren't too big LOL!) - 1:53:07 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:HI JOETTE- Email is on the way. I think I have your right address. Let me know if you get it. - 2:52:50 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I have a feeling that Dan is just Josh. I haven't had any problems with anyone else here but him then all of a sudden along comes Betty, Jake, Ian, Dan who all refuse to get into a debate with me. I think I may remind Josh of a teacher that called his bluff or maybe even his mom. He seems to absolutely hate any woman who disagrees with him. - 2:58:22 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...:CARL- To make my point a little clear read this line of Dan's and try to remember where you've heard this before "If Einstein had placed values on regular everyday and material pleasures you wouldn't see the person you see now". - 3:01:35 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:FALL FASHION TIP: YOU JUST HAVE TO WEAR MAGNETS, DAAAHLING. The word this season... accesorize! There are just sooooo many delicious items: the Eclipse magnetic pendant, the Solar magna- ball bracelet, the Lyon Magnetic Ear Stud. Don't forget to sashay down to Florsheim for a pair of Magna-Force shoes (WN 11 AUG 00). And ladies - there's Lum magnetic lipstick for the perfect effulgence! Men: just a touch of Essential 7 magnetic fragrance - remember, less is more! Now, just one more item to complete the outfit: Gary Null's unisex magnetic underwear. It "penetrates the prostate, colon, ovaries, uterus and reproductive organs." (Probably not all on the same person.) Advertisers for magnetic products say they're effective because the pineal gland is a "magnetic engine." Fine, so put the shorts where they can do the most good - on your head. That way the rest of us will know who you are. Just another WN style tip. Ta Ta! - 3:54:15 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:MARLENE: WHAT QUESTION HAVE I NOT ANSWERED MARLENE? TELL ME RIGHT NOW AND I WILL ANSWERE IT AND PUT ALL YOUR BULL SHIT TO REST. AND MAGNETS AREN'T THE NEW FASHION. - 4:33:39 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: I actually had a very good relationship with my mom and never had a bad female teacher. I just hate slimey bitches like you. If you wish to debate I shall do that(it is what I have been trying to do). I have posted several messages but I do not get any response except "That's stupid. He is an idiot." - 4:36:52 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Also I am not Josh. You seem a little parinoid. - 4:39:14 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..giving it one more effort:DAN- I have yet to say you are stupid but when you call me a slimey bitch then I would have to say you're acting like a total idiot. You have yet to ask me a question, read back. Your whole concentation has been on trying to put me down because you hate me so much. The idiocy of this is, you don't even know me enough to hate me. I haven't even insulted you a quarter as much as others here have. What IS your problem? I asked you and now for the third time "why do you think that god is not possible for a human to comprehend?" - 4:48:25 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- You're the one with the defensive disposition, why are you so paranoid? - 4:50:32 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:OK. Marlene,this is no fun. I won't say anything bad about you if you don't say anything bad about me. Your question:"why do you think that god is not possible for a human to comprhend". Well, if we think about the concept of a God it becomes clear that it must be very magnificient. God I believe is not able to be comprehended by humans. That is what sets God apart from humans. - 15:41:30 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- But if we think of such a concept that may be beyond our ability to understand then maybe and most probably that concept is not objectively real. What would the difference be between the concept of god or the concept of the blue fairy. Like the example I posted before, our minds are capable of all types of wierd concepts but when tested, these concepts prove to be false. - 17:49:33 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:DAN-- It is not enough to simply restate your conclusions. You are being asked to offer some substantiation for them. Why is what seems to you to be true any more significant than what seems to be true to countless others with quite different conclusions? "If there is a god, he must be complex (or magnificent or beyond comprehension), therefor God is complex (etc.)" is a presuppositional, circular, simplistic, and ultimately meaningless statement. - 17:50:05 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Again we are here at the same time. Do you suppose it's Sheldrake's "morphic resonance"? - 17:53:18 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--Mighty Morphic Power Ranger--:GRANT: Or Jung's "synchronicity"? Or celestial symmetry? How about harmonic convergence? Fate? Providence? Good luck? Karma? Destiny? Or did it just *happen*? - 18:47:04 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Could be, lol! I won't even mention the ST, yikes! - 18:48:13 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- And just maybe the magnets! - 18:49:05 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Grant: Propheting, er.., profiting from metaphysical vacancy :YA'LL-- Why is there no religious philosophy touting coincidence? In self-help sections of bookstores one does not find such titles as _The Power of Coincidence_, or _How to Profit From Unanticipated Random Meaningless Occurances_. I think there may be opportunity here. - 19:15:35 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:YOUR GREATNESS GRANT- Let me know when you publish your book or when you put the magnetic fridge crystal on the market. - 19:27:00 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: Sheldrake!!! AAAHHHHHH!!!! no, no, anything but Sheldrake again.DAN:"God I believe is not able to be comprehended by humans. That is what sets God apart from humans" and yet they know so much about him(he has gender?)"***" very magnificient"= a code word for ignorance of the unknown, superstition,etc. - 19:42:17 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Exactly the reason I am an atheist. - 20:46:11 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:It is clear that there is no God. Let's define atheism. Nobody is wrong since we will all have differing views on this subject. Just tell me a bit about your life and what you try to do(even if it is nothing). Thanks. - 20:57:16 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene...:IAN- Atheism is a lack of belief in god, gods, goddesses. I'm also an atheist that does not accept the supernatural. I'm not an atheist who spread the ungodly word, only theists do this. If someone asks me why I don't believe, I will tell them otherwise I don't go out of my way to try to make the believers, unbelievers. - 21:04:57 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Unless, of course, they try to tell me that I "should" accept their beliefs and I will then tell them why I will not and can not. - 21:06:40 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:IAN-- That's not enough either. WHAT exactly is the reason you are atheist? Because it feels right to you? Have you substituted one gut level belief for another? Are you doing a sock puppet thing with Dan and Ian puppets? Did you sew on little eyebrows and everything? - 21:06:45 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I have to agree, NOT SHELDRAKE!!!!!! I really had to LOL when Stenger mentioned that he was mentioned on the same webage as Sheldrake as good scientists. - 21:09:07 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Grant: You go through alot of trouble to judge me. I am an atheist because there is no proof that God exists. Now answer my question. - 23:37:10 on 26 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:IAN-- You ask for more than you offer. - 0:12:48 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--touched by an angle--:GRANT: Actually, miracles are exactly the 'philosophy' you're looking for; take one part unanticipated random occurrence, two parts math anxiety, add a pinch of retroactive prayer, a dash of victimization, and bake in hopeful ignorance until soft and tender. Serves millions. - 2:52:41 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Ian:Grant: Thanks. - 2:58:32 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- A good atheist refers to "the god" with a capital Y if he or she wants to use a proper name. Zeus for instance is a god. It's kind of like "the witch" or The Wicked Witch of the East. - 4:25:32 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Grant (Into the recipe box) :Damn, that was good, JAYWILSON. - 13:30:51 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--singing those Cordon Bleus--:GRANT: Merci. And what will Monsieur have for dessert? - 16:12:47 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Hello - I ran across this website and thought I'd ask if posting is open to the public. I would be very interested to join your conversation. I am an atheist - and also webmaster of the Official Messiah Mickey homepage. I'll put the URL in below. - 19:33:11 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:You people tend to equate God with a magical fairy. When I postulate the existance of God, it is completely different than that of some magical being which simply does not exist. If God does not exist then why do we have emotions? Did we just come from nothing but random mutations? I find that very unlikely. - 19:40:33 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Dan - just because you find something unlikely doesn't mean it is. First of all, you misunderstand evolution - it is not random. We know that emotions are the result of biological processes, and we know that biological processes are the result of evolution. With what part of that do you have a problem? Second, you are presupposing the existence of your god! Read your second sentence! You are saying, basically, 'When I think about God, I think about one that EXISTS, unlike all those other things that don't...' Very nice. Define YOUR god as one that EXISTS....that'll get the unbelievers for sure. - 20:29:17 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Welcome, JOHN. Got a few laughs from your webpage. - 22:07:30 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:HELLO JOHN and Welcome. I like your webpage too. - 22:37:47 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:HELLO JOHN and Welcome. I like your webpage too. - 22:38:10 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Yikes, I didn't mean to post that twice. For some reason the add button didn't seem to work at this end. - 22:40:02 on 27 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Yes I do equate god with a magical fairy. Both are but entities of our imaginations. Why do you think emotions have to have some supernatural root? - 0:50:01 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: You seem to think that the personal God is the only God that exists. God is not personal;it is not an entity. - 3:02:39 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:John Matney:Dan - just because you find something unlikely doesn't mean it is. First of all, you misunderstand evolution - it is not random. We know that emotions are the result of biological processes, and we know that biological processes are the result of evolution. With what part of that do you have a problem?***I have no problem with that. I believe in evoloution. All means lead to an end which is actually means which then leads to another end.(and so on and so forth). Emotions are the result of evoloution as you said but where did evoloution come from? How did something, humans, come from nothing and be able then to reflect on themselves and the universe? You atheists seem to yearn for the truth, the truth that you believe God does not exist but you can't pin down the truth that makes you yearn for the truth.*** Second, you are presupposing the existence of your god! Read your second sentence! You are saying, basically, 'When I think about God, I think about one that EXISTS, unlike all those other things that don't...' Very nice. Define YOUR god as one that EXISTS....that'll get the unbelievers for sure.*** My sentence says this "When I postulate the existance of God, it is completely different than that of some magical being which simply does not exist." I told you what God was not, which is some magical fairy that does not exist that Marlene equated God to.***- 20:29:17 on 27 Aug 100 GMT Good try mouse idiot. - 3:18:39 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Grant :DANSOCKPUPPETEER-- This is kid stuff. Get Howdy Doody a library card (Do your lips move when he reads?), and get one for yourself. - 3:33:11 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Yes. I already have puppets and all. HAR HAR HAR HAR - 3:55:22 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Dan - Where does evolution come from? God? No, they are a consequence of the natural laws that govern our universe. Where do those come from? From the way the universe unfolded in the first instances of the universe. Where did these primary conditions come from? Now THERE'S the question worth asking. Everything else has a naturalistic explanation. How is your God different than "some magical being that doesn't exist", besides that you believe that it does exist? Please explain why what you 'postulate' has to exist. After all, if it is just your postulation, and it doesn't have to exist, why should I pay any attention to your idea?
Mouse idiot? Can we say 'ad hominem'? - 4:11:42 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Ach! Kein HTML! By the way, everyone is welcome to join my guestbook discussion on my Website. Just go to Letters, then Testimonials. There is currently a running argument between two atheists, a Christian, and a Muslim. Much fun to be had. - 4:16:08 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

BORN LIBERAL:I would like to invite you atheists to debate God at BORN LIBERALs, ALL GOD'S CHILDREN Message Board. My site requires a Username/Password. You can get that by e.mailing me at; born_liberal@usa.com Tell me what Username you would like to use & I will send you a password. My God site is more a search for the Gods, and all religous persuasions are welcome, including all you folks. I thought it would be interesting to see the some of the debates. Thanks! - 8:04:03 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: Most cosmologists and astro physicists don't have a problem with the universe arising out of nothing. It has been in the mathamatical theories for years. So why the spoiled grapes about there being no supernatural and all the hard evidence backing it up? - 8:07:06 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

RON...--->ALL:Again I find myself married and waiting for our latest child birth. My new wife, "Lori", and me have had our first touchy-feely conversation on Baptisms. Lori comes from a catholic background but now considers herself closer to Buddist. Of course, you guys know my stance...I don't want to have my third child's soul promised to an idiotic concept. I need help presenting my point without pissing off my new wife. BACKGROUND: None of my other children are dipped in holy water nor promised to Santa Claus. BTW..Hi everyone! It's me...the RON of old. The Nephilim are still out there!! - 14:22:24 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:J.MATNEY: You are not playing fair at all! To point out the simplicity of the non-random process, well, won't that also invite the Socratic question,"When will there be more chance of deception- when the difference is large or small?" The self-proclaimed xian DAN, he seems to have chosen to place himself just outside of self-indentifying, clearly imagines that there must be something there overlooking the fish-bowl we are in. The fish-bowl scenario is about the only image I can use that would account for the irrational explanation he clings to that there could an unknowable something somewhere interested in the well being of his guppiness. He has sed, he got a phd.in something, if true then he's no stranger to some measure of thought processing. In that regard would DAN have somehow come to a conclusion that probability is better than truth? Apparently so as his query to me of the possibility of there being an unknowable something, surely suggests. - 15:44:24 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:A PhD means nothing in itself...You can buy a PhD for $30. I'm not suggesting that Dan DID do that, but it would sure be nice to know his subject area and Alma Mater. - 16:49:53 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

RON---...hmmm: Can't wait to visit BORN LIBERAL's site. Let's see...I want to be know ass..., King Author, Rose Marie, Nephilim Spawn, no..uh, er, Species 0001. Yeah, thats it! - 18:17:02 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

RON...--Dan...: Gawd is a magical fairy. I equate gawd with Exxon, Little Debbie and lyposuction...mere products packaged for our consumption that we really don't need. - 18:20:28 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:John Matney:Dan - Where does evolution come from? God? No, they are a consequence of the natural laws that govern our universe. Where do those come from? From the way the universe unfolded in the first instances of the universe. Where did these primary conditions come from? Now THERE'S the question worth asking. ***Ah ha! You seem to get my drift. I said this earlier but you must not have caught on. Let me try to say it more simple. Everytime you discover something, it leads to a new question. This cycle doesn't end IF we continue to use ration. We are robbing ourselves mentally if we think only on the basis of facts. I will try to elaborate on this topic in a post later*** Everything else has a naturalistic explanation. How is your God different than "some magical being that doesn't exist", besides that you believe that it does exist?***God is not a magical being. It is impossible for me to describe God or explain him because first I don't know him and also he is beyond ration.*** Please explain why what you 'postulate' has to exist.***There is a end to all means*** After all, if it is just your postulation, and it doesn't have to exist***So since I postulate it, it can't exist? Nice logic!***, why should I pay any attention to your idea?***I never said you should. This IS a discussion board.***
Mouse idiot? Can we say 'ad hominem'? - 4:11:42 on 28 Aug 100 GM - 19:39:01 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Science as we know is based on facts and how they relate. Facts are gained through observation. The level of these observations changes as mankind advances. For example Newton explained physics as it involves practical objects here on earth. He wasn't wrong in his theories but he did miss alot. So then Einstein comes along with more data and is able to postulate new theories. Note that Newton was not wrong but only he lacked the data. Newton saw certain observations but did not see the entire picture(nobody has seen that). What we observe using scientific data and our world around us leads to the conclusion that God clearly does not exist. We CAN'T think that current scientific data is the "end". Like I have said every scientific discovery leads to questions. The "end" is God. Do not ask me what the "end" or God is because I do not know what it is. It is like 22/7; it exists but can't be observed in perfect reality using reason. God is defined by the dictionary as the ulitmate reality. - 19:56:18 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl: I ask you to ignore your bias. You think that I think God looks over us like a fishbowl? Where did I say that? Is that a concept you would like to relate to me? It is not so my friend. God does not look over us like a fishbowl or anything remotely similar to that idea. - 19:59:20 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- How do you know that god doesn't look over us like we're fish in a bowl. Also if god is not an entity then why are you personalizing by using "he"? Even "it" suggests something of substance. - 21:12:52 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Dan: There are facts. There are interpretations of facts. Interpretation of facts is and must be a rational endevour to make any sense. The fact which you interpret as the evidence for god is that the beginning of the universe is unexplainable by modern science. But what about God? I'm sure you've heard this before: how did God originate? He didn't, you say, as if EVERYONE should know that, after all you defined him that way, I'll bet. Do you have an example of another entity which is eternal? If you think that God is not an understandable being, can he hold us, rational beings (presumably by his own creation), responsible for not believing in him? I would be very interested to know your actual religious beliefs, besides that God exists (which, really, I have no problem with in principle; it is the extention of those ideas to ethics, science, etc that I think is unreasonable). Are you a Christian? God is untestable. We know that, you know that, so why believe in an untestable hypothesis? - 21:18:57 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Marlene: He she it, you get the point. - 22:35:45 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

natasha:i feel that people need god as a form of stability in their lives, and moral ethics to live by. to these people i say get a grip. what is the knowledge of god and jesus based on? the only book in the world with no references, virgin births - need i say more!? i cant prove that there is no god - but can you prove there is? no. man is man made. beliefe in god is like beliefe in the tooth fairy. - 22:36:26 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: Lets allow the god-hypothesis some slack. You say you stand in favor of the xian godthing. In that case it gives you a heaven in which to exist after your physical death and so on, this "experience" is so fantastic that all a xian-religious adherent can say is that to be in the presence of that godthing for eternity is the ultimate end-all. Hmmm? Gotta' reject that xian godthing prospect completely. I can think of at least one thing better than being just party to, only a participant of some stoneage idea of a godthing, which is what the xian idea is! That is not for me. So you might can understand my outright rejection of such nonsense consider my imagination of a loving caring god. My own idea of a god is of a god that surely must love and want for me at the very least what my biological parents want for me, which was not less than what they had and knew, they told me they wanted me to be more than they ever were, so that god "My God" would make me into a greater god than it ever was[past tense]. And, best of all, that would please it for all eternity. How about that DAN? - 22:45:47 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:John Matney:Dan: There are facts. There are interpretations of facts. Interpretation of facts is and must be a rational endevour to make any sense. The fact which you interpret as the evidence for god is that the beginning of the universe is unexplainable by modern science.*** I have never interpreted the beginning of the universe as evidence of God; I used it as an example to show the means/ends concept of science.*** But what about God? I'm sure you've heard this before: how did God originate? He didn't, you say, as if EVERYONE should know that, after all you defined him that way, I'll bet. Do you have an example of another entity which is eternal?***God is not an entity and the word eternal is not valid when describing God.*** If you think that God is not an understandable being, can he hold us, rational beings (presumably by his own creation), responsible for not believing in him? *** No he can't and he doesn't.***I would be very interested to know your actual religious beliefs, besides that God exists (which, really, I have no problem with in principle; it is the extention of those ideas to ethics, science, etc that I think is unreasonable). Are you a Christian?***Yes I am a christian. Scroll up; I have posted many messages.*** God is untestable. We know that, you know that, so why believe in an untestable hypothesis?***Just because something is untestable, does not disprove its likelyness. For example, there is no physical, or rational proof that superstrings exist. I am not out to disprove the superstring theory(I actually believe in it). God is this way also. Just because something can't be found by the human mind doesn't disprove it's existance. Look at form rather than substance.*** - 21:18:57 on 28 Aug 100 GMT - 23:06:14 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl: This is an easy one and a common problem among atheists. Let me describe it. I'm looking here at the famous John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him MAY not perish but MAY have eternal life." Now we can reflect on this meaning that we will go to heaven and live there forever. This would be more of a hell than heaven to be aware for eternity wouldn't it? It would appear so, *************BUT*********Lets turn to John 17:3. "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Ah ha!!!!!!!!!!!!! So eternal life DOES NOT mean to live forever in heaven but to KNOW GOD. Very intersting. - 23:15:47 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Natasha: When you graduate from 2nd grade come back. OK? - 23:21:36 on 28 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan:"It is not so my friend. God does not look over us like a fishbowl or anything remotely similar to that idea."**** How do you come by that. You were stating earlier that god is unknowable. I'll tell you what we know: It's all man made and them's the bare facts. There isn't one shread of evidence that deity exists outside of the fictional. - 0:40:18 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:NATASHA- Welcome and I couldn't agree more. - 0:47:59 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:OK. I can tell you that God is not supernatural in the sense that he looks over us like a fish bowl. I am not aiming to prove God's existance with physical proof. It is like trying to graph an equation on a scientific calculator. As I have said before God is beyond ration. I ask your mind to look beyond the facts and their relationship. There is always uncertainity with anything we think or do. I have already explained this topic, please read back and give me your imput on that idea. Thx. - 0:49:00 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- I get the point? No I don't. You claim god is not an entity so why are you personalizing your god? Also I asked, how do you know that your god doesn't look at us like we are fish in a bowl? You agreed to answer some questions here. Just claiming these things are not enough. - 0:53:03 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- If god is way beyond ration then only very irrational people can comprehend god, is that what you're saying? - 0:56:29 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, NATASHA. Don't listen to the Dan poster. He's going through a phase. - 1:40:31 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: I think we have a break through;"beyond ration" yes we all agree it's irrational. Yes, Dan "I ask your mind to look beyond the facts and their relationship" such as; people transcend the quantum strings of photon being and frequency. Wow! Dan, (Doug's, jumping up and down getting hyper) it's so easy when you use word salad and irrationality. - 2:14:39 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: How about powerful aliens who might seem "godlike" (what ever the f--k that is).You know like Tralfamadorians. Time tripping throughout the universe. "Hello. Farewell. Hello. Farewell." ****"Time travel's a bitch for you, isn't it? - 2:26:56 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: or how about:ACQUIRED SYNESTHESIA... is classically seen in temporal lobe epilepsy, head trauma, and mass lesions affecting the medial temporal lobe. Synesthesia may also be induced by sensory deprivation, antiserotonergic hallucinogens such as LSD and peyote, or direct electrical stimulation of subcortical limbic structures. Epileptic synesthesia is a good example of acquired synesthesia; it occurs in 4% of temporal lobe seizures and seems due to the actual electric discharge. Visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory (and, much less often, olfactory) sensations may combine with visceral sensations, vertigo, and involuntary movement, as in these 3 examples: A taste of bile, tingling in the left wrist, twitching of the left corner of the mouth, and muscular contractions on the left side of the body A lump in the throat, mouth & tongue movements, flashing lights in the right upper fields, a bitter taste Hearing the word "five," seeing the number "5" projected externally on a gray background, shooting pains in the right side of the face. - 4:12:10 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:I think Dan has successfully shown that there is no reason to continue this thread of conversation. He does not use reason to know god - we feel that reason is the only way to know something. Sorry, Dan; all that can be exchanged are insults. I propose another topic, for the atheists (this is "Atheist discussion", yes?). Do your friends know you are an atheist? Do you think it is important to tell people? - 5:21:08 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

RON--->....Poor DAN...:He's taking quite a pounding. Go easy guys, Dan has only been exposed to one paradigm. Give him some room to grow. - 11:27:27 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Kelly:Hello all; I just discovered this web site, while doing a search on the 'historical Jesus' topic. I won't bring that up again, it looked like it was discussed here back in February... But it looks like I picked a good time to jump in, since John Matney is suggesting a new topic. Do my friends know I'm atheist? Yes, I tell everybody now. I think it is important to tell people. I only started calling myself an atheist a few years ago. It was probably prompted by the death of my mom; we were very close, and if there was any way she could, in some hypothetical 'afterlife', contact me and let me know that she was ok, then she would have. Of course she didn't, and I just have my memories and dreams. As a youth, I tried Christianity, and my conclusion was that my experience was exactly the same as if there were no god at all, therefore there was no god. As to the original question--yes, I tell friends that I'm an atheist, and I've had some rather rude responses. I have to run off to a meeting, so I'll leave those stories for later! BTW, I'm a guy, if my name causes any confusion - 13:27:52 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Kelly:Hello all; I just discovered this web site, while doing a search on the 'historical Jesus' topic. I won't bring that up again, it looked like it was discussed here back in February... But it looks like I picked a good time to jump in, since John Matney is suggesting a new topic. Do my friends know I'm atheist? Yes, I tell everybody now. I think it is important to tell people. I only started calling myself an atheist a few years ago. It was probably prompted by the death of my mom; we were very close, and if there was any way she could, in some hypothetical 'afterlife', contact me and let me know that she was ok, then she would have. Of course she didn't, and I just have my memories and dreams. As a youth, I tried Christianity, and my conclusion was that my experience was exactly the same as if there were no god at all, therefore there was no god. As to the original question--yes, I tell friends that I'm an atheist, and I've had some rather rude responses. I have to run off to a meeting, so I'll leave those stories for later! BTW, I'm a guy, if my name causes any confusion - 13:28:13 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Kelly:Hello, I can't seem to post on this web page! When I hit 'Add' I get an error message web page. What's wrong? - 13:29:26 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Kelly:Sorry for posting twice there, but it did seem to be working, I was just getting an error message page instead of the updated page. Carry on! - 13:30:29 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Grant:Hello KELLY. We're having difficulties with the hosting service. It seems to happen periodically each time their system capacity gets maxed out. I suggest opening two browser windows. Use one for posting, and the other for checking for new posts, looking at old posts, and checking to see if your post went through. We're using a humble, quirky, antiquated CGI script here, but we like the non-threaded format. - 13:44:46 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:HELLO KELLY, welcome. - 13:56:52 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I agree, Dan seems to be at a loss when it comes to answering questions. Yes I do tell anyone I meet that I'm an atheist (if asked, of course or if they use phrases like "it's up to him"). I've had some fairly weird looks but no one yet has tried to argue their claims outright. - 13:59:30 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Kelly:Yes, this is a fairly readable format... Some of the responses I've had. "Why are you an atheist?" said in a very shocked voice. I was telling a woman friend about a nice young woman I know, that I would like to date, except that the young woman is a very serious and devout Catholic. My 'friend' replied "Well, this is your chance to change and grow!" That friend is no longer a friend. The funniest comment was from a young boy who lives in my neighborhood, and goes for walks with me when I walk my dog. Somehow the subject came up--I think we had been talking about UFO's and I asked him "do you believe in UFO's?" and he said yes and asked me right away "do you believe in god?" when I said no, his immediate reply was "well, god's going to kill you!" He said that is what his mother tells him will happen if he doesn't believe in god. Yikes. - 14:38:15 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: Perhaps it is your own misunderstanding of the given simple example of "imagination", one is mine and the other is the one you opt to prefer. You don't know who composed that clever rhetorical device/passage, of that alone you would be a liar if you say in anyway that you know the composer. All you seek here DAN is the acceptance of others so that you can inscribe of or about some godthing. Besides I don't want to merely know some godthing[s] I want to be a god without equal. There is now no xian godthing, never was and never will be. The closest thing to that idea are the regularly appearing clever bits of writing which keep that idea before people- dimwits, such as the poll now on CNN. The poll query at this time is whether or not the religious can help in the world peace process, or, should the religious just offer some moral whatever. This kind of writing will but keep the godthing idea in the minds of the dimwitted human organism. That was not any kind of choice, it is merely a rhetorical question. The dimwits clamber to respond. - 14:51:20 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Yes, I went to my familty reunion recently and when religion came up, it was quite a big deal. I felt moderately unconfortable, of course - everyone thinks it is their duty to get me to heaven. Or it's just a phase. The thing that really got me was that they blamed my father, a former fundamentalist minister, for my atheism. My father has always given me a foundation of free thought and inquiry, and, as is fitting, eventually left the Christian faith. My father is their brother - and it makes me very mad that they blame him. Oh well. Maybe I'll "change and grow".... - 16:50:14 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- Most religions take all responsibility away from the individual and place it on the deity or his/her evil twin deity whether it be virtues or vices. Wouldn't it be either god's will or satan's will that you've turned out the way you have, not your father's? - 19:02:33 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:KELLY- Ron believes in UFO's. Ask him about the N's. - 19:04:31 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Are you still there? I'm waiting for some answers. - 19:05:19 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene - I would say so, but of course religious people only play that game when it is convenient. They may be irrational, but they very often change their ideas to suit them. In that case, it does no good to blame Satan, because if they can blame my father, MAYBE I'll agree and see their way. If they blamed Satan, I would just laugh. And religious people seldom blame God for bad things - see the "Free Will defense" and others. I don't pretend to understand why they think what they do - but for the most part, I understand what they think. Scary to think I was one of them once. - 19:08:08 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan-in shock of doug's post:Doug: Beyond ration is not irrational; before ration is irration. I have never tried to discredit the super string theory, or anything such as that. What do you mean by "people transcend the quantum strings of photon being and frequency". Please elaborate. God is not an alien. You seem to be throwing around sarcastic insults. Perhaps this is due in fact that you can't argue? I don't know, but you seem mad. Please calm down, I bid you no harm. - 19:29:49 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl: I couldn't help observing the lack of substance in everybodies' post since mine(Carl, Doug,and Ron). Perhaps it is my fault. If this is so, PLEASE point out to me what problems you have with what I am saying. Thank you. More on Carl's post...You said that I am here to seek acceptance. I am here to discuss, and debate. Also you said that the xian God doesn't exist. - 19:36:39 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: If the xian godthing exists, where is it now, end the matter tell or show where it is. - 19:45:43 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:I seem to have failed in passing across this concept(perhaps due to readers?). I have took it mainly from Einstein's Religion and Science seminar. Doug: How can you be sure of anything(remember the uncertainty principle?)? - 19:49:32 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: Show anyone where the xian godthing is and there will be no problem. You can't, all you want is a license to ramble on about something of your imagination. - 19:50:02 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl: Frankly I am not sure of the location or God and I seriously doubt that it exists in our current 4 dimension universe. The location of God is not important, it's the concept. The location of many things are uncertain, its the existance that you must look at. - 19:55:03 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Carl: Frankly I am not sure of the location or God and I seriously doubt that it exists in our current 4 dimension universe. The location of God is not important, it's the concept. The location of many things are uncertain, its the existance that you must look at. - 19:55:04 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Woops - 19:55:47 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: Reading Einstein stuff no more validates you and your position for an imaginary godthing, than does you reading and recounting here the biblical collection of myths and superstitions. It is still just you here where you seek affirmations from others. If your godthing was real in anyway outside of you, you would not need us few here nor anyone else. You are only some guy looking for exciting company. You've long since grown bored by the typical sheep minded- other religious adherents, individuals as here you can live excitedly and be really mentally alive. Where is "your" godthing? - 20:03:45 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan-wondering if Carl reads his posts:I have never expressed my beliefs as being superstitions, your on bias there again. I have got anything but affirmations here. I do not know God's reasoning(it is not that anyway) of why we are here. How can you say that I am looking for "exciting company"? I only wish to debate. I could say the same about you wanting to be in "exciting company". I do get bored with your typical Christians, but there are some I converse with. You ask where is my God? I already answered; please express your qualms with an answer. Sometimes I seriously wonder if you read my posts at all Carl. - 20:20:17 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: I seek to establish that you have no point, no topic to debate. You are here only to ramble on matters of your own imagination. You have no object for discussion, forget a debate. If no godthing and you must know this since you don't know it can't say where it is or anything, why are you here? - 20:29:13 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: "Bias" thats just a gimmick word for you to cling to some shred of possible discussion. No bias, again I simply reject all that you could seek to inscribe for a godthing. If however, you want to play at something else, name it. - 21:10:15 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--belated welcomes to :JOHN and KELLY: Nice to have you both aboard. Kelly, as a long-time atheist--over twenty years--I've never felt the need to declare my lack of religion. Frankly, the time is never quite appropriate, and, as I tell my students (BTW, as part of my job I teach a high school English class in the Bible as Literature), I'm interested in what you _know_ and what you _think_, not in what you _believe_. That clears the way for more polite and fruitful discussion--save the heated debate for the bars and tent revivals, where it belongs. - 21:28:06 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Carl: I think that you are asking something Dan cannot provide, of course. "Evidence" is something you give for a RATIONAL position. By his own admission, his postulations are 'beyond' (whatever that means) reason ('ration'?). He is using words that have no definition ('irration'). He has talked about things that really have nothing to do with God, as if they did (string theory, Einstein). Dan: If you didn't think that your position was reasonable, you wouldn't try to convince us of it, right? If it is a REASONABLE thing to believe, how can it be 'beyond' reason? Come on. Either construct a rational argument, provide evidence, or admit that you can't. It is very simple. Don't talk about our 'lack of substance', you seem to be the master of THAT game. - 21:54:49 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Oh, and thanks for the welcome, jaywilson. - 21:55:38 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:J.MATNEY: Actually I had a totally engaging chat w/DAN. DAN just didn't see it that way at all. - 22:39:11 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: What do you mean by "people transcend the quantum strings of photon being and frequency". pretty snazy, sounds like your Theist word salad. "God is not an alien". prove it Dan; it has more rationality than your supernatural bunk. I'm not knocking the super string theory only your missguided interpretation of Hawking's non-singularity. - 23:16:56 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

DAN- You have yet to answer my questions but anyway...if I said..."Frankly I am not sure of the location of the Pink Unicorn and I seriously doubt that it exists in our current 4 dimension universe. The location of the Pink Unicorn is not important, it's the concept. The location of many things are uncertain, its the existance that you must look at."....would you accept that the Pink Unicorn exists? - 23:52:00 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:Sorry DAN that last post was from me. - 23:52:49 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene..had to read it twice to get the drift:DOUG- I thought that was quite snazy myself, lol! - 23:56:31 on 29 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Sigh...You are as closed minded as the fundamentalists you despise. You have yet to grasp that I am postulating something beyond ration and ask me to rationally prove that there is something beyond ration. Well...sorry I can't do that. Not everything requires proof. You seem to be bent on the obsession of location, as if it were proof. - 2:21:32 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Doug: On your propisition of me proving that God is not some green alien I reply this way :))))***Mile wide grin*** This doesn't apply to me because, as I said, God cannot be proved by ration. Often times when atheists' ask for proof of God I wonder what you really want. Would you like to see some magical being float down from the sky? Anyhow back to the point of proving that God is NOT an alien. ****************PROVING A NEGATIVE - (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963) "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted - 2:24:26 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Also a "Pink Unicorn" is totally different that God. - 2:27:51 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Dan - Why do you insist on arguing if you can give us no reason to believe you? I'm bot asking for proof now. Please, one reason. Just one. Anything. Anybody can postulate things, but WHY should we believe you? The question is very simple. Should someone believe something without ANY REASON? I assume you came to your belief because of something - some reason - maybe if you tell us why you started to believe what you believe, we could relate. - 2:50:05 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:John Matney: I am using reason. Read my previous posts. I describe how God is the end of all means, ect., ect.. If you venture into saying that this is the extent of the awareness of a living being then I have shame on you, for we will evolve. Our brains will evolve if we put a reasonable amount of stress in stimulating them, then will come a better understanding. I am very tired at the moment and do not wish to discuss this topic in depth. I can't do it justice in this little space. Do not fear! I will get back with you tomorrow. - 3:13:51 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- It's kind of customary here to address those people you wish to respond to. I'm assuming the "Also a "Pink Unicorn" is totally different that God" was meant for me. Why would my PU be totally different than your god? - 3:14:28 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: yet you still haven't presented evidence nor evidence that "God cannot be proved by ration". *****Touché:PROVING A NEGATIVE - (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963) "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted ********Deity a half baked idea!!LOL - 5:25:19 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: In one breath it's the old "God cannot be proved by ration[alization]" then in the next reams of descriptive data: from where? So goes the illogic of the supernaturalist. "beyond the rational", Dan is confusing his dreams with hard data. He can't explain how he arrives at his massive amounts of data. But since when does that stop a theist. - 5:31:55 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan FALSE and are you the claiming a PHD, (piled higher and deeper, Mack)!!!"Our brains will evolve if we put a reasonable amount of stress in stimulating them" a very Lamarckism view. Lamarckism:so-called Lamarckian ideas don't work. Suppose an animal, or a human being, learns a difficult task; or develops unusually thick skin owing to continuous exertion. Lamarckism requires that the offspring should benefit from those changes, without exerting themselves. Today we know that what each parent passes on to the young is a set of genes. The genes influence development, and all aspects of bodily function. Lamarckism requires that the genes must be changed, must mutate, to reflect the improved performance of the parents. This doesn't match what we know about genes, or about the effects of breeding. Because, in fact, whatever happens during development, or in the adult, the genes nearly always remain unchanged. During development, each cell of the body acquires a nucleus with a set of chromosomes. The chromosomes are duplicates of the set in the original fertilised egg. The usual textbook picture has been that each chromosome consists entirely of a necklace of genes, arranged in a fixed order. For many purposes, this fairly simple picture is accurate. If it were not accurate, the science of genetics could hardly exist. *********Stick to your pseudoscience you can make it up as you go. LOL!!!!! - 5:44:47 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: Explain how your deity made it self know to you and how you found out all this information about this so called unknowable creature that has never been proven to have existed. Let's cut the B.S. , Dan and get to the point. - 5:55:16 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Open: I've just been looking at "Dan's logic"***"Don't ask me what is beyond ration...that we shall find out." Yes you must have faith, but he'll not drag out the xian bible here. It's not a plus for the theistic bait and switch(he's keeping it low key so as to try and claim knowledge is ignorance). ***"Assuming the evoloution that we have undergone in the past 100 years, there is no reason that our brains can't develop into organs." Gee and I thought the brain was an organ already.And how many generations of evolution have we had in 100 years.What changes in the human brain have taken place due to natural selection:Dan? I'm surprised he hasn't used the 10% of the brain urban legend.Dan: superstition such as yours isn't higher knowledge; but ignorance and backwardness masquerading as something it never was, nor will be. You haven't made any comments on:ACQUIRED SYNESTHESIA... is classically seen in temporal lobe epilepsy, head trauma, and mass lesions affecting the medial temporal lobe. Synesthesia may also be induced by sensory deprivation, antiserotonergic hallucinogens such as LSD and peyote, or direct electrical stimulation of subcortical limbic structures. Epileptic synesthesia is a good example of acquired synesthesia; it occurs in 4% of temporal lobe seizures and seems due to the actual electric discharge. Visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory (and, much less often, olfactory) sensations may combine with visceral sensations, vertigo, and involuntary movement, as in these 3 examples: A taste of bile, tingling in the left wrist, twitching of the left corner of the mouth, and muscular contractions on the left side of the body A lump in the throat, mouth & tongue movements, flashing lights in the right upper fields, a bitter taste Hearing the word "five," seeing the number "5" projected externally on a gray background, shooting pains in the right side of the face.***I wonder why Dan, does knowledge scare you when it shows religion and deity are form of brain disorder. Yes, information has put you theists in a deep hole, a hole of forever ignorant. - 6:31:30 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:DAN: What exactly is a "closed mind"? For the biological thing that the human organism is now, that is an impossible action. But, as a term with which the human animal relates to other human animals it can become a simple device by which certain deceptions and propaganda might be articulated. While the awareness of the experience of the all is simply beyond the thing that is the human organism is a factual truism, some human animals "claim to know" of a thing either outside the commonly known human experience, or an experience of the all is revealed to them. As whatever you are unwinds here, the distortions of your messages become- bit by bit, more revealed. As a non-religious individual whose existence does not know anything outside the limited natural matters related to living- atheism, but lives with other humans, I see it important that religion be accepted as only another form of interest for the political human animal. That can be done because of the example which you so clearly demonstrate here, that you do not know a godthing or anything of the religiously assumed supernatural. The teleologic gyrations you seek to spin here is simply and only a political freedom. - 15:03:21 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:Dan - since neither we nor science have not confirmed your being to be true, it would help if you began your ideas with "I postulate that..." or "I believe that..." depending on which you deem appropriate. It would help us get through what you think and what others think. So far we have 1) Dan postulates that "God is the end of all means". You may have said other things before, but what I want is a systematic listing of your beliefs about God. Don't talk about whether we can understand it, or that our brains will evolve, etc. I want to know about your God, not man. Keep in mind that a possible postulation is not necessarily reality, as unicorns theoretically COULD exist, but don't. I would recommend you start with describing God, then giving us reason to believe you. Be systematic. Don't babble. - 15:52:25 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:As I have said before I am not God therefore I can't define him. - 19:50:14 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:But surely you have beliefs about him? What are those? - 20:34:28 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:JOHN: I HAVE EXHAUSTED THAT POINT. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS. I HAVE EXPLAINED IT IN CONSIDERABLE DEPTH, PLEASE READ THEM. OK? STOP ASKING ME THE SAME QUESTION AND SAY THAT I DON'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. - 22:10:44 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

jaywilson--setting lack-of-depth charges--:DAN: Stupidity has been defined as "doing the same thing repeatedly in hopes of different results." In that regard, your posts are stupid. Continue your shallow baiting and you're not far behind. - 23:27:16 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: yours is the illusion of higher knowledge. You try to make a point that if unknown, supernaturalism is somehow just within our grasp. Oh contra Dan,supernaturalism is nothing but ignorance, fraud, deception, and superstitous as history has proven over and over again.We will "grow" out of this backwardness of thought some day and society will reject this nonknowledge for what is: garbage.It is "god(ignorance) of the gaps" - 23:49:45 on 30 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- Since John is relatively new to this discussion, maybe he hasn't seen your previous posts. We end up repeating ourselves here as it's consistent with the format. New people are always showing up so we have to repeat our claims or our dispute with those claims. It's not a big deal to post them again. - 0:43:02 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Doug: Since I am "ignorant" I would like to see your views on life even if you have none. - 0:55:56 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Marlene:DAN- I don't see as Doug has called you ignorant but did say the belief in "god" may be the result of ignorance. To that I somewhat agree because some people really haven't looked into the science behind evolution. For some though, god is a crutch and ignorance isn't the problem, self-esteem is. - 1:45:21 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:I HAVE reviewed previous posts. I saw no such systematic description of God, just babble. Have you wondered why this conversation goes in circles? Do you think it is us? Have you considered that it could be you? - 1:57:40 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Doug:Dan: Science with reality, not supernatural bunk. And Hawkings, "Wave function of the Universe" There is no need for superstition to explain things. Funny how it keeps getting pushed back (superstition) and the theists just keep drawing a new line. The slow retreat of theism must be a real drag for you. Your god of the gaps will someday be squeezed out of existance. - 2:10:20 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Grant --I love the smell of Santayana in the morning--:Criticism surprises the soul in the arms of convention. Children insensibly accept all the suggestions of sense and language, the only initiative they show being a certain wilfulness in the extension of those notions, a certain impulse towards private superstition. This is soon corrected by education or broken off rudely, like the nails of a tender hand, by hard contact with custom, fact, or derision. Belief then settles down in sullenness and apathy to a narrow circle of vague assumptions, to none of which it need really understand, but which nevertheless it clings to for lack of other footing. The philosophy of the common man is an old wife that gives him no pleasure, yet he cannot live without her, and resents any aspersions that strangers may cast on her character. Of this homely philosophy the tender cuticle is religious belief; really the least vital and most arbitrary part of human opinion, the outer ring, as it were, of the fortifications of prejudice, but for that very reason the most jealously defended; since it is on being attacked there, at the least defensible point, that rage and alarm at being attacked at all are first aroused in the citadel. People are not naturally sceptics, wondering if a single one of their intellectual habits can be reasonably preserved; they are dogmatists angrily confident of maintaining them all. Integral minds, pupils of a single coherent tradition, regard their religion, whatever it may be, as certain, as sublime, and as the only rational basis of morality and policy. Yet in fact religious belief is terribly precarious, partly because it is arbitrary, so that in the next tribe or in the next century it will wear quite a different form; and partly because, when genuine, it is spontaneous and continually remodelled, like poetry, in the heart that gives it birth. - 13:18:22 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That do strike my fancy as it are purty bit o'ritin' - 14:49:59 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: to move on; In this election year the candidates are at it again, bringing up the god and prayer nonsense. If I wuz a xian I'd swear on a mountain of bibles these people do that just to play that game. They must hold that John Q public gots donuts atop their shoulders. That religious topic sure looks to me like a politician's sleight o'hand trick. And, the dimwitted moronic body politic goes after guessing for the "right" candidate every time. While the PISO site has a certain outrageousness about its religious conspiracy claim when I see how easily the mainstream media handles this religious subject and public-leaders go along, is the PISO idea really in some unknown field? Kind of supportive of the donuthead reference, a retired teacher suggested that the problem of public education is a process of "introduction" and "homework", the missing action she said was "learning". Teachers introduce children to subjects and give them homework. Teachers don't teach what they've introduced to the students so they can learn better what teachers taught kids with homework. Instead that retired teacher says the kids are introduced to stuff then assign homework and, the children seek help from parents who unfortunately don't know how to teach the children. Perhaps this is why some politicians promote vouchers, to get the kids into a religious mind set, and all that such paradigms establish? - 17:35:06 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

Dan:Doug: Have you yet to realized that God can't and doesn't need to be proved by ration. Please understand that. What rational proof would you like or can imagine? What you can detect to be there isn't always what IS there. - 19:27:35 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:What is the URL of the PISO site? Yes, all this religious crap being introduced into politics really makes me mad. It seems that we have forgotten the private nature of the religion of our founding fathers. They certainly weren't Christian - I wish people understood that. It is my view (tell me if you've seen this anywhere else, because as far as I know, I came up with it myself) that the dualism inherent in Judeo-Christian thought has made a two-party system inevitable. Christians think about morality and politics in a very black and white way - wrong or right, good or evil, God or Satan (no man can serve two masters...and if you are not for me, you are against me; either you agree with me and are for unity, or you disagree with me and are divisive...); this leads them (in general) to form two camps. Unfortunately, we who COULD utilize a system with more than two parties are caught between a rock and a hard place - either vote for a third party and risk the greater of the two evils to be elected, or vote for a candidate who does not represent our view. Unfortunate, but we can't change the mode of thinking of 250 million people. It may, after all, make our government more stable; but at the expense of those who may think more progressively. Is it a fair trade off? I don't know. - 20:13:57 on 31 Aug 100 GMT