Doug:Grant: have you checked out this site: it has over 150 books on line:{The MIT Press Cognitive Science Collection: netLibrary offers a growing collection of browsable, searchable full text cognitive and brain science titles from The MIT Press. The collection currently features over 150 volumes. Access to this collection is restricted to CogNet members accessing via this link. }Some are pretty good reading. - 4:30:51 on 1 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- Many thanks. What a great find. That will keep me out of mischief for a while. BTW, I'm still using the HTML editor (Arachnophilia) you pointed me to many moons ago. - 6:26:49 on 1 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, "So that ongoing interaction you brought here it was just a hodgepodge of thoughts..." ... No more than anyone else's in here. Get with it, man. Like I said, religious and spiritually-minded people are not out to get anyone. Abusive people are, maybe, but there is a major difference when someone merely posts things in a discussion room. I'm all for the interaction, but not superstitional bigotry. In terms of me "standing on the shoulders of giants" - one does not need to wait for others to point out what one sees is wrong or in neglect. So, what's on your mind, hun? - 18:32:19 on 1 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, You mention "make believe" as if materialism was not invented itself. You see, if you start with this whole 'my belief is better than your belief thing' you're on a nowhere path to nothing. You yourself stated that subjectivity and free will are illusions. Models and constructs of the outside world are doubly make-believe. Naturalism, or, the worship of that which is repeatable, is no more universally objective than any other opinion. Trying to state that your 'naturalism' is superior illusionary material to consciousness theory, for example, is a laugh-in-the-face sort of thing. Like I said, the problem with materialism /naturalism is that it contradicts itself. On one hand it wants to call subjectivity and free will non-important...on the other hand, it makes use of them to form one's opinions of the outside world. In other words, it's okay that your opinions are valid because you don't accept a more holistic (or spiritual) worldview (materialism's locality principle), so all other subjectivity is denied and/or invalidated; a perceived objective analysis from one person's subjectivity. In all fairness and respect to you, do you not see this contradiction? - 18:43:37 on 1 Jul 100 GMT

Betty ... YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MATERIALISM INDOCTRINATED DETRIMENTS TO SOCIETY vol. II:TEST TAKING. What's wrong with test taking, you might ask, and what does it have to do with materialism? Test taking is built upon one major principle: pulling a sample variable from one moment in time of a person's abilities in a certain field of study or practice. It seems basic enough, and it also seems reasonable enough. But here's what's wrong with the idea... you can never pull one variable from a multiple of variables and call it independently justified. In practical terms, test taking does not account for a multitude of other variables that account for a person's abilities, including the well-being of the person on the day of the test, often the ethnicity or cultural background one may come from, the speed at which one absorbs the information, anxiety some feel from tests, the difference between test-taking and actual performance, and any other number of variables that are not taken into account in that (perceived) isolated moment in time. --- How does this relate to materialism? The embedded nature of the principle of locality - the idea that objects in space are relatively independent of each other, meaning an objective subject-object relationship can logically exist. Given the previous example it's obvious to see all the things that locality does not account for, including it's own value.---- Having said all that, what would I think should replace tests? Portfolios. They already exist in the fine art/creative fields. People can choose their best works and best efforts over a period of time, not at one moment, which gives a better overall score of one's abilities. The problem is fields like math and science where the locality principle still roams inefficiently. Gathering one's best works in the math and science area would also prove more beneficial. This is an obviously simple explanation but in actuality the grading system is meant to be gradualized over a period of time. The problem with it is that this system requires more time and money, something materialists will find hard to(un)grasp. - 19:06:53 on 1 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:On a personal note, I have a friend who has worked for a national standardized scoring center. Some of these tests have been in the news, such as the AIMS test, and the Florida SREB, or something like that. Parents haven't been happy when they found out how their children have been testing so these tests have come into question. I don't know exactly what the others parents find wrong with them, but my friend has personally stated that this major company which scores a majority of the national tests literally dumbs down its scores. For example, when the scorers go into groups they train for individual questions to promote accuracy between the scorers. In other words, on these tests hardly any district gets back the actual tests for review... they receive only the children's scores.. and the accuracy of the scorers to justify them. If the scores ranked with a 75% accuracy then they know something's wrong. On many accounts she has told me that the scorers were asked to ignore certain criteria on the ruberic in determining a score simply so an 85% accuracy can be delivered to the client. This is a national grading center where monies for national salaries, state funds, collegiate preparedness, school supplies, etc. are all determined by a relative percentage score between a group of at least 5-20 college graduates per question. Wasted time, wasted money, and it shows nothing otherwise close to (even if it was originally possible) an objective test score. The problem once again is that it would take too much time and money to change a system that people seem very confident in regardless. ---- This IS my opinion, a bunch of thoughts gathered on a page. One doesn't need giants before her once again to state and charge against a mostly ignored national problem. Carl take note. - 19:23:34 on 1 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: Oh, I'll channel the question to you through quantum mechanics.... buzzzzzzzzzzz. ok got it. - 4:18:52 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: What's this, your brain was turned off. Let's do a test and measure the wave lengths of your Consciousness in and around your body. You know what Betty, pretty soon we'll be able to read them like finger prints(no two alike) What are you going to do when there's no gaps left; you'll be crushed. ******** Reconstructing Consciousness in Neurocomputational Terms** ***Paul M. Churchland***** The modeling results relevant here concern the special properties of recurrent networks. The empirical research concerns the diverse behaviors of an important system of neuronal pathways that connect almost all areas of the cerebral cortex, and subcortical areas as well, to a central area of the brain's thalamus called the intralaminar nucleus. The thalamus and its internal areas are phylogenetically very old. They developed long before the evolutionary process began to explore the functional possibilities of adding cerebral hemispheres. At present, in humans and many other animals, one of those subcortical thalamic structures, the intralaminar nucleus, projects long axons that radiate outward to all areas of the cerebral hemispheres. Significantly, it also receives systematic axonal projections returning from those same areas, although the returning pathways originate in a lower neuronal layer of the cortex (figure 8.5). (Recall, in cross section, the laminar character of the thin and wrinkled cortical surface.) The cortical neurons and their many interlayer connections complete the grand informational loop. This overall arrangement of neuronal pathways thus constitutes a large recurrent network that embraces all of the cerebral cortex, and it has a bottleneck in the intralaminar nucleus. (One should probably speak, in the plural, of the intralaminar nuclei, Figure 8.5 The fan-out and fan-in axonal projections that connect all areas of the cerebral cortex with the intralaminar nucleus of the thalamus. The returning pathways are marked with dashed lines. (Adapted from Rodolfo Llinás.) since the relevant area hints at subdivisions. For simplicity's sake, however, I shall stick with the singular.) We have already seen some of what recurrent networks can do, but let us go back for a moment to one of the simplest examples just to remind ourselves of certain crucial features. We will return to the brain in a moment. Consider the elementary recurrent network in figure 8.6. The first thing to note is that its recurrent pathways bring, back to its second layer, processed information about earlier states of that same layer, and they do so continuously. This system contains, therefore, an elementary form of short-term memory. And it will not be limited, in its cognitive grasp of the past, to a single cycle of the network. Some of the information present in the second layer's activation vector two or three cycles ago may still be implicit in the stimulation vector currently arriving there via the recurrent pathways. Such information decays over a number of cycles rather than disappearing after only one. How quickly or how slowly it decays will be a function of details idiosyncratic to each network, such as the ratio of sensory inputs to recurrent inputs at the second layer, and the peculiarities of the network's synaptic-weight configuration. Nor will the decay be uniform: some information will decay quickly while other kinds will be robustly preserved through many cycles. This selective information-holding feature, you mayrecall, was crucial to the successful coding of grammatical information in Elman's language-processing network in chapter 6. This capacity is an automatic and inevitable feature of any recurrent network. Progressively larger networks, with multi-staged recurrent loops and real-valued coding, will display a short-term memory that reaches progressively farther back into the past. In sum, a trainable form of short-term memory that is both topic-sensitive and has a variable information-decay-time simply falls out of the structure and dynamics of a recurrent network. It is a natural feature of any such system. Whether such a process truly underlies our short-term memory is still an open question, but it is clearly a live explanatory candidate. Let us move on to the second salient feature of consciousness. Back in chapter 5, while exploring how a recurrent network can generate continuous motor behavior, we noted that such a network has no essential need of sensory inputs, at least as far as its continuous activity is concerned. The coding vectors arriving at its second layer via recurrent pathways can be quite sufficient to sustain continuing activity in the network at large, and the typical result is an ever-unfolding sequence of activation vectors at the second layer, a well-defined trajectory through the network's activation space. In that earlier discussion, the vectors at issue represented tension configurations of the body's muscle system, and their unfolding sequences represented coherent bodily motions. But motor vectors are not unique in being generable primarily or solely by recurrent neural activity. All kinds of activation vectors are generable in this way, including vectors that are sensory or descriptive. Given the temporary absence of peripheral sensory inputs, candor requires that we describe these internally generated vectorial trajectories or cognitive excursions as daydreams, fantasies, or passive deliberations; but upon reflection, that is entirely appropriate. It is consciousness that we are here trying to approximate. Let it be noted, then, that continuing cognitive activity in a recurrent network is not dependent on an unbroken stream of external sensory inputs. Its cognitive activity can be self-generated. And let us turn to the third salient feature of consciousness. Attention is by nature selective: some possibilities are attended to at the expense of others. The third baseman focuses on the batter's swing, determined to recognize immediately and accurately how and where the ball will be launched back into the infield. Other information is suppressed. The anxious mother listens forany sounds from the unwell infant in the next room, determined to recognize any distress immediately. Other kinds of sounds—the rumble of a truck, a distant train whistle—barely register on her. In both cases, a frame of mind is adopted that remains constant over the flux of sensory inputs, a frame-of-mind that tends to enhance the potential recognition of certain kinds of things at the expense of others. The price paid is quite real: while paying close attention to one aspect of a situation, one may well miss events and features that would normally have been recognized. But the payoff is equally real: careful attention yields a local enhancement in cognitive performance, at least on the topic at its focus. In a neural network, to enhance the chances of a specific recognition being made is to increase the probability that the appropriate prototype vector will be activated by the sensory inputs. Recurrent pathways can and do affect such activational probabilities by slightly pre-activating the relevant neuronal layer in the specific direction of some prototype vector or other (for example, bunt, for the poised third baseman, or choking sound for the anxious mother). The specific prototype vector temporarily favored in this way is therefore the current focus or object of the network's attention, at least in the functional sense outlined in the preceding paragraph. And such attention is steerable by the network's own cognitive activity, since different recurrent manipulations of the relevant layer will produce different partial pre-activations. Once again, a salient functional analog falls out of the neurocomputational model, this time for steerable attention. Turn now to our capacity, when conscious, to search for and mull over different cognitive interpretations of a specific and unchanging perceptual circumstance, especially when the circumstance is in some way puzzling or problematic. Here we can be brief, because in the second half of chapter 5 we explored this phenomenon at length, both at the level of mundane perception (recall figures 5.5 to 5.7, the ambiguous perceptual scenes) and at the level of esoteric scientific theorizing (recall figures 5.8 to 5.11, concerning the problematic heavens). A recurrent network has the capacity, once more through its recurrent manipulation of its own cognitive processing, to bring different cognitive interpretations to bear on one and the same perceptual circumstance. This capacity, by the way, is the complement to our capacity for steerable attention. With that other capacity, one specific and narrowly focused frame of mind is imposed on a constantly changingsituation, in hopes of catching certain especially important features, if and when they happen to go by. With our capacity for multiple interpretation, on the other hand, it is the frames-of-mind that we constantly work on changing, relative to a constant problematic situation. But both cognitive phenomena, note well, arise naturally in a recurrent network. Next on our list is the disappearance of consciousness. Why do we lose consciousness during deep or nondreaming sleep? And why does consciousness reappear during dreaming or so-called "REM" sleep (rapid eye movement sleep)? Here we must turn to some intriguing empirical results unearthed by Rodolfo Llinas, head of the Neurophysiology and Biophysics Department at the NYU School of Medicine. The data concern the behavior of the human brain, and this story finally returns us to the fan-out/fan-in recurrent network displayed in figure 8.5. The gross anatomical structure or wiring diagram there displayed is derived from postmortem studies of human and other mammalian brains. What is novel is the functional story revealed by Llinás's research. Llinas deployed yet another new and highly sensitive noninvasive technique, magnetoencephalography (MEG), to "listen in on" the collective activity of the billions of neurons all over the cerebral cortex. The activity of single cells is not the target of this technique. Such listening, through an area of the skull, to the chorus of neuronal activity just underneath is analogous to listening to the buzz and roar of the crowd in section H-20 during a football game. The undulating noise level is quite audible, although individual voices cannot be distinguished in the general hubbub. The first discovery relevant here was a small but steady oscillation in the level of neural activity in any area of the cortex, an oscillation of about 40 cycles per second. Llinás found these gentle oscillations at the same frequency in every area of the cortex. Moreover, the oscillations in distinct areas all stood in a constant phase relation to each other: they were all tapping time, as it were, to a common orchestral conductor. This phase-locked activity indicates that in some way or other they must all be parts of a common causal system. The prime candidate for that common connecting system is the structure of recurrent projections shown in figure 8.5, especially since independent research had already revealed that the neurons in the intralaminar nucleus have anintrinsic tendency, when they are active at all, to emit bursts of activity at the required 40 Hz. So far, so good. Now for the intriguing part. First, during normal waking consciousness, that constant, underlying 40-Hz oscillation is heavily overlaid with large nonperiodic variations in the level of neural activity (figure 8.7a). These reflect the brain's vigorous coding activity over time, and unlike the 40-Hz background oscillation, the character of the local flux is unique to each local area. The actual content or representational significance of those collective shouts is of course indecipherable by the MEG technique: we are listening to large numbers of cells simultaneously. But as in the analogy of listening to the crowd in a football stadium, we can at least detect when something significant has happened. And in fact, during normal waking consciousness, the bursts of activity picked up by MEG are strongly correlated with changes in the subject's perceptual environment, such as lights going on or off, tones being heard, and so forth. The cognitive activity detected at the cortex is plainly an unfolding representation, at least in part, of the subject's unfolding perceptual environment. Second, since the MEG technique is noninvasive, it can also be used on normal humans during sleep. We can listen in on the same cognitive system while our subject is unconscious. What Llinás found here is displayed in figure 8.7b. During deep or so-called delta sleep, the cortexwide 40-Hz oscillation is still there, although its amplitude is minimal. But the overlaid bursts of presumed coding activity are now absent. The vigorous representational activity evident in that brainwide recurrent system during consciousness has disappeared completely. This large subsystem of the brain, it would appear, is no longer representing anything. It is temporarily out of the representation business. Significantly, the neurons in the intralaminar nucleus are inactive during deep sleep. Third, during the sleeping subject's occasional periods of REM sleep—that is, during dreaming—the vigorous representational activity reappears. The 40-Hz background hum is once again heavily overlaid by nonperiodic oscillations in the level of collective neural activity. To judge solely from the MEG display, one might think that the subject had once again become conscious (figure 8.7c). But there is a tell-tale difference: while in REM sleep, the brain's representational activity is no longer correlated with changes in the subject's environment. Modest lights can go on or off, and sounds can occur, but these changes are not registered inthe flux of the dreamer's neural activity as they were during the waking state. Whatever representational story is being told, inside that dreaming brain, is being generated by internal factors, not by external perceptions. But the location and general character of that activity are roughly the same as detected by MEG in the waking state. Our discussion of the first four salient features of consciousness had already given us significant grounds for implicating recurrent networks in the production of typical conscious phenomena. The Llinás results focus our attention on a brainwide recurrent network radiating to and from the intralaminar nucleus, and they give us a suggestive account of the differences and similarities between waking consciousness, deep sleep, and dreaming consciousness. It should also be mentioned that, in experimental animals and in humans as well, damage to just one side of the intralaminar nucleus produces a hemineglect of everything having to do with the connected side of the animal's body, both sensory and motor. It produces a blanket agnosia and accompanying apraxia of the sorts discussed in the last chapter. More seriously yet, bilateral damage—damage, that is, to both sides of the intralaminar nucleus—produces a profound and irreversible coma. Consciousness disappears completely. Although far underneath the cortical activity to which it is recurrently connected, the intralaminar nucleus isapparently essential to the occurrence of conscious cognitive activity. We can now begin to see why: the entire recurrent system cannot engage in its complex recurrent activities if that bottleneck part of the system is shut down. The account here sketched, for the nature of dream activity, may also explain why the actions and episodes in one's dreams are regularly so mundane and prototypical in character. In the absence of the usual control exerted on the recurrent system by sensory inputs, the principal determinant of the system's wandering trajectory through activation space will be the antecedent landscape of temporally structured prototypes already in place. Further determinants, no doubt, are the cognitive and emotional states of the dreamer immediately prior to sleeping, and the low-level activational noise that is intrinsic to any neural system, as suggested by the Harvard psychiatrist Allan Hobson in his instructive and iconoclastic book, Sleep and Dreaming. In all, sleep and dreaming fall quite naturally out of the dynamical properties of appropriately recurrent networks. Finally, the seventh point: why are there several distinct senses but only one unified consciousness? A glance at figure 8.5 suggests a possible answer. There is one widespread recurrent system with an information bottleneck at the intralaminar nucleus. Information from all of the sensory cortical areas is fed into the recurrent system, and it gets jointly and collectively represented in the coding vectors at the intralaminar nucleus, and in the axonal activity radiating outward from there. The representations in that recurrent system must therefore be polymodal in character. This arrangement is also consistent with the familiar fact that, through oxygen deprivation or anesthetics, one can lose visual consciousness while briefly retaining, for example, auditory and somatosensory consciousness. In such a condition, we may speculate, the recurrent system of figure 8.5 is still functioning, but the loop that includes the visual cortex has lost function slightly ahead of the other loops. Let us summarize quickly. We have identified a specific recurrent network that should be capable of (1) topic-sensitive, variabledecay-time, short-term memory; (2) steerable cognitive attention; (3) variable cognitive interpretation; (4) cognitive activity independent of sensory inputs; (5) deep sleep; (6) dreaming; and (7) unified polymodal cognitive activity. We understand, in neuro-computational terms, how each of these features can be achieved, and conceivably they are achieved in a real physical structure within your own brain. The suggestion to be considered is that a cognitive representation is an element of your current consciousness if, but only if, it is a representation—an activation vector or sequence of vectors—within the broad recurrent system identified in figure 8.5. Your brain has many other representations, of course, but the story just outlined entails that they are not part of your active consciousness. The theory is testable, for it entails something we did not already know about consciousness, and which may be false. Anything that cuts either the fan-out pathways from the intralaminar nucleus to the cerebral cortex, or the fan-in pathways returning, should abolish consciousness in the afflicted creature. Partial loss of such connections, to one or other area of primary sensory cortex, should result in the loss of that dimension of sensory consciousness. I do not know, and you should not believe, that the preceding account is the correct account of consciousness. There is a remote chance, perhaps, that it is. Much more likely, it is only a small and still tangled part of the true account. And most likely of all, it misidentifies entirely the central neurofunctional elements of consciousness. But all of this is beside my true purpose in outlining this stick-figure account. What is central to my purpose is that the story just told is a logically possible neurocomputational account of the phenomenon of consciousness. It is a real instance of the general kind of unified and systematic reconstruction of the target phenomena that any adequate explanatory reduction must try to achieve. Whether it is true is a secondary question. But it is a candidate for truth, and its acceptance or rejection will depend on how empirical research continues to unfold, not on how things seem to uninformed common sense, nor on ill-founded arguments a priori, nor on thinly disguised arguments from ignorance. Explaining the many dimensions of consciousness is a daunting task, to be sure, but it is a scientific task that we can already see how to pursue. The theory-sketch just outlined is not the only speculative sketch in the immediate area. If it fails to help in uniting the empirical data, there are others that may not fail. Francis Crick and Christof Koch hold a related account of consciousness. Theirs is focused primarily on the narrower phenomenon of visual awareness, and they propose that the essential requirement for visual consciousnessis neural activity coordinated at a frequency of 40 Hz in layers five and six of primary visual cortex. As it happens, those are the very layers of the visual cortex that interact with the recurrent loop of the intralaminar system of projections, a fact these researchers also regard as significant. As well, Antonio Damasio has a related view focused on the right parietal lobe of the cerebral cortex, an area that lesion studies reveal to be essential for one's continuously updated concept of oneself as an embodied creature that endures through time. That broad area is also recurrently connected to the thalamus and to other subcortical structures. Finally, Rodolfo Llinás's view, if I understand it correctly, is essentially the view that I outlined several paragraphs ago, although I think his intention is to locate the contents of consciousness within the layers of the interactively connected primary sensory cortex itself, rather than, as I have speculatively located them, within the much sparser pathways of the grand recurrent loop that connects them all with the intralaminar nucleus. Indeed, a problem with my suggestion is that the large-scale recurrent loop of pathways from cortex to intralaminar nucleus may be too sparse to carry the rich informational load that consciousness would seem to demand of them. Their function may be that of a mere timekeeper. It may be that I should be looking instead at other grand loops, richer in axonal numbers, that unite the old and centrally placed thalamus with the surrounding cortex. However, the crucial feature of the explanatory account of consciousness offered in the preceding pages is the dynamical properties of recurrent networks. It is these properties that do most of the explanatory work. Exactly where such consciousness-sustaining networks might be located in the brain is something at which I am only guessing. I will not try to evaluate further any of these several neurocomputational hypotheses about consciousness. The philosophically important point is that they all exist, and any one of them might be true. Return once more to the old issue about the essentially objective nature of physical phenomena and the essentially subjective nature of mental phenomena. We can now see that there is nothing exclusively objective about physical phenomena, since they can occasionally be known by subjective means as well, specifically, by theactivity of one's auto-connected epistemic pathways. The physical states of one's brain are no more exclusively objective than is the physical matter of one's body intrinsically and exclusively dead. It all depends, in both cases, on how the organized physical system is functioning. Neither is there is anything exclusively subjective about one's own mental states. Although they are typically known by way of one's auto-connected pathways, they can be known by way of other information pathways as well. In fact, they are already so known, even by the standards of current common sense: other people infer my current mental state from my words, from my facial expression, and from my unfolding physical behavior. The core point here is that there is simply no conflict between being objective and being subjective. One and the same state can be both. I close this chapter as I opened it, by recalling the ironic convictions of the astronomer Ptolemy and the philosopher Comte. The irony in their case was that the ''inaccessible" keys to the great mysteries they confronted were in fact central and familiar elements of their own daily experience: gravity in Ptolemy's case, and sunlight in Comte's. But however familiar they might have been, those phenomena went unrecognized and unappreciated for what they were, because neither thinker had the conceptual or theoretical resources with which to fully apprehend them. I suggest that, where consciousness and other mental phenomena are concerned, we are all characters in our own ironic story. The "inaccessible nature" of conscious phenomena is written clearly in the alphabet of neuronal activity taking place inside one's own brain and nervous system. Moreover, one has continuous access to large parts of that activity right here and now, by way of the brain's auto-connected pathways, and in virtue of the brain's capacity for self-representation. But one fails to recognize the continuing performance for what it is—an exquisite neurocomputational dance—because one lacks the concepts and theoretical resources to appreciate fully what is right under one's nose. Or rather, right behind one's forehead. The result of that failure is a popular environment filled, at best, with mysterious dualistic hypotheses, and at worst, with despair of ever understanding consciousness at all. But while our situation may be similar to Ptolemy's and Comte's, our attitude toward it need not be. We can aspire to develop the conceptual resources weare missing. We can hope to bring into sharp focus our dull apprehension of the reality that even now lies before our own introspection. The relevant methodology, as so often before, is that of theoretical science. And the relevant theoretical vehicle, to judge by current experimental evidence and explanatory performance, is already in our hands. It is the conceptual framework of vector coding and parallel distributed processing in large-scale recurrent neural networks. - 4:25:10 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- I wish there were some way I could make myself understood on this one point. None of us has direct access to reality. Reality is filtered through our senses, and our understanding of it is restricted by, among other things, limitations of language and real limits to the capabilities of the mind in relation to the complexity and sheer magnitude of the universe. All of our thoughts regarding reality or anything else are "constructs". We're in the same boat, you and I. This is not to say that a construct is a construct is a construct, as it may seem to the extreme relativist. I wish I could cause you to become curious enough to read something comprehensive about this stuff that would give us some common ground, such as _Man is the Measure: A Cordial Invitation to the Central Problems of Philosophy_ , by Reuben Abel. I'm not being patronizing here. I really think it has been amply demonstrated that fruitful conversation is not likely without some new approach. I feel that I have already offered suitable responses to the questions in your post, without effect. We are not communicating. - 7:09:43 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Good copy-and-paste skills, poor interaction skills. - 16:08:55 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I was inferring that both of us were using constructs as known as our respective 'beliefs'. The point I was making was that you were referring to a certain set of beliefs as more make-believe than the one's you have chosen, creating some sort of superficial autonomy on the best construct, i.e. Naturalism -so you really didn't get the point of that paragraph. "None of us has direct access to reality"....but..."Reality is filtered through our senses" is an obvious contradiction. A construct is especially a direct access filter because it doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe besides the human population. You certainly have direct access to reality if you are filtering it. The difference in beliefs or constructs here is how we additionally define reality. As an idealist and relativist I understand that the filtering is the major element of the whole process. Because WE ARE filters and not the sole determiners of it, reality's definitions and terms depend upon WHICH, WHAT KIND, and WHY we use certain filters more than others. Understanding this points to subjectivity as a major determinor of reality - and idealism realizes this. Even a hardcore naturalist is victim of subjective bias - bias being the antithesis to objectivity. This is why naturalism is always toppled... because cause/effect is not absolute in an inescapable subjective reality. We live in a world of change and creativity that result from acausal relationships - not a romantically deterministic, Naturalist one. You might argue that a collection of subjective opinions makes something more objective, i.e. a number of people agree on the same beliefs. I'll remind you of a famous quote that goes something like, "An illusion shared by many becomes a reality." --- I don't presuppose anyone else's opinion is necessary at this point since we can't agree that subjectivity is a major part of both of our arguments to begin with so I'll wait on the book until a little later. This part you don't get and the communication ends when YOU make certain superficial impositions on reality and choose to call others' make-believe. You are using the same make-believe methods to confirm Naturalism. If you don't understand this contradiction then the communication cannot continue. - 16:42:52 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, BTW, To say "a construct is a construct is a construct" is a Nominalist position, as opposed to Essentialism, but is not necessarily a Relativist position. The Relativist position is different in that it does not idolize the individual as the sole determinor of reality, but that the entire intersubjective population of the world does - which means that meaning, value, and quality are dependent upon relations to other things. Accepting no universal truths, no fundamental guidelines, and no pre-set conditions, like Theism or Naturalism - because these all imply a universe of intentions and design. Instead, relativism accepts a universe of habit, diversity, creativity, and change as fundamental observations. I think you should review some of these terms before we continue as well. - 16:58:01 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- I don't really care if we continue or not. You are the one who is making the challenges and claims. You offer me very little in return for my participation. Rather than switch to addressing my answers to your questions, you tend to just reject them out of hand and continue asking the same questions. You do not substantiate or even attempt to justify your claims. You just make dogmatic assertions and expect others to try to disprove them. You exhibit double-standards such as " You see, if you start with this whole 'my belief is better than your belief thing' you're on a nowhere path to nothing", while you are clearly taking this approach yourself, and such as proclaiming that naturalism is a construct but consciousness theory is not. If I try to point out what I see as a flaw in your reasoning you get defensive and reply with some form of "same to you but more of it" response. You refuse to accept standard definitions for the sake of discussion, but will only accept the definitions within your belief system, as with "relativism", which makes conversation rather pointless. Talking with you could be enjoyable but isn't. - 17:26:04 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Don't take the cry baby way out again, hun. Am I picking on your beliefs? This is what I said, "I was inferring that both of us were using constructs as known as our respective 'beliefs'". I never said consciousness theory wasn't a construct. That's what my quote you used suggests.. that they are ALL BELIEFS and NONE ARE BETTER outside of the relativity between people. The value of the belief is determined between people because there is no outside scale for quality. We humans make the scales - which is what relativism accepts. You have some fantastical view of what relativists believe, like it's a change-with-the-wind school of thought. Relativism is dependent upon all situations for its views, and is not dependent upon an ancient deterministic world view. I pointed out that you made your construct superior by calling mine make-believe, when all beliefs are make-believe including naturalism and consciousness theory. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Creating double-standards and deflecting the questions I offer you. If you think the definition of something I offer is in question than propose an alternate suggestion. If you think I am ignoring something you said, reidentify your positions like I have. I don't particularly respect cowardly proclamations and accusations that you cannot support to create your own double-standards. It's obvious that you are just avoiding the issues in this mask of WEBMASTER title. You have a false perception of what I have presented. - 19:33:48 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Where is the loud mouth Blair Witch? Ooops, I mean, Marlene? I was wondering why I had to take up all the slack in here. - 19:36:25 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- "The cry baby way out"? Weak on reading comprehension are we? No wonder you dislike tests. - 20:53:20 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Boy, I hurt a nerve or something if you can't get past the first sentence to read the entire argument. Clearly we're dealing with avoidance issues. Silly comebacks and cheap shots don't work, either. Only because you give me no other option, I have to assume that you also did not understand the argument on tests. It shows that something bothers you but you're not man enough to deal with it if you're finding sustenance in clever phrases and not the issues. Even if Doug copies and pastes what he thinks is an argument he does a better job at dealing with the topics. I read and comprehend just fine, but I can only respond to what's posted. If you want to deal with things in an adult way instead I can hang around till then..... - 22:18:02 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, I doubt you understand all of what you've posted yourself and taken out of context it doesn't offer much support anyway. I'm probably wasting my time in this respect pointing out the flaws in something you copied-and-pasted, however, the thing about consciousness that materialists don't grasp is that it is not localized to any or one individual. The start of which is a misconceived schema of interpretations and it's evidenced in experiment. Consciousness is a shared trait. It's shared because it goes beyond the internal physical neurons of one person, that due to the fine tuning of our internal parts is a harnessable power. Trying to reduce to where consciousness is harnessed in the individual head is bound to be a limited model. Anything that depends upon numerous variables for its existence, including external sources, is not a localized characteristic. In other words, if there were one living person in the void of space with all of the components of consciousness roaming around in his or her head, this consciousness would have no meaning, no value, and no comparison. Consciousness depends upon comparison, rationalization, inference, and external stimuli. But because it can be compared, as it is above to what others share, it clearly exists non-locally. What your hero author does above is some sort of reverse engineering of a process that transcends the parts it's made of. The author knows what consciousness is and what it feels like, and knows that it depends upon the verification of other sources, AND THEN tries to localize it to a single, material existence. That's like saying the picture on your TV screen is produced by the complex wiring behind the screen. Confirmation that this wiring is capable of harnessing the results you see is not evidence that the result is evidence for the source of the product. As with consciousness, the picture on your screen depends greatly upon numerous other variables external to your TV set and the individual brain. Neural materialism is a clever mix of sci-fi and solipsism. You want to read something even more humorous, you should check out the more excepted view of epiphenomenalism, hun. ------- I will give you credit for having stuck to the discussion topic, however. For some reason this is a problem for others in here. - 22:52:06 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Never say die, Betty. Unless someone else objects, I'm going to commit a terrible abuse of my awesome power and ban you from posting here. Guess I need to learn to give people every change to behave maturely? Say whatever you wish to say. You have 24 hours. - 23:37:59 on 2 Jul 100 GMT

Joette:BETTY - I was quite offended about your referring to Marlene as the Blair Witch. Marlene has been a regular poster here for several years and her silence here is cause for concern at the moment, not flippant rude remarks. I hope Grant does ban you from this site. - 1:15:57 on 3 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty; I posted proof of Consciousness being in one brain only; not going beyond ones body.It is up to you to provide the proof of your claims using factual and repeatable information as your guide. Betty you sound hilarious too, with your pseudoscience.But tring to talk reason to someone who's braindead to reality is a waste of time.Your paranoia about reality should be a clue to your denial of reality. - 1:18:24 on 3 Jul 100 GMT

Joette:Betty - sorry, I should have ended that last post with "hun" - 1:22:07 on 3 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Joette: Has anybody tried to email Marlene? Or call her on the Phone if they have her phone#. - 2:52:52 on 3 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: To ban or not to ban, must be a fun choice. Well one point to consider in that decision, does this BETTY present anything contrary or food-for-thought kind of stuff? Or too what does she want a discussion composed of, other than her mocking the position of others? While she objects to a copy n'paste action as poor interaction skills, there are times when such action is appropriate. Occasionally such acts serve as focal points. Otherwise we all end up doing the hodge-podge thing, does BETTY favor this? It's very likely BETTY does favor that, for as it has been mentioned BETTY does not respond to questions of her various posts. Any wagers that she likes the key role of the fabled, "catch greased-pig". - 14:59:05 on 3 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: so there is another example of "materialism"! Wonder, what where the well-spring is for BETTY's anti-materialism? I have seen a number of sources, BETTY has yet to name any of which she is aware of, and as for national standardized tests, does she know of its beginning? BETTY does makes a good deal of dust and feathers about this stuff. Is the sky falling? - 18:18:11 on 3 Jul 100 GMT

Joette:DOUG - I don't have Marlene's e-mail address any longer, and I don't have her phone number. Anybody else with this info? - 0:01:36 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:ALL-- I don't like the idea of banning anyone unless they are interfering with the actual function of the site. Betty was just getting too venomous. I'm pretty thick skinned these days. This is not an angry action or reaction. If anyone objects to the banning, please speak up. - 3:06:57 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Joette: I e-mailed Marlene yesterday, but there has been no reply. I don't have her phone #. - 4:22:13 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant's father figure role seems to impress alot of people. I thought atheists didn't have anything to worship. I'll remind people that censureship does nothing to solve a problem, because problems begin from the inside. There is no reason why true materialists should be so emotionally involved with what another sack of cells has offered, and even in this case, having been censured for so long it does nothing to further your individual motives to ban what you don't particularly care for. The problems are still out there and peace can only be achieved through compromise. - 16:03:31 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Think about this. "I posted proof of Consciousness being in one brain only" --- If you are so sure of this, why do you need verification from others??? You want to promote some sort of nihilism. Go live in your own little, singular brain world. Here in reality consciousness depends upon a multiple of external stimuli. If you try to argue against this, then you prove my point. That part is your factual evidence! As far as providing you with repeatable evidence, first of all, deterministic causalities are materialistic innovations. I do not presuppose such intentions on such a wonderful universe, but on a limited scale as we have here on earth... it is very much a repeatable fact there can be no consciousness without verification of it from others, as you are demonstrating as well. The repeatable part of the universe is only one part of it. There are many things such as evolution and creativity that don't succumb to repeatability so you're standards are as narrow-minded as your view of consciousness. --- I don't suppose we will have a chance to continue this unless you can convince the school principal here otherwise. Like I said, I don't think we will continue this. - 16:12:26 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Joette, That's okay. Sometimes I forget to use the word 'hun', too. --- Regular poster or not, my remarks about Marlene are my own entitled opinions. I certainly don't wish her any harm either. I can love people even if I disagree with them. I just don't have to be friends with them. - 16:17:44 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:It'll probably take a few days to close all the avenues for Betty. It took banning about nine IP numbers for the Druid, who then continued to try 116 more times with those same numbers. - 16:32:37 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:"Father figure"? And here I was thinking janitor. :-) - 16:41:06 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Got Marlene on the phone. She's having computer problems but will be back. - 17:17:06 on 4 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: OOOOWW, a fallacy betty. your reality is the make believe. Where is the proof of this (for lack of a better word)crack pot lunacy. So we are supposed to take it on "faith" (presupposing belief).Deary, evolution can be tested and repeated: fallacy number two, brainless betty. "If you are so sure of this, why do you need verification from others???" That's how science works, dolly dear. Do you want a shove? you're beginning to smell. - 4:14:09 on 5 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Grant; Thanks Grant,that's a relief. Sorry to hear about her computer problems. I was hoping to hear that Marlene had the vacation of her life. - 4:16:18 on 5 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Dougy, Your verification that consciousness exists in a single brain comes from using more than one brain!! You nitwit. That's the proof that can't be denied. Until materialists realize that their own subjectivity has a place in each and every theory they make they will never come to a complete understanding of consciousness. Imagine one brain with one consciousness. It can't be done. Everything you know about consciousness and your repeatability process comes from verification from others. For this reason alone, you cannot isolate consciousness. You're doing the same thing Grant tried. The only thing make-believe here is the constructs we use to identify reality. Consciousness is real, materialism is a construct. It's time for a better theory, hun, you're shooting rounds of blanks. - 21:50:17 on 5 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, So how does this work? If I go to a friend's computer do you ban that one? If I go to the library do you ban the whole library system from access to your site? Pretty soon you'll be all closed in. Sounds like something a religionist might do to close off the outside world. Is censureship something you really want to promote when you disagree with someone? I've always found that the best leaders know how to step aside and show their leaderships by their examples. Censureship is something that would probably do your little room more harm than good. I mean how can you seriously promote freethinking and then take it away? I thought you would agree with that one. Anyway, leaders do best by example. My suggestion is to take the "big man" approach here and set a good example. Let those that disagree, disagree. Censureship doesn't solve any problems you might have had with me anyway. It only covers them up. BTW, when are you do for re-election? .......(lol!)..... - 21:57:33 on 5 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, BTW, why are you posting to someone who is supposed to be banned? Does it give you some sort of demented satisfaction posting to no one? Grant will most likely janitorially block this site, too. My advice is to save your typing because you have no defense anyway. - 22:01:00 on 5 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, You do a lot of side posts - not really talking to anyone or anything so I'll do you the favor of interacting with you. What sources do you think I should use as a better defense? What is it you speak of that you think I should use in argument? Like I said, you do a lot of sidebarring, without much content. (Hopefully, Grant will save me one outlet. If not, that's something to think about only.) - 22:04:02 on 5 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Sweep, sweep. - 1:47:41 on 6 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Hey all! Back from the desolate land of Wyoming and inlaws, and the exciting time of driving 2000 miles round trip w/ 2 toddlers. Will my nerves ever settle?! ............. Glad to see someone is clearing away the garbage, Father Grant. I bow to thee, oh holiest of janitors *g* It's hard to have a rational discussion in a room where someone is throwing a tantrum like a 2 yr old. I have to live w/ that at home, would rather not deal w/ it here (w/ our resident new ager). - 2:30:37 on 6 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Cristy-- Hope you managed to have some fun along the way. I've always loved road trips like that. We've been making the drive from Seattle to central Wisconsin and back every couple of years for the past decade via various routes. Managed to stumble upon the big Harley-Davidson thing in Sturgis, South Dakota one year. Couldn't find a motel within 200 miles. Ended up sleeping in the car at a wayside to the rumble of Harleys. - 4:12:44 on 6 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:JESSE VENTURA, does anyone know exactly what it was he said about religion being for weak-minded people? It's come up in a couple of discussions lately and made me want to learn more about him. Anyone read his book? My SIL said it was pretty good, maybe I'll get it. Gotta like someone who is willing to speak his mind even if it royally po's the religious right. - 20:24:46 on 6 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I had a smidgen of fun, but mainly it was just about maintaining sanity. The trip was to visit dh's parents and siblings. His dad can't stand me, as he's a Rush Limbaugh wannabe (only less likeable than Rush, if that's possible) and I once said "I disagree with you" when he was railing Clinton as the devil incarnate. We had a run-in right off the bat when I asked him to lock up the loaded guns he had propped by the back door (as I have 2 boys age 2 and 4) and he informed me "we don't lock things like that up around here". Got off to a roaring start, lemme tell ya! Oh well, Cheyenne's a pretty nice town and I found lots of things to do to keep me away from looney FIL, like hang out for hours at Barnes and Nobles reading and eating chocolate cake. Now THAT'S a vacation!! I'd LOVE to have a B&N here, nothing like a good book and dessert. - 20:28:50 on 6 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:The quote is from the November 1999 issue of Playboy magazine --- "Organized religion is sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers," and, "It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business." Follow the link if you wish. I found it right off using _Copernic_. It's really a nice search tool. It can be customized to your needs, and it's free. http://www.copernic.com - 0:35:11 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty:"Your verification that consciousness exists in a single brain comes from using more than one brain!!" and each one a self contained brain. Of course we can isolate a individuals consciousness in their brain.Betty the boob!Your reasoning powers are suffering from dementure.Word salad ! There are ways that we communicate our ideas and feelings. Language: speech, writting, body language. Etc. There is no 11th dimension with the spirit guy(deity) with a thousand arms directing each thought by ESP. - 2:11:44 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: They don't make contrarians like they used to:Since we no longer have Betty to marvel at, I was looking in the archives and chanced upon CURIOUS. Wish we had some opposition like him again. He actually knew what he was talking about. - 4:16:15 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: I bet Betty will come back as another "new age" weirdo trying to cover the SOS all over again.It's sad that those people are so brainwashed from reality. When I was 13, I read "Chariots of the gods" and not knowing thought it was true. At least until I read a scathing refutiation which I think Carl Sagan authored some of the articles debunking Von Dankin. Boy, was I mean and nasty: feeling betrayed that this book wasn't labeled fiction by our mainstream media. The Betty's and Josh's of the world want so much to believe that it's blinds them to reality. I blame the media and parents, it's so much garbage in/ garbage out today that I fear it's only going to get worse for the next generation before it gets better. - 5:28:01 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:I'm not sure, Doug. I think there are fewer religious people now than ever before. Most people don't concern themselves with knowledge and education and such, but most people never did, did they? The reason I'm optimistic now is because of the sheer number of really excellent books around now on scientific subjects, philosophy, etc. Somebody must be reading them. - 6:05:46 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--just wondering--:GRANT: I'm not sure if there are fewer religious people than ever before--perhaps fewer church-going, collection-plate-feeding, career-clergy Christians--but I would hazard a guess that believers and non-believers alike are becoming more fanatical in response to the overwhelming information/evidence discrediting the existence of a conscious Creator. The fern-sniffing New Agers present a third direction; they'd rather manifest and adorn raw human behavior than understand it. - 12:55:00 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Perhaps some may share BETTY's view of my posts to that individual, that being side-bar like. That would be a dignifying POV, but I saw discussing matters with BETTY as more like talking to a leper. Alright jokes aside, the mysticism she held of herself and her link to the supra-consciousness was very difficult for me to take seriously. When she made the attempt to seriously discuss that idea, now and then she seemed to be making the Berkeley arguments of the material versus the immaterial. And again, as for the links to folk agin materialism, I've read a number o'such views, the typical view was usually linked to religion or its likeness. Its likeness being that the contended view was of some invisible etherial thing. Of science's "ether" thing, that word strikes me as a term once meant to be a place holder, for a something that has yet to be understood. I supposed, if viewed from science that BETTY chose to rename that ether thing, consciousness. BETTY then took the liberty of extending it to the all, to my understanding, and I've seen such extrapolations prefixed as a 'supra-' whatever. Hey! dare we "pray" for the healthy return of MARLENE? - 17:11:17 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: So "atheists" types do or do not do some things, eh? Have you ever taken the time to back-track thru what assorted and various thinker\writer types hold of the atheist individual? The typical worded treatment of an atheist as a notion is only to refer to such individuals in a name calling fest. Do they say or pointedly express why a atheist is such a direful individual, in either a social or personal level? Except that some godthing deems, in "its" scripture, as an evil anybody who "disbelief" in its godliness no writer thinker says what they hold is wrong or bad of atheism. The position BETTY seems to expostulate from is typical of the religious-types who have the herd's mindset. In this mindset, they just can't understand why All can't or don't graze where they graze! That is merely the innocuous account, as the venemous ladened account is exemplified by those who mean to control the herd as said by G.Bush sr.and jr. Rather than just admit or simply say they don't understand but respect the non-herd types they simply resort to the name calling thing. The herd feels reassured in that way, its a verbal reassurance. - 17:53:37 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:athe·ist - Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Date: 1571 : one who denies the existence of God........... I got this from the Miriam Webster online dictionary, don't you think it's a rather condescending definition? As though "God" is a given, and an atheist is some stubborn child that denies that which is so. Annoyed me anyway. - 19:11:52 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Has BETTY been placed in the phantom zone? Well, it really won't mean much to the BETTY individual, after all the consciousness she knows pretty much excludes needing anyone else, seein'how BETTY is at one with the big brain. Well, in that kind of society all must be good, afterall, its just BETTY and all else, however that goes. - 22:43:48 on 7 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Consciousness cannot be limited too one brain. That feat in itself requires an outside consciousness to limit it. In other words, there's another brain using consciousness to try and limit it. Obviously, this is too big for your brain faculties. Forget all the other stuff, we're talking about materialism's poor precepts of reality here. Your definition of consciousness ("There is no 11th dimension with the spirit guy(deity) with a thousand arms directing each thought by ESP") is your own creation. No wonder you don't get it. You can't just make things up and expect people to believe that it contradicts anything. It's pretty funny to such ignorant superstitions, however. Move along, materialist boy. LOL! - 1:56:03 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Sarah:Just thought I would say hello. Was browsing the internet and found this site. What I've read so far seems rather complicated to someone relatively new to this "way of thinking". Anyone mind simplifying for the "newbie"? Thanks. - 1:59:44 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, On the contrary, the consciousness theory (which you don't understand) RELIES UPON everyone. Consciousness on a universal scale is merely a creatively maintaining unity... the blank pallate I've explained a million times. Consciousness on the human level, even when degraded by materialism, is still entirely a limited tool for us. Carl, hun, you use consciousness. The only way to fully credit yourself and your actions as a free-willing individual is to go back to the source. Materialism's laden with pessimism and contradiction. Consciousness theory is no more "new age" than materialism, because they both are merely perceptions. Consciousness theory, however, puts value to your individual use of it. Somewhere along the line you chose to resort to generalizations instead of depth. - 2:01:16 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:WELCOME SARAH, we're currently working on getting rid of the resident cook Betty, who seems rather determined to make a pest of herself. Please ignore all that mess and jump in w/ some atheist-related chat or questions. There are a few of us DYING to get back to the topic of the board and have some interesting conversation! I'm an atheist gal from Texas, stay at home mom of 2 little urchins, um, boys. Was not raised atheist, but finally saw reason in my college years. Cannot STAND having others trying to cram their beliefs down my throat, like Xian evangelists and our resident Rush-wannabe Betty who is into new-age collective consciousness crap-ola. I like to discuss atheist parenting related issues, but some here don't have kids or have grown kids, so the topics vary pretty widely. Hope to hear more from you! - 2:43:46 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

c:that would be KOOK Betty, I don't know about her culinary skills, beyond the word salad of her posts *g* - 2:45:09 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- Sarah is/was Betty. - 2:57:27 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Bull's-eyes:JAYWILSON-- The polls have always shown pretty much the same numbers for religious/non-religious. Sloppy of me. I seldom get shocked reaction from 20-30 year-old acquaintances to my atheism anymore, and few of them would consider spending their Sundays in worship. It is as you say. And I think you've skewered the new-age movement on a pointy stick. Have you a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the relative state of general understanding and knowledge of yhe y2k version of culture? - 3:31:37 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- Another authority figure- the dictionary, bites the dust. How disconcerting at first to discover that not only are there are no moral absolutes off siting on a cloud someplace, but no absolute definitions for words, either. If true that a dictionary's function is to merely report word usage, I suppose we're lucky it doen't say "scurriless scamp", or worse. :-) - 3:50:20 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty:"You can't just make things up and expect people to believe that it contradicts anything." well put, now practice it."Consciousness cannot be limited too one brain". You twisting my words: each individual has their own Consciousness contained in their little pea brains; like yours and mine, Betty. Their's no quantum conection bringing others thoughts by ESP and nonlocality. This is a mis application of physics and just plain old crack pot pseudoscience. - 4:26:21 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: You've got a point with Bety not needing a computer. She could post her new age venom by sending it through the quatum nonlocality to the "borg queen" Consciousness and then on to anybody's computer to type and post here. Scary ain't it, and if you played your cards right and opened up to Betty's touchy feely...(Marlene will bash me for saying that when she gets back).LOL! - 4:36:43 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: Now my three children are all atheists. I taught them religion and deity was makebelive.They were also taught how to use reason and commonsense from a very early age. Did you teach your kids atheism or are you letting them find out by themselves? Do you ever threaten them with church if they're bad? - 4:44:34 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Let's be specific here. Please follow the argument without any further excuse. Material realism is no more a science than consciousness theory. The human consciousness has no more been proven material than non-material as of yet. What we're dealing with are postulates. Only due to the postulate of material realism is subjectivity and free will called "illusions". Therefore, material realism negates itself- one hand having enough gusto to declare an absolute and the other hand saying it's all an illusion anyway. Material Realism is an accepted philosophy, an accepted methodology for determining reality. It is not the reality itself. Here is the reasoning behind consciousness theory: To account for creativity and change within an ordered universe. Until material realism can accomodate change and creativity into a complete world theory, material realism itself is limited. This is the discussion here. If you have a logical reason to localize an entire universe into independent parts then please provide direct evidence for it. My further argument is that in a single universe, nothing, not even consciousness can be localized to one or any area because it all exists in one universe; therefore it exists relatively to one's position everywhere and anywhere at any given time. You can't localize existence in a complete unit- this is the fallacy of materialism. My point above states that you cannot confirm locality of consciousness without using more than one brain - therefore, consciousness exists non-locally. Consciousness, once again, depends upon rationality, inference, comparison, determination, and consolidation. You can't have any of these if consciousness only exists independently in one brain at a time. Sorry, but your theories don't work. - 23:40:00 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug- Word salads beat the heck out of generalized comebacks any day. - 23:43:48 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Cristy, I'm dying to hear your opinions without tagging along with others. I mean this as an honest attempt to gain insight into how you feel. You seem to have a poor view of me, and I feel it's been pegged with exaggeration and quick judgement. What are your views of free will and subjectivity? And how is change accounted for in a universe of order? - 23:50:46 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:One more thing, I would like to recommend a book to anyone who's interested. It's called, "The Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron. I doubt anyone would call it new age or the like, and it can be found in any writing section of any major bookstore. It deals with artistic creativity in a materialistically-focused world and teaches one to unblock all the mental boundaries (or "mental blocks") through certain exercises. The book is spiritual, but not religious. Check it out and tell me what you think. - 23:54:36 on 8 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: first of all you didn't read my first post where I said naturalistic determination. "You can't localize existence in a complete unit- this is the fallacy of materialism. " oh so what you're saying is that you're body isn't enought to live with.That's the stupidest thing you've said yet."My point above states that you cannot confirm locality of consciousness without using more than one brain" You haven't proven consciousness does this, what you're saying goes against all physics.Only at the atomic particle level and below. As I said before we can measure consciousness and it "ain"t' panning out for you pseudoscientists. Look chump I posted a whole chapter: I'd love to debate you face to face in person. - 2:43:59 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Cultural Relatives? :Sorry this is so long. I found that I couldn't present this adequately in shorter form. --- ...Every society that has records also has its own version of the "origin myth", where myth means allegory, not just fantasy. The product of the unique capacity of the human mind, origin myths explain far more than how a particular people might have gotten here. They encompass a view of the world that instructs people as to how they should behave. Origin myths are prescriptive, as well as descriptive. They present a microcosm of society: the way men interact with woman, the way "real people" relate to "foreigners", and the place humans occupy in the world of nature. It is not surprising, therefor, that ever since the unique quality of reflective self-awareness has evolved in the human mind, origin myths have been central to the intellectual lives of Homo sapiens everwhere. ... [...] The role that the science of human evolution plays in modern twentieth-century society serves many of the same functions as the Perioriwa story does for the Yanomamo (origin myth of primitive tribe spoken of previously in the text) "The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science", explains British philosopher Mary Midgley, "It is, and cannot help being, also a powerful folktale about human origins." In other words, Midgley suggests that many of the hypotheses that can be read in, for example, the _American Journal of Physical Anthropology_ , should be viewed as a twentieth-century, Western scientific rendering of a creation myth. Another British researcher, John Durant, of Oxford University, seems to agree. "Theories of human evolution are first and foremost stories about the appearance of man on earth and the institution of society." he said recently. "Obviously this is not all that they are, and most of us would want to apply to them standards of factual accuracy and theoretical rigor which would be quite innappropriate in the evaluation of, for example, Yanomamo stories about the 'first beings', or the Old Testament accounts of the Garden of Eden. But...it is surely worth asking whether ideas about human origins might serve the same purpose in both prescientific and scientific cultures."... [...]When John Durant suggested the strong parallels between theories of human evolution and creation myths at a recent gathering of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he provoked outrage from many anthropological quarters. ... --- This is from a Smithsonian book on human evolution, _In the Age of Mankind_. Any thoughts on this? - 6:40:49 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:First off I want to state that I AM an atheist. What exactly is Atheism? Some Atheists really hate religion, make fun of christianity, and other various religions. But why would religion be so big if it was of ZERO importance? Why would it have so many followers? What is the common message behind christianity and other religions? Let me try to explain. Well for billions of years as your probably already know organisms have been battling it out here on planet earth to survive, the best get to pass down their genetic code, the losers go home dead. In the past thousand or so years and most recently we have seen a change in our environment very drastic. Before, man had to literally fight to surivive. He was constantly having to kill, be agressive, and be "mean". But this was required, if not he would have died. Now, in today's society we no longer need to fight, we no longer need to be mean, we have mastered our resources. It frankly isn't needed, it gets humanity nowhere. Evoloution hasn't had time to catch up to these changes. Evoloution has branded these agressive, killing genes for millions of years, now it is no longer needed. Drastic measures must be taken place! This measure was religion. Religion strives for unity and tries to take this agressive gene out of our genetic code mainly through the golden rule. As we notice in biology organisms grow more complex when they come together. First you have single cell life, then multicellular life, ect., ect. Could it be that humans will be able to communicate thought patterns and form a network of brains that would be alot more powerful than just one, kind of like the internet but instead of computers it would be brains? Who knows, that would sure take alot of energy. That is a rather out on the edge, but it could happen. Before that, humans must learn to love each other, have complete peace and unity. It is obvious that a group of humans that can work together can accompolish alot more than a disfunctional group of people. Religion helps us work together. It gives us love for each other, but it only gets us there. We ourselves must go further in discovering what life a our existance is all about. What do we do when our agressiveness is sifted out? It is obviously being sifted today. Nobody wants to marry a bitch or jerk, or have children with them. Atheism comes after religion. True Atheists are people who are at peace with themselves, are kind to others, and most importantly , most importantly want to solve the mysteries of science and life. Please email me with your response!! Thank you for reading!! And have a good day!! : )First off I want to state that I AM an atheist. What exactly is Atheism? Some Atheists really hate religion, make fun of christianity, and other various religions. But why would religion be so big if it was of ZERO importance? Why would it have so many followers? What is the common message behind christianity and other religions? Let me try to explain. Well for billions of years as your probably already know organisms have been battling it out here on planet earth to survive, the best get to pass down their genetic code, the losers go home dead. In the past thousand or so years and most recently we have seen a change in our environment very drastic. Before, man had to literally fight to surivive. He was constantly having to kill, be agressive, and be "mean". But this was required, if not he would have died. Now, in today's society we no longer need to fight, we no longer need to be mean, we have mastered our resources. It frankly isn't needed, it gets humanity nowhere. Evoloution hasn't had time to catch up to these changes. Evoloution has branded these agressive, killing genes for millions of years, now it is no longer needed. Drastic measures must be taken place! This measure was religion. Religion strives for unity and tries to take this agressive gene out of our genetic code mainly through the golden rule. As we notice in biology organisms grow more complex when they come together. First you have single cell life, then multicellular life, ect., ect. Could it be that humans will be able to communicate thought patterns and form a network of brains that would be alot more powerful than just one, kind of like the internet but instead of computers it would be brains? Who knows, that would sure take alot of energy. That is a rather out on the edge, but it could happen. Before that, humans must learn to love each other, have complete peace and unity. It is obvious that a group of humans that can work together can accompolish alot more than a disfunctional group of people. Religion helps us work together. It gives us love for each other, but it only gets us there. We ourselves must go further in discovering what life a our existance is all about. What do we do when our agressiveness is sifted out? It is obviously being sifted today. Nobody wants to marry a bitch or jerk, or have children with them. Atheism comes after religion. True Atheists are people who are at peace with themselves, are kind to others, and most importantly , most importantly want to solve the mysteries of science and life. Please email me with your response!! Thank you for reading!! And have a good day!! : ) - 8:37:25 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Sorry if it was a bit long...In my entry i told you to email me,u can if you want and have a rather long responce. ibs@newmail.net - 9:17:29 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--sorry to oversimplify this, but--:GRANT: Today's science is tomorrow's myth. - 12:21:54 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Grant (the big but):JAYWILSON-- But... Is today's science today's myth? - 16:45:50 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:DOUG, LOL at threatening my kids w/ church! Actually I do take them to the UU church. My kids are just 2 and 4 so currently I don't teach them anything and they just go to the nursery. But when they are older the kids program teaches ABOUT religionS, not preaching any specific one. I would like them to learn to think for themselves first and foremost, so I'll have to find a delicate balance between telling them that *I* think all the religious stuff is BS w/o telling them that is how they should think. But I definately think they need to be educated about it, as it is a huge part of world culture. Our UU is very dedicated to encouraging people to question everything, and that is what I really hope they pick up. But it's more of a treat to go than a threat, as they get to go stay w/ a cute 16 yr old girl who feeds them Oreos, swings them, and picks flowers w/ them :-) - 19:28:20 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, thanks for the heads-up on our resident spammer's alter ego. I hope soon everyone will begin to ignore this person so she will lose her thrill w/ irritating everyone. - 19:30:40 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson (a buthead himself)--:GRANT: I think I understand now. Yes. - 23:17:01 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Comparing buts:JAYWILSON-- You've understood this all along and said nothing? What else are you not telling me? :-) - 23:42:27 on 9 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:IAN, interesting view of the world. I have to disagree that "no one wants to marry a jerk". In HS and college, the jerks were always the first ones snatched up. Evolutionarily alot of people may not have evolved beyone the "aggressiveness genes" but nor have they evolved in their "mate selection genes". Sometimes I wonder if we are still actually evolving in a positive direction :-) Ah, but that's the cynical me. Maybe the positive me will come out to chat someday. - 1:11:39 on 10 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Geez, that ol'BETTY sure tole'you, huh? Heheh, so she says things outside whatever we are are unimportant, right? All one needs is to be linked up to consciousness? You do not really exist neither do I nor does anyone else, we are a "we" wherein the letter "I" clearly obviously does not appear, ergo, I is nonexistent or perhaps it is a myth. You remember that biblical passage of moshe on the mountain with the almighty when moshe asks who are you? The almighty says "I am that I am". Thats where the myth of an "I" began and o'course its a good thing that BETTY is here to enliten we others of our "we'ness". Well, I guess when one considers themselves in terms of "I" the illness sets in. - 15:01:22 on 10 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: So it looks as tho'I for one don't know either what is or that I "can do" a consciousness thing. That scenario sure looks like the religious issue of a godthing creating the all from nil. You know, the 'let there be light' etc. Now, as far as that word- consciousness, goes it describes or accounts for the supposed neurophysiological deed of some person, person being a human organism, right? {Or are we angels?} So, if that is what the word was supposed to convey, who and when was the word\idea first displaced to someplace outside the human organism? Perhaps this human organism BETTY is just tryinmg to get outside herself the mere sack o'cells that she is? - 17:20:42 on 10 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: I've browsed about places lookin'for something that might be acceptable to me for the position you've assumed here on the word- consciousness. As always your mere say so is meaningless, if I really had consciousness problems your pretty writing style would be most compelling for such a weakness. But, I'm well aware of me and the surroundings. I have never seen or studied on anything that I had to have or which answered some shortcoming of mine, except long legged long haired females. I find such females to be most compelling. But still, what I've seen which might support your POV, strike me as self-delusions. Such delusional types send cash or make checks payable to cash. I can follow the communicating of ideas for metaphysical or transcendent voyages, after all such ideas have no parallel in human experience. One such example is any word. This I see is your play-ground. - 19:23:57 on 10 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:I really don't know who that Sarah person was. It could be Grant as far as I know. Cristy, that's too easy of an excuse to not answer my questions. - 0:22:11 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, Like I said, it all starts with one's perception. In a gigantic wonderful universe, wholeness comes first. Localization comes second. Materialism and/or naturalistic determinism are at best only the latest fads in human history. Yet they still don't account for creativity and change within an ordered universe. It's simply a matter of broadening one's outlook on origins for things. You mentioned before about Planck time and such so you obviously have the ability to grasp such concepts, but yet you choose to only look for repeated procesees as proof of anything. So please, with all your wisdom, explain how creativity and change exist in natural determinism.... ( I would also like to debate this in person so if you have some other proposition please state this as well.) - 0:29:05 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, What makes materialism or naturalism any less word play? They are just as arbitrary constructs of reality as consciousness theory. The "I" here is not the problem. It's pure and simple egoism - superiority complexes at stake here. The "I" in consciousness theory is just as important as the "we" - because consciousness theory supports a valuable subjectivity. The whole idea that even one person can make a difference in the world. On the contrary, the "I" in a materialistic world is diminished - a random, floating object in space trying to make sense of the world around it. You don't see it because you support it. It's embedded into everything we do - to treat things as separations of reality. Once again, to say consciousness theory is "delusional" is avoiding the point. Any construct of reality is delusional, but they are all we have. Worshipping any of them higher than the others is what is delusional. Your materialism golden calf stinks like all the rest of them. - 0:38:02 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Betty:Anyone checked out, "The Artist's Way" yet? It's not just for writers. I paint and I found it helps a lot. - 0:48:03 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy:Oh I didn't know you went to the U.U. church. Are their lots of other freethinkers there? When you say teach your children, aren't you afraid that someone will instill in them the white bearded guy in the sky concept. Around my part of the woods, Massachusets; UU's are about as close to an atheist church as you can get.Personally I'd feel uncomfortable letting others teach my kids about the basics of religion without an atheist primer from a parent. - 1:03:46 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: And she's still going strong. Collective consciousness is a pipe dream. ESP has been shown to be on par with statistical odds.Betty has some weirdo concept that "creativity and change(problem solving,imagination, and adaption) can't occur within our individual minds; yet she offers no base of reality to any alternative. Her's is a belief in wishes and putting your head in the sand when confronted with hard evidence to the contrary. I posted a chapter that explains my views yet she continues to be ignorant of that statement. - 1:14:10 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:First of all let me start by saying that I am in fact a Christian. But not the type you have in mind, not the 400 pound swingin your goin to hell type christian crusaders. I do find it quite sad that my religion has split into many different denominations. I have seen many churches over senseless matters, raise large arguments causing the homely backwater atmosphere to split. This hostility which atheists synically critize is not something that I am proud of. But I,speaking on God's behalf, find your views and theories as more of a cry for help. I like to keep an open mind about other views such as atheism, cults, and many other religions. CRISTY: I would to say that I find it disapointing for you to allow your children to attend church only for the education, which is good, and not expect them to come out spiritually, mentally, and physically affected. I think that all of you should strongly consider the possibility of the mono-god faith. This is my first message being posted so I would like to say if you have any questions or comments about the christian faith, please feel free to ask me. This is not an attempt to win you over, it is an attempt to further expand the knowledge and views of both atheists and christians. - 6:06:56 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:Thank you for reading...and considering my forum. I know I am not welcome here. Please use me as a source of christian information. - 6:12:53 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Neils:Make religion equally accessable. Give education to all children, encourage them to choose the religion that they feel most strongly in their spirit. If the information age could accomplish this, advertising, etc etc bull#$%* bull%&@/ would have been worth it. We would have educated freedom spiritually. Yay for us. - 7:31:55 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:PROPITIATION-- Could you work on being a little more condescending? You only scored about 91 of a possible 100 points. - 12:17:40 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--Pilot to passengers: "We are starting our condescent."----:GRANT: Where else could the phrase "holier than thou" have come from but a Christian? - 14:59:46 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:First off you missed the point ,please reread athink about it try not to be so harsh we are all friends here - 17:27:18 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: As time passes the position this BETTY chose weakens. Euthanasia may be the final solution for the consciousness thing she feebly seeks to champion. - 17:39:06 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:NEILS: so still kids should choose a religion? But what do "kids" know that would enable them to properly choose anything; properly is to convey the widest of spectrums wherein a knowing resides. Do you mean to imply that "kids" are in some pristine state wherein they know as they'll never know again, for as long as they exist? Who was that European thinker/writer that spoke of the noble savage? Is it that kind of idea you think or see to be the child's mind? How do they "know" what is the right religion, how do they know what is the stuff of religion when kids can't even tie a shoe, or would they be naked, always? - 17:58:01 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:DOUG, actually my kids now attend a Lutheran Mother's Day Out program where they do teach the xian stuff. As they are getting old enough for some stuff to "stick", I'm moving them to another school which is less religious, but still a church preschool. Their really aren't any other choices around here besides doing home preschool, and I want to get AWAY from the buggers once in a while! But I have no problem w/ them being objectively exposed to various religious ideas, as I've said they are culturally and historically significant. I feel my goal is to guide their sense of reason so they can ferret out the truth from the trash when they are exposed to these jumbles of myths. I think if I just tell them they have to believe the way I do or else, it would be no better than the way the religious behave, teaching the kids to swallow their load 'o bull hook line and sinker w/o ever learning to think for themselves. Above all I just want my kids to learn to think for themselves and to be compassionate toward all people, whether they agree w/ them or not. It is POSSIBLE even to do that as a religious person (though not common) so I wouldn't see it as the end of the world if they followed a different path, just as long as they were happy and fulfilled and didn't go around condescending and disrespecting others.........BTW our UU is a VERY small group, maybe 40 regulars, and any parent is welcome (encouraged) to help choose the curriculum and the course of the children's education. Another reason I choose a church setting for them to learn this stuff is for the fellowship. ALOT of kid/teen activity centers around the churches (VBS, ski trips, etc) and I don't want my kids to feel left out of the social scene, or like they have to go to one of these churches and fake an interest in ol' white-beard to be accepted. I'd rather they have an open-minded group of peers, as are most attendees of the UU. As there are no atheist groups here, it's the most liberal organization in town! *g* Thanks for chatting w/ me about atheist parenting, I love getting back down to the topic of the board. I hope you have more to say or someone else jumps in! - 18:09:42 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, of course the religious don't want the children EDUCATED, they want them brainwashed! Ignorant people are much easier to control................"Out of all of the sects of the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose one that their parents' belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in *their* religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one." -Richard Dawkins - 18:26:49 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Wonder what it means to "Educate Freedom Spiritually" I'd wager the bet NEILS just got laid, so much makes sense at such times. - 18:51:57 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Haha, just browsed some book shelves and spied a book on consciousness. This book set me to chucklin'as it's various sections had subtitles along the same lines as the advocate here oft inscribes, as non-locality, a section on quantum stuff and so on. I didn't spot in it, though as I flipped thru it, any sections nor subtitles that account for the nature of the posts we see here. It was just a brief thing I did and have noted some books on consciousness do refer to it as a hypothetical idea and some even ask, does it have a place in science? - 20:48:06 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Propitiation, what makes you think we don't "know" the xian faith? Some of us have spent plenty of time as Christians, and I'd wager that some here (not I :-) know the bible better than you do. You are coming from the arrogant or unenlightened position that atheists are not Christians because they just don't know enough about it. The fact is some of us know far more than we want to know about it, and that is why we turned away from that closed-minded way of life. If you are welcoming questions in way of a debate, there are plenty of people that enjoy a good debate. But if you think we just need to be "led to the light" you're way off the mark! Sorry I can't give you your merit badge for "converting a heathen" but I am in no way "lost", but have actually found the use of my reasoning faculties and choose to use them as a filter for any story someone tries to sell me. - 20:52:02 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--just for the record--:PROP: You do not speak "on God's behalf", I am not "cry [ing] for help", you do not have an open mind, and I am not your friend. Now, what's really on your agenda? - 21:48:41 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Heheh, now if that was at least a poke with a sharp stick, I can't wait for the sparks to fly. Its gonna be the 4th of 07 all over again. - 22:03:05 on 11 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation: I want you to consider freethought as a option to your dilema. You seem like you want answers to questions that your myths just don't have. That's why you really came here to this board.We can help you. If you stick around we'll teach you to be responsible for your own actions and not to rely on the crutches of religion.Remember, denial isn't a river in Egypt. - 1:45:53 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: All my kids are in their teen years now and most of their friends don't bother with church. My middle son goes sking every other weekend in the winter with the school. He chums around with my sister's boy(my nephew) the same age.An interesting thing is that he's now a atheist even though my sister sent him to church and tried to brainwash him at an early age. I just guess his peers; my son convinced him that gods just aren't real. he doesn't tell his mother (my sister) about this as all hell would break loose and I'd be blamed for his atheism.So you can say I raised 4 atheist children. And my youngest: daughter has her girl friends on the phone,internet, and in person.The oldest boy is a writer; he writes sci fi and fantasy novels. Maybe one of these days he'll be published, They're not that bad and some are pretty interesting. - 2:01:15 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- About now Prop is probably thinking something like "I offered to tolerate the atheists on my terms, but they were too blinded by pride to recognize the magnitude of my sacrifice." I find that I like persons who not only understand doubt but are comfortable with it, be they religious or not. Know what I mean? - 12:00:09 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--Thomas, can you hear me?--:GRANT: I'm not sure. :) - 13:02:12 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:LOL! - 13:09:20 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:DOUG, I envy you living in a place where the religious influence is not so overwhelming. But then again, I guess no one is making us live here, so we could move if we wanted. I hope by sticking around and being a "positive atheist role model" *g* I'll see a tiny amount of progress in this area. Congrats on helping an extra child see reason! - 19:37:42 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:May god have mercy on your souls. You will all burn in hell. - 22:57:22 on 12 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:How very Christian of you, Prop. - 1:30:53 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:Its the truth, you will burn in hell. I know god exists because it says so in the bible. - 3:59:50 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--jeez, kid, don't you go to camp?--:PROP: Well I know Madonna is carrying Elvis's alien love child because I read it in the _National Enquirer_. So there. Nyaahh. - 8:26:13 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation:You bring the marsh mellows and I'll bring the the sticks. "Hot steaks are better that cold chops." Curley-Three Stooges.Nyuck,Nyuck,Nyuck,Nyuck,Nyuck,Nyuck. - 12:28:28 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: Yes,we don't have many fundies up here; at least not in any political power.But old women would stop me and my wife at the mall when our kids were young and ask if we are going to raise our kids in a religion. Like I don't even know this woman. But we shocked her by telling we plan on raising our children atheists.Needless to say some nasty comments came out of the theist's mouth.And we do get JW's and a yearly evangelical tent freak show in our town. What we lack in standard fundy cretinism we all but make up for with jesus freaks on the college campuses and catholic dogma. - 12:44:52 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Oh thats most impressive, PROPITIATION slithers onto this site ssssstating o'plans to dissssscusss thingsss then without any discussion at all tosses matters to the mercies of some godthing. Humans talk to humans monkeys chatter and scream to each other dogs bark birds chirp and cheep to each other, hmmm, does that mean in order for us here to talk as a godthing or of godthing stuff, we'd have to be godthings too? - 16:55:32 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: So it says so in the 'bible'! That is a book correct? Does the publisher hold a copyright on its contents? What in that book is being copyrighted? Is it only the symbols in that book as they are supposedly meaningful to some that is being harbored protected for money-purposes because those symbols are merely marks to other people? Is the godthing interest, the book publisher? The symbols\marks of a godthing in the bible, do not seem any different than those in a book for the storys of Plutarchs lives, which tell of numerous examples of people born again or ascending to reside with gods. Knowing that such storys abound makes the meaningfulness of such symbols and marks in books as the bible or Plutarchs a little more and less meaningful. Do you have a better idea anyhwhere in "your mind" of a godthing PROPITIATION? - 18:00:54 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Propitiation, it will please me to no end to know I will not be spending eternity w/ people who feel anyone who disagrees w/ them deserve eternal punishment. Too bad you've chosen to let your life be ruled by fear and hate ............... A la Billy Joel, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints..." - 19:04:54 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:I would like one of you to PROVE to me that god doesn't exist. You simply can't do it. - 22:13:51 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:PROPITIATION: I have never seen one nor met one, would that be proof that there is no godthing? - 22:55:17 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation:You have the burden of proof my little cretin. ****************PROVING A NEGATIVE - (The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1963) "Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things which cannot properly be doubted. - 23:37:32 on 13 Jul 100 GMT

dave:wow,i love you doug.that was great.. - 0:18:21 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:At least this "proclaimer of the unprovable" is less verbose than the last *g* - 2:31:14 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:You still haven't proved there isn't a god. You see my friends, there is always uncertainty. Either way, you are not 100% certain that there isn't a god. To doug: How do you denote that which is "positive" and "negative". You guys are really good at quoting books and magazines but i see no origional thought. Good try guys. - 5:10:38 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:God loves you. Save yourself while you can or you will spend an eternity burning in hell. I warn you. - 5:13:09 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation: The burden of proof rests with the claimant who exposes deity. That means you bible boy."Where's the beef(gods)?" If you don't stop the childish threats we'll have you banned from this site; grow up! - 9:30:49 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Propitiation or parodyization?:DOUG-- Nobody has really said what they think of banning people from this site since the Druid thing, which became a clear-cut case. I don't like having to do it. I felt badly about having to ban Betty, though I have to say I'm feeling less badly with each new email from her in the form of insult, insult, insult, demand; insult, insult, insult, demand. Anyway, I would rather downplay it rather than use is as a threat. Input on this would be welcomed. - 12:51:20 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--Ban: Roll on!--:GRANT: I understand and applaud your mixed feelings about banning undesirable posters from the site. Of course, making such a decision cannot, and should not, be easy. Then again, Betty clearly was wasting our time, and I dare say that Propitiation is on his way to doing the same. No, banning is not a threat; it is a consequence, and we posters to MIMM should be responsible for our participation--as well as intelligent, forthright, and occasionally polite. ;) You're standing on firm ground, Grant. - 14:09:05 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: In relation to the stuff of theism and its contrary which is the nature of this chat-site, to ban "someone" is only saying that that someone apparently doesn't contribute to the words-life of this site. This PROPITIATION clearly has an orientation response plan, which generally I know and probably most of the regulars here know all too well already, so are you essentially incorporating us? Well, be that as it may I find redundency, this idea is exemplified by the assumptions of the religious dogmatisms, wherever it may be seen intellectually enfeebling,e.g.,above "god loves you". I put forward the matter of communication above, only to have a reference point for when 'PRO' flits away, too far for any logical reasonable communication. But when or what is too far for a ban? If 'PRO' could tell what and how it is that he\she means a god loves you, not the pauline ramblings of the bible, that could be interesting. Perhaps 'PRO' has a real something else meaning. - 15:14:14 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: So BETTY is E-mailing you insults! That sounds very deranged. Anyone who carrys on like that in this non-person medium, this PC-thing, just ain't stable. I wonder what can they contribute that is good to any other person? Maybe when BETTY E-mails you a psychological report stating BETTY is all healed, you might then 'consider' an unbanning. But gads, E-mails you insults, thats not good. - 15:32:04 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Propitiation...ORIGINAL THOUGHT?! From someone who can only quote ONE BOOK?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! One wonders if you have ever thought for yourself in your entire life. Oh, my, thanks for reminding me of the depth of hypocricy of your religion! *still chuckling* - 17:32:20 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I'm with you on the banning...I think it should be a last resort. If we want to turn this into a board only for atheism support, you could state that at the top and say that any non-supportive discussion will be removed (like the support boards at PP, the atheist one you directed me too). But I don't think that is what we really want, and it seems we're mostly open for a little rumble now and then. I think if we really and truly want to get rid of a minor pest, IGNORING THEM AND NOT POSTING TO THEM will work 99% of the time. If you get a persistent one that turns to spamming, then drastic measures might be taken. But STILL, people were arguing back w/ Betty, so obviously some were interested in hearing her talk back. I'd say reserve the banning for people that continue to SPAM with UNSOLICITED comments, meaning not provoked by members of the board. - 17:38:40 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, I agree that Betty was seeming to be a bit unstable, even before hearing of the emails to Grant. Why else would someone continue to just fight and argue in a place where they are so obviously unwelcome and making no headway whatsoever? I guess you could also say she just "had no life". Rather pathetic though, hopefully she'll find a place to fit in and not have to get her kicks from being a pest! - 17:43:56 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:Cristy:Propitiation...ORIGINAL THOUGHT?! From someone who can only quote ONE BOOK?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! One wonders if you have ever thought for yourself in your entire life. Oh, my, thanks for reminding me of the depth of hypocricy of your religion! *still chuckling* Uh i havent quoted a book. ur an idiot. and doug, you still havent answered my question. How do you denote positive and negative? *sigh* Some of you are so childish, only on here to insult(Cristy) - 17:59:12 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:You people need god in your life. Just open your hearts. You are all here searching for god, he knows this. - 18:00:45 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propriation, so it's NOT the bible that says we are all going to hell? Did god reveal this to you in a personal session? - 18:06:30 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:To quote Prop: "Its the truth, you will burn in hell. I know god exists because it says so in the bible"..... Does the bible not count as a book? Funny how you duck and hide, coming in here to insult then whining and crying foul and calling names when you realize you are out of your depth in intelligence. Obviously you only have a few catch phrases to impart, and are despairing that they aren't getting you very far. WE are here to chat with atheists, it is your purpose that is in question. BTW, don't you own a spellchecker, or the old version called a dictionary? And didn't god reveal to you in your personal sessions that he likes his name CAPITALIZED as a sign of respect from his servants? Don't you worry at what a pathetic representative you are being for his cause? You'd most definately serve your overlord better by keeping your mouth shut and your eyes open, that you may learn. "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"...Mark Twain. BTW quoting others to emphasize your points is a sign that you are well-read and acknowledge the wisdom of others, not that you don't have an original thought. But then you wouldn't recognize one if it bit you on the ass, now would you? :-) Well, good day to you, god's loving little messenger. WWJD? *g* - 18:14:21 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:blah blah blah Cristy, you are like most women. all you do is babble. Would you guys admit that you can't disprove god's existance 100%? Cmon, you know you cant do it...im waiting : ) - 18:20:34 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation: The burden of proof rests with the claimant. You're claiming there is deity. - 18:25:57 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:Cristy, you are good at insulting. but debating is another matter for you. just make babies and wash dishes cristy - 18:26:07 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:doug. you are claiming there not to be a deity. what proof do you have may i ask? I know there to be a god. When you believe in god, you have a feeling of peace. you can feel it when you accept god in your life, its amazing. you should try it. And i was wondering...What views to atheists have in life? What are your goals? - 18:29:50 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:OH boy, a sexist pig to boot! You just make yourself and your religion more revolting by the post. Thanks for confirming that you really don't care about anyone but yourself, and your ultimate desire is to be mean and nasty, not save souls. I knew that was what most of religion was really about. I don't think anyone ever claimed to be able to disprove god's existence. Being an atheist means you don't BELIEVE there is a god. If it could be proved or disproved, there would be nothing to argue about now would there? There would be no religious wars if any deity had ever bothered to show himself in any way that could be verified. So we are in the group that believe that which there is evidence for, and nothing else. You are in the group that believs what there is NO evidence for. So when are you going to PROVE his existence? I'll sit here and ask 6 times in a row if god exists to immediately turn my computer case green. 1..2..3..4..5..6, welp, it's still off-white! So I now have more proof against existence than you do for. Since I know you won't quote any BOOKS, where's your proof? - 18:30:31 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:I have proof and faith Cristy. Christianity is different that science. If you believe in Christianity and accept Jesus, God will REVEAL himself to you! That's how I know he exists! You must first have faith, then you will get proof as a reward. My proof is a personal experience and it is shared by thousands like me. You have yet to have that experience. And uh who says books are proof? - 18:55:08 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So how does one "know" that there is a godthing? Does it walk-up to one, does one see it afar and then transport oneself to where it is, then when the godthing is before you does it in some "objective way" inform one that it is the godthing? If it communicates to you that it is a godthing, does its mere communication its proclamation of being a godthing is it an acceptable conclusion? Is that all it takes for it to be the godthing, that it says so? But if the knowing is only the supposed sound spelled g-o-d, is only a subjective experience{one's mental sound?} how is the godthing's so said attributions not just one's self-delusions? How does one "know" a godthing? - 18:56:16 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:PROPITIATION: Is Faith a knowing? - 19:00:51 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:CARL: Faith IS a knowing. Because GOD will show himself to you. It't a mental presence. I can't describe it because it is an experience. You must first believe with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. - 19:20:50 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:You know what just occurred to me as I was making PB&J's? Our little visitor is likely nothing but a little teenager! I mean, look at the grammer, spelling, quality of thought... we've got a little kid playing at being grown up. What's the matter kiddo, do your parents leave you home alone all day with nothing but the computer for company? I understand you might get bored and turn to picking fights for entertainment, maybe even a little thrill? Well, it's a far better than building pipe bombs, like some of your peers left w/ no supervision, but if you need to turn to religion for comfort, don't you think the positive aspects would be more satisfying than the negative? Well, I know how kids don't listen to grown-ups so I won't waste my time on advice, but I do hope you find a positive outlet for your mind, instead of letting it become filled w/ hate at such a young age! - 19:23:22 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:OH and BTW, when I was a youngster myself I was full of faith and belief. I begged and waited patiently for god to show himself to me, attended church every time the doors were open and prayed ferverently. It took me years to realize that the "experience" was just something you convinced yourself had happened when you were desperate to belong and believe. Science is definately different from religion, in that it relies on discovering facts then forming theories that support the facts. Religion in turn starts with a theory and tries to fit the facts to the theory, throwing out the ones that don't. To me science much more honest, and does not need to suppress facts or use faith. It can stand on its own merit, which religion can't. - 19:31:02 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Well said Cristy...!! - 19:44:30 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Im an atheist and i posted a message a while back. I, probably like most of you, dont have much interaction with Atheists. Im curious about how other atheists feel about life and what are their "goals" or "motives" - 19:48:05 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation:By the theists own statements.Everything have been debunked."All that has been provided has been disproved. No evidence has ever been presented proving. Unless you have or know of new evidence: So nothing can be derived from nothing."(MY quotes) The burden of proof rests with you. - 19:50:02 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Propitiation:faith is a predisposition: one relys on deity and/or the supernatural to do things. Faith is not a proof. - 19:52:48 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Propitiation:You guys are prety good, i give up. - 19:56:56 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:PROPITIATION: If it is an experience which for you included a "showing", of the four ideas you laid out for the perception, your perception of that godthing, only two could have any meaningful import for my perception. The heart circulates one's blood, that is pretty important in and of itself. Open it up, this statement is meanigless for what does that mean or how do you mean that? Do you mean it in the way that word was symbolised for the prevailing ignorance of the darkages? As for the overall body and mind, ours, either has limitations as well as unlimited wants. A soul, an interesting social concept probably not intended for usage by the unthinking. Kind of like the word "faith", a very natural and very simple account that is just an explanation for, IMHO, fearless movement. That would be knowing, so I understand what you as a fellow human organism may mean when you inscribe that faith is a knowing. Now, where is that godthing? - 19:58:04 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:IAN, I would say my goals are first and foremost to maintain a happy family, by being there for my boys and my husband and the rest of my family. Beyond that my goal is to be a good person, good friend, and just all around benefit to humanity. My motives are that *I* want to be happy and live in a good world, and I want it to be a good world for my kids. It makes me happy to make life better for other people. I would like to help make this a more tolerant and loving world in some way, but don't know really how to begin on that except by educating myself and my kiddos. Good question, what's your answer? - 22:43:45 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Do you remember my little essay i wrote? It was really long and i accidentally pasted it 2 times...check the archives. I believe in what you said, about living a happy life and making others happy. I also believe that we should explore our existance in scientific ways and mental ways... - 22:55:40 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:The stuff you said Cristy is very similar to Christianity. There is one major difference , the belief in a God. This "God" we know doesn't exist helps others to "be kind", it adds a certain charisma but sometimes people try and manipulate the bible and use it for self gratification, such as Propitiation. - 22:58:59 on 14 Jul 100 GMT

you ever feel like you are in the middle of a "good cop, bad cop" scenario? Tha's OK, perhaps someone will become educated along the way :-) - 1:38:34 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- I can't get through your spam email blocking program, but you are correct, yes. - 2:53:03 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Mission statement :YA'LL-- Thanks for the feedback. Somebody has to administer the site. My goal is to interfere with the discussion page as little as possible. I hope it is clear that I banned Betty only because she had shifted to only caustic personal attack, sans argument. The site was looking like her personal rage page. Anyway, it may seem inconsequential but I don't think it is. We've had 42,641 hits in the past ten months, and have visitors from United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Israel, Mexico, Russian Federation, Brazil, Greece, South Africa, India, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Estonia, United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Poland, Argentina, Philippines, Norway, Croatia, Trinidad, Yugoslavia, Austria, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia, Georgia, And the US government. I wish more of these visitors would post! - 14:31:52 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:HI! I'm baa-ack! - 15:55:17 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who was concerned about my well being. It's nice to know that although we've never personally met each other that we've all become such good friends. With the mushy stuff over, I will proceed to download the last month of posts and catch up..later! - 15:58:24 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE! Welcome back! You missed us didn't you? Real life is no substitute for us, eh? :-) - 19:03:21 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:Hi Grant, sure did! Even the fern sniffers! I noticed you haven't been too successful in snuffing their preaching mania on the page. Oh well, I personally find it entertaining, lol! I sure somewhere, way back, you mentioned "Curious" well I just bet ole fire and brimstone, woman hating Curious has changed his name to "Propitiation". I'd wager this is the same Curious who foul mouthed former posters here. - 19:25:56 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE!!!!!!!!! I'm glad you're back! We DID miss you :-) Heck, Grant finally had to break down and boot one of Sybill's nastier personalities (though some of his/her others may still be lurking around :-). Don't bust a gut laughing over the last month's shenanigans. - 19:27:15 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Actually, as I was reading the last month's posts, I did have the best laugh of the month, especially (and I'm still laughing)"the Blair Witch Project"!!!! I must really irritate Sybill! If I had her address, I would send her a bouquet of ferns, even though I'm not on her friend list, after all isn't it Ian that claims atheists should be "loving". BTW IAN- atheists can be all kinds of different personalities because the only thing we have in common as atheists is the lack of belief in god, gods, blue fairies, pink unicorns and universal consciousness. - 19:54:37 on 15 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--a believer in universal unconsciousness--:MARLENE: Nice to see your name in boldface again! - 1:23:07 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Welcome back Marlene.It's good to see that you're alive and kicking. - 1:55:47 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON and DOUG- Nice to see your names in bold type too! Doug, ya know...I can consciously say..your damn prayers didn't do twit when it came to the computer shop bill for my computer, lol! JayWilson, How universally unconscious of you to recognize that concept! - 2:18:02 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:OOPS! Thunder storm...don't need my brand new 56 fried..see ya all tomorrow! - 2:19:36 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Anybody see this item? What a head-scratcher. Christian history ought only to be examined by the faithful? Personal criticism of a TV program inserted into the pages of the Congressional Record? What's this guy doing in the US Senate? "The show's conclusion--that Jesus was a man, that he existed--comes as no revelation to anyone who has lost someone dear and found solace only in the Trinity." Hmm... Such a critical thinker, too. - 7:37:23 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I watched that show and I thought it was very good. No wonder some of the fundies are up in arms though as the virgin birth and the claim that Jesus was somehow supernatural were really played down. I thought the theory that many young Jewish boys dreamed of becoming the messiah to free them from the oppression of the Romans was quite interesting. Did anyone else see this? - 12:27:29 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Currently in countries following liberal democracy the great majority of young people have decided not to have a religion, or not to follow the formal established religions but to explore various religions and create their own religion/belief. On web site www.geocities.com/natlaw1 there is a natural-law monotheist template to be used as a reference for those who wish to create their own religion/belief. Natural Law Religion Template 1. Miscellaneous information about Natural Law religion. 1.1 The Natural Law religion is the most intelligent religion as it is based on scientific and mathematical laws of nature which are treated as the creator's law, and as a religion it is also non-exclusive and non-dogmatic. Scientific and mathematical laws represent the reality around us, as the mentioned laws govern the activity of every level of creation, from sub-atomic particles to the vast galaxies. For example the progress of the most advanced societies such as the western countries and Japan has been directly dependent on their knowledge of, and applying, scientific and mathematical laws. 1.2 The symbol for the religion is infinity, which represents two of god's characteristics in terms of infiniteness of time and distance, as well as the understanding that the universe has been created from nothing by taking the universe towards infinite number of distinct prior stages. The term creator and the name god are used in this document because it is written in English. When and where necessary pictures of the creation are used to develop an affinity towards god. 1.3 Natural Law religion is meant for the individual, a mass of people and society as whole, and members are advised to propagate the religion, and when where necessary to establish gathering places called Natural Law Home. Organisation within the religion should be accomplished by a hierarchy of councils that consist of religious and/or non-religious members elected by the followers. The followers are advised to get together for communal prayers, meditation, spiritualism, etc. at least once in a week, and an expert and leader in Natural Law religion is termed a guru. The followers are advised to select their own individual or individuals which they can revere, love, like, respect, and/or follow. 2. Natural Law religion is a monotheist religion which means it advocates belief in the creator of all creation, which is derived from a concept of the creator that is singular and not plural, and which is best described as an incomprehensible entity. Natural Law religion states that worshipping creation such as idols as oppose to the creator is intellectually incorrect. 2.1 Modern humans as the result of their genetic disposition have the ability to think and contemplate beyond their immediate surroundings, as well as having the choice to go against their primal instincts. 2.2 Time and distance are infinite as you can not put a boundary on time or distance, there must be something beyond whatever boundary we place, for example there must be distance beyond our universe and there must be time before creation of our universe. 2.3 Also if we take our universe from its current stage towards infinite number of prior stages which are distinct, past the big-bang stage, the logical understanding is deduced that the universe has been created from nothing, such as a void lacking energy or mass. 2.4 Modern humans as the result of their genetic disposition have the ability to think and contemplate about the infiniteness of time and span and the creation of the universe from nothing, to possibly derive at a higher entity with attributes of infiniteness of time and distance which does perform tasks such as the creation of this universe and many other universes. 2.5 Instead of perpetuating a long and pointless philosophical argument about whether the creator exists or does not exist, Natural Law religion is in accordance with the viewpoint that there is a very strong deduction for existence of the creator, however it also respects the viewpoint that the creator does not exists. 3. Natural Law religion defines the relationship between god and intelligent beings such as human beings. 3.1 There is no miracle or miracles on Earth, god does not communicate with people and regrettably there is no life after death. The words no and not were used above because of the slim probabilities for life after death and miracles. For example Charles Babbage the inventor of the first computer, using probability calculus calculated the numerical likelihood of resurrection from the dead, based on witness accounts since creation, as 1 in 200000 million. 3.2 The Natural Law religion believes that god knows every possible outcome in nature, and has created this universe and many other universes in order that intelligent life forms may develop and for these intelligent life forms to interact in an manner that can be described as unpredictable or chaotic, and god is pleased by observing unpredictable intelligent life forms. The chaotic inflationary theory suggests that big bangs are continuously occurring. 3.3 Because there can many types of intelligent life in our universe and in up to infinite number of other universes, and the incomprehensible magnitude of god, god acts on a universal level such as the creation of our universe and not on an Earth level. For example using the minimum value for Frank Drake's equation, who is the pioneer of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, there is only one intelligent race in our galaxy, and obviously that being the human race. Hence forth there can possibly be one intelligent race per galaxy in our universe, which has millions of galaxies. There is a possibility that god is trying to acknowledge its existence on a universal level, however this needs clarification through scientific research. The reason god acts on a universal level and not on an Earth level is the only mystery in Natural Law religion. 3.4 God being intellectually perfect will want equality in standard of life and justice for the human race in order to achieve perfection, however god is not prepared to bring about such equality and justice as it requires miracles on a grand scale and as mentioned before god acts on a universal level. 4. The Natural Law religion has three types of laws and most of the laws should be followed. 4.1 Type 1 - Gracious laws People should express their gratitude to god for being created with senses which allows them to live and gain pleasure from life. For example praying once a day to god, thanking god for being alive. 4.2 Type 2 - Scientific and mathematical laws These laws form the great majority of Natural Law religion laws and are considered as laws of god's creation, and hence god's laws. These laws are based on the most profound scientific principles and have been validated by abundant scientific research studies. 4.2.1 The individual should have a deep respect and should bring their personal life style in to harmony with scientific and mathematical laws which represent the reality around us. This includes leading a physically and mentally healthy life, as well as in a scientific manner exploring the limits of our pleasurable senses such as through responding to our human primal instincts and senses, psychology, hypnosis, aroma therapy, meditation for self development, spiritualism by coming close to god, etc. If the individual does not act in accordance with scientific and mathematical laws, the result can be stress, frustration, sickness, crime, violence and all the other forms of negativity that can beset a person. 4.2.2 People should respect and not violate the rights and feelings of other people without a just reason. These laws are very similar to the laws of liberal democracy, plus common sense moral laws based on the perception of the human brain. Therefore people should aim to follow the laws of liberal democracy, however it is acknowledged that currently certain minor laws are not enforced by the authorities, the authorities will be understanding towards breaking of certain laws such as in self defence situations and others. Currently in liberal democracy there are occasions where your rights as an individual are violated by the authorities for the benefit of society such as the illegality of euthanasia or illegality of certain sexual practices between consenting adults in private. In Natural Law religion it is advised that the relevant people and authorities should try to reach a solution which meets the satisfaction of the parties concerned. 4.2.3 People should spend a certain amount of their time and/or money which they themselves are happy with, towards just or charitable causes. For example by giving money to disabled or orphan charities. 4.2.4 People should not harm other life forms without a just reason. 4.2.5 People should maintain their environment (i.e. water, land, air) in a fashion which is responsible towards others and future generations. 4.2.6 People are advised to have an understanding of their surroundings (e.g. other humans, other life forms, environment, universe, etc.) from a scientific perspective. 4.2.7 People are advised to provide help to other life forms and to improve the environment, where and when appropriate. 4.2.8 As humans are omnivores they can consume other life forms, however it is advised that people should refrain from consuming intelligent life forms such as dogs and dolphins. 4.2.9 People are also advised to be financially comfortable during their life, so that they would not encounter any real hardships such as not having enough money for food, not having enough money for medical treatments, etc. 4.3 Type 3 - Equality laws 4.3.1 Life is not the same for all humans, as some are born with disability, different circumstances, etc., and god being intellectually perfect will want equality in the standard of life for all humans. Using equality laws the value of a human life is dependent on what the person has strive to achieve and the circumstances. The above means when spending time and/or money for just or charitable causes, people should be aware of the inequality of human life on Earth. For example giving money to a charitable organisation in a third world country rather than a modern affluent country, because the need in the third world country is the greatest. The above also means that liberal democracies should have an ethical foreign policy. 4.3.2 Unfortunately some people violate the rights and feeling of others either purposely or inadvertently. God would want equality in justice, meaning when all the relevant information for the trial is fully known and the just trial is conducted by a perfect judge(s), the punishing for the guilty should commensurate equally with the level of transgression against the victim(s). Natural Law religion acknowledge that regrettably perfect justice can not be achieved, however unlike current liberal democracies, Natural Law religion proposes the use of professional jurors for fairer trials and consistent verdicts especially as the current system is based on an all-or-nothing innocent before proven guilty concept. Unlike current liberal democracies in Natural Law religion the civil liberty rights of the innocent people are considered higher than the civil liberty rights of the criminals even if the criminal has paid his/her dept to society. Within reason the civil liberty rights of the criminal can be restricted to attempt to protect civil liberty rights of the innocent. For example the criminal has to declare his/her criminal history to the neighbourhood by placing a sign in the window and other measures. 4.3.3 Just after conception the embryo with its complete set of DNA is considered as an independent human being which uses the body of the mother as an incubator. God perceiving humans as animals will also perceive the embryo as having the same rights as a fully formed human being. Because of medical progress this embryo with great certainty will be born and will continue to function as a human being, he/she will likely to go to school, work and have one or more children. Unlike current liberal democracies in Natural Law religion the life of the embryo can only be terminated because of exceptional circumstances, for example if the pregnancy were continued the health of the mother would be seriously effected. At the present time to try to avoid abortions, many choices are available such as better education on various issues for society - 13:33:39 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--more anonymous long-winded cut-and-paste bullshit, I see.--:NO-NAME: 'Natural Law Religion' is a tri-oxymoron. - 14:43:28 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I knew there was some time-wasting in the government, but I had no IDEA it had sunk to the level of officially critiqueing television shows. Next week should we expect him to rip apart "Barney and Friends" and the new "Big Brother" show? The $$ spent on his collossal waste of time should be calculated and deducted from his (obviously unearned) paycheck. - 22:24:19 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:ACK! NO NAME, would you mind posting a link, or breaking up the post somehow? No way would I try to muddle through all that! - 22:25:16 on 16 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:New age wacko warning::"The individual should have a deep respect and should bring their personal life style in to harmony with scientific and mathematical laws which represent the reality around us. This includes leading a physically and mentally healthy life, as well as in a scientific manner exploring the limits of our pleasurable senses such as through responding to our human primal instincts and senses, psychology, hypnosis, aroma therapy, meditation for self development, spiritualism by coming close to god, etc." Is Betty or Josh and company behind this crack pot post? - 2:31:54 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Good thing you had the patience to read it, I didn't. It sure sounds like fern sniffin material! I suppose we are all supposed to "get the vibes" on who posted it. - 2:58:56 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene"It must be part of the quantum crack pot collective that Josh and Betty belong to.LOL. This touchy feely stuff is wearing thin on my patience.I was at the book store tonight and sat in the philosophy section browsing through some books; which is just across from the religion and occult(new age) section.What a shame that so many people are eating up this brain rot like it had such importance. What a waste of cranial space for the already cerebrally impared. - 4:30:37 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Time- lagged conversation:CARL-- I'm unsure what you're asking in regard to "essentially incorporating us", but have to agree with you on the "deranged" observation. - 13:17:40 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: of the posts bearing your pseudonym, is it safe to figure you are still above ground? Cool. - 15:01:01 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That list of hits at this site, it is an impressive audience. Heck! I figgered, for whatever unfounded reason, it was just us few here. And the US government! In that case I meant nothing, absolutely nothing, in regards to that incorporating comment. Humans in gov't, they suffer too from mind sets, i.e., dogmas etc. While T.Jefferson and others back when sed, education was good, the followers of TJ, et.al., see themselves as protectors of something, so only a proper education can be good. - 15:15:29 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Golly! that natural law religion sure looks like what I have been searching for. Heheh, what is with that idea as if we must have or anyone needs ta'have before or in them that kind o'idea? I can see how the godthing idea is maybe some superordinate term which for some, its probable, serves as a well being or feel good word. Afterall words as transcendenatl contrivances are pretty human'nd surely have made it easier for the human organism to exist. Is it the relationships of humanity that is "religion" or is it the individual feel good of "theism" that such humans must adhere? - 17:40:12 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, "the only thing we have in common as atheists is the lack of belief in god, gods, blue fairies, pink unicorns and universal consciousness".....every time you post that I crack up! - 19:02:11 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:SHOULD BE INTERESTING...this Sunday a group of us UUers decided on the adult study lessons for the coming year. We voted in "Understanding the Bible" as one course. Though it was suggested before we list our topics in the paper we change the name to "arguing the bible" :-). I'm sort of looking forward to it. The first thing every "arguing with theists" page says is to read the bible. You have to know it better than those you argue with (there is soooo much good material in there to argue on their own turf). It'll be much more fun studying it w/ a group of skeptics than on my own. I'm disappointed "Religions of the World" didn't get voted in, as I'm sorely uneducated on many of them. I like to point out the similiarities of xianity to other religions (especially the ancient ones from which it was obviously *to me* derived). Seeing the continuity and evolution of the belief systems is interesting to me...and so telling that religion evolves and adapts to the growing and changing needs of the people. To me that makes it so obvious that it is INVENTED to fill these needs, but doesn't ever seem quite so obvious to those immersed in it. - 19:08:21 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: don't fret you can still make the same analogy while studying the bible; after all that's your imput into what you read.You should read Joseph Campbell's "The Mask's of God"**** the 4 volume thesis is very readable and gives historcal examples of the evolution of religious concepts. Campbell tends to favor the eastern; buddhist view as the universal one and points out where xianity includes these views and concepts and where they made mistakes. - 20:48:21 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Awhile back when I wuz preparing to discuss some beginings of the human animal w/some dude, that point you mention o'J.Campbell's views o'the east fits w\what I ran into. What I noted was over time the reported views simply changed. Most religious accounts I read originate out of china and india. That point was the prevailing POV up until it seems the late 1800's. With the german and french accounts religious reports began to take on a different concern. Things are not what some would like them to be. - 22:57:09 on 17 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: I thought there is a dividing line in Persia between eastern thought and western thought. - 14:52:37 on 18 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: in a shot from the hip, howzabout this, if writing is a human deed and the differences in writing are of a social and cultural nature, which are relevant consequences of the environment, the styles that formed between east and west are what one sees? Those styles are simply a narrative- there is a story teller, or drama- a detached account of 'things'. Of the latter, the recent visitor BETTY seemed to seek such an account of things. Another example o'which all I can do is tell about concerns a book I read of chinese math that was published in the early 1900s but was of material extant in the 1800's. In it I read a most interestingly explanation that was difficult for me to follow of the pythagorian math diddy. I recognised the figures pertinent to that notion but its telling was very different. Of the narrative POV, well all one has to do is check any bible and its 'personal god'. That book- IMHO, reeks of "a" storyteller that drags one into its story. This perspective this idea seems to be forming, - 17:01:45 on 18 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: yes, social communications are an important function of transmiting concepts.One of the ones that gets me is that ,in the east everyone is a god. In classical western religions that's blasphemy. The other point is; in the east gods came from the void. This idea isn't possible without sacrilege in the west.Our friend Betty was a Thoroughly western person. She wanted so much to be part of the whole, but missed out on the point of social commitment to the family over the individual.Betty also missed the part of a teacher: A teacher never tells the answer without a question first. - 22:53:37 on 18 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:I was sitting back today wondering why so many people believe in god. There is no reason to...no logical proof...This makes me really sad, to realize that so many billions of people have never really examined their life and their happiness relys on their emotions only. I believe that this feeling exists in most of Atheists' hearts. How can we overcome such a widespread disinformation? We need to get Atheism in the media...into the public, somehow it must get out. - 6:56:23 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- atheist doesn't require a capital. - 13:50:26 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: so an atheist has "that kind" of heart? - 15:36:46 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: Don't take that query as a link to the derogatory ignorant religious account of the heart. The religious usage of the heart idea is viewed by me as a childish explanation[per A.Korzybski's "Manhood of Humanity"] of human things for times when humans did not know how and what it means for a human to know. Who knows what the human may know, if such organisms still exist, with the'morrow? At the present time, that heart idea seems to have been scooped up by the newager types. You know, the advocates of the thinking heart books. I can make out something for what these folk want to say but I'm not buying into the, feel good accounts, as such currently are or seem to be conveyed. - 17:14:19 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: did i say anything about capital?! im just saying that atheism needs to be spread... im not some christian that you need to debate with ok? so calm down - 21:12:39 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Carl...heart meaning my emotions...If you are so opposed to my view then tell me that there being so many Christians or people of religion and so few Atheists does not make you sad or mad... - 21:22:11 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: A concern of mine is communication among and between all humans. In the past few years as the most recent form of communication continued and continues to develop, computers, those who have taken on the "responsibility" of safegaurding society, IMHO, have been seeking to establish control of computer connections. The positions they take seem eerily medieval-like. Back then things like the printing press and book publications were just becoming real. Or actually, it was people that were just beginning to communicate ideas about things and ways of living, mere existence. True it was ugly as the ways of living were sorted, but it proceeded and one of the outcomes was called progress. These computers strike me as a concern of these contemporary safeguarders because like of old it enlightens and upgrades the intellectual life of most people. The only real problem, as it was back then, is it still only that of a certain few not being at the doorway of financial wealth? But the public relations account will be that of public safety and that old time religious warning of "whats to be known"! That is the cry from the dark-ages, the religious response is only a godthing needs be known, and will or must the battle go on, as of olden times? - 22:03:47 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: Not opposed to you at all, just asking what and how you meant the term- heart, to be understood. You have stated that to you it means a symbolic reference to your emotions. But is not that word itself nothing but a symbolic reference to the neural/glandular etc., interactivity{or is it inneractivity?} of a body? These are only the electrochemical reactions to outer stimuli as they are pertinent to its- the bodys, continued existence, no? - 22:20:00 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:CARL: yep,that would be what emotions are i guess. im dont know hardly anything about neurology, but i am interested in that topic... - 23:55:56 on 19 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Calm down? Was I upset? I don't think so...just correcting you're grammer, mind you, a task like that could take up the page...Once again, "atheist" is not a proper noun. Why would I be "mad" (by that I'm sure you mean angry or sad that more people aren't atheists? - 0:34:39 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:Oops correcting my own grammer.."you're" is supposed to be "your" , my weakness! - 0:36:02 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene:Oops correcting my own grammer....is grammer really what matters or is it the idea? - 2:04:02 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:MARLENE also no need to be a bitch - 2:04:38 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:IAN-- Feeling sorry for the unenlightened, are we? You're not going to say we just need to educate the masses, are you? - 11:40:56 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Hummm...Ian, your anger toward me sounds very familiar, lol! How was the daughter's wedding? - 12:45:08 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--a vote for the stoat--:ALL: Methinks IAN to be a young weasel in chickensh** clothing. - 12:57:46 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Almost too funny to und-ermine.:One has to wonder about effort/reward ratios. - 13:25:44 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--Why, I otter....:GRANT: That horn-blower's is definitely a Ho! ratio. - 13:33:09 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Is it grammar before idea or vice-versa, which comes first? Recommend reading,"The Psychology of Writing" author Ronald T. Kellogg, pub.Oxford Univ.Press 1994. Its different and maybe even good. - 14:42:43 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene..a little advice..:IAN- I noticed when you're angry, you forget to type like a child. When taking on alternate personalities one should keep a check on their emotions, otherwise one totally blows their cover. - 17:33:36 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: If IAN is from the checkered misty past any guesses on IAN's identity? - 17:40:10 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene who recognizes a control freak anywhere, anyhow, anytime:CARL- Yup! Who else has that "take over" and "control" by means of "cosmic consciousness" or "A-theism" attitude? - 19:13:23 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:hahaha...you guys are a bunch of losers...is this an insult discussion board or is it atheist discussion board? What are you talking about Carl? Marlene, I hope you get a rush out of insulting people, since your life is so damn boring. You freaks sit here all day long at this stupid chat board, get a fucking life. - 22:17:32 on 20 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Back to typing like an adult, I see. BTW, obviously you're pretty freaky and have no life either as you've posted just as much or more than the rest of us. If you want to discuss atheism, why not answer the question I asked? - 0:45:24 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Oh, rats-- just a polecat... :..and charmer Pepe Le Pew it ain't. - 1:43:34 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Yo, CRISTY. Have you heard about this? - 4:13:18 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:What question did you ask Marlene besides insulting me? - 5:21:54 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:Okay IAN, why would I be angry or sad because more people aren't atheists? - 12:49:59 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas Wootton a.k.a. (FatFredToo):If you can't touch it, taste it, smell it, see it, or hear it, It Ain't Real! Is there anyone out there like me? I ponder this question with every beat of my heart. Big world I see, now that I own a P.C. Can someone please contact me, and explain, "Why I don't feel free, even though I live in a place that has guaranteed me the ultimate FREEDOM?" If you can't afford them, DON'T HAVE THEM! Why do people continue to have kids? As if that is'nt bad enough, they keep filling their heads with fantasies, until the child is so overwhelmed with illogic, he/she does'nt know which way to turn. I myself, have just about given up on society. I mean, why stick around in a world of Torture, Unhappiness, Rape, and Nonsense? 7-21-2000 Is this your calender? I need people around me who choose to Love, Care, and Share. So, if you choose to be my friend, I hope you like my new calander. It starts today, 01-01-0000. - 13:00:35 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, a lady I "met" on the PP board attends that church. I think it really is true that alot of freethinkers need the fellowship such a church provides. Being in a minority all the time is rather trying, it's nice to find others in your area (as well as on the 'net :) to connect with. I think it is a really good thing for the kids too, having such a peer group. I think the UU has kind of filled that gap in lots of areas, but purely freethinking fellowship would be great, so the god issue wouldn't still come up so much. - 13:12:29 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Thomas, you sound kind of depressed. What has happened to turn you so off of people having kids? Just curious what has taken all the joy out of your existence. Sounds rather sad :-( - 13:13:52 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

thomas:I guess once you have seen the lack of care, humans provide for children, and the continued abuse caused to them. Hey, you don't have to analyze me, I'm one of the good guys. You know, once you've seen something like Bear-Baiting, you really start to ponder your existence. See, that's why I'm here. I'm trying to find people who's minds are REALLY FREE! This is the first time I,have ever used a P.C. I got it to search for, "The Good Ones." Shoot I don't even type, but, I'm coming along. Hey, Christy what's a URL? Thanks. - 13:29:34 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

thomas:Sorry about the h Cristy. That was'nt very nice to misspell your name. In fact, I appreciate the way you spell your name. - 13:35:09 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:I just finished reading the old posts. To me it seems like a few of you need to search a little deeper for the Real World. Man, who wrote that nonsense on 7-16. I wish y'all would converse with me a little. Like I said I'm a virgin at this. Can't anyone direct me to people like myself? Y'all seem a little self-absorbed. Which is a sure bet you don't like to share. I await a reply before leaving your sorted little group. Hope to be Freinds. Sincerely Thomas. P.S. "Animals Rule" - 14:31:10 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: What a timely post GRANT. It falls in along the line of thought for what IAN asks. An interesting site. I can make out what they mean when those folk say they just need to be around 'like minds'. That opinion is my view of this site, this is a place where I don't have to offend myself- that which I think I am, with ideas instigated by ancient dead people for acts conceived and directed at figments of their imagination of the unknown. Now and then discussions here do grow into interesting depthy exchanges. IAN suggested the promotion of atheism, well as a "church" atheism would have a reference for and of exposure, all that is needed is a plan with objectives which necessarily will involve some capital[tithes?] and some people to incorporate for some planned decision making. Hmmm? Who were those old boys who started up the Mormons or the USA black muslims? - 15:06:03 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene..I just bet this ain't your first time:THOMAS- We seem a "little self-absorbed" LOL LOL LOL! Some people just don't give up! If you truly want to stick around and discuss something, post a nice clear subject to discuss. - 15:09:54 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:THOMAS: 'self-absorbed' huh? Looks like a water shed, we others are gonna be with you or agin'ya. heheh, that can be fun. If you have a specific point for discussion and review, please express it for consideration. - 15:25:32 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: You expressed a concern of what was important an idea or its conveyance, the book mentioned has some suggestions you might like, or need to see. - 15:46:48 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:Check with Gateway Marlene. This is my first time. See, down here in Miami, it's a world of confusion. Multi-Cultural religious, afraid to be yourself,go nowhere with your life, type folks. It sickens me, to see or hear, anything that has to do with, a non-scientific approach to the world. Especially, the Latin folk. I want out but, where do I go? Here you go Carl., How about abusing, torturing, and let's not forget the big K, animals, that don't have any choices. All for their gods. I guess once I receive y'alls thoughts, then I'll understand y'all more. By the way, I'm 35, born and raised in Coral Gables. Typing sux, so, could someone tell me about that voice command deal for my P.C. I ain't got nutt'n to lie about, do you. here's my # 305 461 4370 feel free to call me anytime. Y'all can't be any worse, than the folks down here. And, what is a URL. Gott'a go Barbecue. Thanks again, Thomas Wootton. - 16:04:30 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:THOMAS- Your typing will improve with time and posting on discussions like this, believe me! I didn't type a word until I started on this board five or six years ago. I'm from Manitoba, Canada. More later, my granddaughter calls.. - 16:26:28 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:THOMAS: are you -BQing an ex-animal on a fire consuming an ex-ozygen making tree? Miami huh? So it seems to you that the human elements there do have the substantive connections satisfactory to your intellectual emotional well being? But geez, they there were so concerned about the very growth and well being of that poor but cute little cuban kids happy better future existence. Was all that just pretended stuff? - 16:31:10 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:amends; 3rd sentence s/b...,human elements there do "not" have etc.etc. as you may apprehend THOMAS, typing good or bad is a fact of one's PC existence, - 17:06:48 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:THOMAS, a URL is an address for a website, like http://www.man-made.net/cgi-bin/relig.cgi is the URL for this page. So you're a new Gateway user, we buy Gateways too. I'm not assuming you're a bad guy by analyzing you, I am just pointing out that it might be something you need to talk about. Maybe you're just venting, and that's fine. But I do think you need to find a way to see the good in the world, not just the bad. Find a way to help those kids that need it (or is that what has gotten you so much exposure to the bad?). I would recommend a move, IMO there are more "sane" places than Miami! (Not that I've been there, just hearsay.) What kind of place are you looking for? Why don't you feel free? - 17:20:14 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:*g* after that last post I feel like Lucy on the Peanuts. Deposit 5 cents, the doctor is IN. LOL! Oh yeah Thomas, if you mean why is there a URL box next to the Name box, if you type in a URL it will create a link to that site, for everyone to follow and look at. Like Grant did in an above post to me. - 17:42:35 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: well looks like the geocities server- or whatever, has updated its URL to show this site-manmade net, as good for the old version-man is manmade. Wonder what happened to all those people who lived at the former named site? - 18:54:55 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:That was an interesting site grant posted. If 5% of American's are Atheists then there must be some way to have Atheist churches, with all those people. The problem is they aren't aware or don't think of this opportunity to spread Atheism. The reason that most Atheists, being in the minority, on the most part don't interact much. Another reason Atheists have problems coming together is their varying Philosophical views. - 20:32:57 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Exactly, the only thing we absolutely have in common is a lack of belief in god, gods and many other supernatural ideas. If some people need "togetherness" why not meet and work toward some common goal like feeding the needy but it would be senseless to do it in the "name" of non- belief. - 22:59:52 on 21 Jul 100 GMT

Joette:IAN - you hit the nail on the head when you said that there may not be much interaction amongst atheists because of philosophical viewpoints. I was flabbergasted when you asked "why aren't there atheist churches". Now, to me, that defeats the purpose of being an atheist. It would just become another religion with its own political agenda. Certainly not something I would want to be part of. - 0:16:53 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I don't really think it is "senseless" at all to come together in the name of non-belief. Anyone wanting to get together with like-mindeds, hear new ideas, and just seek refuge from a world in which they are a minority can benefit from these gatherings. I'm sure most also work on charity goals, but many have personal needs for such fellowships. Like those of us at this site. - 0:18:42 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:JOETTE- Who says an Atheist church will have an agenda? I remember a few years ago when I was a Christian and I asked an Atheist what do you believe in. He responded, "I believe in anything that can be proved." As an Atheist we need to try and discover new things, Philosophically and Scientificly. There are alot of questions that I would like to answer, and I am sure alot of other people want to find the answer to also. A group of humans can do alot more work, intellectually, that just one. That is why Atheists need to come together and interact. Nothing is wrong with a little interaction with those who have similar views that you do. - 0:36:49 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene....I think you should read the first message I ever posted.... - 0:39:38 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- To come together for "fellowship" is fine but to do so because one has no belief in a supernatural being is doing so "just because" of non-belief? There are many people who don't believe the blue fairy exists but a fellowship isn't created for it's support. I can't agree with this. I'm more like-minded to Joette's suggestion that such a fellowship will eventually just create another religion with the baggage it is burdened with, the dogma, the politics... - 0:54:10 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- So you don't want to answer the question? suits me! - 0:55:53 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW- Take for instance those atheists who don't believe in caring about others, who don't have any code of ethics, would they then, "not really be atheists"? I think what some here are looking for is Humanism and there are gatherings for this. Most Humanists are atheists but not all atheists are Humanists. - 0:59:48 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: The problem I find is that Humanism wants to recreate a "church" with clergy. In my area they want humanists to support the Humanist clergy.That's something I personally don't want to do. I resent the fact that there are Humanist ministers, what ever happened to jutices of the peace? Aren't they good and secular enough? No, we don't need a new class of social workers/secular clergy to take the place of our theist's ones.Society can do without a holy self rightous class of moralizers. As a atheist, I'm responsible for my own thoughts and actions and highly resent a class of new clergy trying to dictate my thoughts. No, I wouldn't mind a club or society with democraticly elected officers. this sort of organization would be fun: Discount museum tickets, Wholesale products,Beach trips, dances,etc. We all have our personal charities, so our social clubs need not focus on our "collective guilt", that we're not doing enough.Blah! I'm sick of groups that can't have fun without the guilt trip of betraying the cause because you have cook out or birthday party. - 2:42:02 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:Can I spell atheist? I really do not know. So am I a Humanist? Ian your wrong. Marlene, How's your grand-daughter? What a day, of course after meeting y,all. Man, sometimes being in Dade County has it's benefits. What a Bar-be-cue! So, Cristy, all I see is bad? Sure BoB! (SAM KINISON) I appreciate life in it's purist form. The natural ability of people to choose the direction they (follow) no, want to perceive, is a continuing education in my life. I definitely need help, if I'm going to pursue the path I've chosen. Guys, it's all best intentions, but let's talk. Once again, I appreciate the respnse. Does it all get easier? Thank You. "Gourdo" a.k.a. Thomas Wootton - 2:54:55 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:Y - 2:59:06 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas Wootton:SHOWTIME: Joette, How did politics get mixed up with religion? I know your waiting for a true answer,but, I'll take your veiw this time. NO LIE Cristy, Caring/Sharing, does that relate to Charity? As far as (Fellowship), you need to chill, damn it. Don't use a (churchword) to mean we can be Friends. WRONG IAN! Let the Discover channel discover new things. The only reason (it will never work) Atheists need to come together is, to stop religious CRAP. Screw the Philosophical aspect. Bad Word : fellowship. (context wise). No Marlene, just sorry human beings. (59:48) RIGHTEOUS: (Badword) DOUG IS COOL! Wow , what a day Thank you so much for all your HELP! Ihave'nt figured it all out yet, but, while I was at the B_B_que I read the owners manual too COOL. Little by Little,Your Friend , Thomas A.K.A."GOURDO" - 3:47:43 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

THomas A.K.A."GOURDO":Get use to it, I need truth in my LIFE! No need to lie or be frightened. Let's shed the outrageous mortal belief in the hereafter. Take to heart (not to soul) your inner being. Please, I don't know how to reach Y'all! WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE? - 4:02:04 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, Thomas. We sorta check in at random around here. People leave posts, then check back later. Not often are a bunch of people active at once. You could get more specific, or just hang around and get the feel of the place for a while. I'm not too clear on what you desire. - 4:30:45 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas :CRISTYTIME:What is a U.U. church? So, nursery school has a more positive impact on those minds, than your own teachings? How old? What's a Kid's program? Whyd do you need to find a balance? religion is or is not! Being educated about religion is a choice. The same as smoking, drinking, or doing drugs. Now adays, it's not as prevalentas sex, but,just as DANGEROUS! Obviously, you can't afford them, so why did you have them? There is nothing culturally, or historically, significant about religion; IT'S JUST WRONG! Sure Bob; Ferret out the truth, from, getting a present at christmas. Fellowship:(BADWORD) Then don't have them. Or move to an acceptable SOCIAL SCENE. Sorry I jumped in , but let's be real. (STUPID STATEMENT): I do not, nor will I ever believe, that religious people don't want to have their children educated. They coerce their kids into their sects. "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints." Sure Bob; "Heaven does'nt want me and Hell's afraid Ill rule." Both statements are CRAP! Can you tell Gourdo why? What's next? I wonder if I will become a minor PEST or speaker of the PESTS? 18:20:34: 110% DICKFACE. god is just three letters in the alphabet. It's not a sentence, nor a proper name. Basically, G.O.D. is worthless. If you are serious about your belief, than you would'nt live in a country, that bases their entire financial structure on the words; "In god We Trust." I can! 18:30:31:(Is that what y'all need?)That which you cannot Touch, Taste, Smell, See, or Hear, cannot exist in the Physical World. Is ther some other World I'm missing? 22:43:45 Neither do I Cristy! That's what i've been asking y'all.22:55:40 IAN Not in Mental Ways. How do you think religion got started? - 6:43:38 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:THOMAS, to tell you the truth, I can make very little sense out of your post! MARLENE, why shouldn't non-believers have some political power? I think it is necessary, as the other side has TONS of power. And how do we get power you ask? By coming together and working toward common goals. If that seems too much like xian churches for the comfort of some, *shrug* so be it. To me that is just letting bias and bigotry cut off an avenue that can benefit both the individual atheist and the atheist community. And people afraid that the ministers of these non-religious or liberal-religion communities will be spouting morality directives just as the xian ministers do obviously haven't attended any of the services. Mostly what they encourage is thinking for yourself and coming up with your own answers, while educating about various routes that can be taken to find your own path. Being fearful and prejudiced against that which you don't understand is a fundie POV, not one I'd expect from freethinkers. - 15:45:11 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Thomas, here is a UU link. The congregations run the gamut from liberally xian, to fairly spiritual, to humanist or atheist. But they welcome everyone with an open mind. - 15:47:59 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Hey Cristy. I'm was addressing all your previous posts. If you go back, say to, - 16:20:06 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Gourdo :Damn P.C., I'm having a Dickens of a time learning to type. As I was saying Cristy, If you go back 7-10-2000, you will see that the post I left for you this morning, adresses all your comments up to now. I gather I should of explained this, but, I was beat after 10 hrs. of Barbequing. Well, hope to converse with y'all later. Hope the kids and hubby are well. Sincerely, Thomas. - 16:29:28 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:Ijust have to know who propitiation is. Or what it is. Not being much of name caller, except in jest, this moron is the straw that broke the camels back. What fucking planet are you from? I appreciate all opinions but, where you raised by Cybils Mom? Instead of holding your water, why don't you hold your breath. That way we don't have to smell the garbage you spew out that mouth, DICKFACE. I hope my post does'nt offend anyone. If it does I'll tone down a little next time. Later, Gourdo. - 16:47:28 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Desdenova:Hello, I am frequently looking for new areas to exchange ideas, and just debate religion. I have never used this type of format before, so please forgive me if I am breaking some form of protocol. I am an agnostic, a humanist, and an extropian. I believe that we are each accountable for our actions, not to some mythical sky fairy, but to the rest of humanity. I had no idea that humanists had any churches, let alone ministers. The very concept sounds contradictory to me, kind of like calling atheism a religion. A friend of mine in the communities once said " atheism is a religion like NOT collecting postage stamps is a hobby." I see the need for a loose coalition of humanists, but nothing so primitive as a church. - 17:00:23 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Gourdo:Hey Cristy, How do I find out about local folk here in Miami, who share similar non-beliefs. Y'all are the first Website I've been to. Where do I go from here. Also, who pays for this Man-Made deal? Do y'all need a contribution or anything? P.S. It may seem confusing, but, Thomas Wootton is my name, Gourdo is my nickname. Gourdo's Gourmet Goodies is my business. Got'ta go, wash the dogs, clean the Hamsters, feed the fish, and take care of the wild birds. ANIMALS RULE! - 17:02:12 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:DESDENOVA, welcome, and you are doing fine just jumping into the conversation. Personally I am rather thrilled that the conversation is going BACK to atheism, as it was rather "out there" for a while. So present any related topics you wish to discuss and you'll be up and running here. You say churches are "primitive", why is that? They have been around for thousands of years, or they are "unevolved"? The reason they are still around after all these centuries, in all their different forms, is that they meet a basic need in many people to have a COMMUNITY of people that share their views. Some of those views are harmful, some not, but obviously it is an effective way of meeting this need people have. In our increasingly large cities, with impersonal means of communication and spread out families, some of us are starting to miss the sense of community that comes with "belonging" somewhere ..........GOURDO, which name are you going to go by? Just to ease confusion, could you choose one? Thanks! Also, perhaps you can address one comment at a time, or make reference to the comment you are responding to. When it is a jumble of responses to comments of different posts, it is too much work to sort out. Let's say you want to address a specific sentence I typed 5 days ago. Say something like "on 7-10, you said 'blah blah blah'". You can cut and paste so you don't have to type it over. That is most helpful when you are referring to something that is no longer on the current page. As for the foul words, I can only speak for myself when I say I'd rather this place not be reduced to mud slinging and name calling. I'd hope it would remain more dignified than that. - 18:52:18 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GOURDO, go to this link (http://www.atheistalliance.org/florida/), the florida atheist alliance. I just went to a search engine (I use www.hotbot.com) and searced for "miami atheist" and got several links. - 19:01:29 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Also scroll to the top of this man-made page, and click "site index". Then on that page, click "Links". That will give you links to lots of national atheist sites. - 19:03:52 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I agree mostly but still don't like the group idea, I'm still with Joette on that one. - 23:39:37 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:THOMAS- I like Thomas, these handle names are difficult to relate to. I've posted a few times under an assumed name, mostly around mythmas time but it just wasn't me. - 23:42:33 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- It's interesting how many people on this page would attend a gathering such as the UU. Atheists here seem to be split about 50/50 on this issue. - 23:44:27 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:DES- Welcome! I loved the postage stamp analogy! - 23:46:00 on 22 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, disagreeing just gives us more interesting conversation, eh? Be boring if we just sat around saying "ditto" :-) - 1:37:40 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- True! Anyone watching that ABC movie tonight? - 2:34:08 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Thomas you are getting really anoying...all you do is say negative stuff. CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING POSITIVE????? It really sounds like you have had a bad life. Go to a shrink, don't come to a discussion board. - 2:46:43 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:My idea of an Atheist "Chruch" is not like the xian chruch where you have ONE guy just spouting out his ideas. I don't think I would even call it a church come to think of it. It would be more comprehensive, more like a club meeting. Everybody would be on equal ground and you would talk about certain "topics". Say once a week Atheists would come and share ideas with each other, no harm done. It would be kind of like this discussion board, but better because people would have actual human interaction and be able to share thoughts faster. - 2:54:56 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:Ian, your absolutley right, except about my life. What exactly do you mean "explore life in mental ways"? I supposed, you were Free-Minded, just exactly where does your mind go on having no-beliefs. It's like Desdenova, (by the way "HOWDY") she makes the statement, "I believe we are each accountable for our actions". You are never totally free if you have beliefs. We should be accountable for our actions, but, this should come from our conscience, on what we know is right or wrong. Des (I hope you don't mind the abbreviation) being accountable for our actions, should be LAW! Not bad for a guy with a 9th grade education, hunh? Looking forward to POSITIVE future discussions. Sincerely, Thomas. - 3:17:49 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Thomas:Hey Y'all, Would someone be kind enough to explain who, or how, this Man-Made.net thing works? I mean, how does it pay for itself? Wondering! Goodnight Y'all, Thomas. - 3:38:31 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:When I saw explore life in mental ways I mean get to know yourself, try to grasp for an understanding in life(if there is one.) Basically to ask certain Philosophical questions. - 4:19:54 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:Thomas...I've seen you strike down a lot of people's ideas here, like you are some authority on the subject, yet you have only a 9th grade education. You say let the discovery channel discover things. If you are not going to explore life, then what the hell are you going to do? Lets see what the cocky Thomas wants to do besides criticize Atheist discussion boards. What are your views on life oh mighty Thomas? - 4:27:40 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

To Y'all:Equality for all human beings. It's simple that way. By the way, my veiws on life are not essential to benefit you, or anyone else's intellectual capacities. See, it does'nt matter what I think, because, no matter how many human beings side with me, there will never be enough of us to stop all of them. I gather by your comments, that you are still searching for inner peace. I have discovered that assurance in my life. Now, I'm looking for others who share this same feeling. Thus, my reason for buying a computer, and my logical assumption, I would find fellow human beings, to share down to Earth thoughts with. I choose not to dwell on, or bitch about, why people are the way they are. Instead, I choose to Love, Care, and Share with those who are less fortunate than myself. Sometimes, I do this to a fault, and hurt myself, and those close to me. So, I need to fly with with some folks who are in touch with themselves, and avoid those who dwell on never ending issues, such as, why am I here, or my other favorite, WHERE AM I GOING! See, where I am now, is much more important logically, because, life is short, and there are many lives out there that I can Love, Care, and Share with. I apologize to all of you for wasting your precious time, I mean this sincerely. I miscalculated and should have read the posts before opening my big mouth. I did'nt realize your goals. I don't choose to yap about god, church, and their other related subjects. To me, those topics just don't exist. Before leaving your sorted little group,I'll check in tommorrow to say goodbye. It was a pleasure conversing with Y'all. Thanks to Cristy,I now understand how to continue my search. Appreciate Y'all Popping My Internet Cherry! Now, get to bed. You've got church today! See ya'. Thomas Wootton. P.S. When I used the word sorted, I meant it to mean, assortment or people of many different veiws. I surely did'nt mean anything derogitory. - 6:02:15 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Ian:See how much better it is when you talk about YOURSELF and how you feel. I would like to hear more. You shouldn't give up hope about atheism. Christianity wasn't always big. It got to be big because people gave their life to it. I'm not about to do that for Atheism(whats the point?) but some devotion and action might sway people's ideas. Why couldn't you make posts like this from the start Thomas? - 9:02:11 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:THOMAS- Goals? I didn't mention any goals. - 14:38:33 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Belief in the supernatural has always been big, much more popular than accepting the natural. - 14:40:43 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:THOMAS, Grant is the one who set up this chat board and maintains it, so when he gets back he can answer your question on how it is maintained. Personally I have no idea! I know some chat boards work on free server space, or perhaps Grant owns his own server. None of us contribute anything (that I'm aware of) so I always assumed it didn't cost Grant anything. Hope I'm not wrong about that! I hope you don't assume you have nothing to contribute or to learn from this board, because of a bumpy start. We cover all kinds of topics here, and we were all new at one time. Might as well hang around as you're getting the hang of it! - 15:57:11 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:IAN, what you described is alot like the UU church I attend. A program committee (which anyone can be on) chooses weekly (well, every-other-weekly) speakers. It might be a UU minister, or a lady talking about herbs, or a guy talking about volunteerism. Some of the programs are just having everyone bring flowers to exchange, or bringing a favorite reading to share. The adult education classes are on the odd weeks, and we just pick a lesson to sit around the table and discuss. Maybe a book discussion, or a pre-made lesson plan on racism or something. They do try not to let the xian-bashing get out of hand. *s* Anyone can be on the committee to pick the lessons, and they beg for volunteers to lead the lessons (there are lots of Indians and not many Chiefs there). I'll be doing one on ethics and relationships. I think the word church evokes the image of the priest at the pulpit shaking his finger and telling you you're going to hell, and some at our UU prefer the word "fellowship" for that reason. But hey, I don't like to let the xians set all the definitions! I'd rather change the concept of what a church is. Maybe it will annoy them *g* - 16:08:31 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Grant won't likely want to post on this but I know this site costs Grant each year. I offered to put in a little then my little granddaughter happened along and the extra cash went there. I still plan to send some to help but my money is worth only about half of yours so what I can send likely won't help too much. I'd like to see this page stay on the net and I'm not saying that Grant isn't intending to keep it here either but I love it here and want to contribute finacially to help. - 17:43:17 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, can you e-me? I lost your addy when I got a new computer and am trying to build back up my address book. cristyleean@hotmail.com (if you still have the old one it works too, this is the one I've started using for posting in public places) - 19:32:19 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

thomas:Thaks, C&M, I'll converse with G when he posts. Later, Tom. - 20:00:33 on 23 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:I don't know about my email???? CRISTY did you get my email? - 1:01:33 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

God Evening Y'all:What happened, did everybody take the sabbath off? Hey guys, just thought I'd check in on every ones thoughts for the day. I'm kind'a worried if, I may post mine. Well, I'm tired for a change, so, I'll converse (post, I've got to get use to that word) my veiws, and news tommorrow. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT. Waiting, Thomas. - 2:55:10 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Nuts and bolts :Been off in the hoorahs camping. Seems to be necessary for me occasionally, as I'm a rural type in the big city. --- I pay a web hosting service to host the site. I pay the registration fees for the domain name, man-made.net. I hired two young freelance cgi programmers to make it possible to block malicious posters back when the Druid was trying to drive us off. They didn't charge much-- I think they got a kick out of it. I seriously considered shutting down a couple of times when the hit count was down at around 12-14/day, but we're now in the 200's. As long as the thing is active I suppose I'll keep it going. I like it. I've learned a lot, and made some quality friends here. I'll not accept money to help pay the costs, but if ya'll wish to contribute I'd love some more content for the site. We have tons of space on the server. My intent is that this discussion page be the focus of the site. I don't put content up because I don't want this to be my site. If others would contribute content, I would too. If you don't feel like doing essay-type stuff, maybe a FAQ, links page, quotes, or art? If you don't do HTML I'm sure something could be worked out. If you think I'm trying to manipulate through guilt, well, that would be correct. :-) - 4:08:49 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:THOMAS-- If you seek a free message board, follow the link. - 4:10:19 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I did send email last night, so maybe you are having email problems? I'll send another one now to be sure... - 17:45:57 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

OPEN: With the passage of time, the stuff that is religion and theology become more and more manmade apparent. The one thread by which the two ideas cling to humans social fabric is in the outside-of-human-experience ideas. This aspect of these ideas appear to be exactly those promoted by the adherents of theism/religion. The simple word for that kind of deed is 'miracle'. An odd idea, much like - 17:47:05 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson:OPEN: Bullshit. - 18:00:22 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I'd be interested in doing a quote page, or contributing to one. I've got some great Heinlein quotes that need to be shared, and have found some good pages on the 'net. So you took down all the quotes from this site? Because of the nutcase guy? Just curious. I really do like this chat format MUCH better than the threaded chats that you find at most of the free sites. I appreciate all you've done to maintain this place. I've really enjoyed it (esp once fernsniffer got the boot :-) - 18:08:10 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:JAYWILSON, perhaps you could CONTRIBUTE something, rather than just slamming someone's post (that is obviously not even finished) serving only to stifle conversation and cause hostility? - 18:13:05 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:JAYWILSON, maybe if you explained WHY you think it is bullshit, it would give us something to talk about and clear up what the heck OPEN was trying to say (since you may be the only one that gets the point) - 18:15:48 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: With the passage of time, the stuff that is religion and theology become more and more manmade apparent. The one thread by which the two ideas cling to humans social fabric is in the outside-of-human-experience idea. This aspect is common to all humans and appear to be the exact idea, subjectively and objetively replete, promoted by the adherents of theism/religion. The simple word for that kind of deed is 'miracle'. A Miracle- an odd idea, is much like DESDENOVA's illustration of the stamp collection. The ideas that an 'atheist church' would be of or could be for are nothing else than those things at which one points a finger and the it it is/was becomes lost with the first word of it. It seems this is the all of which religion and theism are so weightily concerned. Why is it so important to be close to or at one with experience? Must one want to be a god? - 18:25:53 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:DANG!!: That was my partial above it happened when I had to find the name of the poster of the stamp collector idea. - 18:29:43 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Got the email as well as the previous one, sorry! Just been so damn busy! I'm not sure JayWilson would have posted that post and if he did, I would like to know which post he's saying is bullshit and that would clear up the confusion. - 19:52:08 on 24 Jul 100 GMT

jaywilson--explanation--:CRISTY: 1)The post I "slammed", to borrow your verb, is anonymous; 2)it is also unfinished; therefore, 3)it does not deserve--and in its present form, cannot withstand anyway--a proper, meaning serious, reading. Furthermore, the language of the post--including vague terms such as 'stuff', 'thread', 'social fabric', and 'aspect'--should immediately alert an astute reader that little, if anything, of import is being communicated. Any one of these conditions, let alone all three, qualifies its post as bullshit. So yes, MARLENE, I did post that statement--and, to answer a second concern of yours, I addressed it to the anonymous writer/title ('OPEN') of the post preceding mine. I hope this explanation will suffice. Finally, CRISTY, whether my posts to this forum warrant your use of the word 'contribution' or not, I will write--nay, contribute-- as I choose. As for "caus[ing] hostility", that is your judgment, not my intention. Deal with it as you will. - 0:12:44 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Understood! LOL! - 0:52:39 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- Those pages were contributed, as they appeared, by Josh. He had them up on one of those free website places, complete with banners. I liked them, even with what I then saw as some pantheist leanings, and offered to host them here, an offer I've made to several others. He no longer wished to be associated with what he considers a negative group of atheists, so asked that they be removed. --- Thanks for the interest in contributing some content. Do you speak HTML? - 1:47:43 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Desdenova:CHRISTY, hi and thanks for tyhe welcome. My calling churches primitive is in refference to a time period when people attended churches to hear the words of their Gods being read to them, as the majority was illiterate, churches continue to serve the function of communal spirit and fellowship, but then, so does the Rotary club, the Society of Creative Anacronisms, virtual communities, and other intrest groups.Marlene, thanks. Ian, I see your point about an atheist or humanist church, but I am uncomfortable with the word "church" in association with something Atheistic, it gives the Theists a finger to point, claiming that ours is just another form of religion, and of course since it isn't a religion dedicated to the "One True God", it must be (gasp!) SATANIC! This, unfortunately, is the mindset of most Christians, as it has been pounded into their heads since childhood.Also, concerning Christianity starting out small, and growing big, one of the key factors to the success of Christianity was their militant nature. When you burn or hang all the competition, you naturally grow into the majority. I am not saying that this is the only factor in the groth of Christianity, but it is certainly a major one. - 5:08:45 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Desdenova:Forgive the poor spelling. I was in a hurry, and didn't check it before sending. - 5:11:34 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The point of the post was to illustrate the nebulousness of either religion or theism. And, you are right JW, such stuff is b's--t. Now that DES'has brought forth the other site it serves to show how easy it is to wave off the smoke and mist of any religious/theistic POV. But for whatever reason, there are still ppl like that Ohio legislator who wants to make a motto for a "god" the worded idea to stand before all ppl. Elsewhere some probably view such as feel good politix. Maybe it is, afterall feel good efforts are quick and easy. The g-o-d word for one and all easily can be subjective as well as objective, its a lot nicer for 95% of the ppl to say and hear than, I don't know. - 15:55:25 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Perhaps, the what that is the very crux of the idea of the word g-o-d, it allows the utterer of that word to shed the stigma of ignorance? DES'has already mentioned the primitiveness idea as such concerns religion as exemplified by the xian church. Next, I'm allowing most are familiar with the on-going affair supposedly separating science and religion. Both interests- S&R, deal with that very concern, or in other words who really knows what or why. So on one hand there is the sound of g-o-d, which back in the times of the primitive human, it sufficed. But also in time, some humans found out thunder and lightening wasn't some g-o-d's wrath. The g-o-d of religion and theism, it must exist in the airiness of the utterer. - 17:39:06 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:JAYWILSON, thank you for clarifying that you are not interested in making discussion contribution, but rather in being recognized as a smart-ass. As long as I know where you are coming from, then I will know how much weight to lend to your posts. Nevertheless, I will continue to speak up when I think someone is being treated rudely. A discussion board needs to have a basic degree of respect for all posters, at least until they have demonstrated they do not deserve it. Accidentally posting an unfinished post certainly does not qualify. - 18:29:20 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I know a little HTML, I've done a couple of homepages. - 18:32:03 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:Desdenova, I'm not entirely comfortable with the word "church" for an atheist organization either, to tell you the truth. In a way I feel like the xians think we are trying to copy them or something. But on the other hand I sort of see it as a defiant gesture, like saying they don't have the monopoly :-) Don't worry about spelling here, as long as we can make out what you are saying! - 18:39:10 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:DES- I really like your page and tend to agree with your personal rant section. - 19:35:24 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Kind of interesting was the bit of the Gilgamesh epic. I find myself pondering the possibility that its part of or has connections to the RigVedas? I've read some of the latter and it seems a lot like the Gilgamesh epic. As for the Enkidu wildman, there are very old storys out of the Vietnam China areas of large wildmen and so on. Findings of a large manlike thing have been found, seems the findings of these large creatures include indications that they were eaten. - 20:51:34 on 25 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yes, it likely does have some connection to the Vedas. More than likely, the flood myth is carried from the times of melting glaciers. Problem was, that the actual recording in some kind of writing started only about 5000 years ago. Stories can get fairly screwed up over the years when left to storytellers which likely were the "medicine men/priests/shamans" of the peoples they were related to. Look how people have screwed up ole JC's story! Throw in the supernatural and it's hard to ferret out the original natural. - 1:29:30 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- Bullshit. - 2:16:04 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Desdenova:Marlene: I am glad you liked the site. I am currently working on some material that exposes how creationism is an attack on all of science, not just evolution. I believe that it is high time science stops being on the defensive, and carries the fight to the creationists for a change.Anyones input would be quite welcome. - 12:46:37 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:DES': Don't kno'where or what you are, so, several weeks ago a newsreport told readers that GW Bush jr. read the bible- guess its a cover to cover reading, every two years. I guess that was to illustarte and represent to readers that jr. read it for inspiration and such. Machivellii is another suitable source for his current ambitions goals. If jr. really reads the bible, I doubt this but it is the politically expedient thing to say for the USA religious types, wonder what he "thinks" about the biblical views of homosexuality? Especially since his chosen VP candidate Cheney has lesbian daughters. Maybe its that they are female and cannot naturally be sodomite-like, so its ok? I got to see the biblical homosexuality site on your site, all wrapped up for readi-referral, - 14:58:46 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just read a brief newsstory about the human child, it says that by the age o'18, research has found, half of the brains activity will have come to a stop, as in unused and lost, forever. That means, went the report, the neural activity in a child's brain was or is firing at a high rate for at least the child's early years. If one accepts that say-so, can that be the why for the lingering appeal of theism as evidenced in the reportedly 95% of the USA ppl who say yes of a godthing? Would it follow- for the theists and the few remaining neural connections still available to themselves to discard those fewer remaining connections, this is tantamont to a mental or their intellectual suicide? It seemed that what BETTY attributed to some of us, is that we struggled like netted fish to maintain what and how we knew, which while simplistic what does atheism, on the other hand, want of the theistic-types? Would humans really be better off if all lived per the directives of a god, such as those of Lev.20:13 or Dt.23:17-18, etc.? - 16:15:10 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I have read a couple of books that track religious tales one of the points I noted, the tales moved with the migrations of the early humans. A good example, of current value, are the mormons. I give that you are amiliar witht he mormon stuff. Who really knows what the first N.American inhabitants thought, but was the mormon account what and how they- the'indians', knew and thought? What I also know of during/in the USA times of the beginnings of the mormon accounts, Europe and the USA white populations were becoming enthralled with the ideas of an aryanism. Lo'and behold, J.Smith- a white dude gets this mssg.from a god that the white folk were in N.America and were the better human thing in N.America, this seems so like the aryan thing of the Vedas! The movement of that older religious tale blatantly so, seems to be clearly exemplified here, no? Religious\theistic tales, its a fun but sadly very deadly idea that moves with the human thing. - 17:30:05 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I have no idea what you mean by that. If it is your intent to say you disagree with me, I would hope you would have the decency or balls to say so. If I am out of line with the "way things have always been" in asking for people to treat one another respectfully, then I will acknowledge that the establishment has spoken and not bother y'all further. - 17:44:26 on 26 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:DES- Scientists and the promotion of scientific method on analyzing nature is the thing that will do it. I can believe it, get rid of scientists and the world can go back to ignorance, wouldn't the god pushers love that. More sheep to slaughter. - 0:55:14 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I don't know what Grant was saying either but who cares what someone's personal opinion is on someone's personal opinion! I think Grant has stated that he's not the establishment and anything he takes action on, he does so democratically, like the Betty instance. I've personally had differences of opinion with everyone here but it doesn't mean anyone needs to leave, neither I nor the person who IMO is wrong, LOL! I think it was James and I that had an all out war going at one time, LOL! Ohhh...I miss James, now he's gone and got educated and everything.... - 1:05:04 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't really get what you're saying about the mormons???? - 1:06:32 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- Hmm... "the decency or balls to say so"? This veneer of civility seems quite thin. Seems to be a common characteristic of political correctness run amok. As demonstrated recently with jaywilson, and earlier with Joette, you appear unable to distinguish plain-spokenness from rudeness; plain-spokenness being rare and highly valued by some, including me; rudeness being somewhat more common but sometimes necessary. That's fine, but you presume too much if you fancy yourself arbiter of propriety here. Your field of vision is too narrow, your outlook too provincial, your judgement of what to others constitutes contribution too poor, and we don't need no stinkin' arbiter anyway. The diversity of participants is this discussion's strength. We are all quite capable of determining how to behave without your guidance. Relax and enjoy the diversity. Be one of the diverse. Please fight this compulsion to groom everyone, establish order and uniformity, and enforce your personal tastes in manners. It'll only lead to disappointment-- yours and ours. - 3:58:02 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Funny you should mention James. I was thinking today of something he said-- something about how "you atheists" tend to use subtle cryptic sarcasm. Think there's anything to that? :-) - 4:25:30 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Here's a scary factoid :"A 1999 Gallup Poll found that 68 percent of American adults favored teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. By a margin of 55 percent to 40 percent, they opposed replacing evolution with creationism." --- 40% favored replacing evolution with creationism! - 12:09:51 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: well, the coherence of that post begins with a wide view and knowledge of Aryanism. Several monthes ago I attended a sale for book collectors here in Berkeley. There I saw a book published in the early 1900's titled, "The Aryans", think its price was a coupla'hundred bucks. Well, I didn't have cash for that kind of book. While I don't let ego-appealing efforts get to me, I still find any and all such efforts- religious scripture is an example, most interesting. What I've noted o'this religious ego-triping, the accounts seem more valuable to the ego-trip or socio-cultural knowledge, if it can connect to ancient antiguated places and ideas. I suspect that is what the mormons did. My suspicion is linked to things- as the lexical rhetorical syntactical as kinds of knowledge, I've read published in and of that time-period. The Vedas at this time for me are the only old story that bear the word\idea of Aryan which has become the ego-trip for the so-called white folk. The mormons have made the aryan myth into a USA religion. As I think we know, the mormons fairly recently sed it was ok for non-white peoples to be involved in the mormon ego-trip. - 15:54:30 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Got it! Personally I couldn't give a flying @#$^ what color a person's skin is although I suppose some people who do use religion to do so. I have more of a problem with "culture" than skin color, like the culture of the skinheads or the black panthers. - 17:43:31 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- He couldn't have been refering to ME! Nothing cryptic about my brand of sarcasm, lol! Unless, of course, I'm trying to keep up to JayWilson. - 17:45:39 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene...they don't want a monkey as an uncle:It seems no one cares to admit they are but an animal. - 17:48:35 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I read that report, I wonder what goes on inside the skulls of such, are they really modern humans? Sure they're the current human organism, be it as it is, but in what mental time-line do they choose to exist? Reality is what it is no matter what one thinks, so do these people really and truely think that things thunk up long long ago still can have a prevailing and controlling meaning on the dynamic interactions of the present human life form? If one on the religious xian adherents could show itself here and explain how sheep and goat herder storys of old still fit with nowadays, it would be interesting to read. - 17:56:20 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: I'd be skeptical of gallop tell the truth with these numbers. Gallop has lied before to make religion look good. Look at the church attendance polls that were debunked 46% as compared to the follow up of 23% by an independent pollster.Gallop is always stretching polls in favor of the conservative cause.Evolution is a hard sell, science by it's very nature is difficult for most. Creationism is run by slick hucksters who have revived it's timely death when radio carbon dating demolished it's ranks.Genetics and DNA ITS will shortly do the same thing to our cretinous bible morons. - 21:55:34 on 27 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:Okay, now I have time to post as my little one is visiting her dad this weekend, everyone disappears! - 4:46:20 on 29 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- You have a point although it's a hard one for me to fathom, most people seem to find science difficult. Admittedly some concepts are hard to understand but many are common sense easy. - 4:49:53 on 29 Jul 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: DNA ITS will back up the species lineage. The reason why they're doing it in the first place is for science and the study of systemantics.most of the lineages are right on the button. I find it devistating to the creationist's cause to have this independant way of looking at specie's lineages back up the old systems of morphological evidence.They do have some programs on-line that will lead to a better understanding of genetics and it's molecular evolutionary traits. - 16:46:59 on 29 Jul 100 GMT

humanimal:I like being a smart animal,i see no shame in it unless i ac t like a rat.i heard a story about orangutans that said that this whole tribe gathers at the edge of the forest every ni ght and watches the sunset together,i want to be an oranguta n.i saw a program on these monkeys on an island,it was about leadership,when the baboons came to attack them and eat the slow and the weak,the leader did not abandon them,but ralli ed the strongest to protect the weak,the significant thing was the leader was not the biggest or strongest or most viol ent but he was the one who was not afraid and he was decisiv - 21:58:59 on 29 Jul 100 GMT

Marlene:HUMANANIMAL- Yup! I know! and all you guys ended up washing potatoes together and the rest is now history. - 2:35:46 on 30 Jul 100 GMT

prism:Religous Open Forum URL http://beseen4.looksmart.com/chat/rooms/m/515606/ - 3:57:20 on 30 Jul 100 GMT

Yaakov:The fool hath said in his heart there is no God - 4:05:32 on 30 Jul 100 GMT

Grant (atheistspeak[ing] on theochat):Geez, Yaakov. Is this how xtians say hello? - 4:15:56 on 30 Jul 100 GMT

Grant: Reality check :Those Christian message boards are a strange experience. Enough of that... - 0:23:35 on 31 Jul 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Sheldrake has turned up in the current issue of _Discover_ magazine. Lots of reasons to dislike that magazine. This is just another. - 0:26:02 on 31 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Hahah!! For the regulars of this site, recall a few years ago when I mentioned I'd finally been booted from a xian chat site? Well the site that PRISM links to is that very site. PRISM was a fairly communicative person at that site. I guess that site like this site undergoes different handlers, and the one that booted me, was not the original, I guess because until that booting by the then new handler, I'd no problems "asking" and discussing things at that site. But again, PRISM I seem to recall was a teacher and struck me as a mature female. I stoped going to that site even after the block became ineffective, the discussion was just the usual blockhead xian stuff, you kno'pray for you, bless you etc.etc. - 14:48:50 on 31 Jul 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Over the weekend I bought a book on morals authored by a "Philip Wylie". So far the POV seems that of favoring the instincts especially for humans, that the author holds to be only animals. While so far the author doesn't villify theism or religion the point offered as the what, that either represent, is the human ego. For evidence of that representation the author used religion the pertinent gods of the religions as such appear in the annals of humanity. We here know the storys of when gods were female and how that kind of god relation changed as the status of the humanmale came to prevail. I haven't completed the reading but so far my impression is that religion and theism replace human instincts and eventually religion theism, one may will conclude either are immoralitys. I'll see. - 19:12:56 on 31 Jul 100 GMT