Marlene:CARL- You mean Carrie Drake, lol! She was atheist but a little too into trying to make it a religion which unfortunately some people have tried to do. - 4:28:20 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Howzabout the separation of church and state? The USA history of that question are available, as well as the ties to Europe of that constitutional notion. As far as I dare report here, it appears the Europeans were into processing the individual in preparation for either the state or to be men. That would be understandable for after all, The Europeans were in the process of mastering the world. Of godstuff matters assorted references appear to show that such concern was just an individual interest. Was it never a widespread nationalised concern? I'd bet that with more reading one could or would find that kind of thinking was prevalent then, religion was an individual matter. So the writer thinkers of the USA constitution went with that flow and put in It that thing of no state religion. The USA religious types today tho'they appear to mean to have things their way. At this time what that group of people seem to have taken as the USA society's achilles heel for their target is public education. Some religious types say they support instead of pub.ed. some kind of federal or state school voucher availability program. Would that work? Of my experience with private religious schools, probably 95% were non-minority and financially well off. Minoritys and the financially less-well off "had to attend" any nearby public school. Now, with an "equalising-voucher" these same poor minority types could rub elbows with the 'other-types'? But! That would create in the ranks of the kids a class of kids, here lets imagine us as kids again, that we if wealthy and well off would jeer at. If we imagine ourselves as poor and or minority with our vouchers in hand, we would be jeered at. Would this be good, or does it just serve some other aim; of some other group of people? - 16:32:41 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, the school voucher thing is a campaign issue of some significance this election year. GeorgeW is in favor of it and trying to pass it here in Texas. His brother Jeb got it going in Florida. I am against it. I would like to help poor minority students, but if you give them the voucher that would pay for either public education, or private, obviously the cost is not going to be the same. Say they give $1000/yr vouchers, but private school costs $5000/year. Well, the truly poor are not going to be able to make up that difference. Only the people who have the $4000 to shell out, who were probably going to pay the $5000 anyway. So you are basically giving a tax-break to the wealthy and middle class, but only taking school funds away from the poor, who are still pretty much stuck. I think anything that reduces funding to our schools is bad. Either fix it or spend the dollars to find another solution, don't give it away to the wealthy. I won't even go into the church/state thing as that is pretty obvious to us all here! - 16:53:27 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:HERE is some history to consider regarding your early USA questions on church/state CARL. About how the "in god we trust" got put on the currency, etc. - 16:57:15 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: gee! that site is kinda ruff on the religious types and their imaginary world o'belief ain't it? - 17:28:06 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:Carl, you mean like this quote from the above site??:............. "I don't wish to unduly frighten anyone, but consider that anyone who passes you by as you walk the streets, might be a member among millions who visit dark churches every Sunday to receive their weekly fix of drinking Christ's blood in their ritual called communion. Now I don't for one moment believe in this sacrament, but if there were any truth in it, wouldn't they, by definition, be vampires?".......falling out of my chair LOL!! This guy is a hoot, although he may be a little "frothing at the mouth fanatical" himself. - 17:46:07 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: I suspect that the religious interests on the voucher question are maybe luke-warm, their primary effort aims at prayer-in-school. The voucher thing would be just another cash source for schools, but who really wants the improvement of anyone? I tend to wonder what it is that an education is supposed to serve? Is the objective of an educational process measured by the GNP? The only non-western world that needs to be feared, ergo, conquered is the Asian world, so does the educational process prepare the young minds for war? Does the educational process make it easier for the individual to be a herd member? Afterall, only one can make a difference, we all can't be presidents or leaders at the same time. Of minority's do they have to know only the non-minority views of existence? Do the minorities have to acccept a knowing that what they are is a lesser thing in that educational process? as before, whats to be known? - 17:52:10 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Do you really believe that 11 men (plus thousands of others)risked their lives in a cruel Roman dictatorship in order to spread a false gospel? There is more proof for the life and ministry of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar or any other ancient person. Only the fool has said in his heart "there is no God" - 18:16:57 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: Proof? I doubt that such exists outside of the logic of wordplay. But nevertheless, please don't hesitate and do tell where this "proof" is for that jc thing etc. - 18:26:51 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY and CARL- We have the same of crap here. Private schools actually cost about 7-8 thou per year and on top of that they are government funded to some extent. Still only the wealthy are able to attend. Most are these schools are either religious or have a religious backround and much of the student's day is spent in prayer. I have NO idea why my tax dollar is being squandered like this....What is wrong with improving public schools with those dollars? You mentioned you have an election year coming up, we may too. I noticed that the state of Illinois has decided to halt all executions, could this have something to do with the election maybe? What is the political party there, Republican? - 18:29:32 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:HI CHUCK- Welcome! Bring on this proof! - 18:31:19 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Carl, I speak of Historical proof that such a person did in in fact exist. The historical proof is overwealming. As for whether or not He was the Son of God, as He claimed to be, you need to make a unbiased search of the scriptures, and let it speak to you. If you would make a diligent search of just what is going on in the Church today, you would be amazed. The proof is all around you to see. I demanded proof myself. So I set out to read everything I could get my hands on. I used to doubt most of the Bible. After I made honest check, I came to the only conclusion I could. Jesus is God Himself. Check out some of the websites on creation science as a starter. God truly loves you and invites you to come. Most of the contributors to this site seem to fancy themselves intellectuals. A real intellectual would seek after truth no matter what. I wonder how many really want the truth? - 18:58:03 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I thought you were going to post some proof that this guy, Jesus, existed? You've suggested "creation science", how does creation science go about proving that Jesus existed? You have read a lot, from what you've said you've done as research should make you an intellectual, tell us what you've learned, not just what you've read. - 19:10:11 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: So who really wants to improve anything or anyone? I'm sort of glad that CHUCK so timely has deposited some religious representation. What improvement did he recommend or offer for any? It seems safe to inscribe that CHUCK may be favorably inclined to if not of a religious interest. If true, then he'd also have others take up as important views said by ancient and of course unknown individuals. It is a surprise that CHUCK also does not recommend that folks also learn the dead languages of the prehistoric ones. The point here, what does CHUCK want to improve? Who does CHUCK seek to improve? Does CHUCK improve even himself by intimating his valuing myth, forgery and fabrication without doubt? Methinks CHUCK should convey honestly and in truth what he's up to. - 19:13:26 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Marlene, Im not a typist. You wouldn't take my word for any proof I offered. You have to check it out for yourself. All I know is, if Jesus is not who he said he is, then life is without any hope. If you want proof go search it out. Believe me it is there. "If you search for me with all your heart, then you will find me". I believe that your mind is set, in spite of any proof I offer. I suggest a simple test. Try this, it has worked for many others. Ask God, in all sincerity, If you are real and if Jesus is who he said he is, then please show me. Thirty percent of the Bible is predictive prophesy. All of the prophesies have taken place just as told. The only prophesies left unfulfilled pertain to the days of the end. They all point to the very time we live in. Pick up your newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other and compare one with the other. You are in danger of missing the grand event of the ages. If you have never honestly checked out the scriptures, You really can't argue whether or not they may be true. On the other hand, I have been exposed to the reasonings of the world all my life and I know them to be false and self serving. - 19:42:39 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I'm not a typist either. I've read more than you can imagine. Why would there be no hope without Jesus (or god for that matter). I have a lot of hope and I accept neither of the two entities you claim I need. If I want proof, search it out? You came here to tell us about something you know and we don't. The onus is on you to tell us just what it is and why. You've decided my mind is set, not I. If you have evidence of what you claim, I'm open to change my mind. I have read the bible, three different versions and have yet to see a prophecy in there that has been proven to have occured. In fact, the bible IMO is nothing but contradictions. Why can't we know if they are true or not? - 19:56:39 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Carl, What I'm up to is THE TRUTH. Not "Chuck's" truth, but THE TRUTH. Don't let your pride stop you from finding out what the truth really is. - 19:56:59 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- What do you mean by the "reasonings of the world"? - 19:58:14 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I'm not too proud to accept the truth of anything but...it has to be the truth..the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm waiting to hear, the evidence that supports that truth. - 20:01:09 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:CHUCK, oh I'm so happy when someone gives me a chance to post some of my favorite quotes: "Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." - Bruce Calvert ..................."If you were taught that elves caused rain, every time it rained, you'd see the proof of elves." -Ariex ......................as for me, I prefer to be among the thinkers :-) - 20:03:23 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- This board is set up to post messages on then we're free to do whatever, then we can check back in a few hours for anything new. You don't need to post the evidence in haste. You can take your time and post in detail and with accuracy. That's what I like about this board as opposed to chat. It discusses things in depth and there is no rush for quick unsatisfactory answers. - 20:05:28 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I've never heard that elf quote..that's really cute! - 20:07:19 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Marlene, The so called contradictions you mention once bothered me. So I sought out answers. I found a book published in 1909 that took up this problem. The so called problems melted away upon study. The remarkable thing about the Bible is that it always explains itself. It may take months or years, but you will find the answer. I suggest you go to a Christian bookstore and get a copy of "EVIDENCES THAT DEMAND A VERDICT" You too Carl. No the clerk at the store won,t try to convert you. As for your question about did Jesus really exist, to my knowledge there is not even any athiest scholars who would deny it. - 20:18:43 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Speaking of cute, I know this has nothing to do with the discussion but I thought this was really cute. I can just imagine all these little girls trying out their lipstick, lol! I guess it's just me but I think girls from the ages of 9-12 are so cute....... > According to a radio report, a middle school in Oregon was faced with a > unique problem. A number of girls were beginning to use lipstick and > would > put it on in the bathroom. That was fine, but after they put on their > lipstick they would press their lips to the mirror, leaving dozens of > little > lip prints. Finally the principal decided that something had to be done. > > She called all the girls to the bathroom and met them there with the > maintenance man. She explained that all the lip prints were causing a > major > problem for the custodian who had to clean the mirrors every night. To > demonstrate how difficult it was to clean the mirrors, she asked the > maintenance guy to clean one of the mirrors. > > He took out a long-handled squeegee, dipped it into the toilet and then > cleaned the mirror. > > Since then there have been no lip prints on the mirror. > > There are teachers, and then there are TEACHERS. > > - 20:24:56 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- Although I haven't read the book, since 1909 there have been a lot of discoveries which rule out some of the claims made by the bible. I don't really need to read the book the same as I would imagine you won't tear out and buy any of the books I suggest. Instead let's find a contradiction and discuss it or find a claim and go about checking it out to see if it holds up? - 20:30:09 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Christy, Hitler, Stalin, and John Paul Getty were all thinkers. None were believers. Their empires and their gold now belong to others. At the end of life, all we have is what we are. Faith is not blind. Hitler had tremendous faith. Athiests have faith. We all have faith in something. I choose to place my faith in my creator. My faith is based on facts, not what I would like to believe to ease a quilty concience. Have to sign off. Need to get something done. - 20:37:47 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - thanks for my laugh of the day! - 20:56:22 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Joette:CHUCK - Bill Clinton seems to have "faith". Is he a good example of someone who has found the truth? - 20:58:17 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- No, I don't have faith in anything. [Faith is : believing in something without proof, trust, confidence] There is nothing I have faith in, hope maybe but definately not faith. BTW, Hitler was a christian and very much a believer in Jesus. Now Chuck don't go on to tell me he wasn't really a christian like so many others have. Anyone who accepts Jesus as their lord is a christian. - 21:08:44 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- How about the proposal I suggested? I'm up for a discussion. - 21:10:17 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I just read your post that you had to sign off. Hope to hear from you some more! - 21:11:58 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: where is that "Proof" you mentioned? It looks like I'm supposed to do the legwork? So, eventually you set the rules or do I, in order to find that proof? As far as I dare say to any, I am the truth and the only truth that I know. I am that I am. Who are you? - 21:12:29 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:CHUCK, would you consider this guy a thinker?: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust.A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein, (1879-1955)..............you are full of the xtian propaganda that only xtianity can teach morals, when in fact it takes a more moral person to govern their own behavior than to do it by threat of hell or promise of reward. We choose not to be "trained", like you do a dog with promise of treats or threats of smacking w/ a newspaper, but to use a concience as a guide...........If it makes insecure minds feel better to have faith that a creator/father figure is watching, taking care of them, and in control, I certainly don't begrudge them that. We all have needs to fill secure; some fill them in reality and some choose fantasy. I prefer to put my faith in reality. I hope you are willing to grant others the same freedom to choose. - 21:35:18 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:Christian quote: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."-- - Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93.............are you frightened by people that don't "conform" Chuck? Is it a threat to you somehow, that people have different opinions? Or do you really feel we are the ignorant savages that must be enlightened?....................."They came with a Bible and their religion- stole our land, crushed our spirit... and now tell us we should be thankful to the 'Lord' for being saved." -Chief Pontiac (d. 1769) American Indian Chieftain - 21:42:30 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Joette, No, Bill Clinton would be a good example of 50% of Christiandom. He professes to be a believer, but his words and deeds betray him. eg partial birth abortion. He needs to get out his "owners manual" and see what it says. Bill Clinton is a very bright and educated man. Its too bad he has chosen to do whatever is popular instead of what is right. It's popular to say the churches are full of hypocrites, unforfunately there is much truth to it. It would be far better if the lukewarm would leave. On the other hand Christ came for the lost. Do you need a savior? Or are you going to save yourself? Maybe your one of the rare few who will never face death or eternity. I hope so. But if you fill your mind with the utter nonsense that is on this web site, there isn,t much hope. Would you allow your city to put the open end of 24" sewer pipe into your living room window? Thats basically what your doing when you feed your mind with the negative thoughts you normally find at this site. While I stumbled on to this site accidently while looking up info on Pat Rbertson, I must say that every quote that is listed made me admire him all the more. Except I don't like the one about women chess players. I would wager, however, that it was yanked totally out of context. - 21:47:25 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:Thanks for perking things up and prompting some interesting discussion and thought Chuck! Hope you can post some of that "proof" soon! Note that it will take more than "because it says so in the bible" to constitute proof. The bible is not proof of what the bible says! That would be like saying the book "1984" is true because it says so in the book! You can find similarities now to the dire predictions of Orwell (if you really squint), but was Orwell a prophet or an entertainer? Hey, if he was a prophet then perhaps 'God' is Orwell's Big Brother? - 21:50:22 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: Where is "Your-Proof"? - 21:52:11 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck....whomever accepts Jesus as their lord is 100% christian. - 21:52:13 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- Your attacking the website instead of taking care of the task at hand here. Let's talk the bible! You say there are negative things said here, what negative things? See what your doing? Instead of discussing why the bible is the truth, your just picking by insulting this website. - 21:56:30 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: cute story, chuckles everywhere here. - 21:56:47 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Good quotes BTW!! - 21:57:27 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: It is probably becoming apparent to the CHUCKSTER that for this site, he's got a challenge of his own making. If the thing that subject he claimed to have proof for was true, well hell, he'da splashed all over this site already. I am growing suspicious, however, that he is beside himself for want of preaching to folks here. But, he said he had proof. I for one await that proof of whatever it is that is on his mind. oops!!! I shoulda'put heart, his kind like such things to come form the heart. If thought should occur to those kind they'd jist say its the work o'their devil thingy. - 22:15:25 on 1 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Ya know, if my neighbour said to me "Marlene, I will prove to you that I know the answer to last night's $100,000,000 question on 21". I would say, "how could you know when the highest amount anyone got up to was $300,000? The million dollar question was never revealed. But tell me how you know this, I'm listening". The neighbour would then say "I don't like the way you got your hair cut last week, it looks too intellectual. And besides, your always saying negative things!"....... I still would be waiting for the proof of the extraordinary claim she made. Sound familiar Chuck? - 2:15:26 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:My reply as to proof would require a lot of pages of explanation. Since you don't have the nessesary background, It would take more time than I could give it. I offered you source material earlier. I can't lead you bythe hand. If you really care to know the truth, open your blind eyes. It's no crime to be ignorant, but to deliberately refuse to find out for yourself is tragic. Your free to believe what ever you like. When my head hits the pillow at night I am at peace. Can you say that, knowing that your future one unknown day in the future you will reach a deadend? I feel sorry for each of you. You have been deceived by the spirit of this age. May God forgive your arrogance and save you anyway. Peace - 4:13:32 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:PS; Hitler was an occultist, not a Christian. He persecuted the church at every opportunity. I dont care if he procaimed himself a Christian, If you declaired yourself a Scotch Pine it wouldn't mean you were one. There is good reason to believe that he was in fact possessed. Where do you get your information? - 4:30:35 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- You are feeling sorry for me for nothing. Your still avoiding giving evidence to that extraordinary claim you've made. Everyone reaches a "deadend", I don't loose any sleep over it. If you don't want to produce evidence then at least tell me what you mean by Hitler being possessed. Not only that, Hitler WAS a Catholic and was never excomunicated from the church either. Why he wasn't is a very good question. If you still want to produce evidence we have the time for pages of it. Post a little every day and we'll discuss it. - 5:16:17 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- Right now you are the only christian here unless Ricky is lurking somewhere. I know it's difficult to discuss here with you being the only one with a belief but it's not impossible and you seem like a strong individual, able to debate without turning heel. I'm also on a biblical errancy mailing list. There is one christian there who has been on the list for five years. He never gives up and he's the only christian who posts to that list. I've got admire that. But hopefully Ricky will drop in again for more christian support. - 5:22:11 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Yvonne:Marlene, like it or not, you DO have faith. When you get out of bed in the morning, you have faith that nothing bad will happen to you. You have faith in that hot cup of coffee..that it wont break, spilling hot coffee all over you. You have faith that the pencil will write, the computer work, the tree in your front yard not topple over crushing your house or car. Everyone has some kind of faith. In regard to Christians who make quotes that make you wonder....being a Christian does not make one perfect, but forgiven. Those who come to God do so because of choice. God doesnt want puppets. There is an aspect of yourself you are overlooking. The soul. Like any other part of your make-up, it needs feeding. Y'all are asking for "proof." Yet we are asked to accept on "faith." If there was solid, unequivocal proof, why would you need faith? Can you explain (to those nonbelievers familiar with Bible content) why things written so long ago have been discovered as truth years later. One of these is river currents, mentioned in Psalms but not "discovered" until later when water paths were studied. Prophecy is another great issue. Written so very long ago, the Bible forcast things to come before the "end of the world." Most have to do with the Middle East and the return of the Jews to the Holy Land after being scattered world wide. This actually happened - both the exodus and the return. There is much more - too numerous to mention - and I have gone on too long! - 14:35:15 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- Welcome!! Yvonne, did you read the definition of "faith". If so, the word does not apply to my perspective of everyday life. I may hope that nothing bad will happen to me, I can take precautions to keep myself safe but I can't predict or control what others may do. As for the cup of coffee breaking, I'd likely check the cup for cracks etc. If I ignore the crack then I would risk the cup breaking and coffee spilling on me. If the pencil won't write then more than likely it's out of lead or not sharpened, something else I have control over. Computers break, I expect that. If there is a high wind or the ground is unstable under the tree then it would make sense that it falls over and I should have the sense to either remove it before it falls on the house or the car and if I don't I risk the damage to the house or car. - 15:26:05 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- I'm answering your post in parts because you bring up a few different subject there. I agree with you on the comments many christians have made. Anyone who accepts Jesus as their lord is 100% christian. So many times christians who post here try to defend their religion by stating a christian who has said or done something they feel is inappropriate is not really christian. - 15:30:37 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- Before I can comment on "soul", we need to establish what you mean by soul. - 15:35:10 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- Yes I can explain about a river current. If one travels on a river one can easily figure out where the current it. If it's a dry river bed, then it's really elementary to spot where the current was, there would be a gouge. Nothing fantastic about this. I'm not saying the bible has no truth, I does have some. - 15:39:21 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- Now we come to prophecy....this, if you choose to discuss it, is quite explainable and there is nothing fantastic about them at all. Post one and we'll see if it truly was a prophecy. - 15:41:58 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- NO, you have not gone on. This is exactly what this page was set up for. I'm glad you've come and I hope you stay. - 15:43:41 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: These two YVONNE and CHUCK, what it looks like to me they very simply want others to allow them the mind-set they've chosen and even to join them in their stooge-talk that comes of/from that mind-set. Only when the others here elect to discuss their religious myths and superstitions in terms that they find acceptable can they believe that what they say- the product of their chosen mind-set, is ok. To the religious mentality words of and to support that mental state are required for it, more than anything else. An example, if say to you I have parents, or viceversa, nothing else be said for you to know it true. But, that god thing cannot be so simply utterred. Do the religious adherents really think that their words- sounds from the mouths, are accountable for matters outside themselves? Yes they do, but what I ask is what does that sound of g-o-d refer to? Where is that godthing, or even the soul YVONNE mentions, where're these supernatural things right now? They do not know such things for they are natural organisms but nonetheless, they elect to refer to these unknowables as truths! Looks as though the unknown is a truth, and for my part, I can accept that without belief, without faith. - 16:15:40 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I can also live without belief or faith but believers feel we can not. The only thing I ask when they say this is that they present a good arguement why we can not. If they just preach and leave then all I can suspect is that they either are not dedicated to what they preach or that they haven't got an arguement. - 16:48:16 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: so the "proof" would require many pages o'explanation and isn't it ever so convenient that such an explanation would lay outside a field of comprehension. Looks like that kid game of, look over there. When one says what, then the dialogue goes on, you mean you didn't see it? Neither CHUCK nor YVONNE know what they would like to say but, they'll both carry on as if they do. - 17:31:32 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yup! Excuses..excuses! Not to mention arrogance. If for instance I would have posted "like it or not, faith is a false means of security so it's not healthy to have faith", I can just imagine. I would have been full or hate and negative things to say. - 17:58:49 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:If the Catholic Church allowed Hitler to remain on the roles of the Church, it only shows how far the Church has drifted from their roots. The Catholic Church also slaughtered millions of "Heretics" in the middle ages because they dared to stand against the Pope. By no stretch of the imagination was Hitler a Christian in the real sense of the word. A Christian is one who follows Christ, if nessesary to the death. I said before, Im not a typist. I hunt and peck. Keeping that in mind, here is a very small sample of my PROOF. I cannot go into all the background or the detail. If you check it out more on your own it will make a bigger impression. By the way Marlene, you are absolutely right about MANY DISCOVERIES AFTER 1909. Unfortunately for your arguement, to date they have ALL verified the accuracy of scripture. EG For ages the critics have said that King David was a mythical person. They said that he was found nowhere in history except the Bible. In 1993 archeologists found in northern Israel an inscription talking about the House of David and identifies him as the King of Israel. The following summer two more inscriptions were found wich also identified David as King. The list of discoceries in just this century would take up several books. On to my proof. A recent discovery, thanks to high speed computers, is about a phenomena called the Bible Codes. If you don't know about it, it concernes hidden codes buried beneath the surface text. eg jiuekhsmsutts. As an example count forward every 4th letter above. There is encoded all over the bible words, phrases, and predictive prophesy. This only works in the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. Books such as Moby Dick and War AND Peace have been checked for this to no avail. If even a few letters or words are changed such as a new translation it destroys the code. Even with the aid of super computers it is impossible to construct a paragraph that makes any sense and follows the line of thought. Only God could have placed it there. eg There are about 300 prophesies in the old Testament which predict the coming of the messiah in the future. These predictions begin in Genesis and continue as a thread in the entire Old Testament. [about 1300BC to about 400 BC. The best known of these prophesies would probably be ISAIAH 53rd chapter. Here comes your part. I cannot type the whole Chapter for you so please read it and tell me if it describes any other person in history besides Jesus. Im not done. Found encoded all over this chapter was the word YESHUA [Hebrew FOR JESUS]. Also was found encoded the phrase "Jesus is my name". Keep in mind that ISAIAH was written about 700 years before the birth of Christ. Verify for yourself with any encyclopedia. Mathematical experts have calculated that the probability of this occuring by random chance would be one chance in 50 quadrillion. [SIGNATURE OF GOD, GRANT R JEFFREY, PAGE 223]. Im not done In this same chapter is also encoded the names of all the deciples of Christ, except for one. Take a wild quess which name is not included. Judas Iscariot is correct. These codes also speak about the Holocaust, various assasinations, and too much more to mention. In Genesis where it speaks of the Garden of Eden, is encoded the names of 26 different trees. What is God up to? Is He trying to convince a disbelieving lost world that His Word is Literaly HIS WORD? This thing of the codes has been presented to many university statistics and math departments and they cannot explain it. It is far beyond what any human could do. I doubt if even Carl could. On another note, about 2 weeks ago Ted Turner and Jane Fonda announced that they would temporarily separate to give them time to pursue their own interests. I didn't think too much about it, except for the " pusue their seperate interests" thing. It was announced on TV recently that Jane became a born again Christian. I later verified this on the inernet. She was led to Christ over the past 2 years by her personal driver. Ted, as you know is an avowed athiest. At about the same time one of his best friends and fishing buddy, also recieved Christ as his savior. If I were to make a list of those I thought would never make it into the Kingdom, Jane Fonda would be near the top of the list. The grace and forgiveness of God is awsome. I only hope that she can reach Ted. My fingers are starting to bleed, so I must finish. - 19:30:07 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:PS Israel as a nation did not exist for 2500 years. God told them that they would be restored as a nation in the end times. In 70AD titus the Roman General totally destroyed Jeruselem. Over 100 thousand Jews and Christians alike were crucified and slaughtered. Those remaining were driven out to the four corners of the world. There are today more Jews in New York City alone, than there are in all of Israel. It would take far to long to explain, but the Bible predicted that Israel would once more become a nation on May 14, 1948. God may be slow, but he is always right on time. - 20:03:49 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:PS PS Don,t be offended if I quote the Bible. It is far more reliable than quoting some human being . - 20:21:19 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: that bible codes book, its accounts, have been shown to be bunk. Its just a number game. That is not proof, I've read that book its craftily written but if you take it as something meaningful, I dare say you've duped yourself. You may have a serious problem, with wishful thinking? As for that OT matter, the Jews say its a lie. It looks like they say that because the early xians took only what they wanted and then changed even those few parts. Thats really cute, your third post regarding bible quotes that,"It is far more reliable than quoting some human." You are either very young or thats idiocy. - 20:57:21 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- Firstly I'm not at all offended if you quote the bible because that's the word of god as far as believers are concerned. However could we discuss something if something weren't up for discussion. You've put a lot of effort into your posts and that's appreciated. It's also good to see that you have some support with Yvonne joining the page. Now you have given me a ton of things to check out here so please be patient with me while I do some research to respond. I'll will have my response posted by tomorrow morning. I won't be able to do much right now because I have some things to do this afternoon. BTW, I'm glad you returned to support your belief. Although we will not likely agree, we both could learn a few things. Also, I haven't checked back on your first posts, but I don't think you came to this page with a negative attitude toward atheists. It's good to have an open-minded christian for a change. - 21:05:20 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:CHUCK, the bible was written by human beings...and those who for the most part had no more "claim to fame" than having written the greatest fallacy ever told. I choose to quote people that made actual, tangible contributions to society and can therefore be respected for their merits of thought. I suppose as you pity us, I pity you for being so needy that you must seek comfort in the non-existent...to buy "hook, line, and sinker" this fantastic tale so you don't have to face up to mortality or responsibility for your own self. I see you as I do my children, needing the security of Mom's love and discipline, the fantasy of Santa Claus, and the knowledge that someone can "kiss it and make it better". Some of us grow up and decide to care for ourselves, some can't quite break the apron strings and look for a new "Mommy". Do I hate my children for their neediness? Of course not! It is endearing, until they start tantrumming and demanding they have things their way. Same with the religious "children of God". I think it's great they have their books and lullabies to sooth them, but when they start insisting everyone do things their way they back it up with fire, guns, and knives. Mental immaturity doesn't translate well into some adulthoods! I have been a christian, and have heard all the fantastic tale through years of Sunday school, sermons, church camp, etc. But when I grew up I decided to think for myself. Christianity doesn't lend itself to too much thinking...that is why FAITH is touted so much. Faith is necessary to believe something that can't stand on it's own merits. - 21:08:57 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:BTW, I doubt many think the bible is total fiction. It is bound to contain historical references of the time, and obviously some very intelligent people wrote it to have convinced millions over the years to believe it so fanatically they were willing to kill over it. Most every work of fiction is bound to contain some facts. The bible was a more believable replacement for the gods of Greek and Roman mythology, and as more people "outgrow" it as they did the former mythology, something even more convincing will replace it. There will always be needy people, and religion must adapt to their continuing knowledge. At least now they aren't killing those "heretics" that challenge it, so the evolution of religion should come much faster. - 21:16:45 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:CHUCK, you are really making this interesting, thanks for your continued participation! I understand the difficulty of hunt-n-peck typing as I have to do that when I nurse my son, so I appreciate the length you wrote and I read it all. Now for the "prophesies" of the old testament; if they were prophesizing a savior named Jesus, wouldn't it stand to reason that when a "prophet" was born they chose to call the Savior, they would name him according to what the bible said his name would be? I know this sounds simplistic, perhaps the bible was hidden all those years and no one read it or something but hey, if someone told me 10 years ago I would have a son and name him Kyle, I think the odds would be greater than 50 trillion to one that when I did have him, the name Kyle would enter my mind!...still reading... - 21:24:51 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I saw your post about the 100th Monkey thing, and I remember reading about it somewhere before. It's not really supernatural, or unscientific, as you put it. Monkeys are pretty similar to humans so that island story made for a good example of how much we don't know about consciousness. I guess the basic premise is that once something is learned and observed by others the idea spreads across what we normally think of as boundaries, like oceans. I know it sounds weird, but that's also the foundation for Jung's archetypes. When you study comparative mythology, it's obvious that all cultures share similar symbols and meanings, even though they were spread throughout the world. You'll also find that people all over the world are talking about the same things, but in different language and different metaphors. That collective subconsciousness stuff may sound hokey but the similarities can't be denied. The science of it, like always, is to invent a hypothesis based on the repeatable evidence. It always amazes me to think about it that the best theories we have are only as good as the most intelligent people who come up with them, so it wouldn't surprise me if science will eventually exhaust all its current theories, then have to reinvent itself for the things still left unexplained. - 21:32:38 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:I think something that is not accepted about atheists is that we have looked at the info, thought about it, discussed it, some have tried really hard to believe it, but in the end rejected it NOT ONLY because it doesn't make sense, but because it would be VERY SCARY if a god such as the one you worship were actually in control! People pray to him to heal their sick child, ailing grandma, etc, I assume because you truly believe he will intervene and cure them. So why not expect he will intervene when a 3 yr old is being beaten and burned with a hot iron, or a 7 yr old boy is being molested by a priest? If it is all "His will", then why pray? If He can intervene but chooses not to, then WHY IN THE WORLD would you respect him? That would be one sick puppy that turned their back on that abused child to go make your Grandma's liver spots go away. And if he is simply UNABLE to intervene, why consider Him a god? Oh, don't tell me, "we are not meant to understand the ways of God". You must use faith when common sense and intellect can't work. Why would he give us common sense and intellect if we weren't supposed to use them? - 21:38:51 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Carl- As far as being agnostic, well, that's just another label. I like the term "never-believer" as a last resort because all of the religious beliefs are man-made assumptions to begin with. (If something or someone came along and 'revealed' itself without any conditions to any specific group or culture, then it would only be a question of understanding and appreciating this new significant discovery. In other words, the past has nothing left to reveal). So I'm one less person to make those assumptions. It's not really a negative or a middle road position... until someone forces you to fit some sort of label. It follows in the way of Zen buddhists. Things just are. We are the ones who apply meaning to the world. Again, that's the problem of linguistics. It's too contradictory. In order to use language, you have to fit into some category (label) or others don't understand, but if you never make those assumptions, and don't really deny what others assume, it's more of a "I don't play that game at all" position, if there has to be one. How about a new term? See what I mean? - 21:45:44 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: Lets take a critical position to view your apparent position that the bible is the xian godthing's word. When was it written? Was it written by the supernatural thing itself? The english used by you and me to communicate now, you realise that it has changed. So the bible- probably composed in english, you possess- this very moment, wasn't written by anything that you saw do it, but I'd bet we agree that it was "produced" by a printing press. True? So if true what that means, must mean, you do not know who or what- if you must, wrote the bible. As for the matter of writing well, do you have a clear understanding o'its beginning and how it eventually took the forms that are known today? Through these questions and when finally at a concluding point, you may, might, ought to ask yourself what do you mean it is that is a god, or that supernatural thing? - 21:51:46 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, that is the great thing about science, as opposed to religion. Science is always open to new ideas, new theories, and new information. Rather than exclusively trying to force them into existing theories when they don't fit, they continue to try to find new and better theories to explain everything. We shall NEVER run out of theories, as long as we don't totally understand our world. I can't forsee a time we will understand everything about it! Alot of the fun is in the exploration anyway. I wonder if what you refer to as "collective subconscience" is something like "convergent evolution" in the animal world. - 22:02:49 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YIKES BETTY- Between you and Chuck, I'm going to be a busy person tonight. I post a response, exactly when, I'm not going to commit to. It's good to see you back again too! - 22:21:01 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl , Yhe codes are not bunk. I have read some of the criticisms and they don,t hold water. Any time a code shows up that describes the assasination of the Prime Minister of Israel thousands of years in advance giving the date, name of assasin, the name of the victem and other details you don,t have bunk, you have something supernatural. Discussing anything with you would be fruitless. If I said something was white, you would always say it was black. If I said that Viet Nam was a real Place you would say it wasn,t. The discussion would probably go something like this. CARL There is no such place as Viet Nam. Chuck Yes there is, I was there in 1967-68. CARL No you just think you were there. That may have been what the CIA wanted you to believe Maybe you were really in China. CHUCK Your wrong, I can show you on the globe where it is clearly marked. Carl ; Those globes and maps can,t be trusted. Anyone could have placed it there. Chuck ; They discuss Viet Nam all the time on TV. Carl Do you believe everything you hear on TV? There is no point in even trying with someone who uses this round-robin approach. As to my age, Im 57. I became a student of the Bible when I was 19. After all these years I havn,t even scratched the surface yet. As for being suckered in, I question everything. It might take me years to find an answer to something, but eventually I do. If there is any doubt left in my mind , I will go to any length to satisfy my doubt. You have tried to portray me as some sort of buffoon, is that what you resort to in order to try to make a point? I would rather be a buffoon for Christ than a puppet of Satan. If you don,t believe in Satan you need to read up on Ramirez, the night stalker or Charlie Manson or Ozzie Ozborn or Metallica or perhaps David Berkowitz. They will all testify that Satan is very much alive and well on planet earth. Im going to quess your age at 30. And Im also going to quess that you are a product of puplic education. Im sure you were taught the myth of evolution and idea of situation ethics. I would also quess that you were either raised by agnostics or athiests, or that you were raised in a Christian home and this is your way of rebelling. I would like to see other Christians log on and give their testimonies and input. I don,t know why they would ever be here however unless it was just by accident like me. Yvonne please come back. Your a breath of fresh air. - 22:21:18 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Cristy, if you are referring to the prophesy concerning the prediction that a son would be born and He shall be called Immanual. There is no reference here to a proper name. Emmanual simply means "God with us" It is like I would predict that you would have a son, and he shall be called great. I would not expect you to name him Great S. Smith. - 22:40:34 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:All: The Bible code debunked! Follow the link to raise a stink! - 23:52:30 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: Ever read accounts of the human migration? That is a very interesting and rewarding effort. It appears that the flood storys and assorted miracle births just followed the early migrating human beings. The fun question here was it a monogenesis or a polygenesis by which the human organism began? As for that pesky "word-problem" you mentioned, well according to non-western sources that bible nonsense mighta began, it appears, on the eastern side o'the Himalayas. Due to the migrational expansion of the human creature those storys just followed the migrators. But, was something lets say like some cosmic wave that wafted o'er those early humans somehow at sometime involved, well....probably not. - 23:57:43 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: I was looking for that, apparently I misplaced it - 23:59:33 on 2 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- First I'd like to address the "The Bible (or Torah) Code". It is code purported to have been deliberately buried in the bible or actually the torah by god. This is how I understand the code. If for instance you'd start with the letter "i" in my first sentence here and then read any tenth letter thereafter in this post not counting spaces. I'm going to try this after I write this post. It will create a string of letters. Of course this isn't a really good test because the post is much too short, say...as compared to the book of Isaiah in the bible but we'll try it anyway. What I'm doing here is following the procedure the Israeli mathematicians did. Anyway now I have this long string of letters. I take a cylinder like a huge piece of cardboard made into a roll like a toilet paper roll and wrap these strings of letters around the roll in such a way as all the letters are exhibited. Then I flatten the cylinder so several rows of equal length are revealed. Then I use this to find meaningful names in proximity to dates. Say I choose today's date and see if any meaningful words come out of this post relating to today's date. I'm allowed to search horizontally, vertically,diagonally, any which way. This is exactly how the biblical coding was done. Of course as you have mentioned this was done with Hebrew (god's chosen language)letters in the Torah (god's chosen book) . The holy book revered by the Jews (god's chosen people) so I don't think the Bible Code applies to the King James Version let alone the newer versions of the say..Exodus. When all is said and done, almost any written work of any length will reveal prophecy and truths if the one searching is looking for them. I could likely find a few remarkable coincidences in just this post. I haven't given it a try yet because I'm going to print it out, make my lines and do the whole thing. I'll get back to you with what hidden messages I've found in this post. - 0:06:55 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- You posted that while I was going to all the trouble of explaining the darn process, LOL! Anyway I'm giving a whirl with my post. How you find these sites......??? Good one though! - 0:11:57 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Doug, you fail to take into account the low skip distance as for instance 53 Isaiah, You also overlook that there are named 11 deciples in a short single chapter in the very chapter which predicts the messiah. You also need to note the predictive aspects 700 years before the fact. check out some Chrisyian websites about this matter before youclose your mind. I checked out the critical websites and they conveniently overlook the absolute impossibility of this happening at a low skip distance in a few short verses. If the skip distance is greater than perhaps about 20, I dont attach much credibility to it either, but the major proof is all of the cases which involve a skip of perhaps 6or 7. If you present almost anything to a group of athiests or Christians , either group will try to destroy it. Pick your sources carefully. Some will deliberately try to distort or "overlook" certain facts. - 0:28:16 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Marlene, The rolled up cylinder thing does not apply. This is quite straitforward. You only need to skip letters at certain intervals. If you have a sufficiently long enough text on any subject and youskip intervals sufficiently long enough you can find almost anything that is true . What the Bible code is all about is low skip intervals in a few verses or perhaps one chapter where the surface text pertains to the hidden code. This is what the critics are missing. This only works on the original masoretic text which was written in Hebrew. If you come up with anything at all in the King James it is purely random chance and is meaningless. By low skip distances I mean 20 or less. For example, if you have to skip 134 letters to spell something out, that is probably random chance. The best known of these codes or found at intervals of 5to7and directly apply to the subject matter at hand. The random odds of this happening are many times ,over a million to one. Don,t forget the predictive nature of many of these codes. If the predictive words and phrases ofr a certain event are scattered all over the Bible itwould be meaningless. But the things uncovered so far have mostly been in a few short verses at a low skip interval. The odds of which defy random chance. - 1:51:31 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Marlene, The rolled up cylinder thing does not apply. This is quite straitforward. You only need to skip letters at certain intervals. If you have a sufficiently long enough text on any subject and youskip intervals sufficiently long enough you can find almost anything that is true . What the Bible code is all about is low skip intervals in a few verses or perhaps one chapter where the surface text pertains to the hidden code. This is what the critics are missing. This only works on the original masoretic text which was written in Hebrew. If you come up with anything at all in the King James it is purely random chance and is meaningless. By low skip distances I mean 20 or less. For example, if you have to skip 134 letters to spell something out, that is probably random chance. The best known of these codes are found at intervals of 5to7and directly apply to the subject matter at hand. The random odds of this happening are many times ,over a million to one. Don,t forget the predictive nature of many of these codes. If the predictive words and phrases of a certain event are scattered all over the Bible itwould be meaningless. But the things uncovered so far have mostly been in a few short verses at a low skip interval. The odds of which defy random chance. - 1:54:00 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I'm still on this subject but I have company tonight and I have to be way all day tomorrow but I will respond on Friday for sure! Sorry! - 2:57:26 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I have some time this evening and I'll argue that the model I tried to explain above is the very same model used for the bible code but since we all have an understanding now of what it actually is, I guess we could use different sites to make our points. First I'll go to a site that you feel states that this is an actual code embedded by god in the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong on where you are coming from here. - 5:13:38 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- This site claims that these same ELS's don't show up in other written works. But they do...here's an example - 5:17:52 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I'm still working on my little experiment but experts who have no bias on the subject have recreated the Witztum - Rips experiment and this is the findings. - 5:23:41 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I hate leaving sites like that. I think actual discussion with as little references to somebody else's words as possible is the proper discussion mode. But I haven't much time. I still have to address the other points you posted on , especially Isaiah 53. That will have to be Friday. - 5:27:41 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Goodnight everyone! - 5:31:16 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- No wonder I'm tired in the morning, lol! anyway from reading your post to Carl, you've been studying the bible for quite some time. Here is another site which disagrees with the bible code but it is a site you may be interested in as it has lots of interesting material. - 5:43:34 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:There seems to be some confusion regarding the significance or relevance of probability. If a ping pong ball is dropped from an airplane, the odds of it landing in any specific place are infinitesimally small, but the odds of it landing *somewhere* are pretty much 1 to 1. Once you find the ping pong ball it is technically correct to say the odds of it landing in this particular spot were rediculously small, but it is not correct to say that the odds were so small that it is impossible that the ball landed here, or that it couldn't have landed here by mere chance. Searching for anything with meaning at various "skip distances" is looking for where a ping pong ball landed. - 14:04:06 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Carl, I have been down this pike many times before. Your experts with an agnostic view point say the codes are bunk. My experts with a Christian viewpoint say it is very real. For the last 150 years the Bible has been under serious attack. It started in Germany and France and has continued ever since. I can,t tell you the number of times that some "expert" has "proven" that the Bible was in error on some point or another, and all we Christians have to do is wait a while and sure enough the "expert" is proven wrong. Its happened over and over and over. A case in point; About 9 years ago a carbon 14 test was performed on a scrap of The Shroud of Turin. The test result came up with a date of about 1400. Many Christians no longer believed in it,s authenticity and some had such shallow convictions that they abondoned their faith entirely. It wasn,t too long after that agroup of scientists reexamined the findings. The Shroud had been - 15:49:30 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

CHUCK:Carl, I have been down this pike many times before. Your experts with an agnostic view point say the codes are bunk. My experts with a Christian viewpoint say it is very real. For the last 150 years the Bible has been under serious attack. It started in Germany and France and has continued ever since. I can,t tell you the number of times that some "expert" has "proven" that the Bible was in error on some point or another, and all we Christians have to do is wait a while and sure enough the "expert" is proven wrong. Its happened over and over and over. A case in point; About 9 years ago a carbon 14 test was performed on a scrap of The Shroud of Turin. The test result came up with a date of about 1400. Many Christians no longer believed in it,s authenticity and some had such shallow convictions that they abondoned their faith entirely. It wasn,t too long after that agroup of scientists reexamined the findings. The Shroud had been in a fire in the cathedral that housed it in about 1500. Even the folded corners had been scorched by fire. The building was full of smoke when a group of nuns ran into the building to rescue the Shroud. The smoke had saturated the fibers of the Shroud making any carbon 14 test meaningless. They also made a microscopic examination and found pollen particles that are found no where on earth except in the vicinity of Jeruselum. Junk science is also very evident in the theory of evolution. If the theory were true we should be up to our armpits in missing links. To date none have been found. Oh, true there have been claims that some have been found. But a few months or years later it either turns out to be a hoax or else a misidentification. Its my understanding that at the highest levels of science it privately acknowledged that evolution is a total impossibility even with countless millions of years to work with but reputations and jobs hang in the balance. Did you ever wonder how an artist can paint a picture of a prehistoric human with nothing to work with but a single tooth? In one particular case the tooth turned out to be from a pig. I don,t believe in blind faith, but I do belive in faith mingled with common sense.Now; CARL getting back to the codes. There are other codes wich are even more impressive but lets go back to ISAIAH 53. In this one chapter the name Jesus is all over the place. The phrase Jesus is my name appears. The names of all the deciples are there with the notable exception of Judas. The book was written about 700 years before Jesus or the Deciples were ever heard of. jESUS AND hIS MINISTRY are the very topic which this particular chapter is talking about. NOW CARL; iM GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. IF YOU HAD THE REST OF YOUR LIFE TO DO IT COULD YOU CONSTRUCT A FEW PARAGRAPHS ON PURPOSE THAT CONTAIN A CODE AT EQUAL SPACED INTERVALS THAT ACCURATELY PREDICTS THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA IN THE YEAR 2700 and NAMES ACCURATELY THE TOP 11 PEOPLE IN THAT ADMINISTRATION. AND ALSO SCATTERS THE NAME OF THIS PRESIDENT ALL THRU THE TEXT. and CONTAINS THE PHRASE XPRESIDENT IS MY NAME. and THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, THE FEW PARAGRAPHS YOU CONSTRUCT HAVE TO PERTAIN TO THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE YEAR 2700. I WILL MAKE IT EVEN EASIER FOR YOU, YOU CAN USE THE YEAR 2000 AND USE THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO REALLY TRY TO DO IT, AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. i AM JUST ASKING YES OR NO COULD YOU DO IT????????? IF YOU SAY YES, YOU ARE BEING DISHONEST. IF YOU SAY NO, THEN DON,T TELL ME AGAIN THAT THE BIBLE CODES ARE BUNK. ALSO I FIND THE TERMS OF GOD THING AND XIAN VERY OFFENSIVE. WHEN YOU DISRESPECT THE ONE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING BUT GOOD TO ME ALL MY LIFE, I CANNOT JUST LET IT GO BY UNNOTICED. PEACE - 15:49:31 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: As the visits and comments of CHUCK go on he displays more and more often than not the same old song and dance of the average religious adherent. Like his message of 01:54 03 Feb to MARLENE, check out sentence#13,"Don't forget the predictive nature of many of these codes". Does not that bit of thought actually contain a person with a pathology that is laced throughout with fear, with a boundless sense of insecurity which compels/attaches him to any idea that cures those things? Pret-near all religious adherents have that kind or sort of weakness of person, it appears to be that kind of attitude/thinking some writer\thinkers of old use to refer to as, communism. The feature concern of those old timers appears that it was individual responsibility. But what did they know, huh? - 16:23:30 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Chuck:Carl. Your lack of a response to my last post should tell volumes about yourself to everyone on this site. All you needed to type was YES or NO. I won,t darken the door of your private little site again. - 16:42:08 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: Are you insane? The rag o'turin, for cryin'out loud dude, early xians made a living selling all kinds of such bullshit! They used to sell the virgins mary's milk! They've sold the cross and bits of the cross! I have read reports that xians even sold the foreskin o'the baby jesus! But, from all that bullshit, you "choose" to say here that that rag o'turin is the real deal, eh? Also, like any and all religious adherents what you really just want others to believe and accept of you is that you really believe and value such impossible nonsense. - 17:26:10 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CHUCK: Now if you have this want that I'd be more than happy to discuss with you, it would be of the religious science union that began in the middle ages. That nonsense I mentioned above was the things the commoners did amongst theirselves. They weren't exactly the cream atop they whey, know what I mean? Of the suggested topic, another fellow writes that a Carolingian philosopher named Erigena wrote this of the artes mechanicae- mechanical arts,"man's link to the devine, (and) cultivating them a means of salvation." This is the beginning of the confusion many never recognise, instead veering off onto some pseudo-whatever like that code thing. What say you, we gonna do this intellectually or do I leave you among the commoners? - 18:32:38 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: There is a better site somewhere on the Web debunking the "bible code".But your post is just fine. Carl: You can always find it through the biblical errancy site. - 21:02:21 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Chuck: The church even called it a fake back in the 13th century when there were 3 of them going around southern Europe.The carbon dating, to be off has to have 3 to 4 times it's weight of dirt on it. I haven't seen any pollen tests. - 21:08:49 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:Farewell CHUCK! I guess your missionary experiment is over...these "poor ignorant savages" were neither as ignorant nor as savage as you have been led to believe, eh? I am sure you were hoping for some insecure soul to "enlighten", or some verification that we were "devils"; yet here we are, just ordinary chatty people who are as secure in ourselves as you in your faith. A learning experience for us all, it is never a waste to spend time understanding others! BTW you mentioned you were a Vietnam Vet, and I want to say I admire that and appreciate those that serve our country, especially the ones that received so little respect as in Vietnam. Thanks for some lively conversation! - 21:21:12 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- I just got in and decided to log on and see what's happening. I have to go right back out in an hour. Why do you get so huffed over what someone else has posted? Like I said before, there will be a lot of disagreement when it comes to atheist vs theist, it only stands to reason. Your not discussing with like minded people here but with people coming from all different views. When discussing with other christians, it not really a challenge but this is. I can discuss with other atheists all I want but the thing we have in common is a non-acceptance of god or gods. We disagree between ourselves here on many issues and through the agruments, I admit, I've changed my mind on a few issues. But when it comes to atheism we atheists' views are alike and as theists, theist views are alike. To discuss non-belief between ourselves, while the discussion is somewhat satisfying because we mutually agree, it's not a challenge, only when a theist vs atheist happens do we have to don our thinking caps. I'm sure it's the same for you. While some atheists may be agressive, use strawmen and ad hominem arguements, so do some theists. Why are you letting these tactics bother you? I will post my response to Isiah 53 tomorrow if you return, otherwise I'll be wasting my time. - 23:25:39 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Another good site! Thank you! I'm also on a bibical errancy mailing list but this isn't the same one. Interesting! - 23:30:14 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Hi CRISTY! jeezz...I hope Chuck's purpose here was a missionary experiment. He wouldn't be the first christian on that mission here though....I was hoping he came here to offer proof of what he believes in. If somehow the proof doesn't stand up to investigation we(he/we) would then disagree and go on to the next piece of evidence. We all learn something in this process. I really hope he wasn't one of those christians who blindly follow without question. It doesn't take much of a mind to do that. We've our share of those types here on a mission. It's like sending a two year old to perform a heart surgery. - 23:41:52 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY-Sorry, that first sentence should have read "wasn't a". I never bother to check my spelling but when it changes the meaning of what I wanted to say, I do the correction. - 23:44:25 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- Before I leave, if you're still around, I wanted to mention that you're offering up some interesting evidence but there are too many pieces to deal with all in one or two days. We are still on the bible code and haven't finished our final arguments on that yet. I've been saving your posts so we know what the next piece was. One or two posts on a subject isn't an actual investigation of it. Let's do this thoroughly. - 23:55:59 on 3 Feb 100 GMT

(Yes he is back ) PETER:>>I want CHUCK to come back, dammit! I am in the mood to make yet again, another person who embraces this bizarre set of beliefs look more diabollically absurd with every post he makes. Gosh darn it.. - 5:40:56 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Sherrial:Methinks Carl can,t answer Chucks question. - 15:28:09 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CHUCK- "xian" is a short form for christian much the same as "xmas". It's not an insult and many christians online use it for themselves (x=christ). - 15:30:23 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:SHERRIAL- As has been shown here, one can find anything they want to in almost any written work using the ELS system. Did you not read the Moby Dick example. There is no direct mention of jesus in Isaiah 53. Who's to say that someone hadn't figured out this code in say...10AD and saw the opportunity to become a martyr and named himself jesus. Of course Chuck has already pointed out that Emmanuel was the actual prophesied name of the messiah but for some reason has dismissed the prophesied name by telling us what the name means in Hebrew. My name means something, many names mean something, this is no excuse for not naming the messiah Emmanuel as prophesied. - 15:42:03 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:SHERRIAL: There is no answer to CHUCK's question. He's come up with merely another way for him and maybe others like him to utter the meaningless sound of g-o-d. What is that? Well he said he had "proof" and if he'd been good enough to pass it on, well he's gone, I guess we'll never know what might have been. CHUCK is just one of an organism that thinks its unique in being able to name, call or identify itself as a something. But, what thing doesn't do that? Now, an FYI, CHUCK started this by saying he had "proof" for that whatever, for which I guess he held as a fact the bible codes. For whatever reason CHUCK thinks- I give that he thinks and doesn't parrot, the number patterns presented in the bible codes have significant meaning or are simply meaningful. With his stated departure my wonderments of our interaction are that CHUCK must have wanted me or us to ingest and be as spell-bound as he is by his "facts". As you can see several here have provided other sites that oppose CHUCK's "facts". He couldn't handle the rejection. I find such actions of blurt and reaction of then run, common to those who erroneously investigate a matter as typically someone who has not exercised rigor of thought. WHat is the answer SHERRIAL? - 16:21:52 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..the 100th monkey thing explained:BETTY- Since Chuck may have decided to leave there is not much sense addressing his post so the next one in line is yours on the 100th monkey so-called phenomenon. In your post you stated " I saw your post about the 100th Monkey thing, and I remember reading about it somewhere before. It's not really supernatural, or unscientific, as you put it." I disagree, yes it does fetor of the supernatural and unscientific, if anything, it's pseudo-science trying to certify the paranormal. For those here that don't know what the 100th monkey phenomenon is, it the claim that monkeys on one island learned to wash potatoes before eating them and it is alleged by Lyall Watson that this has never been done by monkeys before. After 100 monkeys on this island had accomplished this "incredible" feat creating a critical mass of informed monkeys, somehow a sudden spontaneous and mysterious leap of consciousness happened and monkeys hundreds of miles away on another island instantly knew that they had to wash the potatoes before eating them. To give an example how Watson would apply this to people would be say...Carl starts thinking about ending the death penalty then he gets Cristy to start thinking about it then Christy gets her family to start thinking about it and finally when say..100 people start thinking about it. This is the critical mass. At reaching this point, spontaneously all humans start thinking of ending the death penalty. Da Dah!......continued in next post - 16:34:59 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Sherrial:Marlene were there some conspiricy to set up this Messiah myth, at risk to their lives, would not they have known to change their champions name to Emmanuel? After all they were all very well aquainted with old testament writings, they quote from it frequently. Im afraid Chuck is right on. Emmanuel was not a name, it was a title. - 16:42:19 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene the real 100th monkey experiment stands up:Now Watson was not at all truthful when he wrote about this experiment. He started off just fine. There really was an experiment like this done with monkeys and here is the actual experiment and the obsevations that were made::::"Primatologists in Japan had discovered and carefully documented the spread, from monkey to monkey, of a particular feeding behavior within a group of macaques (rhesus monkeys) on Koshima Islet. The primatologists supplied a group of free-range macaques with sweet potatoes. One young macaque discovered that washing the potatoes in the sea or in a stream removed the dirt and sand. Gradually the other macaques in her group learned to wash their potatoes."continued in next post - 16:51:51 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:SHERRIAL- People are still losing their lives over what they perceive to be the truth. Martyrs have always gone to great lengths to get their messages across. I don't know what the politics were at the time, that the followers of this new movement of the time, didn't name their supposed messiah Emmanuel. They were a bunch of secret meetings and such going on with this sect of jews. Maybe Jesus was some kind of secret name for Emmanuel?? I'm going to check out the meaning of the name Jesus in Hebrew and I'll get back to you. - 17:02:04 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I will be continuing the 100th monkey thing much to everyone's dismay, later today but.. alas...I've got some more pressing things to do at the moment. - 17:05:01 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:MONKEY BUSINESS continued....Where Watson started fabricating was when he claimed the 100th monkey started washing the potaotes and then..everything thereafter. In fact Watson goes to the extent of claiming the scientists who created the experiment personally told him (Watson) of the findings Watson writes about in his book _Lifetide_.Here is what one of the scientists, Kawai, had to say about Watson's alleged findings on Kawai's experiment. "1.Is Kawai aware of any sweet potato washing or other skills that propagated more rapidly than would be expected by normal, individual, "pre-cultural" propagation? Answer: No. 2.Is Kawai aware of the spontaneous and rapid spread of sweet potato washing from Koshima to groups of macaques on other islands and on the mainland? Answer: Individual monkeys in other groups or in zoos may have accidentally learned washing behavior, but it hasn't been observed anywhere on Koshima that washing behavior has spread to other group members. 3.Has Kawai heard any "anecdotes or bits of folklore" among his primatologist colleagues regarding rapid behavior propagation, and does he know of any contacts between Lyall Watson and his (Kawai's) colleagues? Answer: No. Kawai believes that the idea of telepathy may have been introduced by Western countries. So much for the New Age image of the "mystical" East. Kawai, the best possible source of information on the Koshima macaques, considers the mass consciousness reported by Watson to have been a Western import." SO much for credible sources on Watson's part, hummm? - 18:11:09 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:..I am sure that if one interprets the text of the bible a certain way, the detailed instructions to building the space shuttle will be found. Anyone who has even a shred of knowledge in the area of statistics, will dismiss these findings as meaningless. Since most people do not have this knowledge, there are literally billions who will be prime fodder for this chicanery. - 19:02:31 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

SHERRIAL:CARL you still havn't answered Chucks question. You need to think for yourself and not rely on some errancy newsletter to do it for you. If you spent as much time in apologetics as you do in errancy, who knows, you might be behind a pulpit by now. - 19:16:16 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:SHERRIAL, are you Chuck in "drag"? Chuck said he was leaving, and it seems a tad silly to talk to empty space! - 20:17:44 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

SHERRIAL:MARLENE I have to go out of town Be back sometime next week.I will try to catch you then. Nice talking to you! - 20:20:16 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

SHERRIAL:cristy I just noticed your message. I want to know for myself what Carl has to say. - 20:28:36 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:SHERRIAL: There is no answer to CHUCK's question. Upon some analysis of what you percieve to be a question, at best it might be a rhetorical question. - 20:41:49 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:OH DARN! Sherrial had to get out of town, just when I found out the meaning of Jesus! - 20:53:57 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Speaking of "Sherrial", I've never heard of that name before, how WOULD one pronouce that--cher re al ? If so what gender would it be attached to? I've heard of Sherry, mainly attached to a female but Sherrial, never heard of it? There are a lot of stange names, for instance my grandaughter is Derri. - 20:58:38 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:HI PETER- good to see you back! - 20:59:40 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

OPEN: Hmmm, so what or where is this "Errancy-Newsletter"? - 21:00:52 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Hmmm, so what or where is this "Errancy-Newsletter"? The question, well heck, as far as I could it looked like CHUCK already knew the answers. - 21:05:55 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: hey! how'd that happen? - 21:07:31 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Then you went on to post "Monkeys are pretty similar to humans so that island story made for a good example of how much we don't know about consciousness. I guess the basic premise is that once something is learned and observed by others the idea spreads across what we normally think of as boundaries, like oceans." I agree, monkeys are like humans in many ways, apes more so. This is likely because we've all evolved from a common ancestor. Unlike creationists, I think you would agree with this. Again, the whim of "raising" consciousness via a critical mass has no scientific evidence to support it. The collective conscious is a new age myth. Until evidence is found to support such an idea, it remains supernatural extraordinary claim. The only way humans learn things is by watching what or hearing about what others do. We may learn new things by experimenting. Once that new method is discovered, it's passed on to the rest of us through the same learning techniques I mentioned. Nothing has changed in this system for millions of years. The only things new are the tools we use to communicate with. - 21:26:17 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- A few posts back, Doug posted a site for an errancy newsletter. It's a good site, did you check it out. I suspect Sherrial has some stange idea that you're ideas come from that site and you're words aren't you're own. Obviously an error on their part. - 21:30:16 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Thanks for the direction, but no I haven't had an opportunity to see or go over all the added sites the folks leave here. That SHERRIAL might make that assumption has a kind of possibility to it. Would 'that kind of assumption' constitute another example of the 100th monkey idea? - 22:51:31 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene.....some things to consider: what about a collective sub-consciousness that makes up universal organization? Isn't the universe all tied together as "one" on some fine level and governed by the same laws throughout? The collective particles of earth are connected via gravatational forces to the collective particles of the moon; therefore, one molecule in your body must be connected to each and every molecule on the moon. And as the earth is connected to the sun, the sun to the galaxy, the galaxy to the big bang orgin, etc. Could we therefore not scientifically say the one molecule in your body is connected to one molecule on the other side of the universe via these so called gravational forces that cause organization? And isn't the universe really "one" on the finer particle levels? The forces on this finer level caused organization, but would this be the same as a collective sub-consciousness? - 23:14:33 on 4 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Was there a name attached to the above post? I'm still working on the response to Betty's post. I have a feeling that the above post was also from someone into the new age ideas. I will respond without a problem although it would be appreciated if people would label their posts. - 4:11:24 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:..MARLENE,,Dost thou smelleth another 'Bill' here in our presence, complete with this nauseating and brooding speculative 'cosmic consciousness' cree-apola..Oh fuck...And as James Randi so aptly put.." No amount of evidence will...change the minds of these unsinkable rubber ducks' - 4:37:57 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene the weird and wonderful Jung:BETTY- You also said, " weird, but that's also the foundation for Jung's archetypes." And you said it, weird is the only word for Carl Jung who believed in astrology, spiritualism, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance and ESP for starters. He also invented a few bizarre beliefs of his own, synchronicity and the collective unconscious which he tried to use as therapy for his patients. If one wasn't acutely disturbed before they went to see this guy I could see them being after a few sessions with him. Synchronicity of course is a principle that has nothing to do with cause and effect that connects events having a similiar meaning in time rather than in turn. Jung claimed that there is a synchrony between the mind and the phenomenal world of perception. There is no evidence that such connections occur or have ever occured. In fact Jung's "proof" is this "the premise of probability simultaneously postulates the existence of the improbable". In fact there is an actual mental disorder for this called apophenia. Now we come to the famous "collective unconscious" which of course the new age guru's have changed slightly to give the image of enhanced awareness to "collective consciousness". This is how Jung came to invent the collective unconscious. Jung suffered a period of mental illness although IMO, it may have been more than a period. During this time he thought himself a seer with special insight. He described his illness/enlightenment as a voluntary confrontation with the unconscious. This "enlightenment" was that all his patients over 35 (I guess no one under 35 was afflicted) suffered from a loss of religion. This left a big hole in the over 35ers and he knew how to cure that. He would fill it up with his own metaphysical system of archetypes and the collective unconscious. - 4:49:45 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Fe Fi Foo Fiffer, I think I detect a fern-sniffer. - 4:51:28 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I lurve the "cree-apola" LOL! Just got it, a little slow... Must be the battle I'm having with my unconscious responding to Betty's post. And am I done yet, you hope...hell no. There is even more of Jung Junk to follow. - 4:57:30 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I know you are all curious about how Jung was going to cure all the over 35ers but..it will be continued tomorrow. Tonight this redneck atheist is overwhelmed by all this absurdity. Woe is the skeptic for they are doomed to the drudgery of reality and the torment from those who are not. Hummm..that was pretty good. I wonder if Grant would consider putting that among the atheist quotes? - 5:12:22 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

MARLENE--What exactly does one expect to smell when sniffing a fern? - 6:06:08 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

I posted on here a few days ago - 12:03:43 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Yvonne:MARLENE - Thanks for your kind response and welcome. It was appreciated. Unfortunately, I cant post everyday so hope I can find your responses easily. I didnt realize I had brought so much up until you responded. I dont have time this morning to get into prophecy but promise next week I will pick one out for discussion! In regard to your answer to my belief we express faith merely by getting out of bed each morning - you basically said if bad things happen (ie what was mentioned), you are at fault for not noticing (ie the crack in the cup before it breaks, the tree instability before it falls). Many people just dont have time to be that observant. Btw - if you plan to sit in a chair, you have faith it will hold you up. You dont turn it upside down to inspect each time before sitting! You misunderstand about my statement on river currents - we all know about them today. But I was speaking of days BEFORE it was discovered by mankind....before we knew of the river current existance...it was already mentioned in the Bible (but most likely not understood at that time). Another example of man's discovery of things already mentioned in Bible is in Jonah - while in the whale, he was able to describe the "mountains" at the depth of the ocean. How is it possible that man would have known about this BC? And the original manuscripts of the OT have been proven to date back far before such discoveries! Enjoy your weekend! - Oh, I was the fool who made the post "I have posted here before." At the time I couldnt figure out how to go backward far enuf to pick up my original post - in searching I inadvertently hit another buttone that seemed to post what I'd said. But all is figured out now! - 12:24:12 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- Did you also type the other post that have no name attached. If so, I will respond. Good to see you back! - 15:13:18 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:YVONNE-Your description of 'faith' ( getting up in the morning, sitting in chair), is one definition of faith, but this application is more like 'trust'..and NOT the same as faith when applied to religious concerns. That kind of faith is believing in something regardless of any counter-evidence, or lack of any evidence. It is a slothful method of substiting, or adding premises, for the strict purpose of forming a pre-determined conclusion. It is as cognitively dishonest as anything imaginable. It re-defines reality, as its main role ie is to evade reality, and coincidentally this method of cognition is the same one upon all evil acts are based . - 15:54:13 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

jaywilson--even the Bible-belters don't read their own book--:YVONNE: Jonah didn't "describe" or "discover" anything; he went "to the _moorings_ of the mountains"--prophetic hyperbole for the ocean's depths. - 15:55:03 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Before I continue on with the Betty response, I think it was Sherrial who I told I'd find out what the name Jesus means. Before I post what it means, has anyone here been told what it means by believers? - 15:59:50 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene--Replenishing the Mind with Jung Junk:BETTY-I'm wide awake and chipper this morning. My unconscious had a wild time last night creating bizzare dreams. I love my dreams...it's like reading a Stephen King story only 100 fold better. Your right, there is little known about the workings of our brains but more and more is being discovered every day. Testable evidence reveals that if one doesn't sleep for a number of days they will begin to hallucinate or suffer waking dreams. The cure? Sleep, of course. Some people suffer from schizophrenia which is very similiar to waking dreams, no cure yet but medications that control brain chemicals seem to relieve symptoms and allow the patient to recognize the differences between their hallucinations and reality. Some people claim they have out of the body experiences. Doctors performing brain surgery have stimulated certain areas in the brain in which the patient has experienced an out of the body sensation when that part of their brain was stimulated. The objective of the above information is to show that if one has a theory, one needs testable evidence to fortify the theory. Of course all this evidence wasn't known to Jung at the time and although he studied under Freud, he didn't accept his theories either, which is also only theory and hasn't help up to testing. Jung thought archetypes existed. He explains an archetype as omnipresent predispositions not grounded in experience that arise spontaneously in the mind most predominantly during times of crisis. It's at this point that some of the new age ideas come in, most especially quantum mechanics. This so-called spontaneous appearance of "archetypes" is purported to be supported by quantum mechanics therefor an actual physical occurance. These archetypes are collective/universal and people like Watson for instance has taken Jung's junk science a step further to a collective consciousness where these archetypes will spontaneously appear in the conscious mind collectively/universally. BUT there is absolutely no evidence that archetypes exist and although Watson tried to use the 100th monkey idea as evidence, he falsified the evidence and in fact even the experiment itself. - 16:53:30 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene...no gods or archetypes need apply:BETTY- You go on to say "then you study comparative mythology, it's obvious that all cultures share similar symbols and meanings, even though they were spread throughout the world. You'll also find that people all over the world are talking about the same things, but in different language and different metaphors. That collective subconsciousness stuff may sound hokey but the similarities can't be denied." We don't need extraordinary theories to explain this. Through out the world we have humans living on the same planet, all seeing the sun and it's benefits, all seeing the other animals who inhabit this planet and their characteristics and benefits to humans, all noticing each other's habits, emotions and physical capabilities. Being human, all wanting more. All this is natural human behaviour. Different peoples had different animal gods. The animal gods were gods fashioned after the animals they saw and admired or hunted. Before humans had learned to understand the reasons for seasons they made gods of them. Finally who better to fashion a god after, of course, a human! In time hopefully god symbols or even archetypes won't be needed to explain the nature of our planet or the universe . - 17:24:45 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene science doesn't allow confusion between hopes and facts:BETTY- And finally, I know you and some others are saying "I wish I never brought this up!" you stated ""The science of it, like always, is to invent a hypothesis based on the repeatable evidence. It always amazes me to think about it that the best theories we have are only as good as the most intelligent people who come up with them, so it wouldn't surprise me if science will eventually exhaust all its current theories, then have to reinvent itself for the things still left unexplained. " Who could respond to this better than Carl Sagan so I'll post what he has to say on this subject from his book _The Demon Haunted World_. He said "There is much science doesn't understand, many mysteries still to be resolved. In a Universe tens of billions of light-years across and some ten or fifteen billion years old, this may be the case forever. We are constantly stumbling on surprises. Yet some New Age and religious writers assert that scientists believe that "what they find is all there is". Scientists may reject mystic revelations for which there is no evidence except somebody's say-so, but they hardly believe their knowledge of Nature to be complete". - 18:05:01 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:SHERRIAL- "Jesus" is a Greek variation of the Hebrew name "Joshua." Joshua means "the lord is my salvation." or "Jesus" is the Greek adaptation of the Hebew name "Joshua", which literally means "Yah saves". I would say that this was an appropriate name that a martyr would assume. If Jesus did exist, there is no positive proof that he did. There were no records written at the time he was supposedly living, only 30-40 years after his death were some records written. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. As you've likely noticed it was "Christ" who was written about not "Jesus" and certainly not "Emmanuel". Nevertheless, it's not hard to take a prophecy from the bible and as Captain Picard would say "Make it so!". If Jesus did live, he was likely a rebel against the religion of the time and on reading the NT, there is evidence toward that. He wouldn't have been the first or the last with a messiah complex. - 18:32:36 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- You wrote:" you basically said if bad things happen (ie what was mentioned), you are at fault for not noticing (ie the crack in the cup before it breaks, the tree instability before it falls). Many people just dont have time to be that observant" . Tell the auto insurance companies this one. - 18:36:08 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:You wrote :"you misunderstand about my statement on river currents - we all know about them today. But I was speaking of days BEFORE it was discovered by mankind....before we knew of the river current existance...it was already mentioned in the Bible (but most likely not understood at that time)." Yes, I did misunderstand, I'm sorry. I'm not saying at all that the bible is completely errant. It has some truthful facts like any legendary piece of literature. I think you meant to say discovered my modern century man. More than likely man was living by that river or traveled on or beside the river at one time otherwise there would have been no mention of it in legend. - 18:41:28 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YVONNE- I'm looking forward to discussing the prophecies with you! Have a good weekend too! - 18:44:04 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Am I finished for now? Yup! You can all breathe a sigh of relief! - 18:45:05 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene couldn't resist answering this:oops! Not quite finished. The unknown poster asked this "MARLENE--What exactly does one expect to smell when sniffing a fern?" The answer is "absolutely nothing!" - 18:53:01 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, you are a one-woman crusade this week! They've really got your gears a'turnin! - 21:09:06 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene, your a "Redneck Atheist"? Luv ya, hon! - 23:17:50 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- They gotta move sometimes otherwise they rust. - 23:51:50 on 5 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:TO THE NONAME POSTER AGAIN! I know I'm a redneck atheist because my ritual music is Imagine by John Lennon. I know I'm a redneck atheist because the laird is what I make apple pies with. I know I'm a redneck atheist because my annointing oils come from the Love Shop. I know I'm a redneck atheist because when I see pictures of jesus christ, ZZ Top comes to mind. I know I'm a redneck atheist...wanna hear more? - 0:34:00 on 6 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:The religious right have really outdone themselves with this one "THE NEW SCHOOL PRAYER---Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule. For this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd. If Scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights. And anytime my head I bow Becomes a federal matter now. Our hair can be purple or orange or green, That's no offense, it's the freedom scene. The law is specific, the law is precise, Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice. For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at all. In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the State. We're allowed to cuss & dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues & cheeks. They've outlawed guns; but FIRST the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable. We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, And the unwed daddy, our Senior King. It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong. We can get our condoms, & birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires & totem poles. But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, No Word of God must reach this crowd. It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess. So, Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot, My soul please take. - 14:46:05 on 6 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, the ones that think religion (xianity specifically) is the ONLY way to combat "chaos" are the ones that will allow no other solution to be found. - 19:21:28 on 6 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- They DO know everything, don't they. Taking into account that 90% of US children come from nice christian families, why do all the kids that kill kids believe in god. Believing in god doesn't seem to have done a damn thing for them. If the whole school, shooters included, all started the morning with the lord's prayer, nothing would have changed. The shooting would have still happened, people would have still died and the shooters would have thought they were going to heaven, just like they said in a video they made of themselves earlier. Prayer or god or jeezus has nothing to do with treating each other humanely. - 1:05:01 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I think that the fear of a god is good for keeping people in line to some extent. If that is someone's only reason for behaving, then I am happy they have religion! It's good for those that don't have the inner strength and concience to feel that someone is "watching them". But I am in total agreement with you that it ain't doing THAT great a job! Perhaps it's that little loophole that the only thing God *really* cares about is if you worship HIM. If they would invent a more humane and less vain god it might be more effective. But what can you expect when god is created in man's image? - 2:54:13 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- You may have a point there. While some people can live in society and respect another's turf, others just can't. I guess the fear of god is a deterrent for those people. Do they really fear god though, would they sell their houses, give up everything they have and do the lord's work as jesus did? Not too many are willing to do that. How fearful are they? Although I personally see the wrong in both the following instances, christians don't. Instance A)--We have two boys who were ridiculed because they weren't jocks, they killed. Then they killed themselves, feeling sure they were going to be accepted in heaven. InstanceB)--2Kings2.23&24 And he(Elisha) went up from tence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way; there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him and said unto him, Go up thou bald head, Go up thou bald head. And he turned back and looked upon them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them. - 5:22:15 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..:CRISTY- Who needs a humane god, we just need to be more humane as humans. Of course that would mean no more big guns and smart missels. No TV shows where everyone gets their heads blown off or kicked off by some Karate hero. Maybe the meaning of the word "hero" needs to be changed. - 5:28:07 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:..Christianity sells-- as well as a few other equally irrational mainstream religions. It has had the advantage of having centuries of packaging and marketing a set beliefs, that are fairly simple and accessible to the lowest common denominator of human intelligence. Laced by threats of eternal doom, it offers comfort and happiness to those who adhere to its stict dogma. Trouble is, its instructions are as vague as any doctrine could possibly be, and its net result gives mankind the best excuse possible to draw as many lines in the sand as he wants--a path which can do nothing more than confirm the inpending inevitibilty to human destruction. - 10:20:42 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER-I guess I must be even lower than the low because I can't see how something laced with threats of eternal doom would comfort me. Some of the natural controls on the human population are disease and famine. Maybe war is natural too. We all know most wars are over a belief system or at least that's what those who are out in the fields believe that's what they are out there for, to serve god. Maybe belief is a human destruction. - 15:17:08 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: looks like BETTY figures to find reasonable indications that "a" supernatural something or other always was among or even that it was in the experiences of the human organism. Well, for some that has to be or must be a most reassuring thought. On the other hand, I've read enough things of and by the human critter to think that the point of view which it appears BETTY means to marshall to the forefront I find myself thinking, she knew first what she wanted to find. What she did for the views she presents here looks like a program I saw on tv last eve. A type of laity was extolling the views of some religious philosophic accounts of sexual abstinence. That guy must have "chosen" to ignore those old popes that fathered offspring and the current reports of a high percentage of aids among the catholic priests. That ignoring of "other" accounts is what I'd bet BETTY has done for her point of view. For whatever reason I picked up a book on Anglo-Saxon superiority and the author writes with acquiescence for the xian interests but still writes that the character of the ancient 'anglo-saxon' was focused on individual responsibility firstly, "godstuff" was the concern of other peoples. Most interesting, hmmm, of WJC and his spouse by the views espoused by that author it appears that they do not come from an upbringing to espouse Anglo-Saxon virtues. - 18:18:41 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yes, I think too that people who see what's not really there put on their rosey coloured glasses before viewing. What does one see through rosey coloured glasses? Why..pink unicorns, of course! - 19:25:21 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I see that in NY a bunch o'folks were dismissed from their jobs for newage technological reasons. They emailed some data around that were deemed as not protected by the tenets of the USA freedom o'speech. The interesting matter for thought here, what happens if the Disney co.buys an atheist chat site and declares the site's dialogues as unfit and unprotected? Awhile back I'd heard then read that the Disney co.was buying up such sites and 'redirecting-them'. Now, in today's world why would any intelligent[?] individual position align their views or logically relate their concerns and connections with people of today in whatever terms people of antiquity once sed? This is essentially what- for example, the people who advocate prayer in school so desire. The decalogue as far as I can tell once may have been a necessary connection between the consciences of those ancient now dead peoples. Today we now living peoples connect and communicate at the speed o'light via this PC-gadget. Those ancient dead peoples traveled afoot or on the backs of animals! What is truely inherent for todays people from that image of the ancients? Freedom of speech; on the i-net; perhaps its now a matter of, "the law therefore, shall not be made by [a] society and imposed upon men- it shall be the law inherent in the society of men." The inherencies of today surely, obviously have other requirements. - 20:23:44 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Can you link me to this story. I can't seem to find it. "I see that in NY a bunch o'folks were dismissed from their jobs for newage technological reasons. They emailed some data around that were deemed as not protected by the tenets of the USA freedom o'speech." - 20:34:41 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..ho humm and another one bites the dust:I sure hope Sherrial and Betty didn't decided to drop out of the discussion. If so, either they couldn't argue their point or they are doing some serious research to do so. Like Chuck who couldn't take the heat, maybe they decided to get out of the kitchen. There are cooks then there are COOKS. - 20:39:41 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: sure will try, of CHUCKi, SHERRIAL and BETTY, what can they do but get frustrated. Its troubles them that they can't passon their gullible excitements like does say a 4x4 track relay team that hands a baton from member to member. if that URL is unretrievable it is the following http://www.msnbc.com/news/366051.asp - 21:09:35 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I get jokes everyday through email which are forwarded from a friend, who's friend works at a Manitoba government office. This friend's friend, gets the jokes forwarded from other govenment offices, some including the federal government offices. Paying the enomously high taxes we do in this country and province, it pisses me that people who threaten to take away someone's home for non- payment of taxes can play with their email on my dime or more like my $100 bill in this country. These jokes are much more raunchy than some of the material these employees got fired over. Although I don't blame the company for firing these people as it did forwarn them, I don't think they would disallow say..the 2Kings2 23&24. Worse than any adult joke of a sexual nature would be violence against children, wouldn't you think? BUT...I would almost guarantee The New York Times Co. wouldn't fire someone for having bibical quotes on their email file. - 21:57:40 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:OH WELL CARL- Although Chuck, Sherrial and Betty can't cook, Yvonne says she can. She said she was going to post a prophecy for us to discuss this week. It'll likely turn out to be a marble cake but hey..at least we'll be cooking. - 22:01:04 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: In this day and age, the legislators will have to revise the standards by which they'll seek to accomodate the relationships, be these as they may, of people. It is an utter act of sheer stupidity if any attempt to portray those old sheepherder myth and superstitions as relevant to today's times. If, here let us anticipate, YVONNE drags her example of some biblical prophecy here and attempts to veil it in spirit stuff, that too can't work. What can she attach "her-views-to" but other unknowables! What is YVONNE gonna argue love; unknown, happiness; in terms of the ancients come-on, this could go on and on. Whatever the words were that are of the old the ancients even the pope looks silly tryin'to hang todays views on and about that old nonsense. What can YVONNE do? And I kind of like reading the pope's stuff, he is a very clever smart fella. He can't do or say anything in real human-relevancies for his chosen abstraction but he oft hints at current human concerns. And a hint is all he can do, its the abstraction that is the etherialness of religion, that etherial thing to the non-theist is the thing which is the unspeakable that all see. The word we say that to you tells you something about what I see, that word is not the thing. Prophecy!!!! What nonsense. - 23:30:34 on 7 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:CARL.....Prophecy, schmocephy..Like I have said before, anyone with even a smidgen*( sic? )of knowledge in the area of statistics ( about what mine is ) would recognize these prophetic claims about as meaninglesss as anything imaginable....*( rhymes with 'pigeon'). YVONNE--bring it on, and watcheth me trampleth upon it, as I so loveth to do. - 10:46:32 on 8 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Well, it looks like the meek ones have departed, back to or into their safe states o'mind where a heaven awaits and well, they were as close to a hell as they'll ever dare with their being at this site. Here is where their every bit of non-thought was pointed out. Here they found themselves scrambling for thoughts to support the assumptions they inscribed here. Here they found that nobody was gonna "give" them understanding or do any pooper scooping for what they sought to say that is nonsensical. All that they and their kind gotta do is present their godthing, so a question or two could be asked of it. - 19:02:27 on 8 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..:CARL-I disagree, I think they may be as close to heaven as they will come. Hell, from what I understand, is confusion and nashing of teeth, not to mention fire, brimstone and the nauseating senseless suffering inflicted by Mother T. Why Stan stays there, anyone would wonder but then again, how was he to know that Mother T would end up there. Heaven, from what I understand, is peace, understanding, wisdom and paradise. Not too different from the atmosphere here. I know, that ole baby killer, god, is also in heaven but Gabby and St. Peter are working on behalf of Mother T, on extraditing him to hell so he can be with his bride. On the other hand Krishna and Mohammed are working on extraditing Stan to heaven. Stan has abandoned any wicked ways he may have had due to the threat of eternal damnation with Mother T. Even Mohammed and Krishna can have empathy with that situation. Now Gabby and St. Peter have their reservations on accepting Stan into paradise. Stan, himself, in the past has had his following of worshippers, and they really don't need another narcissist insisting that everyone else waste their time praising him. Oh, the never ending saga of heaven and hell.... - 19:41:50 on 8 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: That book I mentioned was a most interesting thing to read. As I read it and noted how the author regularly referred to those who needed supernatural reassurances were typically other people while the early anglo-saxon types were individualistic first and foremost. The author seemed to describe a kind of people sure of and very confident in themselves and as such were mentally self sustaining. Unlike the early German accounts that came-up with and promoted the "aryan" thing this author has it that an anglo-saxon type came out of northern europe and settled the rest o'europe and did so instilling their sense of personal responsibility throughout it to great britain. Only when the religious influences, that are so cherished by the weaker peoples from the south italy greece the mid-east and parts of africa, did the anglo-saxon influences so get watered down. I see you confess to redneckness, well a few days ago I watched a TLC program on 'The New Skinheads'. I found I could make out from some of what was said for the "white-people" that there was a real concern. According to that author the anglo-saxon type person does not like anything or anyone meddling "in" their existence, such as gov't religion and other tribalisms. It was a fun book to read, had me saying hmmm? - 21:13:24 on 8 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I may be prone to a little red-neck thinking, me being from the sticks and all but I'm certainly not a skinhead!!! - 22:27:31 on 8 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: heheh! of course not. - 23:09:20 on 8 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Since no one seems to want to discuss god or gods or blue fairies...let me tell you a little about what's happening here in Canadia, land of the socialist free. Big Brother has exeruled a regulationlaw handed down from the Ministry of Labour in the Territory of British Columbia. This regulationlaw deals with the autarchic-free limitation shield handed down by the Ministry to protect workers from secondhand smoke. No public facility may allow anyone to smoke within them. In order to administer the autarchic-free limitation shield the Ministry if Labour has set up a snitch line for all comrades to call if they see a violation occuring. Being devout comrades of Canadia, that they are, have been calling the snitch line as expected and numerous businesses have been fined thousands of dollars which of course will go to finace the over worked Ministry of Labour. These delinquent business owners who violate the autarchic-free limitation shield have had a taste of what Big Brother can do. They had to close their businesses and put numerous comrades out of work due to the new "shield" and the hefty fines paid to the Ministry of Labour, not to mention the enormously burdensome business tax. When asked why the Ministry is disabling business, the Commandant replied, that the businesses should provide better service then comrades would support them. When asked how these poor comrades who were out of work would live, he said that they would qualify for welfare. The taxes the Ministry of Finance collects on tobacco would be more than enough to pay the living expenses of all families laid off due to the shield, of course after the Ministry's espenses are taken first. If not, the taxes of neccesities like gasoline and the GST would make up for the shortage. He reminds comrades, to be thankful they live in a free country like Canadia. - 16:17:14 on 9 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: What inna'fuck do those Canadian people think? It upsets me down here to see promoted- before the public, ideas that its a good thing to be protected and provided for by a gov't or big business. Down here, at the time it was an incredible thing to see of the impeachment thing that so many people would see a liar and lying as ok. Now, it looks like those same folk want the gov't to provide health coverage and assorted other services! That is not a healthy national desire. Through all these provisons, in the end do these folks realise that with such an advancement of democracy comes a meaning that you and me gotta giveup some of our being so others get along too? I mention that for I've this article on religious tolerance, that describes "religion" as getting along in just about that way. That examplifies my larger view that it is always just the human organism which with other like and same organisms that seek to have "their-way". Above I inscribed a thought of law as it connects and joins people. Also I allowed that religious stuff as the decalogue a place because they probably had a similar such meaning when first put before those old sheep and goat herders. Well I suspect that advocates for the utilisation o'the decalogue in today's wurld, do so because they are just lazy political thinkers that know that the concerns they hear are from a lazy thinking constituency. Do not the lazy simply find room for and allow for the immoral? Its not an act of a conservative and surely not progressive thinker! Its just laziness, is this another topic? - 19:30:32 on 9 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:LOL Comrade Marlene! - 20:15:07 on 9 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:I went to a playgroup today that is heavily religious. About half have dropped out to join a bible study, but they were there today for the Valentine's party. One gal I have known for years and really like, even if she did drop out to go on her religious quest. Anyhoo, as I was leaving today she slipped this cassette into my car while saying goodbye. I looked at it as I was driving home and it was some kind of sermon tape! I popped it in to be sure she hadn't recorded Raffi on it or something, but some guy was preaching. I had told the playgroup (when she wasn't there) that I was not religious, and one gal was actually physically stunned, as if she never expected to see a real live heathen. She had just embarked on a spiritual re-awakening so perhaps she thought I would suck all the goodness out of the room or something. So I am wondering if I am now the subject of tongue clucking in shrouded church chambers and this gal I like is trying to "save" me. I know this probably sounds goofy to you that live more "open book" lives but I'm wondering whether to call her up and find out if I'm some "reform project" or she is just going around spreading "joy" to her friends or something. Maybe I'll just tattoo 666 on my forehead and be done w/ it! :-) - 20:22:24 on 9 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..tis' a cruel world for the atheist:CRISTY- A real live heathen, lol! Maybe next time you go by her car, drop this internet address on the windshield, she'll meet some cyber ones! I suppose I'm kind of a loner. I've tried to join a few groups in the area but it's the same thing you experience. They sit around and have coffee at the local cafe and pray for a new stove or refridgerator. When they did this, I smiled and they got pissed so I started talking about the weather. Then the next time I went to the cafe they invited me over. So I thought, why not..they must be through with their prayers for today. I was correct to some degree, they didn't pray but were (grin) testimonying! One lady (who also drives truck) was telling me about a truck driver who "drives for jesus" (that makes me more nauseated than those people who have pictures painted all over their trucks). Anyway this guy never wears shoes and he spreads the word of Jesus all over North America. So I was thinking, what if the DOT catch him driving with no shoes but I didn't say it because that one would have went over their heads so instead I said "Surely this guy wears something on his feet when he's strapping loads in Edmonton or here in Winnipeg when it's -40.". She said "no, the lord is with him. The snow melts under his feet". I looked her radiant face and the look of awe on the other two ladies faces and I laughed, like a burst of laughter. They all looked at me like a cow does at a passing train. Strange..they never invited me for coffee again. And to tell the truth, I'd rather be alone. I DO have friends though who do believe in god but are not fundy. They just don't mention the guy around me. - 22:00:52 on 9 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, that is TOO FUNNY, I'm swiping at tears from laughing! "The snow melts under his feet"! Hysterical! Wonder if that has something to do w/ him being a warm-blooded mammal?! Or does belief in Jesus cause decrease in brain function? hehehe - 22:42:01 on 9 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..would you believe..:CRISTY- You think that's too funny, another person I try to communicate with lives next door. She's a nice lady, well versed in polka music and _Carrots love Tomatoes_ but that's the extent of her reading or listening enlightenment. Otherwise, she knows it all, instinctively. For instance, did you know that hummingbirds hitch-hike back south by attaching their beaks to the soft down under the wing of a Canada goose? Or that you risk getting sick if you have a computer in your house because some of them have viruses? Or if you drink soy milk, it will rid your body of estrogen? Or portable phones will cause gout? Or garter snakes will sneak in the house and hibernate in your mattress? - 0:07:20 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:MARLENE--Sorry gal, but actually it's 'fundie'. 'Fundy' is a 'Bay of' in Nover Scohsher ( oops )....somehow I just can't see ole' JC shiftin' up on a Peterbilt... - 10:13:39 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ST. PETER (patron saint of grammer) oops! Nover Scohsher, lol! You would NOT believe the number to truckers out there "truckin for Jesus". In fact, in the US, there is a rig itself that's a church. Two guys drive this thing aound and stop at truck stops and rest stops to share the word. It has a 52 ft trailer all set up inside with pews and the whole bit. I couldn't believe it existed until I seen it myself. BUT according to this outfit, the lord loves a Ford. - 15:34:22 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Actually, work is a little slow for the last year, actually a lot slow. Maybe the thing to do is buy a couple of trailers and decorate them up, A-trains or B-trains. We could have the CoC in one and CLS in the other, kilt two boirds with one stone. St. James, my partner, does just fine on telling people to go to hell. Maybe he could change the wording a little and say you will go to hell, unless you pay St. James. The perfect highway robbery! And I thought those guys with the travelling jesus show were nuts! - 15:45:32 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN; well, it is day two for me and no religious responses so they lost again. This morn a lady here and I were talkin about her muslim son in africa. Thru our talk she finally got to a conclusion that the decalogue was meaningless to me. I sed yep. She asked next did that include the thou shall not kill "law", I laffed and sed yes. I added that was just a thing come up with by the ancestors of those old goat and sheep who were cannibles. That "law" just ensured they wouldn't be eatin'each other, even at 'most times' of need. Then I reminded her o'those tales of that godthing so likin'the aroma of burnt flesh. They musta'ate each other and had to makeup some kinda claim to control the ease at which they could get others for a dinner. Did they eat and breed outta'existence guys and gals like the cromagnon and neanderthal types? - 16:39:50 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You're right! This Moses story is just so senseless. So senseless that it's more than likely just a myth. I'm sure this lady told you that Jesus to the muslims is a prophet like Moses or Abraham but they still believe in the gobelygook of the OT. This myth had a smidgeon of sense to it though. If one can imagine leading millions of peope through a desert, one would have to have societial rules, "thou shalt not kill" would be one of them. I don't know if they resorted to cannibalism, that's a thought, but they would likely be tempted to kill one another over goods or wives/husbands. Therefore the law "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shalt not covet thy neigbour's wife or ass (I missed out something here because written this way it almost takes on another meaning, lol). In reality, the so-called first commandment "that shalt have no gods before me" was a control implemented by Moses. This way he could say, god said this and that. If for instance a group of them said "well my goddess disagrees" that would cause a breakdown in the conformity one would need to control such a large group of people trying to survive in a desert. - 17:01:14 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Of late I've asked myself why do I read? Do I need information- maybe, is it for pleasure- maybe, is for mental stimulation- this is definitly an instance for the use of the word "believing" that that stimulation is so. Of that moses thing, it is just a worded account intended for and of an ancient now dead people. Whatever those ancients of then actually saw and heard any experience they had very simply ended, became no more as they died. Today folks figure however so, that "they-know" the whatever that was meant by those words in the story told by those ancients, but what do they of today know? All that people today can know is only a fantastic story. I've seen it called the greatest story ever told. In spite of that very accurate reference some of today's people for their various reasons they "choose" to hold that that old story has a meaning of something supernatural. Does it? How so? Unfortunately I do not read a "clear-seeing and thinking" account of an innocent time- in any part of the bible, that for my mind adds favorably to the total experience of the human organism's natural existence. The supernatural, what is that? I have an idea in mind of what that could be, and it definitly requires no worship. - 18:29:03 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:MARLENE--Well, let's face it, your typical trucker isn't the kind of person equipped with the tools that can see the wares the christian promoters try to sell can survive critical examination. this coupled by the fact the trucker is on the road by himself often, alone with his own thoughts-and even a tiny seeding of the God stuff can expand into who knows where. But I am sure this never happened to you...haha - 19:48:20 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- You'd be surprised! You have your run of the mill truck drivers who are into it for the money and chat sessions at every second truck stop on their route then you have the people who like solitude and think a lot. These days most truckers aren't in for the money with the costs of operating going up and up and the rates the same as they were ten years ago. So now we have the tourists with cowboy boots, key chains, dome fastening shirts or biker/trucker T shirts who when not bullshitting at truckstops are listening to the country-western station on the radio but they do have enough spunk to be their own boss, I give them that. Then we have the solitary types (like my partner and I) who also want to be their own boss because working with other people basically irritates them. Truckers like this normally stop and eat when they are hungry, wear ordinary clothing (pain jeans, Tshirts with no writing on them, shoes that don't fall apart when soaked with diesel), get their loads to destinations on time and listen to talk radio, that is is they are not religious, if so, they listen to religious music and religious programs. My partner listens to Art Bell quite a bit and we get some pretty good laughs when he tells me the latest junk Bell is peddling on his show. Before the new year he was selling "hand operated generators". I would imagine he's either saving them for 2001 or maybe when that meteor hit looms near. Anyway my point is that truck drivers come from all walks of life. There are doctors, lawyers, teachers etc. out there driving because of the opportunity for solitude. I've driven many a lonesome highway and during that time one thinks a great deal, one has the time. - 20:33:09 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Betty... where do thoughts come from?:Marlene, I appreciate your tenacity but it's not exactly necessary. Here is maybe a better explanation: What you're asking for is a step by step exchange of molecules to put together non-local chains of events to explain these phenomenae. Like the no-name poster explained, there is no way (yet) to identify transference, exchange, absorption, or emittence of particles in real-time - they all exist in the same universe at that moment in time. Think globally, or universally, here. There is nothing supernatural about the universe except our meanings of it. Meanings are our invention, but that's for another time. The problem most materialists have (and I'm not making any labels for you) is that they can't handle any theory that can't be reduced into it's simplest parts or forms. The theory of the collective subconcious is based on a world-wide phenomena. Reducing it to a direct chain of events would be like (in a cautiously simple and frustrating example) trying to label each grain of sand on a beach, entering its location into a computer, using a satellite system to track each one of them as the waves come crashing in, or from other physical movements from animals or people, and trying to come up with a theory that would be sufficiently explain the variable movement each grain of sand makes in an ephemearal frame. So what do we do? We don't make up specific theories for each grain of sand, we say it's pointless to track them all, and we just call it the sand or the beach as a generalization to describe it's progress. How is this comparable to consciousness? Millions of people transferring energy each moment, ideas are shared, dreams fulfilled, communication and much more continues all at the same time because of this constant exhange. It's a collective exchange amongst the whole world of consciousness, and when you think of the bigger picture, there are no boundaries - not oceans, mountains, or scientific theories. Consciousness, itself, is the phenomenon, not the theories for it. Does this make sense? - 20:39:39 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Carl- Btw, I wasn't referring to the Noah Flood myths or creation stories, however, they do seem to be present in all mythologies. That's the trivial stuff. I was referring to the spiritual representations, the deeper issues that embody the beliefs. - 20:48:49 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: Oooo! "Deeper" stuff of things of old. This looks like if you was a religious minded person then you'd be resetting the slow running clock of religion. - 21:06:27 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Good to see you back! " The theory of the collective subconcious is based on a world-wide phenomena." What phenomena? - 21:13:00 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Correction..."Noah Flood myths or creation stories, however, they do seem to be present in all mythologies"...The flood myths may be present in some mythologies but not "all" mythologies. Creation stories are present in most mythologies. - 21:16:03 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, sounds like you are a deeper thinker than I am so I won't delve into analyzing stuff that is beyond my ability or desire to analyze, and I'll just say "Hello!". I'd be curious to know more about you......I'm a 30ish stay-at-home-mom from Texas, former Xian turned atheist in the college years. Livin' in the bible belt so most of my struggles are trying to fit in here. Whether to be silent and act conformist, or go shooting off my big mouth and making enemies...oh the dilemmas! - 21:17:20 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Oh but BETTY that explanation was necessary and obviously you've failed to grasp the concept. Betty you've given me a whole new paragraph to decipher here and rest assured, I'll be on it, the first argument coming tomorrow morning as I have things to do this evening. To argue about ancient goat herders is relatively simple but at least you present a challenge! - 21:25:05 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Betty will likely recommend _The Celestine Prophecy_. TCP (sounds more like a drug, doesn't it) is the holy book of the new age fern sniffers. - 21:30:16 on 10 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:All right who's bad mouthing truck drivers? Some of us are atheists, and growing.Yes I have seen the jesus freaks( I've never seen them haul anything except bible bilge from stop to stop).We smile at the morons and when they're gone ask if anybody is interrested in the tracts: no one ever is ,so they all get the "deep six".We like to collect their tracts and make messes of truck stops, so as to get the fanatics banned for being a source of litter.I also do scientific research at Harvard University. - 0:26:28 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Betty, email me at "CAROLC5990@Aol.com" if you want to talk collective sub-consciousness. - 2:15:16 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Noah:Wow unto you bunch of heathens, just think, how are you going to act if and when you DO find out that there is a God and He's not pleased at your way of living? What then? Will you still use those harsh names when speaking about Bible believing Christians? Will they still be morons and idiots? You guys have gotten in to the name-calling thing lately. - 3:29:12 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:NOAH -- Seems so inappropriate, doesn't it, Christians being so courteous and friendly and all. One never sees anything negative about atheists on Xtian websites. It's kind of a shame, though. We used to get Christians who could hold up one side of a conversation. - 4:26:10 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:NOAH- I think you're arking up the wrong tree. Just where have I called them idiots or morons? If I've referred to their behavior being idiotic or moronic, I won't apologize for that. Even giving threatening speeches on how we'll all be sorry is idiotic and moronic behavior IMO. If there is a god, but it's highly unlikely, why would I afraid or hesitant to tell him that his ways are cruel and inhumane. You won't find me worshipping the guy, even if he did exist. - 4:50:08 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:To Noah: Wait till god finds out you're not Noah, he'll break you down and strip your soul away."You opened the box now you'll come with us. Oh, no tears deary, it's such a waste of good suffering." Just ask Uncle Frank. - 4:51:40 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CAROLC5990@Aol.com --If you would like to discuss "ollective sub-consciousness" why don't you do it here and label your posts like a big girl? - 4:53:13 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Yikes! That one went over my head "uncle Frank?" - 4:55:05 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- That was Peter bad mouthing me, lol! Now watch Noah start on "you atheists are always arguing between yourselves...". - 4:58:49 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Yes, this discussion isn't for the mousey, fainty, type of personality. If one of those types of personalities post here they do so with one lineners and are too paranoid to label their posts. - 5:02:43 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:YUP! The posters on this discussion are going to hack into their computers, track them down in their fern filled rooms and say "Boo Lucy!!" - 5:05:14 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:MARLENE--Thank you for enlightening me about truckers. I can see it, as you say, attracting people from all walks of life. When i was a young man. it was the farthest thing from my mind for doing as a career choice..and right now, it is something I am seroiusly contemplating more and more. - 5:06:09 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I advise you NOT to buy your own truck if you're serious. Drive for someone else (at least to start out), you'll make more money and still have the freedom. I loved that life, the places you see, the people you meet, and the places you load and unload at are normally factories so you see how things are made. You just have to like solitude and driving. - 5:35:44 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:MARLENE--Well, I ceratainly have a job like that now--and I love it...but I drive an automatic. Gotta learn how ta shift them gears...and backing in would seem to be tricky as well - 6:57:36 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Bl:ah - 12:11:25 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Bl:ah - 12:12:17 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- There are automatic tractors and yes, backing in is tricky, especially with trains. Also judgement of width and height can be tricky especially if one is American coming into Canada. You see a lot of Americans stuck under Canadian bridges. They don't understand the metric system. If you train at a driving school they show you the ropes. - 15:24:32 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Maybe your explanation isn't better. Actually is a pseudoscientific idea an ad hoc mix of truth from scientific method and truth from revelation. The collective conscious has been unproven so you're taking this idea on faith alone. In fact consciousness isn't even a phenomenon if you're using it in the miracle or wonder context. You ask "where do thoughts come from? Well, we do know that thoughts and actions are initiated by the firing of neurons in our brains. Depending on the balance of brains chemicals, thoughts that we produce "in our own brains" can be rational or irrational. Yes, this process is one of electrical currents and these currents when vibrated high enough produce waves and yes brain waves are detectable on an EEG. Experiments have been made to test if these brain waves can be detected by the brain of another person. So far evidence has shown that no, they cannot be. - 16:22:27 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- You go on to say "What you're asking for is a step by step exchange of molecules to put together non-local chains of events to explain these phenomenae. Like the no-name poster explained, there is no way (yet) to identify transference, exchange, absorption, or emittence of particles in real-time - they all exist in the same universe at that moment in time. Think globally, or universally, here. There is nothing supernatural about the universe except our meanings of it. Meanings are our invention, but that's for another time." When you ask, "think globally or universally here" are you asking that I accept the universe is one big cosmic mind and my mind is linked to it throughout space and time? In other words only thoughts are real and the physical universe is but a thought of the cosmic mind? A kind of "mind over matter" reality? If so, methinks you're asking me to accept a pseudo-scientific idea. I suspect you may be a disciple of Capra who postulates that human consciousness and the universe form an interconnected, irreducible whole. Well, isn't it convenient that Capra clings to the notion that quantum mechanics proves his pseudo-scientific idea! Quantum mechanics is new and sometimes difficult to understand and even thought by some to be overflowing with mysteries and paradoxes. In reality it isn't. Where Capra preys upon the lay person is with so-called wave-particle duality of quantum physics. Physical objects, at the quantum level, seem to possess both local, reductionist particle and nonlocal, holistic wave properties that become manifest depending on whether the position or wavelength of the object is measured. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations. The apparent holistic, nonlocal behaviour of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. So using quantum mechanics to support some kind of cosmic consciousness should be easily observable if one was able to test it. Initially, though, one would have to have evidence that such a fact existed in order to test it. When you find this evidence Betty, I'm sure you'll have also discovered evidence for the blue fairy, the pink unicorn and Elohim. - 17:30:13 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I was just reading Noah's post to us again. I don't know if it was a typing error or an error in spelling but did anyone notice "Wow, unto"? I think that should have been "Woe". More than likely he's heard this but has never read it. As a wise person from the errancy list has said "I have always suspected most Christians actually have never read the damn Bible. After all, it is so hard to read a book when you are busy cramming it down your neighbor's throat." - 17:56:44 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:TO ALL--I phoned one of those cony psychic lines last night, and I inquired, before I actually talked to a psychic, about the disclaimer 'for entertainment purposes only'. I even suggested that one not take seriously anything a psychic would say. However, I was reassured that all the psychics were legit and that that disclaimer was put there because ( I kd you not )'The abilities of a psychic cannot be measured scientifically'. At this juncture I decided to go for the jugular, and insisted that of course any claims made by a psychic cannot only be measured, there is not one instance when any such psychic's claims can be shown to be legit under controlled conditions. Of course the person on the phone began to become as uneasy as anyone could be, and after a brief discussion, and after it was found out I was from Canada, the person manning the phone came up with this dilly ( just before she slammed the phone down on me ) 'Maybe these tests are allowed in Canada, but they aren't in the United States' - 18:05:26 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:Noah's comments are interesting. I wonder if he believes that ALL christians..fundamentalist, or liberal will go to heaven--even though both of them believe in God - 18:09:53 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene ESP as it should be:PETER- I guess she hadn't heard of the dilly "you've got to think universally, globally, here". You'd think they wouldn't need a disclaimer. Everything would be globally/universally accepted, even in Canada, they would say. - 18:50:14 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Like I agrued with Chuck, as long as they accept Jesus as their lord, they will go to heaven. They don't get there according to their works. But if Noah was still around I'd wager he'd argue that. - 18:53:17 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:The thing about Noah's post that I thought was interesting was "..when you DO find out that there is a God and He's not pleased at your way of living?" What exactly is our "way of living"? I mean, does he think we don't dust the furniture and take out the trash and stuff? Reminds me of RT Lee and his boils and puss and stuff. - 19:06:07 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Exactly! What is "our-way", looks like the start of some quasi-strawman stuff. - 19:26:33 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I'm so use to those snide remarks by xians, I neglect to even recognize them anymore. It's true, many of these people think atheists are a different species (and in some ways maybe we are, lol). They do love to attribute the most nasty of human characteristics to we atheists. It must make them feel superior to us like their religion does. - 19:28:36 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Speaking of RT Lee and then of course there is Quietsun, I checked out their stuff on the links here. Interesting, kind of like bugs are. - 19:31:01 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Just what does someone do when they find they can't argue effectively, as you say they create a strawman. - 19:33:38 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I'm really interested on why someone else hasn't called Betty on this "collective conscious" thing. Are we creating a strawman? - 19:35:33 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Betty was here when we went through all that with Josh. I think she understands naturalism and skepticism, with their requirements for evidence, but rejects simply them, as Josh did. I would be interested in discussing this with her but it doesn't seem to be her interest. - 19:58:05 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:Um, *simply rejects them* - 19:58:58 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:How about it Betty? You come with a fantastic story claiming an extraordinary idea to an atheist page that you well know expects more than claims but the evidence to back them up, are you up to posting the evidence? Maybe you don't understand what we are expecting. In the early stages of the telescope people claimed when looking through one, the moon was made of what looked like blue cheese. Instead of these people waiting for further evidence they jumped to a conclusion. After better telescopes were made, it was evident that the moon wasn't made of blue cheese. This is exactly what happened with Capra and quantum mechanics. He jumped to conclusions which are now found to be errant. - 20:11:46 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- I removed the Quietsun link yesterday. He's changed the name of his ministry (Seems like every xtian site is a "ministry") and has removed his re-definitions of atheism and "Christaphobia" articles and such. But it's under construction, and I'm sure there will be more goodies. - 20:17:28 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The appropriate expression for the haste with which BETTY opted to "feel-good" about something is, in time in time. I guess that BETTY chose early to opt out for that very reason time, who knows what their total time will be? - 20:57:19 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: You mean you haven't seen the movie "hellraisers" With the cenobites from hell. A great set of horror movies from Clive Barker. Watch it alone and at night."the doctor is in :I recomend amputation buzzzzzz..."Well if you're into horror flicks the first two are great.The doctor turned out be eviler that the cenobites from hell, just creepy, I love it. - 22:20:08 on 11 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I rarely watch movies unless they are on CBS, NBC, ABC or HBO but I do read and science fiction and horror are my passion. I've read a few of Clive Barker's books _The Great and Secret Show and I forget the other one right now. Good writer! I just finished a Peter Straub, _Floating Dragon_ which was really good too. I rarely buy fiction new. I go to used book stores for those. I'm running out of fictions to read so it's almost time to hit the Red River Book Store again. - 0:40:34 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- And those believers claim we atheists have no imagination! Many, many years ago when I went to school we had exams. At the very end of every English exam we had to write a fictional essay. I rushed through the first part of the exam so I had lots of time for the essay but I always lost marks because I would get so carried away, I wouldn't finish it. I remember this one kid who eventually became a United Church minister. He was famous for his one paragraph essays. I guess the church may have attracted him because he had no imagination of his own. - 0:48:30 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

tony:marlene hi its me tony i talked to you back arouns xmas do atheist celebrate xmas, easter? if there is no God is there a devil? - 8:37:38 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

C....:Marlene, thanks; but no thanks…..it would be like you going to a xian sight to discuss your atheism….what's the point! Your "fern-sniffing" label speaks volumes. I'd only nauseate the likes of Peter….in all his profanity….with my unsinkable "rubber-ducky" ideas. To each his own! - 13:55:29 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:TONY- Nice to see you back. You must realize by now that christians borrowed the December 25 holiday from Saturnalia a Roman holiday. Saturn as you may know was the god of argriculture. Again you may know that the 12 days of Saturnalia included merry making(what else were the Romans so famous for?), rest and relaxation, getting together with family and friends, celebrating the beginning of a solar year, prayers for the protection of winter crops and honoring deities. I'm sure you've studied christianity enough to know the christians merely moved Jesus's birthday to this date in 336 AD. No, I don't celebrate christmas at all but I do take advantage of the time to get together with family and exchange gifts of appreciation. Nor do I celebrate Saturn. I think in a day and age where humanity should be no longer believing in santa claus and the blue fairy, we should change the holiday to Togetherness Day. - 16:23:15 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:TONY- Do I celebrate Easter? Absolutely not! Jesus, if he existed or even if he was a myth was a sacrifical lamb and the sacrifice of a man took place three days before the supposed resurection. Why would I want to celebrate the apparent suicide of a man (if he existed) or the murder of a man by his creator(if he was a myth). Either way, I'm not about to celebrate someone's violent death. In myth, this guy was supposedly resurrected, a reward for dying for the "sins" of humanity. IMO, if such a omnipotent god existed, he wouldn't have to use a mere human to cure any supposed mere human ills. If this was the only way he could cleanse humanity (which failed miserably btw), he isn't omnipotent, is he? If you would like to discuss this in more depth, feel free to do so. - 16:41:15 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:TONY- There is no evidence that a god exists in any religion. There is also no evidence that a devil exists in chrisitianity. If you want to discuss this more too, I'm willing. - 16:44:40 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..maybe I don't have the gold medal but certainly the bronze.:C- Yes, fern-sniffing analogy is very fitting for Capra disciples, thank you! Like I said this discussion isn't for the fainty types and shame..shame on Peter for speaking his mind but really..how old are you? I don't blame you for not jumping into the water here. If you can't swim, you'll surely drown. Until then you may as well sit on the shore and count all those grains of sand. - 16:55:08 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I really wonder how many believers enjoy horror movies. Not too many I would think. I love them because I have no belief. Although one may get caught up in the moment and get a few scares, they never leave me with a lasting fear. Likely because I feel very confident there aren't any ghosts, witches or boogie man gods. The movies or books that totally really creep me are stories that humans are capable of making true, like Orwell's 1984 or A Handmaid's Tale by Atwood. Even more upsetting are true stories or movies involving real life people and events like the Waco story or the Heaven's Gate Cult or Jimmy Jones. Hitler stories or any type of war story. Stories about the pain and suffering of slaves mind I doubt xians find them scary or sad because suffering is good in their opinion. - 23:11:01 on 12 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I find xians love the end of times thing. I mean they want it to happen, their loving god commits genocide on the rest of us while they float to la la land.Look at the "Exocist", they gobbled it up or "Rosemaries baby" these suckers really believe these hollywood tales are true. - 1:24:01 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Trains? My glad hands always help me out with backing up to a dock;That and the automatic pilot.With the metric you just post it in your cab, what ever the height and width are. If you make a mistake once, you'll never do it again. - 1:29:03 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- A-trains, B-trains...automatic pilot is an accessory I wish they could install. I'm not a good driver at all, especially in big cities. My partner is the real professional. He just hated how overly cautious I drove. I have no problem just driving on the highway. The real challenge is everything else. Have you watched that new show on NBC called _The Others_. In fact, it comes on here in another 15 minutes. My Saturday night lineup...The Pretender, The Profiler and now The Others. What a live, huh! - 3:43:42 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Oops that should be "life". - 3:44:59 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:MARLENE-I don't know about xians loving those movies though, they likely watch them secretly but agree with the rest of their church group that the movies are "from the devil". After all anything that they don't like is always "from the devil". Then they can watch that absolutely boring ole easter movie where some poor delusional man has someone stick thorns in his head, whip him through the streets of some ancient city while he lugs a some kind of 6 by 6 by 15 beam on his shoulders, only in the end to have his feet and hands hammered to it. Then these guys with little skirts and broom bottoms on their helmets stand the beam up so the guy dies a cruel and painful death. Now the xians would say THATS a good movie! - 3:56:31 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:C-I have a feeling that you can identify with the 'unsinkable rubber duck' analogy--being that your position is invulnerable to reason, even though you thoroughly depend on it to defend your position, and become a rubber duck when you no longer are able to do so. - 9:45:19 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I'm glad you straightened C out on that one. I suspect she thought you were some kind of pervert but then that's just another characterization attributed to atheists so you're not likely to move her from her already preconceived ideas. - 15:17:30 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb? -- It depends on how you define "change". ***** How many Natural Selectionists does it take to change a light bulb? -- Well actually, we won't even try to change the bulb. We will simply stop using the room that has the burned out bulb, and start using only rooms with functioning bulbs. That way, over time,... ***** How many theologians does it take to change a light bulb? -- 100. One to change the bulb, and 99 to explain why an infinite God of love would allow darkness to occur in the world at all. - 15:58:21 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- LOL! - 17:38:25 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I'm listening to a famous Canadian radio talk show hosted by Peter Warren. One subject he had on was the law here concerning same sex marriages. Nine out of ten people who called in objected to them using the bible as an excuse. They are now talking about Winnipeg councellor Harry Lesarenko who is suggesting setting up a red light district in Winnipeg. Which IMO would be a good idea as it would relax the law somewhat permitting safer sex practices but wouldn't ya know, nine out of ten people called in objecting to it using the bible again as their excuse. These people won't say they are homophobic nor will they say that they think sex is dirty and vile. They really don't speak their mind without using the damn bible for support. This reminds me of people who support war with the bible or the damn death penalty. - 23:49:02 on 13 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:There are some unhealthy religious groups out there. I wonder if particular religions make people twisted, or if twisted people are drawn to particular religions. - 13:17:54 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..bibical cloaking:GRANT- Religion IMO is the people. No religion or sect of religion would ever fly without the support of those who support the doctrine. Like in my post above, it is MO that people use their religions to uphold their ideas of how they think society should be. They use it for control. Just like that horrible bunch of people in Des Monies. - 15:52:25 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Golly! what an uplifting piece to read on this windy rainy monday morn'. I didn't see where the writer may have inscribed that there was no godthing. Do you suppose the writer has come to terms for that notion in some other way? If yes to that other way, did the writer learn anything? Or was his piece really and truely just an expression of the selfishness of any adherent of any religious faith? In the case of the writer who must have been a xian, the general selfishness of that particular group of people in the writer's instance was it merely a refocused "excuse". It would have been meaningful if the writer wrote from a new awarness and understanding that he- the writer, was his own problem! For my part, that was a to be expected account by a person who chose to relate to other people in the terms for peoples of long ago. Some still hold that such old terms are adequate measures for social morals[in particular] like Alan Keyes, but this is simply false. How? I've yet to read of the ways of an old people that would still work in today's world, and of course the stuff of the xian thing is no exception. - 16:09:24 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Further on the article you left. I have a friend who attended a catholic school from grades 1-8. The fears that poor girl has to this day and she's now 44. Also I'd like to leave you a site that might be interesting to you as you're interested in philosophy. This a site by one of the posters on the errancy list I'm on and the address I'm leaving is the abortion argument part of it but there is more. - 17:15:34 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: That bit to GRANT that old ways ain't the way to go easily applys to the want of the decalogue to be posted in some places. The cleverest angle I've seen for that action was a Foxnews hosts who said it was the commandments for a "god", which he implied was the "crux" of the problem in the USA. I read the constitution often enough and it says the gov't won't establish a religion, it has nothing to do with any godthing. Furtehrmore, the commandments are the xian's thing and are not of or for other religions. Of that godthing I like what Lavoisier said, "etc., the word ought to produce the idea and the idea to be the picture of the fact." I take this to mean that all any religious adherent has to do is show where is their godthing, rite now . - 17:48:02 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think you are referring to posting the 10 commandments in public places. If so, no, I don't think this will be successful. I base this on the 1st commandment which , before anything else, one has to love and obey God. I doubt the United States will consider other religions publically as you have a "melting pot" as opposed to the Canadian "cultural mosaic" but I think those that be, will consider the arguement that in order for those others who have other gods or for those of us who have no god the main commandment would be completely meaningless making the rest of unacceptable as they are dependent on the Ist and also against the freedom of religion as it demands the believe in "God". - 19:15:06 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I do have no problem whatsoever of posting in all public places something that humanity has valued since the humans were first able to feel empathy and that is "treat other people as you would like to be treated" or something like that. - 19:17:52 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:TONY, I celebrate Christmas, Easter, and other holidays that I grew up with as family traditions. I don't care if they are based on a fairy tale...if it's fun and harmless we'll do it. I don't care anything about football, but I'll always go to a Superbowl party. If there's a good beer bash for Cinco de Mayo, I'll be there, though I am not Mexican. I like togetherness, exchanging gifts, and of course most of all I like doing things the kids will enjoy (not the beer bash :-). They think Santa and the Easter Bunny are cool, so we'll do them just as we'll do the Tooth Fairy. Of course when they get older I'll tell them about it all being based on fables. - 19:55:43 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:HORROR FLICKS, nope, I don't like violence on TV or much in books. I guess I have enough to do dealing w/ all the violence in our real world to try to deal w/ the fictional stuff. Not that I'm picky or anything, I just won't watch movies w/ alot of blood, dirt, sweating, horses (or other animals) being worked too hard, loud noises, excessive struggling, or death of good guys. Pretty much leaves me w/ romantic comedies! I like spy/PI novels, especially ones about female private investigators. More than you ever wanted to know about me? - 20:03:27 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: of the USA constitution, a point that recently surprised me was when an ACLU representative said the idea o'freedom o'speech concerns the federal legislative body, only. It does not guarantee freedom of speech for things, for example, as the John Rocker affair- the Atlanta braves pitcher, or what any one individual might say to another. That was a bit unsettling to hear! The image I could make out was loads of cases between individuals and groups and 'employers'. So I had to check that out and sure'nuff! I read that congress, only, shan't abridge freespeech etc. etc. So then, while person[s] are not clearly at liberty to say to each other any and all things, gov't does clearly limit itself? I then checked with barrister-type I kno'and it was their opinion that very few really understood such distinction. So, for the elected person when does that "government-thing" become a real thing to them? - 20:23:59 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:HI CRISTY- I love romantic comedies too! I watched that movie on Jefferson on Sunday night, the second part is going to be on Wednesday night. I think I may have been hung in those days. The reality of slavery is just so sad! - 20:39:41 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: That freespeech question will, as well as few other things thrown in, circuitously bring one back to the decalogue question. Last week it was pointed out the xian religion is easy to sell, I've seen that so regularly said that it seems quite common to the western civilzation historian. I suspect that that simplicity is the appeal with which the USA politicians figger they arm their legislative recommendations. It is supposed to be a no-brainer. The wider greater issue is that the USA legislators need to maintain a handle on the law and order of this nation. With so many kinds of people- the melting pot, experiencing some freedoms and libertys for the first time any or all of which many endup feeling differently, legislators are scrambling. They are scambling to establish a common focus for the needed regulatory enactments. All that those particular elected legislators seek from the decalogue is a quick and dirty means to an end. IS IT RELIGIOUS, OF COURSE NOT. And that includes the religious interests, their only concern is to control as much as they can. Now, for a few days, I've been harping that its lazy thinking politicians and probably an ultra ultra conservative act by others to pretend attempting to enliven ancient ideas of now dead peoples. Will it work? Only with a generally renewed religious-patriotism or a specific religious body gains a political majority. The enemy and resistance to either, anything new any acknowledgement of the new - 21:35:48 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Roses are red....violets are blue...Happy Valentines to all the posters...this discussion wouldn't be possible without you! - 23:45:05 on 14 Feb 100 GMT

To follow:- :Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm skittzaphennnik, so am I. - 11:03:22 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Peter's Favourite Valentine:Roses are red..Violets are purple...Honey is sweet...and I like maple surple - 11:57:27 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Well...:Mary had a little lamb, its feet as black as charcoal. Every time it raised its tail, you could see its yes roll. - 12:01:44 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

( Mr run-on sentence )Peter:These friggin christians letting us atheists be fully aware they are doing this massive collective eyebrow raising at us all-- just because we celebrate christmas and easter which I fully suspect is done with the motive that we all look at our actions as being some brand of 'well-you-are-a-hypocrite-for-denying-God's-existence-and-then-celebrating-His-holidays-nonetheless'. So bleeding WHAT if we do? They ( the Xers )celebrate Hallowe'en ( or HOllowe'en as some very curiosly like to say ) without believing in the demonic element associated with that date. Of course the argument here--as Marlene has suggested--is that these events are so embroiderd in ur society, the religious sources upon which they are based can be ignored entirely, and the celebatory spirit to which these events have evolved into, and are primaraly associated with, are the very ones we enjoy today. - 12:12:57 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

.....WELL...like, I don't get it... - 12:15:34 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Well...:Sorry """eyes""" roll... - 13:48:06 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: bit of a delay on your post to me o'the decalogue. What I had in mind was that the decalogue is only an example of peoples "want" which some people defer to, take as treatment as an option. What do they defer? Its my view, that defer-act appears to me that, by choice they effectively opt to discontinue their innate thinking processes. O'course this is a mind-door that swings both ways, this is to not overlook that some people do the same for science. But religion which presently aims at, means to appeal to a 'spiritualism' by attributing a same-such "for" the Now to myths and superstitions "of" antiquity. Can you see this? This has the makings of and for insanity, at a personal level and consequently the social level. The typical cry for the cure of this problem is better education, I suspect the basic problem of implementing this prospect is at the political level. But that is another topic, do the politicians really want the bodypolitic to know what they the politicians are up to? Anyways, to argue the pro's and con's of the decalogue is just a shell game but to live on nobly, requires a working mind. - 17:15:59 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I can't see how better education in a state like Kansas is going to change wishful thinking. Politically, I would imagine that having gullible people is an asset, why would government want a crowd of skeptics voting? - 21:18:23 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..my spelling is bad but "skittzaphennnik,":GRANT- Did the druid access again, only someone as stupid as he wouldn't know how to spell the illness he was likely being medicated for. - 22:21:50 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Maybe this piece fits-in w/the flow of the prior bits on the decalogue. At another chat site, a xian one, while there it began to appear to me that those kinds of people, the religious ones, simply have no faith and do not really believe in many things. Here the counter-argument that the religious like to use agin'atheism is that it takes more faith and belief for an atheist to not believe in theism's godthing. Or something so, well as I watched them verbally interact that is when it hit me. Helzbelz! these people are truly not believers they truly have no faith, so they all must substitute something for that inate quality of the human organism. This does not interpret into the godthing, but it means that there is an explanation for the religious fears and all that other negative stuff of sin and sacrifice and so on. This is a new thought, so I'll keep my eyes and ears open and I guess I'll see what happens. But, I think that religion has craftily displaced the natural mental-state of belief and faith with a godthing, and it does nothing else. more later - 23:07:46 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: o'the decalogue, its only purpose is to replace the parents care and responsibility. The picture here is that of parent who expect what they teach or instruct their offspring will be always on the childs mind wherever that child might be. Is this a natural and real expectation of the parent/child relationship? IMHO such ideas fit only the most foolish of parents. It has always been my view that a parent's ideal and most loving act is to aid and assist in directing their offspring to the obediences of better and good thinking. Commandments, such ideas fit only "pictures" (probably in the mind) as that above. There would be no freedom, would that be alive? let the struggle go on - 23:50:31 on 15 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- These parents are really fooling themselves. Yes, you can teach your child all the right things. You can show them how to have empathy by involving them in activities that give to others, etc. etc. etc. but in the end, the child has a brain of it's own and will do what they want to do. I know quite a few xian parents who think their children don't drink, smoke, do drugs, drive fast, curse or listen to that "from the devil music". They don't think their children are doing these things because they've taught them THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!! Well, guess what, kids are kids and they do these things almost directly under their parent's noses, but to the parents notice? No their ears and eyes and most times their brains are so disabled by faith, not only in god, but faith in the silly notion that one's children are a literal extension of one's self so if one's self wouldn't do something then one's kid won't do it. Naaa! This atheist has learned that faith is but a blindfold. - 0:34:35 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:ADVICE???...the lady from playgroup who I told you slipped me a preaching cassette finally returned my call and said yes, she indeed is wanting to "show me the light". She wants us to get together and have a religious discussion. Now keep in mind that I like her and she is in several groups I am so I don't want to alienate her. I think I want to go head to head on this tho. I read some website about debating xians (did I get the link here? wish I could remember) that said if you just "get rid of them" you do not win the confrontation, you lose an opportunity to enlighten THEM. So I'm gonna go for it, I told her I would work as hard to convert her as she would me. Is this an exercise in futility? - 2:58:25 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Hummm...let's see how I can put this. Conversion, I don't think would be the right approach. I have a problem with trying to "get" other people to think as I do. It should be something they arrive at by their own analyse. I know myself, walls instantly go up when people tell me what I should think. But enlighten her on what you believe or don't believe would be likely the way to go. Unlike a "belief" in something, there is no "belief" in not believing. There is nothing to accept. If she would like to, I'd be glad to discuss with her why I don't believe. Why not invite her here but remind her first that most discussions on why people don't accept belief is not always sweet and amiable. There are atheists, like myself here who have never believed and believing is a tough concept for us to understand as not believing in something is a tough concept for a believer to understand. - 3:46:02 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Grant: No computering last night. T'was a valentine request:MARLENE -- It doesn't seem to be the Druid. It's a different IP anyway. I had a look at the page you linked. Pretty interesting read, and some good links. - 4:35:56 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- I agree with Marlene in regard to conversion. You can't reason a "faith" person into a corner. Despite what happens here with hostile xtians on the attack, in real life when a person I like approaches me about religion I make sure I understand their point of view, and try to make them understand what the issues are for atheists. One can quickly determine if the other person is interested in understanding or just wants to push their beliefs. The former can be pretty enjoyable. Life is too short for the latter. - 4:36:11 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I'm not sure if I've done a good thing. I've invited an xian here, as he's off topic on the errancy list and he seems to want a place to spout. Hopefully he'll discuss, if he does show up. If all he does is preach ya all can pretend you're bootin me in the @**. - 5:11:52 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- No worries. Maybe he will faith us into a corner. :-) - 5:59:54 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:I was just thinking about Cristy's chat with her friend. I wonder if this friend asked her xian counterparts how she should go about converting Cristy and what to upon Cristy's failure to be assimilated. Like Ricky, they'd likely say something positively lovingly xian like "don't cast your toy geezuses before swine". Ever notice how lovingly they call us swine? - 17:16:46 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

oink oink - 17:18:51 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The struggle goes on and as you point out, young humans will and must do as they see fit for themselves at all times. While they are young and perhaps inexperienced to some issues and dilemmas, its seemed to me many of these matters appear again and again. The bottom line is always a choice, do I or do I not. In the dynamics, the maelstrom of others also choosing, someone can always be found to be of assistance after one chooses. This kind of development is essentially factual and is the insurmountable hurdle before advocates of divine commandments. A regular topic of debate in politics, for example, is abortion. What is the public issue? Is this a public concern? Why must the public stepin on this event? At all times it is only an individual's own choice, that looks like pure, absolute fact to me. An exception, well, there are the few I'm sure, like that gal of a few years ago in a coma that a male nurse didup. - 17:48:03 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Although not absolute, most humans DO make their own choices. They may choose to do what someone else tells them to do or they may decide what to do on their own. Of course there are always consequences for the choice anyone makes. This is a basic human right IMO, so yes, I agree with the right to choose when it comes to making choices for one's own life or death. - 18:22:30 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Those little "oink, oinks" from the zero who chooses (it's right) to post with no name seem so characteristically appropriate to it. - 18:27:19 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You do a lot of reading, have you read the gnostic stuff? Interesting to say the least. - 18:30:09 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, from your numerous postings, all I can is that I'm sorry if I violated or blasphmeyed your sacred church here. I guess we all need a place to meditate about the world, but please remember that my opinions are not an affront to your beliefs or way of life. - 19:00:43 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Why so hostile! I thought you wanted to discuss collective consciousness? Is this you normal "affront" to agruement on your beliefs? All I'm asking is a bit of evidence and I may accept some of what you claim. - 19:38:57 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..:Come on Betty, be a lady and support what you say. If you want to do it in "numerous postings" go ahead but include evidence, sermons are paged down. It's your turn on the soapbox Betty, get up there and show us what you got! - 19:42:33 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Oh Geez, did Betty go back to malevolence of Marlene lurk mode? Shame, shame on me for asking for evidence! - 19:47:31 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Hey, no need to apologize for violations of a church here, there has been no violation done to that which does not exist. All you really need to apologize for are your sarcastic remarks toward me. If you're feeling powerless to agrue your beliefs in light of the facts I've posted, why not be a person and say so instead of stoop to ad hominem attacks? - 20:00:59 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Have you been reading any of the gnostic gospels? - 20:05:22 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: looks like BETTY could use a good long group hug. - 20:06:24 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- LOL, while choking on my coffee and cherry danish! Maybe she'll return so we can all do the group therapy thing. SO did you read any of those gospels? - 20:25:32 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Just some of it, the Apocryphon of John caught my attention. The 'ZOE' reference looks like, from a brief scan-read, it was a woman's story or about a woman's point of view. That would fit in with all the other stuff I've read as when the god[s] was\were female. As for the beginning of the article, its purported finding that today people appear to be finding a new interest in the genesis story. That- for the sake of clarity, has to be understood in terms of a why the article at all. If one is aware of or even has a scope of reading wide and varied enough that disallows any preemptive aim, then it would be obvious that such story findings are simply more unoriginal. The story of little red-riding hood has its variations, but do any mean any more than that they are just other copys? To return to the female point of view, I've often wondered from whence come some of the thoughtful accounts as given by some jews or other religious sects as sufi's or mithraic stuff. These accounts tell more speak to ones femaleness as this may be, than do the rude xian versions. Here, don't forget I've read found favor in Otto Weininger's "Sex and Character". Still reading, good find. - 21:08:52 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Have you read "On the Origin Of the World". I just finished it. I suppose my quest will be now to find information on the Nag Hammadi and see how authentic it is, when it was written etc. It sure seems to be a whole different enchilada than the present take on judaism or xianity. - 21:56:47 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: fun stuff, I really wish I could write stuff that neato! - 22:28:07 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: whew!! a sacred church, through this day I have noted a variety of thoughts in regard to these words. I guess it doesn't pay to ask "some-people" questions. Gads!!! I would love any kind of question of and about anything I inscribe. If wrong or goofy lets hear it, lets fix-it or just have a good laff. but golly, a sacred church, whats that supposed to mean? - 23:13:38 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- What I think is rather interesting about the Nag Hammadi find is that it's likely the actual beliefs of the real christians of the time. If so, what we have now is not actual christianity and furthermore none of these modern day christians "are really christians" that includes the likes of Quietsun and Quake and the rest of the crew. - 23:26:16 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:By sacred church, I meant exactly what I posted. Everyone needs a place to meditate about the world. Churches, in the general sense, are communal gathering places for people of similar beliefs. Noticing the activity and participation of the people that come here, this room qualifies as a church. Any ideas contrary to the consensus of the church are therefore a violation to the unity already established; seeing the objections to my posts, revealed this. Churches are often associated with god-believers and such, but that's not the only meaning of the word. I didn't realize this would be offensive in itself, however, moving on... - 23:31:13 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:What the church choose to throw out was the duality of god, the male and the female. If one were to read the gnostic creation story, it totally knocks the brutal male only god on it's chauvinistic ass. From what I understand Adam was in darkness before he was enlightened by female attributes. - 23:33:35 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Cristy, Hi! I'm sorry I missed your post at first. I'm 42, and a single mother of 2 - who both finally left the nest! I used consider myself an atheist when I was married to my husband - a devote, opinionated atheist - which might account for any hostility I have in here. Now, the word atheist isn't enough for me. I'll explain more some other time. Anyway, it's nice to meet you. Hope we can chat about some other things. - 23:38:32 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Church in any dictionary I've read has something to do with a religious body. There is no religious body here. Sacred again is noramlly having to do with religion but figuratively can have to do with dedication. I'm not sure that would be an appropriate word for this site though. - 23:44:28 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: you dork, I for one carouse all over the net and I'm quite comfortable wherever I'm at. In fact I find it so easy to get involved wherever but nevertheless put forward my views that I've been booted but once. Wow! a church, while a bit medieval well, if that idea\word is what it takes for you to understand the dynamics of others, thats your biz. - 23:46:18 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, I see where you are coming from w/ the "church" analogy and perhaps this site is our church-substitute since we do miss out on the congregation/family many people have. I know I come here to be w/ similar minded folks. HOWEVER the difference is that people with differing or opposing views are looked forward to for the "kick in the pants" it gives the place. I think MARLENE just loves a good debate, and is asking for you to really challenge her, make her work for it. If anyone didn't want you here they would ignore you, not try to egg you on! :-) I think pretty much any religion or spiritual beliefs will be challenged on this site, liberal or fundamentalist.............I am curious about your statement "the word atheist isn't enough..." and look forward to hearing more. I assume you are seeking more of a spiritual life. I have often wondered what deficit I had that made me not feel "spiritual" when others do, so I'm curious to hear more. Did you raise your children w/ any religion, and have they sought any after leaving home? I am wondering what it will be like for my kids being raised in the bible belt the only ones not enrolled in Sunday School. - 23:52:17 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, what is the point of being rude and name-calling? - 23:54:02 on 16 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- And really, what is wrong with being opinionated here. Instead of having hostility toward the opinionated, most especially on a discussion page, why not defend your claims? After all it isn't really a page to exchange recipes on or talk about the antics of our children, grandkids or pets. - 0:05:39 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Have you had the discussion with your friend yet? If so how did it go? If not, are you going to fill us in? - 0:09:46 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:I'd like to continue with the collective conscious stuff, but I realized I may have taken certain ideas for granted, so I went back to some of my old notes... In order to understand quantum physics in a context without the apparent paradoxes it presents, you have to reascertain (sp?) if the philosophy you are using to interpet the data is suitable. For the last few centuries, for example, material realism (the idea that only atoms and elementary particles (matter) are real, and that anything else, including subjective perceptions (mind) is a phenomenon of matter) has dominated the world of science. This duality, created by Descartes, is only an assumption. It's a methodology to interpret the data, and it's worked well and has provided us many benefits, however, it has estranged us from the world around us. Material realism is an assumption about the nature of being, but not a conclusions arrived at by experiment. One of the first problems I realized with the materialistic view is that if only matter is real, then material possessions would be the only reasonable foundation for happiness. The materialistic view also obviously discredits religious and spiritual views (even though Eastern cultures have found a way to incorporate both), and it also presents individuals as isolated egos living inside their bodies, and our actions are merely determined by the stimuli we receive and by our conditioning. In a reality of random atoms bumping together, free will, ultimately is an illusion. In other words, clear the drawing board and start over. Material realism may not be the right assumption or philosophy for the future of science, even though it's so ingrained into our culture that we regret being reminded of it's paradoxes. More about materialist realism... - 0:15:21 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:One of the main proponents of material realism is strong objectivity - the idea that there is an objective universe out there, one that is independent of us. The lesson of quantum physics, however, is that WE choose which aspect - wave or particle - a quantum object is going to reveal in a given situation. So, if subjects and objects mesh inextricably, how can we hold the assumption of strong objectivity? We make the experiments, collect the data, and make the hypotheses. Consciousness cannot be discredited from any experiment. - 0:22:37 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Material realism also maintains that subjective mental phenomenon are but epiphenomenon of matter. They can be reduced to material brain stuff alone, i.e. neuron connections, etc. It's the state of hardware that we call the mind. However, it seems absurd that an epiphenomenon of matter can AFFECT matter. How can something made of something else act causally on what it's made of? Also, in order the worlds of mind and matter to interact, there would have to be some sort of exchange of energy. The Law of the Conservation of Energy allows for no exchange, and there is no proof otherwise. So in order to still accept material realism as the one reality, consciousness has to be considered an epiphenomenon against the previous data. So do we deny this, or do we search of a monistic, as opposed to the dualist assumption, to material realism? Since consciousness is the primary guiding force, which leads us to search for these theories, which enables us to ponder such things, it should be our monistic idealism... and then matter, would be secondary. --- I'll check back in a day or so.... - 0:31:59 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Thank You! This stuff is deep and will take me a while to understand so please be patient once again while I can try to relate the material with the immaterial. While I can't guarantee I'll agree, at least we are in a discussion here. As I've posted earlier, it's difficult for someone who doesn't believe to accept something without evidence and also difficult for me to understand why someone who believes does. This may take a few days. There is a lot to decipher. - 0:57:52 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- BTW, I couldn't care less about the spelling so "sp" isn't really neccesary for me anyway. We all make spelling mistakes except, of course, Peter, the Patron Saint of Grammer, lol! As long as we get the drift, is all that matters. - 1:03:21 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, my friend wants us both to get sitters so we can get together for the "discussion" sometime. Knowing the way things are w/ little kids and cold season, I wouldn't expect it to happen any too soon, especially since it isn't top of my list for fun things to do w/ my babysitter time! You guys will be the first to know how it goes tho. I spent this afternoon reading a Dan Barker site (author Losing Faith in Faith) about how to debate theists. He's very good, I want to read his book now. - 1:16:58 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- He's good but so are a lot of others, check out infidels.org for more good info. - 1:48:13 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW CRISTY- Barker is somewhat accessible. About four years ago, I remember exchanging casusal emails with him. I'm not sure if it was from this site I met him or some other but he's a nice guy. I don't know his address anymore but try emailing him for personal advice, I bet he'd help. - 1:51:30 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL- Question...Has anyone ever heard the term "material realism" other from Betty's post, if so just what is the definition of that. I'd ask Betty but I guess she's not returning for a few days. - 2:30:19 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I think she is thinking of "metaphysical realism". At least that's a more common term, but really "material realism" works. Her definition, "the idea that only atoms and elementary particles (matter) are real, and that anything else, including subjective perceptions (mind) is a phenomenon of matter" is plenty good for the purpose. - 3:20:47 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: I took it that someone had to shake BETTY's tree. I had the image of BETTY as someone doing ditzy things with her hands unsure of what to say and asking herself some idiotic thing like,"am I brave enough?" And of that church thing it is medieval in this way; in europe churchs were built tall an impressive to represent certain lofty ideals wherein the attendees could relate together about the same sorta'stuff. IMHO that 'word' so used is only another example of someone with religious incline seeking to reset the slowrunning clock of religion. Was all that BETTY figures was this PC thing and site is now a quasi-church? On a limb now, is it, must it be the way she understands the electronic representations on your, hers and my pc screen as extensions of whatever whoever we are? But, that aside she at least really has moved on and presented some thoughtful points. - 15:43:21 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: of your 23:33:35 16Feb00 post, that other site has some views that seem to address the point the prospects of wider minded seeing. I caught that same impression you refer to, which I attempted to convey. There are times when I read assorted articles of those other relgious folk and I wonder where they've come up with their 'wider-view'? If those other articles do exist, are they being restricted or maybe withheld from public commerce? The xian folk's have a godthing and storys that are pretty cut and dried. Its heaven or hell and its the way as either so says. Perhaps, it is just an excellant example of a "utilitarian" quality? From that utilitarian quality what either does, or may do for one's mind, in the simplest of ways, they permit one to "not-concern" their minds with the meaning of It all. Hmmm? - 17:21:31 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I definitately agree! Betty has presented some very thoughtful points and now the task is to determine if these thoughts have any place in what we know to be true. While it's a piece of cake to take bibical claims and test them thoroughly, this quantum stuff is a little more difficult. It will likely take me a few days to go through the reading that's involved to see what evidence supports Betty's claims and what evidence doesn't. It's a challenge I welcome. - 17:50:41 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- On the gnostic writings, I would hazzard to bet heavily that most xians don't even know these writings exist. I would also hazzard to bet heavily that upon reading these writings and verifying that they are authentic (which they are), many xian women would start to seriously think about the male dominated religion that xianity is today. I'd bet even heavier that the xian men, especially the fundie types, would totally ignore the writings as they did when they created the bible. - 17:57:47 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So then, if a individual and most of the others during their brief existences collectively don't concern themselves with the all, and a godthing and story was thunk up and has been socially instilled, are humans better than ants? - 17:59:41 on 17 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:Carl/Marlene-since there is no evidence(to me) that'God' has spoken to anyone, ever...it's really just conjecture on this side of spirit-uality. If so, then meaningfulness is an eye of the beholder/self determined thing, isn't it? - 2:36:05 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:HI RORY- Welcome! Yes, meaningfulness I think is subjective. And your right, the reason I'm an atheist is that there is no evidence that god or gods exist. Now that's not saying that if evidence is ever discovered that I will remain atheist. After all, I can't reject that a cat exists. But until then, I remain an atheist. - 4:37:15 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:JUST CURIOUS, how many here are scientist-types? I just wonder because that is the sector of the population I tend to assume has the highest concentration of atheists, so I am interested in what walks of life y'all are from. I think studying science in college really gave me the push into atheism, but before that my questioning nature was leading me that way...the "prove it" attitude. - 14:25:02 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:OH NO CRISTY- Most fundie theists blame the degradation of theism on science. You could be a poster child!!! LOL! Anyway, I love science and it was always my favourite subject in school which in turn led me reading every sci-fi in the mail order library before I was 13 (I lived on a farm and the school library was limited). I don't know if science itself kept me from being a believer though. I was dragged to church up until I was 14 but it sure didn't help me to believe in ole biblegod. I've never believed I don't think but that could have been the failure of the minister of our church. You see, he talked the talk but he never walked the walk, at least I never saw him do it. Most don't, I don't think. - 14:57:44 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of CRISTY's query of "who are scientist-types" and BETTY's presentations and RORY's quandry, could these all lead one into the folds of buddhism? Looks like their basic question or concern is, whats it All about? I've read two non-western civilisation type thinker\writers who said the religions and sciences o'the western-world [i.e.,western civilsation] are one and the same. The 'questions' of the individuals I mention seem to me to have an attitude which might be described as, as confused by the closeness of the western science and religion. As an example of the views those other two opinions maybe saw, that for me has to be the scientific "Big-Bang" that looks to me exactly like creationism of religion. The consciousness that BETTY mentions, perhaps its time for it to be based on another kind of relevance? - 16:32:34 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I think the fundies have always seen science as the enemy because scientists search for the truth and refuse to fit the findings to preconceived notions. This is in direct opposition to their thinking of starting w/a preconceived notion and then fitting all the facts to it. So perhaps they are correct that some of the degradation of thiesm is because of science, if use a broad definition of science as "searching for the facts". Religion has certainly been the biggest enemy of science over the years, hindering it's progress at every turn as it is not strong enough to withstand the facts. Poster child, eh? Gosh, even as an atheist I can't help being average or typical! *bg* - 18:40:04 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:It's funny that even in the science community there are MANY who are religious, although they firmly believe in evolution. My evolution prof. in college claimed to be religious. I don't get how they reconcile that but alot of them do. - 18:41:58 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- It's amazing how many people in science are believers. Hopefully they keep their beliefs and emotions out of experiment conclusions. Then of course the ole oxymoron, christian science. That word sends chills down my spine. - 19:37:38 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You may have caught the unknowable scent of ferns before I did...Does seem a little "coincidental/syn.". - 19:40:49 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I wish I had more time to dedicate to this room. In fact, it makes me wonder where other people get so much time. However, before I continue with the discussion I wanted to point out a few (objective) criticisms which will help keep the discussion flowing on a steady course. When you say things like, "it's difficult for someone who doesn't believe to accept something without evidence and also difficult for me to understand why someone who believes does," and "now the task is to determine if these thoughts have any place in what we know to be true", you've set a presumptuous, obnoxious tone to this discussion. I know you've stated that you need time to understand this, and I grant you that, but let me say that the new physics is very real and it doesn't require a belief like one who believes in a god-thing has. It merely requires the right understanding for it to make sense. I've tried to explain this in the previous paragraphs: it all starts with the right philosophy for the discussion. Quantum physics needs a different philosophy than the current standard, material realism. This is what I meant by science has to reinvent itself, in a previous post. Please think about these things and thanks for your participation nonetheless! - 21:13:58 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, continuing with the consciousness stuff, I looked back and saw your objections to Capra's and Redfield's works. I don't know if you've ever read any of Vic Stenger's writings but he has also challenged the mystical claims of the new physics. He is a good example to check out. What he calls "quantum quackery" is based on the same dualist philosophy that the only things that are real are individual elementary particles, such as atoms - and that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of brain matter. You can reference this information in my previous paragraphs. Consciousness seems to get continually overlooked as a basis for any reality, yet I have never seen a non-conscious creature argue that his/her world is just as real. (sorry, but I have a strange sense of humor - lol!) - 21:36:51 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:Cristy/Marlene: Thanks for the welcome. I'm a director of something or other for a large mental hospital (if they hear me say that they take away my grounds privileges).I don't consider myself 'in a quandry' at all Carl, a reasonably open search for truth is actually very liberating, compared to the 'group think' polical correctneess that exists in our society. I'm not really an atheist Marlene, I just don't delude myself into thinking that anyone really knows the deal on afterlife. Marlene, I can relate to your socialized upbringing, I read the entire bible,twice just to be sure I didn't believe the crap (I mean that in the nicest sense) we had crammed into a impressionable little minds .....I didn't. - 23:06:24 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..through with being Ms. Congeniality:BETTY- I'm really busy with family today and was yesterday so I am going to have my response by Monday on the page. You, know who is being obnoxious here ..quote "n fact, it makes me wonder where other people get so much time". Is it really any of your business what people spend their time doing? - 23:42:55 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:HI RORY- SO...what do you believe? - 23:49:45 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Golly! I took your post, that BETTY quotes, as just a or maybe your hardline stance in preference for a truth. But, I guess I missed something overlooked it, or mistranslated something, obnoxious? Presumptuous? I'd rather not have to push aside things and such that look like strawman stuff, or assaults against some thought. Such arumentive approaches usually head off into inductive arguments "for" some other point of view. This is typical of pre-twentieth century arguments. Not that twentieth century stuff is entirely better. It would be so much neater and clearner if tehy'd just bring forward the goods, then we'll see for ourselves if its valid or not. [I suspect BETTY just wants to be believed.]. - 23:57:52 on 18 Feb 100 GMT

MARLENE:It's easier for me to identify what I don't believe. I don't believe that a book filled with hatred, intolerence, murder and the subjugation of women has anything to do with the conceptualization of a perfect creator. I don't believe that controlling people through fear of social banishment or eternal torture has anything to do with a perfect god. I don't believe most people believe they have the right to think for themselves. I don't believe in the four separate personalities the bible attributes to god. I don't believe people realize that religious dogma alienates us from each other. What I belive in ....is harder. - 1:09:23 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- I assume the above post is from you. We're listening...what is harder? - 1:15:10 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I didn't see anything wrong with it either but as you suggest, maybe it's a kind of smoke screen put up in advance to the post I will be typing on collective consciousness. - 1:34:02 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:open: oops, neglected to attribute the last entry. As I scrolled through earlier entries, I noticed the comments on Noah and Moses. Re: the 'great flood',remember christians can't even explain the logistics of getting grizzlies to Mount Arafat, much less the back breaker...'how did microorganims survive under 100 feet of water for months?? Did old Noah culture MILLIONS of organisms in petrie (sp) dishes? really? Sorry Noah. Re: MOses, he led a raiding horde of 700,000 upon unsuspecting villagers (gentiles) with the manifest destiny of taking their' promised land' through annihilation. When one of his raiding parties returned from a massacre of villagers; they brought the only ones spared - gentile virgin girls to Moses. Moses promptly instructed them to kill every one so as not to 'contaminate'the Israelites. Was that thou shall not kill or thou shall not covet??? - 2:12:42 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:Marlene: connectedness. - 2:15:35 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:RORY, hey I'm enjoying your posts! Your "beliefs" (or lack thereof) sound alot like my hubby who calls himself agnostic. From a literal *scientific* standpoint I would be agnostic, because the existence of a god is unknown and unknowable. Since it is not proven NOT to exist, it would not be scientific to say "there is no god". However I feel pretty danged strongly there isn't, so I feel "atheist" more expresses my depth of feeling on the matter than agnostic. - 2:52:25 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:CRISTY:Hey,nice to hear from you. I envy your certainty on the lack of a god (s). I think I'm past the 'I wish she were out there' thing. I've seen many of the justifications/rationalizations for a god and only one, well two, stuck with me. I can still relate to the old hippie 'God is dead' view and the 'things that appear to be designed must have had a Grand Designer' argument. Finishing an earlier thought, can anyone out there identify the four versions of God in the bible? - 3:24:38 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Okay, what do you mean by the four versions of god, god the merciful, god the jealous...that type of thing or god/jesus/holy ghostie/_____? - 4:00:00 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- So Carl had you pegged pretty good..connectedness as in collective consciousness..were just a piece of one big cosmic mind? - 4:01:32 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:MARLENE:connectedness as in, individual alienation bridged through tolerance and understanding, for those not fond of being part of a flock. Not pegged. The four Gods?A)God who loves the Jews as the 'chosen people', who have divine santion to kill anyone (God helps out with miracles) B) God #2 is the God during the captivity, no amount of slaughtered lambs or sanctified tabernacles could free the Jews from 700 years of enslavement, the chosen people were abandoned to fire and brimstone rantings of how the gentiles would pay. C) Jesus as the God who was a peaceful god who loved Gentiles D) Jesus as a human high priest who become a god upon resurrection (Hebrews). That doesn't even count Immanuel the warrior 'God with us' who was going to come to slay the Gentiles... By the way, Jesus was NEVER prophesized in the old testament. Immanuel, the WARRIOR God who would come to kill all the Gentiles in the end days was. - 5:01:38 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Oh! THAT kind of connectedness. Sounds humanistic to me so I can accept that! GodA: Yup that's him, that's Yahoo! ...GodaB-Him....GodC- Well, I have to disagree with a few of those points, geezus was not so peaceful nor did he come to preach to the gentiles. GodD-Emmanuel was the prophecized messiah, no Jesus was mentioned at all. But hey, the guy fairly secretive, maybe Jesus was only his alias. Aren't they all warrior gods? - 5:24:59 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- I was reading your previous post on Noah. What about the assexual creatures? Guess he needed to gather only one of them. As you say, I guess he had to do a lot of digging for some of them and a lot of tree climbing for a lot more. I guess he had to be good at something. IMO god should have chosen a man who wasn't addicted to the vine. Getting pissed and showing his bare ass to his sons, tisk tisk tisk! Mind you, Yahoo didn't have many to choose from in those days with wicked people building towers to reach heaven and learning things and all that. So he choose Noah of the Vine in his infinite wisdom...what a guy! - 5:37:49 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

MARLENE: Yeah, he only chose the Gentiles after he was widely panned by the Jews. He spoke OF but didn't really speak TO the Gentiles. Paul's the one who embellished his commitment to the Gentiles. Don't count John in, he still had only 144,000 JEWS surviving in the last battle (Revelation). The Jews who dominated the early church in Jerusalem led by James (Jesus brother, leader of 'the way) OPPOSED Paul's openness to Gentiles. The apostles sat around Jerusalem , taking Gentile church tithes, debating the purity of Gentiles and if they were fit to be in the new church with the Hebrew christians. Don't they have to be circumcised and floow Jewish religious law to be christians? Were the apostles...enlightened? Your only point I disagree with is that Jesus WASN'T predicted in OT. His credibility HINGES on his prophecy in the OT, its not there, IMMANUEL the sword wielder/impaler was. Key point. - 12:35:50 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:RORY, my take on the 'things that appear to be designed must have had a Grand Designer' argument is that just because we don't have the knowledge or technology to understand something NOW (and how it evolved), doesn't mean we never will understand it. I hate to write it all off as "well it's just so complex a deity must have created it" instead of continuing to study and theorize till we can figure it out. To me, "believing" is an excuse not to learn............ "I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." -Galileo (when the church was calling him a heretic and making him refute his theories)...what if Galileo had just "believed"? (rhetorical question :-) - 15:38:49 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:RORY, a REALLY good book on the topic of the "grand designer" is THE BLIND WATCHMAKER by Richard Dawkins. - 15:39:35 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Where you thought I said Jesus was prophecied in the OT was a typing error on my part. I meant to type "wasn't" and yes I agree it was Emmanuel. - 15:42:24 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY+ RORY- I agree, I haven't read _The Blind Watchmaker_ but I have read _Climbing Mount Improbable_. One of the biggest arguements against a designer is this.. for an enity that is all powerful/omnipotent da da da da, he has done a piss poor job of designing. - 15:47:41 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- This will be a first of a few posts in response to yours. You wrote: "In order to understand quantum physics in a context without the apparent paradoxes it presents, you have to reascertain (sp?) if the philosophy you are using to interpet the data is suitable." In this statement you are begging the question when you state that a certain "type" of philosophy "has" to be used to understand the apparent paradoxes in quantum physics. Who says we need any philosophy? Also it is special pleading to call upon pataphysics or metaphysics to explain the paradoxes. All one really needs to apply Occam's razor and go with the interpretations that are most economical and most useful. A look at the interpretation you ascribe to, that human consciousness is connected to the reality of all things has no reliable data to back it up. If you want to further discuss this in another post, I'm willing. Then the interpretation of deterministic sub-quantum forces that supposedly have superliminal qualities has no supporting evidence either. The theory of relativity still holds up in quantum mechanics. so far, nothing has been observed to be travelling faster than the speed of light. Furthermore a human observer who may bring subjective interpretations depending of the philosophy they use, is not needed at all. Quantum mechanics can be observed by an inanimate observer and data can be interpreted objectively. Once again this would be using the most economical method. - 17:38:35 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:CRISTY/MARLENE:mucked up world...certainly. I agree we should continue to look for reason (or cause) using reason. The idea of BEGINNING is of course circular reasoning. A grand designer as the cause, doesn't explain the designer's origin, hence circular. Any creator would, at the very least, be either a semi-omnipotent being or apathetic to the trials of this world. Any hope for a kind being is based on the fear that if she's not... we're all doomed anyway. Maybe God is like Barney Fife, he gets it right about half the time. That whole 'eaten alive food chain thing could have been better thought out , don't you think? That being said, I still see design as the most compelling argument for a creator... OK, I'll see what Dawkins has to say. - 17:51:20 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- If god were any kind of designer, he would have created an enviroment his creatures (which he also designed) wouldn't have to adapt to, don't you think? - 18:01:48 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Question, why are you giving god a female gender? I have no problem with it but I do know it irks the fundies all to hell. - 18:03:54 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:MARLENE:Maybe she's a grand/flawed designer. At any rate, adaptation will always be required, since change is one of the few givens in life. Perfect world? Hardly. I use 'she ' because it shatters the old man,white beard characterization but mainly because women were really really slammed in the bible. One of the most sexist books written,ever. - 18:39:21 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:I still think the best argument against a 'grand designer' creating all existence is that such a being would have to be pure consciousness first that would bring everything else into existence. However, to be conscoous means something would have to exist in order for a consciousness to exist. In other words, something must first exist before the concept of 'consciousness' can exist. Some argue that 'God' can be conscious of himself, but this too would be impossible. If he were pure consciousness, he would not exist in the first place, because there would be nothing to be conscious OF, if there were no existence. And the concept of 'God' MUST be pure consciousness, and have no metaphysical existence because it is impossible forany matter to be 'God' and nothing else--and in order for him to exist, something must be identified as being something and nothing elase. God does not, and cannot exist under these parameters, and I find it odd, that everything else can. - 19:14:35 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene the material girl:BETTY- You Wrote: "For the last few centuries, for example, material realism (the idea that only atoms and elementary particles (matter) are real, and that anything else, including subjective perceptions (mind) is a phenomenon of matter) has dominated the world of science. This duality, created by Descartes, is only an assumption. It's a methodology to interpret the data, and it's worked well and has provided us many benefits, however, it has estranged us from the world around us. Material realism is an assumption about the nature of being, but not a conclusions arrived at by experiment. One of the first problems I realized with the materialistic view is that if only matter is real, then material possessions would be the only reasonable foundation for happiness. The materialistic view also obviously discredits religious and spiritual views (even though Eastern cultures have found a way to incorporate both), and it also presents individuals as isolated egos living inside their bodies, and our actions are merely determined by the stimuli we receive and by our conditioning. In a reality of random atoms bumping together, free will, ultimately is an illusion. In other words, clear the drawing board and start over. Material realism may not be the right assumption or philosophy for the future of science, even though it's so ingrained into our culture that we regret being reminded of it's paradoxes. More about materialist" ....I have no problem with the first part of this statement. Where I start to disagree is when you say that "material realsim" has enstranged us from the world around us. We are not estranged, how could we be, even if we wanted to be. We are part of the world around us and are as physical as the rest of it. I do hold with what you've explained "material realism" to be. Experiments have been done and evidence has been gathered to support that the mind is a product of matter. For instance, when chemicals are at a certain level, similar thoughts are produced by most people. To really get into this would take pages, but I'm willing to discuss it point by point in smaller posts if you would like. But to make a potential long post short, many experiments have been made and are ongoing to understand thought processes which are triggered by chemical and very small electrical currents in the brain which of course is matter. I think your statement on matter/material possessions/happiness is non sequitur. Material possessions have nothing to do with brain matter and thought process. Nor does religious or spiritual views unless of course, you are referring to the reality that one's brain chemistry and conditioning causes one to be prone to such thought processes. I agree that we are just bodies and our brains and the thoughts they produce are just part of that body. Our thoughts are limited to ourselves unless we decide to communicate them though such methods as seeing, speaking, writing, touching..all very physical methods all which are easily observed either by an animate or inanimate observer. There is no evidence that thoughts are superliminally shared. I agree that free will is an illusion, in fact evidence points toward determinism. There is no need for scraping the old drawings. In fact, if the theory is solid, only additions are normally added to it if new evidence is produced. There is no paradox in the human organism. - 19:43:41 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- In order to have consciousness in the first place matter would have to be introduced first in order to allow life to take place. As far as I understand, consciousness is the awareness of one's surroundings caused by thought processes in a brain. It's not something separate and apart from our bodies. - 19:53:43 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:Peter: the dilemma, for me, rests with the 'eternal existence/always was' requirement for a god(s). I can conceive of another plane on which 'an essence'could exist, (of course whatever the true is, exists or doesn't without need of confirmation from me). IF it exists, it would certainly have enough intellect to have awareness, a consciousness. Eternal? Don't get it. Who created the first creator? Would 'in the presence of a god', be a place or a STATE? Marlene, "can't be estranged"?? Anything that diverts sharply from 'the masses', is alienating, isn't it? - 21:23:15 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:MARLENE: Determinism. Nature or nurture,you pick nature? Identical twins,different behaviors. Separated identical twins, VASTLY different behaviors. Isn't it the INTERSECTION of nature/nurture that influences our thoughts, feelings and behaviors? I'm with you on the point that biochemistry has a MUCH higher influence on human nature than people who are looking to assign blame can allow. Incarcerated felons have 10 times the XYY ('aggressive male' gene) as the general population. Stronger links of physiology to addiction, sexual preference, mental illness have come forward in recent years, much to the consternation of relgious groups who have a vested interest in nurture and complete accountability for the individual. - 21:46:03 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Yes, if one uses the word "estranged" in the context of disaffected/indifferent we as a species of this planet are influenced by the world around us. This is the context I was using it in, not connectedness in the quantum wave sense. An example: If we live in a climate like I do, we need to keep warm of else our body temps become too low and we're finished. Another example, we are a social animal. If it weren't for other people's ideas which have been learned though the communications I posted above, we wouldn't be as comfortable as we are today, nor would we be using this form of communication we are now. - 21:47:31 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- According to religionists god gave us "free will". We do have choice to some extent and we sometimes are prone to emotional behavior as you've pointed out. Some things are genetically determined. That's not to say, we haven't the choice to change it, we can to a degree if we want to. Society offers all kinds of help for those who have trouble "fitting in". There are things that are determined that we cannot change although fundie religions figure we can. For instance and inherited disease to fundies is "demon possesion" and they figure with prayer, one can be cured. Holistic medicine seems to taking the same stance as religion. In holistic medicine "one's mind" in tune with "other's minds" can effect a cure. This is their take on free will. - 21:58:08 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Guess I didn't actually answer the question you asked, nurture or nature. I addressed it to a point in the last post but not very clearly. I would think that at least half nature and the rest nurture. Because we are...here goes that word, conscious, we are able to work on what we genetically inherited or didn't inherit. I don't believe we a much different from any other animal on this planet other than our ability to be aware of ourselves. I was raised since birth with a family that was distantly related to me. I was very different in my personality/emotionally than my mom, dad and sister (their natural daughter). Being family, I had the opportunity to know my natural mom, not very well, but of her. I didn't know she was my natural mom until I was in my early teens so this ruled out any imitating I may have been prone to do. It turns out, I'm emotionally very much like my natural mom. - 23:36:22 on 19 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Okay, a few things I already addressed… your post ". Quantum mechanics can be observed by an inanimate observer and data can be interpreted objectively" seemed to slip in after I explained the illogical claim of strong objectivity: "the idea that there is an objective universe out there, one that is independent of us. The lesson of quantum physics, however, is that WE choose which aspect - wave or particle - a quantum object is going to reveal in a given situation. So, if subjects and objects mesh inextricably," we cannot hold the opinion of strong objectivity. We make the experiments, collect the data, and make the hypotheses. Our subjective perceptions are tied intrinsically with the results. - 3:24:18 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Also, when referring to the philosophy involved in understanding quantum physics, I did not state unwaveringly that this is a specific philosophy that has to be used. I stated that if there are what appear to be paradoxes, then one should reconsider the methodology, or in this case, the philosophy presupposed to interpet the data: material realism. The dualistic nature of this philosophy may in fact be the responsible party for the supposed paradoxes, not what is found in the observation. - 3:24:50 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Also, when I referred to the estrangement from the world around us, I could have been more specific in explaining the estrangement as a move from an essential being to an existential being. Referring to "We are part of the world around us and are as physical as the rest of it," the physical (matter) stuff as you can tell already, was not the issue. - 3:26:52 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Also, as I've explained, in the Cartesian dualistic philosophy, the processes of the mind are considered an epiphenomenon of the brain matter, as you have seemed to agree. However, as I've explained, there is no way for something (consciousness) that's made of something else (brain) can act causally on what it's made of (consciousness acting on matter). Even if this paradox was avoided, in order for this theory to work, mind and matter would have to be two separate realities and exhange energy in the process. However, there is also no evidence for a transference of energy to any separate reality. Consciousness seems to have been passed off again. - 3:27:52 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Also, What you call a non-sequitur, seems perfectly sensible to me. In a material realist philosophy where everything is made of separate elementary particles (atoms) which form matter, and subjective (mind) perceptions are secondary, then the first basis/happiness for life, logically, is material (matter) properties. So yes, the material possessions we acquire fit into this scheme of happiness. - 3:28:27 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Also, as you've shared your subscription to determinism, you might find this amusing. I'm writing in generalizations here and if you like I can get the precise explanations, but, the original developers of material realism, Democritus, Descartes, Newton, etc. were firm religious believers and their basis for physics was to understand the eternal, unchanging plan of the universe. In fact, without contingencies and an acausal approach to understanding the universe, this what you subscribe to. Einstein's quote, and please check this out, "God does not play dice" was his objection to his findings in quantum physics. Probabilities and tendencies were impossible for him to accept as a believer in a Designer. Even though you've stated your distate for Redfield's work, I will paraphrase here: "The universe is malleable to our intentions." --- I'm sorry for these spurts, but I use the time I have the best I can. And I'm sorry also, but after this much work I'll have to address the issue of superliminity some other time. Thanks. - 3:30:31 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:MARLENE: It can be rough being surrounded by others who are who are quite different, I hope you and your mom were able to get close. You speak of compensation, the ability to adapt to our weaknesses. That is one thing I find inspirational, the ability of those who've been dealt a bad hand to overcome, in spite of the odds. Give me the 'fighter'; over the passivity, dependency, avoidance, helplessness and empty prayers of christianity, any day. - 3:31:53 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:MARLENE: It can be rough being surrounded by others who are who are quite different, I hope you and your mom were able to get close. You speak of compensation, the ability to adapt to our weaknesses. That is one thing I find inspirational, the ability of those who've been dealt a bad hand to overcome, in spite of the odds. Give me the 'fighter'; over the passivity, dependency, avoidance, helplessness and empty prayers of christianity, any day. - 3:36:28 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I was going post this response to finish off from your other posts but there seems to be too much in one post to discuss. I think it would be better to discuss this point by point. Let's go to the first post you posted tonight and start there. Even if it takes us months, this way we can get a better understanding of what each other is trying to say. The way it's going now, it's hard to follow. Your statement that we can choose which aspect - wave or particle - a quantum object is going to reveal in a given situation is but an interpretation, one where the quantum wave function does not "collapse" to it's final form until some one makes a measurement. In this interreptation, yes, human function controls the course of events throughout all of space and time. BUT it is only an interpretation of a theory. It hasn't been proven to work. Can you agree to that? - 4:01:17 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:RORY- Yes, I am somewhat close with my mom, more so though with my natural grandmother who is a whopping 94 and her mind still functions well. I agree, many of us can overcome handicaps we may have inherited without the crutches you've mentioned. Many do trade one crutch for another for example substance addiction for religion. I find most fundies are recovered something or others. While I would rather see then using god than the bottle or needle, it would be nice if they could realize the real strength to overcome was their own strength and not that of some imaginary superguy especially the biblegod. - 5:19:28 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:MARLENE--Correct RORY--yes, to assert the 'first creator' is an assertion that collapses upon itself. The theist suggests all that must exist, must be created by an agent which they refer to as God. In the same breath however, they will say 'God exists' ( or else they would have no belief system! ). So if God wasn't created, then he must not exist, under the same ground rules they just proposed. I don't see how they don't get this! Again, they give primacy to consciousness over existence, instead of the other way around, and that just simply cannnot happen, regardless of how many'planes of existence' and dimensions are suggested..all of which just postpone the problem - 17:28:41 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I doubt I "subscribe" to "determinism" as a philosophy. It's not all or nothing IMO. I have no basic philosophy. - 19:26:04 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene the woo-woo queen:Did you know that according to Betty's ideas on quantum mechanics, the unicorn, the blue fairy and biblegod exist. You see they travel and never rest. You ask then, why can't we see them? Why, because they are superliminal, of course! - 22:25:42 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Take it easy on poor Betty. I've noticed that persons with ideologies assume that everyones beliefs are ideologies, and that persons with arbitrary beliefs assume all beliefs are arbitrary. :-) - 23:30:51 on 20 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I'm serious! According to what Betty accepts as the interrpretation of quantum mechanics, all these things do exist, if one wants them to. As to that line above, are not ideologies and beliefs the same damn thing? - 1:14:04 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

BG:Why bother defending or iterating the non existance of god etc. My credo is: It is not even wrong. - 1:46:35 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- You know that line, myth is the word we use for other people's religions? Ideology is the word we use for other peoples belief systems. Seriously, an ideology is a set of beliefs; a belief system. Naturalism may be but is not necessarily one. - 1:47:58 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BG -- Oh, it's no bother. Really. - 1:49:29 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:RORY, LOL at Barney Fife as "God"! Wouldn't that be a great Broadway play?.........I finally visited the UU church today, and it was nice to meet people that didn't faint when you said "atheist", yet they still have some religion, even if it's not specifically Xian or anything. The speaker today was a UU minister from San Antonio who obviously had some spiritual/God leanings, but his final words were "live this life like it is the only one you'll have". I think I will continue to go there, if nothing else just to hook up w/ some fellow liberals (met another SAHM in my neighborhood already!) and give the kids a "Sunday school" type setting to go. The Sunday School kids learn about a different religion every meeting, I thought that was cool. I'd like them to have some objective knowledge of what the rest of the world does. - 1:51:30 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:OPEN..Oops, that last part about me going to UU should have been to everyone, RORY prob had no idea why I was directing it to him :-) - 1:53:46 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Hey! It's better than the CoC! Are they not more humanistic than believers in the supernatural at that church? - 1:57:32 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BG- Rasssspberry!My question is, why did you bother to post? - 1:59:47 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, the guy read some statistics that I have already forgotten. I think over half of the UU congregation (not just this church, all of them) have some kind of spiritual deity leanings, about 10% were naturists (pagans) and about 20% humanists. What exactly is "humanist", ANYONE? And another word that keeps coming up on the freethinker websites is "apologetic". From context it doesn't mean what it usually does (no one is apologizing for anything)...any ideas or do I need to find a quote to give some context? - 2:33:15 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Apologetics is a word derived from the Greek word apologeomai, which means to give a reasoned defense (1 Pet. 3:15). In its Biblical context, apologetics is a branch of Christian theology and philosophy through which the Christian mind expresses itself in the task of evangelism. Apologetics seeks to provide rational grounds for believing the truth claims of Christianity in whole or in part and to respond to objections raised against the true knowledge of God in whole or in part in the Christian faith (2 Cor. 10:3-5). - 2:45:53 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Humanism is a philosophy of joyous service for the greater good of all humanity in this natural world and advocating the methods of reason, science and democracy. There are ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy. First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics of attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes that humans are an evolutionary product of the Nature of which we are a part; that our minds are indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of our brains; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality we can have no conscious survival after death. Third, Humanism, having its ultimate faith in human beings, believes that we possess the power or potentiality of solving our own problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method applied with courage and vision. Fourth, Humanism, in opposition to all theories of universal determinism, fatalism, or predestination, believes that human beings, while conditioned by the past, possess genuine freedom of creative choice and action, and are, within certain objective limits, the masters of their own destiny. Fifth, Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships and that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress--economic, cultural, and ethical--of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion. Sixth, Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community. Seventh, Humanism believes in the widest possible development of art and the awareness of beauty, including the appreciation of Nature's loveliness and splendor, so that the aesthetic experience may become a pervasive reality in the life of human beings. Eighth, Humanism believes in a far-reaching social program that stands for the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order, both national and international. Ninth, Humanism believes in the complete social implementation of reason and scientific method; and thereby in democratic procedures, and parliamentary government, with full freedom of expression and civil liberties, throughout all areas of economic, political, and cultural life. Tenth, Humanism, in accordance with scientific method, believes in the unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions, including its own. Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy ever open to experimental testing, newly discovered facts, and more rigorous reasoning. Human beings, using their own intelligence and cooperating liberally with one another, can build an enduring citadel of peace and beauty upon this earth. - 2:49:59 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I thought I may as well include what paganism is too. You are actually quite lucky you haven't been subjected to some of it as we were with "the druid". Paganism is a spiritual way of life which has its roots in the ancient nature religions of the world. It is principally rooted in the old religions of Europe, though many adherents also find great worth in the indigenous beliefs of other countries. We celebrate the sanctity of Nature, recognising the Divine in all things; the vast, unknowable spirit that runs through the universe, both seen and unseen. Such belief in the sacredness of all things can be found world-wide. Pagans see this as their heritage, interpreting many of the beliefs and values of our ancestors in forms adapted to suit modern life. These interpretations may be based on folklore, myth or archeological evidence. What is important is not necessarily the historical validity or political attainability of such visions, but the direction in which such inspirations channel human energy, human potential and human creativity. - 2:58:07 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:PETER/CRISTY: I with you Peter on the eternal god thing.A being that was both first and always, that wasn't created, who doesn't communicate to mankind,didn't know or didn't care about the suffering part, who demands subjugation or eternal torture??? How can people simultaneously say that the creation if life doesn't make any sense and that the concept of god imparts meaning, when the only way to accept god is conveniently one who can break all the rules. That solution could apply to any problem. The answer is 'something that can't be understood and to which the rules of the puzzle don't apply"?! Not very exacting. Cristy, if you found a good UU (as opposed to whacky) church, I'm happy for you. I've seen both kinds. With Websters help, humanist is someone who is keenly aware and sensitive to the trials of life. A person who prefers help and advocacy over blame or one sole poster child (to the exclusion of the masses. A humanist may want happiness for ALL people. The religious zealot is out condemning sex, the homeless and drugs ( with an air of superiority)... the humanist is out handing out condoms, sandwiches and free needles. The religious zealot is out defending the cancer patients right to suffer to the death in a altered , pained morphine state of wasting away... the humanist may see that life ain't all that great for that person and support that patients wishes to end the suffering/die. The humanist recognizes that EVERY individual will suffer and that should be a unifying thing for all of us with compassion... the religious zealot chooses their reaction to the imperfections of man based on the dogma of their religion. How'd I do for a beginner? I love the'my karma ran over my dogma'message. - 3:14:36 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Rory:Cristy: That last post should have read WITHOUT Websters help. I'm glad you liked the Barney Fife analogy, but really in retrospect I would liken god to more of an Aunt Clara from the 'Bewitched'show. God,' that bumbling loveable character', I say that with the greatest of reverence of course. - 3:25:31 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:The moniker is now 'Rob',for privacy's sake. - 4:16:04 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Rob alias Rob? - 5:02:54 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:That would be Rory alias Rob, but his secret is safe with me. :-) - 5:24:32 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- So we are now addressing Rob instead of Rory? - 6:13:12 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

PETER:RORY--precisely..and this is just the BEGINNING of how flawed the concept of 'God' is. Since a great number of religions are anti-human, and therefefore anti anything a human is capable of, including his greatest asset--how to THINK ( and christianity being no exception)..The strength of the idea of 'God' actually an embodiment of everything that goes against anything which mankind has considered to be rational. For example, the concept of 'faith' upon which the entire christian belief system is based means ' to believe in something via methods which are without any reference points of how mankind has deemed are methods of distinguishing a truth from a falsehood'..i - 6:38:24 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: coincidental encounter + nervous spouse =... Certainly this group should understand that, right "Grant". - 12:44:23 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Grant: Want to see my birth certificate?:ROB -- Just lame humor. Don't mind me. :-) - 13:49:10 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT + ROB - Now I know Grant is Grant, and I am I, and Rob if you want to say your are Shla-bop-ta-do-do, I couldn't care less, as long as a name goes on the post so we know who to address. - 14:42:24 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:ROB -- I guess I should explain that I am, and always have been openly atheist. I won't bore you with my story or anything, but I've paid the price. My friends, family, and aquaintances know that I host this site. You're completely welcome here. I've been enjoying your posts. Although I host the site, I'm just another poster, ask anyone. The site was going to disappear, so I took it on. Just wanted to explain why I'm not overly appreciative of the little wink and nod, and the inherent assumptions. - 14:58:39 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:GRANT: We're cool. Peter, guilt makes the world go round and fuels the inferiority necessary to be thankful, just to be part of the flock. ABUSERS are notorious for the same kind of thing, causing the defense mechanism INTROJECTION, becoming like what you fear. Clever little rascals, those israelites. - 19:46:58 on 21 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:Anybody in the mood for a really nasty xtian site? These guys have all the answers, and they hate everybody (except themselves, of course). - 4:52:50 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

jaywilson--thanks, Grant--:Now that I've bookmarked that nasty neo-natatorium (where everyone--even the dyslexic--is doing the godpaddle), I think I'll watch the triumphant return of Dave to late-night television. - 5:33:32 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: thanks for the link. There's nothing like fundies to lightin up the day with a good laugh.And they called me anti catholic, Hahahahahahahaha. - 5:49:57 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant: I didn't even know Dave was gone:JAYWILSON -- Now that you mention it, there does seem to be an odd way of reading things there. - 5:59:26 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG -- Wait 'til you get to the atheist stuff! - 6:00:31 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..do you think?:Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:11:58 -0800 From: "Dean A. Batha" Subject: Printing in Tongues X-Sender: dabatha@postoffice.pacbell.net To: skeptic X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Reply-To: skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu Sender: owner-skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu This guy maybe visited this webpage and thought we were demons?...... Is Your Computer Possesed by a Demon? SAVANNAH, Ga. -- Your computer may be possessed by a demon, a leading minister warns. "While the Computer Age has ushered in many advances, it has also opened yet another door through which Lucifer and his minions can enter and corrupt men's souls," said the Reverend Jim Peasboro, author of an upcoming book, The Devil in the Machine. Demons are able to possess anything with a brain, from a chicken to a human being. And today's thinking machines have enough space on their hard drives to accommodate Satan or his pals. "Any PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit," the minister confirmed. The Savannah clergyman says he became aware of the problem from counseling churchgoers. "I learned that many members of my congregation became in touch with a dark force whenever they used their computers," he said. "Decent, happily married family men were drawn irresistibly to pornographic websites and forced to witness unspeakable abominations. "Housewives who had never expressed an impure thought were entering Internet chat rooms and found themselves spewing foul, debasing language they would never use normally. "One woman wept as she confessed to me, 'I feel when I'm on the computer as if someone else or something else just takes over.' " The minister said he probed one such case, actually logging onto the parishioner's computer himself. To his surprise, an artificial-intelligence program fired up -- without him clicking it on. "The program began talking directly to me, openly mocked me," he recalls. "It typed out, 'Preacher, you are a weakling and your God is a damn liar.' " Then the device went haywire and started printing out what looked like gobbledygook. "I later had an expert in dead languages examine the text," the minister said. "It turned out to be a stream of obscenities written in a 2,800-year-old Mesopotamian dialect!" Since, then, Rev. Peasboro has researched the problem further and uncovered alarming facts. "I learned most of the youths involved in school shootings like the tragedy at Columbine were computer buffs," he said. "I have no doubt that computer demons exerted an influence on them." The minister estimates that one in 10 computers in America now houses some type of evil spirit. Rev. Peasboro advises that if you suspect your computer is possessed, you consult a clergyman or, if the computer is still under warranty, take it in for servicing. He says, "Technicians can replace the hard drive and reinstall the software, getting rid of the wicked spirit permanently." - 6:04:04 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Yikes didn't mean to send all the crap ahead of the good minister's warning, sorry! - 6:05:51 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Fortunately I had the foresight to partition my harddrive. Only lesser demons can fit. Hopefully they'll stay away from the one with Windows on it! - 6:13:01 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Where on that page is the atheist stuff? I can't seem to find it. Are we before the Cult of Mary or after? - 6:14:00 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Didn't you know Dave had a heart attack? All kinds have been hosting the show while he was gone. - 6:16:31 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Go here and scroll down about 2/3 to "On atheists and scoffers". - 6:16:53 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I wonder how many people will show up at a computer shop with this complaint? LOL LOL LOL! Can you imagine! Naaa! I haven't got a virus...it's demons! I soaked it in holy water to drive out the demons and now the demons have completely destroyed it! - 6:19:49 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Thank You! I must not really be an atheist, I don't have a card! I wonder where I can get me one of those? - 6:26:03 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLEN -- I'm thinking about starting a harddrive exorcism business. Could probably charge lots more than for a simple reformat. I'll have the cards there behind the counter. - 6:32:14 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Hey! You may as well be diversified, harddrive exorcism, atheist cards, maybe a few plastic jesuses, a few toy monkeys with bibles, sounds profitable! - 6:59:30 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Grant; Did you see the GEOCENTRICITY SITE, unbelievable; at the ignorance of these cretins.Oh man, they even have a link to a online Jack Chick tract; damn theses are hard core morons.Back to the atheism section; wow, the old fear and lies about us. Convert or we'll kill you to show us his love(how sickly insane).It's the fundies who duck and cover the truth.If their behavior was of a religious nature; State agencies would have all of them commited to the nut house. I'll tell you Grant they are advising the flock, not to try and prove god existance.This is the slippery slope from which many freethinkers start off from.They are really scared at presenting evidence; are they in for a rude awakening to the real world of atheists. So what I got out of that is to always hammer home the burden of proof and always get back to them with the answers.What baffles me is; how can anyone be be that stupid, so as to follow the xian hog wash to it's lunatic fringe. - 7:07:14 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG -- I read something about the psychology of such belief systems. Wish I could remember where. I'll have to look. Anyway, it said that certain types of belief systems have to function this way to function at all. They have to have a solid wall between the dogma and any type of doubt. There can be no room for the possibility that opposing views have any validity whatsoever or the spell is broken. Sort of a house of cards thing. - 7:18:21 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Doug:Grant:"The Mind of the Bible-Believer:a critique of the book by Edmund D. Cohen*********The third device, "Logocide," refers the killing of words, or rather, the meanings of words. As the Red Queen stated in Alice in Wonderland, words were to mean what she chose them to mean. Christian logocide concentrates on words like life, death, truth, wisdom, and, of course, love, none of which carry the accepted, consensual meaning as they issue out of the mouths of god-talkers. Life and death mean life in Christ or death to Christ, and are simply terms denoting belief or unbelief in the risen Lord. Wisdom has nothing to do with human wisdom but rather refers to the level of commitment to the Christian system of beliefs. With the word love being used so freely in god-talking commercials, it is no wonder that confused, frightened, and friendless people would be attracted to an institution promising love; as they understand or imagine love, it is something they have been deprived of and yearned for all their lives. However, it soon becomes apparent that the human love they seek is not the love of the god-talker; those worthies use the word "love" to refer to an unquestioning obedience to God in return for the promise of everlasting life. In addition to this, the kind of human love originally sought by the initiate, is gradually undermined as being inferior, untrustworthy, not to mention unsatisfying when compared to the love of God. As Cohen states, "Christian love is biblically defined as Holy Spirit-aided self-discipline in internalizing Christian doctrine and performing the devotional program. As manifested in and by the believer, Christian love has hardly anything to do with passion or affection." Mental health is that state existing when all levels of an individual being -- the perceptual, the cognitive, the affective, the biological, the behavioral, and the verbal -- function in a more or less smooth, harmonious, integrated manner. This is akin to what Cohen refers to as integrity, which he defines in this way: "We implicitly think of one who is honest with himself about himself as having integrity." The fourth device consists of a relentless assault on this integrity. Since the entire belief system called Christianity requires the individual to accept that belief on faith and to deny the evidence of human intelligence when this conflicts with the belief system, integrity for the Christian becomes impossible."******** and so on the seven devices. A great book if haven't read it. don't forget to book mark bookmark the review of the seven devices.They really hate to have this thrown in their faces with clinical unemotionalism.They go nuts when you take them apart this way, it's bad enough to go through the ringers without the fundy problem, I can only imagine the look inward would drive most fundies over the edge. - 7:49:16 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:Thanks, DOUG. I needed that after reading the fundie site. - 14:50:54 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Wow! Breesed over that xian site, whole lotta'love there, thats all I can say. - 15:41:00 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Been sorta'pondering that site, and to summarise it in a word, that wordz gotta'be, Special! That sites entire list of sites or table o'contents has the singular message that something or someone is special or should want to be as special as ______. As soon as one fills in the blank the confrontations of any and all kinds begin. - 19:25:34 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, that site reminds me of the quote.........."You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."- -Anne Lamott - 20:33:20 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, LOL at the possessed computers! But only the ones after '85. So this guy knows exactly how much hard disk space satan requires! *snicker* But a new hard drive will cure you FOREVER. I wonder if this guy isn't on the payroll of some manufacturer of hard disks? If he can get "one in ten" people to go get new drives and software, someone will be raking it in! GRANT, what a marvelous business idea :-) - 20:36:11 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: Some gods hate that is true, but my god it "Loves" absolutely, long firmly tapered legs and long hair tosseled helps blonde is good, and well if I cont'd with telling of my god's loves someone might start denouncing my god- and well, - 22:29:57 on 22 Feb 100 GMT

Grant: Apt quote:CRISTY -- I figure there's got to be a way to make superstition and ignorance pay without having to actually start a religion. - 4:18:56 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Cristy- I would imagine those harddrives would have to be demon resistant and atheist proof. - 5:57:42 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:CARL -- What I wonder about is how these guys can consider themselves to be the moral when they wish just about everyone harm and seem quite eager to see just about everyone burn in hell forever, yet consider people such as humanists, who seem to desire equality, fair treatment, and a better life for everyone, to be immoral. According to them, murderers and child molesters will go to heaven if they accept Christ, but most good, honest, caring people won't. In other words, self absorbed, frightened brown nosers go to heaven, people less concerned about themselves burn in hell. - 13:07:15 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Mike: I've been looking this morning for some honest discussion regarding "origins" you know, how did we get here, where are we going. I really want to talk with people who may have differing views thanmy own. I've been to a few "atheist" chat rooms, I'm disappointed with the type of discusions that are going on, there is no talk of facts or honest philosophy. Some people say that Christians are hate mongers, frankly, I've found more hate speech on these sites than anywhere else on the web. People lijke Grant for instance, no facts or "open" mindedness, just more retoric. - 18:26:17 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Mike:I take back the Grant part, there are more people than just him. You know, your opinion is only as valid as your source of information, right? If you only listen and read from sources that hate God and His followers, won't you have a very one-sided view? - 18:34:28 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MIKE: Hate mongerers? not here among the regulars - 18:44:25 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MIKE: "an honest discussion on how we got here" as far we can honestly say of that, we got here via the biological processes of our parents. No spirits no angels nothing out-side of the natural world, wherein now you and I exist, can be honestly known to either of us. If I had to dare guess at the direction in which you want others to entertain you, are you searching for some stooge-talk as such is related to creation? - 19:50:59 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:MIKE- I remember when I was in school. There was this nice quite boy by the name of George. George would never make waves, a nice guy really but this teacher we had for some reason thought if there was trouble in the class that George would be behind it. This teacher couldn't be further from the facts. Either he was blind or had a prejudice against boys named George. Grant is by far the most tolerant and open minded person here. Where DO you see any problem with Grant., unless of course you have a problem with someone posting truth and facts. So Mike, where do YOU think life began? - 20:01:29 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:MIKE- Hummm...where ARE we going IYO? - 20:02:50 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL- I've just started looking after my granddaughter full time so I'm only going to be posting during afternoon nap and after bedtime. I know...all of you are going...PRAISE GEEE_ZUSS! - 20:05:07 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: There won't be no grandparenting for me. When my youngest offspring heads down the hill and turn to his future, I right behind'im and at the bottom o'the hill I will head off in the opposite direction. Like our dear ex-chatter JOETTE, I'm walkin'the world. Awhile back one o'our offspring met some hikers w/big ol'backpacks from the french state of Canada. They wuz hikin'down to the other end o'South America. One had just spent three years hiking thru India. We had some coffee w/'em and talked for coupla' hours, then they left. - 21:02:05 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: jist hope they wasn't terrorists or somethin' - 21:05:32 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MIKE, I'm sure if you go into a place expecting hate, you will find it. However if you decide you want a polite and thoughtful discussion, you are more than welcome to start approaching us w/ your ideas. But as the frequent recipients of Christian hate, our discussion does often fall into anger and derision of that religion. I don't think we get so worked up about anything here that we get filled with hate and go, say, shoot abortion doctors or anything though. People w/o a theology don't have that much to get worked into a tizzy about! - 21:29:32 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, congrats at your stay-at-home-grandmahood, I bet you'll have lots of fun! - 21:46:24 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:OPEN: I pulled into the gas station this evening and noticed a homeless-looking man stumblimg about the bay areas wandering aimlessly, waiving to noone there and talking to himself (obviously 'responding to internal stimuli'). I asked the clerk to call the county mental health center before this man was hit by a car or punched by a customer since he was apparently actively HALLUCINATING. The clerk gave me a puzzled look and went the other direction. I called mental health, who replied 'just call 911'. I sat the man down in the restaurant next store while calling for help. At least 20 people walked around this tortured man. Our streets are empty sunday mornings, guess where everyone is. - 22:55:56 on 23 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Unfortunately even if many people were around they would stay 20 feet away from this man while saying "someone should do something!" . Good for you! The guy's problems could have been self-inflicted or part of an illness, the why shouldn't matter, the caring about someone else should. So when you called someone, did they DO anything? - 1:20:13 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Yup, I'm having fun but my back is killing me! I'm not use to carrying a little one around this much, lol! I'll toughen up! - 1:22:22 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yup! Too! I was hoping I was down the "just time to be a gram road" too. But that has been delayed for a while, just a while, I hope! - 1:24:28 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Just a question to everyone (as if I really care anyway, lol) but do you think I "was hard" on Betty? I don't think my statement that if the superliminal actually existed so could the blue fairy, unicorn and god was hard on her. It's a possibility the same as ESP would be and other "faster than light" ideas. - 1:30:49 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:Open: I had a chance to check out that christian site, alot of anger towards catholics and modern versions of the bible. Thats interesing because the catholics ARE what the protestant sects evolved from. Denouncing their ancestry?? catholicism is the roman-ization of the church thanks to Paul. Without it, christianity would still be a hebrew- based alteration of judaism ,if the apostles and James (Jesus brother) had their say. christians have a selective memory regarding bible authenticity, it has been mutated numerous times. The FIRST keepers of the faith were catholics, yet the protestant religions selectively pulled about 11-12 complete books out of the catholic bible to suit their needs. convenient. The apocrypha, an earlier inclusion by some, was discarded. I liked its story of Peter converting a talking lion to christianity in Turkey and when he was thrown to the lions in the coliseum, guess which lion he drew??? The talking lion he converted, of course. By taking the more outlandish stories of the apocrypha and other books out,(like the one where a boy was swallowed whole by a jumping fish), they had to delete the stories of missionary work outside of Jerusalem out which were connected to them. So which is it,are the even more outragaeous stories of discarded books the truth OR was christianity really created by the relentless zeal of one man,Paul, as the bible now reads?? A man who never met Jesus Christ and had to oppose the apostles who KNEW him. (they report in Hebrews that Jesus was a only a HIGH PRIEST that became a god after his death). Either way it is altered to serve protestant needs of credibility. - 1:32:25 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:NOW ROB- I just bet Mike would find that because you post all that factual information that you are angry and hostile, and hate all xtians, and vandalize graveyards, and worship Stan and take little babies lollipops away! - 1:36:57 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:I don't even know Stan. - 2:02:14 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:But he must be one helluva guy. - 2:09:48 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Stan runs that hole, Hell, silly. Actually compared to ole Biblegod, Stan sounds like a sweetheart! - 2:48:31 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I thought you were a little hard on her, but then I'm a softie! I'm not being critical, but as someone with thin skin if you had come after me just waiting to pounce on anything I said and not really caring about me *personally* I wouldn't have stuck around. Of course you were very welcoming to me and here I still am! - 3:48:09 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Thanks for the feedback. Although I wouldn't have called it pouncing on anything she said. I felt she came here preaching, and she did. She made claims, I asked her for evidence, she made more claims, I posted a like situation to her claims. All she had to do is post back and state whether her interpetation of qm allowed the blue fairy. If it didn't, why not? This is a discussion, if one makes a claim, one is expected to give evidence. - 3:58:10 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- CRISTY -- I wish Betty would have stayed a while. I thought she was interesting. But she got as much courtesy as she gave. It's unreasonable to expect more. - 4:21:38 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:Note to any christians watching:When I mentioned the homeless man ,I inadvertently used the word 'tortured'. I didn't mean the demon-possessed, hole-in-head-boring, rack-torturing, need a-good-exocist, die at the stake or chain 'em to the wall kind you'd be familiar with. Do you have any idea how much pain the mentally ill have suffered because of the cruel and absurd teachings of jesus christ and his whole 'casting out evil spirits' thing? He singlehandedly reintroduced the whole devil and casting out evil spirits/watch out for the bogeyman thing to the bible. Both concepts were vague and extremely rare in the old testament(outside job or genesis). Jesus NEEDED to develop the character of the devil as the NEW bogeyman. He was widely PANNED in his efforts to gain followeres among the jews, he was rejected. The gentiles were his only hope for adoration, but one little problem...THEY were the bogeymen. Solution, role out the devil for something to run from.jesus gain,is the mentally ill's loss. Why does god hate the infirm? - 10:06:07 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Didn't biblegod do all kinds of nasty things to people? Xians, for some unknown reason have invented the devil and anything that isn't peaceful with the human organism HAS to be coming ..ooo I hate this "from the devil". I have a friend who's sister was in the very late stages of terminal cancer. The family is Catholic and had a priest come and see my friend's sister. He talked with her and comforted her. Then one in-law of the family is "born again" and attends _The Church of Living Waters_. She brought about 15 members of her church along with "paa-store Lee-On" to see this poor woman. They started moaning and praising the laird and casting out the devils over this poor sick woman. Needless to say, it upset her greatly. My friend happened to be there and absolutely spun out on these freaks. She picked up the chair in the room and threatened to cast out the devils from them if they did get to $%^* out! Of course, she was hateful and was possessed but they ran from her, LOL! - 15:52:52 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- BTW, I doubt if their hero, gee-zus would have turned and fled. - 15:56:32 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: I once wondered what it meant when I heard a xian-type evangelist, I was very young, say that the faith had to be gaurded. The context within which I heard that said has since been lost to the winds o'time, but since readin'a copy of the apocrypha, I can make out how that "guarding action" might have a meaning. The religious-xians, as I see'em, voluntarily dupe themselves into the mindset that the bible is a godthing's word. Once so mentally-bound the religious-xian must deny any and all variations or other contributing sources. While some religious-xians express some degree of fondness for the bits and pieces of the dead sea scrolls, dare they call these few words divinely inspired too? One thing that readily appears to my comprehension, that xian-godthing is not, does not advocate of freedom, it has instead, "a-freedom". I too have found a lot of things that were varied accounts and surely had to be supporting sources for the bible as it is today. The xian-relious types like to say that their bible has never changed over the years, well if one does not see or consider a whittling down [is this corporate down-sizing?] of its whatever, then they could say that. But, once said is it true? Is it devinely inspired? Certainly not in the constraints of the man-made bible. - 16:22:26 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Of BETTY, well if we humans here didn't see her as kinfolk and we were unconcerned for her well being and perhaps her sound mind, her human-stuff, we'd not you'd not have pressed upon her awareness our views of her reports. They sure looked like, to me, just her mental experiences and these as she shared or portrayed them here, they struck me as delusional, borderline at least. That the material she read may have seemed logical to her woulda'only added to her mental activity, but as always that mental activity has to have a material basis for sound support, from us others! Why? If we others could become and be part of her mind well hell, we could all go to the ends of all that is anytime we choose, with anyone or by ourself. That strikes my same nonsense button as does living after death forever with some godthing. You cared too much for only that part of BETTY that we others can know, could ever know. - 18:37:13 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You have a point. I think that every religionist or every believer in something that has no supporting evidence thinks that their ideas are new to us, or me anyway. Being a sci-fi nut, don't they think I've checked out all these claims. Nothing I've love better than to think we could influence the world by thinking good things, that would be much easier than doing good things. I'd love to know there are other life forms in the universe, the reality is, we don't know. It would be comforting to know there is a big guy in the sky, making sure everything will just turn out A-ok but the reality is again, no evidence of such an entity. We'd all like to believe in something that will predictably protect and enhance our species and our planet. Most of us would also like to know that we aren't alone in this universe but just plain using the noggin' tells us there is no evidence of the former and so far no evidence of the latter. - 20:33:30 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ATHEIST JOKE:An atheist was spending a quiet day fishing when suddenly his boat was attacked by the Loch Ness monster. In one easy flip, the beast tossed him and his boat at least a hundred feet into the air. The monster then opened its mouth while waiting below to swallow man and boat. As the man sailed head over heels and started to fall towards the open jaws of the ferocious beast he cried out, "Oh, my God! Help me!" Suddenly, the scene froze in place. As the atheist hung in midair, a booming voice came out of the clouds and said, "I thought you didn't believe in Me!" "God, come on, give me a break!" the man pleaded, "Just seconds ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster either!" "Well," said God, "now that you are a believer you must understand that I won't work miracles to snatch you from certain death in the jaws of the monster, but I can change hearts. What would you have me do?" The atheist thinks for a minute and then says, "God, please have the Loch Ness Monster believe in You also." God replies, "So be it." The scene starts in motion again with the atheist falling towards the ravenous jaws of the ferocious beast. Then the Loch Ness Monster folds his claws together and says, "Lord, bless this food You have so graciously provided....." - 20:39:17 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So many if not all religious adherents approach other folk, as it appeared BETTY did, by wanting others one and all, to "believe-them". The religious types do they have in their minds the words that they want to say which are culturally time-tried and for the purposes and in the constraints of what is utilitarianly true seek from others an affirmation of those words? In BETTY's case she sought to use contemporary ideas and who, at this time, can say if qp\qm stuff won't or will bring about a new kind of talk for ideas of experiences, heretofore unknown? As she had to point out, up to now all that is new is material, e.g., new lands, new physics, new astronomy, new biology, new geography and as I've also pointed out, if it isn't outside our individualising sacks of cells then how do we acknowledge the objective or an objectivity for true/false judgements? The adherents of religion and it looks like the "newage-stuff" too, do they really just want for themselves from us others the magick of the ideas conveyed by the words, to believe them. Is that word-magic really important to existence? - 20:53:18 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Cristy:Regarding BETTY'S stuff, if there really is evidence for "something else" out there, I am curious to hear what it is. NOT that I will assume because Betty, or Tom, Dick, or Harry say it it is true, or even some website or a dozen websites. But if I refused to even hear and consider it I would be as closed minded as the religious sect and I don't want to be like them. - 21:40:31 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- When someone makes a claim, I research the claim. If there is no evidence then it has no substance. I've done that with everyone who makes such a claim. I'm open to hear anyone's idea but the ideas have to have evidence to support them before I accept. - 22:32:53 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:MARLENE/CARL: biblegod do evil things to people? Not if your definition of'people'can change like the weather. First people were israelites (chosen people), the gentiles were to be murdered by god's command, then when the raiding horde of 700,000 zealots divided the 'chosen lands' (spoils of naked aggression), they in effect, weakened their strength as they dispersed to distant corners of the conquered lands. The northern 10 tribes(Israel) had the misfortune of being closer to the assyrians,who took exception to the annihilation of their neighbors (imagine that)and conquered 'israel'. Since god did everyting for a reason, israel was not'people' and Judah (the 2 remaining tribes in the south who wrote the bible) could then discredit the israelites! Once babylon came in and conquered Judah, then subgroups of judah (men who married gentile women, women in general, sex,etc.) became the cause of the downfall. Couldn't be that when you killed everything that moved you pissed off a few sleeping giants?!? Carl, that IS their cleaned up version. You're right,the requirement of total submission to the dogma destroys a free mind. The doctors, midwives, scientists and researchers...all murdered by the keepers of the faith. People were delibeerately kept illiterate...to protect from knowledge of the bible. - 23:11:09 on 24 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I agree, I has been a horrible religion and sometimes still is. If a child were to read about babies being murdered and children such as themselves, slaughtered we'd be up in arms about making the book available to children but oh no, the bible is readily available to school age children. Not only that we take them to Sunday school to learn about all the "nice things" about god. Now if this god were the guy next door who gave little children candy on Sunday then on Monday ran one of them through with a sword, on Tuesday, purposely gave 2000 kids the plague, on Wednesday, turning grizzley bears loose on a couple more kids, on Thursday, selling one or two kids as slaves, on Friday deciding to wipe out all the kids who were of Yucktan descent, and on Saturday, giving all the virgin girl children over 7 to the Mucktans to rape. Would we then take them to Sunday school the next day and just think the guy next door loved us enough not to do it to our kids? That's just what everyone who believes in the biblegod is doing and it's disgusting! People don't really think about what they are doing, they are like sheep, following all the other sheep. - 2:49:56 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:I guess there's no grace period in here. You don't post something for a week or so and you get the old shove-off? I don't think anyone else will disagree that we post things as we see fit. So just chill. I, personally, would like to enjoy checking in once in a while. When I see stuff like, "as it appeared BETTY did, by wanting others one and all, to 'believe-them'", and "blue fairy" stuff, I can only assume as someone new to this room, that some of you involve yourselves with this religious-debunking / skeptic stuff to the extent of inventing your own paranoias. Relax. No one is here to convert you to anything. It's a discussion room. Hello! - 5:07:37 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- It's very healthy to question ones own beliefs. In my opinion it's more important by far than questioning the beliefs of others. There are legitimate questions being raised, for example, about naturalism, not by religionists but by cognitive scientists and others. There are some real problems with traditional western philosophy and "scientism" in light of new knowledge and understanding. Seems the more we learn the less we know for sure. - 5:17:07 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- We're individuals. I know it can seem like group resistance. I don't know what to suggest in this regard, but I hope it doesn't deter you. - 5:23:53 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, Yes, let's start again with you question: "Your statement that we can choose which aspect - wave or particle - a quantum object is going to reveal in a given situation is but an interpretation, one where the quantum wave function does not "collapse" to it's final form until some one makes a measurement. In this interreptation, yes, human function controls the course of events throughout all of space and time. BUT it is only an interpretation of a theory. It hasn't been proven to work. Can you agree to that?" -- The wave collapse is not a theory, and the fact that our own measurements create complementary local and non-local interruptions is also evidenced. So, in this sense, our consciousness does affect courses of events, but I did not state in anyway that our measurements "control the course of events throughout ALL space and time" - only some. I cannot support your perceptions of my statements, and I can see that these ideas are still being approached from exactly the way I showed as to be too limiting, so let's stick to the line of discussion, please.. Point, by point, as you suggest... - 5:24:52 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I understand. Which is why I used the word "some" of you. Thanks, though. I'm a lot tougher than most people think. *wink* - 5:26:50 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, So this is what I'd like to discuss - the overwhelming, ingrained belief that the material (or metaphysical) realism philosophy attached to traditional science, and in general, the Western world, is the ideal methodology to use to determine the best world view. I can see in your own statements that you don't quite understand this: "Who says we need any philosophy? Also it is special pleading to call upon pataphysics or metaphysics to explain the paradoxes. All one really needs to apply Occam's razor and go with the interpretations that are most economical and most useful." -- You have in one paragraph stated your misunderstanding as to why we need a philosophy at all for science, and also that Occam's Razor (related to the terms Reductionism and Material Realism) is the "most economical and most useful." It's the old saying, just because something has been done this way for years, doesn't exactly mean it's right. Material realism as a basis for understanding our universe is at question here. Does this make sense, (in the most casual, friendly way possible)? - 5:35:59 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

marlene:BETTY- Yes, it does make sense and I'm glad to see we are not totally misunderstanding each other. i'm trying to type this with one hand as i'm using the other one to hold my little granddaugter. i'll do another post during naptime. - 14:53:55 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Cristy, I didn't mean to ignore your questions about spiritualism (and nor did I intend to seem overly opinionated in general), so please accept my honest replies at this time. It's actually a very good question, I believe, when you asked and wondered what 'deficit' you had that made you not feel spiritual. And I don't think deficit is the right word. I don't think I've ever met a child who wasn't filled with amazement about the world around them, unless specific genetic disorders explained this. I believe, as I've been trying to explain, that we are conditioned to materialistic beliefs in the Western world and instead of being taught an essential awareness of our surroundings like the Native Americans or Asian countries (for general examples), we are taught a separate existential awareness of our surroundings. The basic explanation is that we are taught that we are separate, individual, random forms from the world around us. Spiritualism is not only this amazement and wonderment that we see around us, but it's an inseparable bond and connectedness and feeling. Materialism has no way of crediting feelings, except as phenomenons of the brain matter, so the natural spiritualism we are born with is either diverted to the rejection of it totally in fundamentalist religions or to consider it unimportant and then we rely on traditional science to whisk it away, or some mix of the two - which is what I prefer. I think the problem with most religions, is not the spiritual claims, but the dogmatic routines which are the same attachment to forms, i.e. heavenly fathers, the cross, holy books. In other words, materialism gets too caught up in the words and the literal meanings and the images out there, instead of the reflections inward.– I talk a lot of bad things about Materialism, but we also can't ignore all its benefits either (it helped us escape from the Orthodoxy of the early church, oh so many years ago!!). I just think it's time we looked into less limiting world views as our main focus. - 19:30:15 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Ooops, I guess I got carried away there. Anyway, GRANT, I was kinda wondering how you would describe Naturalism if you don't mind. Thanks. - 19:32:37 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:Betty and open: I don't share your area of expertise or interest, but I always check it out just the same. I would take exception to you comment that "...the problem with most religions is not the spiritual claims, but the dogmatic routines which are attachment to forms , i.e. heavenly fathers...". Spiritual claims are THE problem with ANY religion because it gives the follower the FALSE belief that the religious leaders have a knowledge (and hence power) of the eternal and supernatural. It gives them a false belief that they can have a relationship with god that they can't(dependency, waiting for miracles, prayers unanswered, special favor with god, the cognitive dissonance that comes from adhering to contradictory belief systems). Many, many patients I have worked with are CONSUMED with guilt,suicidal, believe that as a woman they are inferior and somehow deserve abuse, are told by well meaning churchies that any bad event was caused by the VICTIM. One lady became agoraphobic and retreated to the security of her bedroom after her husband left her and she was left with a terminally ill child who passed away in her arms. Her churchies told her that it 'was gods will' or that 'everything happens for a reason' and the ultimate in insensitivity 'what did you do that god had to punish you this way'. These types of REAL trauma (ie homosexual who killed himself because he was told by his pastor he was EVIL) go way beyond statues and rituals, to me. Belief systems heavily impact quality of life and perception of reality. For Betty and others; I'm interested in knowing your thoughts on time travel and why you think so. Betty's comments triggered that question to me, and I'll give my opinion if there's some response on the topic. - 23:48:20 on 25 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- I use "naturalism", I think, the same way you are using "material realism". Different sources define things different ways, I guess depending on their outlook. I use it in as in natural versus supernatural, to say that whatever exists or occurs is ultimately constituted out of physical entities. While we're at Q&A, may I ask for a clarification of your statements regarding "duality"? As I understand it, the duality refers to mind and body. Descartes held that the body is physical while the mind is distinct from any physical substance. I don't see the connection between this duality and naturalism (material realism). - 3:55:19 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, I think you said the problem when you mentioned the belief systems. Belief systems are artificial to begin with. Sometimes people take the metaphorical explanations too seriously and concentrate too much on the forms and literal icons, such as gods (to be worshipped) and churches (to be obedient to), is where the contradictions lay. These are the dogmatic routines that focus more on the letter of the law than the core transcendent (oh no!) feelings. People seem to have forgotten that in ancient times they didn't have precise language to define things, so the language they used was intended as metaphorical alliterations, not literal truths. Anyway, that's my opinion. - 5:52:02 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I think I can explain where it might not make sense. The duality doesn't just signify mind and body; it's all of matter (physical) separate from all of mind. I guess the classic illustration "mind over matter" tends to lean to a more individual expression. I remember being taught the difference between subjective and objective as it relates to me, i.e. Subjective is MY opinions and Objective is what others tell ME. In the same way we are taught to identify the physical world independent of ourselves for critical study, the school of Natualism has isolated the ego in individuals - somehow displacing credit that all humans share this same weird thing called consciousness, apparently independently but yet so much alike. So, the duality Descartes originally postulated separates all of matter (physical) from all of mind (subjective) on a universal scale. Material realism was the answer from classical physicists when faced with the problem of two separate realities for mind and matter, because there is no sign of transference of energy for two separate realities to exist. Matter is observable and testable, and atoms were believed to be the basic building blocks for everything so it has to be the only reality. Mind, in this theory then, is considered to be an epiphenomenon of (brain) matter -- even though in order for this reality to hold, this phenomenon of the brain (consciousness) has to somehow act causally on what it's made of. Well, it goes on from there... all for Naturalism to hold true. Anything still unclear, please ask. - 7:00:06 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- But you seem to be connecting this duality with naturalism. Betty: "For the last few centuries, for example, material realism (the idea that only atoms and elementary particles (matter) are real, and that anything else, including subjective perceptions (mind) is a phenomenon of matter) has dominated the world of science. This duality, created by Descartes, is only an assumption." -- If mind is an epiphenomenon of matter then there is no duality. If you suggest that the mind somehow exists outside of matter, then you get to have the duality. I say we throw out the duality stuff and go on without it. - 13:38:52 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I guess that was still a little unclear. That's what happens late at night. Anyway, you're analysis is very good. --- Material realism was and IS the postulate to the problems of the duality, as I meandered-about-saying above. It's a chain of historical, social, and revolutionary events, actually. When the duality theory was discovered to be incoherent, it couldn't really be 'thrown out' altogether- it had to be resolved within classical physics. But you see, the problem realized now is the causal epiphenomenon contradiction of mind; it's still an incomplete picture. -- However, the duality helped us understand a major aspect of our existence, and it's still an integral part of how we deal with the aspects of mind and matter, which is really why Descartes is still referenced. - 17:07:49 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:BETTY:I couldn't tell a quantum wave from high tide, slept through physics class and get my science from Time magazine , but I've dabbled abit in human nature (including research and complete works) and I can assure you that it does not appear(to many who've looked closely) that early writers (and enforcers) of religious teachings were NOT writing symbollically in "metaphorical alliterations". People died and were tortured, lives were ruined ...by the zealots (who were also the writers) due to a literal belief in a god that was very real to them, at least in the religions in Judaism,Catholicism and Islam. - 18:54:41 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:Betty/ Open: OOPS, double negative. meant to say "does appear... were not writing symbolically". Since I could'nt get a nibble on the time travel thing(Betty I thought for sure you'd have a response)... I'll respond anyway. I've heard many a good physicist (well 2 or 3) argue either all PRO or all CON on the feasibility of time travel and I think that time travel into the PAST is absolutley impossible since history ERASES ITSELF, so to speak (unless you saw how Christopher Reeve did it in superman I). However I DO think time travel is possible into the future. Not in a 'back to the future ' kind of way, but I read somewhere (it wasn't Time) that AGING slows dramatically at or nearing the speed of light (my cells would be too scared to age). So conceivably, we could leave the atmospere, attain a high speed orbit and come back to earth in 20 years when we were, say, only 2 years or something older physiologically. TIMELESS travel instead of time travel, so to speak. - 19:10:58 on 26 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Just a quick post here..this having little ones in the home is something I have to get use to again..organize my time better. It seems she finally has a nap, I get the vaccuming etc. etc. done and she's up again. Remember the 58 year-old lady having a baby..no thanks!..Anyway BETTY, I think we are differing on the philosophical interpretation of qm. But I'm listening and following your's and Grant's discussion. It's interesting! ROB- You've brought up a very good point. Many people these days have no idea what it was like living through the crusades and the many more god induced horrible atrocities people have carried out, especially in the name of xtianity. Some still do, the KKK comes to mind. On the time travel thing, I think you are most probably right although the math makes travel both past and future possible. I think the big problem we are having here is.. if something does travel faster than light? So far I know of no evidence to support superliminal travel although, the math allows it. I don't fully understand most of it either but I do read quite a bit on it. - 3:16:27 on 27 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:Marlene: you stated that the math makes time travel to the future and past both possible, but that is example of academia's dogma. Science is sometimes controlled by there own self-imposed limits (consider all possibilities in the lab). Time is not on a continuum with a rewind button. It is not like a motion picture, rather a series of photographs. Events are distinct, separated by place and time and the intersection of billions of micro-events that are only ocurring at that moment , that place, that one time. To believe you can go back in time would be to delude ourselves that the past is not over.... it is. It is IMPOSSIBLE to go back to something that no longer exists in reality...outside a physics lab. - 16:32:35 on 27 Feb 100 GMT

Grant the occasionally verbose:BETTY -- Some general thoughts on your topic of choice "the overwhelming, ingrained belief that the material (or metaphysical) realism philosophy attached to traditional science, and in general, the Western world, is the ideal methodology to use to determine the best world view." -- I would like us to use "naturalism" rather than "material realism". This is not criticism, as it is understandable at this point, but you have not yet made clear what your specific beliefs are. Many people do not make a clear distinction between the question of the degree to which a physical objective reality exists independent of the mind and the question of whether or not everything that exists or occurs resides within the physical. These are two distinct questions. Naturalism is an accepted label for, and always refers to the latter, which I believe is what we are discussing. The precise meaning of material realism is not quite so clear. ---- Though you are looking at naturalism within a historical philosophical context, I don't think you are seeing it in the same way the proponent sees it. The danger here is of being in a position something like one who argues that one movie is better than another having seen only one of the movies. So here, hopefully, is the other movie... Naturalism is somewhat different from other beliefs in that it is connected with skepticism. I get the impression that you see skepticism in terms of that brand of skepticism demonstated in magazines such as 'Skeptic', 'Skeptical Inquirer', and 'Free Inquiry', which is really only a skepticism of things non-scientific. I think it is helpful to recognize that there are other degrees of skepticism for which nothing is above scrutiny whether it be religion, science, philosophy, the degree to and methods by which anything can really be known, and I'm tempted to say skepticism itself but that doesn't make much sense so I'll say ones own skepticism, though even that is not without problems. :-) Anyway, one generally does not arrive at naturalism by lining up a bunch of beliefs, one of which is naturalism, and making a selection. In my own case at least, an observation that contradictory beliefs can't all be true leads to scrutiny of the cultural and societal factors and mental processes that result in such beliefs, and a conclusion that such things are not reliable indicators of reality. In this sense, naturalism is not a selected belief, but is what remains after other beliefs are eliminated as unverifiable. In this sense a belief that more than the physical exists is not equivelent of a belief that more than the physical does not exist, particularly when the belief that more than the physical does not exist is a provisional one and belief that more than the physical exists is not. Sorry to be so long winded. Just trying to clear the table. - 18:16:39 on 27 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I agree on your idea of time travel. But I don't think there is anything that can travel faster than the speed of light either. - 5:11:03 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Above GRANT spears BETTY impaling her with the word "belief". Ms.BETTY is to understand that that's a good thing to question. Elsewhere, in the aftermath of the Diallo case the Diallo Mother says of the jury's finding that the jurors were repeatedly told, if they "believed" that the accused "believed" they were facing an armed individual the jurors were to acquit. And, an aside Ms.BETTY goes on about what looks like to me to be from the point of view,"oh! aren't we humans just wonderful." I often put forth here and elsewhere especially at religious type sites what do they mean and in general what does "believe" mean? Would that word for contemporary purposes just identify the end of a discussion, kinda' like what the amen, once meant at one's gravesite? - 16:12:21 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I was using material realism for it's literal suggestions: that which is material is real. The problem I see now with the use of naturalism is its false sense of "natural" tools and ingredients, which I'll discuss. But I have no problem with using naturalism for the sake of this discussion. Here is what I noticed in your paragraph referring to naturalism: "the question of whether or not everything that exists or occurs resides within the physical … Naturalism is an accepted label for, and always refers to the latter." - which is fine. And then you write, "one generally does not arrive at naturalism by lining up a bunch of beliefs, one of which is naturalism, and making a selection." – If questioning whether or not everything relates to the physical (naturalism), yes, it does. -- Later on you wrote, "In this sense, naturalism is not a selected belief, but is what remains after other beliefs are eliminated as unverifiable." -- The main proponent I see here, and I addressed clearly in my own quote in your paragraph, is your original definition of naturalism. If naturalism is to determine the basis for reality based on the physical, you have a pre-determined bias for what makes and should be the best reality, and you're doing in fact what you claim not to, by starting with naturalism in a ruze of your brand of skepticism. Naturalism is a chosen methodology to determine a specific reality based on the physical, and so yes, it is a belief. Just like, "that which is not god-breathed is of sin" - or something like that. It's the same kind of sieve (I know most atheists hate that comparison, so I use it here as a dramatic point). The ironic thing is that you will never find it anywhere stated that naturalism is fact, and it remains an unproven assumption for all things. Our Western culture largely subscribes to naturalism (materialism), without any hesitation as to it's perceived common good. And this common, spiritual good is exactly what's at stake. So, if all other beliefs are eliminated based on lack of, are contradictory of, or unverifiable according to the physical stakehold (naturalism), then your brand of skepticism lacks a major ingredient, strong objectivity - where your own beliefs may not have been privy to examination for the best possible solution. I also offered numerous postings to Marlene earlier about the rising faults of naturalism (material realism), which included an explanation of these things. You're right, I have not stated any specific beliefs yet, but in order to begin a discussion of that sort I stated that I had to explain the philosophy involved - to clear the drawing board, as they say. And also.... be rest assured ..... my brand of skepticism is a brand name. (C: - 19:04:57 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Carl- You're "impaling" reference above, I can only assume, refers to me as the maurading Grendel invading your sacred mead hall full of rough, tough, ready to rumble discussion board members. lol. And then your "Ms.BETTY is to understand that that's a good thing to question", implies some other sort of repremanding (sp?). I guess that's how some people deal with things. However, I seek more to appeal to your "oh, how humans are so special" line. In fact, I would argue the opposite. I consider humans just about as special as the whole universe, and I've never stated otherwise. If you've ever read the book _Ishmael_ by Daniel Quinn, I will reference it here as a good illustration of humankind's estrangement from nature. When we considered the ego as the centering focus of all intelligence in the universe, we in fact made ourselves gods of the land. This is described best in his section about the divergent separation when some humans stayed hunter/gatherers and others invented agriculture and reaped the land. Those that separate, categorize, try to possess, and, yes!, be skeptical about the world around them in any or all of its facets have indeed lost some or all of their essential awareness -- and it's highly comparable to the same religions that propose that 'man has dominion over the earth', which have done the same as well. THOSE are the people that inherently think and are taught to believe, "oh, how wonderful we humans are" by their thoughts and actions. The goal of spiritual and/or essential awareness, in contrast, is not about superiority or fundamental guidelines for reality. - 19:43:15 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene..will this be Fox's next spectacular!:From the Weekly World News: TOKYO -- Ginza the dolphin has died at a marine laboratory near here -- tragically ending the saga of the amazing sea mammal born with human arms and hands instead of flippers! The one-of-a-kind creature, which had been kept in a special saltwater pool in the laboratory since being netted by scientists in 1992, died of unknown causes last week. A team of experts from Japan, France and the United States is conducting a necropsy -- an animal autopsy -- to determine what killed the lovable dolphin and to attempt to find out what caused Ginza to grow arms in place of flippers. "Any way you look at it, Ginza was the most amazing scientific discovery of the 1990s," said marine biologist Dr. Oto Masuda, head of the research facility that housed the dolphin. "Not only did he have nearly perfectly formed human limbs, he also was very intelligent and exhibited compassion, anger, frustration and other qualities that were almost human in nature. "And now that he's gone, we are intent on finding out what biological forces were at work there -- and whether there might be more like him swimming our oceans." Ginza was captured by flabbergasted scientists during a research expedition off the Califor-nia coast in February of 1992 and transported to a laboratory south of here. "There was quite a flurry of publicity at the time and researchers came from around the world to study Ginza," Dr. Masuda said. "And when it became clear to us that he had an I.Q. higher than others of his species, we began teaching him to use his hands and arms to communicate with us in a primitive form of sign language, hoping we could actually delve into the mind of this startling creature." But the project suffered a major setback less than two years later when the dolphin's left arm became trapped in a drain at the bottom of his pool and was mangled so badly that doctors had to amputate. "After that, poor Ginza was never the same," Dr. Matsuda said. "With only one arm and hand, he lost nearly all ability to communicate with us in sign language, as well as his ability to leap and play in the pool, and he seemed to get more and more depressed as time went on. "Normally, dolphins can expect to live up to 50 years but Ginza was only 20 years old or so when we found him dead in his pool. We've brought in the best people we can find to perform the necropsy and if they find he's disease-free, I can only assume that the poor fellow died of a broken heart." ================================================================= - 19:51:20 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- By reading your post to Grant, I'm understanding what you are saying now. Do you hold with the idea from the author of _Ishmael_ that people became more materialistic as argriculture became more popular? Have you read books like the _Chalice and the Blade_? Material realism is then, "I'll believe it when I see it" type of belief, non? - 20:03:32 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: I'm sorri Ms.BETTY, the 'Ms' title is just a nod o'respect for the approach you've undertaken at this site. And no the spear passage wasn't at you at all, I just thot I'd play at an eliptic presentation for another point o'concern that being, what is the word "belief". Eventually I suspect you will rest your views, you will hold that your views are matters of semantics. I cast the dice here with questions o'belief cuz thats what you'll "require" for your position. When I say I cast the dice, its just to say I anticipate certain developments. So again my question is what is it, or what is belief? Is it just a mental respite? - 20:13:08 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: So you are a friend of Ishmael? - 20:15:46 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- LOL! Tis' a book Carl! - 21:06:02 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Rob:Marlene: nothing faster than the speed of light?? You obviously haven't to the mall on the day after thanksgiving. - 22:53:22 on 28 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene ..warp25:ROB- Or me when I'm heading off to bingo! - 2:51:28 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Where specifically is the pre-determined bias? Is the bias in requiring evidence to believe a thing? If it is, and you don't share this bias, then why are you troubling yourself over evidence? Is the bias in believing that the material exists? Do you not also share this bias? Do you agree that the material exists? You say that it is pre-determined bias to say that *only* the material exists. If one is unwilling to accept that any specific non-material thing exists, on the basis of lack of compelling evidence, then one is left only with a belief that only the material exists. This is not a bias for believing only the materials exist. This does not equate to lining up beliefs and picking naturalism. Your response? "Yes it does." then "If naturalism is to determine the basis for reality based on the physical, you have a pre-determined bias for what makes and should be the best reality, and you're doing in fact what you claim not to, by starting with naturalism in a ruze of your brand of skepticism. Naturalism is a chosen methodology to determine a specific reality based on the physical, and so yes, it is a belief." ---- Please note that you have not made an argument here or demonstrated a problem with mine. You have only again stated your position. Also note that I have not stated or implied that naturalism is not a belief, only that it is not a *selected* belief in the same sense as supernatural or extra-natural beliefs. It is what remains from eliminating them. If you understand what I'm saying but disagree, an argument is needed here. - 5:26:49 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- I think I can demonstrate pre-determined bias in your statements. You say "Our Western culture largely subscribes to naturalism (materialism), without any hesitation as to it's perceived common good. And this common, spiritual good is exactly what's at stake. So, if all other beliefs are eliminated based on lack of, are contradictory of, or unverifiable according to the physical stakehold (naturalism), then your brand of skepticism lacks a major ingredient, strong objectivity - where your own beliefs may not have been privy to examination for the best possible solution." ---- There are some serious problems with this statement. (By the way, "materialism" works for me if you don't like "naturalism".) Objective means uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices, or dealing with external or material reality, yet you are saying that by refusing to consider "common good", "spiritual good", or a "best possible solution" I lack "stong objectivity". These particular things are the opposite of objectivity, strong or milquetoast. They are subjective personal preferences. They are pre-determined bias in the flesh. Can you really not see this? If one is concerned with what it is that constitutes reality independant of our wishes, our wishes are hinderances. They are valuable and have a place, but examining cold, neutral reality is not it. You are imposing your personal preferences on the universe, which by all indications is not overly concerned them. You are saying, in effect, naturalism (materialism) is not true because I don't like it. I don't like it either, but everything seems to point to it. - 5:27:21 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You say "I also offered numerous postings to Marlene earlier about the rising faults of naturalism (material realism), which included an explanation of these things." ---- I have followed your postings. There is nothing that offers challenge to naturalism. I'm quite willing to argue your statements point by point. ------ You say "You're right, I have not stated any specific beliefs yet, but in order to begin a discussion of that sort I stated that I had to explain the philosophy involved - to clear the drawing board, as they say." ---- I understand this, and said so. I only mentioned it to explain why your usage of "material realism" was a little unclear. BTW, I'm enjoying this. Hope you are not taking anything personally. - 5:27:52 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:Hummm...where is everyone today? It's not a holiday in the U.S. of A, is it? - 17:38:30 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- What's this? "I get the impression that you see skepticism in terms of that brand of skepticism demonstated in magazines such as 'Skeptic', 'Skeptical Inquirer', and 'Free Inquiry', which is really only a skepticism of things non-scientific." There are quite a few scientific topics in the first two! I don't know about the other one as I haven't even seen it for sale here. - 17:40:59 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I find BETTY's lofty goal of restructuring what is to be meaningful and so on, very interesting. She pinpoints the problem as probably the "Western Civilisation" concept. The windmill o'duality is an idea that some have pinpointed Aristotle as the culprit with what he called matter. Then there followed all the dialogue and thinking processes in support of the idea of matter. Thats a lot o'stuff for one to seek to overturn! With that perspective in mind a why for her turning to qp\qm stuff becomes understandable. At this time that 'stuff' is the only current idea that sorta' defys the western civilisation's shroud or mythical expressions of what Is. The only snag I got with BETTY's general approach to this question, is that spirit thingy! That is still a simple response of an impossible for an impossible, and what does xianity do but that very thing. The xian repsonse is nonsense, what is the spirit thing? - 18:43:36 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think what Betty is purposing is that what really makes us tick is the spirit thing or consciousness and the reason we can't weight it or see it is because it has no substance, only energy. From what I understand from her posts, is that this energy controls matter. I may have misunderstood again but maybe Betty will correct me if I'm wrong on this. - 20:31:09 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: well if BETTY means to eventually opt for something along the idea that energy is the motivating and drive of 'life', I could see a healthy dialogue forming. In my last post to her I mean to leave open a door that would start such a process. I suspect tho'her thinking would be weighted or influenced by that western thing and she'd jist go on about that "spirit" stuff. That is such a dead end. - 21:08:18 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- From what I understand from Betty energy is consciousness/spirit and out of that comes the physical, again I may be wrong. - 21:28:40 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I liked your line about racing off to Bingo. My personal weakness is when they have Karaoke at the local sports bar. I can sing with the best of the bar flies! Seriously, I haven't read _Chalice of the Blade_, but I always like suggestions. And yes, it seems from all accounts that the rise of argriculture, led to the idea of physical things for use/possession or whatever. And I'm not sure if it would be fair to say that Material Realism is purely "seeing it to believe it"... I'd have to think about that one, but I'd like to read what others think. - 21:30:49 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, As far as 'believe' goes, probably a mental respite would be fair. I always thought of the concept as a comfort. That's the problem with language sometimes, it's sometimes obtuse for what we feel inside. And Yes! I'm a friend of Ishmael. lol! - 21:34:52 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, as a preface to what I write following, please check back on Feb.17. I did put together a few arguments against naturalism. And the more I think about it, I'm not entirely confident it's directly synonomous with material realism. It sounds more like naturalism is the methodology used to reduce things to their material (realistic) elements. So the first is the methodology and the second is the hypothesis. Would that be more accurate? Anyway, I pre-wrote my following reponses. Thanks. - 21:40:18 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Grant and ALL, I certainly consider this an amiable chat, so no ill-feelings here at all. I like the opportunity most of all. --- My whole venture here began with talk of the collective consciousness, monistic idealism, and why the spiritual elements one can find in quantum mechanics is often declared "quackery" due to the traditional, ingrained, and yet hardly ever questioned interpretations set forth in material realism. The argument may have been lost somewhere in the beginning when I stopped and got caught up explaining the problems with materialism with Marlene, so I'd be happy to offer my beliefs in respect of yours. My personal belief is that we need new and lively metaphors to describe the world, and universe, that reunite us and bring back our essential awareness and ingrain a better sense of worldly community and responsibility. What you call a "cold, neutral reality", I think of, and not necessarily label, as a living, conscious organism.—Yeah, I know, you're thinking I'm crazy and this is some cult/religious mentality, but it's merely a suggestion for a different philosophy, which some cosmologists and physicists call an awaiting paradigm shift due to the rising realizations that came just by changing our perspective (and can't be ignored, subjective influences) of the quantum world. And in order to conceptualize the motives and aspects of this new philosophy, I explained the historical significance before to illustrate the point that we 'learned' to call the universe cold and neutral due to the interpretations set forth in the philosophy of materialism - a few-hundred-year old suggestion. Materialism is still an incomplete picture because it can't figure how consciousness successfully fits into the picture without classifying it as an epiphenomenon of matter-that somehow acts causally on what it's made of. The whole field of subjectivity is thrown out in this case, and my point was that the claim of materialism IS to throw out "common/spiritual good" and subjectivity, equally a part of our existence, which is what's at stake. By strong objectivity in this case I was examining the whole picture here, where these things are being discarded and ignored solely because they are not relevant to matter. Yes, spiritual and common good are largely personal, but leaving them out because they don't fit the theory is not as scientific as looking for a better theory. And these are the real reasons to search for an alternative philosophy, not just because another one may sound or 'feel' better, but in search of a more unifying philosophy. So if you say, Where is your evidence for a conscious-based reality? I can only retort with, Where is your evidence for a materialistic reality? Both are assumptions, but you'd still have to explain the phenomenon of consciousness within the physical world without contradiction. - 21:51:37 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:After reviewing some posts about spiritualism, I thought I'd clarify my views. Spirit isn't an object or an idealized icon. To me, it's wonder and amazement - an actual feeling, and I stated to Cristy that all kids are born with this, but somewhere in our adult lives we deaden this feeling with "cold, empty" images of the world, which I've been explaining to be merely a mindset. Spiritualism is meeting someone else who shares this amazement or idealism or general wonder for everything. It's also feeling part of something pretty big. I think the whole materialism thing branched over into the fundamental religions which is where it got lost and where I felt turned off by them. - 21:59:10 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Betty:Okay, so sit back and get a taste of something perhaps a little different. This is the monistic idealism based on consciousness, which shouldn't be in anyone's mind (pun intended) limited to a human scale, but a universal one (where matter is evidenced, but considered secondary) where we would credit the Earth as a creative entity - from a boiling cauldron of elements, it created the mountains, the rivers, the oceans, the animals, insects, etc. and Us humans. It maintains all of this in creative new ways. The Earth provides precipitation, half a day's warmth of the sun wherever you remain stationary, the nourishment, and all the basic security we need. As a self reflexive part of this universe, able to appreciate the dynamics of a continually unfolding understanding of the universe, We humans are part of the Earth community and are the latest children/creation of the universe. As implicit members of the Earth community with our self-reflexive capabilities, we can state from the planet's point of view, that it is awakening to its own beauty, power, and future possibilities. The Earth, through us, is a self-reflexive entity. The importance that we have is not a plan for a superior race or an intellectual, cosmic mind game, but in theory, the actual space where the universe feels its beauty. Before us, all of this certainly existed but was filled with an incompleteness. As children of the universe, and as a continuing metaphor within biology, we choose to be parents to see the beauty and grace of our children and to continue this, just like the universe enjoys us as its latest self-reflexive creation. -- Does this schema of interpretations of quantum mechanics state that human consciousness is the determining factor of all universal cosmic events? No, but comparably to the universe we have the ability to be new and creative, to help determine our own lifetime events, but even more so we are reflexive and can feel ourselves and our place within this cosmic event. The latest discoveries in the quantum world show an intrinsic influence on our surroundings, but even more so, an amazing insight when we realize that we had this curiousity to investigate in the first place and it should make us wonder what drives us at all. --- Maybe some of you can see how this seems silly within a plain, materialistic world view where this wonder is deadened, erased, or ignored. I'll state here that consciousness means 'scire' (to know) and 'cum' (with). The Greeks, or whomever, realized this non-local knowing that we seem to share independently, yet which seems so much alike collectively, long before materialism taught us to ignore it. Just some things to think about. - 22:03:17 on 29 Feb 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Oooo! I'm so glad you are not whimpy! Some come here, state their views and if some of us don't accept their views they get pissed. Obviously you are here only to share yours and that's just oaky doaky with me. This place can be a lot of fun, even when we argue. Many times among ourselves (meaning the old timers which I hope you will become here). The baby is waking up so I'll read everything tonight. BTW, I've never done the Karoke thing but I've seen it done on TV and heard about it from friends. I don't drink, never have, so I don't go to bars(I'm not against it, I just don't like the taste or feeling). I use to work in them though and there were talent hours on Saturday afternoons, now that was fun! The Elvis impersonators really cracked me up. I would think Karoke could be something like that, non? - 22:21:29 on 29 Feb 100 GMT