Melissa:CARL: "Also, please don't think I condemn you or think you're a bad parent for choosing to spank your children. From both your and Marlene's descriptions, it sounds like you let your children know you still respected and loved them and didn't chase after them and hit in anger, as my parents did." I wrote this at the end of the most recent extremely long post. I'm beginning to wonder if you READ my posts or SKIM them. My posts are long because I like to provide several examples to get my point across, or to address possible counterpoints before they are counterpointed. I apologize if I ramble a bit - apparently it doesn't have its intended effect. I never meant to imply that you "spankertypes" stand by "fully armed to beat [your] offspring". I tried very hard to be diplomatic and not come off as your typical social-worker-out-to-castrate-all-spankers. I know there is a difference between spanking and beating a child - I just don't think either is right. I do not ascribe to the philosophy that spanking turns children into other-people-beaters. I, like CRISTY, just find it a bit hypocritical to tell your kids it's not nice to hit others, then turn around and spank them (even if it doesn't inflict a lot of pain and is done with some explanation). And you have yet to explain WHY you think spanking is OK. I've explained over and over why I DON'T think it's OK - have offered scientific theories to support that POV. But you have yet to answer my original question: On what do you base your position? Life experience? Scientific evidence? Just a feeling? Please don't take my views personally. I don't think you're a bad guy. You seem to be a decent guy with definite interest in your childrens' well being, who thinks spanking is OK, maybe even necessary during a certain stage in life. I don't think you need to be locked up because of this. I just disagree with you. - 1:29:10 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: I'm sorry, I thought you had said you spanked a couple because they needed it and didn't spank the others because they didn't (maybe that was CARL). Anyway, I apologize for the blunder. - 1:30:37 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: P.S. -- I DID fight back that last time. My step-father (usually the one who lost control) accused me of being selfish (I think because I wanted to go somewhere that night or something). I thought the remark was irrational given I had just given up my brand new truck so I could go buy everyone Christmas presents, so I opened all HIS presents and threw them at him, yelling and stuff too. He just sat there kind of smirking (maybe my memory exaggerates) while my mom came at me hands flying and chased me into another room and wrestled me to the ground. I nearly smacked her, but decided to just fend her off and get the hell out of there (I wasn't going to sink to her level). My mom wasn't evil, didn't deserve to be locked up, she just lost it (I wasn't the easiest kid to live with). Anyway, I think that's when I decided I'd NEVER EVER IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM hit my kids. - 1:41:40 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, I don't think I made any judgements about you waiting around to smack your kids anytime they walked by. I said some people behave that way, and some do it in a controlled mature manner. Nevertheless, I can't see justifying hitting someone smaller and weaker than you. It's illegal to hit people BIGGER than you, but OK if they have no defenses and no vote. I still think it's just a cop-out for not thinking up a more humane way to teach. Interesting view that you have, how it's OK to cause physical pain to small, innocent children but NOT OK to put the death penalty to serial murderers. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...very odd. - 2:09:41 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Yes, it must have been Carl, I only have two kids. It's great that you take part of the responsibility in the scuffs you've had with your parents! People aren't perfect, parents aren't perfect and kids aren't perfect. It's too bad your mom lost it but I'm sure the majority of the time they were good parents. I remember my dad losing it when I was a teen too and me (because I was adopted) telling him he wasn't really my dad. It took weeks before we spoke to each other. A year later he died. I sure hope he forgave me for acting like such a ungrateful idiot. He was a good dad. - 2:10:08 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Spanking doesn't have to be terribly painful. One isn't allowed to take another person by the hand or arm and remove them from a situation either but would you suggest parents not do this? On the death penalty issue, killing someone, snuffing them out forever isn't on the same level as a swat on the bum or forcefully removing them from a situation. - 2:16:14 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:I'm not surprized that more of the board members aren't participating on this issue. I remember when I was totally against spanking too. Not because I was spanked but because I also thought that hitting wasn't a good thing for the child to learn. Also I didn't want my children to be afraid or feel pain that I caused. At the time, I likely could have never brought myself to spank them, it wasn't in me. So I was very outspoken about not spanking and I wasn't very popular with friends who did. This is a touchy issue! If one advocates spanking they are looking like a bad guy these days. Like I said, I no longer hold to the position I took when my kids were young, nor do I feel like a bad guy. - 3:15:43 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, perhaps it is where you live, but spanking is NOT a big taboo thing here. Non-spankers are actually the minority, and this state has passed laws specifically confirming the right to continue to hit children. And spanking does have to be painful to be effective, otherwise it is just a game "you hit me, I hit you". And I doubt there is any law that states you CANNOT take an adult by the hand and drag them away from danger. If an elderly man were wandering out in traffic, I don't think I'd be thrown in prison for grabbing his arm and pulling him to the curb. But if I did that then beat his butt I would be! On the death penalty, I'd rather snuff out one violent criminal than potentially create one by physical violence to a child. - 15:15:16 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Here it is the law not to spank and there also is a law that one cannot grab anyone's arm under any circumstances, to grab someone is an assault. I don't know if you heard about the American couple to visited Ontario,Canada for the day. It so happened they spanked one of their kids in a parking lot. Someone saw it and reported it to the police and the couple was charged with assault against their child. The whole thing was eventually dropped because they were Americans. If someone here were to see you grab your child's arm, depending on the officer and the social worker that would be involved, you could have your child removed from you and also face an assault charge. I think all this is absolutely ridiculous. I think this whole "hitting" thing is blown way out of proportion. I was spanked and I didn't grow up to hit or become violent and I also can have empathy for someone on a America's death row. - 15:36:51 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Laws that go so as to define what and what not is an appropriate parent\child relationship, is there a good that it serves? Is it a good for a happier better society? Or are such enactments along the line of pet laws? Pets, it looks like, have rights for which laws now must protect. Do the pet laws serve some social good? I read an article on pet law seems some Ivy league law school and another similarly prestigeous law school now offer classes on pet laws. Perhaps the people who have created the fuss and nonsense of pet laws should have been whacked on their behinds once or twice so they'd now better understand what objects are important and which ain't. - 17:12:26 on 1 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- While I don't think animals should be treated inhumanely, I agree that "pet laws" are a bit much. Actually society as a whole in the west has become whiners. Only in the west, mind you, there are too many other problems in other countries to waste time dwelling on minor things. I don't know if a few whacks would have changed things but I think you said that tongue in cheek anyway, non? No! It doesn't benefit society for government to make itself a parent cop, Cambodia comes to mind, or Canada for that matter. - 1:34:01 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:I'm reading Bertrand Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian" right now...good book! I would still like to get ahold of a Dan Barker book, but being a cheapskate am trying to find a used copy. I wonder if our library would request it, or just put a big "heathen" stamp on my card and only allow me to check out bibles for the rest of my life? *g* Anyone know good used-book sites on the internet? I've tried abe.com (something like that, maybe abebooks.com) and half.com. Any others you've tried and liked? - 14:36:03 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

CanWepleseReturnTotheGodIssueAsOpposedToThe Spank>>>::) - 15:19:16 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I ask that question of legislative intrusion on the parent\offspring relationship as in DC, an interesting ruling was issued. The cuban kid's father was ok'd, or was said to speak for the 'tot'. That 'tot' is like a pet yet, no? It does not know the differences of the vastnesses that are cuba's social system of communism[?] nor the USA system of republicanism, capitalism, democracy, etc., dynamism or does the kid know? Or, like a pet does it have "rights"? In any case, the point that I seem to read of law, is that law is a theory meant for the expression of human relations with other humans and that around and about them. While the religious hold that law has been issued by a real godthing, books of law theory do not seem to advance towards a "real god" as a law-source but address such as an idea; a human idea. Articles and books of theologic interest seem to always end on a POV for a godthing with the particular point, that seems of exasperation, it is only the reader who can say yes or no to the god-hypothesis. The point, these theologic pieces cannot say of nor substantively identify the object of their written words. Written words of unknowable stuff is like the discussion of the good or ill of kid-spanking. MELISSA seems to, maybe headed toward, a POV in favor of universal mind in all at any age. That perhaps in response to my suggestion a child and humans in general, maybe just a sack-o'cells that, interestingly so, do these same cells really just seek to reproduce themselves in similarly packaged deals? How about this site, if you haven't seen it, - 15:22:53 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Hey ANONYMOUS, you are welcome to start a topic of discussion at any time, if our chosen topic does not PLEASE you. No need to criticize the ongoing one if you have nothing better to offer! Most of us are ready and willing to jump into any topic that grabs our attention. - 16:37:13 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: "Positive Discipline theory" that strikes me as a following-offshoot of the neurophysiologic learning theory. Its a 'special' emphasis of that rudimentary idea, is it? I will look around for the book you've noted and see what it says and how it presents the substance of it's point-o'view. - 16:45:11 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:PS, MELISSA, now don't expect any revelational experience on my part nor that I'll become some follower adhering to those new-found values. - 16:50:44 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: to be a USA Democrat muss'be an utterly incredible experience, first there is what WJC did, does?, now for the LA convention they're got a cure the LA 'extra-pet' problem. I just read a news report, they will destroy strays, unclaimed pets in kennels and o'course the pound population will also be reduced. This a story of a good deed? - 20:20:01 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

cristy:CARL, does that mean you'd like to take those pets home? - 21:01:52 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: no but I've seen a democrat or two I could take home - 21:22:56 on 2 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- They wouldn't have an extra pet problem if responsible pet owners would neuter their pets. My guys are neutered but the cat isn't. I'm waiting until my grandbaby goes back to live with one of her parents. The cat is a female and she wouldn't find any peace to heal with Derri around. Meanwhile about once a month we have to listen to the cat calling all males. Horrible sound! - 0:50:09 on 3 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene..This city is as old as the Earth (at least so the fundies claim):Archaeologists in Syria have uncovered the ruins of a 6,000-year-old city, suggesting the rise of cities and civilization occurred earlier than previously thought. Scientists from the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute found a protective city wall under a huge mound in northeastern Syria known as Tell Hamoukar. The wall and other evidence indicated a complex government at an early date. Until the discovery last year, the only cities uncovered by archaeologists dating back to 4000 B.C. were to the south in Sumeria, in southern Mesopotamia. The area between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in what is now Iraq, has often been dubbed the "cradle of civilization." The discovery at Hamoukar, dating from the same period, suggests that ideas behind cities may have predated the Sumerians, said McGuire Gibson of the Oriental Institute. Among the features indicating the site was a full-blown city, not just a town: thin, porcelain-like pieces of pottery, indicating a sophisticated manufacturing technique, and huge cooking ovens, big enough to feed large numbers of people. There also were stamps to make impressions in wet clay - like primitive hieroglyphics - used to make tokens that served as records for trade transactions. The stamps were in the shapes of animals, including bears, dogs, rabbits, fish and birds. If Hamoukar was developing into a city at the same time as the Sumerians were building cities, it's possible that ideas for urban development came from an even earlier culture, he said. "We need to reconsider our ideas about the beginnings of civilization, pushing the time further back," said Gibson, who plans to present the findings this week in Denmark at the International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Middle East. Gil Stein, a Northwestern University archaeologist who specializes in the same region and time period, said he thinks the find is significant. "Traditionally, scholars had viewed southern Mesopotamia as the area where urbanized states first developed, before spreading to less advanced areas," he said. This summer, the archaeologists will continue to dig in the hopes of finding portions or royal palaces and temples - structures that would confirm that the site is that of a previously unknown early civilization. - 3:05:50 on 3 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Here's a dark topic...death plans. I have told my dh what my wishes are, but not my family and obviously it's a pretty difficult topic to bring up. But I guess if you just stuck the wishes in your will it'd probably be too late by the time it was read, huh? Boy I'd hate to end up parked on the alter at the COC with people marching by me. ICK. My family is big into the family cemetary thing, I wonder if there is an option to be cremated, then just have a little stone or something put there. It just seems so utterly ridiculous to pay 1000s of dollars! My poor old grandmother still frets over my aunt's grave, getting ripped off for like $50 every year by the cemetary to put a cedar "blanket" over the grave. Yeah, like aunt is going to get cold? But it's a guilt thing, you have to spend $$ on your dead loved ones to show you cared. If my dh was throwing away money covering my dead self in blankets I'd come back from the grave to haunt him! - 16:41:03 on 3 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I've donated my body to science on my driver's licence but I really should look into it more, like what they do with one's body when they are finished with it (what's left of it anyway). - 19:23:01 on 3 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, and what to do if science doesn't want our bodies! *g* I have a friend whose Grandma said she'd like to donate her organs. Her son quipped that no one would want any of her... her lungs were bad from smoking, liver from drinking, corneas scratched from years of contacts, and her heart was clogged from the fat she consumed. Bet he got cut out of the will that day! LOL - 0:42:55 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:I guess I have to ask, what is super- natural about universal consciousness? It's definitely not something material so you can't ask me or anyone to show it to you like the thoughts in our heads. Prove it to you? That's why I asked about being called 'physical monists' - those that believe reality is based on physical proof. If you believe mental states are illusions, then it's high likely you won't see or understand universal consciousness and will think that is is super- natural to believe in a physical reality. Evidence? I can no more prove to you physical monism than universal consciousness - they are both beliefs. I didn't mean to get personal here, but since you mentioned, What burdens do you have with this and why must I settle them? That's not why I posted. - 0:47:50 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:So! Jake! why did you post? - 0:54:34 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- They may want to study my brain to see why I don't believe in god, the blue fairy or purple-on-pink poka dotted unicorns..or universal consciousness (which is physical to some BTW, like the aura of a plastic jesus, I suppose). - 0:58:49 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:I guess I just post peoples names here if I want to address them? Let's see if it works. DOUG, the story of the Buddha, like any other myth, I would doubt should be taken literally. I've read that a long time ago and I didn't walk away with that impression. Myths, to me at least, are like stories with meaning behind them. I've never met a Buddhist who prays to gods or goddesses, nor have they read "Siddhartha" for example and walked away thinking the Buddha was a theist. What is the meaning behind that specific story? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't take it as he saw ghosts or anything supernatural. Meditation doesn't make one hallucinate, but it does help understand a greater awareness of things, like an omnisciency or holistic awareness of sorts, so maybe that's what the story intended to portray. I've seen christian mythology mistaken with literal interpretation as well. Since we don't speak in such 'fastastical' metaphors nowadays, it's easy to forget that they used these descriptions way back when. That would be my take on it. - 1:01:21 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Why did I post to a discussion board? Let's see, maybe to read other people's opinions and to talk about what differences and similarities we may have? I'm just being facetious. I hope you are too. - 1:05:23 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:JAKE-- We've just finished a discussion/argument on collective consciousness that dragged on for months with a poster named Betty, who some think is an alias for an earlier poster, Josh. You may want to skim through some of it in the archives if you want some feel for what everyone thinks. Otherwise, you may feel that we are oddly unresponsive. - 1:28:08 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Joette, Hi. I have trouble myself loving someone or something just because they exist sometimes, too. The main thing I try to remind myself is to see past all the surface stuff, because most of how we view the world is perception. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Buddhist but I like their ways. They see life as suffering. They just accept that which makes it more bearable, I would assume. Most forms of Buddhism also believe in reincarnation and karma so whatever bad stuff you may have done to someone causes a reaction to whatever you decompose and take form into next. You mentioned physical and mental transgression. Where do you draw the lines for these things? Because I have a best friend that got drunk in highschool crashed a car and killed one girl and made another one lose her arm. He made a really, really bad mistake, but I don't hate him for it. I know people that would like to kill him, but the girl who survived is still friends with him and understands it as a one-time mistake. Well, here I am rambling. My point is that scars can be taken in good ways or bad ways. We all have scars in one way or another, I believe, which are mostly perceptive to begin with. The girl with the broken arm (her name's Ann) has a visual reminder everyday to bring her a special appreciation for not just her life, but life itself. Some people take this for granted or turn their views to negative things instead. Especially since it doesn't seem to bother Ann, I don't let it bother me. Same with things that happen to me. As long as I'm still alive, there's nothing to be sorry or terminally scarred about. C: - 1:37:14 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, I'll try that. But how do I skim past 200 posts, please? It may be a bit early before I read some of the posts, but what is the real argument? They way I see it, you either view the world that way or not. How do you have an argument about what each other believes? If we had absolute guidelines to how thinks worked it wouldn't be a problem, but this forum is designed with subjectivity in mind. Hey, I know I'm new here and pickin' fights but it seems your 'oddly unresponsive'-ness is very odd indeed. What's your views on this deal? - 1:51:29 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:JAKE, you hit the nail on the head when you said "how do you have an argument about what each other believes"? Boy, we spent the past few months trying to figure that one out, like collective beating of heads on walls! Now it is relatively simple to debate something like xianity because it is all written down in popular form everywhere you turn, so you know what you are debating and can reference the same material. When it gets really bogged down is when it's some relatively new idea that isn't written down in everyone's hotel room. In the course of someone trying to tell all about this idea, it seemed to decend into preaching it to us. When it degrades to "well if you don't get it you're just too stupid" it's time to recognize that arguments are wasted! I think what everyone is trying to say to you is that the "collective consciousness" idea has been beaten to death and no one is much interested in hearing more about it (or anything like it of a different name). BTDT just a little too recently!.............Now we always do enjoy a good xian bashing session, or topics of relevance to promoting the atheist cause, etc. Or sometimes we get off of religion all together, kind of like hanging out w/ buddies. So grab a beer and join in! Present a news item to debate. Share a story of how religion influenced your personal life. - 2:06:22 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:JAKE-- Up in the address box of your browser where it says "..show=200...", or 30, or some other number, change it to a higher number and hit "enter". This will get you the previous posts not yet in the archives. For the archives, see the link at the top of this page? And OK, I don't view the world that way. You're tramping through the same old flowerbed. - 2:11:08 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, Cristy. - 2:12:41 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- As Cristy mentioned, the last poster was more or less selling her beliefs rather than actually explaining them or admitting that they were subjective. If you're not planning to do this then I say, let's have a go at discussing them. - 2:38:22 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- Once again, although one's "beliefs" are subjective, this is an atheist page where most people here have no "spiritual" beliefs. If someone posts their belief without evidence to support that belief then, I, anyway, will argue that that belief is subjective and has no substance in the real/objective world. So..if you post a belief as an objective fact, then expect some argument. - 2:48:37 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Joette:JAKE - thanks for your candid response to my own posting. The "transgressions" I speak of go further than accidents and I too would treat your friend in the same manner, even though it was a terrible tragedy. To take it further, if they were still alive, would you see fit to love Pol Pot or Stalin just because they existed? I would find it difficult. - 19:46:17 on 4 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:- "the hatred of the non-religious left... is disgusting and dangerous to civil rights freedoms and democracy." Dr. Laura - 15:30:15 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene, When someone posts their thoughts and opinions to a discussion board, isn't it inherent that they are subjective? This isn't a review board in here or a peer-reviewed journal. I don't see how the manner that someone presents their beliefs has any relevance. - 15:30:52 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: oooh! 6000 years! So what is the point of that report? Did they take some pro-religious position, and if not what did these folks seek to promote? A 'civilisation' wuzzit? That is a tricky oft sugar coated term, so that term means what? For example knowing what one knows of the xian religion, dare one call a thing like the USA a xian based civilsation? Something o'interest, perhaps more meaningful, is a report that some dude reports finding a way to go at a speed 300 times faster than the now accepted speed o'light. For my part I cannot see why that would surprise anyone. Sooner or later a way will be found. - 15:32:22 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:http://www.stopdrlaura.com/home.htm........having trouble getting this to post in the url slot - 15:32:39 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:ANON, the manner in which someone presents their beliefs has relevance in whether or not it is TOTALLY ANNOYING to the rest of us! If you come off as a know-it-all, a la Rush Limbaugh, it'll go over like a lead balloon. - 15:34:43 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Marlene, That last one was from me. You ask that people should present their beliefs with support and show objective evidence to this. This is ridiculous. There is no more direct evidence for one belief over another, just like there is no direct evidence for physical monism over spirituality. These are all beliefs, not proofs. What I'm trying to say is that the real/objective world offers no explanation by itself, so you can't exactly claim that certain beliefs, including rigid atheism are more objective fact than any other. What you can claim is that you prefer a nominalist belief over more spiritual beliefs. --- Also, just because Buddhism does not accept your version of a non-spiritual atheism, how does this automatically give way to beliefs in blue fairies, etc.? I find that a bit ignorant. - 15:44:01 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Cristy, Likewise, you if you are the representative of this room with your previous paragraph, you naively sound like you want this room to be some kind of closed-door approach to discussions. "Christian bashing" and "promoting the atheist cause" are perfect examples. I suggest you have a few beers yourself. I asked the question before, Isn't it time we pick a different name for ourselves, instead of "disbelievers (of others' beliefs" for exactly these pessimistic and socially outcasting positions. - 15:59:37 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Joette, People are people. I know that sounds dumb, but it reminds me that first of all, people are't perfect and we make mistakes. Unfortunately, most of what historic figures are remembered by when they die are their actions. Stalin did some bad things, but I don't hate him. That's the difference. I hate the actions, not the person. You know when people say "All life's a stage" it reminds me too that we only get one shot at the first time for everything here. Maybe his passions simply went astray. If Stalin or anyone with that much power had to do it all over, would he have done it the same way? We don't know, but it's interesting to think about because we can't go back and change our mistakes. We can only learn from them and go on, which is another reason why I don't like to hate people. I don't like to hold onto the past. I like to move on with things I can't change. I can do a lot of other things with the energy one might waste hating someone for something they did and can't change, either. - 16:15:15 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:JAKE, I just like to close the door on people that would come in to preach to us, call us "ignorant", "naive", and tell us how we should run this chat room in order to please them. But I'm just speaking for MYSELF in that I dislike being condescended to. I'm sure the others will let you know what they think, and I can certainly exercise my right to scroll on by, just like I did w/ your predecessor Betty! I'll just pray to the blue-fairy of collective consciousness you aren't as verbose as she was. - 17:01:57 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Joette:JAKE - your post brings up the question "what if you were there?" It is easy for us to not hate certain people because we have been far removed from the events, but what if there was someone threatening you everyday of your life? Would you still find it in your heart not to hate that person? - 18:22:32 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:JAKE: Not call or refer to ourselves as 'atheists' anymore, and why not? It is only the opposite o'whatever is a theist and the simplicity of that idea is being just as simply denied by an atheist. Its no more than that. - 18:51:48 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:JAKE01: However, the eddy- perhaps, in which you flounder I think has an easy remedy. It is called knowledge. The only medium by which others and us here can reasonably discuss matters is if one can refer to whatever via the notions of evidence and proof. I can address the matter of an IPU and what I say of it would be 'true' but, I couldn't prove that it is nor show evidence for the Itness of it. So while we all know things verifiable and not, as an IPU or god, the request for the P & E of things is cuz'it lets all know you ain't posting from some cuckoo's nest, an insane asylum. that would be a tad embarrassing to all concerned. - 21:13:53 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Well, two legislative actions that may be viewed as supportive of a family have been made public. One was the cuban kid ruling in favor of the father. The most recent the court rules that there is no need for a legal intrusion on behalf of a grandparent. But then, today some eye batting colleague came in all bubbly and excited cuz'her 6 yr.ol'god-daughter was able to recite a whole bunch o'passages outta'the bible. Maybe a court ought to reconsider 'some' matters? - 21:40:52 on 5 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- No special reason on the article I suppose other than as far as the fundies are concerned, the cities were being built before ole god got around to creating people. - 0:20:13 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:I don't know about "facetious" Jake that would depend on the attitude you're trying to put forth. If you mean facetious/funny...it just doesn't seem like you, if you mean facetious/foolish then it would make a little more sense. Again, present beliefs that have no evidence making them fact and you'll think you're on a review board because you'll be challenged, like it or not. Not believing, is not a belief, in fact the lack of. If ever there is convincing objective evidence to support a god or any other supernatural idea then it would not longer be a belief but a fact. I would no longer be an atheist but until then, I'll hold with my position of non-belief. Look Jake, if god, or soul, why not a blue fairy...it's all the same damn thing, Jake. - 0:34:08 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene..de ja vous me again:CRISTY- Methinks Josh, Betty, Jake and soon to come Barb (at least I hope they use that name, I like it and we haven't had a Barb here before) are so alike they could be triplets, at least so far..they could turn out to be more than that. - 1:55:30 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:Maybe some of the newer members think I am a little too suspicious of the posters, Josh, Betty and Jake. This collective consciousness stuff has been around for years. In the last five years on this page we haven't had anyone even mention it other than discussing some of the newest religious crazes about four years ago. But now, in the last 8 months or so, we've had three posters with nearly identical condescending attitudes all posting on the same theme. Too coincidental for me to believe they are all different people from different places who don't know each other. - 2:40:51 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Grant: Oopsies!:MARLENE-- Jake's and Betty's IP numbers match. Wouldn't make too much of it, though. Could be total strangers who happen to use the same internet service provider. :-) - 3:55:45 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:That was humor, Marlene (nudge, nudge). - 13:05:53 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- LOL! You're not being facetious are you? - 17:50:58 on 6 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:On this "love everyone" note...this is just not realistic! One can hate someone without causing them any pain and suffering. It's okay not to like someone. This "nice" new psychology would have you believe that it's abnormal and uncivilized but really, it's very normal and healthy. - 0:13:46 on 7 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Well, yes,..er, no,.. er, yes I am being facetious but the IP numbers do match. - 2:29:32 on 7 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- How enlightening, now that's just pure and simple synchronicity! - 2:40:00 on 7 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Yes, I guess Betty has a little collective consciousness thing going. :-) - 2:56:33 on 7 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- At least it's not the hundredth monkey posting.. yet. Let's see that should be Belinda if it continues on the same string. Maybe this is where the string theory ties in... - 3:37:25 on 7 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW, if anyone is interested 20/20 is having a special on alcohol addiction tomorrow night. I think there will be some argument whether alcoholism is actually a disease and whether the AA program really works. I doubt it would work for me if I had a problem with substance abuse, I don't believe in a higher power. It may be interesting what is going to be discussed on that issue. - 3:43:31 on 7 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Guess I scared off the person posting as Carl, Joette, Peter, Melissa, Cristy, Doug, Rob, and Bill. I wasn't going to spill the beans. - 13:19:53 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Naah! not scared, just doctoring myself, injured a knee throwing BP and didn't pay attention to the mechanics. As one may have noted I'm in agreement w/MARLENE for I too suspect the conscious advocate is one or maybe two folk. A few days ago I was browsin'about the library stacks when a book's title caught my eye. The author is V.Gordon Childe the book was first published in 1936 and titled "Man makes Himself". Hmmm? Coincidence? I of course wondered if that person[outta'England right?] who first setup this site ever read that book? Its information is presented in a pretty clearcut matter of fact way. It does not tell or give a complete POV, just the western civilization's say so. But, it is fun stuff to read. - 14:52:36 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: An interesting reference that Childe makes in the chapter on new knowledge, was about medical stuff. The writer refers to very old accounts of healing and care that easily predate the Greek Hippocrates. The western world has been told that greek is the father of medicine or as it now seems its just some crock. Maybe I'll have to read what I can thats available for that name. - 16:50:51 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Joette, That's always an interesting question. "What if I was there?" Time does have a lot to do with it. I think a lot of rash decisions are made on first glance. The thing about time is that it's a healer. But think about this, Stalin nor Hitler probably killed many people themselves. Hitler's ideas led to mob mentalities. There's no way he could have killed something like 9 million people by himself. So in this case, we're not just talking about one man's actions. To tell you the truth, my history on Stalin is weak so I'll stick with Hitler for argument's sake. At that time I probably would have hated the man, after time, like we're dealing with here, I can see that people like that have others do their dirty work for them and they simply get credit for it, good or bad. We can't help but look at the mob mentality of that country at that period in time and certain stereotypes they were led to believe. I think place in time can be an obstacle to an objective analysis sometimes, and that's still not really the issue here. So I'll say again, I hate the man's actions (the manipulation of the mob), not him. - 17:15:55 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Carl, Atheist = "It is only the opposite o'whatever is a theist and the simplicity of that idea is being just as simply denied by an atheist." This is what I mean by an unoriginality of identification. Doesn't it get a little boring and self-demeaning referring to oneself as 'simply' a non-issue-opposite of what someone else believes? You don't have any positive issues of your own related to this issue? See the point? This is why term physical monist was invented, and not by me, by the way. - 17:24:05 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant&Marlene, He/She or whoever you are, So anyone who talks about consciousness is the same person? I saw posts I wanted to respond to. That's all that's going on here. If this Betty person has Juno like I do, then I sure feel compassion for her in that way, but that's about it. Maybe you're used to thinking anyone who isn't a rigid atheist is crazy and you lump them all into one category? It sure makes a lot of sense if you want to be rigid. Hey, I can make up things, too, but I can see the proof here. Hopefully this puts an end to stuff like this. You'll find that I'll get bored of it real quick-like. - 17:36:03 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:JAKE: It is a simple ideational response to an equally simple idea. Is there "really" a need to replace that mere juxtaposition? If one does not have some other target in mind the idea of theism versus atheism is only one's poetic preferences. What are you after or what do you want? - 17:50:26 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:It seems the "conciousness being more than material parts" theory is getting a little mainstream attention. I read an article in USNews that one presenter (out of just 4) at the NIH symposium is claiming that "subjective experience cannot be fully accounted for by the underlying mechanics of the brain". That's a pretty big-time audience.............. GRANT, it is possible that JBJB has been controlling all of us relative newcomers through his/her vast conciousness network *bg* We're ALL Josh mwaaahaaahaaaaaa!!!............... JAKE, you'll have to pardon our sarcastic humor, but it keeps us entertained *g*...how about adopting the title "freethinker" for yourself if you think atheist is too derivative? Humanist? Infidel? - 18:39:42 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:MORE XIAN EMAIL from a lady (neighbor, coworker of dh's) I had asked nicely to take me off her religious list. Guess I wasn't forceful enough. This time it was just some "ahh the world is so miraculous, let's all praise God" kind of thing from some author she liked. I wrote back and said I didn't believe in any such creator, but we each have our own opinions on these things, right? And I preferred to read the works of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. Maybe THAT will do the trick. I wish I had some witty, yet polite response to those kinds of things that get forwarded around. Anyone have clever responses to benign xian email? (The ones that are more derogatory about non-xians I don't try to handle as tactfully :-) - 18:43:58 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: It has become an opinion o'mine that those ol'guys and gals that walk aroun'makin'tacks for their godthing, all that they really want is someone to talk to. I've asked them if they were really prepared to discuss their ideas, and sometimes a clever one can be found. But usually these ol'guys and gals ain't got nothing to say. And o'course the kids they drag along, well you know the kids are stupid. Maybe it was at this site but in case not, a coupla'days ago some religious type here was goin'on and bragging about how her godchild could quote bible verses. To that gal what was that? Of such claims, I wonder are they a mark of one's intelligence and thinking prowess? Quite likey it would be indicative of nothing more than had that child quoted the opening defintions of Euclid. What would a child know of a line being without breadth? I'm at ease with the JW and whatever other magico-religious person that may be so concerned and at the front door. they are just strays, not feral but, - 19:55:50 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Rob::How was your daughter's wedding, Jake? - 22:15:49 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: Re: your point on a lack of an argument posed by the 'faithful', I've been trying to get a debate on various topics (everything from 10 reasons Noah's Ark is a myth to the lack of prophecy in the old testament) on other site. responses tend to range from 'eternity's along time to be wrong' to insults. I'm coming to the conclusion that most can't muster any sensible argument. Disappointing....... - 22:24:31 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: Here is a reprint from the infidels page: How To Handle Bibliolaters By Delos McKown Over the years I have been confronted by numerous bibliolaters: people who take the Bible to be inerrant and, thus, put it beyond intelligent criticism. Since theirs is a particularly pernicious religion (absurdly claiming that certain antique documents are divinely inspired), it has seemed important to me to develop strategies for dealing with such manifest foolishness. Bibliolaters should not be humored by being allowed to prattle on unchallenged but should be put in the position of having to put up or shut up. Positive good can come from making them suffer what sociologists commonly call cognitive dissonance, for it is out of intolerable intellectual and emotional conflicts within oneself that deliverance often comes. In the early 1970s a former student of mine named Terry, mad as a hatter, returned to see me, as was his custom. This time he brought a dirty, wraith-like little man who stank to high heaven. "This here's Alphonse," Terry said, "Alphonse Rossignol. We want you to test a spirit." "Test a Spirit," I said, thinking, why me? "Our university has a religion department now," I said, happily. "Why not get one of those guys to test your Spirit?" "No!" thundered Terry. "They're hypocrites. Better an honest atheist any day than a hypocrite." "Put that way," I said, "I don't see how I can refuse. What is this Spirit I'm to test?" "Alphonse here's been fasting for six weeks," Terry said. "Yes, that's right," Alphonse agreed. "I've been taking nothing by mouth except my own urine, sweetened with a little branch water from the creek behind my cabin. The Bible tells you to do it." "Surely not!" I expostulated, then rued my outburst as some of the weird stuff in the Bible skittered through my mind. Taking a Bible from my bookshelf, guided by dim traces of memory and a hunch or two, my eyes soon alighted on John 7:37-38, in which the King James Version (KJV) has Jesus say: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me ... out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Alphonse beamed, having been justified in drinking his own pee by the very word of scripture itself, at which point he pulled a small plastic glass from his shirt pocket. The glass stank mightily and was ringed by a dirty yellowish precipitate. "That's his communion cup," Terry announced exultantly. Deciding it was time to throw a little cold water on these proceedings, I asked Alphonse, "Do you know what follows John 7:38?" He didn't, and it occurred to me that he might be illiterate, having only heardthe hypothetical imperative. In the KJV John 7:39 appears in parentheses, which I read to Alphonse: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him should receive." "See," I said, "the Bible itself tells you in verse 39 not to take literally what it says in verse 38. It's just a metaphor. You're not supposed to be drinking your own urine." "Jesus told me to do it," Alphonse replied. "Where did you see Jesus?" I asked. "Out back of my cabin," said Alphonse. "How can you be sure it wasn't the devil?" I shot back, getting down to business. "The scriptures say that the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light (II Corinthians 11:14). Why couldn't he dress up like Jesus and try to fool a person like you?" Behind his grimy exterior, Alphonse blanched. He sank down in his chair, obviously rattled by the prospect that he might have met the devil. Meanwhile, banging hard on my desk, Terry cried out, "Now that's testing the Spirit!" as though they were getting their money's worth in Spirit-testing for the first time. Recovering from his nasty shock, Alphonse said in the sweetest, most self-assured voice imaginable, "Oh, it was Jesus all right." "Very well," I said, "I can test the Spirit no further," and ushered them out of my room. As they went rejoicing, I closed the door and dashed to open my windows in the hope of catching a strong cross draught. Much more of Alphonse's essence lingered than I cared to retain. Many moons later a very bright and clinically sane student, possessed nonetheless by fervent fundamentalism, asked if he could meet with me to discuss some bible passages. I awaited the encounter with enthusiasm, but when the appointed hour arrived, he brought with him another student of mine, also very bright and clinically sane, but suffering a worse case of Christianity than the first one. As though this were not enough, they also brought an elderly divine with them, Pastor Russell of the Maranatha House. Pandemonium quickly overtook our discussion. I would no sooner begin a rational exegesis of a passage than one of them would say, "Yeah, but what about Nehemiah 6:16?" or "How about Lamentations 3:42?" or "Haven't you forgotten Malachi 2:10?" Meanwhile another one would be rustling through Deuteronomy or Obadiah commenting on how he was about to find a verse that would put a stop to what I was saying, and all the while Pastor Russell would ask above the din if I knew the Hebrew for some English phrase or other. After three or four starts of this sort, resulting in hop-scotching through the scriptures, I had had enough. I decided to get them out of my office pronto. I knew it would be painful to do what I believed necessary to rid my office of the rabble; but one has to suffer for one's faith. So, I fibbed. (I still try to make it less a moral offense than it really was. I didn't fib; I told a lie.) I told them that I had committed the "unforgivable sin" (Matthew 12:31). I told them that I had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, that there was, therefore, absolutely no hope for me, and that they were wasting precious time that might more profitably be spent on others more susceptible to their blandishments than I. At this they stood stock still. They were silenced in the twinkling of an eye. Pastor Russell was the first to rally from their collective dismay. He asked me precisely what it was that I had done when I had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. "Well, you should know, being a Bible scholar," I retorted, giving him no help at all. "I don't think you really have blasphemed," he said, offering me hope that I could still profit from the gospel, and offering hope that their efforts had not been utterly in vain. "Oh, I'm absolutely positive I have," I said with a stern countenance, suffering the pangs of conscience bravely. The thought that they were in the presence of a blasphemer, more loathsome than a leper, was too much for them. They fell back as though to avoid contact with a virulent and deadly infection, and they fled my office. My secretary saw them hastening single file down the hall, looking sideways at the wall, unnerved and hardly knowing where to turn next in their zeal to depart the infested building. By the way, to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost one merely has to ascribe to Beelzebub responsibility for certain healings Jesus allegedly performed (see Mark 3:20-29), an ascription I could never honestly make. In any case, if you can tolerate the pain of such a fib (lie), then you too can rid the spaces you occupy of similar Christian zealots. On January 27, 1987, I was led as a lamb to the slaughter, having been set up to debate the Rev. Dr. Norman Geisler of Dallas Theological Seminary on the subject, "Humanism vs. Christianity." Dubbed by its promoters as "The Main Event," the debate was held in the ballroom at Auburn University, a room overflowing with perhaps 2,000 people, some of whom had been bused in, courtesy of local churches. Geisler had trouble staying on the general topic, focusing rather on abortion, in the most grisly terms. Humanists, he tells, are right in there with the Nazis in disregard of human life. Their despicable deeds are made likely, if not inevitable, by their moral relativism. How much firmer is the ground under Christians, who stand on moral absolutes! During rebuttal, I said that my favorite moral absolute in scripture was in Luke 6:30 where Jesus is reported to have said, "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." I then turned to the Rev. Dr. Geisler and asked him for his money. Since it was not forthcoming, I knelt on one knee and begged for it, trying to cover all spiritual bases. With a pale look about his gills, he finally pulled out a dollar bill and waved it wanly at me to which I said, "No, not a dollar; I want all of your money. But I'm not mean; I won't keep your wallet or credit cards." Geisler did not, in fact, comply with the moral absolute in Luke 6:30 (also see Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:35). If he had given me his money, I would have taken it and kept it. Thus, we would both have been blessed, I with extra cash and he with a clear conscience for having met the challenge of obeying a moral absolute of his lord. I fear his conscience still troubles him over this episode, something I would gladly have spared him by keeping his money. Bibliolaters are so fond of moral absolutes that I believe the rest of us should oblige them by giving them every opportunity to act thereupon. When you next hear a Christian extolling the rock of moral absolutes upon which he or she stands, go for the cash. It has a sobering effect that may in the long run be beneficial. I keep hoping Geisler will come back to Auburn. I know where there are other moral absolutes in scripture to use on him and his ilk, and so shall you. Imagine that you are fired up to encounter some bibliolaters. Imagine that one or more of these evangelists come to your door peddling their beliefs. Here are a number of challenges you can issue and rejoinders you can make. 1. Take a bottle and put some harmless ingredients in it that, when mixed, look pukey and smell the same. Then, when an unsuspecting bibliolater rings your doorbell and starts to set you straight, ask this person to take a big swig of your concoction. If the person is reluctant, refer to Mark 16:17-18 where Jesus is supposed to have said that believers will be able to pick up or drink any deadly thing without harm. If the evangelist quotes the stock answer, "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God . . ." (Deuteronomy 6:16), point out that you are not asking the Bible-god to drink your brew but are merely checking out the credentials of one of his alleged servants. 2. A nice variation is in Luke l0:l9. Here we are told that Jesus' disciples can tread on serpents and scorpions without being hurt. This test, of course, is not for everybody. You may not have a rumpus room knee-deep in snakes or scorpions. However, you could get a large empty jar, camouflage it so that one cannot look into it and then ask the bibliolater to thrust a hand into it blindly. For that matter any harmless thing that looks threatening will do, because Luke 10:19 ends by saying that "nothing shall by any means hurt" Christians. Any reluctance on the part of the evangelist can be taken as a sign of weak faith--not the sort of person you would want to listen to. 3. If you aren't too embarrassed to bring up sex, and if this person is wearing a wedding ring, ask if sex with the spouse is still going on. If so, look horrified and point out that St. Paul clearly said (I Corinthians 7:29) that Christians should cut it out, because the end of the world is near at hand. After all, who would want to get caught Doing It when Jesus comes again? Think how much closer to the end we must be now than when Paul first made this important point. Naturally you don't want to listen to a bibliolater who pays no heed to St. Paul. 4. In Matthew 10:18 Jesus sends out his disciples with the words, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils . . ." Take on a skeptical attitude and ask the evangelist for his or her credentials. Is this person really from Jesus, or maybe from a false teacher, or, worse yet, perhaps from the devil himself? If the evangelist assures you that he or she was sent directly by Jesus, ask for a demonstration of healing the sick, raising the dead, or casting out devils. If lepers are hard to come by in your neighborhood, AIDS patients could surely be substituted. 5. After a few pleasantries, the evangelist will probably turn to the bottom line: your happiness or misery after death. Ask how you can know that this person is presenting a picture of the real, true hell. You will need the following as background: I have written a story called, "Oops, Wrong Hell," in which a young chap named Rolf Smegmaa goes by the book, believes everything in the Bible, then dies, and wakes up in hellish circumstances. "Why?" he asks. He protests and asks for a review of his sentence. When a voice booms out overhead, it is in Arabic, the language of Muhammad. Too late Rolf realizes that the Moslem hell is the true hell, not the Christian one, and that in trying to avoid the latter he made himself a prime candidate for the former. It goes without saying that you don't want that to happen to you. So, challenge the bibliolater to clear up this matter beyond all doubt. As the evangelist leaves, express your suspicion that he or she may be trying to escape from a phony hell. 6. Although you may appear to be pleased to see a bibliolater at your door, you must express concern over not being duped. After all, there are so many evangelists saying different things. You want to know all you can about this person's spiritual legitimacy. Ask, "Does this describe you?" Then read Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." How does this fit in with loving others? If the evangelist really hates his or her ;ife, why all the concern about living forever in heaven? 7. In your never-ending quest to make sure that the evangelist is the genuine article, ask if this person has ever been flogged in a synagogue or dragged before governors and kings for Jesus' sake (Matthew 10:17-18). The answer is almost certain to be no. But go on and read Matthew 10:21-22: "And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death, and ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake..." Look the evangelist squarely in the eye and ask, "Have you had family problems like these?" Then, still looking very grave, ask, "Does everybody hate you because of Jesus?" The answer to both questions is almost certainly no. Say sadly that you are afraid this person is not the real article, that you must learn about Jesus from the right kind of person as described in Matthew. 8. After the evangelist has made an opening spiel, just ask, "Are you morally perfect?" Christians make a big deal of saying they are "not perfect, just forgiven." Read Matthew 5:48 where Jesus says: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Even though Matthew made up things for Jesus to say when it suited him, you don't need to let on. In a red-letter edition of the Bible, Matthew 5:48 is in red, and therefore Jesus must have said it.) Then solemnly note that this is an imperative--no if's, and's, or but's at all. Bible-believers should thank you for pointing out another moral absolute. Tell the bibliolater to come back when he or she has become perfect. 9. If the evangelist is a woman trying to get you to join her congregation, ask if women are allowed to speak aloud there. If the answer is yes, cite Paul's first letter to Timothy 2:11-12 (many New Testament professors don't think Paul wrote this letter, but you don't have to let on that you know this) which says: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." If she still says yes, then ask why this passage is being ignored. If it can be ignored, why can't other Bible passages be ignored? Indeed, why can't the whole thing be ignored? 10. Bibliolaters can be quite wily. They will want you to believe everything in the Old Testament (OT) that is agreeable to them. But if you quote something that they don't believe or practice, they will tell you that they are not under the old covenant (OT law) but are under the new covenant of the New Testament (NT) religion. Ask for the principle by which they cast off whatever they cast off in the OT and keep whatever they keep. Why do they ignore what they ignore? It helps to know that the NT generally misinterprets quotes from the OT, not taking it as the literal word of the Bible-god at all but twisting it to fit Christian propaganda. 11. If a bibliolater pleads with you to do something, such as to pray for enlightenment each day, or to read the Bible, or to attend church, present a proposal of your own. Say, "Sure I will, if you'll do something for me. Go out into the woods where you won't be embarrassed by being seen or heard and call upon the wood spirits and water nymphs to give you good luck." Since this is idolatry to the evangelist, it will not be done, and you won't have to keep your part of the bargain either. Also, this person will leave. 12. It is a great delight to quote the Bible to people who say that they believe all of it (but don't) and most definitely don't like what you are quoting. First, they will charge you with taking it out of context; but they won't know the context either. When this charge is made, ask them how the context shifts the meaning away from what it seems to say. Be prepared to witness some squirming and some double-talk. Second, you will be told that what you have read wasn't meant literally, but is an allegory, a parable, etc. If this ploy is used, ask why you are supposed to take what they quote as literal but they are not supposed to take what you quote as literal. After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 13. Ask the bibliolater, "Are you a fool for Christ?" If the answer is yes (and it often is), simply say that a fool for Christ is still a fool and that you don't take advice from fools. If the answer is no, tell the person that he or she ought to be a fool, according to I Corinthians 3:18: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise [logic, philosophy, science, etc.] let him become a fool! [moron in Greek], that he may be wise." In other words, murder your mind, reduce yourself to the level of a terrified moron, and you will live in endless bliss after you're dead. Remember, the fear of the Bible-god is the beginning of true wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). Since St. Paul picks up on this, the Christian should exhibit fearful foolishness in all things. 14. There are three approaches you can take if you want to have a little fun--and just possibly bring the bibliolater to right-mindedness. (1) Get this person to explain some god-awful (so to speak) passage from the Bible; (2) create cognitive dissonance, confronting the person with two or more inconsistent ideas both or all of which this person wants to believe but really can't; or (3) pretend to try to convert the person to some zany, cuckoo doctrine that you claim as your own that comes, of course, from the Bible. In other words, turn the tables. An example of a god-awful passage is in Exodus 21:7 where the Bible-god gives instructions to fathers about selling their daughters into slavery. Since "maidservant" in the text means "slave," don't let the bibliolater tell you that this is something less than slavery (see Deuteronomy 15:12 to clinch the case). Point out that you have heard how big the Bible is on the importance of the family. Is selling a child into slavery what one expects of a good family? If the bibliolater says that this is what the Bible-god told the Jews but that it doesn't apply to Christians, ask why Jesus never once had anything critical to say about slavery, or Paul either. In I Corinthians 5:1-5 Paul tells believers to deliver a certain not-so-evildoer to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. Just how were they to do this? Did Satan maintain a pick-up point somewhere in Corinth where Christians could hand evil-doers over to Satanic transport and delivery, or did the Old Nick himself pop in now and again to harvest sinners personally? Would the bad guy have been alive at this time or already dispatched by some approved method? Imagine how this passage must have warmed the heart of the Grand Inquisitor doing the holy work of burning heretics alive. What are the flames of a half hour compared to those of eternity? Here is an example of cognitive dissonance. A bright high-school student once took a summer seminar in science at Auburn University. Upset by something I said in a special lecture, he told me that he believed everything in the Bible. I knew that he was interested in geology and had seen a tiny bit of moon rock, so I said, "Well, I guess you believe that moon rock will turn to blood some day." "Why should I?" he asked. Turning to Acts 2:20 I read: "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come." Knowing what he knew about the atomic and chemical structure of moon rock and how different from blood this is, and knowing he believes everything in the Bible, I left him to stew in his own juice. It may seem cruel, but this is a good way to help people come to their right minds. Millions are stewing in juice like this, and if we can't always plunge them under, we can turn up the fire under their stewpots. Whatever else happens, the moon is not going to become one big blood clot in the vacuum of space. The following is an example of how to use something cuckoo in the Bible to turn the tables. Of course, you have to be willing to tell a little fib, to suffer even as I suffered with Pastor Russell, and to play a role without smiling or giving yourself away. Remember that bibliolaters have certain assumptions: they are ambassadors of the Bible-god. They are merely telling you what he wants you to believe: you are a sinner (or unbeliever, same thing), you are really miserable deep down (whether you know it or not), and you will be thankful someday that the evangelist set you straight. Nothing bothers evangelists more than to have the tables turned or to have to take their own medicine. Ask the bibliolater if he or she believes that the earth Noah's ark settled down on was the same as the one that existed when the flood waters began to rise. It's almost one-hundred percent sure that the evangelist will say yes. Then, with a knowing look, read II Peter 3:6: "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (The Greek word "perished" also means "annihilated" or "abolished.") Then read verse 7: "But the heavens and the earth, which now are . . ." So, you see, while old Noah and his menagerie were up on those flood waters, poof! The first world disappeared and the Bible-god made a new earth for the ark to land on. Call this the doctrine of Two-World Creationism and claim stoutly that it must be believed for salvation. (This ought to have special effect on the "scientific creationists" in your neighborhood.) By this time the evangelist will need to be going, pressing business, many other lost souls to be reached, etc. 15. The evangelist may say that the Bible is true because of its fulfilled prophecies. Don't be stunned. You can be sure that the evangelist won't know the actual dates of the so-called prophecies, or whether the predictions were written before or after the events in question. In general the books of the Bible do a poor job of dating things. Moreover, neither of you will know the details of how a particular book got from its origin(s) into the edited form it is now in. The likelihood is great that some predictions were made after the events in question (such as those in Daniel). Others were written with a very short-term fulfillment in mind, and still others were never fulfilled. A short-term prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14-16. In this famous prediction it is said that a "virgin" shall conceive. The Hebrew word (almah) does not require us to believe more than that a certain "young woman" is either about to get pregnant or already is. (The RSV, Smith and Goodspeed, and the translation of Moffatt all use "young woman.") The curds and honey that the babe shall eat (7:15) are royal foods, so this must be a royal baby. In any case, by the time the baby knows how to distinguish good from bad (at his bar mitzvah) a certain military threat to Jerusalem will have faded away. So, here is a prophecy that has a time span of about fifteen years. (Nine months gestation, plus thirteen years, plus leeway for the time of the actual conception.) The events occurred more than seven hundred years before Jesus and had to do with a certain Emmanuel, not with Jesus. In Isaiah 53 there is a famous passage taken to be a prediction of Jesus. Too bad, the whole chapter is in the past tense. It has to do with somebody who has already died, not with somebody in the distant future. In Jeremiah 31:33-34 we are told that the days are coming when the Bible-god will write his law in the hearts of his people. Jews won't even need to be taught to know the Lord, for they shall already know him. Alas, in nearly 2,600 years this has not happened. Jewish babies still have to be taught Judaism. They don't pop out of the birth canal knowing the Bible-god and ready to do his bidding automatically. Here is a prophecy that clearly has not been, and is not about to be, fulfilled. 16. When somebody quotes scripture, say that you don't believe the Bible because its prophecies are mistaken. This will hit hard, because the bibliolater is programmed to believe that prophecies are a strong recommendation. Point out that Revelation 1:1 says that it contains things that must shortly (or soon) come to pass. But here it is 1,900 years later and these things still haven't happened. Does anybody think this is soon? Hearing this, the evangelist will routinely quote II Peter 3:8: ". . . one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." Don't be stymied--this is a dodge. If the word "shortly" has a meaning to the Bible-god different from the way humans commonly measure time, then this god has failed to communicate anything. If he is thinking of a thousand years when we think of a day, or vice versa, then we don't know what he means. What kind of revelation is it that systematically confuses you? What is true of the Bible in this instance is true of it in general: it is no revelation at all. I remember a day in the late '70s when three hulking youths, built on the football lineman model, entered my office. "We're from the Campus Crusade for Christ," one said. "How interesting!" I replied, showing keen enthusiasm but not giving them a chance to get started. "Why, just a couple of weeks ago there was a delegation here from the Brotherhood of Buddhist Bricklayers, and then last week some folks came by from the Cartel of Confucian Carpenters." By the time I got to the Junta of Hindu Hammersmiths, one began to grin, thus giving up the jig, and as I began to tell them about forthcoming visits from the Syndicate of Sikh Salmon Seiners, they wheeled and departed from my office, and I hadn't even gotten around to the Junta of Jewish Gymnasts or the Menage of Moslem Morticians. Yes, Friends and Fellow FFRF Freethinkers, even humor sometimes helps in handling bibliolaters. Professor Delos McKown, Ph.D., gave this speech at the Freedom From Religion Foundation's 12th annual convention in Atlanta, Georgia, October 7, 1989. Delos has been Head of the Philosophy department at Auburn University (Alabama) since 1979. A former clergyperson, he has written extensively in philosophical and rationalist journals, and has been a Foundation member since 1982. - 23:06:07 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Ooopps! it's too big sorry. - 23:07:15 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Don't mind me, just "hovering". LOL! And yes, I still check in on you once in awhile. You guys still crack me up. So many conspiracist religionists/new agists out there, so little time. It's funny, but I can see how so many years of this strict or rigid atheism (as Jake calls it) can lead to such superstitions. "Oh no, everyone's against us. Let's huddle together in this room. This way, when religionists come toward us, we can stand together, all 4 or 5 of us and bash them with words on a computer screen out in cyberspace. Ha ha. Nothing like a good christian bashing to make myself feel good, if for nothing else." --- I think deep down this kind of atheism is still just in an infancy teenage rebellion. You haven't yet grasped what you don't like about the other stuff and you don't have the tact to admit when you're being ignorantly biased. This kind of atheism is no doubt an effect of a harsh or strict religious upbringing. When I realized this, I stepped out of the conversations. I can see this when you put down Jake for his positivism. What have you to lose for being a bit optimistic about what others believe? You're just too scared to listen. I would be scared to if I made myself a social outcast. You can use this room as your podium, but who is really listening? The same people like you - suffering from unresolved conflicts of beliefs. If you really, really were an atheist, you wouldn't have to call yourself one, or subscribe daily to a discussion board like this. Jake is right. There is only some sort of delusional identification in calling oneself an atheist - a "disbeliever (of what others believe)". You have no original identities, except to reject the things that emotionally injured you in some way. The irony is that you will claim on the screen that you don't think about these things, but at home you secretly wonder if the problem is maybe not with the other 93% of the world, or if it really is with you. It sure makes you feel good, though, to find new and clever ways of avoiding dealing with these issues in the meantime. - 23:55:01 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Jake, How did you know I use Juno? And good luck. I would say you might be wasting your time in this room, but you seem to have a firm grasp of your beliefs so I admire that. Hope you have better luck getting through to them. I'll check in every now and then, just so the intellectually-challenged can post their sidebars about me and feel like they've added to the discussion. Just kidding. Take care. - 23:58:44 on 8 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:MARLENE- "oh Jake, how DID you know I used Juno..." or maybe tampax for that matter...sheesh! Go back to lurking Betty! - 0:38:26 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:MARLENE ..am I talking to myself..why not?..obviously other people do! Your so right Marlene! Isn't that JBJ character(s) a Shirley MClaine wanna be! ummm-humm...not only out on a limb right out of the tree. Should I use other names for myself..hell no..what for..I don't think I'm fooling anyone. - 0:53:06 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:MARLENE- Oh the terrible pain..the pain..the pain HONK! I'm feeling... because I don't have a belief, boo-hoo, SNIFF!why couldn't I be a nutcase and believe in collective conscious like Betty then I could be a condescending idiot like her but ALAS! my pride and sense of reason are much too overpowering, I could never stoop that low.... - 1:13:14 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:MARLENE - You unoriginal idenity of the 7% of the human population that are without a crutch, how unoriginal of you to be in the minority, you are such a follower! Maybe from this day on you should post on a New Age board and intrude with your atheist views, wouldn't that be more original! Then you can tell them all that you can't get through to them and that they are all unintellectual and then you can leave feeling really good about yourself that you were a condescending idiot, of course you cold lurk after that and see if any of the nutcases had anything to say about you....or you could be a real moron and use different names to post under. - 1:23:04 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene...You're Out!:YA'LL notice Betty has decided to do an assessment of why we are atheists, in her infinite wisdom ARFF! she has decided that we are all a result of strict religious upbringing, all nurture and no nature. No strict religious "upbringing" in my past so BUZZZZZ! Betty, you can sit down now! - 1:40:09 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE (?)- Just what does it matter what one calls themselves, it's what they believe or don't believe that is the subject of discussion here. I asked before, what is a physical monist? If you are not prepared to explain what your beliefs are, what are you doing here? - 2:54:17 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- A little long but interesting nevertheless. - 2:55:20 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- "...getting through to them"? "...wasting your time"? So you've determined already that "Jake" is here to prosyletize too, to bring spiritual enlightenment to the heathens? You should know, I guess. Thing is, you *are* wasting your time here. You're a poor missionary, because you don't know what you're talking about. Your grasp of epiphenomenalism, for example, is poor, and you're completely wankers on your understanding of Descartes, duality, naturalism, and the mind/body problem. It's as if you had only read new-agey criticisms on these subjects and never bothered to study the subjects themselves. Fancy that. You lack any depth on the issues involved here. You don't comprehend what you are criticising, and it's pretty obvious. Have you ever noticed that arrogance occurs in inverse proportion to merit? Anyway, too bad I'm not a theist, so I could use that old prayer: "Lord, please help me in my search for truth, and spare me from those who think they have found it." - 4:01:34 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- A discussion page for people who have left or are contemplating leaving the Mormon church was submitted to one of my ODP categories. On it the posters where referring to Mormons as the Morg, like the Borg. Struck me as hilarious. Don't tell me you are one of the Jorg. :-) - 4:16:03 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Betty; You couldn't be so wrong; while my parents were very strict in most things, religion and church going were optional. I opted out at 5 years olds. It was too phony for my tastes. - 5:41:47 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:DOUG, *whew* thanks! Long but very interesting...of course I could never argue like that guy, you would have to really know your stuff..................GRANT, you WILL be assimilated, resistance is futile, awwwwww, makes us kind of seem like Voyager, the little ship that fights to be free and won't become drones..............is that pathetic BETTY? As pathetic as someone that has to make themselves feel smart by going around calling others names? Or is that just jealousy? Can't find a place to fit in? Maybe you and Jake and Josh could form a board. But then who would there be for you to preach to?............MARLENE, ah but for the tiny-brainers popping in how would we know to appreciate our mental abilities? :-) - 14:17:01 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:I'm so meeeeeeeeeeeean...I ROYALLY pissed off this thumper type on a PP spank-debate board when I suggested (following a debate of how the bible says you should spank) that if you followed the bible you'd have to kill your children (I quoted two passages about putting them to death if they hit their parents, and if they bad mouth parents). Also that taking parenting advice from some old text about a hateful and vengeful god was scary. heh heh, she couldn't believe someone DARED call her Book ludicrous. Just kept saying "but if you read the NEW testament" it's not like that. She decided to pack up her toys and go home if someone was going to insult her religion AND parenting (some other guy pissed her off royally about spanking)...I think I could learn to like this debate stuff .................. I need to do a little studying up on the NT, it's just too easy to find horrors in the OT, but need a comeback for those that like to pick and choose what they follow in the "good book" and prefer the "kinder, gentler" god of NT. - 19:37:39 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Nothing worse than spanking because someone says to do it or the "good book" says to do it. It should be an informed decision, studies weighed against other studies, experience, what works for your child etc. I have to agree with you, if the good book says one thing and one does it because the lord says to do it, why not do everything else the lord says to do. After all, he is the lord and to not do what he says is disobeying him. - 19:49:19 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- One more thing...the god of the NT is the god of the OT, as far as believers are concerned, there is only one god. When xians try to tell me differently, they don't know what they are talking about. I know one thing for sure, there is nothing in the NT that says not to spank. - 19:53:15 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- How is nursing your knee preventing you from posting, unless you're typing with your toes, lol! - 19:55:14 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:I didn't know if anyone else noticed, but Betty didn't post that to anyone specifically. It's interesting to see who and how they responded thinking it was directed at them or the group here. Seems like she hit some soft spots, whatever her methods have been. Afterall, if she had no effect at all you wouldn't have given her much attention at all. I mentioned the term rigid atheist for the same reason - to see what kind of responses would come up. - 20:30:35 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Marlene, I did explain physical monism. Go back to June 4th. It's pretty obvious what it means anyway, as long as you understand the terms involved. - 20:33:05 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Gramt, I'm NOT here to prosletyze, just so you know, but I am familiar with the things you mentioned Betty 'doesn't' understand. But that really depends on what you consider prosletyzing. I reviewed some of the posts over the last few months and I'll agree that Betty sort of redefined the difference between monism and dualism to suit her own needs, but she does go into epiphenomenalism, etc. quite 'deeply'. In her defense, though, it seems like Doug is the only one who started to grasp what she was aiming at - which is discussion of a unifying theory in consciousness theory, not converts to it. I have to ask, though, why do you relate her spiritual beliefs to preaching? And if that's how you interpreted it, would you treat consciousness theory, the same as Christianity or Judaism, and why? Would you honestly be willing to consider that this room 'preaches' a sort of physical monism? Physical monism, to me, is also an attempt at a unifying theory, minus the spirituality between people and the fundamentalism of the church. I think we're all looking for our own answers. - 20:57:09 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:To Anyone, About how far back did Josh and Betty post? I'd honestly like to read more about what they had to say. Is this in the archives? - 21:06:12 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:JAKE, this room doesn't "preach" anything...the title at the top says "atheist conversation". So for the most part, we are here to have conversations about being atheists. We don't entice others in here and try to convince them of anything. We talk about atheist things, like not believing that which does not have any proof to support it. In that case we will lump the conciousness theory in w/ the Christianity theory, Hindu theory, etc. We're skeptics. Therefore we're skeptical of things! Some people don't seem to like us being skeptical of whatever it is they believe. So why do they stay here? I guess because they feel THEY will be the ones to convince us of something. And they don't get why that annoys us. - 21:23:39 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- Yes, I suppose Betty does have some effect on us. People like her are a reality of life, just like the will-nots on one's ass. She's more of an annoyance really. I hope that you won't cause the same type of irritation. I shall return to June 4th's posts and read your explanation. Hopefully you've included an explanation of the terms as well or are they in the small print? - 23:24:57 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- Now I've read that definition of physical monist, just what is the difference between this and Betty's term, material realist (material realism)? - 23:29:59 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- Posts go back approximately 8 months ago and you will find them in the discussion archives at the top of this page. - 23:33:04 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- Please explain, (with the explanation of the "terms" you are going to use) why you would consider this room to "preaches" a form of physical monism. I will remind you, just as Cristy has that if something has proven to be fact, it's likely accepted by the majority of us here, I doubt one would need to preach or prove a given. If something has no evidence to support it, the majority will consider it unproven and until someone can give evidence toward that something having any material substance it will be considered a belief, something someone seems to need to preach about in the absence of evidence. - 23:40:00 on 9 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene..this is your explanation of physical monism:You know what JAKE, never mind answering those questions, I see you're from the same ole Goswami Ghetto as Betty. Discuss with the others, I'm no longer interested. - 1:59:14 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene...:ALL- LOL! I was just reading more on that page. I would wager that if you go back to Betty's posts that the writings on this page and her's are almost word for word. What a detective I would make! Her guru is definately Goswami! - 2:10:44 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Can we drop this rediculous charade, JACK? "Betty" does not go into epiphenominalism or anything else "quite deeply". She says herself that she refuses to be trapped by specifics. Everyone grasps what she is aiming at, not just Doug. Why do I relate her spiritual beliefs to preaching? I don't. I relate her preaching to preaching. In regard to the resonable portion of your post, would I treat consciousness theory like Christianity or Judaism? "Consciousness theory" is not what ya'll are espousing. It is collective consciousness. It is mysticism, and as such gets treated like other mysticism. As has been pointed out previously, an assault on naturalism even if successfull does not leave us with collective consciousness by default any more than it leaves us with Scientology or Catholicism. Where is the evidence? What leads one to a belief in a collective consciousness other than a desire for it? Does this room preach "physical monism"? No. As Christy stated, this room preaches nothing. It is a group of atheists, some of whom hold with naturalism, in a social, conversational setting. I don't see naturalism (physical monism, gag) as an attempt at a unifying theory. I see it as an attempt to hold the truth as found, whatever it may be, in high regard, as opposed to looking for evidence for what we would like to be true. A search for a unifying theory presupposes unity. - 14:30:03 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, Being trapped by specifics is a whole different that pointing out how one can get trapped in them. That's how I interpreted her points. I went through pages of archives and there's no doubt Betty went into specifics for her points about material realism, and how she didn't believe in analyzation so much as idealism. This is purely objective. Like I said, Doug was the one who claim CLOSEST to pinpointing the discussion Betty seemed to be after. This is no charade. You may or may not know what she was discussing, but you didn't state it. That's what my post meant. In some ways, I agree with her on that. - 15:07:38 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, What leads one to a belief in naturalism other than a desire for it? Careful, cause you'll get caught in the same traps if you think you have the best tool for finding 'truth'. Especially since there's no direct evidence for any belief system. I guess I should really ask why you think naturalism isn't derived from of physical monism? If you're after some sort of goal, such as truth, it has to have some unifying basis for it's existence, some sort of deterministic causality. And since naturalism espouses deities and spirits and such, what else are you left with but the physical? Consciousness theory or collective conscious doesn't need any more proof than naturalism, they are both beliefs - more like perspectives. - 15:29:39 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Marlene, It needs no other reply, but to state what I believe to others, I'll answer one of your questions. BTW, I've heard the term % has to assume a physical monism as the basis for their beliefs. Since we're dealing with presuppositions here, it's like a Christian assuming there is a God first of all, then everything else is secondary. Physical monism is the foundation for the material realist perspective, I would assume. The interesting thing here is that now I've heard both rigid atheists (I still consider Buddhists as atheists, so I have to make a clear distinction) and Christians say they use 'naturalism' to find their truths because they both go back to their original assumptions as the guidelines for everything else. Maybe this will continue our discussion together. - 15:44:20 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Marlene, This statement would be a 'preaching' of physical monism as a standard for this room: "If something has no evidence to support it, the majority will consider it unproven and until someone can give evidence toward that something having any material substance it will be considered a belief." - 16:09:03 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- I will continue this discussion but it will have to wait either for tonight or for Tuesday as I'm too busy in the next few days to really get into this but I shall reply. Until later. - 16:11:50 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene..is your second name Betty?:JAKE- In response to your last post. It's fact, not belief. It's a given you don't seem to comprehend. It's a reminder of what is. It's not preaching. Preaching involves sermonising dogma, dogma is the stuff of beliefs. What is fact is not belief. What is a fact is not a notion. - 17:40:06 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:No, JAKE. You're taking an intellectually dishonest position already, even if you don't realize it, but I think you do. You are sidestepping the question of evidence with me, and trying to reverse the positions of naturalism and spiritualism with Marlene. The view of naturalism or "material realism", that the physical is all that exists, is based on the fact that we can only produce direct evidence of the physical, therefore physical explanations are the default. You are attempting to place spiritualism (for lack of a better term) in the default position, and claiming that it is only an unproven assumption that all events have a physical basis. Aside from being relativistic to an extreme, this is a logically indefensible position precisely equal to a theist position that the existence of a god is the default position and the burden of proof that a god does not exist is on the non-theist. Sorry to be blunt. I'd love to discuss this further, but I'm not willing to go through this all again if you are unwilling to be more straightforward. - 17:46:48 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- So to continue this discussion, you've "assumed" as you seem to have on other issues that we are all physical monists and that none of us buy into dualism, you have yet to state your beliefs. Let's hear what you believe and forget about what Betty believes. We'll just leave her name and her views out of this discussion altogether. - 18:04:05 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I think Jake is trying to first of all place us all in a monist position, then he'll try to convince us that the "stuff" isn't physical but spiritual by using a fringe theory of qm. Like you say, we've been here before. Hopefully he'll cut the crap and get down to business with his explanations. - 18:13:16 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

jaywilson--back from Ultima Thule--:ALL: So, just whom do we talk to during sex, anyway? - 22:12:48 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Finished school? Ultima Thule...Europe? I wouldn't know, no time for sex. - 23:32:44 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:This is really cute! - 23:38:42 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON, you old dog! Thought we'd lost you! In this day of cellularitis, it could be anyone. - 23:49:28 on 10 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- Did you go to Alaska again? - 2:25:05 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

jaywilson--no phone-y--:GRANT & MARLENE: Actually, I've just been busy at school, but with exams next week, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel--and, for some reason, this year's tunnel has been particularly long. No AK plans for this summer--yet; I may have a line on some $300 round-trip tickets, so who knows? As for the sex thing, I recently read a joke which asked the interesting question, "What _do_ atheists talk about during sex?"--given that certain words and phrases may in fact be absent from our orgasmic vocabularies. Just thought I'd pose the query. I like the cell phone idea, though, Grant. - 14:53:18 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

Grant: e-intercourse:JAYWILSON-- Thought you were referring to verbal intercourse with personality-rich individuals (in a quantitative sense). How easy it is to misunderstand. :-) - 16:20:12 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, "... the fact that we can only produce direct evidence of the physical, therefore physical explanations are the default," is a material realist or naturalist perspective. What you find logically indefensible is a fact. Saying the evidence found within the physical world is the reason behind the physical world is a cyclical argument. Material realism and naturalism are metaphysical assumptions, not facts. They require presuppositions to their arguments. If you look at the physical properties themselves and measure them alone, you're bound to come up with some kind of similar default, but what we're really talking about here are complete absolutes. Absolutes to the big picture. Saying there is an absolute default to the physical world in the physical world because we experiment in it is small time stuff here. That's where physical monism comes in - it's an implied absolute based on a material realist or naturalist perspective, because you can't have one without looking at the big picture of how it applies. I like when Betty mentioned gravity and how it provides order and form for the physical world, yet you will never find it to be an inherent part of the physical world. It has no material properties. That right there provides an example that there is more than the physical but no material realist will consider that much of a blow to their pride because it can be rationalized from a perspective or mindset that it's no big deal, that someday it will eventually be found to have some material properties - all starting from a certain overall perspective of physical monism. Now, isn't this a bit dishonest? - 18:17:54 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Marlene, Everything I post is what I believe. If I happen to agree with what Betty posted, I'll be sure to give her credit for it. Having said that, would you care to state if you prefer a dualist a monist perspective and the support you have? - 18:24:13 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, Now that I think about it, what isn't 'relative'? and why do you think it's hard for most people to accept? Do you think there are absolutes, and how so? It sure doesn't seem like it. I think that's the problem. Everyone's so sure they have "truth" they forget that everyone else is saying the same thing and we're still not getting anywhere. - 18:32:19 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Yes, Jake, it is a bit dishonest. Fortunately, it is not my position nor is it the position of anyone I know of. It is straw man position. Yes, "saying the evidence found within the physical world is the reason behind the physical world is a cyclical argument", but it is an argument nobody is making. You are presuming that naturalism presupposes purpose. It does not. This is in fact the most significant philosophical difference between naturalism and non-naturalism, a point no non-naturalist seems to grasp, with the notable exception of Emmanuel Levinas. You say "material realism and naturalism are metaphysical assumptions, not facts". I would say this differently. I would say that material realism and naturalism are a model or models of reality, not reality itself. Can we agree on this? Your implication here seems to be that naturalism is merely a model of reality, and spiritualism *is* reality ("What you find logically indefensible is a fact.") This is an untenable position, and a black kettle one. --- What we're really talking about here is not directly "complete absolutes". We are talking about a model of reality which among other things provisionally bases all events upon physicalism and explains spiritual beliefs in terms of physical activity in the brain versus a model of reality which presupposes purpose and non-physical events, and considers physicalism as a limited and limiting perspective. Both models contain complete absolutes. How can there be a non-absolute collective consciousness, or a non-absolute anything? --- The gravity stuff was a disappointment, Jake. Gravity fits the naturalist model without contradiction. It is measurable, demonstrable, and relatively constant, and in the naturalism model is a property of matter. Incomplete comprehension or understanding of gravity in no way suggests supernatural properties. I wish you would have refrained from the petty digs about pride and such. - 23:24:11 on 11 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- Then the discussion is over, I've had enough of your Betty persona. - 0:16:50 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene..Jake/Betty just blew their cover:GRANT- But "Jake" agrees with "Betty", arff! he said...she said..lol! - 0:19:03 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Whoever it is, it's finally getting really interesting for me. I'll play along if everyone isn't totally sick of this topic. :-) - 0:41:36 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:I guess those of us that ARE sick of it can always take a break, eh? Maybe this won't take as long to blow over as before. - 1:11:53 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT ad CRISTY- I'm not bored, I just refuse to play JBJ's game. Go ahead although I think it will likely come to the same end as the Betty episode. These people are worse than the damn JW's lol! Cristy, if Jake decides to actually discuss this with Grant rather than resort to his/her former position of preaching, it will likely be finished very shortly. Never mind the philosophy and terms of philosophy, it really hasn't anything to do with what is. It's very simple, JBJ has made a fantastic claim and now the onus is on him/her/him to give evidence for that claim, we'll consider the evidence. - 1:32:20 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- We can talk about other things.... like what's the best thing to do for a splitting headache in an old grandmother brought on by "it's a day to be a shit" granddaughter ? ....while Grant handles ole jbj. - 3:37:41 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Yea, I'm just away from things letting the appendage heal. JBJ, is it? It is so difficult to converse with someone who 'knows' they speak the truth, not a truth but "The Truth". The difficulty is that in order to discuss the topic with such intense adherents, one has to do or go thru the ritual of a baptism. Then, once so joined with them at any question, that would enable the adherent to argue that the joiner is a liar. As for the JBJ persona, they've forgotten that in this day and age the stuff which they assert champions their POV, is readily available to any and all! The JBJ persona seems foolish in a very religious minded way. - 15:12:28 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I fully agree! - 15:38:43 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Well, as CRISTY has pointed out the topic being prompted by JBJ is now a bore, I agree since any of us can easily locate any number of articles on JBJ's "wisdom" so, the need to go on and on of it, calls for the mentality of a religious fundamentalist. While icing the injury I finished the book "Man Makes Himself". Its guiding idea is around the word progress. The wrap-up chapter was interestingly titled 'The Acceleration and Retardation of Progress'. That chapters 1st sentence goes,"Before the urban revolution comparatively poor and illiterate communities had made an impressive series of contributions to man's progress." - 15:54:54 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: In the beginning as a novice atheist chatter of the points I urgently raised one was that the religious minded folk like JBJ o'now, RTLee o'old, et.al., seek control of others and nothing else. In support o'that religious control point I oft used the deeds of human history. That book I've mentioned portrayed much that I took as clearly affimative of that same point. Childe wrote that the Egyptians used the solar year as a 'magical' thing to handle the unknowing out-of-touch masses. In the final chapter page 261 paragraph one he wrote this, - 17:41:34 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: "But by the revolution the actual producers, formerly so fertile in invention, were reduced to the position of "lower classes." The ruling classes who now emerged owed their power largely to the exploitation of just those hampering superstitions. The Egyptian pharaoh may have started as a magician; in any case, he did claim to be a god and spend much of his time performing magic rites. The first beneficiaries of the revolution in Sumer were the temple priests; the king, when he emerges there, is closely associated with the god whom he impersonates in periodical ceremonies. It is hardly to be expected that ruling classes with such affiliations should be patrons of rational science; they were too deeply implicated in the encouragement of hopes which experience was repeatedly showing to be illusory, but which still deterred men from pursuing the harder road of sustained and intense thinking." That POV concerns ancient times but if JBJ is a contemporary example of the old, has anything about the human organism changed? - 18:07:35 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN03: Further-on page 267 paragraph 3 Childe writes this, "The superstitions man devised and the fictitious entities he imagined were presumably necessary to make him feel at home in his environmen and to make life bearable. Nevertheless the pursuit of the vain hopes and illusory short-cuts suggested by magic and religion repeatedly deterred man from the harder road to the control of Nature by understanding. magic seemed easier than science, just as toture is less trouble than the collection of evidence." Ok ok, true its old but the point that I see, the difference between the old stuff as appears in the so sed holy books and revelations for such ain't any different from what the JBJ, et.al., attempt to pass on here. Is it just a class war? - 19:13:12 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I wish we could kick back and share a BIG bottle of wine...maybe that'd do it. I am currently taking applications for anyone wanting to rent a 2 yr old for, say, the next 16 years. Rent may not be the right word, since I am ready to PAY someone to take him. Where's the advil?... - 20:56:01 on 12 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: "Red chief" may be a money maker. They'd pay you to take him back.LOL! If you think they're bad now, wait till they're 16-18yrs.It gets worse, believe me. - 4:38:07 on 13 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, Of course we're dealing with models here, certain perceptual models of what one wants to call reality. The purpose of naturalism IS to define ONLY things of direct cause/effect as 'real'. Materialism IS to define things of measureable content (matter) as components of a final reality - both very distinct descendents of determinism. This is why gravity is rationalized to be a part of the physical, not because it has directly shown to be, but because someone is using naturalistic and materialistic models to interpret things. The distinction is that gravity affects the physical, it is not an inherent part of matter. You will never find this otherwise stated except in a materialistic view of the universe - In other words, someone who is seeking a form of repitition and reliability within the physical, will find ways of rationalizing their original hypothesis, as you have shown. I'm glad you explained absolutes in that way because you made it very clear that you only refuse to acknowledge you also seek purpose in this same sort of hypothesis. Since we have defined these models, it is easy to see that the models are constructs. The word 'supernatural' for example, is only relevant to the word 'natural', also a construct. You will also be undeniably disappointed when I tell you that the true nature of the universe comes without these models. So what are we left with? What is the true reality without the models? This is the absolute spiritualism - a non-tangible, universal immaterial connection of the physical. Gravity would be the secular word for this. It's only an incomplete comprehension in a naturalistic or materialist view, where certain presupposed conditions are asked to be met. What if you took away your specific conditions for your view of reality, what then? Would you ever realize that there were no conditions to begin with? Why can't the absolute be 'relative' instead? It would seem a whole lot more natural without conditions attached. - 5:03:41 on 13 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Waaaay back when, the carrot that hooked the minds of early people on the mental image of a creator idea were the words that spun the magic and conjured-up that creator idea. The dishonesty of the JBJ persona also goes waaaay back, for one of the first points mentioned JBJ was gonna "teach" us here. When the day comes about that a teacher's shit does not stink, then that person will get my undivided attention. - 15:11:53 on 13 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:JAKE-- Too many double-standards, too many obvious contradictions, too little group interest, but hey, some other time maybe. - 1:37:34 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Jake, Grant danced around the part about, "Incomplete comprehension or understanding of gravity ... and in the naturalism model is a property of matter" exactly like you suggested. It's apparently okay to assume, or rationalize, a convenient conclusion in the meantime based upon what one wants to perceive anyway. You were right in pointing out his double standard. He's too full of pride himself to realize the point you made on forcing constructs versus looking at the basis or foundation behind the things that need the models for understandment in the first place. Notice how vague he is in his defenses. It's almost like he's saying, "Ooops. Time to get out now. Better find another excuse. Nobody seems to notice when I over-generalize anyway. I need group interest to have a discussion with someone anyway, just so I can have something to hide behind....dum..de... dum dum..." Lol! - 4:14:13 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Jake, Just so you know, I have no special partiality to you or anyone in this room but I'm curious why you think my 'version' of the monism/dualism debate was different or unusual. Maybe we can continue this discussion and others will add as they see necessary. Also, what are your views of consciousness theory and the human role in it? - 4:18:16 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:"...material realism and naturalism are a model or models of reality, not reality itself". He's got this part down. His only problem, however, is not only to separate these as constructed perceptions, but to eventually somewhere realize that reality will not be contained by constructs, and absolute tangible constructs even less. I don't think he quite understands the absolute as I believe you intended, because I also see it as an absolute relativity. Plenty of things happen without directly perceived causes. Does this mean they are not real? Certainly not. If we believed this, I think all human functioning on earth would fall into a deep depression. What makes life exciting is the unexpected, and not a mechanistic or naturalistic perception. They're looking for answers just like you and me, only theirs are much more limited and largely ignored as such. - 4:36:23 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Never say die, Josh. Answer yourself as "Mona" or something next. LOL! - 11:32:43 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Bilford:I have no special partiality to you or anyone in this room, but you are obviously right, Grant. - 11:49:14 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Winnie:I've kept silent until now, but I too am totally impartial here, and you are obviously right, Grant. - 11:50:47 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

General Westmoreland:All right you squabs! Knock off the chit-chat. Grant is absolutely correct. Now get back to socializing. That's an order! - 11:54:43 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Uncle Jed:I know ya'll think 'possums are all cute and cudly and would make right nice pets. But you know, some critters just can't be housebroke. A feller can wash a 'possum all up, give him some vittles, put a cute little hat on him, teach him some manners. But it won't change nuthin'. Soon as the feller turns his back that little 'possum is gonna pee on the rug. - 13:08:13 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So, "They're looking for answers just like you and me, etc." what does that mean? "They're looking," to look means, does it not, that there is something there- outside oneself, for one to see? Now that would make sense, after-all one's very orientation to one's surroundings is crucial critical to one having a sane mind and maintaining one's body in an undamaged state of being. The JBJ persona just wants attention and control. Hmmm? Does that mean that the term 'atheism' refers to one saying to any, I am it and in control. - 14:58:06 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: So,"Plenty of things can happen without directly perceived causes." lets think of an example which we have heard about on a regular basis. Astrology! Who counts on the horoscopes? Is that a supportive example of that statement, that I've quoted? - 16:35:17 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Methinks Sybill has dropped in for a visit....ROFLOL!! Damn possums :-) - 19:40:27 on 14 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Betty, From what I've noted, you turned monism and dualism into a consciousness versus non-consciousness positions, when it's really the difference between a unified theory of mind and matter versus one that separates them into two worlds. It looks like you just got carried away there, because materialism is actually a physical monism. You need something like a deterministic vote versus a non-deterministic vote. What do I think of humans in the role of consciousness theory? Pretty much the same. There's not much more to say than you've already mentioned except that you may have inadvertantly waved a flag of anthropocentrism in over-explaining things. Consciousness theory doesn't place humans any higher than physical monism does on a universal scale, but it helps explain the bases for creativity and change. I know you touched on those things, but that's where I would have kept it. Determinists have yet to explain spontaneity, probability, coincidence, and the role of interpretation itself in constructing a complete world view. - 0:50:10 on 15 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:For the record I am not Josh or Betty but I have responded to one or more of one or both of their comments. I'm not sure why this needs to be addressed. Maybe it's one big joke in here that I stepped in on. I don't care for this kind of stuff myself. I think people misuse the whole anonymity thing but to tell you the truth anyone of ya could be someone else but I don't waste my time on that kind of stuff. I'll sure as shit talk with Josh or Betty or whoever posts whatever suits my liking. - 1:00:29 on 15 Jun 100 GMT

Jake:Grant, "...Yes, "saying the evidence found within the physical world is the reason behind the physical world is a cyclical argument", but it is an argument nobody is making." :::::: What holds the physical world together? If you say it's gravity in a naturalist perspective then you ARE saying that the evidence of gravity (an element of the physical) in the physical world is responsible for holding together the physical world. So what holds the physical world together if you are not saying this? - 1:23:43 on 15 Jun 100 GMT

jaywilson--feeling a pull on his leg--:I, for one, am more concerned with the situation of the gravity than the gravity of this situation. - 20:40:59 on 15 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Speaking of gravity, and this probably seems like a trap but isn't (no trap is needed), on the quotes page on this site contributed by Josh is a quote attributed to Abe Lincoln: "The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." The authenticity of this quote has been called into question. Anyone know the source of this quote? I fear that if these quotes cannot be substantiated the page may need to be removed. - 21:45:03 on 15 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Josh's pages have been removed at his request. - 0:12:56 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, I'm not particularly fond of astrology or numerology or much that is similar, but the difference comes in how I classify them. Whereas a rigid materialist will turn their noses up and deem these things as "hokey" because of their vague prophetic value compared with other branches of science as a part of determining one's reality, an idealist makes no delineation in this respect. An idealist looks at it like this: Astrologists and numerologists are a part of reality. Their predictions are as valuable as we individually want them to be. Some people live their lives by these things, some people simply find it entertaining. Just like one can shift a focus to more obvious physical predictions. In other words, the skeptic who thinks it is valuable to try to curse away such new age things from what is real (reality), will never make such attempts come true, just like an idealist will never rid the world of materialists. An idealist realizes that such biased separations and categorizations are simply subjective projections out into the world. It makes more sense to accept these things as real (a reality), and then realize one can shift a focus toward understanding the problems without excessive bias to certain beliefs and set an example for others. This is what I've been expressing in here. Not that I can convert anyone to anything but to realize the self-illusory boundaries within an ultimate reality - one that doesn't come with any preset definitions of what this reality is - which has always been a source of conflict in the world. This is the problem of naturalism / materialism; it seeks boundaries, not compassion. By forcing the issue in here, is it not clear that the redundancy shows materialism is just as arbitrary as astrology? The value of the CHOICE is what's important not what one chooses in other words. The boundaries are ultimately illusions. - 3:52:01 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Jake, Thanks for the feedback. I'll go back and check what I posted. If that is what I posted, that's surely not what I meant to do. BTW, I never had any doubt that you weren't me....!! (C: - 3:54:40 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

The One:Man made up "GOD" to feel beter about the "wrong doing" of their every day life. So one day someone said that an evil force was behind all of mans faults , not their "man" own doing. SO with this came the idea of "GOD" the so called solution to evil. "GOD" is here to explain the unexplainable It is only human nature to look for the so called answer to questions that do not necessaryly need and answer to . "GOD" to people is the answer to thier problems . To me this is BS ,for example lets use poverty . A starving person prays to "GOD" what is going to happen, nothing . But this person now feels that some sort of divine intervention is about to take place . This brings me to my point , "GOD" brings false hope to the heart of willing followers , to me that is a cruel injustice to man . - 3:58:38 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:BTW, I do think the Lincoln quote is legit. I just can't find the source (yet). - 13:31:09 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Interesting set and implication of word play BETTY. I think we can place your way of writing next to something as Mein Kampf or any religious piece. That sentence subject of your preference, it always gets the rosier softer pleasant sounding adjectives and verbs. The sounds they make have a gentler resonnance in one's head. The subject of which you do not favor are the opposite, you utilise words rich in primordial sounds, such sounds probably once were meant to alarm any and all. Those chosen comparisons above are loaded with exactly that very kind of word-play. So what I see on one hand you mean to portray your opposition here in terms, I guess you see as, to promolgate the favor of invisible stuff, well your very real excrement still merely fouls breathable air. - 15:18:10 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: So JOSH wanted his toys back, huh? Thats always sad when a fellow human doesn't feel as if the deeds- the doing of their hands and mind, are wanted. Dare one hold that he really felt he should be loved for, and thought his utmost values were, that he had put his all in those pieces? Well, if this BETTY is not really just JOSH, perhaps her mettle is composed of sturdier stuff. Her recent post to me had a marshmellowish flair, those passive agressive types typically are sturdier than most will recognise. took his toys and went home, hah! that is weak - 16:43:02 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy...here's one source for the Lincoln quote...:"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." -Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis.......................... http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/rssl/foundingfathers.html#lincoln - 16:44:14 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: Thank's for the post. I have always wondered where all these great leaders are: today when we need them most. Things would have been a whole lot worse if the fundies had written the constitution. - 20:54:36 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: I have been reading the founding father thing, off and on most of the day, what is it of the 'founding father thing' which the contemporary political types refer to? Religion clearly meant nothing to a lot of those ol'timers, and none claimed, it seems, to know a godthing. What is the issue, is there an issue of separation of church and state? Again, I must say the religious and other such mind sets, all that they want is to have control, of what others either do or can say. Current laws even mean to control what some can think, here my concern are the "hate-laws" these are attempts, early ones, to control thought. - 22:45:07 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Thanks, Cristy. I've found the quote all over the place but not any documentation or anthing. That should do it. - 23:30:37 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Grant: Soap opera digest:Well as always I know nothing for certain, but it appears that Josh is Josh, Betty is actually Betty, and as we all know, Jake is also Betty. Marsha, who is secretly carrying Johns baby, has amnesia. Bilford and General Westmoreland appear to be Winnie and Uncle Jed respectively. I'm beginning to believe in parallel universes and stuff after this. - 23:38:36 on 16 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:ALL, I emailed Josh from the address I saw on his pages and asked him if he would come in here and prove that he and I are different people just by opening the discussion a little more. Apparently, instead my email reminded him to remove his pages altogether because he didn't want anyone emailing him from this site anymore. I apologize for betraying his confidence in an email but some of it was just too humorous to pass off on. He wrote, "... Having a more positive form of atheism than in materialism posted on that site was like holding a sign in front of a leper colony saying, 'Welcome to our Cozy Village, Don't Mind That We're All Falling Apart'. My pages did neither harm nor good but they didn't represent the type of people who posted to the discussion board as you may or may not have noticed. This kind of paradoxical hypocrisy is funny at first if you think about it, but I'd rather not be that one person smiling, waving a large flag of optimism for the world village while standing in some remote, swampy, disease-infested river of mud. You may or not find this humorous but in other words, there are better places to voice these kinds of opinions. Anyway, I thought I had asked the pages to be removed earlier, however, I will request from the site manager that they be removed. I'm sorry if this is not the kind of response you would have liked. Best of luck to you ..." --- Josh, if you're out there! I find it very humorous! It's too bad others don't have the same sort of humility to look at their perspective and see where it needs holistic improvement. Me, well I'll see if I 'stick' around a little longer. Thanks! - 15:15:41 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:No, I take that back. What Carl writes is humorous! - how he can take something written that's full of optimism, full of freedom in mind for the individual's own volitions, a freedom that allows one to rid themselves of the boundaries of culture and bias, a freedom from all constructed mental boundaries over time which restores a meaningful feeling for the human spirit, and then he turns it into something of an entirely different perspective. As if his own plans would not be to convince everyone that comes in here of the benefits of rigid atheism! I'm actually flattered in a way, I have to say, that my piece would be that important to him in a way, but that's where my heart stops. Notice how he picks apart the flowery words. He has trained himself so vigilantly towards pessimism for any faith in humankind that he cannot simply sit and appreciate when someone offers kindness and holistic reasoning instead. This is rigid atheism. This is it right here, folks. It's not a worldly epidemic at all, it gets right back to the home. It's a personal problem - a person's problem with the outside 93% of the world that seeks a more positive spiritual and/or religious lifestyle. Carl, take a minute and notice how there is someone right here taking the time to say that even if she disagrees, she can still feel compassion for those around them. Religious and spiritual people aren't out to get you or torture you in a gas chamber. --- At ease, Private! lol! - 15:41:57 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- The sad thing is that the beauty and wonder of the universe are lost on you. You won't look. You'll only look at some black velvet painting of reality that you bought at Disney World. - 15:54:59 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, The only thing that's sad to you is that I do not have a Naturalist perspective. What makes you think looking for exact matches to fit some kind of reductionist, materialist puzzle together thinking the world is so deterministically laid out is not Disney-landish? The funny thing about Disneyland is that they idealize imagination and creativity while they reproduce formulaic plots and stories over and over - all the while hooking the average Joe on materialism. You say I don't look and see? I'm lost? Yeah, I know you meant 'Disneyland' as a metaphor for naiveity, but look again at how you try to convince me of your position - illusions themselves, hun. Romantic constructs of how things SHOULD BE, not how they really are - relative to one's position, not some absolute cosmic law of cause and effect. - 16:22:19 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Disney as in "make believe". I never tried to convince- only to explain. I'm not going to go into this again. Take your own advice and go elsewhere, or produce some evidence. - 16:41:45 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Another thing, Betty, your behavior here has really turned ugly. Perhaps you would do well to step back and look at it yourself. - 16:55:14 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: there are many countries in the world where they will be "out to get you or torture you in a gas chamber" because you're a unbeliever.And many others that have sizable populations that want to impose just that. "Religious and spiritual people aren't out to get you or torture you in a gas chamber. --- At ease, Private! lol!" Religion has a dismal history of being intolerant and blood thirsty towards the non-believer.It doesn't take all just those at the helm: as the history of religion has shown. I don't see your new age rubbish as being any different. - 21:56:53 on 17 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Betty, you really are a nasty little creature at heart, aren't you? Or just really AMAZINGLY insecure. Funny how much Betty, and supposedly Josh in that quoted letter (which I see as very rude, to quote someone's letter behind their back), sound like fundies such as Rush Limbaugh. The words are a little different, but they sound exactly the same coming out. At first trying everything to convince you of their "obvious rightness", then turning nasty and insulting when you don't lap it up as the wisest words you ever heard. Actually, that analogy she quoted sounds suspiciously like RT Lee, doesn't it? Is THAT the kind of person you want to be Betty? Devoting your life to hate? - 22:09:18 on 18 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Doug, I'm in America and I know for a fact that a doctrine of thought or religious wordings are not responsible for intolerance. People are. And not every people. You'll notice that people use religion as a crutch, a face value, something to hold up as an excuse for their actions, however, religion and spirituality have nothing to do with it. - 23:20:00 on 18 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Once again, there is no more evidence for a belief in material realism/naturalism than in consciousness theory. They are both perceptions. You wouldn't realize this if you weren't truly honest in your approach to what others post. The difference is that consciousness theory requires no constructs to determine reality. - 23:23:05 on 18 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Cristy, You're so small league it's not worth any other postings. You can't handle the intellectualism involved in the previous conversations and so you resort to some sort of pop highschool level psychology instead. Rest your brain, dear. Devoting my life to hate? Nope. Don't make yourself a martyr, dear. I spend less than 1% of my life in here. You wouldn't be worth an ounce of wasted hate, but I do enjoy this room for it's entertainment value. - 23:32:02 on 18 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Better sit it out for a bit, Betty. You're just making things worse for yourself. - 23:35:43 on 18 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Ooooh, scary. lol. - 23:48:32 on 18 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Geez, Betty, I'm not threatening you. I'm trying to tell you you're making an ass of yourself. Don't suppose it would help to mention how typical this type of behavior is in failed proselytizing loonies. - 1:19:30 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

jaywilson--2 cents' worth--:BETTY: Listen to Grant. He's right. Many of us posters have embarrassed ourselves in this forum. Right now it seems to be your turn. Chill. - 8:27:40 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: The points you portray for the POV as those JOSH spoke of, are not what I read of him. I suppose that if I accepted what his primary idea was then those words\ideas would be in line with that acceptance. I do not accept what he inscribed as well as much of what you inscribe. The one aspect I find inhuman, you both mean to throw out anything humans have learned that doesn't fit with or suit the thing you two so champion. The humanity you mention, in the views of the thinker/writers I've read, and this includes even a few religious types, they exclude nothing done of the human hand or mind. Perhaps you've heard said or read somewhere that man's assorted achievments have been done as though each achiever stood on the shoulders of giants. On who's shoulders do you stand for the position that the various human predecessors-i.e. thinker writers, were "wrong"? - 15:21:08 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: The points you portray for the POV as those JOSH spoke of, are not what I read of him. I suppose that if I accepted what his primary idea was then those words\ideas would be in line with that acceptance. I do not accept what he inscribed as well as much of what you inscribe. The one aspect I find inhuman, you both mean to throw out anything humans have learned that doesn't fit with or suit the thing you two so champion. The humanity you mention, in the views of the thinker/writers I've read, and this includes even a few religious types, they exclude nothing done of the human hand or mind. Perhaps you've heard said or read somewhere that man's assorted achievments have been done as though each achiever stood on the shoulders of giants. On who's shoulders do you stand for the position that the various human predecessors-i.e. thinker writers, were "wrong"? - 15:21:10 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, intellectualism? From you? LOL you certainly do have an inflated view of yourself. As usual you mistake being dismissed as an idiot as someone "not understanding" you. Well, if that helps you sleep at night! I guess someone like you HAS to be delusional, in order not to be suicidal. - 19:49:30 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Supreme court throws out student-led prayer! - 19:49:59 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:JAYWILSON, I think Betty's got her pride and stubbornness so wrapped up in making "points" here that she hasn't the fortitude to realize when enough is enough. She is the kind of person who, given enough power, would start a war rather than ever admit an error in judgement. But w/o any power, they are simply pathetic and need to go around attempting to demean people to make themselves feel powerful and intelligent. - 19:55:42 on 19 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Hey guys and gals, I will be outta pocket for a while w/ some traveling. (*note to lurking burglars, my dh will still be home cleaning his guns and training the dobermans, and we have nothing worthwhile to steal anyway :-) ........Maybe the site will have sucessfully shed the parasite by then *s* - 21:36:56 on 20 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Hmm... Pretty dead around here. Finally spotted a Jesus bumper sticker I liked. Said "Jesus is coming- Look busy". - 4:34:38 on 21 Jun 100 GMT

Grant: The real deal:JAYWILSON-- Just finished a book definately worth wiggling the ol' eyeballs: _Consciousness Reconsidered_ by Owen Flannagan. In the blurbs, George Graham says, "This is a marvelous book. It's central claim is that within a broadly conceived naturalism there can be a coherent, probing, insightful theory of consciousness. Flannagan examines more problems and topics associated with consciousness than any other philosopher since William James!" --- If you know William James, you'll know that this is saying something. One of the things I liked most about the book is that the author also explains opposing views very well. FWIW - 4:57:43 on 21 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:Seems like our insults around here could use a little fresh inspiration... - 5:17:25 on 21 Jun 100 GMT

Grant: And...:Just where the heck is Marlene? - 5:21:59 on 21 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Maybe she's on vacation. It dies down every summer as us atheists have such good social lives once the good weather arrives.LOL! - 4:43:38 on 22 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:I wasted my vacation this year working on the house. What was I thinking? You going anywhere, Doug? - 13:05:57 on 22 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: well heck! I figgered that BETTY would stand fully bristled with names and dates of folk who've been screaming out all thru the ages, we're doin'this wrong. For the most part, I agree an essential and factual change is needed and will happen, the only question when? The problem of BETTY's position for me, is its sophism. Yea I know its an old tune but that kinda'word game has been around and used for a long time. Some call it propaganda. - 16:07:11 on 22 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: Articles as that one of a week or two ago about the USA founders who were against xian stuff, have been read by dudes like the supreme court justices. As law types they're some well read folk. Since I started to read, I have never been able to stop, I too have read some very very interesting things that have left me no alternative but to think humans are simply another organism. And that term holds only as it is something conjured up by ourselves. The religious types do they not 'assume' a lot of unknowable stuff with their tenets of religious belief and that kind of so-said faith? Geez, I am reading a book titled,"Moral Evolution". Its a muslim view written by a very learned person with access to some very juicy accounts. So far it has nifty parts that clearly concern favorable human relations, then releases the same good stuff as though grasping after something else outside what is the human organism. The writer includes some stuff I hadn't seen before of xian forgery, but thats what xian stuff is anyway, no? - 17:58:58 on 22 Jun 100 GMT

PETER:..Oh what a wonderful world this would be if everyone were as intelligent as Betty.. - 15:22:37 on 23 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: At the end of next month I'm going to Vermont to speak on paper that I'm writting.So at least I'll get away for a week.But the other author gets to go to Madrid, Spain in September. - 5:06:14 on 24 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:That's great, Doug! Is that the paper on lichens you mentioned some time back? - 14:59:57 on 24 Jun 100 GMT

jaywilson--Vermonter--:DOUG: Whereabouts are you speaking? UVM? Middlebury? Think you'll have time for a microbrew or two in Burlington? Is this an invitation? Yes? - 17:22:54 on 24 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, As humans, we stand on the shoulders of all predecessors. I never said Descartes or Newton were wrong. That's silly. Their ways transported us from the grip of the churches. What I'm saying is that it's time for a new perspective, a little less of something that's been in excess: materialism. You don't "throw something out" just because we learned it and no longer need it. It's still a part of history no matter what or where we shift our focus. There's nothing inhuman in the fact that we went from nomads to societal members, either. It's still a part of who we are. You know... a "learn from our mistake" kind of thing... and move on from there. - 23:20:49 on 24 Jun 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, The thing is if you're not looking for it, you won't find it. Anti-materialism is all around us. Just for example I mentioned the "Rambo" syndrome where visible physical ailments had precedence over (secondary) subjectivistic ailments, because of the trend for neural materialism. My friend Ann works in the healthcare field. She tells me stories all the time of how family members only keep their elderly grandparents alive for insurance reasons here and there, so they spend rest of their lives hooked on machines. You can look at our country in general and see how materialism has affected us. The higher cost of living has forced mothers AND fathers to go into the workplace. That's part of the reason kids go into gangs and there have been measures to dumb down test averages, because they don't get the attention from parents anymore. The people are calling. People hate spending three-quarters of their lives working for someone else for petty wages. It comes down to that most people realize a problem, but they don't realize WHAT it is. Someday the leaders will surface. But in terms of seeing "who" is saying what's wrong, it's only a matter of looking for it. Instead of seeking a better quality life, technology is after newer and better with no end in sight. All the products in the world still don't make this country happy. There's plenty of other examples of the detriments of materialism, if you were so curious. - 23:34:39 on 24 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Grant: Yes, it's a paper on lichens at the Mycological Society of America's meeting in Burlington.The species group has long been a jumble of names. I think we are on the road to sorting it out. One of the other authors even did some DNA analysis to back it up. - 4:24:40 on 25 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:jaywilson: Cool,I've only been to Burlington(see measage to Grant) once before.But, most of the State I'm pretty familar with. My nephew and his wife live down near Bellows Falls. I kinda getting a little nervous about speaking before all those people. Brews: sure, I don't have exact dates yet. E-mail me - 4:38:09 on 25 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:jaywilson: atmame77@yahoo.com - 5:01:54 on 25 Jun 100 GMT

jaywilson--you'll take a lichen to Vermont--:DOUG: Thanks. I'll be in touch. Several of our state's mountaintops host numerous types of Alpine lichens, all of them fragile and endangered. Interesting subject. - 0:33:53 on 26 Jun 100 GMT

Teen:Hi. I am a 15 year old teenage girl who happens to be an atheist. Here are some links to articles that I have written about being an Atheist Teen. You Don't Need God to Be A Good Person-http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=93570 Choking on the Beliefs of Others- http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=92813 The Bible- http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=89829 My Stance on God- http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=83308 My Stance on God Part 2- http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=85266 I would really appreciate you reading them and sharing your opinions and experiences with me. Thankyou. - 8:07:24 on 26 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: So that ongoing interaction you brought here it was just a hodgepodge of thoughts, merely your opinions? - 15:35:52 on 26 Jun 100 GMT

Cristy:Hi guys, glad to see JBJB hasn't spammed the place into hiding. I'm just in from Vegas where I met some gals from my moms-at-home chat board. No one was an axe murderer! :-) Shared a room w/ a former Xian recently converted to Judaism, and former atheist recently "saved" to Xianity. Made for interesting nightime discussion. Am particularly baffled by the atheist turned Xian, who was raised atheist in a very loving, intelligent family (who are now also baffled by her now). She's intelligent, secure...I just don't know what her prob is. All I got was that she needed the "easy answers" and is just totally convinced "something is out there". I wonder if it is partially rebellion from parents who raised her saying they'd rather she become a prostitute than a Xian? Hmmmm, something to ponder when raising our own atheist kids...............Well, off to pack for another trip so see y'all in a while! My email is cristyleean@hotmail.com so someone can let me know if y'all have to up and move to escape druids or anything *g* - 18:08:10 on 26 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: just needed easy answers, perhaps the questions were just easy ones? "something is out there" is this akin to a deer hunter's tale of the trophy gran'daddy buck of bucks, that "they know" is out there! Gosh, that took a lot of convincing, huh? - 22:21:27 on 26 Jun 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: Yeh,Things that go bump in the night!LOL. The beauty of the theist system is that you never hear from their unsatified customers.You don't even hear first hand from the "satified' ones either. Only second hand myths. Any religion that has to threaten death and torture because one chooses not to join their club; "isn't worth a bucket of warm spit". - 5:20:39 on 27 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY-- The atheist gene is recessive. :-) - 5:32:46 on 27 Jun 100 GMT

DRUDGE REPORT:. - 11:30:30 on 27 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:What a lame story. May as well lament the developement of flashlights because people could use them to practice eugenics at night. - 13:11:03 on 27 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Now, now there, lets not rush to a hasty conclusion, first lets ask a question or two of the article. Is it safe to figure that the financial backers of the paper simply want more in the way a financial return? These few folk will have stepped back and rhetorically asked, how do we present the story so as to get the highest, the mostest financial return? Then, perhaps someone suggested the use of fear! But how do you instill or create fear, was the next question? It looks like the response was to make mention of helpless people and see if that stimulates that 95% theistic factor. And, best of all in that way those few financially focused folk can maintain a storyline based on an the unending parts of synthetic propositions. Neat trick, huh? - 15:31:38 on 27 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- That attitude sited in that story is so foreign to me- that we should not learn something because it could be unpleasant or unsettling or could be misused. I suppose there could sometimes be a price to pay for acquiring new knowledge, but the price is higher for not acquiring it. I can't think of anything I know, however unpleasant, that I would be better off not knowing, or would choose not to know. - 13:27:06 on 28 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That choosing process is that very concern the exact deed that "prayer" is supposed to relieve one of. 'They' say via prayer one establishes a connection with a godthing and thereby one never has to choose. I guess its that mana thing. I thot JBJ saw and was advocating the same kind of idea with their views of consciousness. The advocates of the consciousness notion of course accused us others of dancing around and about a golden calf, i.e., materialism. In review of the article, I saw first an attempt to instill fear, now it seems I can make out a conservative element that puts forward a favorable appeal for a static world. - 17:14:27 on 28 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Yeah, I know what you mean- a little too well. Funny you mention that attitude toward materialism. I just read Rupert Sheldrake's book _A New Science of Life_. Sheldrake, of course is at the heart of this pseudo-scientific movement to infuse science with mysticism and hocus-pocus. He exhibits the same attitude in spades in the most remarkable manner. Surprisingly it was a pretty interesting read. Reminds me a lot of reading C.S. Lewis. It's the very same type of reasoning, with the very same type of lapses in elementary critical thinking. Wish I had read it when Betty first arrived on the scene. - 6:22:14 on 29 Jun 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: To read thru pieces as Sheldrakes requires of me to set aside a lot of what and how, etc.etc, I process whatever I percieve. But, even when in such states o'mind, I still can not stop the questions of accounts as these people lay out. This may be an attribute of or consequential of one always told to think and to think wider one had to read read read. Was that for 'atheism', of course not. Now, that meant I could read anything and everything, which I did. Sheldrakes accounts once would have fascinated me as did the E.R.Burroughs story's of Tarzan and Pellucidar. Now, accounts as Sheldrakes seem to require of the reader that 'childishness of mind'. The problem with that kind of requirement- for me, is that of when one allows children to read and so on, the "objective" in the allowance presentation of things and situations to a child, which includes reading, is for them to become good adults. One's childhood is so brief it almost never happened. How is requiring an adult to become a child again gonna do anything for that adult? The basic human organism exists for such a brief period of time, what is the purpose of being childlike twice in that brief period of time? - 16:43:42 on 29 Jun 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I wanna read it all. I want to understand everything. I need more time! Seriously, I find opposition more useful and interesting than stuff I already agree with. The Pope's writing is more interesting to me than the writings of Richard Dawkins for example, bless him. Idiology battles too are interesting in thier own right, IMO, regardless of what the ideologies happen to be. I'm afraid I also read crackpot philosophies with interest. What can I say. - 6:21:55 on 30 Jun 100 GMT