Carrie Drake:Peter, who says this discussion on your belief about "objectivism" is something that any side can win or lose? What I'm going to do is go clean up the dishes in my kitchen sink, and that has a great deal more consequence to me than trying to figure out what one person over here means by, "objectivism," and what another person over there means by "scientific materialism," or what still another person over there means by "marxism". I just know that right now, if I'm going to maintain my standards for what is necesscary to be a good person, getting the dishes done is more important than all of the various abstract definitions of objectivism that are argued throughout cyberspace. Someone is going to come home and get much more upset at me if I don't take care of my resposibilities in this PHYSICAL, CONCRETE UNIVERSE, than you can be the fact that I just don't get what you are talking about. - 0:01:35 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:TO ALL--Alright!! Nobody agrees with anybody here. Isn't this great!! - 0:02:39 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->What is this? Maybe Mike Tyson should come here and bite everyone's ears off! - 0:28:39 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:CARRIE--Just tryin' ta establish a point of reference---that IS important, and I tried to be as clear as I could, but hey--maybe I wasn't as much as I thought !! As for being a person, a standard of morality should be established. For instance , in the most part christians are "good" people, but their code of ethics are based on arbitrary commands from God ( as he is perceived to be in the Bible.) However, I feel a code of ethics should be based on reality--so when push comes to shove, they will be the first to get their claws out when they deal with issues such as homosexual rights --for instance-- is concerned. They base their standard on what God says which then results in a lot of bigotry, mistrust, ignorance--and hate. And on instances such as these, their code fails miserably. However, getting back to objectivism, it stands for a code of ethics based on reason, and one would then--if they followed such a code, would attempt to learn more about the situation, before making a sound judgement, and the results would invariably lead to a more understanding , tolerant--or suspending judgement altogether until the individual feels he has gathered enough information about the issue. I am not suggesting this can be only achieved with one who "follows" objectivism, but it must be a rational code of any kind. And to do that, one must have a starting point--a standard. When forming such a code, the first question should not be: ( as christianity among others does) "What code of ethics should mankind follow"?--but rather"WHY should mankind follow a code of ethics" it MUST go back this far--objectivism does, and that is why I personally buy it, and I will defend it--if someone takes issue with its "starting point" - 0:51:54 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Ayn Rand:What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: *Why* does man need a code of values? Let me stress this: The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all -- and why? - 3:06:12 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: You say that you believe that "a code of ethics should be based on reality". I do too. But whose reality and what kind of reality are you talking about? Are you talking about mental reality or physical reality? Are you talking about reality for all of humanity or just your own reality where I have locked yourself into this concept of "objectivism" after reading Ayn Rand's literature? Are you talking about reality for me? Are you talking about abstract reality or concrete reality? How would you go about correcting people who infringe upon your moral standard? Do you believe in the death penalty? Do you believe that there is such a thing as a "criminal mind"? Do you believe that all Christians exclusively use the Bible as an authority in judging homosexuality and pornography? Do you believe there are any differences between men and women? Do you measure an individual's worth by how much money his or her "productive" activities generate? These are just a few of the specific questions that need to be answered that can't be answered by abstruse philosophical jargon, and they are questions that require information to be gathered and processed through an interdisciplinary effort that would far overshadow the dogmas of a person like Ayn Rand or Oral Roberts or any particular special interest. Once we have all the information required to determine the nature of reality and what is fair and ethical for future generations as well as the present generations, then we'll see where your objectivism fits in. But I seriously doubt that it will stand up to the test. I just don't buy the idea that in order for there to be an ethical society, we all need to be indoctrinated on the abstruse intricacies of "objectivism". I certainly been an ethical person without it, and I know many others who have done well without it and who are very much informed about the importance of objectively considering all information available in making judgements that affect their own lives and the lives of others. Even though my father and stepmother were murdered in a robbery attempt, that still does not change my views of ethical systems that would have sentenced to death the two young men who killed them. As long as it is within the realm of possibilty to organize a society that would give no reason for anyone to kill oneone for whatever reason, I cannot accept a moral code that that removes the "personal" from the individual. - 3:29:56 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:AYN RAND - See all the trouble you've caused!!!! What you SHOULD have done is started your own Coalition instead of write all those damn books! - 3:32:54 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :RON---Question????? How do we bring up the old posts. We use to change the 30 to a higher number but how do we do this now??? - 3:54:13 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Hi, Ayn Rand. Is that really you? If it is, and somehow you have been reincarnated in the mind of another person, I want to say that I disagree with you. I like your fiction, but if you want to contribute to a moral society, I believe you have to start with reality rather than a philosphy about morality. Your morality, like that of some of the religious faiths you despise, shoots first and asks questions later. Do you realize how many people who are raped and murdered just because of your insistence on a moral code that puts revenge above prevention? The throats of you father and stepmother were slashed by two young men who stopped at a bar and drank enough booze to deaden their feelings enough to go out and try robbing a store. Maybe if you thought about ways to take away the attraction of this kind of behavior to young people, my dad and stepmother would be alive today. Obviously, these two young men thought it was in their self-interest to kill these people. But they were misinformed, and no matter how much ethics you preach to young people, it cannot sway confused people. What they thought was in their best interest has only brought suffering on themselves and their young families. - 3:57:20 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene starting the comments....:CARRIE- In reference to your links----In the section sub-titled "atheism and human potential" it states that many *self-avowed atheists don't understand the potential that atheism can offer*, I can only disagree with that statement. If we've used reason to arrive at the fact that the supernatural does not exsist then I'm sure that we've also come to the conclusion that the belief in the supernatural is unproductive. Atheism is NOT a belief system so why would we want to "work" for it. It's not up to me to convince theists to throw out their belief system. This can only be done when they are ready to face reality which as you can see the majority of humanity does not wish to do. My only goal is to make sure that their silly beliefs don't affect my lifestyle. In this same section, the writer, whether it is yourself or whomever accuses atheists of *thinking that the beginning and end of being an atheist is to scoff at theism*. Well, whomever the writer is he/she has the nerve for telling ME what and who I choose to scoff if I choose to scoff at all! In the same section the writer says that atheists *preach to the converted* Firstly the atheists that I happen to know DO NOT PREACH nor are they or have been CONVERTED. Again atheism is NOT a belief system. Atheism isn't new, it's as old or older than religion itself. I doubt very much that the education system is heading into another "dark age". Today's kids think and today's kids hate authority. Today's kids will be tomorrows leaders. I think there is a lot of smoke to your argument but very little fire. IMO it's pure baloney, all you need is a couple of slices of bread and a dab of mustard!!! - 4:37:08 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:Was I SCREAMING??? It's allowed once in awhile most especially when warranted! - 4:51:33 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARRIE- Once again I disagree with your post to Ayn. These two young men lacked the respect for someone elses space on this planet. They were boozing it up and decided to pillage. Again this behavior is as old as humanity itself and older yet. Do you truly think that anything will completely eliminate this type of behavior? If so, it's wishful thinking. BTW, pa-leez put the responsibility on the person who commits the act. Humans are not automatons! - 5:03:04 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: "A couple of slices of bread and a dab of mustard?" That line sounds very familiar. But anyway, I'm quite aware of the fact that atheism is not a belief system. The problem with your argument is that you ignore the fact that there is nothing there in that essay which you condemn to being chewed up in a baloney sandwich that even suggests that I am purporting that atheism is a belief system. Morever, if you visit many of the atheist websites listed under the Net Atheists, a very high percentage of them do begin and end by scoffing at Christianity in the name atheism. Would you like for me to give you some URLs for examples? That would be no problem at all, if you would like. So much of what I have seen of atheists is not any sound thinking about what atheism has to offer that is constructive, but efforts to make atheism look good by ridiculing Christians (such as your reference to their "silly" ideas). How far do you think that bigotry is going to accomplish in the "war on bigotry"? I'm not telling you not to scoff. You can scoff if you want. I'm only telling you what the predictable results will be. I can understand how offensive it is to be told that we are all going to hell for not believing in God, but we aren't any better as human beings by doing the same thing. With the kind of adult role models that kids have today, and with the kind of peer pressure that today's young people have from the influences of popular culture as well as adults trying to be "cool" instead of responsible adults with courage to think independently of the latest fads, I'm glad that I'm not going to be around when today's children and their children become leaders. But while I'm here, I'm not going to be intimidated by either the Christian fundamentalists on the right or those on the left who think with their sex organs rather than their brains into silence. Have a little mustard on your bread to spice up the taste of the baloney and you might like the taste of it more than you thought. But just don't look for any sugar-coated myths about about how much more enlightened and liberated young people are going to be with sexual ideologies replacing Christian morality. - 5:42:01 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:all right--- old lucifer is here to solve all this trouble.. first joette- I am not a marxist- I am a marxist/anarchist (analyze society in a marxist way-- then use the theories of individual- or philosophical anarchism for govt)-- Second-- people of today cannot accept such a policy--- this is a much different statement than yours which implies they never will. You do not know that-- human nature is like a river -- just because it is on one side of the valley today does not mean it will be there in the future. Ok everybody now go read Paul Kurtz on ethics without god (which he is clever enough to point out that everybody has ethics without god)----there are ideals but in the end the best moral system is one which is not dogmatic- but pragmatic to the situation--- while keeping certain ideals..(such as it is best to usually tell the truth- however this is not always true)--- On to the last bit of business.. Ok leave Carrie alone... She does sound a bit condescending, and comes off a bit harsh-- but I checked out her page-- and she seems like a person of conscious.. Carrie your goals sound much like the American Humanists. the coalition just shows how hard it is 2 bring people WHO AGREE ON A LOT OF THINGS together-- and I am not even talking about the ones who dont... your right the seperation of the people is a very large force-- how this is 2 be overcome is yet to be seen. But I must say I fully support your feelings to try.--- ok everybody happy now? (yeah when hell freezes over- and I have to buy a parka!!!!)-- Oh yeah- go to my page and read my stuff- dammit (however most have already done this...did you all see all the books I found?--sssshh dont tell anyone I probably violated something) good day all - 5:50:48 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:I agree. Human beings aren't automatons and don't have any excuse for their irresponsible acts. The fact is that we have a whole society that refuses to accept any responsibility, but expects young people to be responsible. That isn't going to change until adults stop peddling pornographic rubbish and crass commercialism with all kinds of glittering, glow-in-the dark slogans as "adult" behavior and stop blaming their behavior on their hormones and libido. - 5:56:04 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

carrie are you still here - 5:58:46 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:whoops- I forgot to sign-- that was me- checking to see if carrie is still hanging around - 5:59:44 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:Oh a word about responsibility-- I cant wait until the day that I hear someone stand up and claim true responsibility--- I have responsibility that there is poverty, crime, etc.. as do each and every person who lives in a system with these symptoms.. thats the kind of responsibility I want to see... To look at only the individual level for an explanation of human behavior is extremely anti-scientific. as I see It there is at least five levels of analyization of human behavior. 1. Cultural universals 2. Societal structure (does a society by the way it is structured in fact cause or put pressure on individuals to behave a certain way?) 3. Group- a small version of #2-- 4. individual- we are all very aware of this one-- it is the persons fault-- but if you look at this one closely- it can be seen that a person only has a limited say so on how their personality if formed 5. genetic.... so to blame the individual and nothing else is very irresponsible and sounds like a cop out. - 6:07:23 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:I don't know about you, but I'm worn out from this day of escalating hostility in this discussion. The only thing I got accomplished is doing the dishes and skipping dinner, but I wouldn't recommend this as an alternative to food for people trying to lose weight. I'll try something once, but if it turns out to be a negative experience, I'm not likely to come back for more. Sorry for intruding. - 6:08:11 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CARRIE-- Well said. I've been following the discussion in astonishment. I guess I missed what your crime was. - 6:49:50 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..I am taking the responsibility for the lack of sunshine and roses on the page. I had the audacity to inform Carrie that I am not a collectivist, and so would not consider joining her Coalition of atheists. It went on from there (although it was Peter who bore the brunt of my first statement) - 11:45:00 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:Carrie--Something that confuses me here is that you seem to object to being associated to a certain label--"Objectivism" is one you have shown particular disdain for, you attack it--and again you are beating a straw man-in particular when referring to those young hoodlums who acted in their self-interest, but they clearly "violated" an objectivist code by sacrificing other individuals--and on this occasion by physical force( and my deepest condolensces for your loss--its was a horrible event )to meet their ends. Hardly an act of voluntary trade, and respect for life. Now on other occasions you outline a certain ideal code which sounds very reminiscent of Objectivism--such as gathering information, individual thought, and forming the code on reality--which are identical to what I have been arguing, so--what is your beef here? Does it bother you that someone like Ayn Rand defined these codes, and you simply don't want to be associated with someone else's personal line of thinking, when in reality--its not that much different? What specific point did Rand make, that you object so verasciously to? I personally use Rand merely as a reference point--as she is rather well known, and if I say I agree with a lot of her philosophy, people I talk to will hopefully have some idea of what I'm talking about--but I am amazed at how many people say they are familiar with her, and spout of things she allegedly outlined, that have nothing whatsoever to do with her philosophy. - 12:46:15 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene -hey! they rest of you, do not apologize for me!:CARRIE- Isn't it strange that you come to the discussion, totally tear into people about aliens, Ayn Rand etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and then when someone tears into your baloney,you stamp your feet, victimizing yourself and cry that your leaving. You really remind me of the bossy little girl on the street who believes if your not with me your against me. Although some of the people here are apologizing for my words and thoughts, I sure as @#$ not. Maybe you should "think", your plan to covert everyone to become atheist is idealistic and not based at all in reality. Your the person that holds "sugar-coated" ideals! Pass the mustard! - 14:22:32 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARRIE- So not irresponsible young people are irresponsible because of irresponsible adults peddling porn. Come on! Porn isn't the "cause" of irresponsiblity! It's the result of a society taught that sex is bad or naughty. Iresponsibility is the result to failing to take responsibilty. I disagree with Luci that everyone is responsible for everyone else's acts. This kind of mindset is part of the problem itself. Although we may inherit a genetic tendency toward violence it doesn't mean that we are not responsible to control that tendency within ourselves if we want to live in a society. If we choose not to control it then it would be up to the rest of society to enforce the control on that person for the protection from him/her. That is where the responsibilty of the rest of society comes in. Rehabilitation is possible if the culprit chooses to want to change and only if he/she chooses. - 14:38:18 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARRIE- My typing leaves much to be desired this morning. I do apologize for the spelling. - 14:40:59 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARRIE- When you state that your glad your not going to be around when today's kids become our leaders, you know this line sounds just like my parents said and more than likely what their parents said and their's before them. Every generation thinks they have the answer and each generation experiments with their ideals. Some are kept and some are discarded. The discarded ones may be used at a later date and the kept ones may be omitted at a later date. Not all the younger generation are irresponsible and fads are part of identifying with their peers and not their parents. It's a process and again it's been happening since humanity was born. Humanity is not "doomed" because of religion or anything else. It's growing and what we go through generation after generation is a growing process. - 14:52:30 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: i for one also must that admit the CDRAKE poster is near to intolerant in his/her effort to state their position. if any here recall 'jonestown' then you may follow that upon speaking to relatives friends who wanted to make the trip south with J.Jones, now these people recall incidents of his impatience and reactionary ways of dealing with contrainess or any opposition. MARLENE, perhaps you are as 'down to earth' as CDRAKE inscribed here and there. - 14:55:18 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I agree, Korash came across with the same fevor. I'm not understanding what you mean by "down to earth" as Carrie inscribed? I don't think she is tolerant of my position. - 15:08:28 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: actually, yesterday before my departure i recall a word or two o'DRAKE's when he/she seemed to wanted to tone down the discussion to an earthier thing. You're on target that she is intolerant of your position, as well as anybody else not walking to her\his drumbeat. Anyway, i like the way you cut the chase and get to the gist of matters. - 16:13:18 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...and now a word from our sponsor...: Just a word to my fellow human smokers... Yesterday, I quit smoking. I am using the NicoDerm CQ 21mg patch. The patch does a very good job of taking the edge off, no anxiety at all. If you need or want to kick the habit, try this patch. I am using the strongest version out there and 14 patches cost around $48 U.S. It's worth every penny. I feel kinda woozzzzyyy this morning though, for some reason my body needed 12 full hours of sleep last night. Over than that, I FEEL GREAT!!! Now back to your normally sceduled program.... - 16:23:11 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Thankyou. Help yourself to the mustard the baloney goes down a little easier. Ms Drake has flocked off to smooth her feathers in some other area. I'm not sure that she realizes that her feathers get ruffled due to her lack of effective communication skills. - 16:26:38 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->CARRIE DRAKE...: I never extended a welcome to you to our page and I'm sorry for that. WELCOME!! I answered your call to join your organization and I asked a question. Never got the answer. I know you have a mission and I respect (deeply) your goals. Please explain to me the current split or is it a mirror organization. You may reply here or to my email...walker@flex.net - 16:28:03 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:-- Listen to yourselves. Are you willing to consider the possibility that your bitterness and hostility are not any closer to objective reality than my "sunshine and roses?" You seem to be operating on emotionalism which would seem to be the enemy of realists. OK, my teeth are gritted. Flame away. - 16:30:39 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- Thanks you the patch update but, I guess I'm going to have to use the broken record approach here, how do we bring up old posts???? Coincidentally, I quit smoking in the last week too. I'm eating bags of sunflower seeds, a little habit picked up from the mennonite population here, and so far I'm doing okay! - 16:31:18 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: I see (looking up) I'm going to have to sit down and read all the posts in the last 24 hours....isn't Mike Tyson a punk? - 16:31:55 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Grant...: OK, here goes..."huh?" Why is everyone so pissy today? MARLENE...Good job, girlfriend, keep up the good work...and hit the old posts check box and then hit "Add". - 16:34:59 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene who is not at all bitter but defends her space on this planet and also respects other's:GRANT- Did you take the time to read the "stuff" on Ms. Drake's links. My choosing to be an atheist doesn't mean that I choose to convert the minds of theists. Control of others just isn't an objective for me. Those who choose that objective are IMHO no different than religions or political systems that insist their way is better. - 16:43:00 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- Tyson is also an idiot if he thinks he's fooled the judge by sucking up after the assault. - 16:47:03 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Yes. I looked over her page and I didn't agree with her goals. I agree with your point that mere atheism isn't enough to bring people together. But I think she is a sincere person who is worthy of common courtesy. Remember, she was the stranger here and I can understand why she was defensive. - 16:52:35 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene...common courtesy is a two-way street:GRANT- I didn't say that mee atheism isn't enough to bring people together. I said that I disagree with a group of atheists or a "Coalition" of atheists who's purpose it is to convert and "teach" theists a "better way". Ms. Drake did not make strange when she appeared on the discussion attacking others views on Ayn Rand etc. She's a big girl, I'm sure and I'm also sure that she's met with the same reaction to her bullying personality elsewhere. - 17:12:41 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Must have misinterpreted your "blonde axe murderer" post.--- It's my view that nothing is above scrutiny- not "sunshine and roses." Not "bitterness and hostility." Not even Ayn Rand. - 17:45:01 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Peter: .....What escapes me here is that Rand probably makes one of the best cases against the existence of God I've ever heard, but she wasn't obssessed with atheism, it was simply a logical application of her philosophy. So why do so many atheists start freaking away whenever her name is mentioned? She is the atheist's best friend. George H. Smith, in his now famous book, "Atheism: The Case Against God" --which some consider the "Atheist's Bible", a valuable text in their "arsenal" when debating with theists;--uses Rand'd philosophy throughout his book, and freely admits his position is based on Rand's assertions--and why does he? Because it works, that's why. - 17:45:07 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:GRANT---Initially, Rand invited philosophic scrutiny of her position freely--but would not tolerate misrepresentaions of her assertions--which occured frequently, and she eventually became extremely bitter, and hostile--and I can see why. - 17:54:37 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I don't disagree with most of Rand's comments. I don't think anyone has disageed other than Carrie. For some reason she believes that all atheists have a common thread being the need to convert the theists. - 18:11:04 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:PETER-- Point taken. Thank you. - 18:13:56 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: Now do you feel better about yourself now that you have unleashed your tirade against me? Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who do want an even better world that puts the the right to the joy of life on a higher level of priority than dogma and misinformed defenses of the status quo and the history of the status quo. Though you have satisfied yourself by venting your rage against me, it was all in vain, because you didn't even come close to the truth of what you claimed to be talking about in your tirade against me. I have offered to Coalition as a vehicle for making people aware of choices and outlets for their idealism that are much more positive for themselves. You sound like you are very satisfied with the way the world is and the way you see the world. That's your choice. But believe it or not, there are still plenty of people who want a better world that sees morality and ethics as tools for a better world rather than as weapons to use against their ideological competitors. You seem to favor a world that gives you freedom to to ignore everything that has gone on through history, that is happening now and that will happen in the future if fundamental changes are not made and that also gives you the freedom to bash those who show determiniation to open doors for these changes to happen. You rail against me, not because I have "attacked" Ayn Rand, "bullied" people in this discussion and "preached" the need to "control" people. You rail against me because I seek to establish a Coalition for the expressed purpose of giving people an awareness of improvements that can be made in the educational system and the mental health system aimed at truly giving people a way to control their lives. If you are satisfied with a country in which 90% of the population believes in a God and an afterlife, that is your choice. If you think that a society that is so out of touch with factual reality can promote the best mental health and education necessariy for true freedom of choice, that is your choice. If you think that freedom should end with choices of consumer goods, cable channels on TV, mental states that can be achieved with pills, media monopolies saturated with capitalist propanganda, that is your choice. If you think that that a society that is so out of touch with reality can do its best to prevent murders, rapes, etc., that is your choice. If you are happy with the fact that the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than any other country in the world, and if you are happy to see growing numbers of people living behind iron bars on their windows and doors, that is your choice. If you are content with society remaining on the same primitive social level as people have going back to the beginning of recorded history despite radical increase in the amount of dangerous technology, with stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, that is your choice. But as others grow aware of the trend in America towards choosing to give up their freedom, they are deciding to take the stand necessary to nurture freedom, and there is nothing you can do to stop it with all of your ranting against organizations that seek CHANGE. - 19:01:40 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:COURTESY; geeze that is a crucial connection among any and all, i think it would serve the good of any and all if, for example, a theist would show up and was able to convey something of themselves. Perhaps this is what CDRAKE meant to say, and too that it would be an unending state of affairs? But in case, courtesy gains respect sooner than does to act the part of a bull in a china shop. We all experience frustration and impatience, - 19:19:10 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->CARL...: Well put. - 19:23:37 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: you didn't leave, good! stay awhile i like to see your steads and stuff. - 19:25:17 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->CARRIE...: If you leave now, after such lively discussion, you'll discredit your organization and yourself. Just take a deep breath and start over. I am very interested in what you have to say and any solutions you may have in removing christ from our schools....please continue. - 19:30:53 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->CARL...: "steads and stuff"??? Carl, I may never understand you. What country do you reside? - 19:32:12 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARRIE- You, like any controlling political or religious figure seem to place the blame of "not caring" on those who totally reject control. Your assuming a lot and know very little of what I think. I'm not the one here trying to force their political persuasions on someone else. I'm merely telling you to stay the #** out of my space. - 19:38:59 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene...where are people's minds here????:RON- Why would you want to take christ out of schools and put Carrie in them. Can you imagine this person dictating atheist cure-alls to your kid!!! - 19:41:52 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...interesting tidbit...: "Bathing" was once considered, by xtains, a taboo act that would lead to insalubrious behavior. As late as 1855 (Boston) there were laws against regular bathing. Early xtains believed regular bathing lead the Romans to orgies, and thus their fall from power. Queen ISABELLA is noted in history for only taking two baths in her entire life!!! BARF!! One when she was born and one when she married. P-U Onther shining example why xtains and xtianity are paradigms for pigs, not people. - 19:42:04 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Don't scratch out MY eyes, please. I think you missed her point. I have tried to read her pages but become tired of all the text on one page...has she said she wants to replace one doctrine with another? (damn I mispelled that word in my last post) I will read on...remember ALL are welcome her unless you are one of my relatives. - 19:46:24 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...damn it...:"here" not "her"...please forgive me. - 19:47:16 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:RON: stead-n.the place or position of a person or thing as filled by a substitute. Webster's NewWorld copyright 1982. 'Stuff' would be what and how CDRAKE argues and supports him/herself. only trying to write brief and concise posts. However, when i play i write poetry, when i have fun i write stories- Steinbeck and R.Ludlum are in my thoughts at these times, and I pursue Korsybski to be a better writer. - 19:51:54 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->CARL...: Thanks for the clarity. Please denote the poetry from the stories next time. (smirk) - 19:56:26 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARRIE- Very seldom do I get angry on this discussion but when I see a control freak my hair stands on end as your type is a danger to society just any totalitarian ideal is. Victimize yourself if you will, big bad Marlene has seen through the smoke and will not tolerate your Coalition with the capital "C". - 20:13:03 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene cooled down a tad:RON- No one has said Carrie isn't welcome here. I haven't met anyone here in the last year like her other than the xtians. I just totally disagree with her political stance using atheism as a basis. As you know anger for me is short lived but my stance is unchanged. - 20:18:36 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :RON- I suggest you run out and buy some Visine and read the stuff. I know, I've been tempted to page down too but...read it! The underlying message is either in fine print or mixed up with a bunch of do-good, feel-good drivel. Didn't ole Chris have a crush on Issy? Maybe she also had a bath when Chris came begging for funding for his voyage but that's likely another untold story. It's unbelieveable how sex still gets the blame for society's ruin even in this day! - 20:26:33 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Most times I can understand what your saying and most of what you have to say is astute IMHO. Other writers I like are George Orwell, Margaret Atwood (sp) and Ann Rice. - 20:31:29 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: As soon as my back is turned, you unleash a vile tirade against, then when I return to defend myself after much contemplation, in a fit of anger, you continue to accuse me of wanting to control people and demand that I "stay the #** out of my space". Obviously, you are very upset over something going on in your life, and it can't be anything that I have said, unless the truth of what I said hurts you that much. I don't deny that truth hurts me, as well, and it should hurt anyone who is human to see the totalilatarian psychological sqaulor that is taking root in American in the name of liberty. But I'm past the stage of shackling myself to the self-pity that benefited the wallets of psychiatrists and psychiatric drug dealers who are paid to indoctrinate people into being content with being couch pototatos and comfortably numb consumers of useless trinkets and electronic gadgets peddled by fat cats who laugh at our freedom to reject freedom all the way to the bank. So, Marlene. Don't blame my choice of freedom for your unhappiness. Blame your own choice to reject freedom. I'm sorry I have to put it to you like that, but I hope you didn't think I was going to turn the other cheek for another barrage of verbal assaults. - 20:39:17 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: And by the way, instead of twisting what I have said here and elsewhere to conform to your perceptions through your anger filter, please play fair by quoting what you disagree with and say exactly why instead of going off on tangents of accusations and insults. Otherwise, don't say anything you can't support with facts. - 20:48:14 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Well things are taking a turn for the worse. FWIW, I think you done good. I'm going to run for cover. I don't want my ear bitten by accident. Maybe I'll go join a coalition of individualists, or a pack of hermits. :-) - 20:58:06 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene ...Just stay out of my space!:CARRIE- QUOTE- You stated that I "unleash a vile tirade while your back is turned" FACT How in @#$% would I know if your back is turned. FACT- Your victimizing yourself again Carrie!!!! QUOTE- "you obviously are very upset over something going on in your life" FACT- I happen to be quite happy with my life and again where ARE you coming from making such a "faith-type" statement about MY life. FACT- Your IN MY SPACE! and you have no business or right to GUESS at what's going on in my life! You know Carrie, your such a idiot that I find it a total waste of my time trying to REASON with you. I, from this point on will not discuss anything with you. - 21:04:19 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Grant: And what was it that Marlene "done good" at? When you answer, I hope you can be better at using facts instead of emotion than she has been able to do. - 21:06:56 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene who is in reality (ask Ron) snickering!:GRANT- Pla-eez don't go trying to be an individual in a coalition, it's self-defeating! You can come out now. I promise, until another atheist with totalitarian views or xtian with the same damn views visits the discussion again, I will be nice. - 21:10:42 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene, FACT: You indicated that you believed that I had left for cowardly reasons, then proceeded to berate me. Then when I defend myself, the only thing you can offer to justify yourself is to continue to berate me with increased vileness. Check the facts on this thread of posts. - 21:11:36 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: Who is in whose space? It must be the one who is accusing the other of organizing a Coalition with the intention of controlling people, and who calls the other an "idiot". Well, Marlene, I'm glad you have decided to give up thinking that you will make any points with verbal violence. - 21:22:03 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CARRIE-- I thought Marlene "done good" at responding to you dispashionately. She was right though, doesn't always work. - 21:41:22 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:--Oops. Well my spelling is original. Dispassionately? - 21:48:53 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Grant: So you thought Marlene 'done good' by responding to me "dispassionately"? What do you think that your chances of this being believed in an institutional that would be legally obligated to looking at Marlenes harrangues objectively, and that is trained to look at disputes objectively? The chances of your statement holding up under the test of the evidence would be infinitismal. - 22:21:02 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:.....Now wouldn't one of those stray fundies that use bold letters to brow-beat as misguided folk be a refreshing change right now? - 22:23:41 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN?????????: What do you think that your chances of this being believed in an institutional that would be legally obligated to looking at Marlenes harrangues objectively, and that is trained to look at disputes objectively? - 22:27:37 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene Happy Bithday to Us...Happy Birthday to Us.... now to throw away the feather fan....:JOETTE and PETER- Happy Canada Day! Aren't we happy that we only have Erika to contend with!!!! - 22:42:34 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER and JOETTE- Oops! I forgot about Preston... - 22:43:43 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, especially since we are not privy to the bars on the windows that Carrie has to deal with in her home):--->TO ALL...after a really trying 10 hours at work, it so nice to come home, come to the computer with a refreshing cup of hot tea, and unwind while reading these posts...CARRIE..yesterday, I was one of the first to respond to your posting, and read the information you provided. I then mentioned that I had some concern about it being a collective, and asked you some basic questions, such as how could a "coalition of individuals" function without someone in charge giving direction. You never answered that question, and I would appreciate a short (please) and concise response. Thank you. - 22:44:13 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CARL...i love you! i am a very avid reader of Steinbeck, and he is never far from mind either. you are the only person i have encountered on the "net" that has ever mentioned his name. MARLENE..I like Orwell and Atwood very much too (especially Atwood's earlier works; another brilliant Canadian woman!) - 22:48:34 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (making up for lost time):--->LUCIFER...how can you be a marxist/anarchist???? All rules/no rules. If ever I've encountered an oxymoron this is it! - 22:50:39 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Who asked the question above in all bold letters? Anyway, the answer to the question is that the meaning is self-explanatory. If people were legally liable to accurate statements and ethical behavior, I think they would be more careful with what they say and do. But there are so many people who feel that such high objective standards would be oppressive and totalitarian-like. Okay, so why don't we abandon the legal system and just let vigilenty mobs run the country and be the judges and juries against the accused? - 22:52:26 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT...I never meant to be facetious early this morning when referring to "sunshine and roses". The "vibes" I have received from you (by proxy of the Mrs.?) is that you do not care to see any hostility. I hope you have been able to dodge Mike's gnashing teeth! - 22:54:36 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARRIE...it was not I whom used the capitalized letter, but like an xtian, you are evading the question by saying it's self-explanatory, and then without giving information, asking another question. In your country, the judiciary may not be without it imperfections, but anarchy does not rule either. You, more than anyone I know, would have seen and learned more about the judiciary due to your own tragic circumstances, but you can not throw your arms up in exasperation. You, as an individual, can make some changes. You do not need legions following you to do so. - 22:59:40 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Have read _A Handmaid's Tale_. One of her best, I think. - 23:28:58 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: Of course, in any organization that has any sense of direction, there is going to be someone in charge, whether it be a social organization, a government, a small business or a corportation. However, we can't confuse the necessity of someone in charge with dictatorships that use force to control people, or individuals in charge that use deliberate deception to build a coalition of support for his or her leadership or psychological brainwashing methods, such as in the Heaven's Gate and Jonestown tragedies. I've been compared with these kinds of organizers, not for reasons that have any factual basis, but out of extreme bias. The whole idea that atheists are not intelligent enough to use the advantage of organizations based on consensus would turn them into "collectivists" and force them to renounce their individuality is a product of very rigid thinking. Religions utilize all kinds of organizational structures for political and social goals, and they succeed at the expense of atheists, free thinkers and humanists who are concerned about what these Christian organizations are doing to suppress independent thought and scientific reasoning. Atheists who feel that they have to tie their hands behind their backs and refuse to to promote their interests, collectively, just to prove they are "individualistic" according to a litmus test based on Ayn Rand's literature are being short-sighted, not individualistic. There are already atheist organizations that have very little tolerance for individual input because they feel that such input would impede their narrow political objectives These are the atheists who seek to set "atheism" up as some kind of church in itself based on absolute loyalty to authority and that rule people with emotion rather than reason. I conducted an initial survey of atheists on the Internet to get an idea of how many atheists there are who are satisified with existing organizations and I spoke with many people who expressed a strong interests in a Coalition that stands up for the interests of individual atheists or the interests of the organization and its dogma. The Coalition I am organizing is one that is based on the desires of these people to be a part of a Coalition that respects the individual, and that also sees that an organization of the nature that I have in mind is one that cannot succeed without the respect of the individual. So accusations that a couple of people have made here that I seek to control the feelings, desires and thoughts of people and lead them into some kind of Jonestown scenario have no factual basis. - 23:30:53 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CARRIE-- Well, actually I was only referring to Marlene's posts after my complaints of emotionalism but before your firey return. JOETTE-- I don't mind hostility when warranted. I'm just pro-tolerance. Thanks for bringing up the depression incident. I'm feeling more comfortable with hostility by the minute. - 23:43:26 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARRIE..have you ever heard the expression "absolute power corrupts absolutely"? If your coalition is to succeed, will everyone in it have to believe the same things you do? I merely ask this because I have studied organizational behaviour for many years (formerly), and nothing works unless a group of people share the same desire to attain the same goals. - 23:46:00 on 1 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Peter...:HA HA HA HA HAHAH AH...ahhhh...nice remark. - 0:21:17 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: Calm down, I'm not attacking you. In this debate your argument will always be present. Independence is what makes humans, well, human. - 0:23:26 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:CARRIE--I can see how you are concerned with the proliferation of religious influences--on a global scale--and how ultimately harmful they can be to individuals, and society as a whole. History has demonstrated that over and over again. However, I feel if you are so concerned with religion still being a guiding force globally, or locally, or wherever, I don't feel atheism would be the appropriate starting point. I feel if you want to encourage free thinking and scientific method, and reason, and rational and logical thought as things to be encouraged ( or whatever )--THAT should be your starting point--and atheism would simply be a by-product of reasonable thought(which it is). But I have said before, you MUST have a standard of reference, if you want individuals that insist on thinking independently--or else your goals will have no focus, or direction. I tried to nail down some very basic standard that are outlined by Objectivists, but you ( for reasons still unknown to me ) immediately rejected them. Objectivism IS a philosophy that is based on independent thought, and if someone agrees with Ayn Rand, or Nathaniel Branden, Joette or Marlene, that doesn't make them a "blind follower" necessarily, but just someone who agrees with someone else's opinions. I am getting the impression that you find it mind rerstricting if someone outlines a code of standards, and someone else, regardless of how well they scrutinize and critically examine it--is a blind follower. Do you think that somewhere, someday, someone WILL "have it all figured" out? Is man capable of this? Christianity, to name one belief, doesn't think so--but I disagree. Why CAN'T WE? - 0:26:31 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (curious minds want to know..):-->RON..congratulations on your smoking cessation. One day I will have the courage to do the same...do you live close enough to Roswell to be able to visit for the anniversary party this week? - 0:50:05 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I think man is capable of figuring things out and I agree that encouraging logical thinking and scientific method the way to go. GRANT- That's the attitude ! Nice isn't always the tactic to use. Honesty about the issue and about the emotion it raises in you is best. I suppose we should just discard the mental health doctors and ask all the patients to join a coalition...hummmmm. RON- I didn't say you were attacking me! Where did you get that from? I SAID that I rarely stay angry for long, that in fact I was likely snickering at the time. I said , ask you if this is true. - 0:54:51 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER - Even with encouraging scientific method etc. it won't eliminate the Ted Bundy's or the Adolf Hitler's of humanity. There will always be these types of individuals that have no respect for others. - 0:59:21 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: First, I will respond to your assumption that because I read something sinister into growing numbers of people living with bars on their doors and windows, that that is my personal fate. Actually, I live in one of the most sought-after sections of San Francisco... in the Russian Hill area with a fantastic view of the Golden Gate Bridge unobstructed by iron bars on my windows. But in the 20 years I have lived in this flat, I have seen iron gates go up on entrances to residences on my street and in the neighborhood a little at a time, so slowly over the 20 years that it is imperceptible that it is happening, almost. If all of these iron bars went up the day after I moved, it would have been quite a shock, but since it happened so slowly, I wouldn't notice it without looking at old photos of the neighborhood. We lose our basic humanity and sensitivity so slowly in this way that we don't realize it unless we take time off from the TV and computer, etc. to reflect on what has happened in our life times representing a deterioration in our quality of life. I question the idea that the sacrifice of freedom to security actually represents a gain in security. We might perceive greater security, but there is a wider gap between perception and reality with increasing numbers of people who genuinely believe that it is the perception, not the reality that matters most. In other words, here again, we have a dangerous influence of religion that tells us that what we don't know won't hurt us since there is an invisible hand that will protect us and get us out of the hole that humanity is digging for itself. - 2:38:59 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARRIE..congratulations on your wonderful homestead. I do not understand exactly what you are saying, but I will attempt to add my two bits if I understood what you are saying. Are you saying that more people are believing a perception rather than a reality, thus necessitating the need for the bars on windows and doors? If that is the case, I would have to agree. It's like everyone telling me never to go to New York City because I would probably get mugged. They assume that it is automatic. Meanwhile, they are missing the plethora of delights that New York City has to offer. Carrie, I still have some concern about your evading any questions put to you..... - 2:54:59 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->Carrie..I would not be so quick to blame religion for the state of affairs in your country. It could be the availability of guns and the prevalent lack of respect for fellow man that seems rampant that is the crux of the problem. I am not Anerican bashing, but is it not true that in your country you are fed a steady stream of propangda that there are evil forces from every source other than your own that are out to destroy "the Anerican way of life"? No wonder there is so much violence in your society, as you are brought up on paranoia. - 3:01:42 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: To answer your next question, yes, I have heard the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. But again, not in my wildest imagination can I visualize a Coalition of intelligent and well-informed atheists with individualistic ideals allowing anyone to assume absolute power. By the same token, where you ask if I would expect everyone to believe what I believe, it wouldn't even matter what I believe, because I visualize this being a Coalition that acts on verifiable information rather than on belief and assumption. The only thing that I believe in is the power of information and knowledge. I surrendered control of the first Coalition I started because those who dominated it wanted to initiate actions based on assumption without gathering sufficient information. I still feel glad that these people in control of the first Coalition do feel that it is important enough to initiate the process of finding out what needs to be done to fight the Christian Coalition's "religious liberty" amendment, and I'm glad that they have openedj up to agnostics as well as Freethinkers and humanists and are working towards support from the American Atheists, Americans United and other important atheist, freethought and humanists organizations. I do believe that that Coalition is effectively putting pressure on all of these different organiztions to work together towards the interest of the individual atheist. The only reason why I set up the International Coalition was because I felt commitments to atheist individuals and organizations outside the U.S. who were concerned that the Coalition would become limited to narrow U.S. interests and ethnocentricism. - 3:06:39 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->but Carrie, why does an individual need a group? As I originally stated, a critical thinker does not need a gang to support them. You have experienced on a micro level what happens in an organization, so why do you believe the same sort of thing will work on a macro level? Is this some sort of "lonely brains" club? - 3:15:45 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:--CARRIE--..You are still missing the point. You are making the false assumption( by attempting to recruit atheists to somehow battle religious influences)--that atheists are educated, and intelligent and logical individuals. Now a person who possess these traits TENDS to be an atheists, but it doesn't work the other way around. Some peolple have the most irrational line of logic to support their atheism, such as denouncing God because their spouse waked off with the preacher, etc, etc. You are using the same logic that many Xtians do when they assume all atheists are communists because communists are atheists, only you have substituted intelligent, logical, realists for communists. If you want to "recruit" people, go after those educated, intelligent people--who share this agenda--rather than going after any atheist you comes blowing in from the wind, regardless of how irrational he may be. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are implying a recruitment to bolster an army equipped for a PHILOSOPHICAL battle--because that's what religion is--a sloppy, crude, easily accessible philosophy--and atheism per se is NOT A PHILOSOPHY--it is PRODUCT of a philosophy. Now, does THIS make sense to you now?? - 3:33:32 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: You express concern that I am "evading" answering certain questions. In fact, I am not evading answering any questions... at least, not deliberately, because I have answered all questions asked the best I can know about my own intentions. People who know me well have described me as being like a open book, and that has occasionally gotten me into trouble because I have always expressed what I think despite whatever risks might exist. I was trailed by the FBI for a number of years after making critical comments of the U.S. Government in the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1969. I have never done anything illegal or advocating violence as a political means, yet the FBI labelled me as a subversive for taking my Constitutional rights seriously. Back on the issue of the bars on doors and windows, there are two aspects of the perceptions motivating the bars that have to be considered. The perception that there is a legitimate danger that warrants having the bars and windows accurately reflects reality, because of the fact that many of the residences in the area have been broken into. My residence was broken into and ransacked in 1989, as safe as I thought I was. We had a big earthquake here the same year, but coming home to find everything ransacked by a human intruder was a lot more unsettling. So from the the standpoint of personal security, the perception of the need for the bars that people feel cannot be faulted. But from the standpoint of the perception that the growing trend of using such security measures instead of realistic social measures to prevent crime, it is a dangerous assumption that this sort of thing can happen without sacrifices to our deeper sense of humanity. Perhaps with the reduction in the crime rate due to tougher criminal sentencing, people might feel an increase in personal security, but it still is not acceptable, in my opinion, that this country has to depend on keeping such a large number of people in the prison and jail system for that sense of social security. than the earthquake damage. - 3:52:12 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter, I know that I have produced a heft volume of words in this discussion, but you must have skipped some of the points that I made for you to assume that I am out to swell the Coalition with large numbers of atheists, indiscriminately, just to be able to count heads, and have an army to mass at the borders of Christiandom. - 4:01:20 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:CARRIE...this is my last kick at this particular can...I have inquired of you ad nauseum, "Why does an individual with his/her own critical thinking abilities, need a group of people to add validity to their opinions or knowledge?" - 4:08:42 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Bon nuit! - 4:15:24 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: You ask again, "But why does an individual need a group? The answer to that is the fact that individuals are social animals. Would you go live in a remote wilderness in utter isolation just to make a point about individualism and to justify scoffing at people who need "lonely brains organizations? It is admirable to aspire to be as self-sufficient as possible, but no individual can be absolutely self-sufficient... especially as society moves deeper under the pressures of macro-economics with everything becoming assimilated into one global economy. There is nothing wrong with groups that are specifically designed to promote the interests of the individual, socially, intellectually and politically. It is true that joining any kind of group in today's world is risky business for individuals who value their independence, but it is a sad commentary on our society that groups are perceived as so risky that individuals have to deprive themselves of normal social needs just to prove that they are not weak-willed. - 4:24:52 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: I may be closer to you than to Roswell. Texas is a huge state to cross and I live on the eastern edge. Quitting smoking with the patch is quite painless actually. I was a pack-a-day smoker for 17 years. I am one of those smokers whos only addicted to the nicotene, not the act itself. I'm not chewing gum or doing anything to simulate smoking. Try the patch, it really helps. Before you begin you must WANT to quit. - 4:29:15 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...why do we need a group? Cause we Atheists aren't making a dent by ourselves.: Period. Most Atheists being skeptics (barf) won't express the faith in joining a group. They like their dog more than most people. - 4:31:42 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Ron: A real atheist would prefer the company of a cat rather than a dog. Dogs are pack animals that wag their tails in enthusiasitc support of their dependence on their master, whereas a cat cunningly hides its social nature. When was the last time you saw a dog that didn't regard its master as God? - 5:06:37 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: By the way, in my opinion, atheism is not a product of having a philosophy, but of having a brain. After my college philosophy course, I evolved from a philosophical agnostic to an existentialist, to an atheist. I have opinions, but no philosophy. - 5:22:06 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

CARRIE-- If the goal of your coalition is social change, then shouldn't you be recruiting experts (scholars etc.) rather than rank and file atheists? Your 'statement of purpose' seems to offer something for everyone while not offering any specifics. How do you and your rank and file atheists propose to achieve this "international perspective" of environmentalism and "fully-conscious"ness? Shouldn't you have a plan for the coalition or is the coalition itself the goal? You are able to express yourself very clearly on this board so why is your 'statement of purpose' so vague and unclear? - 6:29:35 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:--Oops, that was me. - 6:30:42 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Megan:hello? anyone here? - 8:56:12 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARRIE, Welcome to the board; it's good to see new posters. I'm an old--both in age and time of posting--poster here, but have been busy doing my dishes lately . . . the wife's been out'ta town for a couple of weeks, but is coming back tonight. Party time! I have scanned back over some of the old post here with interest. I don't claim any particular "label" or "belief system" (BS) other than the present scientific reality. I am comfortable with just Being and Experiencing. I just try to treat with "tolerance" all the various BS's out there and just, "live and let live." Each person creates his or her own reality in order to cope and deal with the enormity of the universe. The only thing I feel I know with absolute certainty is that no one I know is the sole proprietor of absolute TRUTH. Absolute truth is just relative to the observer--in time and space--and there is no absolute-concrete-reality. What is a reality to one individual may not be a reality to another, but I think it's important to be tolerant and show respect for other people's religions, philosophy, idealogy, atheistism, or just simply their "concept of reality" or "BS." The truth as i see it is, due to the enormity of 'raw data' out there, the human consciousness or ego tends to concretize reality into a particular "belief system" in order to make sense of it all. What we have here are people competing to sell others on their particular "BS's." This could lead to "Fundamentalism" or "Fundieism" and definitely not a good thing. I respect Ron's reality and belief in aliens because I know statistically and mathematically the odds of 'alien beings' and/or 'higher-intelligences' existing somewhere in the universe are overwhelmingly probable. He personally has had an encounter and I have not. He might have interpreted the "raw data" out there better than I. I personally will have to experience more scientific concrete evidence or have a direct experience before I will be able to definitely say that yes, I know for sure, aliens exist here on earth. This does not make either one of us right or wrong but rather our experiences and interpretations are different. Peter's "BS" is heavily oriented around "objectivism". This philosophy works for him and he's comfortable with it. I respect the fact that he needs a concrete reality and "order" in his life. I personally, while seeing value in this philosophy, am not comfortable with it as the "Gospel" in my life. Supposed axiomatic principles like "existence exist", apart from the relative perspective of the observer--in time and space--have no scientific relevance. I am only comfortable relying on what the best scientific minds currently accept to be accurate interpretation of the "raw data" out there. I know this is not comforting to many, but to each his own. Do you feel that people should be "label free" or free of all "BS's", such as we have today in various religions or philosophies? What do you base your reality on? - 11:16:09 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:CARRIE--You have some strange definition of the word "philosophy" Everyone has a philosophy. Philosophy is not a bunch of big words that philosophers use, but it is power from which no individual can do without. Anyone can SAY that he or she dispenses from a view of reality, knowledge, the good, but they would not be able to implement this. You and I and all human beings, Carrie, are coceptual beings, and CANNOT function at all without some form of philosophy to serve as a guide. You would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems--but in a position of a new-born infant, to whom every object is a unique unprecedented phenomena. And I would certainly assume you have progressed farther than this. But what I find remarkable here is that you come here attempting to recruit individuals to join your coalition, and you either do not believe or accept this simple fundamental of philosophy, in your fervent mission of attempting to always get the "last word" and as you get cornered futher and further, you are sadly sounding more foolish with every post you make. You are gradually crossing over that thin line into the realm of irrationality, due to this obstinance--and also sadly, your argumentative, and confrontational approach to many of the people on this chat page has not earned you little respect--as you have obviously not earned it. Either try another approach, be in a position of admitting error ( which you have committed regularly ) and think before you spout. It is my firm belief you are taking upon yourself a huge project, but you have bitten off more than you are able to chew, and the results are starting to become embarassing to witness. I would strongly advise you to go back, do some more research, and do your homework before attempting again to starty this project--because as it is now--you are way off the mark, and it won't work. - 12:20:22 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer (who is going to get some flak for this post):joette- I am sorry you do not understand marxism or anarchy- the two are very closely related. Marx wanted control by the "people" (sounds like democracy doesnt it?)- anarchists believe that no institutionalized govt can be good-- and that rule and order need to come from internal motivation--ie - the people... Stop believing the myths about these two subjects-- its like saying an atheist worships the devil!!!!!- Marlene I have know you for a while-- its ok--- we do not all get along with everybody- even other atheists-- This is probably a bad time to disagree with you, however when you said that it was my type of mindset was part of the problem- I say phoooeeey. The time of mindset I have is shared by very few people-- it is not saying that we are all "poor victims"- it is saying that it is wrong-- and people who do it are probably just trying to deny any responsibility for their communities- to just look at one aspect of an explanation of behavior-- "Well if he wasnt a drug addict...then he wouldnt be in trouble"= well how about if we as a society did not let our children get harmed to such an extent that escapism like drugs becomes a viable alternative- then maybe the fucker wouldnt be shooting dope~! This topic pisses me off!- Of course the individual is to be held responsible for their actions- then why should not the society be held for theirs as well? Because most people dont want to look at themselves! leaving now, no doubt I have pissed somebody off, oh well, quite frankly I find the hostility between atheists here- a bit depressing-- but dont mind me for I am blowing off steam- and not trying to hide what I feel. - 12:28:47 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:BILL--and while I'm at it, you are another one whom I have lost patience..as you too seem to think you are some "Watcher of the Woods" by evaluating everyone's slightly flawed way of looking at things, and declare that "absolute truth" is something which will be always out of man's grasp. AS I have pointed out a bazillion times to you, that assertion is flawed right at its roots, because if what you say is true, then there has to be absolute truth--but you say there isn't. Stolen concept, remember? And you still continue to commit this fallacy, and I will jump on you every time you commit it. I don't agree with you now, and I didn't agree with you then. I have heard your arguments, and I don't buy them . - 12:30:53 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:Dogs may follow leadership but I doubt they trust blindly. My dog, for instance, will bite me if I irritate him and so he should. He may live with me and I may feed him but he's allowed his own space. I suppose this is the difference between an "owner" and a pet being part of the family. RON- Personally I don't do anything on "faith". Trust, maybe but not faith. Group or gang anything is a turn off for me. Why not change things by referendum? Your answer would likely be that the majority of people are theists and the vote would be for a theist issue and that's very true. So, encourage scientific method in our young people instead of faith in the hope that they would use reason in the future to make a more productive society. ALL- The "Wisdom Channel"? Wisdom!? I'm sure every fern-sniffing, new-age groupie will tune into this one! - 12:41:39 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->LUCIFER..well, you haven't pissed me off. I wish you well in your attainment for Utopia. And yes, if we would teach our children well, to coin a popular phrase, it may mean less social problems. I have stated many times on this page that is the responsibility of the parents to teach their childen right from wrong, and it would work, except that religion gets in the way. CARRIE..relax, just because Ron made a joke about a dog, doesn't mean that you have to come back with some pedantic remark about animal nature (I have two cats, so I guess that makes me a double atheist). RON..a group of atheists is not necessarily better than one atheist, due to the problems encountered in any organization. Remember, an organization must have a goal, a mission and a belief system, and if this page is indicative of an atheist society on a micro level, you must realize that we few people here have very differing belief systems. - 12:43:47 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- If you were a female my comment would be "You go girl!" but since your not, you desrve the male equivalent. LUCI- Some "escape" with drugs and some "experiment" with drugs just because they want to see what all the hype is about. Those that "escape" are a sad product of a society that ignores mental health and this is where I think society should make developments and provisions to provide the community with information on promoting mental health. This in the future, "may" prevent crime and self-medication as they more than likely be no need for if BUT there will always be the experimenter who chooses to continue drugs and if lacking the repect for someone else's space will commit crimes against society. Crime prevention is very much favored in Canada but there are always those who, for who know's why, that no matter how well loved and taught will commit crimes. These people thrive on the many chances that rehab. offers just so they can use the system and commit more crimes. These particular criminals also just love the "I found jesus so I'm clean" tactic too. I think you know by now that I'm an uncaring person but I'm not about to be a doormat for those who take advantage of a society who are there to help. - 13:05:38 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:LUCI- Of course that should have read that "I'm not an uncaring person" - 13:09:33 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I suppose I'm not a "real" atheist because I dogs in my family. Maybe you would let me adopt one of your cats? - 13:43:11 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: My comment about dogs and cats was meant as a joke. I like both cats and dogs. - 14:05:44 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: It sounds like you are angry because I don't buy your narrow beliefs about objectivism and Ayn Rand and how you use them to forumulate your ideas about human nature... including my own human nature. The fact is that I still maintain that, if you really want to get down to concrete specifics about knowing oneself, all of the words that you see on your screen come from human brains and the physiological processes of stimulus and response. Philosophy is not the organ that organizes and processes information in interaction with the environment. It is the brain, but each brain is unique and has its own unique environment from which it takes in information with varying degrees of selectivity. Perhaps you believe with religionists that because human beings are some kind of "higher animal," there is something metaphysical in how human beings think and feel and process information fed into its nervous system that doesn't exist in animals that gives human beings the unique ability to use language, but metaphysics is not compatible with atheism, from the materialistic point of view. Besides that, philosophy is no where on any of the diagrams of brain anatomy that I have ever seen, and neither is objectivism. - 14:26:58 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The CDRAKE player inscribes almost frantically, and the body/brunt of those entry's allow me to recollect another ditty directed at criticism. Useful criticism that seems to be CDRAKE's position has 'CD' going after what CD prefers viewed as some old ideas,e.g., objectivism, so that CD can argue objectivism are as poisonous snakes coiled along humanity's pathway that CD wants to destroy. The problem , what is the substutute for the poisonous snake-like things as objectivism? Objectivism however, is unlike the meaninglessness of theism for which the substitutions are numerous. So, if CDRAKE can posit something else reasonable at least, then lets talk. - 15:20:11 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

PETER: OK Carrie, have it your way. First of all, I am not angry--I find perpetual skepticism you and Bill exercise as a virtue not the easiest thing in the world to deal with. Now lets do a little experiment. You say you reject the primaries of objectivism,( existence, identity, consciousness ) and call them "narrow beliefs", which is again your rejection that a starting point is necessary--even when you are talking to me you are implicitly pre-supposing one. And how about you Bill, why don't you try this experiment as well: The next time either of you post here I want you to do it from the perspective of non-existence. I want you to do this by not identifyiny this chat-page, anyone on here, including myself, your computer, a keyboard, your fingers to type out the message, nor are you to identify any of the keys on that keyboard from any other key. But that's not all, I want you to do all this unconsciously. Then we'll see how far you get. - 16:25:57 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: i thought i saw the same requirement, almost as if one had to do a required brain-drain. - 16:30:05 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Carl...: I look down upon a dog everyday who doesn't respect my divine power over him. Shouldn't have named him "Freebie" I guess. Cats are royal rats, IMHO. - 18:18:11 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->ALL...: Would you guys like to have the ability to add small image files to your posts? I would. Thinking of ways to improve man-made. I will not add advertisements or the like here. - 18:19:58 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: The only starting point I go by is reality and my self-interest in reality and what I want to do in reality with the finite amount of time and space I have to work with. I don't morally or ethically owe anything to anyone's broad generalization about "mankind"or "human nature," whether it be philosophical or theological. The only reality I can know as any individual is physical reality, not some philosophical "reality" that attempts to use abstraction to be everything to everyone in all places, but that is impossible to be reduced to the physical specifics of life that I can feel, taste, touch, smell, hear and act upon. That is what we have senses for, and if failure to use our senses to act on reality screws up the planet and ourselves, there is no "higher" mental reality that we can run to to escape the consequences of foolish metaphysical applications of the "mind over matter" plattiude. I am not here to use my body and senses to perform hypothetical "tests" to confirm a philosophical dogma about the "starting point" of a mental reality, and I will not believe any fantasy that I can suspend reality and make time stand still for the sake of a generalization about mental reality that is independent of physical facts. I don't need your dogma about individualism to know how to use my own individual brain. It is your type of mental pie-in-the-sky evasions of reality that has been the root of oppression and anti-individualism since the beginning of recorded history. What needs to be done now is to create opportunities for people to learn by their own choice to reject this kind of nonsense that has disguised itself behind many different theological and philosophical masks. People are already beginning to wake up to the lessons that tell them to pay more attention to what people do rather than what people say, and WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE speaks loudly and clearly as an effort to suppress individualism and shackle it to a very narrow dogma. You use the pretense of a pompous concern for elevating humanity above all else in the universe to do the same things that others who have claimed such grandiose moral schemes to justify barbarianism and heinous acts of inhumanity through the ages. Sorry, but that is my final word on your efforts to shove your ludicrous ideas about "objectivism" down my throat. I don't need to ask your permission to use my brain or for instructions on how to use my brain. - 18:28:38 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: I have noticed you mumbling about something in the background in reference to me. Can you offer any clues as to what you are mumbling about, or are you just mumbling to yourself? - 18:36:08 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, LUCI and CD both stated it in so many words, and I believe it . . . philosophy and religion are both a result of secondary language and apart of the ego/superego levels of the brain. These BS's are developed some years "after birth" and are not necessarily needed IMHO. Your dog interacts with the environment and enjoys life, probably more than most humans, and your dog has no 'belief system' (BS). Why do we human ego's think that we are any more special than the rest of nature? Things like religion and philosophy are both conceptualized and formulized BS's of higher intelligences. I am not a "watcher of the woods" posting here in order to sign anyone onto my BS, but only to state my personal opinion as to how I interpret the "raw data" out-there. You will allow me my personal opinion, won't you? Maybe 'absolute truth' is conveying to you the wrong message. Maybe the term, "all truth" is more appropriate. How about, "no one is the owner of all truth." Is that better? I do have a basic foundation--starting point--from which I operate from, and that is the currently accepted reality as viewed by the professionals. On this 'secondary intelligent' level of observation, that is all we have to operate from IMO. I don't see myself as a "perpetual skeptic" in my current view of reality...I accept what science and the medical profession says, and it's current knowledge, about the human mind and it's makeup. Why do we have to group into a particular/same, BS? If it is working for you then fine. Try not to 'loose patience' with me just because my foundation has a different basis, and I interpret things a little differently. I think we have to be tolerant of other people's BS's. I am kind of like Marlene, where I tend to go my own way...'live and let live'. Why do I have to adopt your paradigm? - 18:47:33 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Lucifer: Good for you! I'm also beginning to lose patience with Peter's apologies for collective repression of the individual in the name of some phoney "higher," pie-in-the-sky philosphical reality that does not exist. Peter can try to sanitize baribarianism with philosophy all he wants, but the blood that drips from his words speaks for itself. - 18:47:51 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARRIE, Hi! Did you see my post to you? - 18:49:29 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: Just trying to get a bead on you, you lean towards things then hide in whatever you are. RON, dogs cats, what? - 19:01:26 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bill: It is sufficient to say that our dogs and cats know how to enjoy their lives and pursue their own self-interests without any beliefs about or metaphysical explanations of "mind" "soul" and "spirit". The brain accounts for everything we see in our environment and read in books, magazines, on computer screens, etc. and how this myriad of types of information is processed. The human brain is the most complex structure of interlinking chemical interactions in the known universe, yet it is simple enough for each individual to use without complex instructions... if the human species can only get rid of its pompous belief systems. Fortunately, we as individuals do not have to wait for that to happen to start figuring it out for themselves here and now. - 19:03:04 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl, is there any special reason why you have singled me out for such cryptic suggestions that there is something hiding in me, or that I am hiding? I think I have pretty much spelled out how I see physical reality in a way that is very revealing as to how I experience the physical environment, including my body (brain). If you have ideas to the contrary about me that don't jive with what I have said, spit it out so that I will have an opportunity to respond to your insinuations that I have done something or am something that I need to hide. In other words, either speak up or shut up. I'm getting sick of your devious manner of insinuating things about me. - 19:13:33 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bill, yes I saw your post to me, and I just want your to know that I'm not ignoring you. Your posts are a breath of fresh air in the toxic verbal environment that this thread has become. - 19:17:15 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Peter: CARRIE, --Did you use your consciousness to post here? Did you identify me, your computer, this chat-line --and did you recognize that we existed, and yourself as well? Gee, thanks again for demonstrating the inescapability of the three primary axioms--like you do every time you post. BILL--This is no means "my" paradigm, and unless you cannot see its status as being self-evident-(as I have just once again, like I have over and over again demonstrated its validity )Even in your attempt to process "raw data" you have to accept them. BOTH OF YOU--In your attempts to invalidate these axioms of objectivism do you not perceive that each time you attempt it--you are simply reconfirming them? EVERY time. ...and now once again, I'll have to follow Leonard Peikoff's advice..... - 19:29:46 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CARRIE--......Oh I just KNEW you and Bill would find each other in the land of "no philosophy, non-committal non-existence! Ahhh...how sweet!! Now why don't you two exchange your little E-mail addesses, so you can privately exchange inanities, and let the rest of us discuss matters in the REAL world. - 19:44:39 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Peter...: Don't be a jerk. We are all guests here. Try some objective kindness and understanding. - 19:47:07 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: You asked me a few pointless questions, the answers of which you claim to support your "three primary axioms". I have a question for you that will unravel your objectivism: Do you know that you think use your brain, not your "axioms" to think with, or are you telling us you don't have a brain... that you are somehow a spirit or mind without a body? - 19:53:09 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: Your attempts to be a mind without a brain (body) tells us as clearly as you possibly can that you are the one who comes from the "land of non-committal non-existence". - 19:58:46 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:RON--I no longer can understand non-existence, unconsciousness, nor a lack of identity. Hmmm. I THINK Carrie is trying to say something to me again, but I just can't be certain. I'm not really sure if those are some kind of words written to me...hmmm I THINK it is....HmmmmNO, I'm just not sure...oh gee..maybe what I'm thinking now isn't real either!! Hmmmmm.. gee I just can't be SURE WOW! Hmmmm.... I better go now.....I'm not even sure if I'M real anymore.... - 20:24:30 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:boy July must be heating everyones brain up-- Marlene I know you are a caring person- in fact I like you. I did disagree very much with that particular post you did- but all in all you are a very caring intelligent person. whether drugs are for escapism or experimentation was not the point-- the point is that we as a collective mold the future- human beings are taught- the child molestor was taught- the great people were taught--- so exactly who is responsible for the teaching? other people? parents? ultimately I feel the responsibility lands on us all- which is what I meant- that and the fact that there are at least five levels of analysis for human behavior-- ie- take a look at america in the early 1800's- Racism and sexism were institutionalized- Thomas Jefferson was a monster- he raped the slaves he had, that he called "sub-human"- he even had sub-human children who he also enslaved. So does all the blame come down on TJ's head?- well in some aspects it does-- but the societal level of analysis shows that the way society was structured led to such behavior. understand now? AND DAMN IT, EVERYONE STOP ARGUING--- (we should be yelling at bill or somebody like that)(that was a joke bill) - 20:30:19 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (preparing to suffer the consequences):-->CARRIE..I have never tried to be rude to anyone on this page, but frankly, I am getting bored with your evasive, both side of the fence blithering. In fact, if I were there in person, I would tell you to fuck off. - 20:34:08 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Peter...(smirk)...: Deep breath, count to an imaginary 10...After just reading Joette's response above this post...uh, Peter, nevermind. - 20:42:32 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: the only thing special about you is that you may clearly see that words are symbols only and that words are not the whatever. What is puzzling is that you won't allow any here their references and various relevant connections to a logic, theirs mine ours. insinuation etc.? whats that? c'mon, i still confuse and am confused by entrys here - 20:45:20 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: Sartre's long essay, "The Transcendence of the Ego," could help you put to rest your fears of "non-existence," "unconsciousness," and "lack of identity." As an existentialist, Sartre's message can be boiled down to the advice that fear of the unconscious is like fear of ghosts, and that the real problems are much more mundane in relationship to physical reality. - 20:47:53 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:TO ALL, I hope I don't appear to be trying to just pick on Peter here. It's certainly nothing personal as I have said before. I honestly feel that I have not received any worthy responses to my post to Peter a few weeks ago concerning just one of Objectivism's primary axioms. I will repeat my post again to give anyone an opportunity to respond to it. It was as follows***To focus on just one of your philosophical axioms, "existence exists," from a scientific point-of-view. According to Paul Davies (physicists), "The common senses view of the world, in terms of objects that really exists 'out there' independently of our observations, totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor." Rand, of course, denies this--"existence exists." According to Stephen Hawking's (physicists), A Brief History of Time, page 61, "The uncertainty principle had profound implications for the way in which we view the world. Even after more than fifty years they have not been fully appreciated by many philosophers, and are still the subject of much controversy." (You and I here, Peter). Neils Bohr (physicists) says, "The fuzzy and nebulous world of the atom only sharpens into concrete reality when an observation is made. In the absence of an observation, the atom is a ghost. It only materializes when you look for it." Peter you say to me, "And your assertion that things appear if someone looks at it is laughable." Again, conscious observation creates a concrete reality. And Rand wrongly suggests, "existence has primacy over consciousness." Paul Davies again, "Quantum theory has prompted many physicists to declare that there is no 'objective' reality at all." Existence does not simply exists! Also he says, "The only reality is that revealed through our observations. Adopting this view, it is not possible to pronounce a particular theory 'right' or 'wrong', merely that it is useful or less useful......etc." And to throw in my two cents here, it follows that there is no "right" or "wrong" religion or philosophy, merely that it is "useful" or "less useful." Objectivism is useful to you, as religion is useful to other's; and science is useful to me! As long as people realize that they are not the sole proprietors' of "Truth", the world might become a little less "doctrinaire", and a little less "Fundie." Those that refuse to believe in the implications of the "uncertainty principle" or "quantum theory", must also doubt the "functionality" and "reality" of nuclear power, lasers, televisions, electron microscopes, computers......etc. *** I sincerely want to hear any arguments that support this primary axiom of philosophy, "existence exists". - 21:03:47 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl, I will respond here to your comment that "words are symbols." Technically speaking, some words are symbols, rather metaphors, but in their most practical, everyday use, words are simple abstract signs. The word,"spoon," is not a symbol in it's most practical use as a noun. It has a very concise meaning that allows no confusion between the abstract word, "spoon," and the concrete object that it is assigned to represent. Other words, like the adjective, "blue," can have both a simple abstract function with little room for ambivalence in some contexts, while in other contexts, it can be used as a metaphor. Off hand, I can't think of any contexts in which words are technically symbols in linguistics. Usually, symbols are shapes made with lines, like icons, or objects intended to have more religious or psychological meaning than linguistic meaning, as a archytypal symbols and dream symbols. Symbols are very ambivalent because they can have multiple meanings. So, what I am saying here is that I don't know what relevance your reference to word symbols have to anything I have said here, unless you are reading something other into my words that my words do not intend. - 21:07:42 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:HEY LUCI, I haven't talked to you in while. Good to see you posting again. - 21:14:04 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bill: Stephen Hawkins, like other quantum theorists also felt that science will ultimate reveal the mind of God. I would have to brush up on my notes on quantum theory and why Einstein was so upset with Neils Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg for their views on quantum theory, but to sum it up, I can see a major source of confusion in what science says about the concrete, physical universe is revealed in Whitgensteins notion that psychology is the most important science on grounds that all of the other sciences have to be filtered through the mind. That is where I still find it incredible that religion and philosophy with their metaphysical undercurrents still have such a strong political grip on science that even modern brain researchers still postulate the mind as something in the brain, but distinctly different from the brain and not reduceable to the brain. - 21:23:35 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

James-->All...:Hey, I heard there was a cat fight. I hope eveyone is doing ok. Sorry I have not been around lately. New job, new responsibilities, of course school, children and wife is about all any one man without suprnetural abilities can handle. Best wishes to all...and three cheers to Ron for taking over the page. P.S. I am thinking of starting a page called Man is God Made, what do ya think.<smirk> - 21:35:49 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:James: Better yet, how about calling the page, "God is man-made"? - 21:41:01 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: so you do like to play with toys, good. Linguistics, who have you listened to what is current, so what you buying today? Brain/mind, engine/running what is the difference? abstractions, is that not all anything outside us is, be it the sun or an ice-cube? - 21:44:23 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (I am cool and collected and apologize to everyone who was offended by my strong language, which is my symbol of exasperation):--->JAMES...you probably never expected to hear this from any of us, but what a relief to have you back! PETER: in the course of the last 48 hours, you and Ms. Drake have held several discussions about objectivism. If I read the posts properly, you hold strong opinions about the necessity of existence, consciousness and identity. In the last post, all of a sudden, your postings have been skewed to the point that you are now afraid of these three primary axioms. How did this happen? I think you were being sarcastic, but now Ms. Drake, Ruler of the Coalition, whose motto is "I have no philosophy, and if you do you are stupid", is taking you seriously. I am so confused! - 21:53:33 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette, your having told me to "f... off" in public is actually a lower stoop than if you were here to tell me in person, so if that is what you wanted to achieve, you have succeeded at it. It says a whole lot about how you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. - 22:16:00 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: You're mumbling again. I haven't stopped anyone from "allowing any here their references and various relevant connections to a logic, theirs mine ours. insinuation etc." Ask Marlene, Peter and Joette. They have freely used their freedom to exercise logic, illogic, the profane and the insulting. Perhaps they think that intimidation will prevent me from exercising my freedom. You have have it backward. - 22:23:37 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl, it seems you are trying to be poetic, but don't automatically assume there is any relationship between reality and efforts to be poetic. - 22:28:01 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARRIE..I haven't stooped to any degree. You think it's okay to sit back and smugly insult anyone and everyone who doesn't think the same way you do. Funny, the rest of us have enjoyed Carl's postings (Carl, I know you can look after yourself) and you have outright insulted him, which I have found offensive. You seem like to think you have the solution to solve all the societal ills we encounter, but just look at how your short presence on this page has caused everyone to turn on each other. If this is your way to have a peaceful, tolerant society, I think your next book to read is Mein Kampf. - 22:36:27 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: nothing poetic just that one is not without the other and that there is no mystery no metaphysical reference. metaphysics is an old idea out of times when it served as a handy place holder. The mumbling stuff, no that is rapidly becoming an unacceptable avoidance for discussion. when you comeup with some goods worthy of my time and toil and you getting there we will go on. early impressions make me think new-age sorta stuff. I know a few and they play as you now. - 22:41:43 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL, sorry for any insults I flung your way today. I just got caught up in having to constantly defend myself in an environment that until Monday was fairly stimulating and enjoyable. Would it be okay to go back to where we were pre-Drake era, and agree to disagree? - 22:43:37 on 2 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: Please describe in SPECIFICS how I have insulted you, Carl, Peter or anyone here. Please describe how I have offended anyone here... in specifics and in a rational tone... how I have done anything more here than express my opinion and supported my opinion the best I know how. Please tell me precisely how simply disagreeing with the opinions of others and defending my points qualifies as "insults". Please tell me how it is someone who has used logical arguments rather than angry rants using profanities, as in your own comments deserves to be compared to Hitler and fascism in general. Please tell me how someone who is attempting to appeal to emotion to whip up mob sentiments as you are doing can sit there and blame me for creating an atmosphere of divisiveness and intolerance of the views of others. You came at me with your "F... off" statement mixed with insults without giving me any clue as to how I had angered you... not even a hint of a warning that I was offending you, and why you are trying to whip up a "hate Carrie" campaign. I am open to reason and logic, but what you are doing is completely irrational and unacceptable. - 0:04:52 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: Well, as long as you don't repeat your accusations that I am trying to hide something, without giving ny specifics about what you are talking about, we can avoid each other. - 0:13:44 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CARRIE-- Just an opinion here. You sidestep any questions you are uncomfortable with. You insult or inflame to distract attention from this. When someone reasons you into a corner you pretend to misunderstand them. It's your way or the highway. Other than that I think your posts are full of wholesome goodness. - 0:31:04 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:--So Bill what you are saying then is before the evolution of consciousness in any being existed in the universe, and no atoms cpould be perceived by any conciousness--nothing existed in the universe. Also if existence does NOT exist, what does? What would it be called ? CARRIE--Insults? You implied I was pompous, narrow minded and blind. I was insulted I reacted. I certainly have no interest signing up with a coalition who wishes to fight a battle based on no philosophy. You are like someone representing no country invading another, just to defeat it--you say you offer logic, and rational thought as alternatives--but then declare no reference point, no standard--and when someone else can PROVE his starting points over and over again--you attack it with a vengeance, and no substance. You apparently have a deep contempt for any philosophy that declares a point of reference, but you fail to realize that logic and rational thought MUST rest on a point of certainty. You also have failed to accept that all sciences are BASED on philosophy, so if you dismiss it as being valid--there goes your entire basis of being rational. You want to drinka glass of beer --without the glass. - 0:33:22 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: It sounds like you want a simple life with no one around you who disagrees with you. If it bothers you that much, and if you can't handle individuals who think differently from you do, let me know that that is what you are saying, and I'll go, because I'm not getting anything out of this either. But tell me directly that that is what you are saying, because I don't want to read into your comments something you will deny that you mean. - 0:39:10 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CARRIE..that last thing I would attempt to do would be to whip up mob sentiment. You see, I am an individual, act as an individual, and take responsibility for my individual actions. Have I asked everyone to be on my side? If you need specifics, scroll back about 200 posts, and you will see shortly after you began your incessant postings that I mentioned your confrontational tone. If you were familiar with many of the people on this chat line, you would be able to understand how your despotic attitude has affected the tone of this page. We used to have equal, mature conversations, and all you have managed to do is stir up a lot of ill feeling. Are you an example of what one would find in your Coalition? I would be interested to know EXACTLY why you are no longer a part of the other Coalition you started, as I asked you a specific question about yesterday which you did not answer. - 0:46:47 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:--->CARRIE..is it that you don't read other people's posts, or that you don't understand them? I am always up to a discussion where different views are presented, and I have an active mind. If I want to surround myself with people who all think the same way, I would probably enlist in your Coalition, or a better alternative, a church. Please do not address me again, as I am sure thare are others on this page that would like to have some time to discuss matters other than what you perceive to be an expert on. - 0:54:00 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: You keep accusing me of ignoring your "points of reference," but keep leading me back to some spot suspended in nothingness that you refer to as "philosophical axioms" that you got from one single belief system based on Ayn Rand's capitalist ideology. Then you and a couple others here suggest that I am being evasive and contemptable because I don't accept Any Rand's premises as gospel truth. To be honest with you, I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand for many years, but from how you and others have attempt to model your views after hers to the exclusion of all of the sciences and disciplinary studies crossing a wide range of disciplines, I don't have any desire to read anything by Ayn Rand or use anything in her thinking or your's as a "point of reference". What I keep hearing from you is that my thought crime is not the fact that I believe that philosphy has a negative impact on society that distracts from the real issues of morality and life and death, but the fact that I have rejected a particular philosophy... your philosophy. I don't mind that you express your opinions on issues that are relevant to what is happening in various aspects of society, but that isn't what you are doing here and what you expect from me. You don't give me any choice. I either let you lead me by the hand, passively into your cherished philosophy, or I'm left to think that I'm being contemptable. I've been through this sort of thing as a child into my early adult years... being lead into a pursuit of the "right religion," then the "right philosphy." I tried everything already, from various denominations of christianity, Buddhism, Unitarianism, objectivism, the Moonies, etc., to reach a point in my life that I was sick and tired of letting myself feel guilty for wanting to think for myself WITHOUT anyone else's religion or philosophy. So, enough is enough. Please let me know if you want to let me express my own opinions on the subjects discussed here, or whether we are all going to pretend to have our own individual views, but shackled to your view. You can't have it both ways. - 1:04:23 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: Funny thing, when I scroll back through the posts from the very first post that I responded to, I don't see any evidence to support your claims. All I see is the attitude of someone who started off today's thread of posts by telling me to "F... off". You are an individual, alright, but not a very honorable one. Bye! - 1:11:43 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:---CARRIE--Just as I suspected--you jump all over Rand's pholosophy, and have little idea what its all about--oh you call it haviing capitalist ideals. Capitalism is a bad thing then is it? Is this why you are so anti-Rand? It wouldn't surprise me if you did object to her on these grounds. Why don't you look at her philosophy before you bash it ---because as I said before--you are beating a straw man ( as do all other Rand-bashers) - 1:12:59 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: If you were being objective about Rand and showed me that you were making some comparative points, I might have been interested in dusting off my old copies of Rand's books. But that was not your motivation. Your motivation was to gently cram Rand down my throat. - 1:19:48 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :Since I've missed so many posts and "CAN'T SEEM TO RETRIEVE THEM, RON". I will respond to my old friend JAMES first- At least James I haven't threatened to turn ole Scary Carrie into the IRS yet! CARRIE- IMO you haven't turned anyone against each other here but your arrogance seems to have won you few friends. When people tend to put themselves on pedestals they make themselves a mockery. You know, like the person who positions himself on a collapsable stool over the tub of water at the fair and sticks their tongue out inviting onlookers to dare to throw the ball that will trigger the seat. Well you've been dunked time and time again. Maybe putting in an application when the next circus comes to town would be something to consider. Maybe the clowns are recruitable! - 1:26:53 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Politically incorrect, yes! You go girl! Bought my new _Skeptic_ today. Have you read these at all? - 1:31:14 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Many writers have interesting and intuitve things to say and Ayn Rand is just one of many. It's obvious that you don't face the south five times an day and submit yourself to her. As you said, you use her writings as a reference the same as many here use other people's writings. And you, unlike some others, don't leave out half the message that the writer intended. I think your beating a dead horse with Carrie. - 1:39:05 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:I will have to respond in the morning. I just picked my wife up at the airport and we need some time. Please don't anyone leave because of differing opinions. Bye! - 1:46:11 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:LUCI- Then as usual we agree to disagree. Although we are social creatures we have limited responsibility to others, of course, again that is IMHO. - 1:46:57 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Wholesome goodness? Isn't that porridge? BTW same question to you as to Joette, have you read _Skeptic_. The newest volume has some really good stuff! - 1:49:15 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: You are the one who is making a fool of yourself with your rude remarks. Just remember that the next time you feel that arrogant impulse in your brain. - 1:52:25 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- I think you may even like this issue of _Skeptic_ a guy by the name of Eric Wojciehowski has some interesting arguments on Zech's interpretations. - 1:52:40 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene..since I have refrained from trying to discuss with you this WILL BE the last time I waste my energy on you:CARRIE- You just don't get it, do you? - 1:56:30 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:You who spouts arrogance in all caps from a hiding place: I do get it. You wish to leave me a last impression of yourself as not only a dishonorable individual, but a cowardly one, at that. - 2:03:56 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Yes, well I'm about halfway through the new 'Skeptic'. Loved 'The Legacy of Salem', though it's pretty troubling. I'm still worried about the repressed memory thing, as we still have innocent people in prison because of it here in Wa. I got a kick out of 'The Return of the Ancient Astronauts' as I'm old enough to remember when von Daniken made his big splash. What's your take on the Julian Simon interview? Porridge? I was trying not to say new-age since Carl already observed a similarity. Same thing. - 2:11:35 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I haven't ever read _Skeptic_ but tomorrow I am going to a magazine down the street to get a copy. CARRIE..this will be the final time I put your name on any of my posts, but I think you might add Atheism to the list of things you have tried and cast off, because you don't get it. You remind me of someone I used to know, who would just go on and on, and then deny anything she said that may have offended someone. At least I thank you for stirring the pot up a bit, as it's been awhile since we've had a zealot join us here (anyone else reminded of Cedric?). You are a twisted person, and a unique individual, and if it is a result of your life's experiences, I can say with all honesty we all have our sad stories to relate, but choose not to in this forum. Vaya con dios! - 2:42:45 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:---MARLENE..I have had no trouble at all getting the old messages. For my part, it is still done exactly the same way. Just hit the "add" and then at the top change "show=30" to whatever number you want. Actually I had suggested a certain person (who's name shall never be typed by these fingers again (petty)) to scroll back 200, but I think with all the activity, it would be more like 300. - 2:47:00 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->LUCIFER and MARLENE..I think everyone should have a responsibility to their fellow man, but it needs to be done voluntarily. If someone is forced into helping others less fortunate, sometimes people think it should not be their obligation (e.g. tax = welfare). However, it is my opinion that most people will help voluntarily, such as in your case Marlene, where we are still raising money for the Manitoba Flood Relief Fund. Most of us have contributed because we have wanted to, even though we could be cynical and not bother, due to the fact that people have chosen to live on a flood plain. - 2:53:35 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: I've been monitoring this page off and on as I work on some other things on my computer to make sure that I can leave here without any cheap shots being taken at me as soon as I walk away. You people who pretend to be individualists, but rely on mob rule to keep out independent thinkers will not have the benefit of being able to leave slanderous comments about me as soon as my back is turned. You'd love any opportunity to slander me without my having the opportunity to defend myself because that is the kind of cowardly person you are. So, if you don't want me to say anything more to me, don't try anything cowardly. - 3:28:53 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: Of course, I meant, if you don't want me to say anything more to YOU, don't try anything cowardly. There are a few good people with consience and social awareness here, and I will occasionally check back for them for whatever support I can be to them. - 3:33:22 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT and JOETTE - I just picked it up today and the only full article I've read is the article I referred Ron to. But, yes, I always enjoy that mag. I'll let you know about the Simon thing tomorrow. I think you'll like this mag. Joette. BTW thanks for the instructions how to bring up the old posts! I don't think Luci means just common good will when he says that society is responsible. LUCI- Fill the newer posters in on what you mean. For me to do this, I would not likely explain it properly. - 4:30:23 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:I understand that there was a debate tonight on TV about the exsistence of aliens at Area 51. Did anyone watch it? GRANT- No response! - 4:34:20 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:Joette- Wasn't Cedric the one obsessed with violent crime? - 4:38:35 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..have you ever needed support to fend me off? Sorry, I didn't see that show. The Jays and Expos were duelling it out in a 13 inning game. (Jays finally one it) - 4:45:53 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:Sorry, that should read "won" it, although they did win by one. I only remember Cedric to be obsessed with the filling the page up with xtian nonsense. I am saddened by James Stewart and Robert Mitchum dying...I am an avid movie buff, and we've lost two great actors. I think Katherine Hepburn will be next. - 4:49:51 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Actually I don't think I've ever asked for support to fend anyone off. Come to think of it, I rarely have to and when I do, I rather enjoy the game. Now I wouldn't go as far as Mikey though. I must be getting Cedric mixed up with someone else. - 13:16:57 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Marlene...: I will look for this edition of _Skeptic_. I doubt anyone can change my mind about the world's greatest bringer of truth to man-kind. he he.... - 14:22:39 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: i just heard an early account of Sagan's book/movie 'Contact' that it is a good rendition of the story. it portrays the dynamics of religion and science, i'll have to see it to see how well it is carried out. ANY, i just heard a story about some California citisens plan to hoist the confederate flag through the ind.day celebration. i wonder why not, it is as U.S. of A. as at least cinco de'mayo or st.patrick's day and whatever the rest may include. - 14:32:36 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I'm a reductionist and tend to break everything down to the lowest parts (ie quantum micro level), when it comes to reality; especially intangibles like gravity or mind. I am not saying that before consciousness existed that nothing existed in the universe. This concretization of mind over matter is on a micro atomic level where there is no clear distinction between the tangible and the intangible. Scientists can't say why, but the "mind" does play a roll in concretizing reality on this level. I am waiting for their Grand Unified Theory of Everything to answer mathematically some of these observances. And collectively, on a grosser macro level, the mind does play a roll in creating it's own reality here as well. For you it's the philosophy of objectivism. To use the Chair example again, is existence really a "chair?" It's relative to the observer in time and space. On a macro level it's a chair. On the cellular level it's wood. On the micro quantum level its empty space. The reality of a chair is a direct result of the observer in time and space. Sound waves are micro energy particle interactions, until observed by a human observer, and interpreted by the human brain as "sound." Evolution has created this human consciousness with the ability to concretize these particle wave interactions into what the human will call "sound," and be forewarned of "danger" in order to enhance his survival capabilities. If you could be alive and exist, without human consciousness, you would not know any distinction between you and the rest of nature. You would essentially be 'one with the universe.' What would this be called? Words themselves are a creation of secondary intelligence based on sensual input into the programed human brain. There is no word to describe the timeless or present state oneness and awareness. A couple of words that come close would be absolute 'peace' and 'love.' This is the birth level of existence of the human brain and awareness. You once existed at this level and people meditate to re-experience this positive awareness we indulged in at this birth state. Just look at early life forms or babies. No human, or early life form, is sad or trying to kill themselves on this level. After the birth state a human soon operates from the first level of the brain (ie ID, stimulus/response). Ego and Superego or secondary intelligence come some years later in the growth process. We can agree to disagree if you want. - 14:41:27 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, You bring up a worthy point for discussion in your post to CD when you said***CD prefers viewed as some old ideas,e.g., objectivism, so that CD can argue objectivism are as poisonous snakes coiled along humanity's pathway that CD wants to destroy. The problem , what is the substutute for the poisonous snake-like things as objectivism? ***Of course I speak for myself here and I, in comparing objectivism to science, am not trying to portray this philosophy as a poisonous snake to be killed, with nothing to substitute it with. On the contrary! I have always said that in reading Rand's writing I found them useful to me to some degree. I just don't relate to them as "The Gospel" and subsequently throw everything else away. People are unique and different in their genetic makeup and their experiences. Why should Objectivists have to, "throw their philosophy away?" Nothing is "all right" or "all wrong", it's just, on a secondary level of intelligence, "useful" or "less useful" depending on the experiences and makeup of the individual. I personally happen to be genetic linked--through no part of my own--towards math and science, so my reality leans that way. Science has demonstrated that there is no concrete absolute objective reality "out there." There's just a lot of raw data that, in many ways, is concretized by the observer and percolates up and out via secondary intelligence to be expressed in the form of a Belief System. The only thing I have ever suggested here for people to consider throwing away is "Intolerance" for other people's realities and BS's. It would be wrong for me to tell an Objectivists that he had to follow the abstract abstruse theories of quantum science only, and that should be the only true reality and BS. - 14:42:04 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARRIE, I think you answered my first questions to you, in some of your post to others, concerning whether you felt that we as humans should be "label free" or "BS free." Do you see these as a crutch or barrier that separates people? Should we not focus on Tolerance of BS's? Yes I agree with Stephen Hawkings that science will ultimate reveal the mind of god or cosmic intelligence. I think the intangibles of gravity, mind, and cosmic intelligence will be explained mathematically in their "Theory of Everything" but, like quantum mechanics, it will be very difficult to rationalize for the average person. After decades of quantum mechanics the average person just cannot rationalize it's implications because the conscious rational ego mind is like a computer that is only programed from the tangible macro world of input. So it makes no sense except on paper in the world of mathematics or possibly through meditation where one transcends the ego mind to experience our basic mind level. Of course Einstein was upset at first with Bohr because his major contributions were in the world of classical physics in which everything in the universe had a cause and effect (deterministic arguments). Quantum theory, promoted by Bohr, espoused randomness and probability along with "causeless" creation of energy out of empty space. Also the mind-over-matter thing of quantum theory that we have discussed recently (freewill arguments) didn't set well with Einstein at first but he had no choice but to give in as the evidence mounted. So, getting back to my original questions, shouldn't psychology and BS's be tolerated and work hand-in-hand with science? One must have a vision, belief, or will in order point one in the right direction so scientific progress can be made, right? And BS's are not "all right" or "all wrong", just "useful" or "less useful" relative to the genetics and experiences of each observer. Aren't the REAL problems in the world associated with Fundamentalism (Fundie's... "knowers of all truth") and their immutable and doctrinarish propensity to impose their BS's on others? - 14:42:47 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: you must be awful sensitive if you can say i inscribe matters found between the lines, perhaps you'd be good enough to say how you learned to do that. I'm reading your posts the general response to them so far is that you mean to to subject others with again, whatever you think you are. This is not something new i find it humerous that you seek to ply an ingenuity for neutering things. Again, when you inscribe something that does not cause to me to consider clearing off my references of sophism, we'll discuss maybe, who knows - 14:55:06 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: so that the snake reference goes no further, if i didn't then lets do so now, that was someone else's idea that i just happened to recall. Furthermore, it is not an exact quote and as for the matters of exchange it seemed appropriate. Generally, your points are agreeable specifics, however, i may head into another direction. I too find numbers agreeable to one's thought and action. 'BS' i've seen it said that such things are not unique anybody but are simply products of others throughout one's history. - 16:11:35 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

martian (of mono):Useful kit for defeating Theists is the Carl Sagan book 'Demon Haunted World' (science as a candle in the dark). Why is it that athiests, agnostics etc have lets themselves get walked over by this so called moral majority (in fact a minority check the C of E's and the Vaticans latest figures). Also why is no one waking up to the fact that religion closely followe by nationalism is the greatest threat to human survival. It's about time that people took sides and purged the disease. Athiest evangelism is due. - 16:26:05 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARTIAN-- For me the issue is individual rights, rather than evangelism. Neither religious efforts or scientific advancement have altered the religious/atheist ratio in the past 50 years, at least in the U.S. I can't see a group of miffed atheists having much sway. - 17:05:22 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: I am probably the most simple-brained person you will ever meet, so what you see of me here is what you are getting. That is precisely why you create such an annoyance to me when you persisting make cryptic references to me that suggest that I am representing myself here as something other than what I say, such as where you say, "whatever you think you are." After I pointed this out to you before, you denied it. Do you have any sense of fair play, respect, and courtesty? Do you realize how profoundly disrespectful you are being in suggesting that I am, in so many words, a "phoney," a "fraud," an "imposter," a "liar"? It's true that you didn't use these words, but the fact is that the words, "whatever you think you are" have these connotations. This is not the first time that you have used these words, and despite the fact that I confronted you with them, you continue to use these the veiled connotations. So, I am telling you right now that I will not tolerate it any more of it, so either speak up or SHUT UP. - 17:58:54 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BIll--I started to once again attempt to re-but the same things I have tried to rebut, at least on one other, if not more occaisions. I do find a lot of these findings you relate very interesting, but I find the task of challenging them too arduous, and in the end, I really do not have all the resources I need right now that I would feel comfortable to convince you otherwise--so yes, at this point we will agree to disagree, and focus on solving the "fundie problem". - 18:12:54 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bill: From my impression of several biolographies I have read on Einstein, Einstein protested some of the most fundamental views of quantum theory to the end. Of course, his argument was not so much with the Wave/Particle aspect of the theory, but with how quantum theory was being used to semantically twist some of the basic terms of classic physics to give them metaphysical meaning. Eistein's most bitter resentments towards the quantum theorists was rooted in his concern for what quantum theory was doing to compromise the role of objectivity in science for political reasons. He had fought throughout his entire lifetime to guard science from political, religious and commercial control. But he fought a losing battle as we can clearly see from the effect of of quantum theory has put science into the hands of the most subjectivistic thinkers who looked at science through the filter of psychology rather than the hard, physical sciences with their higher standards of evidence. The reason why Einstein insisted on high standards was because he had witnessed in his lifetime the tragic consequences of science being dominated for political and ideological ends... such is in the creation of mustard gas for use in WW I, and its ongoing use in the course of history up to his death in creating even more destructive weapons capable of killing vast numbers of people with the least effort. Einstein spoke out forcefully against his colleagues who were selling science out. This sell-out of science continued beyond his death to snowball to a point that it has become so intellectually sterile that it is virtually useless as an intellectual tool for dealing with religion. Look at Frank Tipler and others in the New Age movement who are able to use the idea that reality is only in the mind of the beholder with impunity. Look at how much it has lowered the standards of education and opened the door to those who are determined to bring back prayer to classrooms, and who want to replace psychology with religion in drug treatment programs and in rehabilitation programs based on negotiations that Newt Gingrich and other Republicans are conducting with leaders of the CHristian Coalition and other heavily-funded religions organizaitons behind closed doors. On this issue of the psychological weight of numbers of psychology... particularly getting into the link between psychology and psycho-technology.. that is where we can see the most dangerous trends in the intellectual world coming out of quantum theory, but I don't have time to go into that here. Frank - 18:41:48 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: just keeping an eye on you, you might be here to book reservations for the next comet. So far nobody except in your opinion perhaps me has inscribed anything of you that was not started by you. If you wanta joust, then i'm ready, as for putting up or shuttin' up, you should practice what you preach. Sophism is not any of the things that you dragged into the picture. those things are things in and of themselves and not good. So, are we you and me supposed to contest words about just you and whatever you think you are, or do we join the others? you don't offend me because you said nothing, you don't anger me because who are you, so what do want to do? - 18:41:54 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:Hey Ron!! Youre not going to believe this, but I got em!!!! NO GOD IS GOOD 2x8 inch bumper stickers are Here!! available in white on black or black on white. $2.00 a piece. You can go to my homepage then to religious page-- the bumper sticker is the same as the gif file there (minus the red border)- do not contact me through my page- that is my school year email--- I can be reached at democritus2@hotmail.com - 19:00:49 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:MARTIAN- I couldn't disagree more. Evangelism isn't going to attract thinkers but encouraging scientific method will. More TV programs like "Solved Mysteries" or "Touched by Reason" may help. When we read our kids fairy stories TELL them that these are fun little made-up beings. When kids hear about god tell them that that's another made up being but no such a fun one etc. Give them the choice to learn in a methodical way .....Of course I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. - 19:27:52 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer (who is still really happy about his stickers!):marlene- rats!- I think I would make a good atheist-evangalist----- AND THEN MOSES WHEN UPON THE MOUNT, MY BREATHREN-- AND THERE WASNT ANY GOD FOR HIM TO SPEAK 2!!!!!! (applause)- well I can dream anyway-- besides I think an evangalist with the name Lucifer would have to be good! - 19:57:54 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: All that you are saying in your last post is that, as you as you feel that it is safe to be discourteous toard an individual who has been scorned for having a minority opinion in this discussion, that it is acceptable, and you feel justified in being discourteous because I have been the same. Can you document that with specific quotes, or do you think that it is also intellectually and ethically fair to make accusations without evidence? If you are above what you suggest I am...as a"sophist," aka, "imposter," "phoney," a "liar," then, why are you afraid to document the thought crimes you allege that serve as your justification for your offensive statements against me? If you feel objections to comments that I have made in reference to my perceptions of social problems, science, atheism, etc.., then why don't you present a logical argument to refute them rather than to attack me with your accusations that I am a "sophist," that I don't "practice what I preach, and your insinuations that I am not who I say I am? Can you be specific about what you perceive that I am saying that I am that you know for a fact is not true? Or are you just going to continue mumbling incoherent references to my "sophism?" - 20:06:51 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARRIE, I agree that there is a danger in using the implications of quantum theory to create a whole new aspect to religion (New Age). Not only Frank Tipler but people like Deepak Chopra (sp?), a medical doctor from India I think, who is currently making a lot of money from the implications of quantum theory (QT) and its application to ancient mysticism. Since QT is so recondite, and yet scientifically creditable, it's hard for the average person to argue against some of the points he makes. Some of what he says may have some value and be true, but for the most part he is creating--in my mind--a New Age Religion for the sole purposes of making a Buck! Of course I have been accused of the same, but I'm selling nothing more than my personal opinion and promoting nothing more than Tolerance and understanding for those who's reality may dictate a somewhat different BS. I am well aware of the Christian Coalition and its affect on the school system as my wife is a Coordinator in the district over school services. She is only trying to help kids by supply schools with resource officers, nurses, computers, psychologists/counselors, low cost health insurance.....etc, and she has gotten flack more than once from CC. Going back to my other point, what's your response to what I previously posted: "And BS's are not "all right" or "all wrong", just "useful" or "less useful" relative to the genetics and experiences of each observer. Aren't the REAL problems in the world associated with Fundamentalism (Fundie's... "knowers of all truth") and their immutable and doctrinarish propensity to impose their BS's on others?" - 20:14:09 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I like movies too. I saw another good movie here recently, "My best friends wedding" with Julia Roberts. She plays the role as good as she did in "Pretty Woman." Have you seen it? The best movie I have seen this year by far though is the Tom Cruise one, "Jerry Mcguire." sp? Is there any 'time delay' in Canada on new movie releases, as there is in Europe? We, like Hong Kong recently, are going to be celebrating our independence tomorrow on the 4th. My youngest son and his new girlfriend will be here tonight and through the weekend to celebrate with us. I don't know how much I can post tomorrow. Does Canada have an independence celebration of any sort? - 20:15:23 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE aka 'sophie': once is enough, of late your posts seem more substantive, not clogged with your feelings and so and so says, was thinking was feeling et.c as for feelings, well you been mostly funny to me. You seem to wanta run the female-like pseudonyms away, then if you are female then you seem to want to be now, unattainable and selective. i'm waiting to see posts as you directed to BILL so as to have to something to ponder for a few days or maybe bump into a good book as i recall something you might have posted. Your feelings and your parroting of who may have said what when, that is boring. You did mention a public school matter that might bear interests. - 20:21:25 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bill: To answer your last post, first I have difficulty with abbreviations, and I'm not really sure of the reason why, except that I have difficulty with having to assume what people mean and risk being accused of falsely assuming without asking precisely what the other person means. I can only assume that you are referring to belief systems in your question, and trust that you will correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption. My feeling about belief systems is that they do not represent a social phenomenon that can be linked to genetics or anything else in the purely physical world, but to social factors that can be corrected by education without compromising the sense of individuality and uniqueness in individual psyches. I do feel strongly that they are a danger to the well-being of future generations because of their divisiveness and the often violent effect of divisiveness. When young people are sent the message that civilization is about every individual doing his or her own thing and creating their own realities, the whole foundation of education and motivation for self-discipline necessary to the learning process is dangerously compromised. One of the aspects of liberal and humanist philosophies that both atheist and theist conservatives have started to focus on is that these are philosophies that are most responsible for the permissiveness that has resulted in the sexual revolution, and the increased drug use and crime rate among youth. I basically agree with that, though I disagree with what theist conservatives offer as a remedy for this social problem. I do not agree with their prescription of harsher punishment, as I feel that individuals must begin to take a much more sober look at how the affluence created by modern technology is affecting human values... and admit that many conservative moral values have practical usefulness, and are not necessary rooted in religious inspiration. On the other hand, there are many aspects of liberal philosophy I agree, especially tolerance of other viewpoints, but the wisdom of tolerance is thrown out the window as soon as people start using ethical and moral principles as ideological weapons rather than as social tools. We can see examples of that in this thread of posts, and it is much more difficult to stop than it is to start. I have nothing against affluence and tolerance but our society still lags dangerously behind technology and material affluence in how it applies educational principles to the task of understanding these aspects of psycho-social development that did not exist prior to mass media and easy access to automobiles, drugs, guns, designer clothes, pornography, etc., by young people. Tolerance cannot be absolute if our society is to get a grip on these unprecedent problems on such an unprecedented scale as they exist today. as - 21:07:08 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:BILL-- I've been reading the QM books suggested here, and looking at other sources, and of course reading the arguments here. Fascinating stuff. My question is whether it is too soon to discard objective reality as a usefull concept. I'm out of my depth here. With chaos theory, though events can be quite unpredictable, there is still a finite field of possible occurances that presumably events will fall within. In quantum mechanics wouldn't this also be true, that is, that though electrons or atoms may act unpredictably, or as waves or particles, and even if determined by an observer, there would still be a finite field of possible actions or outcomes? For example an electron wouldn't become a chair. If this is true couldn't this finite field just be considered another not understood, but observable part of objective reality, like gravity? I hope this makes sense to you. I had trouble making it make sense to me. - 21:23:49 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: Whatever you perceive in the difference between my more recent posts and my earlier posts still does not excuse the rudeness of your repeated insinuations that I am some kind of imposter bent on deceiving everyone for evil reasons. Am I here to be manipulated by rewards by you for saying things you agree with and that don't bore you, or to be verbally punished if I say things you disagree with or that bore you? Let's get things straight: That is not why I'm here. Then what's with this gender thing, as in your comment, "You seem to wanta run the female-like pseudonyms away, then if you are female then you seem to want to be now, unattainable and selective." What the heck does my gender have to do with anything that I said, and "unattainable" to what and "selective" of what? Your comment about my seeming "to wanta run the female-like pseudonyms away" is totally incomprehensible to me. It makes no sense at all. Why does it matter so much to you that it is worth it to you to be rude at the expense of others? - 21:38:13 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I see again the contentious opinions of youth problems that have been spawned by sensational news or polictical interests. This includes such a wide range of points of issue that sorting through them requires more time than is expedient for either news or political type interests. Youth problems are easily exploited by any and all. None of it was true in relation to my involvement with young adults and those younger. Few were sugar and spice and puppy dog stuff, but they as a group were not dangerous. Those who were potentially dangerous were also the very new in number and were instigators. The few that they were are dead, this is of course unfortunate but interesting. They were not the welfare sponsored family, they were of the well off familys. In the time I've known these youngsters, near a decade, those that made the news with their misfortune can be counted and are less than ten. But, to have read and listened to the news, it was terror and required legislation aimed at family, for church, redefine public school curriculum, this list can go on and on with what these, pundits had to say. It was then and probably is the same at any place pointed to, just a handful. - 21:57:59 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CDRAKE: this has been fun and as i've said your recent posts are better. As for the gender thing you just seemed like someone who would get excited by the sensationalism of the topic. Rude? i where except your imagination, 'no sense at all' if you can read with comprehension and if you are unafraid to think, who with such qualities can or would want to deny such an obvious subject predicate connection of the line you requote. So keep at it for as i say you are doing better. If u have another good post or two and who knows - 22:38:46 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..first, the light stuff. I saw Jerry McGuire and found it to be a piece of fluff. The only redeeming part was the scene where he is kissing his secretary (and then wife) goodnight for the first time. It was very sensual. You asked if there is a time delay in movies being released in Canada. In the movie industry, the three cities that movies are released in first are Los Angeles, New York City, and ta da!, Toronto, so we get them at exactly the same time you do. I prefer cinema noir, and so don't go to the theatre to see the big block busters, but wait for choice independant movies that are shown at a tiny little alternative theatre here. You also inquired as to our "independence day". You may have noticed that on Tuesday, Marlene and I were singing happy birthday? That is because July 1st is our national holiday, and is originally called "Canada Day". This year we were particularly smug because for the fourth year in a row, Canada has been cited by the United Nations as the best country in the world to live in (we do not take that lightly, we ARE lucky to live in this country). We do not have the same type of independence day as you, as we only became independant in 1982, when we were granted our own constitution by Queen Elizabeth. Unlike your country, we did not have to have a war to gain our independance (joke). I have a serious question...why do we in Canada know so much about your country, but you know so little about ours? - 22:58:23 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..it is too early in your studies to disqualify any ideas. You are probably going to have a metamorphosis over the next few years, first relying on one theory, and then another, and then another. Be patient, but please, always carry your flag of tolerance. - 23:02:42 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (meow):--->MARTIAN..evangelism is definitely not the way to go. If you have been following the postings here lately, we already have one visiting us, and it hasn't been pleasant. MARLENE...I finally go meself a copy of Skeptic and look forward to studying it. - 23:06:02 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO CARRIE: I have been following your posts here with great interest and wondered whether you could give me references to the descriptions you gave of Einstein. Did you see the PBS special on him last year? Is all that from a recent biography? It was my understanding what Einstein deeply resented in QM theory was that chaos and randomness seemed to play a large role in the sub-atomic world. This make him profoundly uncomfortable, hence his frequently quoted statement "God does not play dice with the universe". In fact, Frederick Pohl, a science fiction writer wrote a series in which one of the books (I think it was the first one) used this as a plot device for a hologram version of Einstein. (You guys will have to forgive me here, Einstein is a hero of sorts to me). TO PETER: I think I have said this before, but then wasn't able to get back to read any replies, if any, but last week I went to the library and picked up a copy of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" (I think, or maybe it was "Atlas Shrugged"?). Anyway, in front was an introduction by Ayn in commeration of the 25th anniversary of the first edition. Towards the end she started saying stuff about how if people didn't buy objectivism as the true way of experiencing the world, they had only themselves to blame. Something like that, anyhow, and it sounded so much like a fundamentalist preacher, that I put the book back on the shelf. Are you familiar with this edition? If so, how did you feel about it? She can't be saying that hers is the only way, can she? Is that what Objectivism is about? I promise to come back tonite and check on your response (if any!). - 23:25:58 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:GRANT, I don't think we should attempt to discard macro objective reality. This reality is a permanent part of the fabric of our ego's and secondary intelligence. This is what we have evolved to, on a mind level, and we use this extra level of intelligence as a tool for survival. Humans on this higher level have created "time" to help us become more efficient and increase our level of survivability. I know many people with different philosophies, religions, and ideologies that are using these secondary intelligence paradigms or belief systems to create a useful, productive, and happy life. People have to recognize that other people can have a somewhat different reality on this macro level and it's just as real for them. They may be looking at the cellular structure of the wood and not the chair. But problems occur when people start to believe that their Macro level and ego level is the only level of reality. Problems also occur when people think that this macro level is the only level of experience within one's brain. Intangibles in nature, as well as, the lower levels in the brain (ID) have to be recognized as being just as much apart of one's reality. Your essentially correct in what you say concerning QT. One can't predict a single event but, through probability of many events, one can predict the odds of a certain numbers of electrons hitting your TV screen in exactly the right spot to produce a picture, for example. - 23:30:42 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARRIE, You are correct the BS = Belief System. When I related BS's with genetics I was referring to people like myself that are more math oriented may find it easier to define reality in terms of math or science rather than religion or philosophy. Social factors--environment-- certainly do play a role. This is liken to the old argument of what influences a person most, his genetics or the environment. I tend to believe that the higher the intelligence the more a person's environment and social factors determine what he is to become. The lower the intelligence, the less social factors and the more genetics comes into play. I have to go for now, but will talk more later. - 23:31:17 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Very quickly because I have to go. I do know that your elections are only about 30 days long which I think we would do well to copy that model...Bye! - 23:36:57 on 3 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CHRIS..it's good to see you back among us. Please check your e-mail before posting..... - 0:10:22 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:BILL-- Extremely helpfull. Thanks. JOETTE-- You make me self-conscious as hell. I don't know if this is intentional. If I'm an underqualified poster you'd have the mercy to tell me wouldn't you. Or are you telling me? Anyway, I'm occasionally funny, aren't I? (I mean intentionally) - 0:59:32 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Carl: If you think that your rudeness is something to have fun with, as you say ("this has been fun and") then just don't say anything to me. What you are doing is engaging in childishly manipulative behavior... "Let's see what button I can push in Carrie next to try to annoy her.") Let me ask you something Carl. Do you do this because you have learned that you can get by with being blatantly rude without raising anyone's self-righteous indignation on this page whereas when I say anything that even hints of an unkind comment, the local lynch mob here comes after me for my politically incorrect views? Ah, the sweetness of conforming to mob rule! But let it be remembered that mob rule is what invigorates the individual with delicious passions. - 1:51:19 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT...never, ever have I wanted to make you feel self-conscious. It must be the mother urge in me, but I have only been trying to encourage you, as you often use self-deprectation. You are funny, and I enjoy your postings very much (probably because you don't go on about QM and such that boggle my mind at times. - 2:06:57 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:--->MARLENE..I heard the sad news today that Winnipeg has lost its glorious distinction as the mosquito capital of Canada today. The article stated that it was due to the fact that they couldn't breed in the flood waters. I hope that the shame is not too much to bear! Oh, well, the lord giveth, and the lord taketh away. - 2:09:53 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:I've lost it! That was me, not Marlene writing to Marlene! I must have made that post without observing the axiom of identity.... - 2:12:45 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

JOETTE-- I can't help being self-concious here, I guess. I'm the little old house in the fancy new neighborhood, but it's increasing my property value. - 2:42:13 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bill: Are you familiar with some of the occult religions based on various offshoots of the Freemason, Illumniati, the Knights Templars and the Rosicrucians? Your ideas about human intelligence ("cosmic intelligence") reminds me of various aspects of the use of mathematics in various aspects of their thought systems to activate certain aspects of intelligence on the unconscious level. Math played a heavy role in the symbolism that formed the foundation of what occult belief systems defined as "ancient wisdom," and I have noticed that in recent years, there has been a growing interest within the New Age cults in the older occult belief systems rooted in the symbolism of numbers. I occasionally pick up Gnosis and similar magazines to keep a watch on this trend, but in the past couple of years, I have seen these themes emerging from occult literature into mainstream publications like Newsweek, Time and Life Magazine. A couple of days ago, I noticed on the cover of a Life Magazine a lead-in to a feature article in it on why astrology is growing in popularity. Astrology is a pseudo science that is heavily based on numbers. But frankly, all of this scares me, because it parallels Carl Sagan's description of the return of all of the old cults to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. It scares me that so many people are turning to these own number and symbolism- based ideas about intelligence to tap intelligence on the unconscious level, but without having a fully conscious understanding of how this intelligence is being used in a way that can be verbally articulated. It scares me that people are turning to mystical answers to the deeper questions about the human condition in lieu of common sense answers that are quite visible in the failures of the socio-economic system and the selling-out by our intellectual leaders to the highest corporate bidders and to the fascination of popular culture with the lurid and the sensational from sado-masochism to UFO's. There is no doubt that there is a lot of intelligence and "discipline" involved in human fascination with the dark side of humanity, but it scares me that this interest is going beyond mere curiosity and objective interest in the role of the occupt from an anthropological viewpoint to the belief that these things reveal something that validates their subjective feelings about reality. Again, I see that as dangerous to our educational institutions, to our government and to the future of humanityh. - 2:42:34 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:-- Oops again, that was me to Joette. - 2:43:16 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Chris, who seeks to express her frustrated "performer" persona::TO ALL: AHEM! And now a brief reading from one of our own favorite works "God's Laughter" by Gerhard Staguhn, and I quote "To speak of the meaning of life does not make sense; this would inevitably result in another rigid religious system of formulas with a strictly defined deity and a theology dictating to the individual how his faith should look to be accepted as the "right" faith. Unfortunately, many people do not seem to be able to believe without the help of theological instructions, and in this case the seed for hostility between the religions is already planted. Immaturity and lack of independence are the main factors responsible for religious intolerance..." One of my friends (actually, she's my only friend, but don't tell anyone because I like to believe I am worshipped by untold millions) is having a difficult time right now because she says that she is beginning to believe/realize that life has no purpose. I find this thought rather exhilerating (sp?) myself, and wondered if anyone else on this chat line felt the same as me. Isn't it rather freeing to believe that life is whatever you decide to make it, and there is no Big Brother/God/Supreme Being/HP looking over your shoulder to make sure you got it right? - 3:21:41 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- That's BS! and I don't mean "belief system". Manitoba has to STILL be the mosquito capital of Canada. They're monsters! - 3:27:41 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Chris: The best biography on Einstein is "Einstein, the LIfe and Times, by Ronald Clark. It runs a few hundred pages, and is in paperback, but it's out of print, so if you are interested, it is a fascinating book, and it would be worth hunting down in used book stores. Forget the most recently published biographies on Einstein stocked in the chain bookstores that just seek out all of the blemishes in his personality. There are a few much shorter biographies on Einstein that just whet your appetite to know more about Einstein. A short biography on him just can't cover all of the fascinating aspects of his life, including his social and political life as well as his intellectual life, including his rebuff of an effort taht was made to get him to meet with Freud. I also have a video tape on him that, if I remember correctly, was part of the Nova series on PBS. - 3:49:06 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CHRIS..yes, it is rather freeing to have control over your own life and destiny, and not have to worry about suffering the consequences in the hereafter. However, your friend does not sound very happy, as the purpose we find in life is the one we have to discover for ourselves. I for one know that my purpose in life is to do laundry at least 4 times a week, and I want my epithet to indicate that when I meet my demise. - 4:16:24 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

that should read epitaph..zzzz - 4:23:24 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:HI CHRIS - What if....our purpose in life is to make sure our species survives? I've fortunately never had the feeling someone like a god or other mythical creature was looking over my shoulder. I only feared Mrs. D, my grade three teacher! She was looking over my shoulder and caught me looking at my science book in boring old spelling class. Now you know why my spelling leaves much to be desired! I think a human's capability of being able to foresee their inescapable death is depressing for some. I think it's a blast of reality. For some the reality is so painful they create an "ever- ever world" or eternal life of the "soul". I don't fear death but I wouldn't run out in front of an on-coming train either because I love life. I think people would be much more happier with their lives if they didn't fear death. - 4:57:17 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- You don't seem insecure to me! A nice guy, yeah, but not insecure. I've been here for about a year and a half, the neighborhood was new to me at one time too. You like reason, you'll be a real asset to the hood. - 5:04:38 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :CARL- Shame on you, pushing the lady's buttons! Want to hear more about the monkey business? - 5:08:38 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:SOMEONE- Who mentioned the _Contact_? Looks like a good one. Love Jodie Foster! - 5:12:03 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Thanks. I want to hear more monkey business. I'm afraid I once didn't fully appreciate Carl's posts. - 5:17:11 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Chris :To Marlene and Joette: AHHHHH!! It all becomes clear to me now! I have just begun to read "Atheism - The Case Against God" and it sounds suspiciously familiar! But wait! On p.14, he states "Man is not born with innate knowledge of the supernatural; until he is introduced to this idea or thinks of it himself, he is unable to affirm or deny its truth-or even to "suspend" his judgement." WHOA! Where does he get this idea? From studies of children raised by wolves? The brain hasn't even begun to be mapped yet, how does he know there isn't some part of the cortex wired for BS (I love that acronym!!!) Hmmm, Marlene, if our purpose is to make sure the species survives, does that make men walking sperm bags and women ova factories?!?!?!?! Protect the enviroment, Save Our Sperm!!! (OK, it's past midnight here and I am getting a little slap happy). And now for something completely different, has anyone tried the www.dogz.com or www.catz.com site? They're supposedly computer simulation of pets to play with but I can't get it to download. - 5:24:22 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- About the "nice guy" thing- I'll try to do better, um, I mean worse, um I mean...? :-) - 5:25:37 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Chris (YAWN!):I think I better take myself off to bed now, but will come back tomorrow for replies. HIP-HIP-HOORAY for long weekends. ZZZZZZZZZZZ - 5:29:29 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--I think Smith's statement here is qualified. Regardless of whether the mind has been mapped or not here is not relevant. One cannot assume something to be so --i.e. an innate belief system--if there is no evidence to support such a thing. For instance, if a child is born with no senses at all-sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste--he could be born with the brain of einstein--but will never know anything--as all his information to form a conceptual framework comes from his senses. He will have urges such as hunger and thirst, --but he will have absolutely no idea as to how to satisfy these urges. When a "normal" baby is born his brain at birth is in this state, but as he begins to perceive his surroundings he begins to form concepts. And it is safe to say, unless he hears of, or concludes somehow from information he has gained about the supernatural--or anything for that matter--there is no other method for him to gain that knowledge. It must first come from sense perception. One cannot assume he is "wired" to know or conceive of anything at this point--including the notion of the supernatural. - 11:43:14 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:Those if us here in the Great White North wish those of you celebrating the "Fourth" a most delightful holiday! - 11:48:37 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:PETER: I see your point, but isn't the notion of tabla rassa supposed to be outdated these days? I've read some things about the development of language in children that suggests that we may be hard-wired for it. I do understand that all knowledge of how to interact with the world comes through the senses, but what about the way it is perceived? TO JOETTE: Thank you very much for your best wishes. May I belatedly in turn hope that you and yours had a very happy Canada. And I would like you to know that I know a lot about your country, I used to watch SCTV all the time (did you all really used to say "hoser"?!?!) - 12:12:33 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO JOETTE: Of course I meant Canada Day, but from what I can tell from you and Marlene, Canada is a very happy country. - 12:14:28 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--If there is any "hard-wiring" it would be at a very basic, instinctive level--but I've never heard anything conclusive in this area ( not saying that it doesn't exist ) So lets assume then, a child IS born with knowledge of the supernatural. This would mean that he would have to be born with a conceptual framework already, because to conceive of the supernatural, one would have to understand --albeit on a very basic level of what is "natural--as all knowledge is hierarchal. He would also have to be able to know the concept of "distinguish" as well as"above" or "super". To me, this would seem like a far too complicated and abstract concept even for a child of 5-6 years old, let alone a new-born infant-and certainly much more sophisticated than that of even intelligent animals. Now if it were found that a new-born infant DID have knowledge of the notion of the supernatural at birth--so what? The "supernatural" is a self-contradicting concept right at its roots--and if a new-born ponders such a thing--that would not make the notion of the supernatural any more valid. So in the end, I would consider it a moot argument. - 13:01:37 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- EH? Happy Birthday Amerika! - 14:02:10 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARRIE, I am not familiar with many occult religions. I have been associated with many things in the last two years . . . pantheists, Buddhists, agnostic, spiritualists, mystic, Drewist, New Age, perpetual skeptic, and now the occult. These associations do not bother me at all as I feel I do relate to many things, but basically I claim no "label" and like to stay free to explore life and change my mind at will, without having to answer to someone or something. I am just Bill, a free thinker, of the human species--I think? --, a very secure and self-assured individual. I love life and have never been significantly depressed. I like myself the way I am, and I have no plans to conform to another's doctrine. I will listen to any doctrine, with an active mind, and critically evaluate what aspects are relevant to me. Occults can be very bad, but in all fairness there seems to be good and bad in all doctrines. Basically there are good and bad people who choose to make their life either good or bad. In a sense, each individual is his own God. It's all about personal responsibility, values, and self-esteem. BTW (by-the-way) where are your from, and what is your profession? - 15:49:14 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CHRIS, Welcome back. I like the way you think. There's some truth I think in what you have posted here. See my comments to Carrie. I will be your friend, if you want, and then you will have two, ha! - 15:49:49 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:JOETTE AND THE REST, The fourth is a big event at my house and we are expecting about 30 people here today. My son and his new girlfriend came in last night when I made a quick exit. He sure has good taste in friends or relationships. The boats are out and the sun is shining. Skiing, volleyball, cookouts, boat parades, ski show, fireworks at night . . . just to mention a few events for today. I was outside a minute ago and some individual flew over dangling from a parachute, sitting in a chair like frame with a propeller behind the seat. I think it's going to be an interesting day. I hope no one gets drunk or hurt. I am on vacation and will be flying to the west coast tomorrow around noon, so I won't be able to read or post for a week. Everyone just save your thoughts to me, as I am interested in hearing what you have to say, till I get back . . . unless they are very brief. My comments from now and till tomorrow will be limited, but I will try to read at least. Hope everyone has a great Fourth!!!! - 15:50:17 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO BILL: Thank you for your offer of friendship! Gee, a whole 2 friends..do you guys think I should start a fan club maybe? (NOT!!) TO PETER: I hate the word supernatural, even though I know it justs means "beyond nature". It conjures all sorts of images of ghosts, goblins, witches, etc. (Not to insult any Wiccans who might be listening in!) OK let's assume the child is born with some innate senses, which as you say cannot be disproven at this time. Who says the child can or in fact needs to "distinguish" or "articulate" this in any way? Can you articulate your subconscious? Or do you deny that theory? What about predisposition towards something? So early humans invented religion to explain the natural forces around them, and now that we are more advanced, we throw away outdated methods of thinking? I still don't see how we can rule out the possibility that reason isn't the answer to everything. Why are we even arguing about it if it's so obvious? Ok so maybe it isn't obvious, but takes hard work and discipline. So does well-intentioned religious behavior. In fact, I think that's a great deal of what religion was intended to be, a focus, rather than some kind of ultimate goal or THE ANSWER. TO MARLENE: Hope I didn't offend you with my hoser remark. I loved that skit that Rick Moranis and that other guy (isn't he on Grace Under Fire now) did. And didn't Rush do a song "Take Off for the Great White North" too? - 16:11:49 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--Interesting points, but I believe reason is inescapable. Even when one is thinking of something, and is forming even the simplest abstraction--the presence of reason is pre-supposed, in order for knowledge to be integrated. One cannot form any concept from a perspective of un-reason. A good example is when one looks at their dreams. This is a bunch of floating abstractions from your subconscioius that are working without the faculty of reason as a foundation--and look what happens. We are not conscious, and pretty well anything goes. If one were awake, and coscious and could somehow abandon reason--their existence would be dream-like, as they could not integrate any perceptions, or thoughts, into conceptions that reflect any sort of reality. The mind could not progress beyond the perceptual level--but when one demands we have "faith" it is THIS type of non-integrational and dream-like state that he demands we adopt. Further on the Smith book he goes into greater detail into reason, and faith, and how incompatible they are. - 16:46:35 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Chris: I can appreciate your's and Bill's comments about the fact that there is something in each belief system that has accumulated through the ages. Each one contains insights into the nature of human experience and perception, and I think that the advancement of knowledge and science in specific benefits from the kind of pragmaticism that William James modelled. Yet at the same time, for that knowledge to benefit humanity in helping it to solve the unprecedented problems that confront human civilization at this point in time, there is an urgent need to be able to apply this knowledge in a more scientific manner that gives us a stronger consciousness of what we are doing, and a stronger sense of responsibility as individuals. Our society cannot afford to continue to look upon rationality and deliberation as a threat to the deeper psychic sense of individuality the sense that each individual is unique and separate, but still a part of the wholeness of humanity and the universe. That is a step that can and should be initiated in the educational system to ward off the the dangerous influences of organized religion that want to keep society chained to fear of knowledge and rationality and independent thinking. Every year, I can see new gains by organized religion in tearing down the wall that separates church and state to turn back the clock to the Dark Ages to a time with "strange behavior" was explained as evil spirits and demonic possession, and when scientists were considered as heretics and put to death for challenging theocratic rule. There are many things that can be said in favor of the need for raising the level of public consciousness rather than being content with the status quo and the idea that there is an invisible hand that will protect humanity from the consequence of its being led blindly by the unconscious forces of religion, but they are too numerous to mention here. - 19:41:58 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene, ..I don't know if I ever get offended:CHRIS- I'm not offended at all! That's why I answered "Eh?"( another famous Canuk habitual saying!) More on your comments later. I've been busy for the last few days entertaining family who WAS out for a visit. I couldn't get near the computer because I happen to have the Tuneland cd. - 21:18:14 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:ALL- How come no one has mentioned Pathfinder? I understand it has safely landed and is ready for it's first day of work. CHRIS- I don't think modern humans will return to the Dark Ages at all. Take for instance, your dad. Can you see him returning to that line of thinking? - 23:47:54 on 4 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..are you sure it isn't the Eagle that has landed? (at least that is how the media is broadcasting it). I find it fascinating, and at times I am overwhelmed by the technical abilities of mankind. I am disappointed though that there aren't little green men hiding behind the rocks. I've been watching CNN, and they already have their little theme song and logo for their coverage (ala O.J. Simpson trial). I wonder how much news coverage this would be getting it say, somebody went in to a McDonald's with both barrels blasting? Boy, am I cyncial tonight! - 0:15:32 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Not green men silly, it's pet rocks now! Space exploration seemed to come to a stand still for awhile. I'm glad it's back on track! Just wait and see! There will be a pet rock that looks like jc on the front and the vm on the back. It will ooze green blood and it will smell like ferns. - 0:32:13 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie :TO ALL: I have observed here that there are individuals who just like to make assertions to the effect that if we all just concentrated on "feeling good and being happy," everything will be just dandy. Big Brother...the Invisible Hand, the Cosmic Mind has enough technology to efficiently run the practical matters of our lives that we as individuals no longer need to make any mental exertion to think and study things that would be boring. The only real decisions that individuals need to concern themselves with are not decisions that require depth of individual conscience, but career decisions, fashion decisions, which ride to go on at Disney World, whether to watch a tennis match or a baseball game, what sexual technique to use, which channel to watch on TV, what brand of toothpaste to buy, etc.. We are approaching an era in which the soothsayers are not just the consolers and the positive thinkers, but the social engineers. Has anyone read Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World... I mean REALLY read them closely enough to find any warning in the "Third Wave" mind-set? - 1:01:03 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE..there some people here that don't stand behind their curtains peeking outside because they are too paranoid to join the real world. - 1:26:27 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

CARRIE, I forgot to ask what sexual position you like to use? - 1:28:07 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I disagree with you that space exploration had come to a stand still. I think the reason that it hasn't been front page news for a long time is because the average citizen isn't terribly interested in the repeated space shuttle launches, they haven't really been paying attention to the MIR station (maybe they are now that it is in trouble), and a host of other things happening outside our atmosphere. I would not say that we are complacent either, because bullshit movies like Independence Day cause the no minds of the world to consider how violent possible space travellers will be, and to them, that is much more newsworthy that the actual technical sciences that are implemented in space exploration. - 1:54:49 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Agreed! I really don't know why people would think that if we were visited by a species from another system that these beings would want to harm us? Nor why would they want to abduct us and then then use anal probes to see how we tick. You'd think they would use some type of simulation or better yet abduct a doctor and just ask! BRUCE- Welcome! I'm afraid paranoia whether it be of other species or of terrestial matters can be a dangerous thing. Look at the militias (sp)! - 2:10:40 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:MARLENE..thank you for the welcome. I have been reading this page for awhile but never said anything, because I want to assimilate myself. My comment regaring paranoia was directed at Carrie as she seems to want everyone to think that the sky is falling. George Orwell was a political columnist, and his books were originally meant to be political satires. He was not a soothsayer with hidden messages in his books. - 2:33:47 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce: I have no idea what you mean or are referring to in your comment about people standing behind a curtain afraid the come out. Do you care to explain how it might relate to anything I said in my post? Any by the way, your question about my preference of of sexual positions is uncalled for. I was commenting about the issue of how Third Wave culture is squeezing out the indivdiual voice of conscience on issues of the various kinds of human suffering that exist in our society in a society that is growing increasingly callous. What do you say to a child who is born with parents hooked on drugs, families in which sexual and physical abuse are common, families with only one parent, etc.? Do you tell them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps? Do you tell them that this is the land of equal opportunity? Do you tell them them the best sexual position to find happiness and a sense of human dignity? Do you tell them, "Tough luck!" - 2:51:56 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BRUCE- I agree! 1984 and Animal Farm were politcal satires. I read these ages ago so I don't remember, did either of these books have any reference whatsoever in them about religion? - 2:59:33 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE You brought up the subject of sexual positions. Have you got a problem with kids that only have one parent? - 3:11:17 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce: It doesn't seem that you read my post. I didn't say that Orwell was a soothsayer, but a prophet of sorts. His message was not in his style, but in his depth of thought. His depth was inspired by neither capitalist ideology nor communist ideology, but in his concern for the tell-tale signs of apathy that leave lead people to drop their guard against totalitarianism with the attitude that we don't really need democracy and freedom, since human beings can adapt to anything that is forced on them, the idea that people don't need to be able to speak for themselves when there are plenty of religions and ideologists to speak for them, since we live in an era in which social engineering can do what was once expected of democracy. Do you want to talk about the the specific facts of what Orwell's "1984" was about and the conditions of the society in which he lived from which he drew his main themes of the book? - 3:11:54 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:MARLENE in Animal Farm, Napolean (the nasty pig), decreed that he should be worshipped. Orwell tended to make his government heads appear as deities. - 3:15:03 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE you must be one of a few that did not think that Animal Farm was not about communism. I have noticed that you are well read, and that you intrepret things to agree with your philosphy of life, which tends to lean towards death and destruction. I noted that you said that you were followed by the FBI in the '60's. Were you later imprisoned, thus letting you have so much time to read? - 3:19:50 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce: I wasn't talking about "sexual positions" but the kind of "choices" that citizens are expected to see as the kind of freedom and happiness that were spoken for in the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I was talking about individual conscience and what it means to a culture that expects people to limit their demands for freedom to choices of tootpaste paste brands, amusement park rides, fashions, TV channels and sexual positions. If you had asked me what my favorite TV program or my favorite sport, etc., it would have been just as nonsensical in the context of my post. - 3:23:54 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE who are you to know what everyone else's priority in life is? - 3:26:36 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce: your assumptions about the intent of my posts on this board are completely unsubstantiated. For instance, there is nothing in the themes of my thinking that would even suggest that I tend to interpret death and destruction into everything. Rather, the concerns I have raised are about the kinds of forces in society that result in dealth and destruction as a result of greed and gross misuse of science and technological knowledge. I did not interpret "death and destruction" into the use of science to create weapons of mass destruction. I was only describing events that have, indeed, happened to be able to raise the question about the lack of any system of accountability for preventing it. If science is used for political ends, we can be sure that we will never have a system of accountability to prevent it from happening again, because science is the only tool of reason that has the potential for giving humanity that system of accountability. That was Einstein's model of science, but he was scoffed at and trivialized. And science has suffered in the end because capitalist ideologists opened the flood gates to greed. To answer your last question, I was never imprisoned. Are you assuming that the FBI didn't follow people without good reason in the 60s and 70s? I read a lot, not because I had a lot of idle time, but because I made time for reading. I have loved to read since childhood. I remember that my earliest interest was in astronomy because it seemed to be the most logical field of knowledge to investigate to answer my question as to whether there was a heaven. I recall a sense of being tormented by the wildly illogical things taught in Sunday school. Is there really a heaven? Is there really a hell, and how could the world possibly have been created in 6 days, or even in 2000 years, or even in 5,000 years? How do these adults get by with telling such outrageous lies in the name of morality? - 4:01:35 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BRUCE- Now you mention it, right! I read both books years ago! I also agree with you that we were taught in school that both books were politcal satires, most especially Animal Farm. Another book that is interpreted according to one's own philosophy is the bible and there are even others that leave no room for intepretation but there are still those that read into what they read. - 4:02:55 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce: You ask, "Who are you to know what everyone else's priority is?" Well, Bruce, how people behave pretty much reflects their priorities in one way or another. Einstein and others have warned us to pay more attention to what people do than to what people say. That doesn't mean that an observation is necessarily a final judgement, but only part of the total body of information that is needed to make educated decisions that affect one's life and the lives of people around oneself. - 4:10:46 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE I did not ask Einstein that question. I asked you that question. Will you answer it for yourself? - 4:18:26 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BRUCE- Well, it's been a long day for me, I hope you stay! You've said you've been lurking for awhile so you know that there are others here that would like to talk to you. - 4:23:55 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce: I answered your quesitons for myself. Maybe it's not the answer YOU wanted, but it's the only answer I can give for myself. My answer for myself is that how people behave does indicate a lot about what people's priorities are. Are you saying that you would like to answer that question for me? If so, then why do you ask ME the quesiton? - 4:32:20 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:--Hello Bruce. Sorry you had to find this board during the Social Engineering Are Us membership drive. JOETTE-- Science in general seems to be held in low regard these days. I've just started reading a book 'Rationality & Science' by Roger Trigg. He seems to be saying that if we don't bring some metaphysics into science, science may be doomed! Kind of a bizarre thought, don't you think? NASA is under fire for wasting money, and there has been serious budget trimming. I would have thought that space exploration was the one area that would have public support. - 4:40:15 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:GRANT..it is really late here, and so it off to bed I go heigh ho heigh ho, but if you don't mind we can continue the space exploration discussion tomorrow if you aroung (it used to be my greatest hobby). - 5:11:58 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Grant: Metaphysics in science? What about the idea that physics is a branch of theology, which is what Frank Tipler informs us in his book, THE PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY. But I still tend to agree that we don't have to spend billions of dollars sending instrument packages to the surface of Mars. That is more about politics than about science and reason. If I had several billions of dollars to burn, I'd invest it in the welfare mothers who are being blamed for the budget deficit, on building affordable housing and day-care for poor them and for their children rather than blast it into space or blow it up on the Nevada desert. I'm sorry to offend those who believe that these women are basically sluts who prefer to get pregnant so that they can get taxpayer's money without lifting a finger to earn it the "old fashioned way". Pass the salt and pepper please, and while you're at, please pass the social engineering. families - 5:25:10 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:-- Been out watching the fireworks. CARRIE-- You have an agenda- kind of like a phone solicitor. I'm here to "air out" my thoughts, and to learn. I'm not here to buy anything, and I don't like your product anyway. I think society has lots of problems, but, in my opionion, you don't see them clearly, and your coalition wouldn't be able to have a positive effect anyway. I also feel that it would be arrogant for me to try to alter society to fit my beliefs. As for spending large amounts of money to send probes to Mars, and such, I feel that my tax dollar is helping to advance knowledge and human understanding- one of the few causes "larger than ourselves." I don't mean to sound idealistic. - 7:23:43 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:GRANT...now you'll be the target! I'm with you, the further out we go, the more we'll learn. Politics have played an enormous part, (the U.S. had to beat those nasty Russians to the moon), and Reagan got carried was with Stars War campaigns, but in the meantime, there are a lot of scientits busy gathering the data and trying to make some sense of our planetary system. The religious right are doing everything they can to stave off any of that information from reaching "their people's" ears because it may one day prove, once and for all, that god does not exist. - 11:27:06 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE..you have done nothing but lament the state of society. Why don't you go outside and start lobbying for the extra millions needed for you socialistic answers to the world's problems. You aren't getting anywhere on the internet, so maybe you will have more success meeting with real people, face to face. - 13:45:09 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

PETER-----Carrie---->:--So what you are saying is put a hold on funding mankind gathering more knowledge of his surroundings which will inevitably assist him in his survival of the future, for stronger social safety nets which dole out money to those who do not earn it, but need it because they simply exist. Your "philosophy" (even though you claim you have none ) is sounding more red all the time. But I'll give you a chance to get yourself off the hook here--exactly HOW do you propose to "invest" these big bux on this segment of society--and why should THEY receive it? - 14:35:53 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Very well said! I also agree that spending money in this way is to advance our knowledge. Knowledge is hope! - 14:46:01 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- This is the problem! If you have noticed, metaphysics and physics have been passed as one and the same. For those of us who are none the wiser, we have a hard time knowing the difference. Not only that, much of the "new physics" is specualtion and not proven fact. - 15:25:55 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Bruce and Peter: Bruce firt: Why do you say things that you have not the faintest idea about how you are going to support? For example, you say I'm wasting my time on the Internet. Oh yeah? Is this the kind of think you have learned from all of the money that has been squandered in space and in nuclear weapons development? Is that what you have learned from all of that data being gathered by costly space exploration... that welfare mothers get pregnant by themselves, and that they just love being on welfare and blamed for the capitalist luxary of entertaining beliefs in virgin mothers, in a God that is going to come to the rescue of humanity when its stupidity catches up with it? You might claim to be atheists, but you guys sure like having religion around to support your own social myths. - 15:29:15 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BRUCE and PETER- That's strange??? I never heard you guys mention that welfare moms are to blame for the belief in the vm. Did I miss some posts? - 15:39:34 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

PETER. :CARRIE---Rational and focused discussion is something I enjoy even when I may not disagree on something with whom I'm discussing. I have been having a particularly difficult time doing this with you as most of the time I have absolutely no idea what the focus of your argument is. I ask you simple questions ( as simple as possible ) and all I get back from you is some extremely vague, blustery knee-jerk reaction which have implications of chastizing me for not living in this same undefined, unfocused "reality" that you chose to lead your life. Carrie. this may seem perfectly normal to you, but to me ( and it seems like others here )this environment makes rational discussion next to impossible. In your last post for instance, for example, you address it to both Bruce and myself. You say "Bruce first", then you begin to go into some tirade of wild accusations which again have little focus, and then as you continue with this tirade, you start referring to Bruce in the second person plural, so I guess that means I was to be included in your admonishment at this point. ( As you did not even indicate explicitly when you were addressing me ). This is not the actions of a person eager to engage in rational discussion. I think your best bet right now would be to clearly state what your "agenda" may be. Specifically what you DO support rather than concentrating and attacking veraciously on what you DO NOT support. And if you unable to do this without losing complete control of yourself and attacking those who disagree with you, and make rebuttals calmly and reasonably--I for one, would have a better idea of what you are exactly trying to defend. It could also be suggested that you "lighten up" a little--and don't appear to take yourself and your views so dogmatically serious--I'm sure you'll get some messages across even more effectively if we feel we're not being constantly brow-beated by what I imagine as some extremely stern, unsmiling despot reminiscent of a turn-of-the-century school marm. - 16:51:12 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Bruce:CARRIE..what do welfare mothers have to do with anything anyone has said, except when twice you mentioned them? Are you in fact a welfare mom, and are overly sensitive to this issue? Why do you not answer my question about doing some face to face lobbying to enhance your socialistic agenda? - 16:57:10 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:All- It is now Earth-rise on Mars and in a few more hours sunrise. How wonderful to imagine watching the Earth rise! Hopefully within another century our grandchildren will have the opportunity to do this in person! - 17:58:28 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:MARLENE..have you checked out the NASA site to see the pictures? I haven't yet, as I have been busy, but plan to sometime this weekend. Apparently they have provided for 70 million computers to look at the same time, so it shouldn't be a problem getting online. And you are right, our children's children's children may one day see it for themselves! - 18:42:23 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: First, since you are trying to brush aside the points I have made in this discussion as "unfocussed" sort of ramblings on topics that have no relevance to the discussion... like the issue of welfare moms, I was assuming that you are aware of some of the underlying issues of the Cold War that raged since the end of WW II up to the point that the Berlin Wall was brought down and the Iron Curtain opened up. Perhaps I may have jumped to conclusions when your reference to me as a "red" reflected that you have some familiarity with intellectual history since the beginning of the 20th century on up through the COld War period and the Post Cold War period during which welfare mothers have been a favorite target of the capitalists who assumed victory in the Cold War, and thus a mandate to suppress dissenting views on socio-economic reality. That's the sort of assumption upon which the FBI operated to justify following individuals who questioned the "scientific" merit of using secret experiments on human subjects without their knowledge or consent and a lot of other atrocities up into the era of the Space Cowbow, Ronald Reagan. The fact is that you haven't shown me a rational reason why you operate on the same assumption that if someone comes along and questions the assumed immutable realities that are embedded in the capitalist dogma, he or she should be tarred and feathered and labelled as a "Red" to be regarded as a thought criminal with no right to be heard, according to the official propaganda on this being the "land of liberty, reason and equal opportunity for all. I'm sure that you wish that I would stop taking my ideas seriously and "lighten up" enough to ignore reality, and share in the collective fantasies of the infallibility of capitalist dogma, but in this discussion about the viewpoints of all people or just the viewpoints of those who conform to Ayn Rand's basic premises about reality? Is reality something that we are suppose to see through the same lens, or is it something that each individual processes through the specifics of the physical world... including economics in their own micro environments? - 19:30:30 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene .....more paranoia!:Maybe we should rename this site, politic paranoia! Our local radio talk show was plagued yesterday with idiots that claimed they could make out the shadow of a car in the pictures taken on Mars. This is soooo stupid! These people think that the pictures are taken somewhere in the US's deserts and are passed off to the public as pictures from Mars! - 19:59:45 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Have you got the address of that site? - 20:01:19 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene..maybe a solution to the strange lights in the sky:I was watching the DC yesterday. Light can be produced by friction of some types of rock, especially quartz. Some scientists think that the strange lights in the sky in Colorado may be the result of the friction happening in the faults. - 20:45:53 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:CARRIE--Tell me, since you are so eager to criticize Rand's philosopy, what is it about it that you object to? What did she say about capitalism that bugs you so much? I don't even think you even know what capitalism really is. You also bandy about this term "greed" freely( alluding to her philosophy, or any capitalist philosophy promoting it)--but I think you are misusing it as well. In the end, from what I can gather from your posts is that you are on the quest for the unearned. You think that by your mere existence, that is some inexplicable claim on the rest of society. No one owes you anything--unless its earned by your own effort. Of course this discussion is about different viewpoints about reality--I just happen to agree with Rand when dealing with it--simply because she made a convincing case --and therefore I will defend it--and I feel I have done so rather convincingly on this chat page, and this REALLY seems to get a flame under your butt. And in doing so, I think her support of laissez-faire capitalist views are something you reject, as it tolerates no such quest for the unearned. As to your last question--there is only one reality. Either something exists, or it does not. It is up to each individual then to learn to recognize it--and develop proper methods from distinguishing truths from falsehoods, existence from non-existence, reality from non-reality. - 20:53:45 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->PETER..Bravo! I don't know why you are wasting your keystrokes asking questions that require an answer that doesn't jump from welfare recipients to FBI investigations to the Cold War to sexual positions. MARLENE...remember the tune which had the line "Paranoia will destroy ya'"? I am reminded of it almost everytime I sit at the computer these days. Speaking of the disbelievers in the Pathfinder, the same thing happened when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Many people were convinced that it was just a movie set (ala Capricorn One). These same people believe in a mystical being that lives above the clouds....figure that one out! - 21:04:17 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:-- Just received a letter from Rob. Says he is having fun, reading a lot, but misses the internet. He asks me to say hello to everyone, and to let him know what's been happening here on "Manmade." - 21:09:20 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Loved the cartoon! Tell Rob HELLo! - 22:19:07 on 5 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:I suspect that Carl Sagan wouldn't have been impressed with Tony Speer's comment to the effect "if Sagan is looking down on us now". - 0:26:12 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->GRANT..please tell Rob 1 miss him. His sense of humour is sorely missed in these troubling times on Man is Man-made.. :( - 2:32:34 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:Where IS everyone tonight? - 2:57:37 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO ALL: Sorry Marlene I have been out enjoying this fabulous weather we've been having. Low humidity, blue skies with big puff clouds...sigh, this is the life! I just hate it when I leave the chatline for too long. It takes awhile to catch up with the conversation. TO PETER: Thank you for your response. Interesting. You seem to be saying that reason is suspended during unconscious periods. So people consciously suspend reason in order to believe religious symbols. This is bad because when reason gets left out, people tend to become rigid, prejudiced and intolerant. But what about belief in good things (Oh no, I'm starting to sound like Martha Stewart--somebody help me!). Belief that mankind is noble could be considered irrational, based on most of human history. Yet I still believe. I probably shouldn't have started arguing with George until I finished the book. TO JOETTE: I'm with Marlene--what's the URL for the NASA site? MARLENE: No, Carl would definately not have liked that comment. Obviously that guy never read "Demon Haunted World" CARRIE: Tried to read "Physics of Immortality" and almost got it, but got bogged down in the scientific language concerning the Omega Point. C'mon Carrie, lighten up a little. At the risk of being accused of asking an irrelevant question, how do you have conversations with members of your Coalition? If it really is a collective of individualists, everyone must share their differing opinions somehow. Don't you guys ever joke around? TO ALL: My family came over on the 4th and boy, did I get hooted down for talking about this chatline. Couldn't get anyone to realize that atheism is equivalent to Satan-worshiping. MARLENE: You were right in your earlier post, I couldn't imagine my Dad ever becoming a hellfire and brimstone kind of guy, but he's human, so he has his blind spots along with everybody else. You also have to consider that wide-spread atheism would put him out of a job, and he's too old to go back to selling insurance. BRUCE: WELCOME! I monitored this chatline for awhile too, before joining in. The natives here are quite friendly, after you have sacrifriced a small mammal for their blood rituals..... - 16:09:51 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

CHRIS:TO ALL: OOPS! My post should read "Couldn't get anyone to admit atheism WASN'T equivalent to atheism. Sorry guys!! - 16:12:24 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: I was away from this so-called "discussion" all day yesterday and met people with something genuine to say that wasn't obsessed with with people enjoying life without bending their knees to capitalist zealots like you, Marlene and Joette, and after seeing the idiocy of your ractions this morning, I realize how stupid I am to hang around you guys. Did you say your motto is "Ignorance is bliss?" - 16:30:32 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- I've been reading _The Chalice and the Blade_. Although Eisler doesn't come up with concrete evidence for her assertions, I can't help but like some of what she writes. She compares the theist right to the atheist left. I was, at first, in disagreement with her as I assert that being atheist isn't a belief system or a political one but thinking further, there are the few that make it one. Carrie is a prime example. - 16:58:47 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I must have missed your ractions! - 17:00:32 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CARRIE--You know its funny, if you wouldn't have told us before you were an atheist--I would never have guessed it in a million years. Your penchant for evading direct questions, your penchant for argumentum ad hominem, your penchant for dogmatic inflexibility, your penchance for mentioning personal tragedy to somehow seek some attention, your penchance for vagueness, evasiveness, and petty, childish methods of Pee-Wee Herman style" no-you're-not, yes-I am-no-your-not-yes-I-am" mentality level, would not only be the actions of the most flagant, obnoxious fundamentalist, whose goal is not to understand, or be understood, whose goal is not to have mature, rational discourse. But in your case, unlike a fundamentalist--you have not made clear at all what exactly your position is other than to insult, in a raging tempest of hostility, anger and intolerance. Your approach to various discussions has done this so far ( 1) You have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any recruits from this page (2) You have managed to completely alienate at least two of the "regular" chatters on this line--who incidentally have been so alienated by your approach to the degree which I have never seen them act before--even bringing one to the state of telling you to "fuck off" (3) You have yourself decided not to "hang around" "us guys" anymore, as if we are some inferior form of humanity, unworthy of your presence. Why don't you look at yourself for a change, Carrie, and then wonder WHY you have been given this reaction. I have mentioned this repeatedly to you--but of course since my opinion is not identical to yours, you automatically assume it invalid and not worthy of any serious consideration--but think again Carrie--it's obvious your approach is totally ineffective to make friends, earn respect and sound convincing--let alone join your coalition. - 17:12:10 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I hope "ractions" don't show up in some sort of nasty rash! I am doing enough scratching thanks to the national bird of Canada, the mosquito! CHRIS and MARLENE..I was doing some deleting in the middle of the night, not paying very close attention, and have no longer got the NASA bookmark. I'll go back in and find it today, and provide you the address later today. I am happy that our friend has found some people who have something genuine to say, but how could anyone else get a word in edgewise? (oh, should say these things when her back is turned) - 17:21:13 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:Carrie: YEAH!!! What he said! Why do you hang around this chatline if you think we're so ignorant. Please don't waste key strokes for me if you consider me bending my knees to zealots. - 17:23:39 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Chris, a little breathless with excitement..:TO MARLENE AND JOETTE: You guys!! Just visited the Discovery Channel website (www.discovery.com) and got a link to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mesur for the Pathfinder home page. Joette, does this sound familiar? It's pretty neat!! - 17:44:56 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--Since reason is the faculty to recognize reality, the abscence of it is to not recognize reality. Some argue that when one reads a novel, or watches a movie, some suspension of reason is taking place--but the observer in such cases is aware that the anecdote is in fact fictional. If one commits himself to suspending reason--even if what is believed is supposed to be "good"--may not harm the individual, but this is certainly not a desirable way to advance civilization. Prime example: Look at all the religions that exist today, all as a result of different groups manifesting their own "reality". The result over history: Disagreement, hostility, hatred, bigotry, bloodshed, war, not to mention all the countless atrocities perpotrated in the name of one religion. This is all as a result of one group making one claim( not based on reality--and thinking its the "best way) and another group doing the same-neither showing any respect for reason, but thinking they are believing in something "good". Rational standards of "proving" a point are NEVER established, directly due to the inherit disrespect for reason,hence there is no stanard established for properly recognizing reality. This is why it is my firm belief, that mankind could not even START to consider itself civilized, or live in harmony, if religious beliefs persist. Chris, please re-read the last paragraph in Smith's book on page x , in the introduction section--who basically outlines this concern as well. I would agree with you to finish Smith's book before you challenge it, as his case is built up progressively throughout the book. - 17:46:16 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Chris, a little breathless with excitement..:TO MARLENE AND JOETTE: You guys!! Just visited the Discovery Channel website (www.discovery.com) and got a link to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mesur for the Pathfinder home page. Joette, does this sound familiar? It's pretty neat!! - 17:48:05 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:OK so I got a little overexcited and posted twice. So sue me! - 17:49:34 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO JOETTE and MARLENE: My husband just found several other sites in the Sunday paper. Here are the ones who say they have images: Center for Mars Exploration at http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov; Today@NASA at http://hq.ansa.gov/office/pao/Newsroom/today.html Haven't tried either yet. PETER: OK, OK, I'll finish the book first. - 17:59:27 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- Thank You! I'm going to check them out now. - 18:05:24 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Chris: The original Coalition communicated through a mailing list until the volume of email became too overwhelming for everywhere, so the Internet Infidels made a listserve available until the Coalition became divided between the people who wanted the Coaltion to be narrowly focussed on the meaning of Separation of Church and State within the context of church/state issues based on the U.S. Constitution and the Coaliton supporters outside the U.S. Since then, I have returned to the original list for communication purposes until I can get a message board set up. I worked on that last night, but I won't have time to upload the information about it until tomorrow. It will definitely be moderated to prevent it from becoming a contest of who can piss off his or her assumed ideological foes, then try to get by with it by telling the other side to "lighten up". When their is business to conduct and goals to be reached for, putting ideological priorities over facts is most inappropriate. It has to be moderated to keep out those who refuse to go along with the agenda of the Coalition. At least, that agenda will be clearly stated, whereas the agenda of the participants here is not. Every time facts are used to support valid arguments against the claims of the Ayn Rand true believers, those "true believers" degenerate into something that more closely approximates the ideological equivalent of religious fundamentalism than intelligent atheists. - 20:40:44 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie :For those who do not equate atheism with capitalism: So that I don't have to come back here to look for you to have to deal with narrow-minded capitalist ideologists who use dogma as a filter for perception of reality, if you are interested in keeping in touch with me, my email address is openbook@earthlink.com I should have a moderated message board up in the coming week titled, "Coaltion for Atheist Reform. One of the issues this board will tackle is what to do about elements in the atheist community that exempt specific ideologies as well as religious belief systems from moral and scientific scrutiny, and it will use scientific standards of objectivity rather than ideological standards of "objectivism" that insist that there is only one true philosophy. This board will examine how partial truths in every ideology and religion fit into the whole picture. - 20:53:41 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Alan:Sorry, I've been offline and a bit out of the discussion - but here are my contributions to some of the discussion earlier. "everyone else's priorority2 is to perpetuate our genes - except for those for whom it isn't. any other priority is randomly possible but only ideas beneficial to procreation will succeed. Hence religions which advocate mass suicide have a way of dying out. "single moms sponging off the state" - there is no right or wrong in this. we can only expect people to populate an environmental niche if we provide it for them. When the money is available populating this niche is not condemned as "antisocial" or "immoral". It's when the money runs out that society becomes critical. Here in europe we are building up to social condemnation of single moms because the budget for supporting this is becoming unsustainable. what it does mean is that the solution for single moms is not to throw money at them (and certainly not to take it away from science budgets) because the money is guaranteed to create what it is intended to remove. Desired outcomes should not be confused with actual outcomes. The "nice" way of doing things is not necessarily the best. - 22:08:33 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CARRIE..I know I said that these fingers would address you again, but maybe this is your swan song to those of us who act and think as individuals. When you came on this page, with lightning rods shooting from both fists, you claimed that your Coalition would be for individuals. I asked you several times how a group of individuals could possibly do accomplish anything without having the sames goals and mission as the person who first created the Coalition. You insisted that this is possible, that a collective of different thinking persons would go forth and right all the wrongs of society. Now today, you tell us that your Coalition page will be monitored and anyone not agreeing with you would not have their say. You, so afraid of the Third Wave and Orwellian tactics, are now informing the rest of the world that this is exactly how you will manage your Coalition. And then you have the audacity to say that you plan to reform atheists as well. You are the last person in the world to attempt to do that. I know you can't stand it when you don't get the last word in, so I imagine we will hear from you again before you are off to change the world. - 23:26:34 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->ALAN..well said. The same condemnation is happening here in North America as well, but some of it comes from the frustration of spending millions on social programs to avoid pregancies, getting welfare recipients back to work and other social programs that do not seem to have any affect on a certain segment of society. I know for a fact that it is a small fraction of recipients that work the system, and most don't want to be on it, but without having to punish the chronic recipient, what can you do? You are exactly right that you can't fix a problem by throwing money at it. CARRIE..by the way, I know what I am talking about, as at one point in my life, I was a single mom, but I managed to hold a full time job and pay my own bills, and my child has grown into a young adult very balanced and intelligent. - 23:34:30 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Yeah, us Ayn Rand "believers" require a humongous dose of appeals to faith, just like the fundies do to support their beliefs. Objectivism is based on pure arbitrary conjecture, and axioms that Ayn Rand just "decided" would be the right ones--to suit her own blood-stained ways! Now that I have read, and repeated these axioms over and over again--I'm starting to believe them--with no visible means of rational support!! ITs just the most fantastic feeling anyone could experience!! This must be a GIFT FROM AYN!! And its kinda nice that Ayn's dead now, because now I can pray to her, and I JUST KNOW she can turn me into a money-grubbing greedy capitalist murderous brute that tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends. Oh Ayn! can you hear me? I wanna be just like you!!! - 23:49:13 on 6 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- I agree with your assessment. I too was astonished by the "reform atheist" part. Not only does she dislike everyone, but she is determined to "reform" everyone as well. I wonder what in her past experience has led to confidence in an ability to reform everybody. It would seem to be a tall order even for someone with focus. ALAN-- I like your detached manner of looking at things. I've been thinking lately about the view that "desired outcomes should not be confused with actual outcomes." I think that even on an individual level the compassionate act may not be the act that works.A colder approach that works may actually be more compassionate. MARLENE-- I wish I had had more time to talk about the physics/metaphysics issue, as this is my main point of study right now. PETER-- You've contaminated the whole board! (just kidding) I know Carrie didn't learn anything from your posts, but I did. - 1:24:48 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->ALL...(you all should sit back and LISTEN to each other)...: I see it's not safe to stick my head out of the bunker yet. I've yet to meet a group of individuals with larger chips on their shoulders than here. We all have something to say and we all share the goals and ideals of each other. An individual here wants to change the world and she has her target market in front of him/her, but either he/she cannot get her correct message across or all the others aren't reading what she types. I can see it's both problems. I've watched this page go on and on about intangible BS for years. When will one of you rise above this crap and see what must be done? Get it? Do something positive!!! Work together you guys...(shit!!) - 2:59:08 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: You asked me if the Coalition was going to be selective, and I told you, yes, it is going to be selective, out of necessity, because it is not a Coalition that promotes the rights of the individual while inviting those who rely on the tyranny of the majority to maintain the status quo at the same time. Having a moderated message board is just a way to protect the agenda from those like you and Peter, etc., who do everything you can to make sure that individuals do not succeed at agendas that go into a different direction from the machine that drives the status quo. The more I see of the kind of fascist "individualism that you and Peter exemplify with your vile hatred of people who have the courage to think independently, the more I'm sure that that the Coalition needs selective mechanisms to assure that the Coaltion is based on the self-discipline to separate trust in objective reality from ideologists who are terrified that individuals can find happiness without spending big bucks. We're not saying that individuals have no choice. We're just here to give individuals a true choice, not just a choice of endless consumer choices. Those who don't agree with our agenda don't need to join. At the same time, we are going to do our damndest to make sure that folks like you who spit on free choice to interfere with the choices we are making in our lives. It's as simple as that. - 3:08:07 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->RON..so what do you suggest? Have you seen this before, where one person comes along and feels free to attack, accuse and totally misintrept, make everyone angry and be forced to defend themselves ad nauseum, and then the rest have to poo poo the utter hatred being spewed at them. Have you been following this since the beginning of the week, and really been reading what is going on. Ron, I think you that there are some persons here that have never been forced to act as outrageoulsy as they have, especially when they are forced to read messages such as the one that preceded this one? If it is supposed to be all love and harmony, it won't make for very intelligent conversation, especially when the person you are now defending hasn't given anything straight all week. I was actually thinking about you tonight, wondering why we haven't heard from you for awhile, and I thought maybe you had gone away to celebrate the long weekend. It is nice to see that you are here again. - 4:31:22 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->RON..I really have my back up, and so here I go again. Could you work together with someone who believes in the "my way or the highway" management style, especially when it is ideals and beliefs that are being discussed? How could a discussion forum flourish that way? Are we just to agree with each other. There are some who do agree with some things said, but at other times, not. I may be alone in this anger, but I feel that I am being chastised for picking on the teacher's pet, who everyone else knows is really a bad seed. - 4:37:28 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (intentionally shouting, but now I am finished):RON...I DO NOT HAVE A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER, AND I RESENT THAT ASSERTATION! MAYBE IF YOU HAD JOINED IN THE DISCUSSION INSTEAD OF LURKING YOU WOULD HAVE BECOME THE TARGET DU JOUR, AND THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHY WE SPOKE TO CARRIE THE WAY WE DID! - 4:40:08 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Joette: You are either blind, deaf and dumb, have an I.Q. of 50, or you are so accustomed to lying to yourself for so long that somewhere along the line, you started believing your own lies. Everything that you attribute to me fits your thought pattern and behavior precisely and mechanically, with attention to dotting every "i" and crossing every "t". This has been my OBSERVATION from the moment that you and a few others indicated that you would not tolerate anyone who disagrees with you. Your statements that I started on this board with fists flying and verbal assaults rolling off my tongue like bullets, flinging accusations in every direction with unsubstantiated assertions. That is a flat out LIE, which makes you a liar, and you are so committed to defending your lie to the bitter end end that there is nothing you won't stoop to to achieve your end. Sorry for having to tell it like it is. - 5:18:46 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

A LURKER --->:Folks, you are pissing into the wind. Carrie's poor, befuddled mind is closed tighter than a steel trap. She can't answer a direct question and she can't make a rational argument, so she resorts to name calling and baloney sandwiches. The best way to deal with assholes like Carrie is to ignore them. - 5:34:48 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Marlene: Yes, I do intend to promote an agenda for atheism based on the "belief system" that calls for accountability of all things that are represented as truth. It is a "belief system," a "philosophy," that demands that those with hidden collectivistic agendas stop representing themselves as individualists, that those with hidden dogmas based on an invisible hand guiding humanity stop representing themselves as atheists, that those with fascists mind-sets stop representing themselves as democrats who uphold the principles of individual choice, that those who want all of humanity to march to the drumbeat of one philosophy, stop representing themselves as defenders of diversity and respect for individual differences in life experience and circumstances. Yes, I have an agenda for the kind of atheism I support, so get use to the fact that there are people who don't think the same way as you do with totally different life experiences. Funny thing is that you people want to talk about individuality, but every time an individual brings up the role of life experience or anything on a personal level, you regard that as a sign of egotism and selfishness. In the concept of individualism that has prevailed here so far, individuals are required to erase their personal memories and conform to one infallible doctrine about capitalist mechanics that makes a virtue out of scorning the morality of scientific truth and the reduction of macro reality to the facts of individual existence. So much for Peter's true belief about the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness. Never mind your own existence, identity and consciousness when we all have ourselves to blame for not getting lobotomies and erasing our memories as individuals to worship Ayn Rand. - 5:47:09 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:To the Lurker: You are not only a lurker, but a coward who is crawling so low in the gutter of humanity that you would be ashamed to show your face. - 5:50:05 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CARRIE-- Your coalition is everything and nothing. You are a bitter, petty, and dishonest person. Go away. - 11:18:37 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->GRANT..thank you. LURKER..thank you. CARRIE..you describe the persons that you want to keep out of your Coalition as persons just like you. Obviously it will never go anywhere. - 11:44:06 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:-- I retract the "go away" part. Not my place. - 11:47:27 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CARRIE--Your attack on the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity is as typically unfocused and unsupported as practically everything you have said in the past week. You go on about individuality, macro realities, and scientific truths--then you claim victory by declaring "so much for the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity. You still have not been able to make one post here without first accepting all three( remember the "experiment"?)--and I can save you a lot of wasted time by saying you never will. Other than dodging insults from you, and me making personal assessments of your arguments, and your attitude in general--I really haven't a clue to what specifically you support. You say you support individualism, then you start shooting with both barrels loaded at objectivism, a philosophy which is BASED on individualism--but then you go ballistic because objectivism supports capitalism. But capitalism is the system which is an application of individuality. You want your cake and eat it too. In the end, what you want is individuality--but you'll leave to others to produce and earn their wealth--by their own effort--and you scorn them for being "greedy" --and then by some unidentified claim you feel--simply because you exist you are entitled to the fruits of their efforts. If you can't see the hyprocrisy, and the evil behind this "philosophy" ( which incidentally you initially said you had none, but now say you do--another contradiction) then you never will. I know you will come back bashing Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and her "followers", but even by your own admission you know little about the way objectivism is built, and that in itself really doesn't qualify you to argue it effectively--and you have not come close yet. You're not even in the same galaxy yet. Instead Carrie--why don't you try this: briefly outline what YOU stand for--offer reasons WHY you support it--and then be prepared to defend it without personal attacks and insults, calling people "stupid" with "I.Q.'s of 50" and the like. It will not advance your argument, and you may regain some respect here--which as far as I can see, has practically little chance of ressurection. What I would also strongly suggest is for you to study logic, along with some debating skills, which will help you define your position clearer, and make huge bounds in helping you argue more coonvincingly, more effectively without alienating your opponents, because as I can see , your skills in this area, as they stand right now, is your greatest enemy. - 12:48:06 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Casper:Carrie:--> Can you tell me why you are an atheist? I just can't see why it isn't obvious to you that there is a God. You want to go around telling people there is no God, when they will all know in their hearts there is a God. Why would you want to try and take away our undying love for him? - 13:16:14 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Grant: Why do you people keep looking in the mirror and talking to me when you should be talking to yourselves? You, for example, stand there in front of the mirror image of a bitter, petty, and dishonest person, and call the image you see, "Carrie", when it is yourself that you see rather than me? - 14:16:41 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:Peter: There you go again. With one swoop of your "objectivist" magic wand, you erase all factual truth. I thought you didn't believe in the supernatural, Peter. - 14:19:54 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carrie:TO ALL: I'm going to just delete the link that I was given to get to this page so that you can go back to your objectivist prayer meeting. - 14:41:25 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:PETER et,al: I just enjoyed a weekend of baseball and sunshine, and plenty of good reading. I see that CDRAKE is still at war any and everyone. That individual is either very bitter or in an utter glee because of pleasures on account of all others here. Last week i thought i saw something about that pseudonym vaguely familiar to spohism, so i checked a few of my in hand sources and the positions that CDRAKE began with, fit best a line said by the "Stranger" in the SOPHIST of Plato's Dialogues. the passage goes; 'and about what does he profess that he teaches men to dispute? To begin at the beginning- does he make them able to dispute about devine things, which are invisible to men in general?.' So with that before us, CDRAKE came in tootin' about her Coalition site which is akin to something "devine". The CDRAKE message of 5:47:09 7 Jul 97 to Marlene still smacks of disputes of something devine, just as in the 3:08:07 Jul 7 97 message to JOETTE. This devine dispute is at least one point attributable to CDRAKE exercises an antiquated sophism, or maybe CDRAKE is kinfolk to jesus or mohomet or joseph smith or maybe luther because CDRAKE is so keen to ones IQ and lies. I used the Dialogues of Plato just because they are common and available to all. There are other points in that piece of Sophism. GRANT, in regards to Carrie's 14:16:41 7 Jul 97 message about mirrors that term also appears in the Plato's Sophism. - 15:15:52 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:Just to make a quick appearance from the west coast and my cousin Larry's house in Vacaville, Calif. north of Oakland. He wanted to see the chat line that i talked on. Gotta go tour. Keep the peace, ha! - 16:42:55 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:CARRIE---->.......I am sure a college in your area offers a course in logic. And in reference to your post to Grant: What is this "you people"--what trait are you using to connect us all in one big lump? Could it be possibly " the people who find Carrie's abrasiveness more appealing to cajole than to engage in serious discussion". And what's this reference to the "supernatural". What twisted unsupported type of logic arrived at this conclusion? You are making less and less sense as time goes on, and you made very little when you first appeared--regardless of you calling it the "factual truth" ( which is, by the way, a redundant statement--there is no such thing as "unfactual truth"). Sign up for that course!! I'll tell you what--from this point on,-I will point out every logical fallacy you commit, in every post you make--without challenging the actual contents. If you are then the rational person you say you are--sooner hopefully than later you will recognize this glaring deficiency in your effective debating skills. - 16:45:02 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Objectivist prayer meeting? I thought I was the only one here who said they supported objectivism. Well, all the rest of "us people", here goes....Our Mother( Ayn Rand) who art not in heaven( because you were an atheist), hallowed be thy name, our kingdom will come( if everyone accepts your axioms) it shall bne done on earth as it is in "Atlas Shrugged". Give us this day our daily dose of capitalist theories so we can go out into the marketplace and EARN-by our own efforts, the money to buy our own bread. ( We wouldn't just "ask" you for it.), and don't forgive our trespasses, as we must be held accountable for our actions. And unless someone else recognizes his trespasses and recognizes specifically how his actions were a threat to his own life, and to others--don't forgive him either.( If you do otherwise you are simply yoursor his actions as acceptable) For you are the power and glory for ever and ever. Amen. - 17:18:56 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: so if CDRAKE bids all adieu, truly, then he/she was, at least true to the notion of a coalition, n. a combination or union, esp. if temporary. That, per Webster's NewWorld. - 19:07:55 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..don't hold your breath. She keeps checking to see if this blind, deaf and dumb person with an I.Q. of 50 is talking about her behind her back. RON..why no response to my screaming last night? - 20:40:22 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That CDRAKE is as much fun, to me, as those theists THANH and whassis name, for just a brief bit we were like modest aborigines that knew only what we knew and naught else. Then came CDRAKE the conquistador with some king and a god on his/her side. that party said nothing that most of us are aware of and have seen in some form or other. Let him\her check, its nuthin. Individuals like that are whats ruining and turning the decent notion of Megan's law into a torch scene from the old Karloff Frankenstein movie. As i read that bit of legislation i took it to mean that 'knowledge of' was the source of one's power, not torchs brands and yellow star-stuff. - 21:20:10 on 7 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:I've been away for over just 24 hours and I think I've missed two pages. I'll respond when I'm finished reading. - 2:24:38 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:WELL!.. I see Scary's been going on and on and on and on...Have I addressed her lately? CARL- Interesting! I wish I read more of the heavy stuff. I have some books here so I'll try! LURKER- Too bad she had to leave so soon! We could have each donated a bottle of mustard! Ah, but she's off with her hatchet to destroy the churches so she can rebuild one of her own. RON- If the lady wants to start a collective this is not the place to recruit. ALLAN and GRANT- It's not cold to help someone to help themselves. JOETTE- I couldn't agree more! PETER- Somehow Scary got me mixed up with you I think. You can pray to Ayn all by yourself. - 4:36:47 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:-- Pretty interesting stuff from Mars, don't you think? It's good to see the scientists so exited. Sounds like maybe there will be some significant new information about the water, geology, etc. - 4:43:24 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I heard on the news, the Winnipeg news (so...) that the scientists believe that much of the planet was at one time flooded. The finding may be really interesting! - 4:47:34 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Marlene---Ahh, Ayn couldn't hear me anyway! "Scary"? I like that. - 12:50:56 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Good point about Sophism. I think parallels can also be drawn, as Peter noted, with Peewiehermanism, specifically the "I'm rubber-you're glue" maxim. - 13:00:40 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:GRANT: for that CD individual, the PeeWee Herman tag and its value-import is much more fitting and appropriate to CDRAKE. Would her/his IQ if a pool wet more than the bottom of a waders feet? - 16:37:10 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: As i ponder the CD posts there was a general waste of energy and loss of value by all concerned, my message to GRANT got me wondering about what other kind of exchange could have taken place, dispite the position CD seemingly so desired. There is room for anykind here, i'm sure it is safe to inscribe. Do we post this to the general account of misfortune? - 21:01:13 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CARL..do you mean, was there another way of handling the exchanges with Ms./Mr. Drake? I believe we all tried to make her feel welcome initially, and it was her own undoing that chased her away. Whether an atheist, christian, buddhist or nudist, anyone should be welcome, but that does not give them licence to spew hatred and bigotry, or just plain B.S. - 22:37:40 on 8 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL..so now that she is gone, isn't there anything left to say? TO ALL CARL SAGAN FANS..I read in the paper that the Pathfinder has had its name changed to the Carl Sagan Memorial Explorer? I think that is a very fitting tribute. - 1:40:18 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- Any thoughts on secular humanism? I've been reading some of their stuff lately, and it's interesting and enjoyable reading, but I have a little trouble with it, as it is a belief system, and it's too idealistic, even for me. ;-) Is it a "liberal" philosophy only? - 2:01:46 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Carl Sagan Fans>>>>>>>:On Friday A&E's Biography is featuring Carl Sagan. Check your local listings for the time in your area. - 2:46:13 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..there was a time when I called myself a humanist, but I too find that it is the same as any mass following. The code of ethics but be the same as everyone else's, thus disallowing free thought. "Humanism" is misunderstood, as many people, when hearing that word, assume that it just means that you treat everyone equitably, which is not the case...Grant, if you had to label yourself, what would you "be"? I like to think that there is no label for me, as I pretty much march to the beat of my own drummer, although I have been accused of being blind, deaf and dumb, so I should call myself "Tommy", 'cause I play a mean pinball. - 3:05:23 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->to the mystery poster...A & E showed that biography the week Carl Sagan died. It is quite good. It must be dead tonight because everyone is sleeping through the All-Star game, especially Ron. - 3:08:24 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Yes, I watched the renaming ceremony on TV. This was when the one scientist mentioned Sagan "looking down on us now". It really bugged me that he had to get those words in there. I hope that NO ONE will disrepect my atheism after I die. I plan to leave a will stating what I want done as to a memorial or whatever. My body is donated to science for whatever they want to use it for. GRANT- I agree with Joette, I wouldn't want to label myself as my ideas are always changing. I suppose I'm just not a group person. ALL- How about all this stuff on Roswell? Being the skeptic that I am, some of the stuff the airforce is dishing out is a little hard to swallow. I don't get A&E, damn! - 4:52:33 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- I see what you mean. -- If I had to label myself I'd maybe say skeptic, but that doesn't really cover it.-- Do you think humanism is harmfull, other than to individuality or free thought? I have a xtian friend who is quite hostile to humanism, which is why I'm looking at it, but he doesn't really differentiate between humanism and new-age. -- I haven't questioned any of my major beliefs for years before finding this board. Now I'm questioning all of them. It's healthy I think. It's good to scrutinize old assumptions. - 4:54:51 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- I was thinking the same thing, where is everyone? Then I remembered last summer. It was fairly dead here then too. Once in a while the students who posted here would find a computer and say "hi". It will pick up again in September. Carrie didn't help the atmosphere here but she isn't the only person of her kind that's upset the apple cart but she has been the only "atheist", that's what chokes me! - 4:59:08 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I don't know how old you are but I know that I started to think in depth about these things about the age of 28 or 29. Before that, I don't know, it just didn't seem to be of importance. I still haven't stopped thinking! As I was telling you, I've been reading a book called _Demonic Males_, the title is somewhat misleading so far but it's about our evolution and the evolution of all the great apes. It turns out that we are much more closely related than we think. Now your xtian friends would be just hopping at that claim. I believe there is no realtion between humanism and new age. - 5:06:43 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- On that article in _Skeptic_ with Julian Simon, I think Mr. Simon may be wearing the rose-colored glasses. He looks good in horns and the copter hat too. Cute, how he skirted the issue with Tipler!! - 5:13:43 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I don't think there's a relation between new- age and humanism. I just meant I don't think he has a good handle on humanism. --I'm going to have to find that book. Who is the author? - 5:14:42 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- On the witch trials, horrendous! But, those who headed the "witch hunts" stood to become quite wealthy. Was the agenda to rid the community of witches or to apprehend any property and values these "witches" had? Do you think the government of St. Vincent may have the same agenda? - 5:17:18 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- The book is _Demonic Males_ by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson. I friend that I met on this discussion sent it to me. We have discussed _The Demon Haunted World_ and we are now discussing _The Chalice and the Blade_. My friend no longer posts here thanks to some xtian nutcases but I've been fortunate enough to carry on discussions with her via e-mail. No matter, I find it hard to put the book down, I hope you'll like it too. - 5:22:46 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- More on the crime that paid. Those who became wealthy from the victims of their crime was the church. No, actually most xtians don't have a handle on other belief systems. Their lord is a jealous one and they would fear the wrath of their lord if they even thought of another god or BS. Fear is the main ingredient in judaism, christianity and islam. - 5:30:55 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: MARLENE-- I agree about the jealous lord. I usually don't talk much about such stuff with xtians. It puts them in the "resist Satan" stance, and gives them an oportunity to proselytize. I listen though, and sometimes draw them out. I only speak out when someone says something really obnoxious, like "there are no atheists in a foxhole." At least we now have Carl Sagan's example to site for this. His wife has made it clear that there were no second thoughts and no illusions at the end. - 12:05:44 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE; regarding the connection of burning witches to wealth and property, i read via an Ingersol site that the procedure of one drawing up a 'will', was first setup in France(as best i recall,) and it was done to prevent the early christian guardians from assuming possession of the wealth and property of heretics as a witch and assorted other types. Perhaps some contemporary U.S. legislators, in possession of their history and thoughts of a future for the unborn, also realised that the prospects of the status of church tax-free land invited the return of dark ages. But, i hold the opinion that building sports stadiums for the wealthy is just an aspect or step in the direction of 'state supported monopolys'. - 14:59:02 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- In Canada, we have many government owned monopolies. The telephone system in Manitoba was once owned and operated by the government but now there is competition, the government sold it off. Anything that they KNOW they can make money on, they retain or create. Some examples are the casinos and Manitoba's vehicle insurance, Autopac. PETER and JOETTE- I hear Jean talked out of the wrong side of his mouth again! I'm sure Clinton isn't too impressed! - 15:55:17 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: 'State supported monopolys' are not different from a state supported religion. Now, if either collection of people, religion or monopolys, enjoys the favor of a state this infers that the real resources available to the 'state', this includes economic, police and military, then regular folks become fodder-like. One example of erroneous state involved action as related to the concept of monopolys, is education. The states, e.g. California, recently went through a process of closing schools, now they build sports stadiums, is this not wrong? or, is this state the new opiate? - 16:09:26 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:cool things seemed to have settled down here a bit! and i thought wbs was bad!!!! Ron I am looking for you!!!!! - 19:50:48 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: your discription of the CD matter is fair and accurate. But, what if that individual had never experienced a good outcome from others who may have made that individual- CD, into some sort of space case. Now CD was going to fix the world, no matter that it was only in her imagination. - 20:47:14 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:LUCI- Are you getting mellower with age? - 20:50:29 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:Marlene-- not really- after all I am now about to turn thirty- and I have just made a t-shirt that has the anarchy sign on one side-- and NO GOD IS GOOD on the other-- not mellowing much!!! :o)- - 21:17:22 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

yeah its me again (lucifer(:wait a minute carl- cd cant fix the world only I can do that!!!! - 21:18:29 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Hang the Pope!:dont you just hate when people keep posting useless drivel????? - 21:19:18 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..if a space case believes they have the knowledge to change the world, they should have the capacity to look in the yellow pages under "HELP". (Actually if you read Ms. Drake's new site, she has devoted a lot of time and energy to mental health, so there is a definite connection in that regard) - 21:59:43 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I breezed through her site maybe twice and in my opinion the site was just someone seaching for their fifteen minutes or seconds of fame9however this goes) but mental health, eh? Izit 'bout here that one says "physician heal thyself." - 22:40:13 on 9 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL..I watched yesterday's Biography on Louis Ferrakhan. Anyone have opinions on his "Ministry of Rage"? Personally, I think that he is a sleaze ball, responsible for Malcolm X's death, and that the Nation of Islam is just a bunch of bigoted thugs. Anyone feel this way? - 14:08:05 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- It's the content of their belief that's really terrible. Louis just happened to be on a mountain in New Mexico when a space ship picked him up and took him to the mothership and told him the future. In the mothership he met the original founder of the NOI but I forget the guy's name right now. Anyway he was told that this ship was made by people on an island, off the coast of Africa in the 1920's. Besides the mothership (which is in orbit around the earth) there are a number of smaller ships. At a specially selected time these smaller ships will position themselves over major cities and destroy "whitey". Nice religion, huh? Not only that, their islam is not even comparable to the islam of the Middle East. - 14:21:57 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Within the past several years I have listened to one good interview of L.Farakhan, it was good because he was not'confronted'so as to let him get on his soap box nor was it'intrusive'to make him defensive. The interview by phone lasted about an hour and he got explain the'news-bits'regular flashed before the public supposedly representative of him. When it was finally concluded, it was reasonably clear that he was only another personality taking advantage of emotion, thoughtlessness and the superstitious with a full range of intelligence, i.e., history presence and foresight. Thuggery, is one of human characteristics loaded with excuses that thugs equate to reason for their state-of-mind, (i tell youngsters losers make excuses winners work harder)and it-thuggery, acknowledges no bounds. - 14:44:47 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: The parenthetic insertion of my 14;55:47 10 jul 97 mssg, does not always have the desired effect especially in a contest between athletic performance and superstitution. One of the most difficult hurdles that defy most forms of definition for any jock is athletic superstition. It makes flash-like appearances and binds them physically and mentally in straps made of tank-steel. But, once overcome it almost did not ever exist. Can we extend this kind of 'thing' to that of a theist and perhaps design some whatever questions, or something else for theistic thinking? Sometimes, an athlete dispels superstition and good things happen instead of dark age issues being kept alive and well. - 16:20:54 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..the athletic superstition smacks of obsessive compulsive behaviour, and it not only is the athletes, but many fans as well. When the Blue Jays were in the World Series for the first time, I had a friend that whenever she watched, the Jays did not fare well, so I would call periodically throughout games to make sure that she wasn't watching the game. Pathetic, eh? MARLENE..I thought I knew quite a bit about Louis Farrakhan, but did not know about the space ship until I read the Skeptic article, and then again on Biograohy they spoke about it. It was Elijah Mohammed that he was supposed to have discussions with on the mother ship (Elijah was the "Messenger" who founded the Nation of Islam, and it was Malcolm X's besmirching of his reputation that led to Malcolm X's death, after he had converted to a "main line Muslim". Many NOI members feel that we whitey's are discriminating against them because they are black, but for me it is because they are a very dangerous, and very powerful, organization. A religion where the hatred is so much publicized is even worse (if possible) than the subtle hatred in xtianity. - 21:54:18 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- That's the guy! I think that the NOI is a racist group, no different than the skinheads, nazis or any other group that separates humanity on the basis of color. Human's like to pretend that they are just soooo smart. Do we see dogs not associating with other dogs because of the difference in patterns (I understand they do see in color as we do). Simple comparison but racism is a simple idea in the first place. - 22:38:34 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Exactly, things in their experience such as having lost for any number of reasons holds the players game performance at some lesser level than their capabilities. i see this in their eyes, i can hear it in their voices in about the same way i can tell what a pitcher will throw. MARLENE: i did not bookmark that NOI site you once referred any and all to but i read much of it. Sound thinking is simply not for all, i guess. - 22:38:36 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

CHRIS:TO MARLENE: Howdy! Long time no type!! I would like to courteously disagree with your post awhile back that fear is the main component of the 3 monotheistic religions. This is not the case these days. I do not fear "God". I do not believe in heaven or hell, so I have no reason to think that something, whether good or bad, is waiting for me on the other side of death. I am responsible for my own actions and I don't need any Big Daddy in the sky to threaten me with eternal damnation to make me care about this little blue dot (thank you Carl Sagan!) and the inhabitants therein. There, I feel better now. TO JOETTE: I kind of liked the idea of the "Million Man March". Have you ever seen the movie "Get on the Bus" (Andre Braugher from "Homicide" is in it). I never have, but I have read some wonderful reviews of it. I think the African American community needs strong leaders, unfortunately, I think, as with all charismatics, they actually start to believe their own rhetoric and that they really are the messengers of God. Remember that post I did awhile back about the SF story where people interpreted their multiple inner voices as the voice of God? I talked to my Dad about this chat line, and he sent me a recent article from AARP about this guy, Herbert Benson, M.D. is who now doing seminars on the connection between spiritual/religious people and medicine. He developed the "relaxation response". Quote: "It's a formula: Relaxation response plus beliefs equals what I call the faith factor..Either one will work alone, but the two together are one heck of a combination...I am not saying that God exists or not--I don't know. But what I am saying from a medical point of view...we're in a win-win situation." Placebo effect you think? My dad would also like to know what you guys in general rely on in times of stress and emotional turmoil (and Marlene, don't say fern sniffing!!) - 23:54:30 on 10 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CHRIS..much to Marlene's chagrin, I am really into fern sniffing. My house always smells beautiful (when the cat litter is clean at least hahaha) because I find beautiful scents have a very pleasing affect on my psyche. I have to agree with Marlene that fear is the main ingredient of most religions. Were we not taught that if we did not walk the straight and narrow that hell would be awaiting us? I am happy that you do not fear the wrath of God, but there are billions and billions (again, thank you Carl Sagan) of people who do fear their god. He/she/it has so busy visiting horrific punishment on people that anyone who believes in him/her/it should be terrified. Your reference to "Get On The Bus" is a timely one, being the movie buff I am. It was just recently released on video, and it will be my next rental, although I think Spike Lee has been unable to top himself since "Do The Right Thing". I do not believe that different cultures need strong leaders, as it only manages to divide all cultures. I have a problem with the "my people" syndrome, especially when we are still having to atone for the sins of our forefathers (in Canada, ours is more a situation with aboriginals, whereas yours is predominately an Afro-american issue). Does this make sense? - 0:12:09 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CHRIS..me again (yadayadayada) Tell your father that in times of stress, I merely freak out and get it out of my system (not really). I unfortunately have quite a bit of stress in my life, and I rely on my own strength and intellect to get me through it. I do a lot of forward looking, and a lot of self talk (instead of prayer). I also find a competitive game of Dr. Mario and listening to music helps to relieve stress. - 0:17:52 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (who is killing time while doing her laundry):-->MARLENE..I wasn't sure what you were talking about with Jean Chretien talking out of the other side of his mouth, but when I heard what he said to the Belgian leader, I laughed my head off (it reminds of when Ellen came out of the closet at the airport). For those of you that don't know what I am talking about, at the recent NATO conference, our Prime Minister whispered to the Belgian leader that Americans are a bunch of back-scratchers, and little did he know that he was whispering into a microphone that was still on! Only in Canada eh? - 0:22:07 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:JOETTE: Well, yes, strong leaders do tend to divide, but I don't think you can have or do anything that is perfectly good or perfectly bad. Ah, a devotee of aromatherapy, eh? I love having potpourri around the house. Cinnamon is my scent du jour lately. What do you like? Do you wear perfume? I like Halston. There's someone in our office who wears it and sometimes when she's not there, I go in there just because it always smells so nice. I agree that it is calming. I read somewhere that smell is one of the most memory provoking senses we have. Sorry, I just can't agree that everybody who believes in God thinks He/She/It is always running around visiting horrific judgements on people. If they do, they're wrong and just stupid. Hmmm, maybe I should get into this God business myself, seeing as I am always right. DR.MARIO???? Do I dare believe I have met a fellow Nintendo enthusiast?!?!?! NEAT! I have a Game Boy with Tetris on it. What is it about that game that produces such a feeling of accomplishment by watching those rows disappear after that last shape clicked so perfectly into place--and talk about Pavlov's dogs! I drool everytime those little noises go off when an especially large chunk of interlocked pieces goes away. And what's so bad about back scratchers? Especially in those places you can never quite reach? - 1:00:23 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:Chris--I am reading a book right now called" The Art of Living Consciously" by Dr. Nathaniel Branden. ( Who you will often see quoted inSmith's book ). He talks very specifically about "spiritualism" and defines it as "pertaining to consciousness and to needs and development of consciousness" He suggests that the concept of religious "faith" ( which he sees an actually a method to dismiis, and abandon the realities of one's consciousness--as an assault on one's sense of awareness--and of his consciousness. Therefore--if one is to adopt a position to be wholly committed to living as fully consciously as he can--faith, and other "anti-mind" religious practices, works AGAINST one's sense of "spirituality". His argument stems from a position that one's mind is one's greatest value to his life--and to use it to it's maximum --his highest virtue. Conversely any method which works in direct and deliberate opposition to one's mind--curtails his "spirituality", his sense of recognizing reality--and ultimately a factor which works directly against his well-being. Interesting, isn't it?......As far as handling stress is concerned, I accept the emotion as something real and part of me--I attempt to then find the factors which then are the cause. Again, I feel when one is faced with emotional trauma--this is the time when clearest thinking is required most--not to put one's head in a fog, and pray and have faith, that "somehow" someone, or God or Jesus is going to help ( i.e.) seek unidentified methods of help, from unidentified entities. A religious person may find temporary comfort using this method, but in the long term--he must face reality ( as it has the final word). So why not encourage to face it at the outset? - 1:24:27 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CHRIS..yes, I wear perfume. I am a devotee of Estee Lauder, and used to wear Beautiful every day, but have now switched to Pleasures. (sorry guys and gals...) - 1:30:28 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:PETER: Sigh. Yes, it is interesting about Branden. Of course, I agree that orthodox religion can be "anti-mind". I reject the notion that all religious believers allow their faith to cloud their minds, because I consider myself religious and reasonably clear headed most of the time. I do NOT expect God to intercede for me. If this were possible, God would have interceded for my mother, the Jews during the Shoah, the Africans during their droughts, Bosnia at war and the Jays during the World Series. Human beings are not totally reasonable...and that's good. Reason can cloud the mind just as surely as emotion. Einstein was supposedly a genius, but he admitted himself that he was never very good around people, especially his 2 wives. To me it almost sounds as if you have set up something called "Reason" to worship, instead of God. And who says religious people deny reality? Who can define "reality"? Reality includes suffering, pain and death. Religious structures were put in place to help people deal with these. I feel the same impatience with people who refuse to take medicine. Why does admitting you need outside sources for comfort sometimes always considered a show of weakness? - 2:01:20 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:JOETTE: I was inspired by your remark about passing time doing laundry to start a batch myself, so I am off to dry, fold and spindle. Catch you guys tomorrow. Gute Schneckle [Sweet Dreams]! - 2:06:55 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CHRIS..god did not have to intercede with the Blue Jays. They won the World Series two times in a row (now tonight, they need his intercession..) Chris, how can you say that you do not believe in heaven and hell, and that you do not believe in a god, but at the same time you say you are religious? Have you some belief system that is different from religion, but just use that expression to describe it? - 2:35:22 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:Chris--Yes, human beings are not toyally reasonable--and that is by far the WORST thing they can do. You may have remembered earlier posts I have made talking about reason being axiomatic. It cannot be escaped. If one says "I am not being reasonable right now" they are committing the logical fallacy known as the "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept" He is using and presupposing reason when the statement is made--in an attempt to deny it. Reason is the only faculty that a mind can use to recognize reality. Certainly one can perceive many things, but with only the use of reason, can these perceptions be formed into concepts. REason is again pre-supposed in every attempt to form a concept, or utter or write any sentence. Remember the thing I was talking about with the dreams? Poor reasoning can certainly cloud the mind--as good reasoning is something that has to be learned, and requires effort. But, because it "clouds the mind" certainly is no call to abandon it--it just has to be clearer. As far as "worshipping" reason--I certainly wouldn't say it is being worshipped, but to say that would be to say we "worship" the efficacy of our mind, or we worship the gasoline that goes into our car. It just cannot be avoided, if one is to think clearly. It is how one recognizes reality. Also, to show comfort from outside sources is not a sign of weakness at all--nor did I ever imply that. But it is our own mind ultimately that has to do the comforting--and to find ways to help one do it--if he is not able--is often crucial in many instances. Its just how and what the individual uses to "help" him that one must determine that it is of any benefit. - 3:06:52 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene trying to explain this the best I can:CHRIS- I am interested as well, if you consider yourself religious, just what are your beliefs? I've had it a bit tough from the time I was conceived and I unfortunately had to tough it out alone most of the time. How did I handle it? I learned to take each experience as a lesson. When push comes to shove an individual is really truly alone when faced with very personal ordeals. One can hope for a savior or one can realize that one's only savior is oneself. As far back as I can remember, I have never believed in a god. I think with some people though, I think god is their parent figure. A small child doesn't have trust in god but he/she has trust in his/her parents. When this child grows up he/she misses the comfort and invents a father figure hence, god. Although most people these days don't fear god in that one would be punished, most fear they would be truly alone without him/it. It's sobering to know that mom or dad is no longer there for you. - 4:03:12 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- BTW, I'm not into sniffing ferns, nor yogic flying, nor meditation, nor the essence of pig barn, etc. etc. We'll leave that up to those who relax to the sound of one hand clapping. Actually I find that I feel much less stressed if I just say what I have to say and just do what I feel I have to do. It may not make me the most popular person in the area but I don't get asked to Tupperware parties or jewellery parties either. To relax, hummm...a number of things, reading fiction (Stephen King, Dean Koontz or Anne Rice), soaking in the tub (with just the smell of plain old soap), walking in the forestry (I live right on the edge of it), gardening, picking berries, just plain basic stuff. - 4:13:38 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene still red-faced:JOETTE- I had to laugh when Jean put his foot in it too. Now we Canadians can be just a little more red-faced. I heard on As It Happens, that the BC government had put an add on Washington states radio shows, accusing the US of invading the Canadian waters and over fishing the salmon. They have pleaded with the Washingtonians (Grant where are you) to rally against their government for not curbing US fishermen. Does the BC govenment think the US citizens fell off a salmon boat yesterday!? - 4:20:57 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I'm listening. They will probably propose a fish fence pretty soon. By the way, you guys are playing dirty- seizing poor innocent U.S. fishing boats. :-o - 4:35:30 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->GRANT..hell, we took on the world last year when Spanish boats were fishing in "our" waters. I think the B.C. premier, Glen Clark is losing his marbles. Not only is he taking on the U.S., but now there is a real anti-Green Peace movement happening, all for the love of the almighty dollar. Are these people blind, can't they see past our generation? - 11:26:15 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- In the future how will we handle it if or when resources become dangerously scarce. We don't appear to be capable of resolving the simplest conflicts. The fishing dispute drags on because neither side is willing to curtail their own fishing to the degree they desire of the other side. IMO - 11:57:53 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO JOETTE and MARLENE: I consider myself to be a religious person because I like attending religious services. I like the structure that rituals and community provide in my life and I also like reading past religious tracts by the so-called great thinkers in every faith to see how they interpreted life. I do not deny the existence of God, but I do not think the idea of God as a parent figure works for me. I don't like thinking everything has a purpose or that existence has to have some extrinsic "meaning" applied to it. People are free to do and think as they like, there are no divine punishments. I'd like to believe that transcendence is a part of existence and that religion attempts, admittedly very badly at times, to incorporate this into life. I don't like laying out my BS very much. I can't put it into words very well. And I don't like sounding like my way is THE WAY. It very obviously is not. PETER: OK, I'll give you that reason is used to express concepts. What the image of our cortex, supposedly the basis for reason and intellect, wrapped around that ancient limbic system? Logic will trash faith everytime, because faith isn't about logic, it is about emotion. Yes, reason is used to express concepts, to form words and expressions of thought, but what about emotion? I don't think you can get rid of religion. It's denying people a way of expressing themselves that to some individuals works better than logic and atheism. What is wrong with that? - 13:14:55 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: ANY-- Sorry to go off topic with the fishing thing, but it's a case of an approach that bothers me. Instead of stating facts and trying to find an equitable solution, both sides will and do say anything that may further their cause. This is the approach nearly everywhere. It implies a view that good= those things that help me, and bad= those things that hurt me. No importance is placed on objectivity, fairness, equity, or the facts. - 13:30:15 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CHRIS: What is wrong with that? why such an open-ended question? Well, consider as initial response, this- last night i watched a tv program about terrorism in the U.S. Directly online with theism(or vice-versa it works either way) was the terrorist's position that christianity was of keen importance among their various tenets. Much like aherents of the NOI, the terrorists seem to require a supernatural connection or awareness, or dare we say excuse, for their assorted deeds. What any such interest does ,of course, cannot appear nor seem like the application of rigorous thinking to life by either an emotional or reasonable person. Now, i see that you bring up the subject of brain workings, you must be fairly clear on the protoplasmic connections to the various parts of the brain's composition? lets talk more on that - 15:13:36 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

GRIMWOOD here...:...From a recent article in the UK Financial Times, the three most recognised emblems/motifs throughout the world, in order, are (1) The five Olympic rings. (2) The MacDonalds “M” (3) The Christian cross. - 16:02:34 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:Chris---Good questions, but the answers you are looking for are demanding answers that are becoming more involved, and would require a far lengthier answer than I could give on this page. What I would recommend is to finish the Smith book, then read, "Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff, which discusses at great length, the benefits and the drawbacks of emotionalism, and then read the book " The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden--which deals with many of the questions on a purely psychological scale--much better than I could. Challenge their claims--can they support what they are saying? Then decide for yourself............ Chris, I am detecting in your messages, a lot of ingrained religiously -based assumptions and philosophies that are what I would often consider gross misconceptions--that you have up until this point cosidered self-evident, irrefutable, or "just the way it is"( for instance, defending "faith)that again would take a great deal of reading and study to refute. Your move to read the Smith book is a good start in attempting to challenge these beliefs however. Do not stop. You owe it to yourself. - 16:10:44 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Even though it may be off topic, it has to do with "guilt-making". It's no different than religion. Guilt is a powerful tool for those who want to sway opinion to their purpose. In western society, guilt is learned at a very early age. CHRIS- I agree that a healthy mind is a major factor in a healthy body. Your right, religion, the new psychology, even some of the new physics play very heavily on the emotions of the individual and even encourage a "oneness" in humanity as a whole. I agree with Peter that emotionalism is a hindering factor in objectivism. If we were taught when we were young to separate our emotions from the reality of the issue, I think our minds would be much healthier but this is just the opposite of what religion and the new psychology propose. - 18:26:59 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CHRIS: I'm off to a baseball tournament, but, if you wanna read pickup a copy of "Mathematical Philosophy, the Study of Fate and Freedom. Lectures for Educated Laymen." by Keyser, Cassius J., it has had lots of spin-offs. - 18:56:02 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

CHRIS:GRANT: No emphasis at all on objectivity, fairness, equity or the facts??? Do you mean moi? I am hurt ;-)! Those are pretty broad terms, mister. Objectivity? Facts? Those mean a whole lot of different things to a whole lot of different people. CARL: One of the major reasons I walked away from Christianity was their insistence on their way or the highway. There is no way to substantiate that Jesus (I o not object to his physical existence on this planet) actually said "There is no way to the Father but through Me" and the odds are these words were created by some unknown author with a very specific agenda. Yes, yes, yes, I will never ever dispute with you that religion has been used as the reason behind many horrible things, but that does not convince me that you should throw the baby out with the bath water. Extremes move us forward and sometimes backward, but they never stay around for very long (relatively speaking). Umm, "protoplasmic connections to the various parts of the brain's composition"? Are you talking about the corpus collosum? If not, you will have to clarify. Thanks for the title, sounds interesting. I don't know how I'm ever going to get through all this stuff you guys are recommending! PETER: Well, of course, I have ingrained dogma, I can hardly divest myself of things I subconsciously picked up over a period of years, now, can I? Yeah, I think the "that's just the way it is" is a pretty lame way of evading responsibility. I don't think one is free to use this to explain away the status quo. Just because humans are illogical and emotional doesn't mean they shouldn't make the effort to get beyond their own selfish interests, but I think there will always be relapses. I am always looking for ways to challenge my BS, one of the reasons I am on this chat line, but I don't think I will ever agree that any one person has discovered THE WAY. MARLENE: I am still unsure myself as to what reality means, because I'm starting to think that most of it is made up as we go along. I was thinking of this analogy this morning, and I am sure that you guys will pick it apart easily: Religion is like inviting someone over for dinner. Most people in this situation would expect to be greeted warmly, welcomed in, and seated at a table, at which point they are served something wholesome to eat. Of course, most of the time, they don't get to choose what they get, but usually they can pick over whatever is offered enough to satisfy themselves. But my idea of religion would be more like greeting the guest with "Oh, hi, come on in, we were just getting ready". Then the guest is led back to the kitchen and asked to help prepare the meal with the hosts. He/she gets to make suggestions or even change things if they want, but the point of it all is they have to participate and work at it, not just sit down and stuff themselves. Religion isn't about accepting dogma, it's about finding a way to organize your perceptions into a coherent system, while not closing your mind to other people's experiences. There, now that I've given this out, please feel free to release the hounds. - 22:53:20 on 11 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CHRIS..the hounds are only released on certain occassions, and I for one have mine muzzled and well fed at the moment. Please don't think that we are here to malign anyone just because we don't happen to agree with you, which is the case for me right now. I enjoyed your analogy, and maybe it is your own experience that has given you the opportunity to participate in whatever religion you practice, but I am sure it is not the experience of most people. I agree that not all believers in a god are unreasonable, or have lost touch completely with reality, but most of us seek proof of the existence of a god. I would like to believe, but to date there has been no proof that could withstand any scientific scrutiny, so I place the belief in a god in the same category as the Irish believing in their faeries and bansees. That is usually the arguement. If proof could be shown, most of us would study it, and probably change our views. It works the other way as well. Many scientific discoveries have leaned toward the non-existence of the Adam and Eve etc story, but many people look for ways to dispute something that is real and tangible. - 0:10:52 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- I think that would be a great way to create a new religion BUT...while doing so, all those preparing the feast will have to have one thing in common to enjoy it, they have to be hungry. Now whether they plan to fill themselves up on meatless meat, or dry water, or fruitless wine as opposed to the candy floss and kool-aid will be the thing they most have to agree on but when people are hungry they will work things out. Now, I come along to the dinner party, full after a hearty meat and potatoes dinner, and am asked to sit down with the rest of you and enjoy the stuff you cooked up. I won't be able to appreciate the food, much less enjoy myself because I'm not hungry. Even if I were hungry, I would not enjoy the food because I wouldn't find it solid and sustainable. - 0:27:33 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS - The hounds are for those who deserve a hounding and your not one of them IMHO. To add to Joette's post, there is also no evidence to the story of jesus either. This "incarnate" may just as mythical as noah or the fairy god-mother. A myth, of course, created to support a BS. This is where it differs somewhat from the fairy god-mother although there are some who are into goddesses. - 0:50:44 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: CHRIS-- My semi-aimless rant wasn't aimed at you, unless of course you have a salmon boat. I'm quite tolerant of sincere beliefs, as long as they are not oppressive. And I shouldn't pick on the poor fishermen. They're no worse than countless others.-- MARLENE-- I missed the guilt connection. It's kind of an "end justifies the means" thing, isn't it? - 1:26:21 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..it wasn't a semi-aimless rant...I thought your post was succinct. Does the end justify the means, especially when it is natural resources we are considering. On one hand, people are working and paying their taxes, but on the other hand, there should be cause for concern that our natural resources are being depleted. I am about to rant...why can only certain people/companies profit from goods such as fish, when no one actually owns the oceans? I don't understand this. Since these fish don't actually belong to anyone, shouldn't we be able to avail ourselves of them at our lesiure? - 1:49:16 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:Maybe these fishermen should have Jesus on board with them. If they catch only a few, he could make them multiply like he did in the bible! - 1:51:16 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Even better, who'd need a boat? He's just walk on out there! GRANT- No, I suppose I didn't explain it very well. All you Amerikins are supposed to feel "quilty" that your destroying our prurrdy Canadian wilderness. Naaa! BC doesn't want those fish for themselves nor do the Canuk fishermen, it's the beauty you people can't appreciate. Now don't you feel guilty!!! It's similiar to the guilt I'm supposed to feel when I donate to science instead of the church. Or when I support public education when I should really be supporting those nice schools where Tony teaches his lambkins, or....... - 3:18:46 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- MARLENE-- The fishing issue itself doesn't really bother me much. It's the intentional misrepresentation, attempted manipulation, etc. It's the same with the logging issue, invironmentalism, blah blah blah. Blatant self interest. I do agree that private citizens should be entitled to a larger share for "sport." Is the k in amerika a Canadian thing, or is this the same k from Jerry Rubin and Abbey Hoffman days? :-) - 3:41:43 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Okay! I think we've got communication! Manipulation with guilt! The "k", maybe I got it from that horrible movie. - 4:42:48 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Yeah, I'm with you. I should have said so. - 4:55:20 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

RON...(we still debating the "coalition"?): Somebody wake me when it's over. I just finished my first week at my new job. I'm beat, that was the longest week I can remember. - 15:35:14 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

RON...(and!)...: No SMOKING for 2 weeks now!!! Thank you, thank you, no applause please.... :) - 15:36:31 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:RON- Time to get up. Nope! were on religion with no heaven or hell, I think. Congrats! on the no smoking thing! - 16:27:25 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:--->>CHRIS---->>> thought your analogy was interesting, but when you refer to "religion" in this matter -are you not just referring to a basic philosophy, a code of ethics, and standards. I think you are on the right track--but WHY on earth does this way of dealing with life have to be mystically based? ( which the "term" religion implies ). In an earlier post I discussed briefly how most people assume "spirituality" means "pertaining to one's religion"--and each of these concepts cannot exist without the other, when in fact "spirituality" basically means "pertaining to one's consciousness" and in fact religious practices ultimately hinder full spirituality.( Again referring to Branden--to which I agree entirely). In the end, I find religion as a way to in fact escape one's own mind--and often regarding one's own mind with actual contempt--, as a method of temporarily "padding" the full impact of reality--without any regard of ultimately having to deal with it directly, or implementing any specific methods for doing so. Keep reading Chris. - 17:47:48 on 12 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:Everyone must be out for dinner or something....but not me here in the great hot and humid, bug infested north. After watching the movie _A Time To Kill_ tonight, I can thank my ancestors for moving to Canada so for a change, I'm not complaining! If I were born and raised in the south would I have a similiar mind-set as some of the southerners portrayed in this movie??? I sit here blowing my nose and blinking back tears and question what kind of animal is human. I was fortunate, I was taught as a little girl by a very wise man that the color difference in humanity was beautiful similiar to a rainbow. This inspiring man didn't say that this was god's doing, he just compared our difference in appearance to a natural earthly thing. For those of us who don't need god to appreciate our species, we question why do those who do not believe that god is on their side. This same question is about the NOI as well as the KKK. Anyway, I just had to talk about it, this subject disturbs me greatly. BTW, please don't say that this is Hollywood. I am a long distance driver by trade. I picked up a load just north of Cincinati(sp). My partner and I made conversation with the guys on the dock that were loading but they didn't seem too friendly. The asked us if we were from Cincinati because they told us they could tell that we were not from around there. We told them Canada and they were a little more chatty. These guys were black BTW. We went into town for lunch after loading and found only two cafes. We decided on the cleaner looking one. We walked up to the door but when we got there someone locked the door. We had to resort to the other one and when we asked the waitress if the other one closed early she said that it was a "black" cafe. We decided not to eat in that town at all. For us, it seemed like the twilight zone. - 4:00:55 on 13 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:Vacation's over for me in California. I went from Carl Country (north of Berkeley and San Francisco) to San Diego. In the southern part of our trip, we stayed with friends in the mountains in Julian, near a state park and Lake Cuyamaca (el 5000 ft). What a beautiful natural setting to escape the drama of work and city-life. Also, if you ever get to the San Diego area, I highly recommend a visit to "Old Town." Have a Mexican lunch at Casa de Pico (house of Pico) and listen to the live courtyard Mexican music. At night dine at Casa de Bandini (house of Bandini) with friends. Both places are very inexpensive, with great service and atmosphere. It seems too much has happened here while I was gone to review all, but I think it's fair to say that NO one has changed their opinions, Right? Oh, will you all vow to be 'free thinkers' and not agree with everything I say here? Thanks, ha! - 17:20:05 on 13 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene we have all the Mexican food one can eat in the north:BILL- HA! You had nothing to say! I agree, it's just beautiful in that area but personally I love western Colorado and Utah not including Salt Lake City, of course. The one good thing about living in a Mennonite area as I do, many are from Mexico and serve up some fine Mexican food. They're mostly all mom and pop cafe's and the stuff is really authentic. What is even stanger is there mix of catholic and protestant religions, catholic pictures of j.c. with German writings made by native Mexican people. A real mixture of cultures! BTW has anyone contributed any concrete evidence that would merit a change of mind? - 23:00:57 on 13 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL...we Canadians are very well educated, so you don't have to translate "Casa". I spent more time studying espanol than I did francais, and as Marlene stated, there is much Mexican food around here too. If you ever want to treat yourself, try to find a good Indonesian restaurant and partake of a "rijstaffel" (which is actually Dutch for rice table), where you can sample something truly gastronimically sensational. My partner's family lived in Indonesia, and so we eat that type of fare often, and it is the best in the world. I have just read a book by Joseph Wambough about the border problems in San Diego. (it's called Lines and Shadows if anyone has read it). It makes San Diego sound like an interesting, but dangerous, place. MARLENE..your post last night brought tears to my eyes too! Bigotry from any side of the fence is also something that "I just don't get". Mind you, it was okay in the bible, so I guess it's okay anywhere.... - 1:24:56 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Someone IS out there! You should try and see the movie. It was one of the more honest movies about the issue I've seen for a long time. The right actors and the right story! Another was, I think it was called _The Burning Season_. I'll try to find a copy of the book you suggested. I visited a town by the name of Nogales(?), it's on the border of Mexico and Arizona, have you been to any of these border towns? BTW, the newest crapola on Mars IS..that the Pathfinder didn't land on the side the pyramids were on. Actually it's the same with the moon. There are pryamids on the other side of it too. I missed the guy's name but he's touring Canada promoting his "latest book" that has all that factual information in it. I'll post later with the name. - 1:39:35 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO MARLENE: I am from Cincinnati, and I just can't believe you had that type of experience!!! Are you sure that was where you were? If you need dining recommendations, regardless of what color, let me know. I am embarassed on behalf of my city. Cincinnati is known to be fairly conservative and small-town, but I didn't think it was that bad! In fact, one of the items on the city's list to build over the next couple of years is a museum dedicated to the fact that Cincinnati served as a major stop in the underground railroad before and during our Civil War. BILL: Welcome back! Barry and I are considering taking a long weekend to San Diego this year and your comments and suggestions are much appreciated. PETER: About the myth thing...I think it's an attempt to somehow incorporate the sheer wonder of being alive. Almost everyone has experienced that feeling of awe looking at the stars someplace far removed from cities. Don't agree that religious practices hinder spirituality. I believe that repeated physical actions can make pathways in the brain that lead to more connections in the brain tissue. I think religious rituals are an early recognition of this. And everybody has rituals, even it's cookies and milk before bedtime or petting your cats when you get home (always a stress reducer for me!) - 2:25:17 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:HI CHRIS- No, it was a small town north of Cincinnati (got the spelling right thid time). This happen about eight years ago and I think the name of the town was New Charleston or something similiar. I got the impression from the guys that people from Cincinnati weren't prejudice and I think this is why they asked if we were from there. If I remember right, the town was somewhere near Dayton. Maybe in some of the real small towns this still goes on, but I hope not! Canada is not without it's racial differences too. Many Canadians hate to admit that a country known for it's cultural mosaic would have these problems. Unfortunatelty, in Manitoba, the Native Canadians are targets but as more people from India, the Middle East and Pakistan move here, they are also targeted. Instead of this becoming a thing of the past it seems to be becoming a thing of the present. I don't know if you've heard about the RCMP and turban issue? - 2:53:43 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--Any cognitive process that deliberatly evades reason ( faith ) --hence reality, not only hinders, but is an is an assault on one's consciousness( his "spirituality"). You are correct about "rituals", but can you not see the difference between rituals that have some connection to reality, as opposed to ones based on beliefs based on faith--which do not? How can one verify any knowledge he possesses if much of it is based on a method which has a contempt for reason, which again is the consciousness's only method of recognizung reality? I feel I must again say that one individual's adherence to strict religious dogma may not necessarily do him any harm--I am looking at this as a direction that mankind should be going, as whole--or do we encourage our children to keep searching for answers based on scientific discovery, and verified facts? I say our only hope is if we do the latter? - 3:05:32 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->ALL...: Has anyone seen _CONTACT_? Is it worth seeing or is it going to insult my intelligents? BTW, I'm in computer heaven right now....I'm naked, lying in bed, surfing on a new laptop hooked to my ISDN, and Pavarotti is singing in the background....ahhh peace at last, peace at last. - 3:11:09 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->MARLENE...:WOW, welcome to the 50's, heh? I've been to Cinnci and it does suck...Cleveland is worse. I can' understand that in people. I grew up in a small tourist town in South Carolina and my dad was a cop, Cop-o-da-year twice actually and I never heard him say the "N" word when refering to African decendants. Even though he turned out to be deeply addicted to beer and violent when drunk, I have high respect for him because he showed wisdom in many ways. My mother, on the other hand, said the "N" word as often as she said "food" and her ass is as wide as Texas. I could tell at the age of 8 (really) she was not an intelligent woman. I'm ashamed for my species that there are still people like that today. I'm waiting for them all to die so we can all live in peace but, I'm afraid I may die with them.... - 3:21:59 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

RON...oops...:"can'" should have been "can't"....sorry, little keys on this thing. - 3:23:25 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: MARLENE-- We had a "twilight zone" experience while traveling through Mississippi. We stopped at a busy McDonald's, evidently in a black section of town. All conversation stopped as we entered, and all eyes were on us. After we sat down an elderly woman at the next table asked if we were from out of town. After we explained that we were on vacation and on our way to New Orleans conversation resumed. I agree about western Colorado and Utah. We lived in Colorado Springs for five years, and I was born and raised in Utah. -- BILL-- Welcome back. Do you think things might have gone differently had you been here more? I think the outcome would have been the same, and you would be on the "irritated" list. - 3:25:05 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->PETER...:I disagree...your comment, "Any cognitive process that deliberatly evades reason ( faith ) --hence reality, not only hinders, but is an is an (sic) assault on one's consciousness( his "spirituality")" is off base. Should we not listen to our imaginations? We humans have a bond to this planet undiscovered so far. We can embrace our spirituality without selling our souls to religion. You describe perfect mental behavior as having machine-like qualities, that cannot be. We are human, and we can have "faith", "trust", and "spirituality" without corrupt religion. If religion were singular and true to it's teachings would we be here to complain of it's grasp? Please, give me back my soul and I'll dream of the dragon and the mountain....screw the pope. - 3:36:06 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: RON-- PETER-- I happened across a quote...if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. -- W.K. Clifford. - 3:52:52 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT! GRANT! Great quote! RON- I'm looking forward to the movie but I read the book. It's not quite so bad nowadays but at one time the movie slaughtered the story. Jodie Foster is a fine actress, it's gotta be good! And one more thing...you used the "f" word and you know the implictions to that one.....PETER- You also used the "f" word but put the evade infront of reason so your home free. - 4:19:19 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:RON..your description of how you were posting last night reminded me of a scene from "Apocalypse Now" and so I would like to quote a famous line from that movie "The horror..the horror" hahahahaha. - 11:03:29 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:RON---I am not advocating machine -like cognition at all. I am merely defending the concept of reason as the ONLY method of verification. Also, I am attacking the concept of "faith" as used in the traditional religious sense which means to attempt to verify certain information and creating a belief system which will embrace claims which contradict reason, and are held regardless of lack of evidence--or counter evidence. Sadly, many equate reason with Mr. Spock-like attributes, but this is not the case at all. In my chosen profession for instance, the demands on me to be creative, intuitive, imaginative, are great, and not machine-like in any respect--but all my thoughts, dreams and ideas will ultimately have to answer to reality--therefore I am committed to verifying any of my cognitive processes to reason.---GRANT--->Right on. Arbitrary assertions are worse than false--they are deadly. - 11:42:22 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->Peter...: Your dreams do not have to answer to reality. - 13:09:25 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:RON--Of course they do not, if you want to live in a dream world. - 15:57:08 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:GRANT: i find your Clifford quote and PETER's 3:05:32 14 jul 97 post very relevant in a contrary way to action taken by the California educational system of funds restriction to "aliens". What values would this action serve, was a question another, what values would it preserve? I erroneously said "It did not involve or include me" this was a stupid thing to say, on my part. I could of that point see how easy one like perhaps a CHRIS, finds such imaginary comfort in some imaginary creator, because there was not a cotton pickin thing I could do for that thing i find favor in; fostering peoples intellect. But, well, i just wait for payday. - 16:12:06 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:---->>>MARLENE--->>>I like that reference to the "f-word" which carries a powerful implication of derision, disdain and contempt. Now the "traditional f-word" refers to an act which has the potential for being the physical and emotional act-not to mention its role as one which is vital for the survival of the species--can bring a living entity its greatest pleasure. And this has been traditionally looked upon as an evil, immoral, sinful and dirty act--by the religions of the world. However, faith--an an act of destroying, sabotaging, denying, abandoning the very thing that mankind possesses as his greatest value, and means for his survival--his mind--is looked upon as a virtue. Now if that doesn't qualify as the greatest perpetual threat to his survival, and more deserving of being referred to as an "f-word", mankind will get exactly what it deserves: extinction. - 17:49:21 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Lucifer:Hey Ron, I thought YOU wanted your stickers!!!!!!!! - 18:49:24 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Agreed! The belief in something without evidence that it exsists, the blind belief is what this whole discussion is about. I think the "f" word is the actual disagreement. What a believer has "faith" in doesn't matter what does matter is that there is no evidence to support their belief and in that they fail to present a convincing arguement - 20:44:13 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:ALL- I picked up the July/August _Skeptical Inquirer_ today. I'm reading the history on Applewhite and Nettles. While absolutely wacko, they did have a sense of humor. At one point they called themselves Nincom and Poop. - 23:14:47 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:MARLENE: Maybe the town was New Richmond??? That's to the northeast of here. HEY RON: Cincinnati does not suck all the time, just most of the time. AND YOU, CARL!: Don't think I didn't pick up on that little comment you slipped in about my imaginary comfort over an imaginary creator! Why are you so sure that your version of reality is the right one? PETER: It seems to me that you keep making the same mistake over and over again by equating religion with Christianity. There ARE other religions, you know, that have nothing but good things to say about sexual relations between a man and wife. The whole Christian hang-up with sex derives from the depiction of the Virgin Mary and Jesus himself as celibate, which somehow communicates the idea that sex makes you dirty. There are other religions that do not base their ideas on sexuality on such images. I still don't understand why you think that religion means the abandonment of all reason. MARLENE: Saw that issue too. Liked the article about Roswell and the UFO's. - 23:53:59 on 14 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CHRIS..I don't think that religion is an abandonment of all reason, but it is an abandonment of reason in that regard. Is it reasonable to believe in something that there is no evidence of existing? I have used Pascal's Wager in this discussion before, and I want to mention it again, as it is MHO that this is the reason that most people say they believe in a god, even though they really don't, due to the lack of evidence. Is it reasonable to believe in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Is it reasonable to believe that just because you find a penny, you are going to have good luck all day? Is it reasonable for me to have the Hand of Fatima hanging in my kitchen, even though I have terrible things happen to me every once in awhile? Relgion is not based on reason; it is based on high hopes, fear, and the hope for atonement of a life that sucked more than it should. - 1:57:02 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (it is a dark and stormy night in southern Ontario; maybe the humidity will pass):--->MARLENE..that was the issue of Skeptic that I picked up last week. No wonder I couldn't find the articles you and Grant had been discussing...duh! - 1:59:43 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Chris---A yes , fifty lashes my way! You are correct--I did erroneously and sloppily equate christianity with other religions. - 2:14:40 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: CARL-- I don't know if you noticed, but the last two sentences in Peter's post that you mention says basically the same thing as my quote, but Clifford said it first- 1876 or 1877. -- I guess I'm just a spectator because I feel there isn't a cotton pickin thing I can do about anything except maybe convince a few ninnies that atheist and demon are not synonyms. But of course that doesn't keep me from fuming. - 2:22:52 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- One mag is _Skeptic_ and one is _Skeptical Inquirer_. We're super humid here too although it's cooled down a bit. GRANT- Good addition! Carl sometimes is a little hard to understand but once you do, he has some really good comments. PETER- Jesus was the one that preached that sex was taboo if one wanted to pass through the eye of a needle so I wouldn't apologize too fast, how about buddist monks? Many religions, in fact the majority have a taboo about sex. CHRIS- The main ingredient of ALL religions is a belief in something that there is no scientific evidence of or another word for it is "faith". As Peter points out, this is anti-mind. - 3:19:09 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: MARLENE-- I liked the "f-word" thing too. -- I found your monkey book. It's fascinating. You ever look at 'Free Inquiry' magazine? It's a humanist publication but it's very good. High standards, good articles. - 5:48:12 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, JOETTE, My Internet server was down yesterday, so I am late responding here. I would like to visit Canada some day but it will have to wait awhile. My first cousin married a Canadian girl and they now live in Florida. She is of French descendents and their kids are bilingual. I think it's neat that they have preserved both cultures, in their immediate family, as much as possible. I like the people that I have met from Canada, but I don't know if I could handle the weather there. I am so oriented towards all the warm weather activities; it would be quite an adjustment for me. One half of me is from California (mother) and the other half is Alabama (father). Isn't that an odd mix? Don't answer please, ha! CHRIS, Let me know how your weekend turns out in SD. BTW Old Town is located near the intersection of interstate 8 and interstate 5 (very close to the airport). Julian is about an hour and a half away in the mountains. - 13:17:51 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:GRANT, I doubt that my presence here would have made much difference this last couple of weeks. I would have tried very hard to not have participated in personal insults. I believe that it's just as wrong to 'accept' insult as it is to attempt to 'give' insult. Both acts, in my book, display some weakness and insecurity of human character. Of course no one is totally immune to personal attack, but we would be much the wiser, and happier, to adhere to this principle. Due to the relativity and subjectivity of the observers' interpretation of the "raw data" out there, I am very tolerant of other peoples belief systems, and these BS's are not a threat to me. Each person should feel secure in the way he/she interprets reality. I claim no label but, being human, I cannot escape the reality that I have an ego and thus a belief system. Everybody has to base his/her reality on something. I am comfortable with science. I liked your quote BTW by Clifford and I think it's very relevant here. I too agree that the real harm is not in believing something wrong, but rather the harm is when people project their BS's to be the sole proprietor of "all truth." When they give up the ability to test their beliefs at regular intervals, and subsequently change those beliefs, then their BS (belief system) metamorphically becomes a BS (bull shit) fundie system of reality. Immutable and doctrinaire people are the sources of much pain and suffering in the world. - 13:21:43 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CHRIS: it would be regretful if you assume my "slipped in words" was posted as an antagonist, not so. it is just my statement of matters- of the subject of religion/theism, as they appear to me. This means it was not an attack of any kind. Furthermore, you may pickup additional stuff from JOETTE's 1:57:02 15 jul 97 post in the first sentence wherein the issue of reason is clearly brought forth for at least a viewing. If i were a cleverer type i might have addressed mt religion/theism views in that manner instead of referring such to mere victims of their imagination. Why do i think my views of reality are ok, because i see things in terms of manmade, we are not animals ergo, zoological references are false, nor are we humans a product of the natural with a touch of something supernatural, all folks are natural things. what do you think? - 14:44:34 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL---Oh Bill, Bill Bill.......Tell me you aren't one of those inhabitants southern US who assumes instant snow--or close to it when one crosses the Canadian-US border. If its cold weather you are afraid of--just avoid this country( as well as any state north of the Mason-Dixon line--from November to April. As I am typing this message, its almost 11:00 AM, and the temperature is about 90F--and climbing( sometimes it even goes over a hundred!). Yes we have really great beaches( fresh water ones on the great lakes), beach volleyball, water-skiing, boating, golf ( some great courses)people with sun-tans, girls in bikinis, and "beach-bums" Unless you plan to to visit areas north of the artic circle--the summers in Canada are generally very warm--but rarely exhaustingly hot. In fact in the city where I live, Kitchener, Ont, our daytime high temperatures from June to September, are higher than those in Los Angeles. We have a 50-50 chance of having snow at Christmas--and most of its usually gone by the end of March--although we might get the odd "surprise" in April. So, don't be shy--and see a beautiful country. - 15:13:58 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I guess it is the Nov.-April that would concern me about living above the Mason-Dixon line. Our last freeze here was in January and it's been nice ever since. We can go boating year round, but not really swimming. The water does get in the lower 50's. Summers are hot though and require Air conditioning. Usually we are subject to freezes in Jan. and Feb. but the rest of the year is nice. I probably would have already visited Canada, but I like to go visit places where I know someone on the other end. We went to France, Germany, and England in 95' but we knew people there. I loved Paris (very expensive though). We had a French exchange student from Paris that stayed with us, on three different occasions, and I got to know her family over the years and we ended up staying with them for a week. I would never have gone there if it were not for their daughter. So Peter, are you inviting me? Just teasing! - 18:10:47 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL...as with Peter, I was fairly dumbfounded to your reference of cold in Canada. Without being malicious, could you possibly take a break from your science books, and pick up a geography book? We Canadians (sorry fellow Canucks for generalizing) are really bored with the incessant reference to Canada being the Great White North. Our country is huge geographically, and I would have to traverse thousands of miles at this time of year to see any of the white stuff. You may enjoy your summer sports, but so do we, but we also have the advantage of winter sports such as skiing (there are great hills in my area), snowboarding, tobagganing and snowmobiling, so we really have the best of both worlds. So, if you ever decide to brave our barbaric country, you only have to dress differently in the winter (actually, if you were to come around Christmas time, I would venture to say that this is the most beautiful country in the world, bar none). And if you would like to visit, you are more than welcome to stay, but you would have to sleep on the floor. - 18:23:19 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..me again. In regards to your response to Grant about the discussions that took place here while Ms. Drake was on, I think it would be a very educational few hours spent reading what went on. Some regular posters were visibly absent during that time, mostly I think because they did not want to be the "attack du jour". You are not alone in your tolerance, in fact I believe that most of us here are pacificts with active minds, but there is a line that gets crossed occassionaly, and this is what happened. I challenge you to read the last 500 posts or so, and then come back and tell us that you think Ms. Drake is on the right track to save the world... - 18:29:25 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Like religions in general, I think people, or cultures, are adapted to and proud of where their roots are. If I grew up there, I'm sure I would feel very similar to you, in reference to the quality of life in Canada. In my preference for year round warm weather, I was not just referring to Canada, but the northern USA as well. My wife is from Boston, Mass. and her brother lives in Concord, NH. One of my most memorable vacations was staying in cabins beside a stream near Mt. Washington, NH with her family. We played on sleds in the snow and had a wonderful time. I learned to snow ski in one day, on Mt. Washington, and I started on the beginners' slope in the morning and ended up on a 3000-Ft. slope that afternoon. What a fabulous experience, especially since I managed not to break anything (bones that is). I'm sure your country is equally as beautiful, and I am NOT suggesting anything to the contrary. I am curious though; why would you worry about what others think about your country? Wouldn't that be the same as you worrying about what others thought about you personally? I know when you "get naked" you aren't concerned, right? I tend to concern myself with what 'I' think about myself, and not what 'Others' think. As far as CD is concern, I was posting to her regularly before I left for the west coast. And I have read a lot of the postings during the time I was gone. I scanned them in California and even made a short posting from there, if you noticed? I also scanned back some when I returned. I do, however, see little point in reading every 'tit' for 'tat' insult that was posted during this week. It seemed to me that there was never "mutual respect" and "reciprocity" established between CD and many of the posters here. Personally, I see no point in trying to communicate unless the two requirements are met. To me it's a wiser use of my time to engage in fruitful conversation in which I might be entertained or educated. I have no deep personal desire to convert anyone to my 'belief system.' Evangelizing, preaching, or insulting are never grounds in which anything constructive can ever grow and I will personally try to abandon conversations that head in that direction. Also, it's not for me to judge CD's beliefs--or anyone's for that matter--about saving the world, but only to respond to her specific questions or comments, that concerned me, which is what I tried to do. So, what kind of floors do you have? - 20:46:55 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL...I am concerned about what people KNOW about my country, not what they THINK about it. I once asked why we, in Canada, seem to know so much about your country, but below the border, there seems to be little knowledge of what goes on above your border, and there was no response. Would you care to comment on this? (my floors are carpeted, but covered in cat hair most the time, so if you have allergies, you'll have to spring for a hotel room) - 20:54:54 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL and JOETTE- It's 97F here and sunny. Our area is one of extreme's. I have quite a few friends from different countries and the extremes seem the hardest thing for them to handle. Being born here, it's not the extremes that I find hard to handle, it's only after venturing out to the southern US that I HATE this place in the winter. If we had winter like Joette has in southern Ontario, it wouldn't be too bad but here it lasts from October to April or May, a lo-------ng time. BTW Joette, did you read about the Lieutenant-Governor in Quebec? - 20:59:43 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I have to agree with Joette, some Americans know very little about Canada. As I mentioned, I drove truck all over the mainland US. When writing up bills etc. people would ask what state Manitoba was in. - 21:03:13 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->MARLENE...I haven't read or heard anything about this current Lieutenant-Govenor, but there was a bit of a scandal a little while ago. Did something new transpire? - 22:42:00 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, MARLENE, I think most people are concerned about that which affects their daily lives and where their roots lie. Our past is rooted in our independence from England, as well as all the wars we have had to fight in order to maintain this independence, and I remember historical events like the Boston tea party in 1773. I know some, and am interested in, British history (i.e. King Henry VIII) as they were our parent country and influenced our culture and Protestant religions here. Our country is large, as well, and there is much that I don't know about this country. I have never even been to all the States in this country. I could probably spend a lifetime just learning about this country. When I travel, as I did to France, I tried to learn some French and a little of their culture and history. I personally liked and respected the French people a lot after having the privilege of being there. When I am able to go to Canada I am sure I will learn more about your country. A lot of our view of the world here in the USA is in the form of what we hear on the evening news. In the past our news was of Americans leaving to go to Canada so they wouldn't have to go to war in Viet Nam say. This didn't set well for many Americans that stayed loyal to this country. In more recent years we heard of the divisions within your country between French and English. Part of your country almost split off a few years ago because of cultural differences. Of course, on a more positive note, recently I remember seeing your elections on the news and how great it was that your country limited the amount of time and money spent on such elections. Maybe we will wise up in this regard. I see your country as being more like Europe (more liberal and socialistic), and our country being somewhat pilgrimish (conservative religious pilgrims). Our northeast would be a lot closer to Canada and Europe (in culture and thought) rather than the south where I live. Another reason for the difference in knowledge between our countries is, I think, our politics affects your country a lot more than your politics affects us. Again, I still see no need to worry about what other countries "know" about us, and I wouldn't be insulted if another country didn't know about my country. Live and let live! - 22:56:21 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Agreed! US politics are very important to our survival. Some Canadians, as well, think they live on planet Manitoba. I mentioned to one individual here that I'd like to visit Alaska but she was not too excited as she wouldn't have wanted to go across the ocean. JOETTE- FYI..Lise Thibault, "confers with her ancestors" (her grandparents, father, mother, friends and aunt and uncles who have DIED) on many issues that deal with her job as Lieutenant-Governor. YIKES! This is worse than Reagan and his horrorscope!!! - 23:13:35 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Chris, who is now quite appeased, but is still wondering when the virgin sacrifrice is going to be made..:TO CARL: OK, OK, I accept the fact that you were not being antagonistic. Please explain to me why you think we are not at least in part animals. If we weren't animals, then there would be no such thing as animal testing, because it would have no relevance to us. What is the definition of "natural" in your view? Yes, I think persons are natural, since they respond to the laws of physics and time as much as everything around us does. I don't think you can prove one way or the other if anything supernatural exists within us. TO JOETTE: I understand the progression that reason is a way of formulating and communicating concepts and this is in large part what the mind does. Then if faith is not reason, then it is not a part of mind. And I still disagree that faith is about high hopes, fear and atonement. It is about focus, structure and action in this world. - 23:52:38 on 15 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- "Faith" is...believing without proof, trust, confidence. How can this be structured or focused? Faith in this sense should not be a part of mind. If it is then the mind isn't functioning properly. It's delusional. - 0:04:18 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:MARLENE...thanks for the update on Thibault. That was what the scandal was when she was first appointed, but I could not remember it for the life (or afterlife) of me! I guess she is wanting to follow in the footsteps of William Lyon McKenzie King (Bill, hows that for a moniker for a Prime Minister), as he used to confer with his mother (long dead) before he made any big political decisions. Mind you Marlene, I am a great admirer of his, even though he had that one loose screw. BILL..tell me you don't get rankled when Middle Easteners where signs that state such things as "Death to America". - 0:18:36 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:CHRIS..couple of comments...first, I think Cincinatti is a fine city, and Cleveland has been a regular jaunt for me for years, as I love to watch baseball there. Second, the word "faith" can have different connotations. I am referring to faith only in religious terms. I use the word faith too, only because I have faith in myself and my abilities (limited as they are) - 0:22:53 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--You state that you do not think " we have any way of proving whether there is any thing supernatural within us." For now, before I go up one side of you and down the other ( like I have not done before ), I will wait until you come back and say you finished reading "Atheism: The Case Against God". because I know you will stop making statements like this, and you will stop defending faith--if you have any respect for rational thinking and rational argument. - 1:06:41 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- When discussing religion it is much better to use a word other than faith. Trust would be one, believe in one's self is another or even "I have confidence in myself" but "faith"..........I, too, at one time used the word in that context but it isn't the right word. BTW, I'm not comfortable with anyone consulting their delusions on how to run the country I live in whether it be their dead grandma or god or the fairy god-mother. - 1:52:13 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene who thinks we could try some testing on this discussion:PETER- I wouldn't say that Chris will stop defending "faith". It sounds to me as she still has "faith" but I do agree that it's not rational. CHRIS- Let's test if the supernatural exsists within us. ALL- A good idea??? - 1:59:45 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..if the supernatural exists within us, we must assume that the supernatural does exist, so I guess I have failed this test :`( - 2:37:32 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

thought for the day from you know who...:Why is the "fairy god mother" called "god" mother, and not "goddess" mother? - 2:39:47 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: BILL-- It never occured to me that I had a belief system. I avoid them religiously,(ha) but I guess I do, and avoiding other BS's is merely part of it. - 2:56:15 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Not only is faith not rational--it is the deliberate , conscious act of NOT BEING RATIONAL--and nothing else. Faith means: NOT to be rational. The beliefs which are demanded to be believed by various religions CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRUE BY REASONABLE methods, so one is required to have "faith" to reconcile the belief with reality. ALL methods of reason MUST be abandoned. What blows my mind is this being called virtuos or a "gift". One is COMMENDED by his religious peers for abandoning the efficacy of his own mind. Evading reality vice which underlies all vices--and is the root of ALL evil. - 2:58:41 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Chris's claim is that the supernatural exsists within us and she says that it cannot be proved that it does not. What I suggest is that we go through the process of proving that it does not. ie- Joe Blow believes that a unicorn lives in his attic therefore the believes that unicorns live in everyone's attics. We will set out to prove to old Joe that not only do unicorns not live in his attic, nor do they live in anyone elses BECAUSE...unicorns don't exsist. I know that but Joe Blow doesn't. Hopefully with proper methods on determining whether his claim is true or not we will beable to help him come to the truth of the matter. Sounds like a plan to me, all we need is a believer who is willing to put their belief to a test. - 3:31:16 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene KNOWS this one...:YOU KNOW WHO- I know, I know, it's because at one time, a long long long time ago, she was called the Fairy Goddess-Mother and everyone lived in a happy, vegetarian, female dominant Patnership. But then, along came big bad Jehovah and not only encouraged meat-eating but also demanded that men rape, plunder and pillage all women and children and made men instate Male Domination. You can read it all on the wall at Catal Huyuk. - 3:39:45 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- What really (and I have to be honest) crack up is when one encourages the other one to talk in tongues. Part of the evil is BIG MONEY. A minister or priest or whatever the messengers of maddness what to call themselves, make money out of this. If they "save" the "soul" of a guy like Charlie Manson then they get "fame" (only ole Charlie is in competition so that's not about to happen). What irks me are the teachers that teach children this stuff. We had a religion teacher on this discussion and he subjected his poor little lambs to us. As far as I'm concerned he was god and his lambkins were learning the lesson of Job which was to have faith no matter how much satan (namely the unbelievers) tempted them. The really sad part was that these kids posted as one and sounded like the Borg (a collective from Star Trek). - 3:55:18 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Marlene--Its not really the BIG MONEY that is the evil-that's just a means to their evil ends--it is individuals who sacrifice other's values for their own means by misrepresenting reality--instead of earning it by their own effort, and not sacrificing others with deception ( by ultimately using faith ). See, it IS the root of all evil! - 4:51:05 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->PETER, MARLENE..no, no, no! Don't start talking about money because then Corporate America will get blamed for all the wrongs of society again! Did you see the newest statistics that came out last night? 61% of Canadians earned less than $25,000 in 1995, while only 1.4% earned more than $100,000. So much for the big earners grabbing all the dough. - 13:50:21 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE and PETER- Have you heard the latest? All the do-gooders of the west are complaining already about the space exploration plans for the next decade. They claim that this money would be better spent on wiping out poverty and therefore they believe many wars. How long would it last and where do they get their evidence that poverty is the main ingredient in wars. Most of the wars I can think of are over religion and culture. - 13:59:04 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, GRANT, Middle Easterner's can make all the threats, and have over the years, they want…. Blah, Blah, Blah! The reality is, as countries like Iraq and Libya found out, their military technology doesn't match ours, and these threats are meaningless. It would be like me holding a gun and some unarmed person saying he/she is going to kill me. Only someone deluded and blinded by their faith and emotions would make such a statement. And only a dictator infected with the illusions of power would, via religious emotions, stir his people and send 100,000 of them to their deaths, as Iraq did. Threats are meaningless unless periodically backed up with REAL force. What would scare me more is Asian economic power. China will, in the next few decades, I believe, become not only a democracy, but also the "Wal-Mart" of the world. I have been to Asia and Hong Kong, plus I lived in Hawaii around Chinese people for four years, and I can tell you that I have a lot of respect for the Chinese people. Economic power and potential will replace, more and more, military power and it will be our challenge here in the USA to realize this future reality. I think Fundieism-irrational threats or thinking-will be diminished in the future, as the world becomes more informed and educated. If we are to survive on this planet, as the populations grow and the environment becomes stressed, rationality HAS to prevail. This will require a "Paradigm-Shift" in all our BS's. We don't have to destroy our BS's-throw the baby out with the bath water-but rather realize that tolerance for other BS's is required, and that our BS is not the only observable objective reality. - 14:11:57 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CHRIS: it's in the area of refreshing to note a theist, (are you one?), that can really accept and communicate without the presence of antagonism, a recent example for me was CDRAKE who turned my observations into declarations of war. Why not an animal? The upfront response is learning with all of its' importations of power elements. The power here can be naught else but reason. Here is where A.Rand choses to convey, articulations of objectivism, i think. Regarding your human/animal issue, the rationalism for this notion is as ancient and erroneous as that of theism. The confusion of ancients humans regarding their birth, living and death was not different than animals so they "assumed" we are animals too. The superatural bent is probably best inferred by the promethian myth of fire and so on. Simply said either view is simple antiquated ignorance. Ignorant because either is accepted, still! The animal/human difference, it is best conveyed in terms, i read this, of surfaces and solids neither is the other dispite any appearances. Allow me that ramble but i would have to be much more clever than i am now to bring forth my points. - 15:41:44 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, Several of us have posted on the "animal/human" subject here before. I see no difference between humans and animals except the higher level of intelligence (Ego/superego). This higher level of intelligence can also be described as "secondary intelligence" (apart from our ID level of intelligence or "primary intelligence"). Genetically we are almost identical to the Ape's. Having a higher-level dimension to our intelligence allows us to think into the 'future' and the 'past' and to rationalize and conceptualize the 'raw data' out there into our personal concrete objective reality. Most animals deal with reality only in the 'present' state. "Time" itself is a creation of higher intelligence as is our BS's (religions, philosophies, etc). Lucifer knows about some of these things if he is still around. - 16:33:01 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: In regards to your "time" and relevant to CHRIS why not 'part-animals' query. To the latter first, perhaps we are closer to plants because of the evolutionary convolutions that led to eyes, the optical process, which is the electrochemical transformation of light into our vision, plants transform light into something, oxygen i think. So are humans nonetheless related to plants via that connection? As for "time" concepts, the best reference to the time-human link i've come across is that human's are time-binders. Animals simply can do no such thing but merely function according to natures law. As time-binders humans create and build(mathematicians and engineers) in terms of the past interpreted in now and for the future of the unborn, see "Science and Sanity" you will be pleased. - 18:21:38 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:BILL,et al: The plant reference was out of an article I think I have and of course it was much more extensive, i convey perhaps its' gist. My point for that entry is to enable me to comment on that it seems the animal to human view, goes only to that point in support of that connection. It seems almost as if it means to serve only that point of view. If this is accurate then we must be viewing the surface of something and perhaps confusing it with the solid, if one grasps my concern, of which i may be still off base. - 20:54:37 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:ANY: you have my sincerest regrets for the sketchy appearances of my post, i peeked in for any response saw the post and uttered gads! my various unattached 'thats' and so on and vaque references are within the the previous posts to BILL and CHRIS, the parts make the whole - 22:16:30 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..your posts made perfect sense, and your reference to humans possibly having connections to plants is interesting. I am with Bill on this one though; it is my belief system that humans are an animal species. BILL..if the education does not exist now to ensure tolerance of others beliefs, why do you think it will be in place in the future? And as far as China's economic growth, it is undeniable, but so are the human atrocities that take place in order to sustain the economic development. They will certainly not support any education for their common people to advance their own entrepeneurial rights. - 22:33:13 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->TO ALL..I read an article in the paper the other day about a book that is on the market now, written by a scientist whose name I can not recall, who claims that science has gone as far as it will go, and that all the great discoveries have been made. Any other discoveries or findings will be mere extensions of what has already transpired. Any one have opinions on this? (I hope he is wrong...) - 22:36:54 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO JOETTE: I would like to respond to your most recent quotes. I don't know who the scientist is, but I'd lump him right in with all those poor mis-led people who moan and whine about the "good old days"...there ain't so sech thang! There was an amusing little blurb in my SF mag awhile back that listed all the scientists around the turn of the century who, in their HO, were quite certain that the telephone, talking movies and airplanes would have little or no effect on civilization. I don't have time right now to respond to all the interesting posts from CARL and MARLENE, but I want to come back later tonight if I can. - 23:53:24 on 16 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Of course no one can totally predict the future. I think that there will be more tolerance of other BS's due to the information and communication age that is currently upon us, and continues to evolve at an ever increasing rate. Just a couple of years ago it would have been a rare thing for me to engage in conversation with such diverse people that one encounters here. Most of the people around my small town here have never heard of Objectivism say, and yet I have educated myself to some degree in this philosophy. I in turn pass recommendations on to others in the way of information and possibly good books on different subjects. Bill Gates (Microsoft) is thinking of possibly financing the placing in orbit of 400+ satellites in low earth orbit that will bring the internet and access of unlimited information to people all around the world. Third world countries will greatly benefit. With the advancements of computers and softwares we will be able to talk directly to people of different languages via video-conferencing all around the world. In other words people will educate each other as a result of their natural curiosities to explore the unknowns and to improve their quality of life. As far as China goes, human atrocities do exist in parts of China but such behavior will have a very negative impact on places like Hong Kong and I don't think their that stupid. The younger generation in China, as they have already demonstrated, wants democracy. The old people in control will not only die but will be forced to become more democratic as the economic success of Hong Kong spreads. They can't have it both ways and free markets and dictatorships just won't exist forever. I also think if Hong Kong's economic freedom is not tampered with, Taiwan will not be far behind in returning to the spear of influence of the motherland. As far as your post concerning the scientist that thinks science has reached a plateau, I was somewhat shocked that any scientist would even think such a thing. They have only scratch the surface in my opinion. - 1:17:40 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO CARL: Thank you, and yes, I am a theist. Hmmm, it seems to me that ancient humans thought they were quite different from animals...or maybe I'm just confusing them with the fundies who get their knickers in a twist when anyone mentions evolution around them. TO MARLENE: How can you possibly test to discover the supernatural? It is beyond reason, and I fail to see why, as Peter seems to think, faith is the root of all evil. I rented Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" series over the weekend. I love that guy, and not only for what he says, but because his voice can lull me right to sleep. He said the problem with most religions today is that people start believing the symbols in the mythology actually are something to worship in and of themselves. People forget they are symbols, poor representations of transcendence in our lives. None of you have experienced joy, wonder, awe? Well, of course, you have. It is this experience that religion tries to convey, to bring about more often in people's lives, but then everyone gets caught up in arguing whether this symbol or that symbol is more "true" than the other. That's not the point. People have used telling stories to inspire, comfort and focus their lives into something meaningful for thousands of years because it does serve a purpose in enough people's lives to continue to exist. There will always be a bell curve with extremists at either ends, and this is good too, because without extremists, none of us would have great works of philosophy, art and music. The whole point is not whether any of us are right or wrong, but whether we can each find our own purpose in life, while allowing others to do the same. I do not believe faith is the root of all evil, I do not equate it with total lack of reason, rather I think that orthodoxy, thinking there is only one way, is the root of all evil. MARLENE: According to "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong, the 3 major monotheistic religions started out very egalitarian, until the men in the group got scared that they were losing their power and so made women inferior in the theology, hence the unbelievably misogynist story of Adam and Eve. It is men who took women's power away, not God (And now you know what soapbox I like to stand on in that regard!) - 1:22:15 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, There is probably a level of life that we are all connected and tied together, but humans seem to be closest to animals in their evolutionary development. Animals do have a brain and going on down the chain you encounter the jellyfish which has no brain but has a nervous system. This nervous system acts and reacts in a stimulus and response way maybe like the basic rudimentary levels of our brain (fetus maybe). With plants there is no consciousness or nervous system stimulus/response (no pain), but they are alive and exist one with nature. - 1:32:25 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- The post to "you know who" was meant to be taken as a joke. Based on Eisler's claims this is the story. I agree that it's the male who invented a male-dominant god. Not only were women lacking power but so were captives and children. The war-mongering Jehovah was the perfect invention for warlike tribes. God is man-made. - 16:56:07 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS----How far did you get in Smith's book? - 16:58:35 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL and CARL- I have to agree with Bill. We are closer genetically to the chimp than the chimp is to the monkey. When viewing humanity, it's not a benefical species. We waste more, destroy more, kill each other for the joy of it and are actually a menace to the earth. Most animals, on the other hand, contribute. Our minds have allowed us to be without natural predators, other than viruses and even that we will likely protect ourselves from. Our subjective view is that we are superior over all other animal species. I think the objective view would be that we are inferior when it comes to preserving our planet. - 17:10:14 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER and JOETTE- BC is changing the wording of spousal benefit to include same sex couples. I understand almost every religion is up in arms other than the anglicans. Most people I know are somewhat homophobic whether they belong to an organized religion or not. Their excuse is "that it's not the way god made us". Most atheists I know accept homosexuality as normal. CHRIS- What is your view on this issue? - 17:20:07 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

MARLENE: Your post brings up another tangent in the wonderful world of the ludicricity of theism, and that is: the gender of the deity. This is such an utterly preposterous concept, again due to its self-contradictory nature. To suggest that something is either male or female pre-supposes at least one other member of the same species--of the opposite sex--which to mate. Since there apparently is only one God--to then suggest it having any gender at all, is similar to the traditional passionate gesture of referring to a ship as a "she( with no implications to a male sailing vessel ever impregnating it, to make more little ships). God is probably referred to as a "he" due to its symbol of strength and dominance( a sign of society's sexist nature,and nothing else). This entity therefore could not possibly be sexual, if its the only one. Some extremist feminist groups have suggested that God could just as easily be called a "she" or is in fact a woman, but that argument would be the same as some lobbying group demanding we refer to all sailing vessels in the masculine. Its just a matter of language--and nothing else--but try telling a christian that!! - 17:28:52 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE---Its just the products of rational thought which are: ( to name two) understanding the nature of homosexuality, and atheism. - 17:35:03 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CHRIS: Your position- so far, of theism is decently intelligible, this brings into view BILL's oft repeated position regarding belief systems that coincides with my reference to you as a "theist" a kinsman to an objectivist, new-ageism, naturalist etc. Your views and articulations of your theism are some of the better which i've encountered. Some of what you post applys to many common folk but, so will some of the decent intelligible views of anyone. "Different from animals.etc" what line of opinion of ancient humans, how far back do you intend?, does that means of reason come from? I query this point as what i've read about human origins seems to convey that there was a relationship with creatures in general and humans, the separation though appears clearest with early judaism genesis story. But even my given "clarity" could be argued as murky because of the nonsense propounded by early christians. that, though, is another matter. BILL, have you looked into colloids? - 18:22:57 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

J R: I understand that everyone should have their own opinion and its seems to be that most people on this site have their ideas. However I am a christian and very proud to be one. Some of you put down the religion of Christianity just to raise up your own beliefs. Do not insult or speak on what you do not no. Now I have nothing to say about your religion bcause I do not know about your religion and how about some of you show the same respect. I am a believer in in God first and foremost, but I am also a believer in science, being that I am a lab scientist. Do not think Christians are simple minded people who can concentrate only on one thing all the time, but are very knowledgeable people. So for those out there who have to put Christians down just to lift themselves up, you all need somethin better to do!!!!! - 18:43:07 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

J R: I understand that everyone should have their own opinion and its seems to be that most people on this site have their ideas. However I am a christian and very proud to be one. Some of you put down the religion of Christianity just to raise up your own beliefs. Do not insult or speak on what you do not no. Now I have nothing to say about your religion bcause I do not know about your religion and how about some of you show the same respect. I am a believer in in God first and foremost, but I am also a believer in science, being that I am a lab scientist. Do not think Christians are simple minded people who can concentrate only on one thing all the time, but are very knowledgeable people. So for those out there who have to put Christians down just to lift themselves up, you all need something better to do!!!!! - 18:45:30 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JR: for my part, i'm well read on the christian thing among other things. What do you mean about the assertion of not knowing. Mystery and mysticism, christian metaphysics are usually not life nor science, i post this to counter your bull rush and snort approach. - 19:07:04 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene who you may not like but I'm honest!:JR- I really hate to say this but "another TYPICAL xtian!". First and foremost being atheist has nothing to do with a religion or BS. Secondly, I don't need to bring your beliefs down, they do that all by themselves, I have read and studied the bible and know from which drivel you come. I'm sure your not simple minded but I feel your belief in something that isn't is a mental handicap. Working in a lab doesn't mean that you apply scientific methods to every area of your life, if you did you would most definately be agnostic if not atheist. What's better than to discuss reality, haven't you better things to do than comment on something that you barely understand? - 19:25:22 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:JR---What is it about being a Christian you are "proud of". Are you speaking in terms of codes of ethics, or "supernatural" events that occur only to those who are christians--before and after death? Tell me, if you were not a christian--what do you feel you would be missing? Or conversely, EXACTLY what is it that non-christians are missing out on? - 19:56:23 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Not only gender but race as well! Same goes for jc. In the Western part of the world he's pictured as white and in the church I went to when I was a kid, long red hair and blue eyes. I have friends from the Middle East, they have dark hair and eyes and an olive toned skin. Maybe the coloring had something to do with the genetic makeup of the angel that visited the virgin????? But the xtians true to their male god jehovah, choose a male incarnate in jc. Who says god is genderless! - 20:12:39 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

JR:Why do you study something that you do not believe in. Do you study it just to talk badly about it. That just does not make any sense. As I said before I didn't call whatever you practice BS so why don't you slow yourself down little girl. - 20:30:56 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JR- A lesson on online talk, BS is belief system although the "other" BS, describes religion well. I study anything that interests me. One of those things is religion and how and why people believe. It's very much the same as studying animal behavior, actually it is studying animal behavior. Gawd! you sound familiar, a lambkin maybe? - 20:56:48 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene who suggests addressing:JR- BTW which means "by the way", you didn't address your last post to me but I assume it was to me. - 21:00:24 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

JR:Thankyou for clarifying that for me. I didn't like the animal comment but whatever. Nice speaking with you even though we don't have the same ideas or beliefs but that is what makes individuals unique. Peace out! - 21:16:33 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JR: In order to know good from bad true from false intellect from idiocy hot from cold, the christian stuff deserved at least that review, for as i pointed out to the other theist here, some theist as CHRIS seem rational with good reflection despite the horrors of the history their religion's various deliberations and eventual conduct, still, one may hold that the few have good intentions. In order to treat such individuals one must understand something about them since their comonsense psychological framework is loaded with the outrageous, ever heard of heaven and hell? So for the sake of the good few and the danger of the many do i note their words. - 21:21:46 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene I hate this group!:MALL MADNESS- I was watching the news just now and it turns out that the klan is holding a membership drive outside the food court in a New York shopping mall. These idiots are trying to push school segregation and make sure the lord's prayer is said in schools among other things. They are looking for pure aryan, christians to join. Can you imagine the horror to small children these idiots cause. The cowardly scum hide behind those hidious costumes. I'm sure black people have some type of fear when encountering these creeps in the mall, I'm not black but I'm atheist so I'd likely not be acceptable as far as they are concerned and I know I experience fear when I see them on TV. Can you imagine how little children feel when they sense fear from their parents. I'm totally against censorship but this group is inhumane! They shouldn't hide behind freedom of speech, they're mere presence is intimidating. There really should be a law against this type of group!!! - 21:56:57 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: so the JR party wants to 'know' why we have made efforts to know about the unbelievable? your post ought to suffice as a response, or, in other your post tells why he may prefer sheer ignorance of theism, the with us or against us emotional base has always served theist's plans. The masses are not naturally ignorant nor would they choose to be so, whomever wants dominion, however, can dominant only the ignorant, hands together in prayer do nothing, which is good for those wanting domination of any and/or all. Reason is complex ignorance is easy, school prayer is an easy answer; to learn what the function of something might be is not, klan types though with self-imposed limits still know that truth. - 22:47:48 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, The only thing I know about "colloids" is that they are very fine solid particles, typically between 0.1 and 0.001 microns in diameter, which are suspended in a liquid or gas and will not settle out...Is there some other meaning to this word? - 23:29:59 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CHRIS, You have said before that you claimed no label other than maybe a humanists. You have stated that your definitely against fundieism in any form. Have you now changed your position into one of a theists, and do you disregard these former positions? I of course respect your freedom of choice and right to change; I'm just not sure exactly where you currently stand. - 23:40:03 on 17 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:JR--(if you are still around)many many people who deeply believe in God study theology--some even earn degrees in it--and then through various paths, no longer believe in God--but they still have the knowledge of Biblical scripture: they simply feel there is no longer any reason to believe God exists. Also, you are slowly showing sins of being the "typical" theist visitor on this line. One of these trademarks is not answering direct questions, as you have yet not answered my first post directed at you. - 0:21:41 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->J R..(if you are still bothering to read after having made your opinions known). Marlene has given you a little lesson on abbreviations which I hope were helpful, and now I will give you a little "netiquette" lesson: when having discourse with someone such as Marlene, please do not use expressions like "little girl". I am easily offended by what I construe as unneccesary sexism. And now, I will address your assumption that those of us on this page do not know anything about your religion. Au contraire mon ami. You will find that you are amongst persons who seriously study all sides of the issues discussed here, and it is MHO (my humble opinion) that there is no one among us who has not been brought up in the xtian church, or spent many years thinking seriously about this issue before coming out of the closet. I concur with Peter, that we are not missing out on anything that you yourself may enjoy in your life. We just do not need a supernatural entity to find our fulfillment. - 1:29:48 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..in reference to your story about the KKK. I wish that the majority of people who find these particular individuals a threat, to actually try to expose them for the baffoons they really are. Could you imagine a rally where they might be surrounded by people who mock their attire and beliefs (tell me Bill, is this one BS that you tolerate?) I have referred to the program called "TV NATION" that had a short, but wonderful, life on Fox TV, and on one show, Michael Moore (my hero) had a group of black high school cheerleaders compete right beside a big KKK meeting. It was hilarious! Even though the KKK tried to act tough, they were made to look as ridiculous as anyone possibly could be. It is more assertive action like this that may shut them up once and for all. - 1:36:16 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:PETER: Your post asking me how far I had gotten in the Smith book made me laugh out loud...obviously not far enough, or I wouldn't be spouting such mindless drivel, right? I can't help it, it's summer, my brain is jelly, I spend all day looking at paper and I need a break...is that enough excuses? No? OK, OK, I'll go back to reading the Smith book. CARL: Thanks for holding me up as an example of a good theist to JR (does anybody else see the "Dallas" connection here?) I also very much liked your description of JR's approach as "bull rush and snort"!! How very apropos! You might very well be right about the human-animal connection..I think you're right about the separation of humans and animals being clearly defined in the genesis story...which, of course, the fundies have taken to mean that man is superior to animals. I have to agree with Marlene on that one. MARLENE: Totally agree with your post on God's "gender". IMHO, this is an absolutely ridiculous viewpoint. In our religious services, God is never referred to as "He", "Lord", "King" or anything else, masculine or feminine, but rather "God", "You", or "One". Very fern-sniffing-like, don't cha think? How do I view homosexuality? Oh boy, here I go, jumping into the fire...I think homosexuals may be in part born with a tendency towards homosexuality, and thus are acting normal as far as they are concerned. I have read studies of homosexuality in animals, and not just in over-stressed or -crowded conditions. Homosexuality doesn't offend me or threaten me, they have as much right to be here as I do, but (and you knew there was a but, didn't you?), if one considers that homosexuality does not naturally lead to procreation, it will probably remain a minority and indeed, a threat to some people who think that there should be only one way of doing it. BILL: OOOPS! You've got me! Did I qualify my earlier position of "humanist" with the statement that if there is a God, Whatever-It-Is is beyond human comprehension and does not interfere with human lives on a personal level. Miracles are the results of random events and misinterpretation. I cannot deny the existence of God and I do believe that transcendence is possible and exists in life. Whether to call that God or not is the question. Would this constitute theism in your view? - 2:26:11 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: CHRIS-- MARLENE-- Sorry to disagree. The God that I don't believe in is definitely male! - 5:32:46 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:___>CHRIS..re your reference to miracles...could we not then replace that word with "Luck"? I once read an essay by C.S. Lewis about miracles, and he said exactly what you stated, that certain happenings are miracles because of misrepresentations. If an occurrence can be explained scientifically (such as "The Nun in the Bun"), why do people still insist that it is divine intervention? What "proven" miracles are there? - 11:57:55 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:GRANT: So just how big is God's penis? - 11:58:43 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:JOETTE: People want to believe in miracles because it gives them hope. It is my theory that the more chaotic people perceive their surroundings to be, the more they tend to believe in rigid fundamentalist religious philosophies. This gives them something to hold onto, so that they don't have to think or do anything for themselves. Because of the awareness of just about every single tragedy worldwide via instantaneous media coverage, people believe they are living in the end times, when it is my own personal belief that each age has it's own Black Death to deal with. "Proven" miracles? Well, there are some documented cases of serious illnesses curing themselves, despite all medical knowledge to the contrary. I think random possibility accounts for most of those...yes, it might be considered synonomous with luck. Some "miracles" are a result of hard work and self-discipline, though. - 12:06:33 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: CHRIS-- I'm tempted to say God's penis is infinite, but that whould cause it's own problems, wouldn't it? You knew I was joking didn't you? - 12:19:04 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:GRANT: Yes, of course, I did. Infinite Penis, hunh? Sounds like a porn movie title. Next time I'll add one of those ;-) to let you know I got it. - 12:22:35 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:CHRIS-- Sorry - 12:34:17 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:GRANT: Hey, no problem. I thought it was funny myself. - 12:56:00 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->CHRIS, GRANT..if god has an infinite penis, and man was created in his image, why then can guys find underwear that fits? :) CHRIS..to me it is pretty ridiculous that some alledged medical miracles transpire. When someone is cured an it is attributed to being a miracle, it is because the subject is still alive, and can't be cut apart by scientists to see why they got over the disease. Also, sometimes there are errors made in medical diagonsis and cures for non-existant diseases are considered miracles. I really get annoyed when medical miracles are offered as proof of god's existence. - 14:27:02 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- I think your idea of exposing the klan as degenerates is a good idea. If they ever decide to do a public recruit in Winnipeg, I will personally show up with my opinions and hopefully others will join me. CHRIS- I must say that your views on most issues are in tune with mine. BUT (I have a but too) you believe in a supernatural force (whatever it may be) and I conclude that the supernatural does not exsist. I can honestly say that your type of very liberal religion that allows freedom of thought is one that is tolerable. The reality is though, many believers would claim that "your not really christian". - 14:50:01 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:CHRIS: as MARLENE brings the supernatural connection to the forefront, so too does the Judaic genesis story. Antiquated humans and some lets say unknown number of contemporary types find it appropriate to make an animal to man connection, this could be naturalism. Theism chooses to make the connection of a natural man to a supernatural source. The intention of the latter view is well documented, also, it is for most western types a concept that they we i were accordingly reared to in some degree or whatever. The former view is ancient and probably loaded with practical reason that in contemporary humans may be, lets think dormant. In my view based on an ongoing unending reading plan, the animal-human view is inaccurate the human-supernatural view is false. Pause....I was about to conclude the humans as humans can do it, i am given a union letter to a local college regarding wages lost and possibly making a herd of goats union memebers, the goats cleared brush and grass that the union argues was its work. - 17:09:23 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I seem to understand from your posts that you are not in favor of evolution or am I not understanding you correctly. If your not in favor, what are your thoughts? On the union issue. I think they had their time and place. The intentions were good but the money grab that they've now become doesn't reflect their original purpose. - 19:16:25 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Evolution is on target it is an explanation i can apply to things, furthermore in terms of evolution do i not apply only my imagination to all,e.g.'any IPU'etc. With or w/out me you others even here will carry on tomorrow just as you did yesterday. The union thing the barb is that they mentioned unionizing the goat herd. Of that, elsewhere i read a Russian poet that used in his verse,..animal know thy master, and,..builder know thy bondage- not a quote, but i recall that much. Upon reflection it seemed to render silly what i was planning to inscribe. - 19:41:57 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CARL..a little Jack Kerouac writing theme there? I too am curious to know what your thoughts are as you imply that there isn't as strong an animal/human connection as many of us believe. As I mentioned before, the plant/human theory is interesting, but seems more the stuff of "B" movies than any serious scientific discovery. Is the unionization of the goat herd a threat to yourself or business? - 20:37:58 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: No, it was just funny for at the moment i was pondering things when a colleague brought the letter to me which brought on recollections of the Russian poem. In laughter i ended that other line of thought, whatever it was, and went in the direction you now refer to. As for the plant connection it was composed by a contemporary scientist writing on evolution who tossed in that prospect. I'll check to see if i have the article and pass it on, as i cannot do it any justice. Anyway, the goat thing was funny to us few here at that time. - 21:09:58 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: It is quite true, that i don't hold that the animal\human connection in good stead. Quite contrarily, i see that purported connection and the supernatural one, as both connected to many if not most of human ills. The first leads to thoughts of survival of the strong and the supernatural with its directive of man having dominion over all, both are simply destructive to all life and particularly human intellect. - 22:46:05 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene now I'm gettin ya:CARL- I find this interesting as I've never heard things from quite that angle before, can you expand? - 23:07:04 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:We have a hurricane coming! help! I'll talk tomorrow. - 23:51:15 on 18 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:BILL: Hope everything is OK where you are. Is Danny there?? MARLENE: Well, I would certainly accept the opinion of some people that I wasn't a X-tian as high praise. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!! I do not accept Jesus as a personal savior. While I do not deny that he lived, whatever happened to him, he's dead now and incapable of personal relationships with anyone (unless there is life after death, of which I know not). JOETTE: Totally agree about the absolute uselessness of miracles as proof of god's existence. CARL: Not so sure that the animal-man connection is dormant. Don't Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism teach man is a part of nature? And that as part of the web of life, man is then responsible for not disturbing the balance? Belief in the supernatural doesn't necessarily mean one believes man is the dominant species. I've read reports that dolphins may be just as intelligent as humans, we just don't know how to communicate yet. - 1:51:09 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- Excuse`, I'm sorry, I thought you were an xtian. This makes a little more sense now. So if you wanted to put a label to your beliefs you would likely be agnostic, no? Jainism is the religion I think you were looking for. These are the people who wear a masks over there mouths so as not to breathe in insects. Hinduism connects closely with animals in that most hindus are strict vegetarians. In islam, when they kill an animal for meat they pray for it's soul. Xtians and jews don't believe that animals have a soul. Then there are atheists like me that do not believe that a soul exsists. - 2:02:07 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL... I too hope all is well where you are. I heard about the hurricane's approach on the news today. I guess I would take our soft white stuff over a hurricane anyday. MARLENE..there was a conference in my town last week called "Science of the Soul", attended by hundreds of people. When I saw the signs for it, I couldn't help but think that the name of the conference was the ultimate oxymoron. - 2:39:09 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:MARLENE: It's my name, isn't it? People always assume I'm a Christian because of my name. SIGH. Well, according to the Smith book, agnostics are just wimpy atheists (see Peter, I really am reading it!), so I guess I can't call myself that. If forced to choose, I think I would have to opt for theist. I know plenty of Christians who are convinced their pets will follow them into the afterlife, so I wouldn't say Christian or Jewish philosophy teaches animals have no souls. As I understand it, Islam may have been influenced by both Christianity and Judaism, and one of the main reasons for the kosher laws was NOT because of sanitary problems (meat spoiling, etc.) but because Jews were trying to draw attention to the fact that animals were created by God and so care must be taken to end their lives as painlessly as possible and to treat them humanely while they lived. JOETTE: Do you know what the conference was about? Was it some sort of religious convention or new age physics (I just hate those inspirational books they're coming out with now "Chicken Soup for the Soul", "How to Live a Better Life"...gag me. - 11:24:58 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CHRIS, JOETTE, The hurricane is coming ashore as I write and we are missing the hurricane by 70 miles. We are getting significant rain, off and on, from the outer bands though. Everyone seemed somewhat casual about this one as it was relatively small and we got hit by two larger ones a couple of years ago. Before that we hadn't had a direct hit in 69 years. I lost some trees a couple of years ago and this risk comes from living in coastal areas in the south. The eye was only 20 miles wide and that will be where most of the damage will be done. Even in the eye of this storm there won't be that much damage, mostly beach stuff, considering that it was just barely a hurricane and the damage goes up exponentially as the storm categories rise to higher numbers. CHRIS, First of all, I like you just the way you are, so don't take any comment I make here as criticizing your beliefs. I am only trying to look at your beliefs and clarify my perception of where you are coming from. You and I are not that fare apart in our paradigms. To answer your question, I believe you did qualify your long-ago post with, "If there is a God, whatever it is beyond human comprehension and does not interfere with human lives on a personal level." You also said to Joette once back in May, **Well, yes, I must admit to being a little confused. I enjoy discussing theology with anybody, but at the same time, I resist any fundamentalist, orthodox conception of "God". I guess the closest I can come to what I think about religion is that God is. Period. It isn't that adjectives aren't sufficient, it's that they aren't possible. At the same time, I think to give up the concept is to give up the need of every human being to search, to discover, to try.**Of course, like Marlene, my first impression of your more recent post was that you must have agnostic inclinations. But you do believe in the concept of "god" (small g)-catalysts of creation, and not "God" -ego conceived deity (God created in man's own image). The problem with using the term "Theists" is that others will instantly equate it with a deity God. I know what you mean, but others will label and categorize you, which can become a barrier to communication. I too believe in a non-interfering catalysts-of-creation (god with a small 'g') in the form of "primary intelligence". These deterministic "natural" laws of nature (via evolution and natural selection) caused organization and symmetry within the universe. On this basic micro level-whether we are plant, animal, or human-we are all exists in the same form of energy particles. In the beginning the universe was "One". Unlike some here, I don't see an absolute objective concrete reality and am tolerant of BS's. This tolerance does not equate with environmental pacifism or weakness though. - 13:38:19 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- I disagree with Smith then! Agnostics haven't come to the conclusion that the supernatural does not exsist. I think Bill is correct in saying that you and he have similiar ideas about god. As for xtians believing that their pets have souls...if they do believe this it is not supported by most xtian religions. Meat and milk cannot be mixed in jewish food but it has little to do with their kindredship toward animals, but more to do with moses's laws he received form god during exodus. Islam is a spin off of judaism and xtianity just as xtianity is a spin off of judaism but islam has the influence of the more eastern religions therfore allowing a soul for all living things much like jainism which is a spin off of hinduism. JOETTE- The oxymoron of all oxymorons! - 14:17:11 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:BILL--The term to "create", when it applies to human beings ultimately means to rearrange things that are already in existence into new shapes and forms, from ideas which are formed from already-existing concepts. The "creation" you refer to when speaking of "god" isn't this at all. This is not creation. This is bringing something into existence from pure non-existence. Which still does not address the problem of infinite regress. If an entity such as this "created" existence, then what created the entity? Did it just "pop" into existence on its own complete with all these wonderful powers--(which seem infinite.) Suggesting this series of events presupposes than something that exists must have another entity respondsible for bringing it into existence--resulting in an infinite regress. - 14:30:23 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:MARLENE--The defender of George H. Smith cometh to the rescue!!!--What it all really boils down to is definitions of the words "Ateist" and "Agnostic". Many assume that an atheist is a person who outrightly denies the existence of God, and an agnostic is one who suspends judgement. However Smith argues that an atheist is simply one who does not believe in the existence of God. Therefore regardless of how much one thinks that God's existence is a possibility, if in his belief system he does not at that point believe in his existence--he is an atheist. The word "agnostic" is probably the most mis-used word when dealing with this issue( Some even equate it with believing and not going to church or following a certain religion), and Smith was attempting to clarify its meaning somewhat. He talks about "theistic agnostics" which believe that there is a God, but maintain nothing can be known about him--but these people are actually theists, because they believe in his existence. - 14:47:05 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:MARLENE: Actually, the kosher laws are to be found in Leviticus. The prohibition against mixing of milk and meat comes from the verse "Thou shalt seethe a kid in it's mother's milk" This was repeated so many times that the ancient teachers thought it was meant to be a general prescription against meat and milk together. I once went to a very interesting lecture by a Jewish scholar on the kosher laws and he said that most of them were to meant to focus the person eating or sacrifricing the animal that he was taking another life sacred to God. He said that there are some Jewish scholars who believe that originally God intended the Israelites to be vegetarians, but the people complained so much, God gave in, with the condition that they follow strict rules, hence, the kosher laws. BILL: I am glad the hurricane is missing you. It is Danny, isn't it? Geez, did you go all the way back to the posts in May to find that? Pretty impressive on my part, maybe I better write that down somewhere so I can whip it out when people ask me what I believe. Have you ever read "The Physics of Immortality"? (JOETTE: Is this as bad as "Science of the Soul"?) I wasn't able to get very far in it. PETER: Then where did the Universe come from? - 15:09:15 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Chris:TO ALL: Whoops, that verse should read "Thou shalt NOT seethe a kid in it's mother's milk" - 15:11:28 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CHRIS--Who says the universe requires a causal explanation? ( This is all addressed later in Smith's book) - 15:15:01 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CHRIS.."where did the universe come from?" "On the first day, God made light". Now, we all know that we depend on the sun for our light, right? "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. And let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so, and God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good and there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." So, how can a theist explain that we had light on the first day, if we need the sun for our light, and it was not until the fourth day that he "created" the sun and rest of the universe? Our sun is older than our earth, as are many other stars, and scientists have proven this, so how do theists explain this inaccuracy in the creation of the universe? - 15:55:24 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Again we have a different view of reality. Being an Objectivist you tend to interpret reality in terms of the tangible and the macro levels of observation. I will refer you to my older posts of energy particles being created from absolutely empty space on a micro quantum level. This is the "current" view of science and, until we know otherwise, I will have to accept this as being reality. Infinite regress only applies to the finite macro world, which would involve sequencing back in "time." And "time" is itself a created concept. This god creative entity may have always existed. I tend to agree with Hawkings (physicist) that the universe didn't come from a point source but rather a bell-curve source. This suggests that an outside Deity did not create the universe, but rather the universe created itself. And this to me suggests that god is the universe's creative force, and exists within all things. And on some mind level Peter, it is my belief that, you are god. I think that we can agree that the Big Bang event occurred and that we have a mind consciousness that can observe the reality of this creation, right? - 16:00:35 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CHRIS, It is indeed Danny. No I haven't read "The Physics of Immortality." My time is limited for reading right now. - 16:05:28 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:BILL---There you go again using that word "create" incorrectly. My main argument the last time was to address your misuse of this word, which proves one thing to me: you do not read carefully enough. But when YOU refer to the "universe" are you referring to matter, energy, existence in general--or to the present state of the universe as it is now? And why can existence( at any level) not be eternal? I have also heard the wrgument that these energy particles which apparently coming into existence in one location are apparently disappearing somewhere else, so the total sum of energy in the universe, or all energy that exists is constant. - 16:19:55 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- I have a number of arguements about the man-made god, jehovah, encouraging his flock to be vegetarians but right at this time I have a pile of yard work to do. I will work on the post presenting arguments tonight. - 17:02:56 on 19 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Well we missed Danny, other than some breezy conditions and minor flooding. My wife had the computer tie up yesterday afternoon and then some friends showed up for a escaped-hurricane party with pizza and beer, so I am just now getting around to answering your post. When I refer to the "universe" I am referring to both tangible and intangible as it is now. I think you and I define things differently. Your concept of existence is mostly the tangible material world, right? My concept of existence is not only the material world, but also things like space/time singularities, black holes, antiparticles, big bang singularities, and every other non-thing that would play a role in explaining our current observations or mathematical calculations. Existence, as defined in terms of just the material, is not eternal because everything in the universe cycles from energy/material states into singularity states. From the Big Bang singularity came the known universe which will eventually collapse back into itself many billions of year from now. Also within the known universe, stars collapse into Black-Hole Singularities. Even space/time appears and disappears in a similar manor. And your right that energy appearing out of nothing does collapse into nothingness, once again, on this micro level. As far as the sum of energy being constant in the universe goes, I suppose it would depend on your definition of universe. From your definition of "create", you are right in that it means essentially rearranging things that are already in existence into new shapes and forms, from ideas that are formed from already-existing concepts. Maybe it's a bad word for me to use in reference to the conversion from a singularity state into a material/energy state of existence. Would you have a better word than "create" for this accepted scientific reality? The mathematician Roger Penrose originally introduced the concept of singularities in 1965. Stephen Hawking dressed up his theorem and in 1970 they published a joint paper which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity. (Ref. A Brief History of Time (BHOT), by Hawking, page 56). As much as we would like to "nail everything down" with a simple logical philosophical, religious, or scientific explanation, the reality is that you, the scientist, or me just don't have all the answers to explaining that which we observe. Singularities are the ultimate unknowable and this is where scientists tend to revert to the god explanation. On page 140 of Hawking's book (BHOT ) we read, **This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.**Most scientists, however (Einstein, Hawkings, etc), use the word "God" (deity), but really mean "god" (non-deity) when they refer to God. I myself, like many of the scientists, have a very loose and general god concept, and not an ego deity teddy-bear concept. We are here and able to observe the universe, as we know it, and the odds of this occurring are very small. - 13:31:29 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CHRIS- Well here is one. I only have a bit of time this morning too. It's my gram's 92nd birthday today so got to go to the party. Genesis 4, 3-5. I'm not going to type it out word for word but it goes something like this, the lord didn't respect Cain for his "tilling of the ground" but thought Able was alright for offering the lord meat from his herd. - 13:35:52 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:Just to add to my previous post, concerning the odds of our universe occurring being very small, let my say that the odds of randomly occurring, without intent, are very small unless you believe in the Multiple Universe Theory. We have already discussed this theory and it's unlikelyhood when applying the Principles of Parsimony. - 13:53:27 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

PETER:Bill--No, Bill--I am well aware of black holes, and anti-matter and all that other neat stuff you think you believe it and I don't. I'd like to address your last statement: "The odds against it are very small" Of course they are. In fact the odds of any event taking are very small. Bill, you are reverting to the old " the remnants of the explosion in the print shop coming up with the entire encyclopedia brittanica" argument. For istance, who could have predicted in the years of Nostradamus, that a guy named Bill from Florida would be on the internet on July 20, 1997? But its happening, and alll as a result of a series natural events. This is when "chance" is used as an alternative to "design" instead of "causalty"( existents operating according to their identity, or nature). When dealing with the physical laws of the universe then, the term "odds" aren't applicable--unless one attempts to predict a certain event without having all the necessary data which would cause that event at his disposal. There are also some other loose ends that I would like to addsess as well: If the "design" of the universe is attribuatble to a small "g" god, again one is faced with the problem of having to have knowledge of that particular entity, BEFORE one can attrbute any acts of it designing, or "bringing existence in existence" ( how do you like that term instead of "create"?) This "god" that you and Einstein, and Hawking refer to also still does not solve the old "god of the gaps"( in knowledge )dilemna. Its merely another word for "unknown force(s)". Does this mean that this "god" is supernatural( operating outside of natural law), or of unknown origin, and attributes--that work within the laws of nature?( which have yet to be discovered ) - 14:06:24 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..what edition of BHOT do you have, as you refer to certain page numbers that do not correspond with my own (is yours a soft cover edition?) - 14:24:21 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, JOETTE, The book references are from a paperback edition. Page 56 in my book would be found in the last page or two of Chapter 3, "The Expanding Universe." Page 140 would be found almost in the middle of Chapter 8, "The Origin and Fate of the Universe." Peter, I understand where you are coming from and lets, for purpose of discussion, disregard the "odds" point that some of these scientists have referred to. I am uncomfortable with the way they throw around this "God" term or this "Odds" term. This as you point out can be misleading. Let's look at the fact that the Universe did organize and produced conscious humans and how this might apply to my use of, and reality of, this god concept. First of all, in reference to the definition of "create," I think your definition may be better (i.e. existence into existence), but we would be using the same word "existence" to define two different states of existence. How about, "existence (singularity) into Existence (matter/energy)?" Also in discussing such broad abstruse universal concepts, cosmologists and scientists tend to look at "models" in order to better rationalize that which may be too general or too abstract. So I propose that we look at a model comparison of this "god" concept that I have use here. Let's look at a "theoretical" model comparison between the [human "brain/mind" dichotomy (i.e. 'hardware-deterministic--biological' / 'software--freewill')] and, [the universe's "Existence/god" dichotomy (i.e. 'tangible--deterministic--classical physics' / 'software-will or intent-organization-symmetry')]. Of course on the first part of this model you accept the existence of "mind" as being axiomatic (i.e. I think, therefore I am) and we would both agree that we have a "mind" (software) that exhibits a "will or intent" operating within the fabric/hardware of our brains. So lets look at the second part of this theoretical model comparison. Let's try to use what science accepts to be true. We both agree that Existence (matter/energy) and existence (singularities) exists, right? And I think we would agree that this cycling between existence and Existence (e to E), as well as the reverse (E to e) occurs on a large scale (i.e. Big Bang and sequent universal collapse). Also this cycling of existent states occurs within the universe in various other ways (black hole 'E' to 'e', or quantum energy 'e' to 'E' and 'E' to 'e' etc.). This cycling duality of existence (E/e) occurs on a large and small scale. We know that the universe organized and the question becomes, "was this organization "random" or by "will/intent"? We have already thrown out the "Multiple Universe Theory" due to Oscam's Razor or the Principles of parsimony, right? So then it becomes a question of "will/intent" (ie god). If we have small examples of E/e operating within larger examples of E/e (visa versa), isn't it possible to conceive of a small axiomatic human "mind" operating-with will/intent--within a larger universe "god mind" operating with-will/intent? Gotta run, Cheers! - 16:57:52 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:--->BIll..no - 19:24:57 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:---BILL..so, after all of that, are you saying that you believe god exists? (with all due respect, no fence sitting please) - 19:26:47 on 20 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Just got in from looking at cars and visiting friends. Yes, I see parallels and similarities between the human "mind" and a universal "mind." But this is only part of the fabric of my belief system and I am sure it's not for everyone! Have you ever been to the Casa Loma in Toronto? How about Park Wood? - 1:46:44 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:BILL..yes, I have been to Casa Loma. Is this asked as result of this week's "America's Castles" on A & E? I have not been to Park Wood, and do not know where it is. Could you give me more details on this? Back to my previous post, is your "univeral mind" a pseudonym for God? - 2:17:45 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

RON...--->BILL...: Have you seen _CONTACT_? - 3:07:39 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Jim Rollins:I saw CONTACT when it openned. Sagan was a rather non-confrontaional atheist. I was a little disappointed that Ellie (Jodie Foster) didn't give a little better answer when her atheism was challenged during the selection process. She could have given Sagan's "god of the gaps" explanation: God is a concept, invented by man to fill the gaps in his knowledge. As science fills these gaps, the need for a god grows smaller. One thing that I noted was that when Ellie was confronted with having an experience, of which she had no "proof" to show others (although we learn that it did exist), she did NOT insist that they believe her. - 4:00:20 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Melissa:Who hasn't seen Contact?? Seen it twice myself . . . so far. I was a little disturbed myself at how timid Ellie was in the face of theism. Ex: blank face when asked to prove that she loved her father in order to explain atheism. Every time she failed to adequately support her beliefs, several theists in the audeince would gasp or aha or mhmm, as if their point had been proven. Wanted to ring all their necks, smack em across the face and tell em to wake up, smell the delusion. Otherwise, I'm very fond of the movie and have already read "The Demon-Haunted World" and am in the middle of "Cosmos". Only one other author has influenced me so greatly, Ayn Rand. - 5:55:35 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Melissa:TO ANYONE WHO IS WELL VERSED IN SPACE/TIME STUFF: Regarding the movie Contact: There was something I didn't understand. If Vega is 26 light years away, then the amount of time that would pass between her departure and arrival on Earth would be 52 Earth years, assuming she didn't stay long and traveled at the speed of light. That means the correlation between space-time and earth-time is direct, but earth-time will always be greater than space-time. Now, why would she only age four years? Why four, not three or six? Also, my main question: assuming this premise is true, why, when she went through the worm hole, was she gone for eighteen hours space-time, but only a fraction of a second earth-time? Do worm holes obey different laws of time and space which makes space-time greater than earth-time, the opposite of the above assumption? I am no astrophycisist and am asking as a layman, an ignorant. Please explain if you can, if you understand the conflict, or supposed contradiction, I'm unable to resolve here. Thanks. - 6:06:09 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Melissa:PS -- "her" in first sentence above is referring to Ellie. - 6:07:53 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:Howdy. Does anyone know if there are widely-recognized Atheist "holiday equivalents"? That is, dates on the calendar commemmorated as milestone events in Atheism or, say, birthdays of leading Atheist activists, either by leading Atheist organizations or Atheists generally? - 11:07:03 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->ANDY..are you kidding? Aren't we still in the closet? (hahahaha). There would be a giant furore if atheists organized and celebrated, just as in my area Gay Pride Day does. - 11:40:08 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->JIM and MELISSA..thank you for the information re "Contact". I have not seen it yet, but I have been wondering how they would handle the atheism part. From your report, it sounds like the producers didn't want to cause any controversy, which is a bit disappointing. Oh well, I'll see it this week. - 11:42:47 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette...I am asking because my employer engages in the unconstitutional (US) practice of granting each employee religious holidays off based on individual convictions (as opposed, say, to giving each employee a fixed # of personal days to be used as one wishes). As a mythologically unencumbered person, of course, I recognize no "holidays" per se, but I love my job and am not looking to sue. I have been told that I can take the "equivalent" of religious holidays based on my personal beliefs, however. Thus, I ask whether there are any such "equivalents" so that I may end my present practice of working 6-7 days per year more than everyone else in my office, for no extra pay. I cannot believe that the issue has not arisen before. Any suggested sources for an answer would be a good second place to an answer itself (I have not yet received an email answer from American Atheists). - 12:52:04 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL---So we are back to this again? Your scientific arguments are interesting, but in the end-they have no relevance here, simply because you are mis-identifying what "consciousness" actually is in reference to. And you are correct--believing what you believe isn't for everyone, simply because of its implausity, and its not being necessary to explain any natural phenomena. In order for consciousness to exist, it must be the result of perceiving existents. Now, in your model, where is the sense perception? For instance, if a child is born with the brain of einstein, but had no senses, ( touch, smell, hearing, taste, smell)it would not be conscious--it would not have the faculty of perception to form any concepts. In other words, ANY "consciousness" must have the faculty of perception to be conscious--and again to have these faculty, pre-supposes a living entity that exists on the macro level ( like human beings ), that has eyes, ears, nose etc--in order to be aware.....Bill, I see your motive to embrace tis belief similar to that of a theist--although you attempt to justify it scientifically ( but this ultimately becomes a philosophical concern)--in that its an attempt to "personalize" your surroundings, rather than accepting that your environment operates independently, and indifferently to any faculty of consciousness. I suspect it all being a result of observing occurences within the universe and concluding that since there appears to be "organization" this must be the result of some type of consciousness, as we associate order or design to being the result of conscious intervention. I have read in various scientific periodicals over the years that scientists are attempting to find ONE physical law of the universe, from the four that exist now, but if they do--will they call it "god?"--And if they do, there still would be no reason to assume it as having "consciousness" as again such a faculty would be superflous and unecessary--and identical to pantheism. Also, your belief still does not solve the dilemna of the "primacy of existence, over consciousness" in that for something to be perceived, hence forming consciousness, a consciousness must come AFTER the formation of existence. But BIll, you can go on believing as you wish--but you have yet been unable to reconcile these flaws in your beliefs. - 12:58:02 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:ADAM---Have you discussed this matter at all with your employer? I would think that if he/she showed any inclination to discrimination--it would be grounds for a lawsuit. If he/she were reasonable I would think they would allow you to take the equivalent of a christian's holiday. Howvwer, if I were you and instead of trying to make a point, and turning this all into a big hassle, that you may not necessarily win, I'd just grab the old Christmas and Easter holidays ( assuming that your area is predominately christian)--if for no other reasons is that it makes for more convenient socializing, since it seems most everybody is off on those days as well( but rarely observe the religious implications of that holiday ). Being an atheist myself, this is what I have done, and to those who are unawrwe of my position and attempt to include me in some religious activity, I simply tell them I am an atheist--(very matter-of-factly, without apology!) and from there, if that is questioned. or belittled in some way, its THEIR problem--not mine. - 13:11:46 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Peter...I'm not sure I've conveyed the situation clearly, and I apologize for that. My employer has offered, as a gesture of equity, to give me "holiday equivalents." Now, I understand your "social convenience" argument but, with all due respect, for me it pales in comparison to the principles of Atheism and freedom from religion. That is, even if I do not "celebrate" the religious days, to take them off from work is tantamount to being forced to acknowledge‹indeed, even to plan my life around‹the religious beliefs of others. The principle far outweighs any benefit of being off from work on the same days as the deluded majority, even if many of them are friends and acquaintances. What I want to do is present my employer with a list of bona fide dates recognized by Atheists as important to their beliefs and their movement, and say "I will be taking these dates off each year henceforth." Thus, I resubmit my inquiry‹surely, there must be such dates for those who are serious about their Atheism (this is not to suggest for a moment that you are not). - 14:25:39 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:PETER: When reading BILL's post, i found that with some dissection and a dictionary review prevents me from treating BILL's views too confusedly. In his 13:53:27 20 jul 97 post he mentions 'random' and 'intent' ideas, except for admission of a god, there is nothing commensurable between the two ideas. Intent, as far as i dare ascertain, implys matter present for any action. JOETTE's 19:26:47 20 Jul 97 post got me looking at or for this view that i bring up, - 15:22:33 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:ADAM--Atheism is simply an abscence of a belief. It does not infer any positive beliefs. Atheists generally embrace their position as a result of a broader philosophy such as marxism, nihilism, objectivism, Kantism etc--all which may not have any common thread to share other than NOT believing in something--in this case a supernatural entity. Therefore, one atheist cannot say he shares any particular beliefs with another atheist. Holidays are the result of a collective deciding that because of certain beliefs they share, one can share this time with others who share similar beliefs, and not be involved in their usual daily pursuits. However, since atheism cannot be associated with one set of particular positive beliefs, the concept of an "atheist holiday" would only exist just for the sole purpose of antagonizing theists ( as that is all that atheists would have in common ). I would like to think that most atheists are atheists as a result of rational thinking, and to observe a holiday based on this premise would seem rather pointless, if not antagonistic. - 16:44:26 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Peter...I'm not suggesting that there is such thing as an "atheist holiday"‹indeed, the phrase indeed is an oxymoron. I don't mind getting into the deeper philosophical principles underlying my belief structure, but my immediate inquiry is a purely practical one. I suggested to my employer that it should adopt the religiously neutral policy of giving everyone the same number of "personal days," to be used as one wishes, including religious purposes. My suggestion was rejected out-of-hand, but I was told that I was entitled to take off on days of personal importance to me‹that is, on par with the importance believers attach to religious holidays (understanding, of course, that most theists do not use religious days off for religious purposes). I could easily be self-interested, and merely request the days I would want the most to add to vacation time. I also could go for convenience and take the days for Judaism (my family's religion) for non-religious purposes, but to do so still makes me feel that I am conforming to the schedule of a religion, and I abhor the prospect. Ideally, I would like to present my employer with a schedule of dates that have legitimate significance in Atheists' struggle against religious persecution, or which honor individuals who have been particularly influential in opposing the concept of religion, etc., and declare these dates as important to my belief structure as, say, Good Friday is to christians. This is not to say that I would construe any day as a "holy day." - 18:00:19 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:ADAM: Holidays, recognition, etc. do you mean to suggest that atheism could somehow become a capitalistic venture? Complete with hallmark cards and the works? Then too! an atheist could even have legislated on their behalf "rights", i jest of course, but on a different note i like the soveriegn intellectual state as it is, few but very valuable, unlike the huge number of theists liberally litterred with ignorance and other rubbish. - 19:00:07 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..how about taking days off that imply signicant controversies in religion, for example the anniversary of the day the Pope was shot, or the day The Church of England came into being, or the anniversary of the death of Joan of Arc? This may seem facetious, but it is not meant to be, given the lack of information on atheists historical events. (how about the day Carl Sagan passed away? He certainly was an atheist) - 20:44:53 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Carl...I am not attempting to alter the intellectual purity of atheism. All I sought was a handful of specific dates on the calendar that atheists (or, for that matter, any enemies of religion) might deem to commemmorate significant events or people in the struggle of the mythologically unencumbered few of us. If the dates have some legitimate basis, my employer will allow me to take these days off with pay, as my deluded colleagues do on religious holidays. As I said, I do not withdraw from the deeper philosophical discussion, but my immediate concern are the dates to submit to my employer. For example, one might say that the passage of the U.S. Bill of Rights is an important event for Atheists as a constitutional expression of freedom from state religion. That sort of thing. - 20:49:22 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Welcome! I think a really good idea would be to celebrate the times of change of the Earth. When it really comes down to it christmas and easter are celebrated on or about these times because the xtianity or judaism etc. just replaced the season change celebrations with their own crap. Maybe it's time that we just celebrate and apreciate the planet we live on, a back to basics type of holiday. - 22:02:37 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Now I like that idea! "Reality-based" holidays. Also, how about a holiday to celebrate accomplishments of mankind--like landing on the moon, Mars etc.?--without the religious implications such as "Our faith and prayers made this event possible" but instead something like "The hard work and dedication of these individuals made this event possible" I also like the "Bill of Rights" suggestion from Adam. - 22:15:39 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:ADAM: merely gettin a bead on who you might be, ANY, here in the US of A a concern of mine is the conservative elements desire/belief to drag ways of the dark ages into the forfront again. Last week a colleague o'mine left for Japan as a member of the teaching force that country funds to educate its people. The colleague will teach American english. Other participants will instruct them in other things. That kind of action has a lot of appeal to me, so as that future teacher was bidding all farewell, i pointed out a Japanese USA difference of how the USA is concerned about prayer-in-school, and immediately some of my other colleagues spoke-up that they were in favor of that action. Is/was that idiocy, or am I being too harsh and somehow i am blinded by my own sense of values? It sure sounded stupid then, it still flabbergasts me, was that just freedom of expression and not necessarily freedom from religion? - 22:16:50 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..now that my clear thinking colleagues have provided some good ideas, how about "Earth Day" (I believe it is recognized internationally). MARLENE..the changing of the seasons are actually protected Wicca holidays here in Canada, as a professor from Humber College took his case to court, and set a precedent for having the equinox and solstice days off instead of regular "xtian" days off. - 22:21:33 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->CARL..I have encountered the exactly the same situation, thus my remark this morning about still being in the closet. I find I would rather now keep my mouth shut than to have to defend myself and my non-beliefs. - 22:24:44 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Then you have seen a look in their eyes that says nothing then, at the moment, would change their words. Furthermore is, if it was good enough for mom and dad its good'nuff for me, that is part of the flabbergasting aspect. Many are the questions such thoughtlessness strain so for release, but recede for it would be to waste our resources and bring about nothing favorable to our meager limitations. - 22:46:51 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To the group...thanks for the participation, although I still seek days of import for Atheism, or the struggle against persecution by the mythologically encumbered, reasoning-impaired religious hordes, in particular. I do not wish to substitute other days that might be "appropriate" times to take holidays. Again, I am entitled to these "holiday equivalents" off with pay, and I do need a schedule of dates that has a rational basis for me, but make no bones about it: I wish also to send a message in no uncertain terms that if my deluded colleages can take off on day X because it has significance according to their religious beliefs, then I wish to take day Z for the specific reason that it signifies an important date to me QUA ATHEIST & ENEMY of RELIGION. That is, in my capacity (if you will) as an Atheist AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE, day Z has specific, articulable significance to me and, even if they don't know about it, all serious Atheists everywhere. And I'm talkin' NO WIMPY AGNOSTICS (who are the WORST!). Sorry, I ask for straightforward answers, and here I am digressing myself. - 23:20:27 on 21 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..one more kick at the can: the celebration of the birth of Auguste Comte (born in 1798) who replaced the notion of God with the notion of mankind as a whole. He invented the term "sociology". DEMOCRITUS: (c. 460) Greek philosopher who proposed a mechanistic theory of the world that required no supernatural forces. He held that perception is an unreliable source of knowledge and knowledge can be obtained through reason only. DAVID HUME (1711-76) British empiricist whose arguements against the proofs of God's existence are still influential. Hume held that moral beliefs have no basis in reason, but are based solely in custom. These three were very atheist oriented, and may give you some reason for taking there anniversaries off, maybe even to study their writings? - 0:46:15 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->BILL..my last query to you will soon get knocked off the page, and as I understand you are often too busy to go back and read previous posts, I will ask the question again: is the "universal mind" you refer to God? - 0:48:49 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, I was planning to see CONTACT this past weekend, but the Hurricane prevented one day and it was sold out the next. I usually like Jodie Foster, especially in "Silence of the Lamb's". - 0:51:52 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:RON, I was planning to see CONTACT this past weekend, but the Hurricane prevented one day and it was sold out the next. I usually like Jodie Foster, especially in "Silence of the Lamb's". - 0:52:19 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Yes I thought of you when I scanned the tv channels and saw a clip on castles. They said Casa Loma was in Toronto and I remembered thinking that you lived close to there. I was hoping you knew where Park Wood was located, as I didn't catch the location. I think they said Sam McLaughlin, the Canada version of GM Buick, owned it. He eventually went broke and ended up moving in with his butler. As to your 'universal mind' reference, I suppose I believe in "god" but not "God," (as I have defined in previous posts). I don't relate to a conscious present deity type God, but do see some reason to believe in a deterministic entity that organized the universe. - 0:53:55 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, We have thoroughly discussed the scientific flaws in, "primacy of existence, over consciousness", and I see no point in rehashing this once again. We have also talked about consciousness as it applies to intelligence, both "primary" and "secondary". Maybe it's just late and I want to take my shower. Cheers! - 0:55:35 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--For argument's sake , lets assume that there is a universal intelligence. If there is--so what? All you are positing is that the physical laws of the universe are conscious, but how would that differ from being unconscious, "It" would still be required to follow its laws? ( or else they wouldn't be "laws" )Which then brings us back to theism where this "consciousness" is in control of all, and when asked for supposed special favours, it bends the rules a bit to help out someone in a certain situation. But if a universal, or cosmic god is the same as the natural physical law(s), it being conscious or unconscious would be an irrelevant consideration. In the end Bill, what you are postulating and defending again is pantheism--which is just an act of superflous argument. Bon soir. - 1:28:05 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I have to agree that you are postulating pantheism, and believe me, this has just occurred to me. I have been following your posts since the day I discovered this page, and I have been confused many times by what you are saying. Is it because of this particular "atheist" chat page that you have been reluctant to admit that you believe in god, whether your god is the universe, or some old guy sitting above us in the clouds? - 1:46:38 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Jim:--->I am new here, but a firm atheist. It appears that Bill believes in something supernatural, hence he is not an atheist. It would be best to ignore him to keep the chat on the subject. - 2:02:20 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Jim:--->JOETTE: Re CONTACT I urge you to see the film. Although I expressed some reservations, I would definitely give it a "thumbs up". There are not too many films with an atheist protagonist, who doesn't compromise her views. What does happen is that she modifies slightly how she pushes those views. If CONTACT fails at all, then it is in not making clear that Ellie does NOT experience an supernatural event. - 2:09:39 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JIM-- I think there is room for other views here. There is certainly room for Bill. It's a little early for you to want to oust a regular isn't it? - 3:45:39 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene's been so busy lately!:JIM- Grant is right, although Bill is a theist according to Smith, Bill has been posting here even longer than I have and it's been about a year and a half now. It's an on-going argument with him but, hey, gives we non-believers an avenue to post some truths! GRANT- sending the stuff I promised right away. I think you'll agree that it's getting absolutely bizzare when big business uses the laird propaganda! JOETTE and PETER- You've finally got your answer from Bill, big "God", little "god", it's all the same damn thing! CHRIS- You around? ALL- I haven't seen _Contact_ although I read the book. I have been watching the HBO series _OZ_. Lot's of great stuff on religion on that show! One guy's in prison for killing and eating his parents, he's really gotten into the catholic religion, can anyone guess why? Of course, the psychology major councellor of the Emerald City is dissappointed that the blacks have followed the leadership of an NOI recruiter. And there's much much more! - 4:31:56 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :ADAM- No, I'm not for atheist holidays, in fact I'm not for atheist anything. Being atheist is like being someone who knows that heroin is harmful and refuses to engage in the use of it. The person who is using the harmful susbstance is labeled an addict. The person who refuses to use it is called a person who refuses to fall victim to such substances because he uses reason as well as emotion in his day to day life. Atheists don't need labels or crutches. - 4:43:57 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene the solitary woman:CARL- One thing great about telling people one is atheist is you don't aquire a lot of groupies. I haven't even aquired one....hummm...wonder why??? - 5:03:53 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Jim:--->OK. I see how tolerant you are. Let Bill have his rant. - 7:10:27 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Jim:---> How about Charles Darwin's B-Day: 12 February, 1809 i - 7:14:07 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Andrew Simmons:How could anyone doubt the proof of evolution? I don't understand how anyone can worship a figure that has been proved false in MANY accounts. Please E-mail me with your opinions at: mikesimm@rmci.net - 7:31:58 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--What is a "deterministic entity?" Was it transcendent of the laws of nature? What was it comprised of? Where did this "god" come from, if you then assume that something that exists has to be the product of some external force, other than existence itself? - 12:18:52 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- A deterministic entity sounds like a creator to me. Allah, god, vishnu, deterministic entity, are all the same creation of the human mind. - 14:23:38 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JIM- Charles Darwin's evolution theory, which of course is acceptable in my books, is accepted by some of the xtian faiths so they would just xtianize in some way. If you truly want to have a holiday free of all religious contributions then we need to find something they can't stick their god into. - 14:28:46 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JIM- BTW, one also has to find something that the fern-sniffers can't supernaturalize! One idea, in honor of Sagan would be, a "Balonga Detection Day". - 14:37:53 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

MAN SCANNER:MAN SCANNER - Bill. So you like Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I’m having an old friend for dinner”.EXT. "SPLIT CITY MINI-STORAGE" - DUSK (RAINING) An orange neon sign, streaked with rain, identifies out loca- tion. It looms over a hurricane fence, topped with barbed wire. Inside, row on row of garage-sized, cinderblock sheds. MR. YOW (V.O.) Unit 31 was leased for ten years. Pre- paid in full... The contract is in the name of "Miss Hester Mofet." CUT TO: EXT. STORAGE UNIT NUMBER 31 - DUSK Clarice, kneeling before a closed, roll-up metal door, takes a FLASH photo of its sealed padlock. EVERETT YOW, a fat, 60ish Chinaman, holds an umbrella over them both. He looks unhappy. CLARICE So no one's been in here since - 1980? She opens the padlock, using a fat ring of tagged keys, then sets aside both keys and lock. MR. YOW Not to my knowledge. Privacy is a great concern to my customers. But, if you say this is an FBI matter... CLARICE I won't disturb anything, Mr. Yow, I promise. Be gone before you know it. Slinging her camera over a shoulder, she tugs at the handle, but the door won't budge. Another tug, harder - no good. Mr. Yow stoops to help, puffing hard, but it's firmly stuck. He sighs. MR. YOW We could return tomorrow, with my son. Or perhaps some workmen...? Clarice crosses to her Pinto, which faces the shed, reaches in to turn on her headlights. Mr. Yow blinks in the sudden bright- ness. Then she opens her truck, rummaging inside, and returns with a bumper jack, a flashlight, and a rubber floor mat. CLARICE Would you hold these, please? She gives him her flashlight and camera, drops the mat on the ground, then sets the bumper jack in place, under the center of the door. She pumps on the jack handle as the door SQUEALS slowly up, but it won't go higher than about 18 inches, despite all her exertions. She spreads out the rubber mat on the ce- ment, takes the flashlight from Mr. Yow, then lies on the mat. CUT TO: INT. THE STORAGE SHED - DUSK (VERY DARK) Clarice, backlit, peers under the door. She reaches in, makes a sweep with her flashlight. We catch shadowy outlines - boxes, then the flattened tires of a car... SOUND of rain on the tin roof, and other noises, too - small RUSTLINGS. Mr. Yow's chubby face appears down beside Clarice's. MR. YOW It smells like mice... I think I hear them, too - don't you? Clarice turns onto her back, starts squirming under the door. MR. YOW (contd.) You're going in there? CUT BACK TO: EXT. STORAGE UNIT NUMBER 31 - DUSK Clarice pulls her head back out again, reaching to take her cam- era from him. She hands him a card, trying to appear nonchalant. CLARICE Mr. Yow, if this door should fall down - ha ha! - or anything else - would you be kind enough to call this number? It's our Baltimore field office. They know you're here with me... Do you understand? MR. YOW Might I suggest tucking your pants into your socks? To prevent mouse intrusion. CLARICE (beat) Good idea. CUT BACK TO: INT. STORAGE SHED - DUSK (VERY DARK) Clarice squirms, on her back, through the narrow opening. As she squeezes all the way in, she snags one thigh on the metal edge of the door. She curses softly, shining her flashlight on her ripped khakis - there's a small streak of blood. MR. YOW (O.S.) Okay, Miss Starling? CLARICE Okay, Mr. Yow... She shines her light around. In its narrow beam, we see - CLARICE'S POV - UPWARD, SHIFTING - Spiderwebs, everywhere... high stacks of cardboard boxes... a few dusty pieces of furniture... the big car, oddly long and tall, covered with a tarp... Suddenly there's a scurrying of loud MUSICAL NOTES. Clarice turns, scared, her beam captur- ing... an old upright piano. MR. YOW (O.S.) You're playing a piano, Miss Starling? CLARICE That wasn't me. MR. YOW (O.S.) Oh. CLARICE crawls a bit further. There's hardly room to stand, but she finally manages to wriggle upright, clawing away cobwebs, next to the car. Holding her light under one arm, she takes several FLASH photos of the shed's interior, ending with the car. Then, slinging her camera over the shoulder, she folds back the tarp, resting it on the roof. The resulting clouds of dust make her cough. THE CAR - is an antique beauty, a 1931 Packard. It's very dusty, despite the tarp. Curtains close off the back passenger compartment, but there's a narrow gap in them. More mousy RUSTLINGS. CLARICE peers in through the gap, aiming her flashlight. HER POV - SHIFTING - as the thin flashlight beam picks out: the broad back seat... as open album of lacy, old-fashioned Valentines... a crumpled lap rug, on the floor... and then a pair of women's shiny, high- heeled pumps... Above these, the hem of a fancy satin evening gown - and a pair of pale, stockinged legs. CLARICE recoils, alarmed, then steadies herself. CLARICE Mr. Yow? Oh Mr. Yow...? It looks like somebody is sitting in this car. MR. YOW (O.S.) Oh my! Oh my... Maybe you better come out now, Miss Starling. CLARICE Not yet! - just wait for me. (under the breath) Maybe in about two seconds. She leans down with her camera, takes a FLASH through the gap, then tries the door handle. Locked. So is the front door. She looks around, aiming her light, and locates a tangle of coat- hangers, sticking out of a carton of bric-a-brac. She pulls out one of these, straightens it quickly, bends the tip into a hook. CLOSE ANGLE as she jams this tool inside the join at the top of the back passenger window, then fishes around till she can snag the in- side door latch, pulling up. A satisfying CLICK. CLARICE opens the door - it hits stacked boxes, and won't open far - then very cautiously leans inside, aiming her flashlight. HER POV - MOVING LIGHT BEAM - revealing more of the evening gown... a pair of hands, in white, elbow-length gloves - one rests on the lap, the other atop a large, beaded, drawstring evening bag... thick strands of costume pearls over the breasts... and finally the white neck stub of a female mannequin. No face or head. CLARICE sighs with relief. She takes a couple more FLASHES, then very carefully lifts out the Valentine album, holding it by the corners, and setting it atop the car. Then she eases herself inside, onto the back seat, as the springs SQUEAK loudly. ONE GLOVED HAND slides off the lap, brushing Clarice's thigh. CLARICE starts a bit, then pokes at the gloved arm, hard. She peels back a bit of glove, revealing the white, synthetic elbow. She smiles, shaking her head at her own jumpiness, as she reaches over the mannequin's lap to loosen the evening bag's drawstring. A SEVERED HUMAN HEAD stares back at her, as the beaded material slides away. CLARICE lurches back, gasping loudly, and several long, heart-pounding moments pass before she can make herself look more closely. THE HEAD bobs gently in a pool of alcohol, in a laboratory specimen jar. It is a man's head, but grotesquely transformed, by the addi- tion of heavy makeup, earrings, and a sodden wig, into a wo- man's face. Over the years the makeup has smeared badly, and the pupils have gone almost milky white. CLARICE - staring at this terrible thing, is pleased to find herself quickly regaining control. She murmurs to herself. CLARICE Well, Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. CUT TO: EXT. QUINN'S HOSPITAL - PARKING LOT - NIGHT (RAINING) - 16:12:59 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

GOLD WATCHER:Currently $328.25US. Watch this space. - 16:20:30 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

GOLD WATCHER::Currently $326.80US. Watch this space. It's God related. - 17:09:55 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

GOLD WATCHER......:Still at $326.80US. Things are about to happen. There are a whole load of morons about to stuff up. The American stock market is overvalued by 20 times. People approaching retirement age are about to buy boats and caravans etc. They are conducting this business from home for the first time. No longer are the experts able to be called experts as there are so many amature punters. God or no God, watch this space. The typical well-being Theist or whatever does not have the accumen to savvy what is about to happen...You will all have your own "self-convincing" excuses. The more people who think like you the better for the people who do not. Think about that. How about putting money into your pockets??? It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt... - 17:26:36 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

HAS THIS SUDDENLY BEOME THE IDIOT ZONE?:--->GOLD WATCHER..you know from experience? - 18:09:14 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette...Thanks. That's much more the sort of thing that I've been looking for. I wish American Atheist would get back to me so that I can offer some quasi-official organizational support to a set of dates. By the way, how do I pick a date to recognize Democritus? - 18:11:59 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

adam:To Marlene...I think you missed the earlier part of this conversation, so your're starting with only partial context. I'll recap briefly with apologies to anyone who is already familiar with the nature of my query....I am not advocating true "Atheist Holidays"; indeed the phrase is oxymoronic. I do, however, have a very practical quandary: My employer allows individuals to take religious holidays based on personal convictions. I have been unable to convince management that it should award a fixed # of personal days to be used as one wishes, religion-related or otherwise. The company, recognizes, however, that I can't be denied days merely because I'm an Atheist, and will allow me to take days of "equivalent" importance to me. Rather than select a convenient set of dates with no underlying justification (I could do this, or concoct fictitious justifications, such as family-related events), I wish to select dates that I can assert are important events for Atheists or in the struggle against oppression by the mythologically encumbered majority. Although none of these days would represent "holy days" to me as an Atheist, they would be justified by legitimate historical facts. Hence, I posed to the group a query for any such dates or online sources that might lead me in the right direction. I am trying to throw a bit of activism into the equation, see, even though it makes the simple task of picking half a dozen dates on the calendar infinately more cumbersome. It's mostly principle, a bit of neurosis, and a dash of wanting to be a pain-in-the-ass rabble rouser. - 18:27:49 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To the Group...Gipson Arnold of Atheist Express responded to my "holiday equivalent" inquiry with the following interesting & helpful note:: "There are not any widely recognized holidays which atheists observe. By the way, the word holiday actually derived from "holy-day."[Adam: Duh!] There is an attempt to get atheists to observe "Freethought Week" and "N-Day" (Non-belief Day). These occur sometime in October. You can ask the Freedom From Religion Foundation about these. Just follow their link on my link page: http://www.hti.net/www/atheism/athlink.html You also might consider your birthday. To atheists, it is life itself that is important. I hope this helps." - 19:13:46 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To the Ether...Any though of calling this site "God Is Man-Made"? - 20:45:14 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..I don't know how you might attach a date to Democritus, but possibly acknowledging it on the day Greece may have a national holiday? Their independence day is March 25. How about April 1 (since many fundamentalists are fools)? - 22:39:21 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette...Don't think so. You can't make the leap from one Greek Atheist to the independence of an entire nation, the overwhelming majority of whose residents purport to be members of the Greek Orthodox cult. As for 4/1, unless I proclaim to each and every coworker that I intend to poke fun at their beliefs, the likely interpretation would be that I'm taking that day off because I'm only kidding, or a joker (or fool) in general. And while that may be so, I still want the dates I select to represent conspicuous, affirmative assertions of Atheism and superiority over the mythology-cunching masses, rather than subtle or cleverly contrived attachments to dates that have meaning to other people for other reasons. Sure do appreciate your efforts, and don't think otherwise. So, what about that "N-DAY" mentioned above. That sounds just right to me. When I have a chance, I'll contact the FFRF and find out why they chose the date they chose. I'll bet it has symbolic significance. - 23:35:05 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..I would like to know why they chose the dates they did, so when you do find out, please let us know. (p.s. is your name really Adam?) - 23:38:54 on 22 Jul 97 GMT

To Joette...I have contacted the FFRF with my inquiry and also requested more information about the foundation, and will keep you apprised. I have no interest in assuming an alias, so of course, my name indeed is Adam. Is yours not Joette? Or were you about to point out the irony of an Atheist whose name is the first mentioned in Genesis? - 0:36:05 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..yes, I thought it ironic that your name was Adam, as this page has seen such aliases as Lucifer, God and others, so I thought maybe...and yes, my name is Joette, as who would ever think up a name like that? (there aren't many around) - 0:45:24 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette...Irony aside, the name "Adam" is adapted from the original Hebrew "Adama" (accent on the "ma"), meaning "from the earth." As you may know, Genesis recited that god drew up the ground itself to form Adam, hence, "from the earth." So, in a non-ironic sense, the name can be interpreted as "earthy" or "down to earth," quite fitting for an Atheist. On the other hand, I can say that, quite literally, my name is mud. But I digress from the central purpose of this page. Personal asides should be sent to aklein@ljextra.com so as not to pepper the page with extra-Atheist chatter. I think Joette is an interesting name, by the way, especially if pronounced in the French monosyllabic "Jhwet." That would rhyme with the French chouette, pronounced "SHWET," meaning great or wonderful, as in "C'est magnifique, c'est chouette, c'est formidable!!!". - 1:33:42 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, JOETTE, I'm back to my busy schedule once again so my post will be slow for awhile. I claim no label, go to--nor give money to--any church, and pray to no deity. Call me theists/pantheists if you want and it makes you feel better. It doesn't bother me to be labeled; I just think it's funny how people want "box-a-tise" me without my permission. I think people in general want to label others since these people feel comfortable having their own personal label. To me it's not necessary and somewhat of a weakness to even need a label. Why does everyone seem so surprised at things I have said recently? I have never hidden my beliefs here before, and was only proposing a "theoretical" model of something to consider. Any belief I have is just a belief, and not necessarily the "gospel according to Bill." So what if I look out to the universe or nature and marvel its magnificence. The question becomes "what produced who?" The universe fathered us and not we it. Therefore, as I reason, the universe is god. Big deal, why is this a threatening proposition? The "mind" model was only a comparison to a possible "universal mind", as it seems to me that the universe seems to display models within models. Within the Big bang event there seems to be similar, but smaller, examples of this event. The big bang cycle (e to E and then back E to e) spans billions of years. On the micro scale, we have quantum energy particles being created out of nothing, in a similar manor, and collapsing back in a billionth of a second. I was only trying to see if the human mind might be just a small scale of a much larger mind. But who knows for sure. I doubt that there is a conscious mind in the universe but rather a deterministic mind or entity (natural laws/primary intelligence), hence my use of these words. I am not elevating this deterministic universe to a God level, but just recognizing what fathered whom so we might have a little more respect for the environment, and a little less arrogance as to our position of importance here on this planet. - 2:34:34 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:TO ALL, Why would atheist need certain holidays when atheism is the non-belief in God/Gods? Would you not be forming a separate identity? Once people group together into coalitions, groups, and organizations then they are not very far away from being like any other religious organization. Before long your label might change from "atheists" to "Atheists" and members might then be required to give 10% to support this organization. - 2:35:13 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I, for one, do not find your pantheism threatening. I have merely been plugging away trying to get you to tell me if you believe in a god or not. Maybe I am slower than I like to think, but it was like an epithany for me last night when I finally figured it out. You have not been clear in your posts one way or the other, and we could all try to use scientific approaches to answer a question that if asked in a court of law, would be either a yes or a no. I am not trying to label you, nor do I expect you to attach a label to yourself. I just wanted to know. Remember awhile back when Ron very matter of factly asked me what my beliefs were? It took me a lot of inward searching but I like to think that I gave an honest, and concise answer, although I stated that I did not believe in anything, but rather that I believe that..." I have no intention of challenging your belief in the universe, and would never endeavour to preach to you otherwise, even if I don't believe it to be true. - 3:08:42 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene....See:ADAM- Bill's post is the very reason I am against holidays that will be labeled as atheistic. - 4:07:24 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--Everyone has a set of beliefs, whether they are identified or not. If one choses to give that entire set of beliefs a specific name or not is his choice--but not doing so does not mean he has no beliefs at all. Your arguments have been what I consider "panteistic"--but I'm not calling you a "pantheist" per se, as I am sure you have thoughts on many more areas of interest that are not connected directly to this position. In my case, philosophically I find Objectivism to be the strongest argument, but I would not call myself an Objectivist through and through. Now you are referring to a deterministic intelligence that is universal--yet not conscious. The term " intelligence" pre-supposes consciousness, so nothing can be intelligent, without being conscious. To be conscious, is to be able to make choices, and distinguish one existent from another, but without consciousness, but this faculty is the prerequisite of intelligence. It would be to say that a rock has intelligence. Not only are you postulating an intelligence without consciousness, but a primary intelligence, which is again some twisted logical attempt to posit as the "prime mover" intelligence--but to make it unconscious--because on the cosmological scale, consciousness cannot exist BEFORE nothing exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. All actions pre-suppose the existence of entities--and all emergences of new entities pre-suppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality pre-supposes the existence of SOMETHING THAT ACTS AS A CAUSE. To demand a cause for all existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Causality pre-supposes existence, existence does not pre-suppose causality. Existence-not "God" or even "god"--is the First cause. I have always interpreted Hawkings work as an attempt to search for, and identify one singular law of physics--but not to give it any consciopus or intelligent qualities. Bill, I see no need for you, or anyone else to take this leap giving universal intelligence any validity, as it is not only an unecessary postulation--it is wholly unsupported and as I can see it,in the end is self-contradicting. - 12:56:57 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I think it was Bill and a few others that claim a rock does have intelligence or something to that effect. You are doing just great in your arguments! ADAM- I'm not an Atheist but an atheist. ALL- What do you think of the execution of McViegh(sp) being telecast? I really fail to understand the xtian position on this????? Most fundie xtians are in favor of the death penalty but are against euthanasia. - 16:13:35 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:ALL- Who needs a swiss bank when you've got the vatican. Has anyone heard anything about this? - 18:18:41 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE---Oooo!--now this( Swiss bank/Vatican ) sounds interesting---please fill us in!....About the fundie's position on who dies/who does not die--to support capital punishment seems rather inconsistent to a "pro-life" position ( abortion, euthanasia) doesn't it? Doesn't "Judge not, lest ye be judged" count across the board, especially in matters of life and death? I wonder if their attitude toward McVeigh would be different if he came across like some kind of a "super-fundie"? I suspect, and I'll bet dollars to dough-nuts, the general concensus amonst the fundies is: "Oh, he couldn't POSSIBLY be a christian!" I wonder if he is. - 19:10:05 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I'm not quite sure on the particulars but my partner had heard on a newscast that the vactican has been found to have in their possession nazi money. It seems that during the war, they hid the money taken from the slain jews, in the vatican. It's money gotten from war crimes. I wondered if anyone had any more info on this. Of course the fundie's would claim he's , (all together now) "not really a christian!!", but from what I understand he claims to be one. Then again so does the pastors who have affairs with the choir girls, (and boys", the nice xtian family next door that raises foster children, not only for the bucks but to shove their nonsense down the poor kid's throat. etc. etc. The question should be "What really IS a christian?" - 19:36:02 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..after the war, the Vatican was a huge participant in the hiding of war criminals, and helping them escape to South America. It was an underground railway that is just now coming back to haunt them (and not by the holy ghost). They received many of the spoils of war in payment for helping these nazi's establish new identities and lives in other countries. As more war criminals are brought to justice, more information will come forward about the exact magnitude of their involvement. I watched a documentary on it, and it is horrendous, and they are not trying to defend their actions. I guess they never really thought this would come out. As far as the execution of Timothy McVeigh being broadcast, I am sick of the bloodlust you see everyday. If he is to die, at least let him do it privately. I know some will say that he did let the people he killed do it privately, so he should not be allowed to either. Who is instigating the hue and cry for a public execution? - 19:46:48 on 23 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I have been very consistent over the past few months in my positions in reference to "god." You and others here act like this most recent "god" post of mine is some kind of a new revelation. Let me refresh your memory a little with just one of my past posts to you dated 30 May 97 **JOETTE, If you read all my posts you would know that I claim no label (religion or philosophy), but I do have beliefs of the unknowns in life, supported by some scientific evidence. I identify with a lot of labels, but some more closely than others (ie humanists, Buddhists, pantheists, etc). I don't want to limit myself with a label, and I want to keep open the freedom to change my beliefs. I think it's important to have some beliefs or conjecture, based on some evidence, in order to head one in the right direction in order to make future discoveries. Everybody has a natural human curiosity--at least intelligent beings do--in trying to figure it all out. Chances are we won't succeed in this endeavor, but we should at least try. Stephen Hawking--the foremost physicist of our time--theorizes that the universe may not have come from a point source (eliminating the need of an external deity God), but rather from a bell-curve-like beginning. In other words, the universe created and organized itself. Science also has known for decades about the exact constants assigned to energy and matter in the universe. This coupled with the exact explosive force of the Big bang, and the four known forces in the universe, has caused the universe to organize and sequentially create us. There seems to be evidence of a universe-by-design, unless of course you believe in an infinite numbers of universes (multiple universe theory), and ours just happened to come out just right. The alternative universe, which one would normally expect from an explosion, would be a universe of total chaos. But when one applies Occam's razor, or the principle of parsimony, this multiple universe theory seems too far fetched when compared to the simpler theory of a self creating universe and subsequent organization (Hawking's). When I talked to Mandar I used the term god with a small "g" to denote a non-deity god concept (ie primary or cosmic intelligence or natural laws). This god term I used was to represent the catalysts that caused the universe to be created and sequentially organize itself. Intangibles like human 'mind' do exists along with other intangibles in the universe like 'gravity'. True we can measure the EFFECTS of gravity, but we don't know what gravity IS, anymore than we can quantify and qualify "Mind". We can see the effects of human 'mind' (software), but where is Joette in your brain (hardware)? Gravity is an 'intangible', and is ubiquitous in the empty space of the universe. Without referencing to matter (ie inner space), just what is gravity.... It's there? Like gravity, I believe this primary intelligence (nature's laws..whatever) exists within all things in the form of primary intelligence. If primary intelligence were the catalyst then I would be inclined to see the entire universe, both tangible and intangible, as liken to the body of god. What else would god be if not that cosmic intelligence which created the universe, exists within all things in the universe, and created our life form and subsequent "consciousness"? Can our human conscious intelligence replicate or create nature? What created whom and should we allow our Ego's, and subsequent belief systems, to be God? King Henry thought so! **And this is not the only post, but reflects my belief quite well. - 1:05:51 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, If everyone has a set of beliefs, as you say in your post, could you please tell me just what your beliefs are? Everything you have posted here is axiomatic or based on philosophical axiomatic principles. The truth is your philosophy is nothing more than a BS of secondary intelligence and not much different than any other ego based religion. It even posses fundie overtones, from time to time, just like some religions. But, like many religionists, your axiomatic knowledge and interpretation of reality blind you. I can't recall a single conjecture, supposition, or belief that you have ever posted. Do you think that you have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe? If not, how will you ever discover anything new without some conjectures or suppositions? Please tell this board just ONE belief you have that is yet to be proved? Peter, the universe seems to me to operate in a deterministic manor through the process of evolution and natural selection and I would call this "primary intelligence". I have also referred to this as "cosmic intelligence" or "natures laws". It's all the same. Maybe our definition of "intelligence" needs to be changed to better reflect these "laws of nature". These all refer to natural laws. If you want to know what I think is supernatural then it would have to be the "singularities" that I have posted about previously. This state of existence is a reality that is considered to be the ultimate unknowable. All natural laws break down when stars collapse into a black hole and conversely all natural laws, along with space/time, are created micro seconds after the big bang. Singularities, worn holes, etc could exist throughout the fabric of the entire universe and one might argue that the supernatural exist throughout the entire universe. Some catalysis or mind (possibly conscious) may exist within the realm of this supernatural singularity existence and may have consciously "willed" the universe to be. But I don't know for sure so I try to keep that as only a belief or conjecture. Maybe we will have the answer when mathematically everything is tied together. We will just have to wait to see. But the scientists will never prove anything unless they first suspect something. So I am wondering now, just what do you suspect Peter? - 1:06:45 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..you seem to be taken aback by the questions I have been posing, and Bill, no matter what you think, your posts have not been clear on very much. I have read all of your pseudo-scientific jargon, and not being an expert on quantum or metaphysics, I was only trying as an ignorant lay person to get to what your beliefs are. I could easily pepper my posts with $5 words and you would never know what my belief systems are unless someone told me to get off my high horse and tell them (which is exactly what Ron did quite some time ago). You and Peter may have a battle brewing, but to the best of my knowledge, I have never disputed your findings, and I have never disagreed with your beliefs because I just couldn't figure them out. I have read Hawkings, Einstein and the rest of the boys, but never was I as confused by them as I have been by you. Therefore, with all due respect, I thought that my post last night had sort of ended the discussion about your belief system, and that any other discussion would be of a different nature. - 1:35:11 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene with the same old bi-yearly post:BILL- From what I can glean from the post above and all the other posts you have made over the year and a half, your beliefs are based on scientific theory on the physics of our universe. Scientific theories on the makeup and physical laws of our universe are just that. No scientist out there will claim these theories as fact until there is conclusive evidence that the theory is no longer just theory but fact. The key word here is "seems". How many times have you used the word "seems" in your explanations? The universe seems organized to us, humanity. Matter seems to appear out of nowhere. And the "seems" go on and on. For gawd sake they are just "seems" not fact. - 1:53:33 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--I don't really expect anything in particular, they may be able to reduce the the physical laws of the universe--and be able to firmly establish how the present state of the universe was formed, and how old it is. However, I have found that a number of your particular speculations have ranged from unfounded, to implausible, to self-contradicting.( Refer to my previous post for an example of this) When applying certain basic philosophic fundamentals to some of your speculations, I feel I have clearly demonstrated that you are barking up some wrong trees, and if you say you are open to changing your beliefs, why are you not doing this in the face of you clearly embracing beliefs( again refer to my last post )that are self-contadicting? Now, that to me, would reflect the actions of fundie-ism. As far as me basing my beliefs on axiomatic principles, I feel I can freely do so, simply because all attempts at proving anything rest on their acceptance--and I accept them without apology. And what are my beliefs? I belive everything I have said on this page--without reservation. - 2:04:25 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:Redux for anyone interested...Regarding "holiday equivalents" for Atheists looking for equity of vacation days with their coworkers who are burdened with mythological baggage: Ellen Johnson, American Atheists President, informs me that many Atheist do indeed observe the soltices and equinoxes, [a suggestion posited by respondents here on the Man is an M & M page], because (1) their observance pre-dates the rise of organized religion, and (2) with symbolism and pun, they point out that mankind owes its existence to the sun, and not the son. In addition, because these events are astronomical phenomena, they are pan-cultural. I'm still waiting to hear from the FFRF regarding the freethought week and "N-Day" (N for nonbelievers) that I heard the Foundation advocates. - 2:38:36 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (whining):-->ADAM...does this mean that if I am to be a true atheist, I have to give up all those great christmas gifts? - 2:53:36 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Grant:ALL-- An interesting press release from Vatican Information Service: VATICAN CITY, JUL 22, 1997 (VIS) - In response to questions by journalists regarding a news report that, during World War II, the Vatican accepted about 200 million Swiss francs from Croatia, Holy See Press Office Director Joaquin Navarro-Valls today made the following declaration: "This news has no basis in reality. The supposed information - lacking any documentation - says it is based solely on 'an authoritative Italian source' which, if it did exist, remains unidentified and its authoritativeness is more than dubious." - 4:50:24 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette...Yes, unless you declare your interest in christmas gifts as an affirmative embrace of the secular, material farce that the purportedly holy birthday of Jesus has become. I think that's swell. Do you think Santa Claus glues a plastic Jesus to Rudolph's head? Does he have a bumper sticker that says "Problem with my sleigh driving? Dial 1-800-NO-GIFTS." - 6:00:53 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Adam: To Marlene, Bill, and everyone who still hasn't caught on to why I asked Atheist organizations for "holiday equivalents": I AM NOT LOOKING FOR ATHEIST HOLIDAYS, GOT IT? I merely am seeking the same number of days off with pay as my religiously encumbered coworkers without having to sue my employer. Once again (please get it straight), rather than pick days at random, I want to request holiday equivalents not because they are holy, but I did want them to represent affirmative assertions of my Atheism and contempt for the mythological fantasies that control most people's belief structures. The point is to say that my nonbelief is at least as valid as the ridiculous fantasies that make my coworkers think that good Friday and Yom Kippur are special, and not to establish "official" Atheist holidays. I hope I will not have to clutter the Man = M & M board with this same explanation again. - 6:10:01 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, MARLENE, One and one equals two is a theory. Nothing is absolutely certain, as there is no concrete objective reality short of an observer. Science and theories are all that we have to base anything on and they are, no matter how widely they are accepted, subject to review or change. The question I have is what are we, as rational humans, going to base our realities on? Will it be philosophy, religion, or science? Irregardless of a person's claim of non-belief, if he/she is to function rationally, he/she has to base that reality on something. The changing world of science is the most rational bases I see, unlike immutable and doctrinaire belief systems. I am one who admits that I don't have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe, but think it's important to explore possibilities, with reasonable scientific bases, in order to possibly discover new things. I am not trying to snow anyone with pseudo-scientific jargon, but rather compare people's belief systems with science. If I use the word "seems" a lot it's because much of what we know is only by observation. It's through observation that sparks one's interest and conjecture and subsequent pursuit of mathematical explanation in order to concretize these observations. And Marlene you "seem" to be a real person; but hey, you could be a figment of my virtual reality! - 13:19:33 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Thanks for answering my questions about your beliefs. And you believe everything you have said on this board, so does this mean that everything you have said here is "flawless" or is it just your "beliefs" subject to errors? Also you have indicated that you believe in science and that "singularities" make up a part of existence (e) in concert with the matter/energy reality Existence (E), right? So do you agree that a "singularity" is "supernatural?" - 13:20:27 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, Concerning your atheists holidays, if your employer is like mine, good luck! You're going to need it. I know how you might feel. - 13:21:34 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

I will speak to my member of parliament, who happens to be my best friend, to see if I can be steered in the direction of getting confidential information from another country. - 14:01:09 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Bill--I believe in something if I consider it to be supported with evidence. And for something to constitute as proof of a conclusion, there must be evidence, but when you insist that existence does NOT exist, you are denying the very foundation which is required to prove something. I am beginning to think that you are unable to, or chose to ignore this--as it is not consistent with your arguments--and it nullifiies them. You freely make all these claims, with no regard to, and even showing contempt for philosophical implications--that at their roots, contradict your postulations. I believe that there is existence--and it exists, despite your convoluted attempts at overturning that position. Yes Bill, existence exists--and only existence exists, whether it be "e" or "E" Or even bigger or smaller "E"--as opposed to non-existent, whether it be observed, not observed. I have already given you my opinion on the concept of "supernatural" Bill , at this point, I really have no idea at all as to what you are trying to prove/disprove other than it is ultimately impossible to prove anything completely, combined with this fear that you may be considered "wrong" once in awhile. - 14:07:34 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

-->HAMISH..could you be anymore childish? - 15:06:54 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- I understand-da! My only dispute is the capital "A" in atheist. I suppose my only suggestion is to make a contract with your employer that you would like your holidays (which will be taken the same time as your gullible co-workers) to be called "Infidel Intelligence Interchange". You just may set a precedent! - 19:50:38 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

--->HAMISH..actually, I had lunch at my M.P.'s office today. Guess what, she thinks you should MYOB! - 20:29:09 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

and I really don't think Nanette will be very pleased with your immature behaviour! I had a couple of nice chats with her when you were in Europe... - 20:32:21 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

which she instigated - 20:33:42 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:CARL...where are you these days? - 20:47:17 on 24 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, It's been a long day so I will make this short. Bought the wife one of them good used cars and she loved it even though she was too busy to even look at it before I bought it. Kinda made me a little uneasy doing it that way. I will try to be clearer with my future post. I respect the fact that you at least can admit that you don't have all the answers. If I am ever ambiguous in the future, please tell me as I know you will. - 0:56:37 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:PETER, With respect for Joette, you, and myself, I am going to try not to be ponderous, circuitous, or circumlocutory (ie using $5 words). I will try to be clear, rational, and direct with "yes" or "no" or "please define what you mean," exercising mutual respect and reciprocity. Now my question was, "And you believe everything you have said on this board, so does this mean that everything you have said here is "flawless" or is it just your "beliefs" subject to errors?" Can you please give me a direct simple answer to this question? Again, "Do you agree that a "singularity" is "supernatural?" "Yes" or "No" Peter. And don't concern yourself with my fears Peter, as I will handle them as I so choose. - 0:58:34 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, Where have you been lately? I still want to see CONTACT. Maybe next week. - 1:00:57 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL..everything I, or anyone else may say, is subject to errors. No, singularity is not supernatural, because there is no such thing as supernatural. - 1:08:28 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Marlene...First, I don't need a contract with my employer. As I have already posted over and over and over, I HAVE BEEN OK'D TO TAKE EQUIVALENT DAYS MONTHS AGO!!! I came online with my inquiry looking only to fill in the dates, and I've been dragged into all these picayune philosophical hot air sessions. Second, I not only eschew the small "a", but from now on I will favor ALL CAPS ATHEIST, because with regard to belief structures and only to that extent, an ATHEIS is per se superior in reasoning to a god-fearing loser. Yes CAPLINESS IS FAR FROM gODLINESS! You hear that, plastic Jesus? Come on, right now, strike me dead with a lighnin' bolt or, better yet, infest me with testicular cancer! Can't do it? Wussy littlt son-of-a-god? I'll kick your ass, and you can't do nothin' about it, ¹cause I'm a freakin' ATHEIST! - 1:52:24 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Adam ATHEIST:To Bill...I don't know about your employer, but if you read my posts, you'll know that I JUST HAVE TO PICK THE @#$%^ DATES, is all! Now, I have no bone to pick with your extra-terrestrial existential exlax philosophy, as to many of my fellow M&M Man pagers, but as a language maven and a professional editor, I say this: If you type IRREGARDLESS as many as a single time more in a posting, everything you say henceforth has as much credibility as a televangelist. I will reserve judgment on you generally, if you cease and desist from such butchery forthwith. Sorry, everyone, but I've been at work for (this is no joke) 32.5 hours, and I need a shower, and some sleep and two six packs of hard cider, so I'm a taddy on edge. Most of my stuff is tongue in cheek, tho,' so GET OFF MY *&#$$@&^% BACK, OK? - 2:02:24 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Justism:Beleive in yourself that is what I say. - 2:26:44 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->ADAM...why don't you just stick 365 slips of paper in a baseball cap, and the first 6 or 7 days you pick will be your @@**&&&!!! days off, OKAY???? Sorry if some of us have trifled with your obvious superior intellect, but at least I know what days are important to me (my days are in October too, but they are centered around a little game with a bat and a ball). Oy vey, the minor things we worry about! - 2:30:15 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (to wit):ADAM..the aforementioned was also tongue in cheek, IRREGARDLESS of what you may think!!!!! - 2:32:23 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, I am not a publisher; my wife is. And irregardless of what you say, this word is in the dictionary. True it's considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements "ir" and the "less", but as my dictionary says, "sometime speakers use this word from a desire to add emphasis. This word first appeared in the early 20th century and was popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930's." One of the reasons I post here is to improve my writing skills so feel free to correct my errors. I don't claim to be purfict. I don't know what you mean by stopping the butchery? Why do you have to work so long in publishing? - 2:55:42 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Thanks for admitting that you, as we all are, subject to errors. I was seriously beginning to wonder. Singularities are beyond all natural laws and you have indicated that you acknowledge the existence of singularities. Is this still true? - 2:56:47 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL..I do not know what you are referring to by "singularity", but I do not accept the concept of supernatural. - 3:21:58 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene loves opportunity!:ADAM- I think Joette's #$%^*& idea is a good one, so you should #$%^*& try it! BTW, I'm not into philosophy either so don't crank up on me about that one! BTW the god-feared aren't the only nut cases, how about the new-agers. Some sect in India has started up the old child sacrifice thing again, to a goddess this time. How about the U-FO nuts, waiting for the mothership to drop by for some catus juice or the spirit worshippers bailing their relatives out of his latest drive by so the rotten kid can sit in a sweat-hut for an hour and claim he's rehabilitated. God-fearing sheep are only a percentage of the flock. Now that isn't philosophy, it's bitching and I bet I'm better at it than you are! - 3:41:30 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Since you are now not beating around the proverbial bush when answering a simple question, I'll ask you, what is a singularity? - 3:49:22 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- And you can't state as fact that "matter seems to appear out of nowhere" because your using the word "seems" again. - 3:52:42 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: Rob asked me to post this so he won't feel so isolated. " JOETTE: Hit 'em where it hurts ;o Miss you too... MARLENE: Passed my exams! :P Greets from Beelze-Bob" - 5:10:18 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: MARLENE-- I take that P thing to be an emoticon? Maybe lower case, :p - 5:12:47 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->JUSTISM...should you beleive (sic) in yourself if your name is Ted Bundy? - 11:49:19 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Say "hi" to Rob! And ask him what the "p" stands for???? - 14:44:31 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

. - 15:47:47 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

I will speak to my member of parliament, who happens to be my best friend, to see if I can be steered in the direction of getting confidential information from another country. - 15:50:42 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:TO THE IDIOT WITH NO NAME- What in hell does your post have to do with this discussion???? You sound like a lunatic! - 16:08:46 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..obviously he can't read either. Rather GRIM WOODn't you say? - 16:53:36 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

I will speak to my member of parliament, who happens to be my best friend, to see if I can be steered in the direction of getting confidential information from another country. - 14:01:09 on 24 Jul 97 GMT ------------------------->HAMISH..could you be anymore childish? - 15:06:54 on 24 Jul 97 GMT-------------------------------------------Childishness has re-kickstarted issue. ---------------------------->HAMISH..actually, I had lunch at my M.P.'s office today. Guess what, she thinks you should MYOB! - 20:29:09 on 24 Jul 97 GMT------------------------------------------------I should mind my own business upon your supplied information or the unbiased version. I should mind my own business on the issue of getting an innocent man out of jail. I should mind my own business because I live on the far side of a line drawn on a map a century plus ago? These were your pathetic reasonings/excuses. ----------------------------------...............and I really don't think Nanette will be very pleased with your immature behaviour! -----------------------------------------------------GUILT INDUCTION. This is designed to make me feel guilty. ---------------------------------------------Had a couple of nice chats with (Nanette) when you were in Europe...-------------------------------------------------So what. Is the end-product designed to get her husband out of jail? Who gives a flying monkeys as to where I was? What has my location got to do with the issue? Your last communication to me was that you were going to send information direct to Joette. How really useful to send information along two sides of a triangle instead of one. Petty protest measure. Little Miss “In Charge”. ------------------------------------------------------Be advised that the end-product will by-pass your bitchyness and plebeian endeavours. Events will roll much better without your input. Kindly do nothing else.---------------------------------------------------....which she instigated - 20:33:42 on 24 Jul 97 GMT-------------------------------------So what. She is a desperate woman. Watch. You will now play on this. You will now plant all sorts of hideousness..--------------------------------In the mean time - Kitchener - Female - MP. I will target this woman if you dare to jeopardise Burks’ predicament.---------------------------Peter. I will travel to Canada, just to tell you to your face that you are a “weak suck”............................. - 17:31:29 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..please we need your legal expertise!!! Any precedents set about harrassment on the internet? I am referring to the above threats directed at Peter, and myself by Mr. Hamish Milne. Although he lives in Australia, his venom spreads around the world. What do we do to shut this creep up once and for all????? - 20:01:49 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- The guy is obviously lost his marbles, not only does a personal argument not belong on the discussion but the argument has nothing to do with the discussion itself. I'm confident that everyone here will agree. His posts will just be ignored as they well should be. - 23:51:42 on 25 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: -- This board does draw some strange posts. Anybody hear anything else about the Nazi money-Vatican thing? I can't find anything on it. I'm beginning to think it was a bogus story. - 0:04:29 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, MARLENE, Energy does appear out of empty space on quantum levels. Forgive my use of the word "seems." I've posted before about "singularities" and most recently on July 19 when I posted, "The mathematician Roger Penrose originally introduced the concept of singularities in 1965. Stephen Hawking dressed up his theorem and in 1970 they published a joint paper which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity." Singularities are based on the laws of General Relativity and according to Hawkings this reality would, "be a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. All the known laws of science would break down at this point." Chapter 8 BHOT. In other words there is no space or time or natural laws and thus these singularities become "supernatural." Supernatural as defined by my dictionary is, "pertaining to or being above or beyond what is natural or explainable by natural law." So do you both believe in the reality of "singularities" (big bang, black holes, etc), and their "supernatural" states? - 0:14:21 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette :-->BILL...in the new book "The Whole Shebang" by Timothy Ferris states "The big bang theory holds that the universe began in a SINGULARITY - a state of infinite curvature of spacetime. In a singularity, all places and times are the same. Hence the big bang did not take place in a preexisting space; all space was embroiled in the big bang. Nor did the big bang happen in a remote location: It happened right where you are, and everywhere else. All places that exist today were originally in the same place. Nor was it an explosion, as we usually think of explosions, since things did not fly out into space but remained where they were, while the surrounding space expanded. Some cosmologists use the term "big bang" to refer to the initial singularity, and "early universe" for the "hot", high-energy physics fest that ensued. Others use the term "big bang" more broadly to refer as well to the hot universe as it evolved through the first seconds and minutes of time. Since physicists understand thermonuclear reactions well, they can with some confidence work out what happened in the early universe. Their calculations predict, among other things, that photons released as the primordial material thinned and cleared should be detectable today as the cosmic microwave background. The prediction has been confirmed observationally." So Bill, if certain aspects of singularities can be OBSERVED, how can they be supernatural? - 1:23:08 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette...Regarding the days, I really want them to reflect my ATHEISM, and not randomness. Put THAT in your cup and pick it. - 1:34:13 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:BILL..I have put my science cap on this week. Later in the book (I recommend it highly), Ferris goes on to say "The fact that we cannot peer into a black hole means that we cannot observe the singularity-the state of infinite spacetime curvature. To do so would be to behold a gravitational state that relativity cannot define, which to relativist would be like contemplating a never-never land where one plus one equals three. With a relieved sense of the proprieties being preserved, the relativists say that the singularity is "clothed". They invoke the "cosmic censorship" hypothesis propounded by the English mathematician Roger Penrose, which asserts that there are no "naked" singularities. But some think that if an irregularly shaped object were to implode to black hole status, parts of if might protrude in such a way as to present the outer world with the galling spectacle of a naked singularity. Stephen Hawking, who collaborated with Penrose on research projects in relativity, has speculated UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS an evaporated balck hole might leave a naked singularity behind. Nobody knows for certain whether this can happen, or what you would see if it did and you looked at it." I am giving you this quote to show that Hawking and Penrose are not the end all of singularities, and that their findings were inconclusive. - 1:37:59 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..no sleep yet? MARLENE...so, do you know what a singularity is now? - 1:40:02 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Now there's a word "inconclusive"! The science cap is just buzzin'! More on the "supernatural" later. - 1:44:01 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Yes! thank you! - 1:45:51 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Bill...I'm an newspaper editor, so you have to do whatever is necessary to get the paper out. The circumstance of this week were exceptional‹I rarely work more than 50 hours, and sometimes less than 40, a week. My employer awards comp time, so I can take off a day for every 8 hours over 40 I go. Right now, I'm over 60 for the week. Now to the brass tacks: "The label 'Non-Standard' does only approximat justice to the status of 'irregardless.' More precisely, it is a form that many people mistakenly believe to be a correct usage in formal style but that in fact has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or nonstandard varieties. (The word was likely coined from a blend of irrespective and regardless). Perhaps this is why critics have sometimes insisted that there is 'no such word' as irregardless, a charge they would not level at a bona fide non-standard word such as 'ain't,' which has an ancient genealogy." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3d. Ed. By the way, I do not claim that it isn't a word, but merely that anyone who uses it, unless jesting à la Joean Joette, is a dolt extraordinaire. You want to get me going? Just pronounce "nuclear" NOOK€yoo€ler, or say "Chomping at the Bit," and I rip you a new butthole. - 1:49:11 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..and never, ever say "gender" when referring to your sex! - 1:54:16 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Joette when wette...Yep. Slept ¹till 2pm New Yawk time after a shower and those 12 bottles of cider on the wall, 12 bottles of cider...gettin all geared up for the Mets against the POD people (Hey, Padre, tu madre!). Speaking of padres, has everyone read about the $120 million verdict handed down against the Roman catholic cult in Dallas for ignoring and then covering up repeated reports of homosexual child molestation by a former diocean priest? (I know, I know, you'll say "A priest molesting children? No way! That never happens!" Actually, there may be more molestation by clergy than burgers (no, not Burghers) by MacDonaldo's. - 2:04:34 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Jo, Jo, Joette of the Jungle...Watch out for that tree! Holy timewarp, Batman, our messages keep crossing so as not to make a coherent conversation! Better get the Bat-dialogue-sequentializer out of the Norton Utilities belt...Yes, people have sex; WORDS have gender (except for really ugly words like "Isthmus" that can't get any gender). No offense to all the homely chipheads out there in Man is an M&M land. - 2:10:15 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..ah yes, a news story which caught my eye tonight (can you imagine what it would feel like to have your eye caught?). The church still denies any sort of negligence or cover up, so why are they not planning to appeal the decision. I guess for the Catholic Church, $120,000,000 is just a drop in the bucket, and I would be chomping at the bit to get my hands on that much money (am I using enough bad language for you?) GRANT..re you inquiry about the Vatican and Swiss bank accounts, I also read in the paper tonight that there is an inquiry going on in New Yawk about it. Maybe Adam knows more about this? - 2:13:12 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Marlene-ette...I know that looneys come in all stripes. I am one myself. It is the religious peons, however, who are an overwhelming majority of our species, and who control a huge amount of property and influence with their cults. The Haley-Bopp crowd doesn't bother me; they're not in power or scribbling graffiti all over my goddamned money. This is why us ATHEIST should appreciate one another; we are an extraordinarily rare breed. "Breed, breed in the air; don't be abraid to care" (Pink Floyd with a head cold). - 2:15:42 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To: How Jo can you go-ette...CHAMPING!!!! CHAMPING!!!! CHAMPING!!!! THERE IS NO FARGING THING AS CHOMPING AT THE BIT. IT'S CHAMPING, GODDAMN YOU, CHAMPING!!! Speaking of former champing, the Blow Jays SUCK! - 2:20:11 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->A DAM funny guy..Oh yeah??? Well, they just won again! That's 4 in a row!!!!! I am just CHAMPING at the bit (being of the equus variety) to get to DETROIT next weekend! Now enough of this jocularity...I do not agree with your observation that atheists are a rare breed. It is my opinion that there are billions and billions (in the venacular of Carl Sagan) out here who are just to timid to admit it, lest they get struck with the testecular cancer you begged for the other night. - 2:28:43 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:The Godless Gang...Hate to Pun & Run, but I'm outta here (my office, that is). I'll be incommunicado until 28 July, so stuff posted for me might get deleted before I see it. By the way, have you ever been to Communicado? It's wovely this time of year. Hey, Jo Mama-ette, email my office if anyone posts anything worth seeing. Yeah, I'll hold my breadth. - 2:35:04 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Adam:To Whom It May Bore: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - 10:16:45 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

. - 13:35:48 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: MARLENE-- All that new religious junk bothers me. It bothers me that when people become dissatisfied with the old antiquated religions they just find new ones. The "new physics" stuff especially bothers me as it attracts well educated and intelligent people, like astronomers and physicists. The new-age stuff bothers me because it's so, um, well... stupid. - 15:38:45 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL..did anyone watch the "Prophesies" series on The Learning Channel this week? Last night's show was about armegeddon prophesies, and if the followers of Our Lady of Fatima are correct (which I believe they are not), we'll be off to never-never land anyday now. Apparently there is a lady in New York City that has the message straight from "Mary" when the "castigation" will come, and she will tell the rest of the world eight days before it happens. She says she can feel the day coming very soon. - 16:14:56 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

I will speak to my member of parliament, who happens to be my best friend, to see if I can be steered in the direction of getting confidential information from another country...............Marlene:TO THE IDIOT WITH NO NAME- What in hell does your post have to do with this discussion???? You sound like a lunatic!.............$10 says you were primed. Look at all the posts you have ignored...............Joette:-->MARLENE..obviously he can't read either. Rather GRIM WOODn't you say? ...............Fall in the gutter laughter wit. Quite superb..........Marlene:GRIMWOOD- Where's the stats? Unfortunately I have had the ahummm...pleasure.. of owning and turning the key on a German make much more expensive than a BMW. It gave me migranes! I decided to go back to "made in America"..- 14:22:28 on 21 Jan 97 GMT................Oh, yes, and what piece of machinery was that Marlene? .............. Kitchener - Female - MP. I will target this woman if you dare to jeopardise Burks’ predicament.---------------------------Peter. I will travel to Canada, just to tell you to your face that you are a “weak suck”............................. - 17:31:29 on 25 Jul 97 GMT..........................Joette:-->ADAM..please we need your legal expertise!!!..........ADAM’S international law expertise sends shivers. Threatening Peter with calling him a ‘weak suck’ to his face is front page. ADAM’S fees will rocket to five figures a day............. Although he lives in Australia, his venom spreads around the world...............You see, Nanette is fummoxed by the Canadian/American boarder. “Target” means giving this MP all the salient facts. ...................QUESTION..What do we do to shut this creep up once and for all?????...ANSWER...Keep Joette well clear................ Marlene:JOETTE- The guy is obviously lost his marbles, not only does a personal argument not belong on the discussion but the argument has nothing to do with the discussion itself. I'm confident that everyone here will agree. His posts will just be ignored as they well should be. - 23:51:42 on 25 Jul 97 GMT........... Great. Anything to avoid the BLAH BLAH treatment and make sure that all activities are in the interest of JEFFREY MILO BURKS. None of the protesting morons of course claim to know what the issue is about. Only to castigate. None of you bastards will spend 5 minutes of your time to the issue at hand. Watch Nanette whip you all into achievement. - 16:16:09 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->GRANT..I hope that your message to Marlene has nothing to do with the messages I posted to Bill. Timothy Ferris is a pure physicist and his writings have nothing to do with religion, only science. I posted those passages in order to show that the two subjects (science and religion) do not have anything to do with each other. - 16:18:49 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- No, I liked your messages to Bill. Just because we don't understand singularities and such doesn't mean we have to invoke gods. That's how we got the gods we have now, in my opinion. Explanation for things we don't understand. - 16:34:01 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:GRANT and JOETTE- I agree that just because we are physics wizzes that we need to accept god-physics. I think, Grant, that at one time the god's were created to explain the not yet understood but as time went on they've have become a tool of power for those who love power. - 22:54:34 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:Excuse', that should have read "not physics wizzes". - 22:56:01 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:HAMISH MILNE- What in %&$* have I done to you!?! If you want to spew your crap to me use my e-mail address and don't litter this sight with your scribble! - 22:58:21 on 26 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene anti-mind maddness:One of our local radio stations have been advertising for the Promise Keepers at least once every two hours. I'm tempted to call in and see if they have been paying full price for their dogma. Scary that these fundie groups are gaining momentum in Canada. One of the fundie issues is the death penalty. Just recently in Canada a man who spent 23 years in jail for the rape and murder of woman in Saskatoon was cleared of all guilt when a DNA result cleared him. A test from another known rapist was tested and this man was arrested yesterday. Science and the lack of a death penalty in Canada saved a man's life. The death penalty and the refusal to use a scientific tool may have taken an innocent man's life in the USA this week. A real lack of thought goes into "the death penalty" when evidence such as DNA is not used. Was this man's death the decision of people with compassion as well as intelligence? I think not. - 0:30:03 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I just picked up a book by Ayn Rand today called _The Romantic Manifesto_. Let you know what I think about it when I'm finished. - 0:33:03 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..pretty unbelievable how the Saskatchewan police have handled the David Milgaard case since the DNA results came back. They still will not acknowledge the fact that he is innocent. There is a repeat of the two hour documentary about the case on CBC tonight if you haven't seen it before. I watched it originally, and it makes our wonderful government (Kim Campbell) look pretty poor. - 15:20:29 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:GRANT..I was up most the night, and in the wee hours, A & E had a two hour program about the Swiss banks laundering Nazi gold, which they had plundered from the occupied countries. They began the war with between 70-100 million in gold (which by today's standards is worth 10 times more) and at the time of their fall, they had between 800-1 billion in gold. It is determined that half came from the occupied countries, and the other half from property owned by Jewish people who had got their money into Switzerland before the war, and by the melting down of gold teeth, and jewellry from Holocaust victims. There is a hearing going on in New York City right now to determine what is going to be done with the money. There have been claimants who have come forward, and a fund may likely be set up that would be shared by all families of holocaust victims that come forward (mind you, only $68 million has been suggested for this fund, so where is the rest of the money going?) - 15:26:48 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- Oh rats. I can't believe I missed that program, but it looks like it will be broadcast again on Fri. Aug 1st. This story seems important to me. I wonder why it gets so little coverage in the press. I've yet to find anything else on the Vatican thing. Where did that story go? - 18:00:50 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->GRANT..there may be one way to follow that story. Do you ever watch Primetime Live with Sam Donaldson? About 18 months ago, they did a program on how to track war criminals who seemingly disappeared. There was one person in particular, (his name is Preisak or something), and after following a trail which involved the Vatican, they were able to find him quite easily living in Argentina. Just this past week, he was tried and convicted, and was sentenced to 15 years (although he only has to serve 5). So, my point is, if you can find any information about that story (I know it was in my local paper), you may be able to find out more information about the Vatican and their underground railroad. - 18:24:12 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..this whole money laundering thing really puts a new slant on why Switzerland was never occupied by the Germans. It would seem that they were really in kahoots with the Germans, and not being the nice, neutral country we have been told they were. In fact, the Red Cross is being implicated as sending hundreds of thousands of Jews to their death just so they wouldn't rock the boat with the Nazi's and their plundered gold. Remind me not to eat any Swiss chocolate or wear my Swiss watch! - 18:28:48 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- And I better not catch you yoodeling either!!!! I have to sign up for A&E. I am a sat. dish owner and I see they've went and scrambled the learning channel too. How about France? Can't tell me that they were just sitting on the fence either??? - 18:42:13 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..France was occupied, and so Switzerland was completely surrounded by Germans...boy, were we naive! (or at least the rest of the world was; I wasn't around then) - 19:24:39 on 27 Jul 97 GMT

TRUTH:Care to really know the truth? If you honestly do, check out www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ or www.webcom.com/kwm/creation.html - 0:57:27 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->TRUTH..we use our real names on this page, as we have nothing to hide. As far as the information contained on the websites you have provided, I find it to be mostly misinterpretations of real science for the purpose of scaring and confusing people. What makes this information the TRUTH? - 1:57:55 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (where is everybody?):-->MARLENE, CHRIS and other Carl Sagan fans...have any of you read "Billions and Billions" yet? The final chapter is called "In the Valley of the Shadow" and I think you can guess what is about. It is so sad :( - 2:00:41 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I've been picking berries for my mom. She coming for a visit tomorrow. She lives two hours away but has only been here once in ten years. Typical farmer, can't leave the farm. No, I haven't bought it yet but plan to. Is the chapter sad or is the book sad? - 2:32:23 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..does baking pies come next. It's just the chapter that is sad...well, not sad, but he is very optimistic, and of course, we know how it turns out. - 2:51:22 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene watching for skud missles:JOETTE- NO! Not pies! My pastry is known leather-like texture. GRANT- Maybe I could add taps to that pastry and do my best Shirley Temple impression on the Dome of the Rock. What's that???? Rushdie's been moved down to second on the hit list and me No.1!!! - 4:17:36 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: JOETTE-- Thanks for the input. I found a book review on the New York Times webpage for "Nazi Gold" By Tom Bower. Harper Collins Publishers. It looks promising. I'm also very interested in the underground railroad. Lots of nasty implications all around. MARLENE-- That's quite a picture- Pie in hand. Innocent look on face. Tapity tapity, automatic weapons fire in background. Ricocheting. - 5:35:50 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, AND OTHERS, I'm finally able to review old post and respond to your post to me. Maybe I can talk more the next few days. How have things been in Canada lately? I think you have been holding out on me. In some of your older post you have characterize yourself as an "ignorant lay person", in relation to science, and this belies your true understanding of this field. Thanks for responding and the information on your book, "The Whole Shebang." I will keep it in mind. Another book on this subject, which I haven't read, is by Paul Davies and titled, "The Edge of Infinity." Sooo many books to read and so little time. There are many physicists, as you say, that have worthy studies in the area of "singularities", but Penrose and Hawkings are the leaders in this field and I tend to believe them over some of the rest. I really don't disagree with your post pertaining to the big bang event and space/time. It's all elastic like a balloon being blown up with the initial singularity being one of infinite density, energy, and temperature. Of course we as rational human observers cannot comprehend many things that make up this existence that embodies us. What would be observed as "empty space" to you and I is actually an elastic medium to a physicists and within the purest vacuum of space there would be a ferment of activity crowded with evanescent structures (gravitons, energy particles, etc). Because of this fact, philosophies and religions break down in trying to explain existence. And it's very hard for me to take any objectivist's arguments serious until they first respond to my past post comparing the supposed axiomatic principle "existence exist" as compared to "science." If this basic supposed axiom cannot be rationalized through science, then to me all the rest of this philosophy becomes questionable and, any arguments directed to me in the future using objectivism, I could only consider to be an attempt to evangelize and proselytize. I am tolerant of those who want to use this belief system for themselves, and in discussions with others, as long as it's not directed at me personally. Getting back to your previous post, unlike most of classical physics, "Black Holes" were first theorized by mathematics and then later observed. You ask, "if certain aspects of singularities can be OBSERVED, how can they be supernatural?" Of course, in the case of a black hole, the "singularity" exists within and the observed particles don't come from within the black hole but from the 'empty' space just outside the black hole's event horizon (boundary of a black hole and a point at which light can't escape). This positive energy of outgoing radiation would be balanced by a flow of negative energy particles into the black hole. This flow of negative energy into a black hole subsequently reduces it's mass (and event horizon) and it evaporates slowly. The lower the mass, the higher the temperature becomes and this process is the reverse of the Big Bang model. Upon total evaporation, this black hole might then explode again or disappear all together. Like the Big Bang model, scientists don't know for sure if it will end or cycle. So to answer your question this very beginning, or ending, is a "supernatural" state-of-existence, because all natural laws (space and time included) were either created or will be eliminated. The beginning of time and the end of time become one and the same. And because of the disappearance of natural laws this supernatural, "never-never land as you suggest", is a factor that is tied to our existence. Eventually they will come up with the Supergravity theory (theory-of-everything) that will explain "how" everything works but not "why." Because of the "why", I think it is only human nature to explore and try to answer this question. My conjectures here are only possibilities for this board to consider. Atheists, unlike agnostics, are suppose to be open to new possibilities provided there is sufficient evidence to support those possibilities. I am not trying to maneuver everyone around into a corner in which to spring the GOD word on them and subsequently form a coalition and a new belief system with ME at the head. If it's not supported by evidence, then I do not want to believe it either. I am not concerned with proselytizing others here but rather getting feedback from others so I can form my own conclusions. I am only concerned with my own personal self-interests and objectives. This includes becoming a more effective and grammatically correct writer (like my wife, ha!). Another self-interest I have here is to explore the intangible unknowns in life and consider other possible answers, besides the present day religions and philosophies. I personally, at this present moment, do not need any other "belief system" to replace my current methodology of rationalizing existence. I am presently very secure and happy just being who I currently am, and I don't plan to change my reasoning methods just because I might have a "Paradigm Shift"(modified view of existence). Everything I believe now, or in the future, will always be subject to modifications, changes, and fine-tuning. So please don't view me as the "New Physics" version of an egomaniac religionist fundie here, OK? Speaking of Naked Singularities, have you been to any parties lately? Oh, what were you in reference to when you said, "BILL..and never, ever say "gender" when referring to your sex!"? Sorry this is so long; I just have to catch up! - 15:01:43 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Greetings, took a few days of respite and to write of things, when i saw- tv report, what those catholics did, apologising publically etc. and at the close of the report it was added that those utilised by the clergy chose to stay away from that event to protest that act; the last image i saw of the report was some white haired soft speaking elderly man referring to jc's message of forgiveness. something here, just did not add up, maybe it was the lack of morality? So now they don't want to cough up the cash for their clergyman's pleasures, well, their resistance is in line with pope leo X who was recorded as saying "what profit has not that fable of christ brought us." The catholics with their action clearly they all would have us waive our fundamental function of mental process to distinguish certain characteristics, such as their immorality. - 15:08:09 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, My comment about being labeled "egomaniac religionist fundie", was not directed at you in particular, but the atheist that post here in general. Bye! - 15:16:11 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Welcome back! Just maybe the lack of morality! - 15:43:35 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--Put a "sock in it". - 16:14:41 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: in the regards 'of' your belief system, that notion speaks to me-as a somewhat experienced adult, in way that i can make certain intellectual determinations that serve well enough for my sense of sanity. That however, as an inclusion may not very clearly address the issue of young inexperienced minds, i.e., children. How or what do you see as a way to get them with their inexperienced minds from what mom and dad believe to something like, in terms of logic and reason, to black holes and big bangs? On this query, over the past few days we were with my youngest son's baseball team in a tournament. One of the rules of the tournament forbid noise from the opposing team when the pitcher was in either a set or wind position. The objective was 'not to distract the young pitcher.' To me that was excessive conservatism at work, such action deprives that young mind of experience, the experience of sorting through good bad important unimportant positive negative inputs. What is left, only what mom and dad believe, i as a parent sure as anything that is prefer that my offspring exceed my whatever in anything. So, while your 'BS' concept speaks well enough to me and i see your vista as an apriori, what about and dare we allow conceptualisers like catholics to direct young minds, or ought we let the young minds form w/experience, constructive in and with nature? - 17:07:24 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I can't; Their all dirty! - 17:19:04 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..re your inquiry about my naked dualities: no parties, but while at a concert on Saturday night I did pull my top off, because hey, we can do that now! Such freedom! On a more serious note, I am not an ojectivist, but I do agree with Peter's axioms, and to argue them, from my perspective, is folly. I exist, you exist, Marlene exists, Peter exists, Carl (we missed you!) exists, Chris exists, Adam exists, etc. etc. I know your theory on atoms and molecular structure and so on, but to me, that sits as well with me as does the information found on the websites that "Truth" supplied last night. It's like making something out of nothing. - 17:55:03 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Bill-...the effect will be the same...even try using two or "three". - 17:56:26 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:J & M: i see that the theists are sparse and as insane as ever with their contributions, and as for nude females, the only thing i have against them is to be annoyed that they aren't up against me, i see too that you northeners wrestle with state execution. Here, the issue now are the bicyclists but in a few weeks San Quentin will be following court orders to stop the existence of someone now in its protection. - 19:00:03 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

RON...!!!:Hey guys, was gone for a week, on the road for my employer. Did I miss much? - 20:47:34 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene ponders....:JOETTE- Something out of nothing? Is that like, say, mmmm....the sound of one hand clapping, the sweet aroma of flowering ferns..... RON- You missed Joette at that concert! - 20:58:40 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..still in Communicado? How is the weather? - 21:45:46 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:BILL..I think you made a literary faux pas earlier. "intangible unknown" is redundant, n'est pas? - 21:49:50 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:ADAM, I did go back and read your post to me. If you miss a post here just click on "show old" and "Add". If this is not far enough back, then change the "show=30" to a higher number (representing number of posts). Being an editor sounds interesting and thanks for the information on the possible coining of "irregardless." And I know how to pronounce "nuclear" BTW as I once was in the military and worked with nuclear power. My wife has been published many times. The most recent quote of hers was published this past April in U.S. News and World Report. Also she donated a book, which she co-authored (mostly wrote herself), to the State of Florida and they published it a couple of years ago and passed it out to all the school districts as a model for the state. It got her a lot of consulting jobs and speaking engagements. She is now about to publish that same book, with the help of a publishing company on the West Coast of course, complete with CD-ROM (I think) this next spring. It's a technical manual on Full Services and Integrated Schools. Of course, being the benevolent person that she is, I'm sure that at least half of the proceeds, not that there will be that much, will go back to the local school district. She just visited her first cousin in Oregon who is working on her sixth book. She writes fantasy novels such as, "The Glass Dragon, The Perfect Princess, and The Loneliest Magician" just to mention a few. Her book name is Irene Radford, but this is not her real name. Have you ever heard of her or these books? We have a box of autographed copies that I'm not sure what we will do with. Maybe I will sell them on the street corner. - 22:42:48 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, My goodness the Catholic Church is really in the news lately? Kids are venerable wherever they go now a day. My kids are grown with one recently graduating from college and the other a junior in college. Both are very stable, independent, and well adjusted. With my kids I just gave them a lot of acceptance generally as to the kind of person that they were. Both of my kids were totally different (I had serious physical/mental problems with one) and I never compared one to the other. I think it's important to tell them that they are OK just the way they are. I didn't try to indoctrinate them with my beliefs, and I allowed them to experiment with other ideas and even go to church. My wife tended to want this when they were young, but no one in my family currently goes to church on a regular basis. I did however question their logic and thought processes, based on my life experiences, but I allow them to make the decisions (provide they were old enough and it would not cause major harm). And when they failed, I let them suffer the consequences. I don't believe in bailing-out a kid unless he/she indicates sincerely the errors of their ways. The hardest thing is when they are teenagers and, knowing how stupid their thinking can be, to just warn them and then back off and allow them to suffer. I think that there is a point in their teenage years where a parent has to treat them like an adult and warn them once and let them go. Controlling, manipulating, and forcing seems to have adverse effects when dealing with teenagers. Denying them a particular experience would only cause them to seek out those experiences later in life, so we were very tolerant of their choices but allowed them to suffer (tough love). With young children, of course, it's important to give them a plethora of love and try to enjoy thing together. Building a solid relationship early on will make the teenage years a whole lot easier, I think. I tried to do things outdoors in nature and instill respect for the innocence in life. I showed them how similar humans are to animal world, and how important it is not to take advantage of the environment just because we can. Both of my kids tend to think more as I do, rather than my wife, when it comes to the intangibles in nature. - 22:43:33 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Thanks for pointing out my "intangible unknown" error. In reference to you other post, I fully respect and accept you just the way you are ('shirt' or 'no-shirt', as well as your, 'beliefs' or 'no-beliefs'). I too believe Marlene exists, Peter exists, Carl exists, etc. Each person has to interpret the raw data out there, so that it makes sense to them, and they can subsequently live a productive and happy life. There is no concrete objective reality short of an observer, and I would hope that you would offer me the same respect for my beliefs. The only thing I have expected here is 'mutual respect' and 'reciprocity'. No one should feel pa-ron-atized (eaten alive) by the group, not that I do of course, for posting a varying perspective here, wouldn't you agree? Believe it or not, in this conservative county that I live in, we have two nudist camps. We also had a nude beach, on a military reservation, not far from here but it is currently shutdown to nudists. Maybe I need to move to Canada or just farther south in Florida! - 22:46:22 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:BILL--- "Raw data" this. - 23:31:35 on 28 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:RON, You're missing it. The best UFO video's ever filmed, as we speak, on the FOX network. - 1:01:58 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene ...loves those programs:Wasn't it FOX that broadcasted _Alien Autopsy_. Credible, very credible! The next thing will be (snicker), a real live alien-human cross baby. Let's even guess what it will look like! - 5:46:45 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:BILL: Except for your incline to some god or godlike thing your posts make you appear to be familiar with writings of many reasoning type people. MARLENE, i get a kick outta those programs too, last eve i sat through a presentation about mexican videos of these crafts. The day before i flipped through another program from mexico about miracles of the virgin mary, both programs supposedly had hundreds and thousands of witnesses to these events and one of the characters said that neither scientists nor government nor the academia would prove the saucer things real, but like the religious thing the common man would prove them real. Great stuff... - 16:06:25 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Marlene--James Randi has always insisted--and rightfully so--that the news media, and "magazine" shows are the most notorious for presenting this pseudo-scientific nonsense, as factual, and as "science". They know it sells, the public laps up this pahooey, and the general knowledge of REAL science goes by the wayside ( As often lamented by Carl Sagan in the "Demon Haunted World") I'd like to see a show like the one on Fox last night with a panel from CSICOP analysing every inch of the footage. I'd watch that and so would you--but unfortunately, it would blow too many fantasy bubbles around the world. Once in a while PBS will air a show along these lines, but one has to REALLY watch out for them! - 16:09:35 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:PETER, MARLENE, CARL, I live in a "Hot Spot" for UFO's here in Florida (Near Gulf Breeze). In fact NUFON (?) moved their headquarters here a few years ago after a rash of sightings. Some of the film footage I saw last night was some I had already seen. The film clip shot at Redfish point is less than a mile from my sister's house on the bay. I personally have not seen any UFO's and I believe that there must be more conclusive hard evidence presented before I can say definitely that I believe. From a statistical and mathematical point of view I would have to say that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a higher intelligence existing somewhere in the universe. However, they too would have to obey the Laws of Nature and the enormous distances between stars and galaxies preclude an easy visit based on our current level of scientific knowledge. These sightings seem to be more frequent, more credible, and better documented as time goes on and I'm not so sure that RON won't have the last laugh. - 17:53:04 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Carl:BILL,et.al: I don't doubt life and intelligence exist elsewhere, if and when such things appear i cannot begin to imagine. As for "believing-in" these things that kind of reference implys theism-like credulity. Whatever these other things might be is equivalent to our youthful presexually active days, when we just talked about "doing it", then when it happened, it has been so ever since. That is about what i anticipate finally knowing other lifeforms will be like, they too always were just so. RON's primary concern which i think i share are the doofus types who shroud their intentions and plans with and for idiocy. Again, remember Jonestown? That is how simple minds can be, done to. - 18:39:17 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:CARL---I love the presexual analogy. BILL--You ARE joking, aren't you? If not, you have certainly outdone yourself--by big, bounding,lurching country miles--with mounds and mounds of gooey jam on it. This is gratuitous, shameless lunchtime in the "n"th degree; that at this point you-- and only you, could surpass. And you probably will. - 18:58:58 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:CARL, You're right; my pre-sexual thoughts were very similar to UFO's (Unidentified Female Organs). This sagacious observation must be, no less in part, attributed to your attorney wisdom, ha! Seriously though, I am reassured to see that you believe that a higher intelligence statistically should exist somewhere in the universe. And I agree that there are a plethora of hoaxes around that play on many weak minds. I'm not saying that UFO's are a current true reality, but rather that I wouldn't be surprised if some hard evidence showed up in the next few years confirming such anomalies. I agree with logic and rationality, but leave to door open for statistical possibilities. Speaking of pre-sexual thoughts… Peter, Peter, PETER, What am I going to do with you? See my comments above. Were it not for me, whom would you debate with here? I supposed we are destined to be joined in an infinite loop of vexation, but I love you anyway. ha! Seriously though, do you believe in the statistical and mathematical probability of a higher intelligent life form existing somewhere in the universe? - 20:50:37 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..why do pre-sexual thoughts have you thinking about Peter? (or were you thinking about your own peter?) Anyway, my humble opinion on life somewhere else in the universe is: we would be pretty smug if we thought we were the only life form in the universe. Now my comments on the program some of you may have watched on FOX (tabloid TV) last night is: why are UFO's only spotted by "ordinary" people, when there are scientists with the proper equipment devoted to seeing such things that never see them? Do these alleged aliens hide from scientists because they are so intelligent, and know that the persons spotting them are powerless to do anything about it, except to report the sighting and be scoffed at? - 22:59:04 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Adam ATHEIST:To the GANG...I'm back from Communicado. It was a tad hot, but as they say, it's a DRY heat. Then again, as a good-old-boy partner at a major Dallas law firm once retorted to the 187th "dry heat in Texas" comment that month: "Son, my oven uses dry heat, too, but it'll cook up a chicken RIGHT quick!" To ANYONE still interested in the 'Holiday Equivalent' can 'o worms...Prez of American Atheists says she's unaware of any "N-DAY" 'created' by the Freedom From Religion Foundation [sly use of 'created', n'est-ce pas?] for observance by nonbelievers. It makes me suspicious that various ATHEIST groups may well be rivals with different levels of militancy, etc. Meanwhile, FFRF responded to e-mail with an apologetic "we're so busy" and a promise to respond soon. I also got a mailing today from FFRF; I'll let everyone know if there's anything interesting. To BILL & JOETTE (who drives a Corvette)...I don't think that "intangible unknown" in necessarily redundant, as the two words mean different things; something could be unknown yet tangible and, to be sue, and to hit Joette where she lives, one's intangibles (goodwill; intellectual property; etc.) should be known, especially around tax time. And the next person to insist that I exist risks a known, tangible "sock" in the jawbone. Exist, my butt! - 23:12:29 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:--BILL--I look at the UFO sightings/abductions/alien issue like this: Discussing the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is on the same level as discussing the economic and psychological repercussions of being a flood victim, and discussing the validity of UFO sightings( and concluding they are of an extra-terrestial origin )is on the same level as contemplating the validity of the Great Flood as described in the book of Genesis. - 23:26:31 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Adam ATHEIST:To ALL...Again, it's page #1 of the NY Times with a story of dissention in the flock of the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.arising from the lavish life style and sexual escapades of its prophet-like president, Henry J. Lyons. By the way, I'm out again until 0730. - 23:36:33 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..since you don't exist, we are to do WHAT with that information? - 23:47:51 on 29 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, This sentence I used in my previous post, "Speaking of pre-sexual thoughts… Peter, Peter, PETER, What am I going to do with you?" has a double meaning, just like UFO had a double meaning and was suppose to clue you in. The first meaning is directed to Peter of Man-Made (self-explanatory). The second meaning is of my adolescent pre-sexual thoughts that first gave rise to an erection hence, "Peter, Peter, PETER" and subsequent wonderment of "What am I going to do with you (i.e. erection)? Of course this is not much related to discussions of atheism verses religion, but to a male it's somewhat "divine", ha! And speaking of "worms" and "wormholes", I saw CONTACT last night after dropping my wife off at the airport. I thought it was great Hollywood entertainment and enjoyed the movie very much. As usual Jodie Foster-Ellie--played and excellent roll (as an atheists of course). This movie was dedicated to Carl Sagan. Societies "atheism vs. religion" paradigms were apparent threw out the movie. You ask, "why are UFO's only spotted by "ordinary" people?" The FOX program also showed clips of Armstrong seeing apparent UFO's when landing on the moon. Pilots have spotted these things for years, as well as, Shuttle crew. I don't think all sighting are related to ordinary people, but rather the military tends to shut people up on things such as this. PETER, Like when we were all very young and having pre-sexual thoughts, it's important to make some suppositions (based on statistical probability of course) and then go with our natural predilections. Hey, it might even be rewarding! - 11:05:04 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I did not see that program on FOX as I had something better to watch (baseball of course), so I ask, "Was Neil Armstrong being interviewed?". This is the first connection to UFO's and Neil Armstrong I have ever heard. Of course, when you are on the moon, you might see a lot more space junk than you see on earth, but did HE actually say he saw UFO's? (also, I did not need an explanation about the peter thing, but I am glad it works) - 11:34:04 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:ADAM, I think I left out the "and" between "intangible" and "unknown." Did you get my post to you? To access older posts, just click on "show old" and then "ADD". If this is not far enough back then change the "show=30" (30=number of post), in the location at the top, to a higher number. - 11:38:09 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, I figured you might just be "holding out on me again" with the "peter" thing. You women are all alike, ha! Concerning UFO's, Neil Armstrong was not interviewed but there was actual film footage from inside the capsule as it was landing on the moon. The military explained it away as possible light reflections from inside the capsule. I'll be coming up that way next week (Pittsburgh, Pa) on company business. I leave on Monday and will get back Thursday only to fly out again Friday to Charleston, SC for a Friday through Sunday weekend get-a-way with my wife, so I hope the "peter" thing will continue to work a while longer. She is one of their state consultants and keynote speakers and they take pretty good care of her. In turn we get to indulge on the weekend, compliments of their expense payments and her personal stipend. - 11:56:08 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Grant: BILL-- What's next, the Bermuda triangle? Ancient astronauts? Your lunch menu? - 12:50:01 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (who is at work but doesn't feel like doing much today):-->TO ALL..new netiquette rule...never ask Bill "What's up?" - 13:57:25 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I think Ron believes in an alien creation rather than a modern day alien invasion. GRANT- Maybe astral travel? JOETTE- Yes, Bill is right, now Armstrong is claiming this crap then again, we really don't know what happens to the brain as a result of space travel. - 16:24:41 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Peter---:.....one small step for man.......one giant step for mankind....and that durn thing landed rat over yonder in that d'rection, Bubba. - 16:54:15 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (still doing nothing productive at work):--->PETER (Mr. Wit and Humour Man)..that should be "one giant LEAP for mankind" - 17:04:44 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (doing her durndest to get fired today):-->TO ALL..why does everything that has to do with aliens, space exploration etc always read like an X-Files episode? - 17:06:43 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- Good point! Up until the fourties, very little was mentioned about so called aliens. In fact when I was a kid, aliens, were "little green men from Mars". There wasn't even a mention of greys or big slanted eyes. BUT, I love the science fiction shows like the X-Files and Dark Skies. I think it's rather humorous when they link major events to aliens. It also takes quite an imagination to create sci-fi. To me, it's fun. I also like the alien autopsy type of shows. The problem is, like the famous _War of the Worlds_, one has to know when to draw the line between fact and fiction. - 17:36:36 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:Joette--Yep, yer right, noticed it after I pressed the ever-so-unsympathetically incontrivertible( are you impressed, Adam?) "Add" button.. Is that in "leaping" and "mao-ing?" Speaking of Americans, after us Canucks, no other people can do such amazing things with the English language. They are capale of ( and I have heard this first-hand )converting a two-syllable word into a five syllable( "Jesus" into Jow-ah-eee-zuss-ahh ) and a three syllable word into a ONE syllable word ( "America" into "Maaark" ). But we say bad stuff too like " J'ever see Bill make a mistake?" - 17:57:38 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE, JOETTE--And j'ever notice its always Billy-Joe Bob from Jackson, Miss or other Southern US location who is "fishin' somewhere's" and then ALWAYS in the "middla' night" "gits shined up by that durn thing, and poked me 'round an 'stuff, and gave me something so's I wouldn't tell nobody nothin after". Hmmmm. Now, where are Bill and Ron from? HMMMMMM?? A connection here perhaps?.....Nahhhhhh!!!! - 18:10:56 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:PETER- This "Merrican" talk reminds me of last summer. One of the contributor's "reltives" posted here. We was havin lots o fun with him. Americans also have their fun with how we Cannuks say things too. - 18:23:09 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Peter:MARLENE--Oh we got ours too, like "Butjull" As in: " You can try and shoot Mike Harris, BUTJULL never get away with it" But in the end, since most Maaarkn's ( I'll give them one more syllable ) don't really know a hell of a lot about anything associated with Canada--I'm not too concerned! Also, I miscounted the syllables in "A-mer-i-ca" a couple posts before, erroneously saying there were three syllables in the word, instedda four. I didn't want Joette doing a Watusi all over my nuts again, like she did with "leap" instedda "step" - 19:08:55 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE and PETER...one thing we say differently from our "neighboUrs" down south was brought to mind when Adam ATHEIST was looking for equivalent days...when we get time off we are on HOLIDAYS, while Americans are on VACATION. - 22:54:39 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Bill...:MARLENE, What a beautiful day today. You're right about Ron. He believes that through genetic manipulation the aliens advanced our race, and thus an explanation of the missing gap in the evolutionary history of humans. Also in the bible it talks about Nephilins (sp?) as being the Gods from above whom I think were actually aliens. Oh well, time for another beer…burp! GRANT, I need something to debate here in order to stimulate conversation and thus help my effective writing skills. I don't take anything too serious, especially myself. Give me a break, please! I am curious though, do you believe that a higher intelligence exist somewhere in the universe based on statistical probability? JOETTE, What's "up" in your life besides work? PETER, You all up thair jest caain't utter-stand us-in's, I rekcand. - 22:56:49 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Joette (pretending to be a school marm):-->BILL..that should be "Seriously" (you said you wanted to improve your writing skills....)(and when I take my clothes off, there is always something up!) - 23:00:42 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Adam ATHEIST:Reference to several back posts, so you have to read this just to make sure...Peter: how can I be impressed with a misspelling of incontrOvertible? To Joette (pink slip yet?): try to use "vacation," given the ignorant, insipid root of the word "Holiday." To all: The Freedom From Religion Foundation's newsletter is pretty good: the group leads legal efforts to keep church and state separate, and the paper has a huge roundup of one of my favorites: nefarious, religious-based crimes and police-blotter complaints from all over the country! (Downside: humdrum profiles, such as the President of the Vermont chapter working on his car ZZZZZZZZZ). To all the Moonies: Is everyone aware of the enormous grammatical error Armstrong made in his "giant leap" comment (the egregious flub was corrected on the NASA plaque commemmorating the landing. Plastic Jesus award goes to the first correct respondent. - 23:59:48 on 30 Jul 97 GMT

Adam AYTH:To Group: Does anyone have any theories as to why the clergy seems to be responsible for a disproportionate percentage of child molestations? I assume that no one buys the church's denial of this any longer. - 0:37:23 on 31 Jul 97 GMT

Adam FARGIN' AYTH:Re: the earlier discussion of various vulgates...Doze uv us from BROOKLYN ah laffin achyooz wicher stoopit wattayacallem local dye-lex. Wy cancha jus learn da freakin' King's (burro) freakin' Inglish, fer cryssakes? (No uffenze intended to youze Aytysts out daih). - 0:44:42 on 31 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:--->ADAMANANT..re your inquiry regarding clergy being child molestors: (ohmigosh, I am so intimidated that I may make a spelling or grammatical error whilst addressing you) me thinks that some young men enter the priesthood to cover up their homosexuality, and try to suppress it by abstinence. Unfortunately for the attractive little choirboys nature finally wins over godliness, and Father Mike (or whomever) can no longer contain his animalistic tendancies. Why am I even tallking to you? You don't exist. - 0:57:24 on 31 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->that last post should have been directed ADAMANT..(lo siento mi amigo)..could the Neil Armstrong be this: if it is one small step for man, does that not mean that he is referring to all men...should it not be "one small step for A man"? - 1:00:45 on 31 Jul 97 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL OTHERS EXCEPT ADMAN..isn't the Freedom from Religion Foundation the organization that our friend Carrie Drake was part of originally? - 1:04:49 on 31 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Is that a example of Ebonics? You mean rape of those boys don't you? Power is what it's about, an insane need for power. Because they are men of "god (man's creation of the ultimate power figure)" they can do what they want without guilt, without remorse, without conscience, BECAUSE they are the incarnation of what god is. Now, isn't god a "nice" guy? - 1:13:57 on 31 Jul 97 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Do you mean THE, as Carl puts it CDrake? Bet she quit because she couldn't become the cu