jaywilson--from the Dew Drop Inn--:BETTY: You're a breath of fresh air. Do you think mankind will ever know its origins (to include understanding itself)? What shift in our species-specific paradigm of consciousness might be necessary? Finally, what karaoke songs do you sing? (I once sang 'Born To Be Wild'--note Canajan roots, Marlene--in a karaoke bar in Tokyo some six years ago, followed by 'Georgia On My Mind'.) - 1:46:34 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Now THAT would have cracked me up! - 3:06:21 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, thanks for delving more deeply into "what is spirituality". "Feeling a part of something bigger" is a definition I can grasp. I still don't know if I FEEL a part of something bigger, but I like having it in words I can understand so I can explore it more deeply! - 3:54:14 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- We are all skeptical of beliefs other than our own. Better to include our own beliefs, IMO. The magazines of the skeptics movement, like the movement, do not. Not to say I don't like the magazines, or science. I'm strongly pro-science. But it's not perfect and it's not without limits. What is? I was reminding Betty that this particular skepticism is not the only game in town. - 6:04:29 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Thanks for openly stating your beliefs. I don't think we need to argue the precise meaning of "integrity". - 6:06:34 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--time to believing? But I just got here--:ALL: I like to tell my students that there are three states of consciousness: knowing--that is, perceiving with the senses; thinking--considering abstractions (love, freedom, gravity, etc.) extrapolated from knowing; and believing--in which one's daily life may be said to stand for or purposefully incorporate certain of those abstractions. As far as I can tell, the one thing I am willing to believe is that human beings can be better than they are. All else is subject to harsh skepticism. - 14:25:16 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: And again the troup in unison utters and chatters the noise heard as 'Belief'. It looks like its just a terminus mental act! If that description in view of the neurologic theory of learning is relatively true, then this is my basis for referring to religious types as preferring ignorance. The ideas that become the discriminating factors of the word believe in view of an individual's neurologics do these factors become the demonstative mental occurrences? Here, I resist BETTY's forming contention that materialism and nature are somehow anti to the human-organism. While I find CRISTY's account of being part of something bigger a bit too flowery, what I can see of that idea instead, is a facination for the utter unexhaustivness of the All outside our sacks of cells. It looks like, to me here so far, a general acceptance that the mental acts of "one-believing" are of a hindsight value. - 16:39:50 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, I'd just like to say that I find your style of grammar and syntax very interesting. -- And that's all she's gonna say on that one. :) - 21:52:45 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: Don't worri, my posts 'start-out' much longer but by the time I get thru tossin out the glizt and mush and whatever else, it can appear crude. But, on the other hand I am a carnivore and definitly not civilised. - 22:16:00 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--say it ain't so--:BETTY: Do you believe in Original Syn-tax? - 22:43:55 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, maybe try leaving the "glitz" IN your posts? I'm glad it's not just me who feels the "Universal Translator" on their monitor is broken sometimes! I have to admit nine times out of ten I read your post and just say "HUH?!". The only thing I know for sure you stand for is hating "gleeful capital murderers"! OK, now you can tell me my posts are ditzy or unenlightened or something, I've earned it :-) - 23:28:03 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY, gads tho', there is so much I can't get my hands on before its gone! What I do is get down what and all I can and later if any of it has {in-any} relevance I can maybe then smooth {in-over}things. Perhaps this is that epiphenomenalism that BETTY stirs about? - 23:57:23 on 1 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:jaywilson and Marlene: I meant it when I said barflies. They're usually pretty informal settings. You grab your request slip, wait for the cycle of singers, and grab the mike for your turn at Karaoke. Since I'm pretty regular I'll list the singers I most try to imitate: Reba McEntire, Trisha Yearwood, LeAnn Rhimes, and a little Martina McBride. However, that never stops my girlfriend and I from trying new stuff every now and again. I have yet to see an Elvis impersonator myself, at least where I attend. I only started about a year ago, but I'm hooked! - 1:02:09 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Betty - Time to put back on the serious face..*puts on thinking cap,etc.*:Jaywilson and ALL, Thanks for your greeting. Like I said, I might seem overly slanted and in a position where I am anti-materialistic, but that's just an argumentative stance for the occasion. Since you asked, I'd like to stress that in any paradigm shift, these things involve sociological, philosophical, psychological, and historical re-examinations. Note: a paradigm shift doesn't necessarily imply an attempt to ignore the preceding steps, but a sort of learn-from-the-past-efforts examination. Materialism, in this case, allowed for the initial and literal separation from the mind and body of the Orthodox church and enhanced our investigation of this planet and universe with very little interference. And because of this, we are at a point in technological and scientific discovery now where everyone, no matter which faith or background, has access to and can appreciate a more comprehensive, scientific creation story -which gives us just about as accurate as we need a description of our origins. And so, no one can really discredit or attempt to disown materialism as part of humanity, but as you can see, adopting it as the most unifying philosophy for a way of life is the point in question. -- What will it take for all of humankind to understand itself as a self-reflexive entity of the universe? Well, it's been theorized based on the increasing number of kids who feel disenfranchised and therefore abandon their parents long chains of religious heritages will eventually be quite a substantial part of the population, and when they get their say at the things of this world they are likely to look for alternatives. Assuming this, that's a good guess to point fingers where a paradigm shift will most likely take place, but not necessarily a conscious minded one (pun intended). How will people agree upon some or any new vision? I point my finger to the postulate of critical mass. Ironically however, it won't be until afterward, after the kids were inherently (subconsciously) ready to accept a new world-view, and after adopting this consciousness paradigm as a literal metaphor, and they could point to their collective subconscious needs manifesting themselves in this form that they could look back and say, wow!. The thing about visions of this kind, however, is that they can't be forced. We call that totalitarianism. They just have to feel ready for it, just like materialism- we felt that's what we needed, and our kids will stay with it until they feel differently. - 1:09:41 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- I copied this stuff from the Religious Scientists homepage, which I have linked. I'd be interested in your take on it. My problem with it is that seems to me to be an arbitrary belief system, made entirely of wishes. I'm sure you can see where this is going. :-) ****** What We Believe: It is done unto you as you believe. Religious Scientists believe, very simply, that the Universe is fundamentally spiritual—it has intelligence, purpose, beauty and order. Whether we call it God, spirit, energy, or Universal Intelligence, every person, place and thing emanates from this spiritual universe. We believe this Universal Intelligence is within us, as well as around us, and that we are conscious of it. Our beliefs are in harmony with the basic tenets of all the world's great religions. Religious Scientists believe that God is a loving Infinite Intelligence, operating through and in all of life, never separate from anyone or anything. Through classes and study we come to understand our oneness with this indwelling Divine Presence. The way of life we teach and practice is learning how to live in accordance with spiritual principles. These principles, or metaphysical laws, are as reliable as the laws of physical science. In the scientific aspect of Science of Mind, we believe there is a body of knowledge about spiritual laws which operates in the Universe as Cause and Effect. We teach that "It is done unto you as you believe." Our thinking and our expectations create our reality. It is in studying and applying spiritual laws that we can change our unconscious beliefs and create improved conditions in our lives. ------ Realization: know that life already is the thing or experience you want. If you can desire it, imagine it, picture it, it must exist in Mind. Otherwise, where did you get the idea? Remember, the first premise of Religious Science is that there exists a fundamental Unity. There's no place other than Mind to get your idea. For a truly effective prayer treatment, you want to keep contemplating spirit's nature as your own; when you have an inner feeling of "YES!", that's when the realization arrives. When you open your eyes, your desire may not be sitting on the floor in front of you, but don't be fooled...Mind is already at work unfolding it. - 12:41:36 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--another dead white male--:BETTY and ALL: Anybody here read the late Southern novelist Walker Percy's "Lost In The Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Guide"? I'd recommend it heartily for food for thought concerning just who we are, let alone where we might be going. By the way, Betty, you write divinely. - 13:04:07 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:JWILSON: Devinely? one of the things I seek to avoid is a lengthy metered piece. Thats how I review writing, and the trait or quality which I think I see of folk who mean to convey "spirit" stuff, thats how they make their appeal. So when I cut-out and disect my bits I present here, I seek to not appeal to the minds here in that way. - 15:41:43 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--prose is for pros--:CARL: No wonder I don't understand what you write. - 15:46:19 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:JWILSON, Soooo, you are a spirit? - 16:37:20 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I'm with you, we ARE a bag of cells. The only spirit I can accept is when we use it in the context of vitality, like team spirit or a will to succeed, a will to achieve. In other words a description of personality. - 17:07:54 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- I do hope that "devinely" thing was meant humorously. BTW, where does Percy think we might be going? - 17:13:49 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Well that was interesting! Is Brother Josh a deacon? - 17:19:09 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I suppose if I were to give Karoke an ole kick at the S-cat, Janis Joplin, Joan Baez, or Carley Simon(sp) would be on my list. Of course I'd need my cane and walker as well as a dose of geritol to perform. - 17:24:03 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..just making sure? :BETTY- By paradigm shift do you mean this "In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift". Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another". Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphisis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. For example, agriculture changed early primitive society. The primitive Indians existed for centuries roaming the earth constantly hunting and gathering for seasonal foods and water. However, by 2000 B.C., Middle America was a landscape of very small villages, each surrounded by patchy fields of corn and other vegetables. Likewise, the printing press, the making of books and the use of vernacular language inevitable changed the culture of a people and had a direct affect on the scientific revolution. Johann Gutenberg's invention in the 1440's of movable type was an agent of change. Books became readily available, smaller and easier to handle and cheap to purchase. Masses of people acquired direct access to the scriputures. Attitudes began to change as people were relieved from church domination. Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant. In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands. - 17:40:07 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Grant/Marlene: Religious scientists?? Oxy-moron? God must be real because the concept exists in the mind? Like fairies,delusions, hallucinations and santa claus? OK, I know Santa's real. I STILL say the only argument for a superior being is the 'design with a purpose argument'. It's the only argument which I haven't seen a persuasive counter argument to the rest... is wishful thinking. Marlene I'm with you on the spirit is felt with PEOPLE interacting, not sky gazing. - 22:15:49 on 2 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- How does the argument, design with a purpose, even qualify as a proper argument? Yes, I'm also a person who can't see the natural and supernatural being married, I think religious scientist is an oxymoron too, the same for christian science. - 1:52:03 on 3 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: Divine writes:Betty does write very well. Classes up the joint, as does jaywilson if ya'll haven't noticed. Doesn't hurt to write with a little flair if you've got some. Me, I'm stuck on a more earthly level working at making my thoughts understandable, but maybe there is something to be said for that, too. - 2:37:28 on 3 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: UTILITY. The interconnectedness is astounding. The planet is screwed up, but it does screwed up well. Let me rephrase that. Not a proper argument ?? It is THE argument!! Every living thing conducts billions and billions (did I mention billions) of biologic functions. Happenstance? Hadn't noticed reproduction or the sun have a purpose? Who created the first chicken, or something like that is a much shakier debate, as I've alluded to before. But the fact that hearts, lungs, hands and brains have a purpose,is too powerful to be brushed off as a collision of cells or something. It is akin to throwing a bucket of paint against the wall and getting the Mona Lisa. - 7:42:27 on 3 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--male bovine exhaust!--:ROB: Huh? And just what might be the purpose or utility of that metaphor--besides explaining Jackson Pollock's career? It surely fails when applied to microcosm or macrocosm. - 11:42:50 on 3 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: Say it ain't so-so:jaywilson: Bucket of paint? Pollocks's delicate interplay of light and shadow, color and texture, uniformity and order, all virtually scream "paint roller!" - 14:09:11 on 3 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Shoot, I thought there would be talk of design arguments today. ROB -- Are you familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's writings on evolutionary theory? Don't know how interested you are in this stuff. Your statement surprised me a little. - 2:26:06 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- It suprised me too! I was hoping for the same as Grant. Where IS everyone today? I guess my question on that would be, if the universe was designed and we were designed, how do we lowly little humans see so many flaws in the design? - 2:40:03 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--the answer, my friend--:MARLENE: Because *we* are flawed. Heisenberg knew that. - 9:21:26 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Ooohhhh! That's the problem! If we didn't see the flaws in the "perfect design" we'd be perfect. Now to remedy that particular problem all we have to do is to all concentrate on perfection creating a collective species-wide consciousness of perfection and then VOILA! Perfection! - 14:30:31 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:It's a perfect design for a sufficiently sadistic designer like the Xtians have. - 15:01:57 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

Betty - Jumping back in, head first.:Flaws? Merely a point of view. We concentrated on our current methods which deemed the word and idea, "flawed". We couldn't have gotten to where we are without a few "mistakes". We learned and moved on, and if it's not humans something else will come along. The whole process is working just fine, if not we wouldn't even have something to complain about. When the ego gets caught up in its own "sack of cells" cells ideas, it's hardly appreciating anything at all - in fact, that's about as narrow-minded as it gets. Also, it would be great if everything, like some believed, can be summed up into a 2 sentence paragraph, but to me, at least, that's like picking a favorite star in the sky, the best looking person on the planet, or the best tasting jelly bean. Materialism seems to come to mind again - considering the smallest ideas possible, instead of the opposite. In response to, "I don't like it, but that's just the way it is" line, I will say that I'm the kind of person who doesn't settle. If the current idea suffers to a sack of cells, I move on and find something better, because just maybe, just maybe, it's the SACK OF CELLS (or concept thereof) with all the problems. Afterall, the rest of the universe doesn't seem to give a shit and gets along just fine with each other. :) - 23:09:09 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

Betty - Is this English Lit.? I want to drop off my essay.:Grant, I like that post from the religious scientists page, but like I posted earlier (I think to Marlene), you can have all the stated beliefs in the world, you can memorize the words, repeat them, and teach your kids, but it's not the words or the practice of joining with others that like the same words as you - it's what they mean to you. I can go on and on about MR, but when you get simply trapped by the words or images out there so that you never make the relevance to yourself, you have misread the image. The influence of MR on our cultures has made these dogmatic practices seem overly beneficial in the sense that you can hand someone what to believe and then just expect it to make sense to them because they can hold it their hands. As we all know, that's hardly ever the case. So yes, I like the words, and yes, I have found significance in the pure religious tenets from just about all over the world whenever I can separate and weed out the practice from the personal meanings. I'm sure you'd agree when I ask, Why do our personal beliefs need one label or an organization to make them relevant to the individual? In other words, I wouldn't subscribe to this religious scientist page or any other or approve of the world 'follower' for myself, but I would read what they say and see if I can incorporate the beliefs with my own, instead of trying to find where I might disagree. It's a good time to post of one of favorite appetizers, "People have different ways of saying the same thing". And the clincher here is that if it is the same thing that we chose or not to respond to, there's something alot deeper going on than elementary particles. (: -- So, in summary, I think if it was presented as a personal belief in the form of prose or what-have-you, instead of an "I belong to this" institution kind of thing, it would seem less cult-ish -if that ever occured to you. - 23:39:07 on 4 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You seem pretty tense and I'm not sure why. Certainly you are giving as much as you are getting. Anyway, I posted the site to try to get some feel for what your reaction to the God stuff would be, not to make some kind of association with cultism or something. I was assuming that a god concept was not really part of your thinking. By "where this is going" I meant that if the assault on my beliefs is over, it's time to turn the critical eye on yours. The site really offers no evidence or substantiation for the particular beliefs. You really haven't either. As I'm sure you are aware, an assault on material realism even if successful doesn't result in your particular beliefs by default. I'm hoping to determine to what extent you place value on good over truth. I wish to determine what, if one begins at a neutral point, leads one to your beliefs other than a desire to get there. - 2:09:30 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I really don't think I'm narrow-minded in my thinking at all, I just don't want to be so open-mined that my brains fall out. Even though I think I am a sack of cells it does not mean I don't appreciate this planet we live on or the universe we live in. I also appreciate that this sack of cells is able to sort through the pebbles and recognize the nuggets of gold when I see them. - 2:53:35 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:OPEN: The addition of the word 'perfect' was slipped in by someone else. It is quite possible that the world is both an imperfect creation (and hence imperfect creator??) AND still acknowledge the obvious,BIOLOGY HAS ORDER. Physiology works. We are designed. Granted there are millions of examples of flaws, cruelty run amok,etc. I still adhere to the Aunt Clara (Bewitched)view of a creator... she got it it right about half the time. There isn't any spiritual communication,as far as I can tell (Dionne Warwick excluded). Maybe 'god' IS dead. Does someone have a rationale that explains reproduction, the complex biologic processes of the body, how we 'happened' to have lungs which hapeen to breath air,etc? - 18:14:26 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, ever hear of that little theory called "evolution"? And it's little sister "natural selection"? You can't make the correlation that because biology has order, therefore we are designed. It is your OPINION that we are designed, it is my opinion that the order we observe could have been built up over billions of years of natural selection. Nothing is OBVIOUS here, none of us were around to witness either evolution or divine creation. Just because you cannot UNDERSTAND how it could come about otherwise, don't limit your mind to accept the simplest explanation and deny yourself the opportunity to expand and learn. Believing in the easiest explanation is a cop-out for not trying to truly understand something. - 18:43:46 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY and ROB- I think, once we fully understand evolution, that this would be the simplest explanation. A creator whether flawed or perfect is a much more complex idea. - 20:06:06 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Cristy/Marlene/Jay: Of course it's my opinion, I don't presume to have answers, I'm still working on the questions. I like the sarcasm Cristy, it suits you. I wasn't trying to be offensive with the term obvious, but it is obvious none the less. Its obvious that anatomy and physiology have a function, a utility. I'm guessing you were referring to HOW it occurred (i.e. evolution) which I wasn't. Nothing man made is going to evolve for you. Stare at plastic for years if you like, it just sits there. Marlene, how does evolution explain design? Jay, the bucket of paint against the wall comment may have seemed obscure to you, its the not-so-old O.J. defense. Throw a bunch of goo (in his case allegedly cross-contaminate blood samples) and get an exact (10 billion to 1) match. You can't produce his DNA by combining other peoples blood, you can't throw paint against the wall and get the Mona Lisa, you can't throw random objects together and get integrated design, in my opinion of course Cristy. - 22:29:11 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:ROB--and if we cannot explain this, would this mean there is a 'creator'? - 22:31:45 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

PETER--on a mission to discredit a few wayward notions held by ROB--:..Rob, the alternative to desisn is not 'chance'--it is causality. This is why scientists don't worry about the 'tornado through the junyard building 747' argument the creationists for instance love to use, which sound impressive to the layman. Also, if one posits a purely conscious being creating all of existence we have another problem. To 'be conscious' means to be be conscious of SOMETHING--which is existence. Therefore, there must first exist something for the concept of 'consciousness' to exist. Some then argue that God ( or whatever ) could be conscious of himself. However, we here have another problem. God could not exist in the first place if he is pure consciousness, as there in nothing to be conscious OF. - 22:40:59 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

PETER-( venting a bit of frustration ):--In General--Now with this above argument kicking around, why do so many people still believe in God? If one can refute my argument ( and believe me, it's not mine ) I would be more than happy to hear it, because i cannot see how it can. Am I missing something here? Is this SO complicated? - 22:46:36 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Peter: it means there was something bigger, which isn't particularly hard for me to fathom since man is flawed and not so 'big'. Mankind has screwed up the planet(and killed others who didn't think like those in power)not a benevolent force at all. Causality doesn't need a causer, really? My problem is with benevolent, I don't see anything outside of man being particularly kind, real or 'worshipable' either. Just because most of us here at this site are aware of the harshness of reality,it doesn't make, what's the word Cristy used, enlightment EASY. It is very complicated to reject the absurdity of the bible while living in the bible belt and married to a christian myth-ist. It's complicated to be atheist, agnostic, theist or confused (I'm a confused) because it acknowledges that we don't have simple answers. I know that first hand,and thats why I try not to react to the affect of those who say they aren't emotionally involved in their view. I'm not sure I beleive in a god, good or indifferent. I'm just saying , for me, noone has refuted the design argument. - 23:23:15 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::GRANT: hadn't read it but I'll look it it. Surprised you how? - 23:25:04 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Peter: Soooo, there can't be a god because there would if had to have been a universe to be conscious of? Sorry I can't say what else there might have been. Maybe there were 4 gods and they created the universe after spades got boring. - 23:31:58 on 5 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, LOL at the gods playing spades! I can appreciate your questioning "is there or isn't there"...I've been there too. Forgive me if I get a bit indignant when the science so firmly ingrained in me is questioned, I guess I'm as emotionally involved in that as many xians are in theirs! *g*. It certainly does help to have a science background...starting at microbiology and working up through the physiology of more complex organisms makes it easier to accept how things can move from simple to complex forms. For example the mitochondria of our cells so resembles a bacterial cell (down to having its own DNA) that it makes it easy to accept how it could be assimilated into another similar cell thus forming the first cell with organelles (like we complex organisms have). There are organisms in nature that demonstrate various levels of cellular organization...cells forming semi-tissues, tissues loosely performing like organs, etc. One can see many precursors to things like lungs, hearts, etc. There are all ranges of circulatory systems from minimal to extremely complicated like ours. So if you only look at ours, you say "there is no way someone could throw a bucket of blood in that body and make a circulatory system like that". But if you look at the single cell, the earthworm, the clam, the insect, the reptile...up to the human you see a progression in complexity, not just BAM, it's a complex system out of the clear blue sky! - 2:35:12 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Another argument would be, if there is a god and he created everything...who created him. To create one must have thought, one must have consciousness to have that thought. One can't have a thought, especially a creative one, if one hasn't anything to feed a thought. For instance when a baby is first born and maybe even shortly before it is born, it is somewhat aware of it's surroundings, it's mother's heartbeat for one, when it's born, light and sound. It's aware because of what's around it in relation to itself. It will form thoughts as it grows older, based on it's awareness and it's interrpretation of it's surroundings. If god was all there was, what could he be aware of. I hope this made sense?!? - 2:38:39 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISSY- Or make a clay Adam doll and blow a breath of life into it, LOL! - 2:42:06 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Crissy/Marlene: Good point and good point. So why do I feel a little emptier? How do make sense of simpler life forms, amoeba's and quarks? The argument against a 'god that always was' seems to work against evolution as a complete answer too, doesn't it? In other words, how did the first single celled life get here? Evolution can explain the development to more complex life forms, but I don't see an explanation for the earliest forms. Is there one. - 3:21:12 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I'm really not tense. I will ask you again to review the posts on Feb.17 where I presented some of the serious problems using MR as a determiner of 'truth'. Like I've explained a few times now, THOSE are the reasons to seek a better shema of interpretations, and not just because it may feel good to seek something else. And after I explained clearly in objectivity why MR is a limited world-view, I explained what I have found to be a more unifying, complete philosophy. In response to your presumption: "what extent you place value on good over truth", I will ask, What is your idea/meaning of 'truth', and what methodology do you use to determine this? Because if your idea of 'truth' is that there is an independent objective reality separate from us, and you use MR (naturalism) to determine this, hopefully you can see in plain words now how your neutrality is not truly objective at all. I addressed the romantic, idealistic idea of strong objectivity on Feb. 17. The truly neutral starting point in this case is to find a way to incorporate the physical world and the conscious world in an interpretation without inconsistency. MR has been exhausted in its abilities. It's time for something else. But I've already explained this. If you refuse to accept this, then you are either sacrificing your own claim of true objectivity, or you have simply not understood the basic premise of my posts and I'll state to be clear here that I'm not here to aggravate you or assault your beliefs. Without personal criticism, I was hoping for an objective look at the points in question. If not, that's fine, but I can assure you that I am not the one misunderstanding anything here. So you can take this, too, as an assault or you can honestly consider what I post. I'm having a blast otherwise! - 3:34:22 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I really like the way you began your post "I really don't think I'm narrow-minded in my thinking at all..." Misunderstanding the "sack of cells" as the host of the ego and as the definitive sieve "to sort through the pebbles and recognize the nuggets of gold," is the narrow-mindedness I was referring to. So I guess, thanks for the example. Lol! Let's talk about the difference between essential awareness and existentialism, because from all accounts the "sack of cells" idea seems to be a perceived, objective discriminator of the world around them. On Feb. 17, like I explained to Grant above, strong objectivity is but a mere idealism itself. It would impossible as an inseparable entity of and in the universe, for us to be absolutely objective about anything. - 3:49:23 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Tell just why it would be impossible for us to be absolutely objective about anything? Keep in mind here that I'm not returning your insult by saying that the above post of your's is a fine example of someone so open-mined that their brains seem to have fallen out. - 5:16:35 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Narrowing down to the beginning of life on this planet, science has pretty well discovered the basic ingredients. But you also raise a good point, when and how did the universe begin and what was before that? Questions that are to date unanswered. Have you read any of Gould or Dawkins on the design argument? - 5:20:29 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:ROB--cannot dispute the 'design' argument? I can do that without using my usual 'primacy of existence over consciousness principle' in my previous post ( which CLEARLY refutes it, regardless of your protests of being influenced by the bromides and peer pressure of living in the Bible belt) . You see, my argument may seem far too simple for you to accept ( and it IS simple ) but it remains--inescapable. But just for fun, here's another one you may enjoy.... If all that is created ( existence--regardless of how many dimensions, planes etc. ) was done so by a creator, that means ALL of existence, including a creator MUST be created---period. ( as Marlene has alluded ). Therefore, ( as I have for so many umpteen times said in this website ) ad nauseum, a 'creator' which is responsible for all that exists, must be something other than existence, and guess what that it is? Yes, NON-existence. So, to say a creator created all of existence, is to say in essence, a creator does not exist..because he cannot exist in the first place if he is solely responsible for creating ALL of existence. If one says 'something' ( regardless of what it may be ) this implies existence, so a 'creator' connot non exist, yet some hoe BE around to create all that exists. Now this may bug the kahooey out of you, but this is unfortunate. From this point on, regardless of how pog-headed and absolute I seem to be-- I will regard any argument you may have against mine, which I know is inassailable with 100% confidence, as an attempt for you to save face, to preserve your integrity of this belief, which can be easily shown to be a notion which could not be more impossible to exist than any other claim . - 5:58:27 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:..PIG-headed, that is - 6:00:24 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- I'm not aggravated with you. I think you are refreshingly open about your beliefs. I don't mean to say that you are assaulting my beliefs as in picking on me or throwing stones or something. You are assaulting my beliefs and I am assaulting yours. What else would you call it? But I enjoy this. I approve as long as it's a two way street. That's what we're here for, ain't it? However, I think we are communicating poorly. For example, I don't need to review your posts from Feb 17th. I'm well aware of all your posts. When I said you offered no challenge to naturalism, I didn't mean you had nothing to say on the subject, I meant that these things are unsuccessful in toppling naturalism. I feel that you are making incorrect assumptions regarding my beliefs. Judging from your responses, I'd guess that you feel I am doing the same regarding yours. I feel that you are missing the point of my statements. Again, judging from your responses I'd guess you feel I am missing the point of yours. I propose that we back up a bit and attempt to establish a little common ground and define some terms. I suggest we begin with objectivity, and differentiate it from objective reality while defining both. Are you game? - 7:00:45 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:ROB -- Nothing startling or profound. I was a little surprised because atheists are usually proponents of evolution. I think it's good to question everything and develope beliefs for yourself. - 7:08:59 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I don't think EITHER explanation can explain what the beginning of EVERYTHING was. Scientific theories only go back as far as Big Bang...xian theories only go back to a time when God was there, but not addressing where he came from. It's just a matter of deciding whether to go the road of "it's not for us to understand" or with the camp who is going to keep digging and trying to understand, making mere inches of progress every century but progress nonetheless. As for feeling "emptier", well that is the cost of being able to think and question for yourself. You give up the "comfort" of having someone there, always watching over you, *perhaps* ready to step in if you really need it. You give up the embracing community of those that (for the most part) only love those that think like them. You give up the thought that maybe someone has a handle on this chaotic world and we aren't just randomly bumping our way along, trying to make the best of it. Certainly that is a big attraction of the religions of the world...you aren't alone and someone is in control. All you have to give up is being able to think and reason for yourself! But that is what we are all here for...to be with "like-minded" individuals who will give support and give a sense of community that we lack being atheists in the "real world" (well perhaps I shouldn't speak for everyone :-). *Some* of us have really struggled to "overcome" religion and "come out" as atheists. For me, that has led me to be more adamant and outspoken about it in places where I am free to speak of it (I too am in the bible belt). I hope you feel like you get support here and answers to your questions, not like we are trying to cram stuff down your throat! .............................. quote of the day: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -Carl Sagan - 13:59:31 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of something else, one of the biblical passages we've all heard has'ta be that one of things being done on earth as it is in heaven, yes? I mention this because o'er the weekend I saw a program on pyramids, as they're found worldwide. But of the Egyptian ones, "they" said 03 things I found interesting. One referred to E.Cayce who said in a trance that the pyramids were constructed over ten thou.yar ago. 'They' said too due to current processes recent findings of that date is becoming acceptable. The next thing 'they' sed, due to the earth's rotation and wobble over time that stars appear at different points in the nite sky. Of this point 'they' said that holes in the pyramids also matched where certain stars light would shine into it, at that time! The final point 'they' put forward, the Egyptian pyramids were constructed in a pattern that matched the constellation Orion the hunter, the three great pyramids were Orion's belt. So, lets say those ol'boys were clever and mystified by the night sky but, so was everyone else, the society at large, with limitations in place, o'course. And, does that biblical passage, do it jist exemplify the then common ancient understanding of what was being represented with the construction and layout of the pyramids, as it is in heaven? - 16:38:14 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Like the poster o'old always sed, no god is good, I gotta agree. This matter is a twofold issue. One o'my offspring has a India[n] female aquaintence. Her parents are of the motherland had an arranged marriage, the father left her mother w/his parents, for approx.6 mos, when he came to the USA. The story goes the in-laws didn't care for her or something and so they locked her in a room and kept her therein the whole 6 mos. Now, the next point the kids are mature and fixin'to leave or get out of the home. The parents are clinging to the last one, the offspring's fren. One o'the things the father sed to the last in the nest, he didn't love the mother and that he stayed w/her just out of respect for the mother's parents and his commitment to the marriage arrangement. The father is now, he says, in the hands of a godthing. So, what is this if it is not just another example of an ancient very old idea, like the pyramid thing, that has outlived its usefulness and just ain't a good thing? - 17:40:36 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Excellent post! I suppose I've never had that empty feeling. I just think there are too many things to discover yet I suppose or else, I'm just content with myself?! CARL- Again, that "poster of old" was lucifer (with the small L). He was a student when he posted here, I often think about how he's doing now. If you remember he was quite the Marxist. More later, the little hurricane just woke up. - 22:07:49 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Cristy: I liked your post and I agree with you. Most of those here in the bible belt check the religious badge of people,to decide if they'll care. An area christian homeless shelter(receiving federal funds) was found to be finding shelter ONLY for those who would announce jesus as their personal saviour. I'm surrounded by people daily of the 'christians aren't better, just saved' double message crowd and many whom I work with couldn't care less about the mentally ill we are there to help, because they certain that they must have brought it on themselves. I'm OK with confronting the religious hypocracy piece and have been for years. The noone's out there element flies in the face of years of childhood religious brainwashing and is hardier to get a hold on for me. Thanks. - 22:16:16 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Peter: I'm not here to trade insults with you, which would be too easy. If we could stick to the views, we won't be wasting eithers time. A theory/theorum is only as strong as its weakest axiom, true? If so, then for me the axiom 'if everything is created, then the creator must have been created'. Can be ammended to be 'if everything EXCEPT the creator was created, then everything ELSE was created.' Gee you're right, that was simple. - 22:28:02 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: above CRISTY refers to a C.SAGAN quote that I think I can say I know. In the past weekend we participated in the opening day ceremonies of ECYB. As I have since after the first I arrive early, just after the gathering street has been ribboned off. Why so early? I like to watch such events come together take form, watch its meaning come alive. The day was cloudy and cool so the early arrivals were wearing their coats and sweaters. The youngest ball players and the parents are always neat to see. The little folk wearing their small but brand new rubber cleats cast their eyes about not knowing what to expect next. The mothers try to do the mother hen thing but that last until the kids spy the donut and hot chocolate stand and pull the moms next to it. Cars pull up and deposit jersied passengers who cautiously look about for teammates and coaches. Team parents begin the identity thing with flocking together so the kids get comfortable and playful, as games of tag and wantcher hat back begin. The older players arrive maybe ten fifteen minutes before the parade begins. League administrators stand out among the hundreds of new jersey colors and hats by being the only adults rushing about with scads of paper in hand. By now new-coaches and ex-coaches wander thru the groups of kids patting them on the back and acknowledging the kid's new team. Parent's wring each others hands to renew or set new acquaintences or to wave at someone across the way. Last season's all stars cooly acknowledge each other, as the other and younger players wordlessly respect and give them distance. During the formal proceedings an ex-ECYB player now retired pro manages to quiet them shows his glove and an old ECYB cap to their cheers. Then he says enjoy this! He mentions the first timers and especially the 14 year old ball players, as this event was to be their last. That saddened me some, my offspring is 14, so I have now, a delusion. - 22:44:52 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, what's your delusion? Sorry, I only got lost there at the very last sentence. Excellent post BTW, it is a perspective that I don't really ever enjoy. I look forward to a time to sit and really pay attention to the outside world...really watch how things come together and not feel antsy, like I ought to be somewhere or do something. We spend alot of life not enjoying the people around us as we should; thanks for the reminder. I KNOW I would look just like one of those hovering mother hens you observe! LOL - 23:28:59 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ACK! I have been preschool shopping and the one that best fits the bill (cost, distance, takes both kids, scheduling...) is a CHURCH OF CHRIST preschool. Even dh, the mild-mannered agnostic about choked when I suggested sending them there. How much brainwashing do you think they can really do on 2-4 yr olds? Just curls my lip to have to send them to a church preschool at all, but of course that is all that's available 'round here. They currently go to a church "mom's day out" program and I hear little snippets like "the man waited for Jesus in the tree" and wonder how much is sinking in. I WANT them to hear the stories, and those of the other religions, just in the right context. - 23:31:55 on 6 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I guess, I would then ask, if everything was created by a creator, why would the creator be an exception? - 1:14:55 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- ACK, UCK! - 1:16:20 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think many early civilizations worshipped the stars as they did the moon and most importantly the sun. I find it a possibility that the pyramids may have been constucted to resemble Orions Belt but I think the possibility that Cayce could "channel" this is so remote that it's almost nil. - 2:46:55 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I don't know if the CoC would actually brainwash the tikes but you'll likely have some problems. If you don't agree with what the staff is teaching your children, the children will obviously say to their caretakers, "my mom doesn't believe that!". It will confuse the kids IMO. They won't know who is telling them the truth. You or the staff at the CoC will be the rock, depending on who they believe. Kids at that age need someone solid and unwavering. Hopefully they don't choose to believe the CoC staff but all the other kids there will as it will likely be the same as their parents are teaching them. - 4:24:23 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:ROB-I am by no means here to trade insults either. All I can say is just try to ponder , for a few days at least, how something can be responsible for all of existence to exist without existing..or how something could exist as being pure consciousness with nothing to be conscious OF. As for an axiom being 'weak' (?) ..ponder this: The axioms 'existence' and 'consciousness' ( the ones I have used so far ) and see how weak they are. Try to refute either of them from the perspective of their respective alternatives; that being from the perspective of not existing and of being unconscious. - 5:44:37 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: The classical god of xianity has been mathamaticly proven to have not been able to have create the universe. Hawking's nonsingularity ( wave function of the universe). God can't be perfect 100% and nonsingular.So the realm of creation has to lie elswhere.It's not a proof or disproof of god/s but a limiting factor. - 6:06:57 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob:"Can be ammended to be 'if everything EXCEPT the creator was created, then everything ELSE was created."*** Occums razor would rule. "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.; Gee you're right, that was simple. - 6:10:44 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:Dug is smug.. - 7:36:33 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Peter:..but he can be - 7:37:06 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Doug/Peter:mathematically proven? Hawking also believes in time travel into the past is possible, which must be mathematically possible. One problem, the past ISN'T THERE anymore. The sun was a mathematic impossibilty, at least I heard it was 15 years ago. I say heard because I never did the math. Of course now they claim to have achieved nuclear fusion (on a very small scale) in the lab. Peter I'm certainly willing to reflect on the probability of pure consciousness,existence vs. nonexistence, evolution, etc. and I don't pretend to have the answers. The problem for me is that NEITHER explanation,daddy god or the climb out of primordial ooze,makes much sense to me. If two hypothesis make equal sense choose the simpler? What if two make equal NON-sense. What if cheaper isn't better or any more probable. If two things are equalling possible, then by definition NEITHER is more likely than the other. And I know the 'clasical god of christianity didn't create the universe, I wrote a 500 page book (as yet unpublished) sitting at my feet which makes that case. - 11:08:08 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob I have never heard about Hawking's time travel beliefs, could you quote a technical paper of his with this in it?******he is the reference to Hawking's paper:****from the Physical Review; 1983 Vol.28 #12;; Wave function of the Universe;; J.B. Hartle, S. W. Hawking., p.2960-2975.***** I,m affraid that S. Hawking has jumped over you by doing the math. - 13:59:12 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Perhaps for the discussion on consciousness and some creator, just read an answer to a quiz on the brain. I did not answer correctly its last question. The 3rd question concerned the number o'neurons in the brain, the answer is 100 billion neurons. The last question was of the bits of information the brain can process. Estimations of its 'raw calculating power' of bits of info, is 1 followed by 27 zeroes. Can this kind of number be believed? If yes, then how can how does one arrive at that state o'mind where believability sanely encompasses that prospect? Is it life? - 16:54:35 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Who recalls a wierd dream? If there is one thing that goes along with a dreamers say so of their dream, they "were invariably" of the leading social figures category. That has been the way until the coming of this pc-gadget that the dream accounts of others could go out. I had a dream about 'atheism', of all things! Its fast fading so what I recall was this, I was attempting and wanted to convey some ideas in a conversation. There were several or more people present and the thing that it seems was our concern got to the point where I began to laugh at the others for their requests for spiritual and god-belief understanding. What that was aimed at is gone. They in turn disappeared one by one until only an elderly appearing person was left. Just before that image disappeared too, it seemed to say something like they can't talk to you, and nothing else. I awoke only to wonder about, of all things, interrelations among people, and several ideas and emotions struck me. One was that the religious really and honestly know that there is no creator. But on the other hand there is a creator but only for the sake of the human creature's limited range of communication and relationship. Of the latter point, the simplicity of the need tended to by the notions of religion and all that it garners, that simplicity is that far-away fear of being truely alone in the immensity of all. That would explain too, why it appears in books I've been reading of racism, that religion and racism appear together. Was this what that ol'greek person meant who said, if lions talked god would be a lion. - 20:50:22 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Doug: I'm not a fan of Hawking, simply meaning that I haven't read his works. But if he's the British chap in a wheelchair with the computer assisted voice machine, then I saw a re-played interview where he claimed time travel was was very likely. Sorry I don't have a bibliography for you, but I have my mid-term right here. Your 'jumped over you' crack suggests you're indignant. Don't mean to question any gurus. Surely you're not suggesting we have to be a physics professor to have an opinion here. Christians don't like it when you express your own views either, you know. No offense meant, the learned professor seemed very bright to me. - 23:55:41 on 7 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Open:A man tried to hang himself at the hospital I work in, last night. Staff cut him down in the nick of time. This is the first close call we've had in a couple of years. Upon going to the unit today I heard various staff comment that 'he didn't mean it' and found that they had sent a MINISTER to speak with him today. His chart reflects he meant it very much and I'm appalled that they would have sent for a minister. 'More GUILT anyone?' Granted this is the bible belt,but don't people realize forensic patients are judge and juried by the cloth? How about negative associations...eulogies,last rites, making ones self 'right with god' before they finish the job. Any explanations for this? He said he was hearing voices, but some are sure he's just trying to avoid jail with a 'gesture'. Feet were 6 inches off the ground , head was dark purple. Gesture??? - 0:17:15 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- You are absolutely right about Hawking, math does say that time travel both past and future is possible math wise but not likely in reality. It's sad to hear about the patient. I hope he has recovered somewhat. - 0:49:09 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Marlene: Yeah he has and thanks for asking. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to me to have mental illnesses cast as 'saint or sinner' issues here. How's the grand baby doing. - 2:44:05 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- She's fine but you forgot to ask "how's Nanna doing?" LOL! Yes, these religious types are just so arrogant. Anything natural, whether it me mental illesses or gastrointestinal illness is a result of sin to them. If only they would consider their belief in something that they can't see, taste, hear, smell or touch, although of a lesser degree, is no different than the poor guy who hears voices. BTW, doesn't his meds help him at all. I have a neighbor who is able to do just fine with the meds. Also I met a guy one time at the doctor's office that told me he heard voices but he knows now that they aren't real so he doesn't listen to them. Kind of neat, IMO! - 2:54:00 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Marlene: How's Nanna? Getting any time for yourself?The patient you ask about is on a relatively newer class of med,an atypical antipsychotic,which has significantly less side effects than say Haldol, Thorazine or Mellaril. But the down side is that many of our sicker patients don't respond to the newer meds very quickly, at all. Alot of psychotic people can learn to 'ignore' the voices except people with paranoid schizophrenia or command hallucinations. Many to most patients we see have 'messy' backrounds, abuse histories, substance use to numb their pain or criminal activity when they're psychotic. There's alot to judge there if you're a good christian from the right side of the tracks. - 3:44:49 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:Rob--If it is within the laws of nature that life formed from the primordal ooze, it must be assumed that this is what happened way back when. You see when there are a whole pile of things existing amongst themselves, rubbing, reacting etc..something WILL happen ,and things DO happen..what happened on earth here is hat the building blocks of life happened. It seems remarkable to, because we ARE life forms, and we realize the 'odds' against this happening--but this only applies to those who stand by before the fact and complie odds Vegas-style. The odds against ANYTHING happening in nature would have the same long odds against it. For instance, imagine a bookie living in the days of King Arthur compiling the odds against a man named John F Kennedy, wjo was the president of acountry called the USA being shot by three bullets in a place called Dallas Texas on Nov. 22, 1963 at 1:oo PM CST? It DID happen, but the odds AGAINST it happening at that time, would seem just as remote at the time of pondering the event actually happening--and the same thing could be said about ANY occurence. - 5:35:15 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Peter:You're absolutely right. Taken in that context, most any outcome is improbable when considering the liklihood of a given chain of events occurring to produce it, and yet the outcomes occur none-the-less. Then, if primordial ooze actually IS more likely, since ANY outcome is improbable when considering the chain of events that had to occur AND we know through our senses we're here,we think. What drives the ENERGY which is the catalyst for the series of changes that produce these unlikely changes? - 10:56:13 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Peter: King Arthur's odds of predicting Kennedy's assassination would have been better if he knew that JFK was going to simultaneously piss off the Russians, Castro, LBJ,southern racists, the mafia, government war hawks and Marilyn's mom. Thanks for the thought provoker. - 11:03:36 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:This is for Betty to read, but I'm wondering, am I the only naturalist/materialist/material realist/material reductionist/etc. in the house? I'm curious because a couple of years ago on the Internet Infidels board I was defending, um, that stuff against an Xtian and none of the other atheists defended it. One atheist posted a disclaimer to the Xtian that there was only one person defending materialism (me) implying that he should not assume that all atheists are material reductionists. (What the heck should we be calling it, anyway?) - 14:40:40 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The other day I described a problem faced by a young female, here in the USA. As I heard the various details of her concern I was astounded. While she mentioned reliigous stuff that was not the aspect that held me, it was that in this day and age of knowledge and wide-spread awareness seemingly everywhere, individuals yet see it ok to treat and handle a young female's existence as they see fit. And of course, yes its all that sociological stuff and so on for the young females plight, but as my wonder wandered the ageless question materialised; What do we live for? Or for the young female specifically, what do the human male and female organisms live for? Well, until 'science' can come up with a better way the two sexes are the only way the human organism as a lifeform can reproduce and continue to exist. In today's world in the USA the two things are regularly separating{law defines it as divorce} and going on with some other member. I see too that the Bob Jones Univ.has adapted its public position on the inter-racial dating issue. Then today I read Alice Paul's ERA amendment that very simply says,"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." that was written in 1921. That too struck me as odd, why should that be a concern for anyone? Then I checked out a few of the biblical things of females, that political types like G.Bush jr. who says the bible's main character is his most inspirational political "philosopher"! Many folk should stop living in the past. - 16:17:35 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, the problem with seeing this fantastic and "improbable" chain of events is that it is very difficult for us to see all the things that DIDN'T work. Fossilization is NOT an easy process, and only a very miniscule amount of things are preserved. But from the sketchy evidence we have, there are a LOT of bizarre and maladapted creatures out there that just died off and dropped out of the great chain of life. Evolution didn't follow a nice little pre-laid path to get to us...it has TRIED about every other variation and the ones that WORKED are the only ones we see today for the most part. Mutations occur all the time and produce LOTS of variation. Look at the variation among dogs that has been produced by just a short time (evolutionarily speaking) of selecting based on their differences. A dazzling array of "mutants" and "maladapted" individuals have been produced starting from a few natural differences. In nature, these small differences would have come up, and if one (say a border collie precursor) popped up that was BETTER suited to the environment than generic ancestor dog, then the line would have moved that way. But the chihuahua and pikanese ancestors would probably have been eaten real quick by a bobcat and that line woulda petered out. Therefore they would have been around such a short time they were less likely to leave fossils than the "border collie" type, but evolution did try out those types and they just didn't work. There ARE few examples in the fossil record (and even alive today) of such maladapts. So it is not just the perfect line of ascention from amoeba to human that is commonly perceived. Millions of species that couldn't make it are lying along the side of the road of evolution. - 16:55:28 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:OPEN:...Dh (dear hubby) forwarded home an email from a coworker detailing coworker's Mom's long drawn-out gut-wrenching battle w/ cancer that she is about to lose. He was asking for prayers for her, prayers for the family to deal w/ it, and reminding everyone to appreciate their family more because "you never know when God will call them home". To borrow a valley-girl expression GAG ME WITH A SPOON. Let's all praise and pray to someone who is calling their child home by giving them a hideous disease that makes them constantly sick and lose their mind?! Spare me! But of course who am I to question "God's way". I suppose small-minded people need a way to not wallow in despair about something so terrible happening to a family member, but to write off cancer as "God's way of calling his child home" just makes me want to scream.................Since I'm on the string of what irritates me, another thing is when someone's home is spared by a hurricane or some such and they go on about "God is sooooo good, praise god, hallelujah!". Well, what about those 2000 people that died, did God hate them or something? Are they praising because someone else died but their Cuisinart was spared? Ugh. Tangent over :-) - 17:06:28 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Exactly, what about all the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or who contract or develope some awful disease. My saying for all these that want and ask for prayer is ..Nothing fails like prayer!... - 18:47:34 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I love the idea of inter-racial dating and hopefully long term relationships that create families. The faster this happens the more chance there will be racial intolerance. For instance, if a couple has children, maybe the grandparents or other family members were racist but once they get to know their little grandkids or nephews and nieces then the intolerance seems to disappear (for most anyway). - 18:54:11 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I know you posted Clark's writeup for Betty but I throughly enjoyed it! I would be, as you already know of the materialist persuasion. - 18:56:56 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I know you posted Clark's writeup for Betty but I throughly enjoyed it! I would be, as you already know of the materialist persuasion. - 18:56:59 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:Sorry about the double post! - 18:58:17 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, too true about interracial families... I have a great-uncle born and raised racist and it was fun to watch him adapt (in his 80's mind you) to his son, then a grandson adopting black children. Finally he just shook his head and said "I guess in a 100 years all the Cxxx's will be black". That's one family made better by being interracial! Only about 2 billion to go! - 19:30:19 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:That interracial topic has let me onto another tangent...adoption. You know if every person that protested as pro-life at an abortion clinic, or drove around w/ "it's a child not a choice" bumper sticker would just go out and ADOPT an unwanted child, we would seriously put a dent in the demand for abortion? But people are too darn busy telling others what to do to actually take positive action. Of course they fight tooth and nail for tax cuts too, cause they gosh-darn don't want any of THEIR hard earned money going to those lazy no good slobs off having unwanted children. (THEY of course is the religious right) - 19:38:24 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant/Marlene, I just have a quick moment here and I would love to continue maybe later tonight, but quickly: Grant: If you go by strict etymology, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a supreme being or god, which says nothing about any or no spiritual beliefs. In my case, I'm only an atheist when someone asks me the question. It's sort of like being an a-dragon believer, or an a-honest lawyer believer... (: Normally I don't go around telling people I don't believe in dragons or honest lawyers, but if someone asks I have to state a claim. Same with atheism. Materialism/Naturalism shouldn't be considered synonomous with atheism. No doubt there are theistic materialists out there, it falls in line with determinism.--- I'll see what happens later. TTFN - Ta Ta For Now. - 19:46:33 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:Yikes! I just reread my post above, I meant to say "the sooner there will be racial tolerance" - 20:11:59 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I abortion is a choice issue although it should not be used as a method of birth control. All the Yahoo followers claim that the fetus has the right to life but then again, there is the question of when does "life" begin. You are absolutely right though, of all the yahoo followers I know, none give up a dollar to support families who are non-christian unless of course it's to organizations that are trying to convert them. Then is their dollar spent for the family or for the conversion? All of the "nice christian foster parents", I know of, are walking the picket line demanding more pay for caring for these children. I have yet to know one of these families who are willing to adopt these kids. In fact, when the kids are found a adoptive home, they let them go as if they were kittens from a litter their pet cat had. - 20:23:23 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- You are right, atheism is not a religion or a belief, it's a disbelief. Atheists have different ideas on many things. - 20:26:02 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: In the coming monthes we could be hearing the word, Tolerance, pretty regular. On a FoxNews program I listened to jr. as he used it in reference to his B.Jones visit. The only problem with his usage, he means tolerance in strictly its religious connections! I didn't get jr.'s meaning to be a humanistic tolerance, as in one whereby he'll seek the furtherance of humanitys unity thru its commonnesses[sic?]. What a choice? Gore the friend of a liar[will there be connections?] and jr, a fella who doesn't seem all that sharp, his thinking powers I suspect don't register to high on any kinda'measurin'meter. I still await someone who will ask jr.where compared to the rest of the states TX was and is since he took over in educational improvements? You know, Mississippi is always at the bottom, and the top ranked states are some other state, where is TX in that kind of comparison? - 21:00:49 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: I can relate and I know it's frustrating for you. It never ceases to amaze me that christians will invariably attribute life's horrible events which happen to christians as'gods will', with a positive spin to it, 'our merciful god has given her peace now'. Horrible events which occur to non-christians are, of course, our own fault. I saw an entertainment tonight -type fluff show depict a girl surviving a school bus accident as a 'miracle' and noted that she came from a 'good christian home' and that their 'prayers were answered'. Most of the other children died. No miracle for them? They didn't want to live? None of the parents cried out to god for help? The tragedy was part of god's divine plan? The people in Mozambique deserve to suffer ? to die? Its ironic that most christians accept a belief system which devalues ALL non-christians, yet have NO COMMENT on the first jewish god version who only loved jews,don't they connect the hypocracies? - 22:41:51 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Cristy: As a nonchristian midwesterner, living in the south married to a lady of a different race, I can assure you prejudice is alive and kicking. Differences are very threatening to most people here and virtually a day doesn't go by that you don't hear people speaking about the impending rapture (even after Y2K disappointed them) or god's 'plan for salvation'. REAL issues in my field such as substance dependence of patients, history of physicl/sexual abuse, trauma,etc. are not proper fare! - 22:57:47 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: Vast reaches of the third world are catholic and as such, are taught birth control is a SIN. The majority of nonchristian 3rd world countries (i.e. India, China) suffer the consequences of overpopulation.China's 'humane' fix is to kill all the second children and all the baby girl children. With less than 3 billion people in the world when I was a tike, to near 6 now... the curve is toward exponential growth, to near 20 BILLION people in the year 2100! The world will struggle to sustain the numbers as disease will mushroom and BILLIONS will starve, if not addressed. god's divine plan? Abortion is not birth control, as mentioned but birth control would reduce abortion. If people would erase the STIGMA to abortion and judging the poor young women as sinners, it would foster OPENNESS, problem solving to reduce the factors which CONTRIBUTE to the incidence of abortion That would actually REDUCE the number of abortions through increased options. Can't do that if their busy condemning the women. - 23:15:38 on 8 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I'm saying it should not be used as a birth control method for we irresponsible westerners. I know some girls who have had numerous abortions when all they really needed to do is use some type of birth control method in the first place. I went back to school about 10 years ago because I hadn't finished high school (I turned 16 in Grade 12 and quit on my birthday, give me a break it was the 60's LOL). Anyway I took 300 Human Geography. The teacher we had for that course was a graduate from a "nice catholic school". I pissed him right off when I mentioned that the overpopulation in many third world countries was a result of religion and the fear of going to hell eternally. He wouldn't admit that it was a factor. When the question came up on the exam, I stated this as one of the main reasons and guess what? I got full marks. He wouldn't dare put in writing his denial of religion/overpopulation. - 2:45:43 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..I know the xtians will love this one:A young woman teacher with obvious liberal tendencies explains to her class of small children that she is an atheist. She asks her class if they are atheists too. Not really knowing what atheism is but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands explode into the air like fleshy fireworks. There is, however, one exception. A beautiful girl named Lucy has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not an atheist." "Then," asks the teacher, "what are you?" "I'm a Christian." The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Lucy why she is a Christian. "Well, I was brought up knowing and loving Jesus. My mom is a Christian, and my dad is a Christian, so I am a Christian." The teacher is now angry. "That's no reason," she says loudly. "What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was a moron. What would you be then?" A pause, and a smile. "Then," says Lucy, "I'd be an atheist." - 2:49:16 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob:"China's 'humane' fix is to kill all the second children and all the baby girl children." *****That's not quite the whole story about China.Before and sometimes after a couple has had their first child, the governmnet offers them incentives to pledge not to have anymore children.They sign a contract with the governmnet and in return receive lots of special goodies and preferential treatmets.Now some couples don't sign and are taxed very heavly for extra children.You just have to remember that China doesn't have the western individualistic traditions, but the eastern tradition of family and society obligations. - 2:57:35 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Yes, but the question is, where are all your materialists? - 3:47:01 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Ricky:Marlene: I am glad I had the notion to page in. Hadn't had the chance to visit lately, but I did like the joke about "Lucy." Little Tommy had a dog with pups when Uncle Bob came over and asked the question, "What kind of puppys are they?" Little Tommy, knowing Uncle Bob was an atheast replied, "They're atheast puppys" Uncle Bob liked that. Bob returned a few weeks later to visit and again ask the question, "What kind of puppys did you say they were, Tommy?" Tommy replied, Christian puppys. I thought you said they were atheast pups, Bob questioned. Tommy replied, "That was before they got their eyes open." - 4:03:11 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Ricky:Marlene: I can use some more of those type jokes. Makes good openings for speaches and talks I have to give from time to time. - 4:07:54 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Ricky:Prayer doesn't fail. First you have to believe. Then you pray. My prayers don't all get answered the way I would like sometimes, but when they don't, I find out later, it was for my good. For instance, a prayer was answered last week. I was finding myself in a finicial difficulty and spent time praying about it. I couldn't see any answers. It looked impossible to come up with the funds I needed before a certain deadline and bang, I got a check in the mail for $4ooo.00. Some government handout that someone intered my name in and I was selected for the funds. Well, You may call that luck, I call it great! A prayer answered! - 4:17:13 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:RICKY -- I'm happy you were able to squeeze ol' God for some cash. Guess he's a sucker for hard luck stories. Now if we could just get those starving Ethiopians to pray. They could really use the 4K. - 4:34:44 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:RICKY--Try NOT praying, and these things will seem to 'happen' as well. Good things DO happen to atheists too, who NEVER pray, but just HOPE for stuff. - 7:58:26 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Doug:Didn't mean to imply regularly, you're right on that point, however it certainly has occurred as recently as a few years ago. If you don't believe that, you must believe our media has engaged in a conspiracy of disinformation. I've never lived there, nor have intelligence sources there, so I have to rely on our media or other english language press, as I assume you do. You hadn't heard about the male dominated society in China where (historically) young women had their outer toes clipped so that they couldn't run away? Never heard of Mao Tse Tung and communist rule (by force), ever heard of Tiannamon (sp) Square, how about thousands of chinese exiles in this country complaining about a repressive society? How about the age group of Chinese children that were (approximately) 85% male happened by chance. I had heard reports, granted a few years ago, that certain villages were guilty of female birth genocide. Ever heard of sweat shops? Ever heard a politician complain about China's extreme human rights violations and refusal of favored nation trading status? The Chinese society is VERY anti- female, in part,because with 1.15 BILLION people ,they are over one third of the world's population and they associate growth with women. That doesn't make it right. They were anti-female long before their population problems. Being anti womens rights is another'eastern tradition'. Their form of government gives equality; equal poverty to all, unless you're in a sweetheart deal with the government. Where do I sign up? By simply communicating like this, discussing religion or non religion, YOU would be considered a dissident and risk a prison sentence....proud eastern traditions? - 12:59:41 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Ricky: Reverse the puppies religions to christian first and then atheist, that'll really go over at your speaking engagements. You know it's funny either way, don't you think? I prayed that christians would stop their religious bigotry, but nothing happened, what do you make of that? Seriously, for me, I haven't seen one inkling of prayers answered, miracles,etc. If you define gods loving intervention as 'something I didn't ask for but turned out to be good for me anyway', anything can be rationalized as 'god's will' Hey,if it works for you, use your illusion right? - 13:15:56 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Gee! that hurts, you didn't even read or maybe just didn't see my OPEN post wherein I referred to some stuff that look as tho'the good ol'USA also doesn't do much for the female organism. While the non-western peoples seem to have different ways, is whatever they do that much different from those USA- western peoples, factions that mean to 'legislate' what a females does? Again, what is it all about? - 15:45:16 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:RICKY, awwwww, trying to rack up more points for "witnessing to the heathens"? Well, let your good little xian pals give you some pats on the back for trying to reform us poor slobs that just can't seem to give up thinking for ourselves! On the praying, you say sometimes it works, sometimes not...sounds an awful lot like reading the daily horoscope! Maybe you should convert to astrology and it will only cost you the price of a newspaper, rather than 10% of your income and your freedom of thinking! hehehe....Yeah, when you are in the mindset of rationalizing that whatever happens is "God's will" and "God's will is always good", then you can be fooled into not taking responsibility for anything good or bad you do...................quote of the day: "If you were taught that elves caused rain, every time it rained, you'd see the proof of elves."--Ariex (I know this is a repeat but it makes me smile :-) - 18:34:34 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just scanned over a news article that reports J.Reno would[if still in office]curb some kinds o'written material should it appear on the 'net. That strikes me as a huge task. Then too, I have yet to see anything on the net that would sway me to do anything I know as against the law or is bad to people. In this same mind set, I have never seen anything I could not explain to any of my offspring. The simple view of any and all such material for them is always just consider the source. If the gov't does step in to control this I-net thing will that then mean, only 'proper questions' exist? And, only some 'book of knowledge' can be contemplated? The only real response that could explain what the people in control may want is either a low level of mental activity at best, and ignorance in general would be bestest of all. If the latter point is on target, then the story book bible's main character really could be considered a political philosopher! - 18:59:13 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- Nice to see you still check in! So what kind of government handout is this? I don't know of too many people here in Canuk land that get this kind of winfall for nothing and even more so, not from our government. - 19:14:13 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: you don't think the level of autonomy for women is any different in 'non-western' cultures? I'm sure that women friends stationed overseas that I later served with would disagree. Nurses in Saudi Arabia were shocked to see the treatment of women there who were expected to be virtually invisible. Muslim women were treated like possessions and women (sexuality) was considered the source of their version of sin (not too unlike christianity, but that view is more suppressed here, unless you're a baptist). Women in the vast majority of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been treated as second class citizens or property. Women we have tried to help in Mexico were horribly mistreated as the male felt he could do whatever he wanted to her. How about Iraq or Iran? Same as here? Friends stationed in the Balkans were equally shocked and appalled. the bible, old and new testament BOTH teach that women are inferior, but luckily we have laws and rights in this country which provide some protection for women.It is NOT the smae in other countries. - 19:16:35 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:PRESCHOOL, (yes I'm aware this isn't a parenting board :-) I COULDN'T DO IT when it came time to sign them up at the Church of Christ school. I just couldn't get a good feel at that place, probably partly being a place where women are openly treated as inferior (SEE, there is relevance to the ongoing conversation!!). Women cannot be deacons, sing in the choir, or even speak up during service I think (certainly not be pastors!). Anyhoo we moved on to First Christian Church...anyone know how dogmatic they are? They certainly seemed more benign and at least stressed that they do non-denominational services for the kids. As for conflicting w/ home teaching, I don't currently teach them anything (pro or con) about religion. I figure if I don't reinforce it it'll just seem to them like another Santa Claus or Leprachaun tale. Heck, it's about as likely that a fat guy will stuff himself down my chimney w/ a bagful of gifts as it is a long-bearded guy stuffed 2 of every animal on a big boat (bet it was quite a trick catching all those individual bacteria!). Hopefully my kids will be smart enough to see this for themselves. If not I'll straighten them out in a few years! *g* - 21:03:45 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: No I can not agree with that point of view. Until very recently I could have been reasonably convinced and even complied with that 'look at them'. I think I may have seen something, so now I am going to look around and see what if anything I find. What I saw was just a blip but it lingers still, - 21:09:17 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Yes, I'm game on the objectivity thing. See if you can sort through my posts here. - 21:13:25 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant/Marlene, I'm gonna try to address both of your questions about objectivity. The term strong objectivity is one of the main tenets of materialism, as I'm sure you know, and what started out as an idealized stake post to guard off the Orthodox church, is still merely a team mascot. Strong objectivity's basic assumption is that there is a material universe out there that is independent of us. (1) On a macro down to quantum level, we know as observers/experimenters that WE choose which aspect particle/wave/phenomenon, etc. to investigate. The moment we become observers identifying the aspect we want to investigate, an observer-subject/object relationship has been established. At this point, we are no longer (if ever) independent of the procedure/results we receive from the (to steal from T. Clark) compartamentalization. We are inextricably tied to the results, no matter if we created machines to gather the data without the human eye or not; it's our efforts to focus on something, our methodologies, and our overall investigations themselves as a first cause that removes the (perceived or not, and if ever) true independence. This bias, in the form of cognitive compartamentalization of data for one isolated aspect, an inherently, perceived satisfactory localization, is "necessary to protect the myth of the uncaused self" - in this case the initial catalyst for the investigation: the observer. In other words, all the preluding information in both the observers and objects complete previous history and dealings in the world around them are falsely idealized to be unnecessary for the sake of a compressed, recorded observation, beneath the veil of the assumption of determinacy - that the same events would have happened anyway within the same conditions. (2) The preparation of removing bias one usually thinks of when speaking of objectivity is in the form of divorcing oneself from emotion or personal prejudice for the sake of an observation. The term divorcing can be replaced here with 'deceiving'. One cannot remove one's own prejudices or emotion for seeking an observation in the first place, no more than one could remove the genetic makeup, nurturing, and conditioning that make you the whole sentient being making a conclusion. --- So strong objectivity simply doesn't work within a solely materialist view. As you see me use objectivity, it's in the form of idealistic objectivity, and please think of it like this: Instead of trying to individualize the things perceivably separate from us, objectivity is a not a definitive absolute figure or calculation you hold onto (which is silly anyway because physics works mostly on probabilities and tendencies) but rather a conceptual reminder to seek out, immerse, and absorb more than your current subjective biases. It's a return to an essential awareness over an existential one. Classifying, dissecting, categorizing, and individualizing aspects are simply subjective or intersubjective biases anyway, which are other overlooked hinderances to strong objectivity. Note: A good example of complete objectivity, the universe, as a self-contained, ever-changing, perfect entity. It shows no preferential biases, it finds ways to incorporate and maintain everything, and everything and anything is considered, regardless of one's subjective view that subjectivity doesn't count. That's my example. Anything less than that is… well… less. - 21:14:53 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I can't help to wonder if it ever occurred to Thomas Clark to question why he 'chose' to argue this specific topic and to gather the information he saw fit, to identify the way in which he'd be suggesting that there's a way we'd be "creating the world we want" yet in a neural capacity "bequeathed us by nature", removed of "personal responsibility in the sense of first cause" all the time denying he had any free will to do so? I guess he had 'no choice in the matter' (pun intended), nature and culture pre-determined it even though he's "a highly complex, multi-factor function unfolding on its own". --- Drum roll, please. - 21:15:45 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Sorting out the above contradictions, here is a better solution to his neural materialism, which even as he states, is yet to be found reasonably accepted. Not only is Clark asking for a literal suspension of belief to hold for the acceptance of his argument based on a materialistic monism, but epiphenomenalism has somehow been discarded in place of the neural materialism theory: "… hypothesis …that the complex organization of the brain constitutes each and every bit of who we are as a sensing, thinking, and yet perfectly unique person." ---Epiphenomenalism is the accepted term among cognitive neuroscientists for the state of consciousness within a material reality. This says that consciousness can only be explained as an emergent phenomenon, not as the brain matter itself exclusively working and operating causally and calling itself consciousness. Like I've said earlier, it's quite ridiculous to believe that something that's made of something else can act causally on what it's made of, it's even more ridiculous that something physical could act in continual causality on itself to its own perceived or not disillusionment. It's simply a poor, and hardly ever admitted wobbly explanation. Clark references Stephen Pinker's book which "make[s] it plausible that our neural architecture is more than adequate to support the complexities of cognition, rationality…", which by the way cleverly manages to equate complexity with plausibility, and yet concretely seals the theory that nature's mixes and jumbles only makes us 'think' we have that, therefore illusioned, free will. (sarcasm) --- It seems that his main motivations are only to find a way of undercutting the obvious problems of personal first causes (as an indicator of true free will) and to re-establish moral and social guidelines exactly along a more utilitarian "common good", within the guidelines of materialism. He's on the right track but he's going top speed with his blinders on. His way of incorporating nature and nurture to reduce the idealized free will of materialism is almost borderline what I have already presented, a sort of utilitarian "common good" resolved of personal (subjective), and temporary, differences. This is the idealistic objectivity I mentioned before. However, instead of using the assumption of materialism as the ruberic, simply apply consciousness instead. If the physical reality doesn't completely support consciousness, then it's time for a more complete explanation. - 21:16:51 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Our best explanation of the universe as a self-contained, uncaused entity is that it is creative beyond our imaginations. It's vast, ever-changing, and just simply wonderful. If we take it literally, everything we could ever imagine is inside it. As conscious, self reflexive entities made of the same materials of the universe itself our own honest look at ourselves leaves us undoubtedly tied to the powers of the universe. Free will is discarded as illusionary within materialism for the sake of determinism. However, if we consider the universe itself uncaused, and relieve ourselves of the doubt that we indeed creatively affect the course of our lives, as small examples of the universe itself, and that we realize the material that surrounds us and that we embody is highly malleable, as observed, to our needs but within our limited scopes, there is nothing left to be resolved and nothing has to be rationalized away. As we evolve and become less self-involved as "sacks of cells", but rather potentialities for continually new and creative endeavors, the contradictions we too easily forget as solely our own creative, but timely, unnecessaries, i.e. materialism, determinism, will have been merely steps in a continuing, explorative ladder. --- Random atoms bumped together and began an evolution of a sentient creature which exhaustively explores it's environment only to find out millions of years later that in a deterministic universe it's merely a processing machine for the rest of the atoms out there?? Poppycock. Somebody sold someone an old, rickety, falling apart bridge. Lol! - 21:18:16 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Ooops, diarrhea of the keyboard. Pardon me. - 21:20:35 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: I believe that the male baby boy syndrome stems from folk ignorance not from the Communist Party. Russia had to plow through all sorts of backwardsness and superstition too.And If you're old enough to remember, the annual famines in China that took the lives of millions.I get alot of my information from Chinese PHD candidates who in confidence Have told the truth. - 21:29:42 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Cristy: I've wrestled with the socialization versus corruption of my children too, and continue to. Don't know much about the church you're referring too, but if you have an inkling they're more tolerant, that's a real plus. My wife is very religious as your spouse may be too. I just make sure my kids hear both versions and let them develop their own belief systems. My kids are young but they can already separate out alot of the fiction. Good luck with your dilemma. If your options are limited, being active in their socialization will really help. Do your in-laws consider you a heathen,as mine do? - 21:32:02 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Carl: Saw what? The disparity between women's freedoms here and in many other countries seems apparent to me. - 21:35:09 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Doug: Which truth are you referring too? The backwardness and superstition may come, in part, from a lack of quality education provided by the state. I'm curious though, whats your doctoral students version? - 21:40:57 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, my spouse is agnostic, so he doesn't think some religion is a big deal, nor is no religion. My MOM is currently praying for my soul I think, as she is newly "reborn" or some such, but she hardly mentions a WORD of it to me since I once threatened not to let her grandkids around her if she was into shoving religion down kids throats (this was before I even HAD kids, so it wasn't as mean as it sounds :-). My Dad seems disinterested and I SUSPECT the IL's, FIL at least, are somewhat non-religious. I'm lucky in that count, not *too* many bible-thumping kin!.............OPEN:: Back in my old hometown the word "atheist" is still on par w/ "child-molester", so I took a big leap yesterday when an old high-school buddy forwarded some big "have faith" email and I responded that I was a dyed in the wool atheist and preferred using my mind to having faith. Bet that ol' small town rumor mill is flying already!! - 21:59:13 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Everywhere there is disparity, again I can't go along with your 'look at them over there'. Its a problem. I am not sure of what I may have seen. It was different and it was here in the USA, it seems I may not have to go anywhere else to see the problem. But again, I ain't sure what it was - 22:50:32 on 9 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:CHRISTY -- Good choice on the preschool. First Christian churches are sort of a loose amalgam of beliefs. Historically, they are an actual amalgam of small individual churches. They have an informal dogma and leave room for individual developement and beliefs within Christianity. Church of Christ is a fundy group. If connected to the International Churches of Christ or the "Boston movement" they are largely considered cult. ----- And congrats on steppin' out and taking responsibility for your beliefs. There isn't a whole lot we can do as individuals to change the world, but we can show some people that atheists are not the monsters they suppose. It's a direct way to fight ignorance, much of the time even without words. - 4:00:52 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Shit... the "H" again. Sorry CRISTY! :-) - 4:01:52 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- I'm beginning to wonder if you even differentiate between objectivity and objective reality, between a physical reality outside the mind and a reality limited only to the physical. We can talk about the rest of the stuff in some kind of sequence, but we need to define our terms first or we will get nowhere. Do you see a difference between objectivity and objective reality? Yes or no? - 4:07:15 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Where are you? Put that danged baby down for a minute! - 4:15:14 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I'm here reading but my mind is in neutral! This baby stuff is exhausting for an old crate like me. I maybe could have taken the exhaustion but after reading Betty's posts..well..now I'm overwhelmed as well. It will take a few afternoon naps for all that to compute. Hurricane Derri has decided to skip her morning nap now. - 4:22:51 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Pssst. MARLENE -- Don't tell anyone else, but Betty can only talk like that by taking liberties with semantics. I've substituted mathmatical symbols for all her words, they all cancel out in the end. - 4:27:41 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I don't know anything about that church but if it is as Grant has described then I'm sure it's been a good choice, rather like our United Church here. God isn't even mentioned in the daycare run by the UCC here. I know that for a fact because my little niece attends. Not even grace before meals. They don't do this because children from religions other than christianity may be attending. - 4:28:09 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL- I've been arguing on a mailing list on this topic..All Men are Born Rapists.... It's been brought up for discussion because of a book by the same name written by evolutionary psychologists. They believe rape is done in order for that male to procreate and that it's quite a natural act. What do people here think? - 4:33:00 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Betty -- I'm only joking with Marlene, but I do have a problem with your imprecise way of speaking. (not to mention with my spelling tonight. Shouldn't have had the martinis first!) - 4:34:37 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Then Carl was on the money, lol! Although sometimes I find I don't quite get what Carl is saying, when push comes to shove, Carl normally comes out a winner. - 4:37:06 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Were NOT! LOL! - 4:38:56 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Grant :LOL! - 4:44:22 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

PETER---(BETTY!!):_-Horsepadoodungcity!!! ( and this will just be the beginning --oh yes t'will be) ..Our 'best' explanation of the universe??? Perhaps if one wishes to keep the notion of some perpetual consciousnss alive that directs 'all that goes on' -making all these infinitely impressive gymnastically and cognitively advanced manouevers which will perpetually impress the cahoolah outta mortal man throughout all of space/time it does, why YES!! But as Marlene, Grant and a few others including myself have oh most confidently declared--a consciousness cannot even exist first without there being any kind of existence first. ( I have noticed this REALLY bugs the ceerapola out of those who have a problem with 'pure objectivity ) and until one can demonstate how a consciousness can exist with there FIRST being something outside that consciousness to be conscious OF ( I hope that 'F' is big enough..and if it's not make it REAL big )..this will be the perpetual problem of any nay-sayer who just may happen along - 4:51:31 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:PETER- How about this for "synchronicity" LOL...Elvis - Jesus Similarities: (author unknown) Jesus said: "Love thy neighbor." (Matthew 22:39) Elvis said: "Don't be cruel." (RCA, 1956) Jesus is the Lord's shepherd. Elvis dated Cybill Shepherd. Jesus was part of the Trinity. Elvis' first band was a trio. Jesus walked on water. (Matthew 14:25) Elvis surfed. (Blue Hawaii, Paramount, 1965) Jesus' entourage, the Apostles, had 12 members Elvis' entourage, the Memphis Mafia, had 12 members. Jesus was resurrected. Elvis had the famous 1968 "comeback" TV special. Jesus said, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." (John 7:37) Elvis said, "Drinks on me!" (Jailhouse Rock, MGM, 1957) Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights. Elvis had irregular eating habits. (e.g. 5 banana splits for breakfast) Jesus is a Capricorn. (December 25) Elvis is a Capricorn. (January 8) Matthew was one of Jesus' many biographers. (The Gospel According to Matthew) Neil Matthews was one of Elvis' many biographers. (Elvis: A Golden Tribute) "[Jesus] countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow."(Matthew 28:3) Elvis wore snow-white jumpsuits with lightning bolts. Jesus lived in state of grace in a Near Eastern land. Elvis lived in Graceland in a nearly eastern state. Mary, an important woman in Jesus' life, had an Immaculate Conception. Priscilla, an important woman in Elvis' life, went to Immaculate Conception High School. Jesus was first and foremost the Son of God. Elvis first recorded with Sun Studios, which today are still considered to be his foremost recordings. Jesus was the lamb of God. Elvis had mutton chop sideburns. Jesus' Father is everywhere. Elvis' father was a drifter, and moved around quite a bit. Jesus was a carpenter. Elvis' favorite high school class was wood shop. Jesus wore a crown of thorns. Elvis wore Royal Crown hair styler. Jesus H. Christ has 12 letters. Elvis Presley has 12 letters. No one knows what the "H" in "Jesus H. Christ" stood for. No one was really sure if Elvis' middle name was "Aron" or "Aaron". Jesus is often depicted in pictures with a halo that looks like a gold plate. Elvis' face is often depicted on a plate with gold trim and sold through TV. Jesus said: "Man shall not live by bread alone." Elvis liked his sandwiches with peanut butter and bananas. - 14:28:01 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BTW..did anyone watch _God the Devil and Bob_ on NBC last night. If so, or if anyone knows who's behind this, please fill me in. There certainly are Pomise Keeper undertones to this show. - 14:30:38 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: That comparison is deep, way past anyone's consciousness! Its a good morning chuckle thats for shear! - 15:28:06 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, thanks for the info on the churches! I didn't know anything about them, but from the way the director was quick to point out that they do very simple non-denominational "chappel time" with the kids, I gathered she wasn't too gung ho on shoving their dogma down kids' throats. On the other hand the COC said they had to do plays and such in the "family center" because of the church rules banning music in the chappel. Blech!...............MARLENE, I feel for ya, jumping right in to full-time toddler care. I don't see how people have babies in their forties...I can harldy keep up at 30!..................Men born rapists, hmmmmm I wouldn't say that is exhibited in the animal kingdom, there are all kinds of courtship rituals for the male to lure and attract the female. They want her to CHOOSE them as their mate. Even when the males fight for it, it is to establish "pecking order" and then the female will choose to mate w/ the dominant male. I don't think there are alot of examples of males running around forcing themselves on unwilling females. For one it is not in their best interest to waste time, energy, and sperm on a female that is not even fertile at that time. So they usually at least wait for fertility signals. The human "rape" to me is a way to exert power and dominance, like how my male cat will fight and grown and swat at the female until she cowers down and averts her eyes. You take the basic desire for power and domination and warp it w/ psychotic antisocial behavior...you get a rapist. JMO! - 15:40:55 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- That was my feeling also. I don't think all men are born with the personality of a rapist. I think these evolutionary psychologists have engaged in a little junk science. - 16:14:03 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..ahh the aroma of ferns!:CARL- Since we are into the woo-woo stuff, I thought that was appropriate, lol! - 16:16:21 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Now this could have happened with your tikes, LOL!..EEM STORY - TALLINN, ESTONIA > >February, 28, 2000 > >Eve Enok is an elementary school teacher in the capitol city of Tallinn, >Estonia.  Tallinn is in the far northern region of Eastern Europe.  >Royce Sartain, missionary there, asked her to translate the Beginner's >Bible into Estonian. > >"Today she laughs at the events, which transpired two years ago.  Eve >struggled to find the time to complete the translation.  One day she was >walking along the sidewalk in front of her apartment reading a letter >from a friend at the Rolling Hills church in Desoto, Texas, not watching >where she was going.  Suddenly, she stepped in a hole and broke her >foot.  For six weeks she was confined to her 9th floor apartment, and >what else was there for her to do, but to translate the Beginner's >Bible! > >"Two months ago, 4,000 copies of this newly printed Estonian translation >were delivered to the house of missionaries, Ron and Judy Warpole.  They >placed within each copy a sticker giving the name of the Church of >Christ, its address, and an invitation to attend worship services. > >"It was decided that the first 3,000 copies of this Children's Bible >should be given to the students at Eve's school, where she teaches 4th >grade.  As a surprise to teachers and students alike, during an all day >assembly, Eve told the story of the birth of Christ using visual aids, >then presented each teacher and student a copy of these newly printed >Bibles. > >"She expected an enthusiastic response, but wasn't quite prepared for >what she saw.  The rest of that day, the children refused to go outside >for lunch or play during recess, rather they remained at their desk or >sat on the floor in the hallways . . . reading their Bibles! > >"The next morning, the music teacher came to Eve to thank her for >translating this wonderful book and to ask her to thank the people in >America who made it possible.  She said her 9-year-old son had refused >to turn out the light an go to sleep.  When she got up that morning, he >was just finishing the last page, having read the entire Bible.  He >looked up at her with tears in his eyes and said: "Mama, this is the >most wonderful book I've ever had, and I could read it all by myself." > >"Eve always thanks god for her broken foot and the time she was given to >prepare the translation of the Bible so that it could be printed and >given to the children of Estonia " - 16:22:35 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:--Grant, and now Peter-- Grant, Yes, and I'm sure it's just the martinis that prevent you from following a line of argument without spoon-feeding you a "precise" answer. (C: I explained objectivity in detail and how a complete view cannot disclude subjectivity because of personal preference. To consider all the facts, without bias, the area of subjectivity cannot be discluded because of personal preference for the assumption of objective reality. If you're having a problem with "precise (adj.): strictly determined from the others", then it's because you, alone, literally are deciding to not follow the whole context of the argument and have decided to sacrifice complete objectivity. Simple, maybe, but "precise". Here's an analogy for you: precise is to materialism, as idealism is to consciousness. The latter isn't a mentally, contrived construct, however. So,uh... Yes. I know the difference, but they are only one part of the discussion. Let's move on, please. - 18:07:38 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:PETER: "a consciousness cannot even exist first without there being any kind of existence first"... the physical reality does not support a justifiable explanation of consciousness. Consciousness is a phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot be traced to any direct causality, in the same way that there is no direct proof that the material universe had a creator, or to an explanation why this same consciousness helps us differentiate the matter at all. If the universe doesn't need a FIRST cause then consciousness doesn't either. - 18:11:00 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Peter and All: Here is a little story/poem I wrote for my kids when they were young. This isn't to demean anyone, but to reinforce some of the things I've been addressing. Thanks... btw, All Rights Reserved. (: - 18:13:27 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Betty..okay, here we go...:Since we're working with assumptions here, here's a better, granted simple, creation story. I rearranged some things to make it more relevant to the discussion, and as materialists please try not to focus on the individual words or sentences for the meaning. It will be lost that way. The context is the whole thing, not how "precise" it is: It's a more complete explanation that consciousness as a complex creativity was first, and it needed matter to paint it's canvas (big bang), but without a self-reflexive capability (humans -later on) it had no way of appreciating its art, it's creativity... After billions of years in a creative slump, the earth poured its energy into a form of matter concentrated with her creativity. The first major accomplishment of this creation was humans, filled with this essential awareness for the wonder of a creative universe and the world around them. And these humans gave thanks back to its mother (animal sacrifices). As humans became more and more appreciative of this awareness, however, they began to separate into an existential awareness, that they alone were the determiners of truth and resolution, and that they should have dominion over that which they could hold and mold. And the sight of appreciation became the sight of discernment. Because they alone seemed to appreciate this, they alone declared victory, and so they declared they were indeed alone and separate (the invention of materialism). The matter that was once the carefully mixed paints of a creative entity, a wonderful organic collage of elements, had become lost in a sea of organization. With everything organized, everything was in its place. [poem] Creativity? What? That's not true. We're nothing special, a pink and a blue. This would have happened any old way, with the right combinations of solid and gray. What are the rest calling special and new? I find nothing particular from my world view. And that's it exactly, it's not grounded here at all. It's higher and more amazing than 6 foot 2 tall. If you've lost it, it's found on a high mountain top. Or through a telescope reaching where others have stopped. But why did we decide to seek and discover, if it all comes down to a basically changing, but predictable weather? We seek because we can, we search cause we must, we're certain it all comes down to plain, cosmic dust. But dust doesn't think, it doesn't discover. The most dust will do is stay under the cover. We're different indeed we have wonderful lives. It's really something sad when somebody dies. But it all still goes on even after the cries. Heck, the stars die too, they shoot through the sky. And then somebody wonderful watches it go by. I wonder and wonder how it all got this way, but maybe it's the wondering that just likes to play. I remember being small and play was all I had in mind, and now play comes in discovery of the serious kind. It's still all the same no matter the game, no matter if it's fortune for material fame. Because someday soon I get to make my own 6 foot 2 tall, and someday he, too, can appreciate it all. - 18:34:33 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:*whacking my computer to get the universal translator operational again*.....I swear I feel I've stumbled onto a foreign language forum sometimes, am I just dense or does some of this stuff require some additional reading or what? I just have NO IDEA what in the heck y'all are talking about some of the time! I'm not a total airhead, I have an MS in Biology. Will y'all make more sense if I sniff some ferns? (I don't even know what THAT expression means!) No, no, don't bother to try to explain what "material realistic surrealism is", there's not enough wine in this house to mellow me out enough to try to comprehend all that! hehehe ......... MARLENE, I GOT the Elvis/Jesus post...too funny! I had to forward that one around! - 20:36:33 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:BETTY, I did think this was a good point you made: "If the universe doesn't need a FIRST cause then consciousness doesn't either". I neither agree nor disagree (nor understand :-) about the argument, but GOOD POINT anyway! *s* - 20:38:37 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY; your sense of humor is keen - 20:54:23 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene/open: loved your elvis thing. Here's a few I more I thought of;Jesus called himself a king, people called Elvis 'the king'.Jesus had his assencion, Elvis 'left the building', Jesus has appeared to people-Elvis is spotted everywhere, Elvis liked a good stiff drink-Jesus drank wine, Jesus was fond of sinners-hey, so was Elvis, Jesus converted people-Elvis drove a convertible, Elvis' daughter married Michael Jackson- Jesus loved children too, Jesus said he was the way to heaven- Elvis promised women the same thing,Jesus wanted throngs in adoration-Elvis wore thongs (sandals) and was really popular, Jesus ministered through grace-Elvis had minstrels at graceland ... - 20:59:03 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: All men are rapists???? Besides being particularly offensive, that statement has no basis in fact or expeience. It is offensive to men who don't have the uncontrollable urge to impose their sexual will on women. It should be equally offensive to any women who has ever had an emotionally intimate experience with a man or a mature loving relationship, making it a fraud or sham. Cheap shots at men have been en vogue for 25 years(all men are dogs, etc.). 'Men' are one of the few groups (and atheists)that don't have a strong lobby to organize for political correctness. Too easy a target, men don't fight back at the name calling. - 21:12:18 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..not into woo-woo:CRISTY- The scent to ferns is like sound to one hand clapping. Deeeeeep-ACK! - 21:18:29 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..approval on synchronicity:HEY ROB! Those are great additions! - 21:20:28 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Believe it or Not--This book was written by a male evolutionary psychologist. Most people here know what my opinion of psychologists is. I think this book is insulting to males and junk science to boot. - 21:31:17 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Lori:What a wonderful page! I really enjoyed the comparison between Jesus and Elvis. Deep. I stumbled across this page when I did a search on "The Chalice and the Blade." Anyone know what the connection is? I have marked this as a favorite place, so I will be back. Right now I am trying to find info for a report in my Christianity class. This class is quite a challange to me, a middle aged Unitarian women. I am always glad to find havens such as yours. And, if anyone DOES know the connection between this site and the above mentioned book, please email me and let me know! Thank you and good day. LoriKnudsonAllen@aol.com - 23:28:29 on 10 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- I don't think there is an actual connection between this site and Rianne Eisler's (sp) _The Chalice and the Blade_ although years ago we discussed this book here. You are going to have to excuse the spelling because I've given the book away and no longer have it but this is basically the idea of it....Catal Hyuk (sp) was one of the first argricultural settlements in the Middle Eastern area. Fertility goddesses were worshipped and the place was paradise in Rianne's opinion then along came the jewish war god and wiped out the peaceful, argriculutral loving people and the loving goddess. - 0:41:02 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- BTW, Welcome! - 0:42:45 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: old ways die hard, even though the Chinese government is trying to get the people to accept baby girls.This kinda practice predates communism by a few millinium.And the PHD students say that "those who sign have a duty to follow through with the contract. Otherwise they shouldn't try to defraud the people." - 1:51:50 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Doug:sign for what, a pledge not to have baby girls? - 2:04:18 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Your post aren't too deep to follow. Don't flatter yourself. They are vague and evasive. You refuse to be tied down to specific meanings for your words. All the romantic ideas don't work if you do. You ignore concerns and specific points presented by others. When someone disagrees with you you assume they don't comprehend your "deep" thinking. Answer my questions about objectivity? Give me a break. You haven't a clue what it is. But there is a plus side. You write well. You are definately interesting. I even enjoy your sense of humor. You might consider trying to understand what other people are trying to say if you wish to have conversations with them. Learn to provisionally step outside your beliefs, you'll like it. We're leaving for the weekend. See you next week. :-) - 2:22:30 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I said Yes to your question. And without trying to imply a reverse pandering to you, from your posts you also seem like an intelligent guy and this might just possibly be a fun line of discussion. --- I know the traditionally-viewed difference. But I had to accept your ignoring of the following problem as either one of two things, (1) a misunderstanding or (2) an attempt to ignore. When you address this problem specifically, we can keep this flowing. Because it's not merely that I say Yes to your question, but that it's important to point out where the traditionally-held difference is incongruent: "objectivity and objective reality, between a physical reality outside the mind and a reality limited only to the physical". If it's the materialists' claim that the things of the mind (subjectivity) are merely a phenomenon of specialized brain matter or a bunch of stimuli and conditioning of the outside world, then there is no separation of a physical reality "outside the mind". The mind is a result of the brain matter (or really, nature's random luck) and it's illusioning itself that it's a First Cause with the control of separation of the physical, having somehow discredited and self-defined it's own determining powers as not valid, not real, as not of the material reality. I will apply this rhetoric once again, "How can something (subjective mind) made of something else (brain matter) act causally on what it's made of"? A question for you::: In other words, as a materialist, how do you include a (and your own) valued and duely credited, subjective use of consciousness in this line of discussion about objectivity and objective reality? --- This is the crucial point here and we're lucky consciousness has afforded a variety of words to choose from to prevent an honest stone-walling. (: I won't go any further. If it's not clear, let's discuss. Hope you had a good weekend! - 18:38:35 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Betty... Surprise! More on consciousness!:Like I've mentioned, the word consciousness comes from the root words "scire" (to know) and "cum" or "com" (with). How can we know anything and share it with others without a non-local knowing? Off the top of my head, the Spanish word for "to know" is conocer - an obvious derivation. And thinking about all the languages of the world, as a general example, if people are indeed sharing this consciousness collectively it sure makes sense that just about all of them express the same inner feelings, thoughts, perceptions, ideals, and goals for their lives in the world, but in different ways. We couldn't get at least somewhat along if we didn't share collectively the same inner feelings. - 18:51:47 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:...that's "con" (with). - 18:53:17 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: no,no,no,no!They sign the pledge not to have anymore children(one child).The anti baby girl thing is folk belief, and isn't the parties stand. - 23:00:59 on 11 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Doug: Maybe so, still a repressive society though... do you really think there's no coercion in choices involved? - 0:18:00 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB and DOUG- Do either of you know if the population of China that are under 25 have a fairly even number of males/females? Or is one sex more predominant? - 0:47:43 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

No.:Young Chinese girl numbers are well down - killed at birth as they are regarded as useless. Lots of young guys now reaching the age where they wish there were enough girls to go around - this will cause many problems. Ditto India. A combined total of a third of the world's population with young males wandering around looking for outlets to vent their frustration. Just what we all need. - 4:36:06 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: And in the USA we'd have hefty fees for getting married and Tax penalties for each extra child. Just think of that family of twelve and having to pay a school tax for each child with NO TAX breaks.If the government had a $5,000 a year tax per child; it would stop couples from having large families.We would be just as represive in our western ways. Like taking away the children of delinquent the child tax.And all those other things that would suff out the large size families, like paying auto,medical, home and life insurance per individual not per family (by law). - 6:30:10 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob;that should read:(Like taking away the children of those delinquent in paying the child tax). - 6:32:50 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene/Rob: I've seen media reports, as recent as 5 years ago,which allege significantly more males than females, but I don't have percentages or even know if it still continues. Dougs assertion, with intelligence from Chinese doctoral students, is that their government's focus is population reduction not female reduction and that they use financial incentives to accomplish that end. I realize they need to do something to control their population growth and am not sure if the emphasis is on total births instead of gender. I am much more confident in the assessment that they are a repressive society that cotrols through fear and intimidation. The belief in only financial incentives is, to me, naive.... - 13:21:08 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: Is anyone else incensed with the american government electoral process and the lack of issue based campaigning? Who may have smoked what, slept with whom,looks better at the photo op, garbage. The fact that one of Clinton's largest donor funds in the last election came from the CHINESE government, a unfrienndly government, for which he politiced for as favored nation trading status and approved the sale of sensitive satellite technolgy with military impact... is NEVER mentioned as betrayal, however we've all heard of Monica. Why weren't we more concerned when he was in bed with the CHINESE? We're told there's no inflation_ yet prices on homes,cars, gas, healthcare are through the roof in my neck of the woods. The gap between rich and poor is widening, MTBE (gas additive) is polluting our water, millions are without basic healthcare, the climate is messed up. Where's the ISSUES?!?! I'm tired of hearing Bush looks good in blue. - 13:37:52 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- In Quebec, Canada, people are finacially rewarded for having more children as long as they are French-Canadian. It seems to work there. I wonder though if we Canadians that think when our tax dollar is spent on only one culture, are sucessful in either changing the incentive to all Canadians or withdrawing it completely will these people have more children? This pisses my off when we know that there are millions of people who would gladly immigrate to Canada and work here and maybe even create business here. What does this say for reducing the world population? - 15:12:38 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I don't know much about American politics but Jean here says, "Those people who smoke the grass, they can pay taxes too, eh!" - 15:14:28 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene:If Quebec recruited other peoples from crowded nations, they wouldn't be french canadians. Don't like what we don't know... Besides how could problems on other parts of the planet ever effect them or america, not our problems,YET. - 15:25:55 on 12 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I agree, YET! - 0:20:10 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Geez, we have such communications problems that I don't know where to begin. I feel like we are speaking different languages, and perhaps we are. Haven't we been batting this around since the start? Back on Feb 27 I said "Many people do not make a clear distinction between the question of the degree to which a physical objective reality exists independent of the mind and the question of whether or not everything that exists or occurs resides within the physical. These are two distinct questions. Naturalism is an accepted label for, and always refers to the latter, which I believe is what we are discussing. The precise meaning of material realism is not quite so clear." Are you, like me, using "naturalism" or "materialism" to refer to the belief that only, as in nothing else but the physical exists? This is a separate concept from "objectivity" (used correctly in a technical sense but in a sometimes confusing manner interchangeably with "objective reality" and sometimes "material realism", which you have in fact defined both ways.) which refers specifically and only to the concept that a physical, material reality exists, and does not preclude the existence of non-physical stuff. You have stated many assumptions that I consider to be faulty in regard to this, by the way, but have not bothered to rebuff due to your lack of responsiveness to specifics. - 6:07:57 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- You ask (again) "How can something (subjective mind) made of something else (brain matter) act causally on what it's made of?" --- You are still seeing a duality that isn't there. The "subjective mind" has no independant existence. It doesn't exist as an entity. It is in this sense an illusion. However, this does not imply that the brain and it's products are not valid or real as you suggest. ---- Are you willing to put this all aside for a time and discuss a particular book in an effort to converse from some common ground? The book I have in mind is _The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience_ by Eugene d'Aquili and Andrew B. Newberg. It's a compromise selection in that the authors subscribe to current thinking in cognitive science but do not subscribe to materialism. - 6:09:06 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: The Chinese don't want them and the folks in Ireland can't get'em started soon enough. Guess those folk had two get started reproducin'at 11 yr.old. They got a good number that have started reproducin'at 15 and under. Hmm? So maybe the Chinese and those Ireland types maybe ought to think about gay-marriages as in their future? - 15:42:20 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: WHile BETTY do rite purty-like, the written content seems to have a goodly amount o'metaphysical flair. That is or may be, the only point of view that may account for her penchant of, it appears to me, detaching everything of a thing to leave the thing to only itself, whatever that may be. Does this represent or constitute BETTY's concept of nature? So far, IMHO, BETTY hasn't written anything that could be meaningful for either a scientifically or spiritually unifying concern. While BETTY hasn't directly asked that one empty their mind, to arrive at an understanding of her wonderland, perhaps one must divest oneself of whatever is in ones mind for a limited period of time. Then, in that way one could also arrive at a fuller understanding of their unconscious? - 16:19:59 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know but if Betty would communicate in English instead of CC it may help us to understand where she's coming from. I notice others on the page have just ignored her rather than try to talk with her. - 16:50:43 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: USA political concern seems to be in a mind set akin to that of the democratic philosophy, the gov't will care and provide for all. Dare it be said that such a view is a overkill of the notion of a representative gov't? It has become my opinion that the gov't by representation idea has gone over-board and is actually a contrary of the idea of a government of and by the people. This opinon began to form a few years back I read that Ralph Nader once opposed as best he could the legislative action that recognised a 'corporation' as a "legal person". Still on the IMO venue, I can understand how over time that would serve the interests o'USA economic system of capitalism, I wonder however, what may become o'its impact on the gov't of, by and for the people process. Is that what all the hullabaloo about campaign finance is about? - 17:39:24 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I'm glad there is someone else interested in talking US politics! I'm very irritated at the 2 party system right now, because I believe McCain was actually a favorite of the US people, but because he wasn't "right wing" enough he can't even get on the presidential ballot. I liked that he was a fiscal conservative that didn't feel the right wing agenda should be shoved down the throats of every American (like the anti-abortion, pro-school prayer, school voucher agendas). Guess if he wants in he'll be second-fiddling to the "boy shrub", ol' brown lips himself. - 19:47:19 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:R&C: Have you noted that Shippers plans to publish a book loaded- they say, with judicial and political points for public concern that of the impeachment fiasco never saw the daylight? Something I recall of that event were several storys that said that too many heads would have rolled only because so many, demo's and rep's, were involved in deal making of questionable nature. From what I can make out it looks like the tip o'the iceberg is the now popular campaign finance clean-up effort. Of the Shippers book they are now saying last weeks Labella leak was probably just a warmup for the to be told real story. Wonder how many will suffer for lie? - 20:34:08 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: you can bet you freethought that if Ireland couldn't export it's surplus population, they'd push the church out of the way and birth control would be holier that st. patrick. Ah, t'is a blessing from the saints, these condoms are. - 20:46:35 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Cristy and open: I'm with you. Unfortunately, McCain made the fatal mistake of calling the right wing 'moral majority' hypocrites. Americans aren't big on the truth, and the media and politians know it. The'dumbing down' of our society is appalling, as everything is portayed as a sound bite for the short-attention-span crowd. Consider how Jesse Ventura fell off the face of the earth for calling the relgious 'weak-minded'. BOTH parties are guilty of so many mistakes that go unreviewed. The republicans had the savings and loan scandal where BILLIONs were embezzled from America (with organized crime bedfellows) yet it was NEVER addressed. The HUD scandal involved MILLIONS of misappropriated' funds thanks to the democrats. Corruption is such an ugly word. Millions given to a legislator equals corruption, millions to his 'campaign' equals shrewd business sense. - 21:57:20 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Carl and open: 'mindset that the gov't will care for all'?? We have moved sharply away from any social program development, much to the dismay of millions off state and federal rolls. Where have you been? - 22:00:57 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: Definitions are important to help those of us mere mortals not versed in the metaphysics terminology you and Betty banter about. Your efforts to understand Betty are shared, I find her style as confusing as Carls', no offense intended to either parties. Why can't the relationship between the brain and mind be understood as the complex INTERACTION OF INTERELATED COMPONENTS of man- which influence thoughts, behavior ,emotions, physiology ,awareness, etc. The brain is an obvious physical component which effects electical, mechanical,biochemical, endocrine and physiological processes. The mind, it seems, is the conscious and uncon- scious INTERPRETATION of internal and external cues AND our reactions to them. Aren't the earth and the climate separate yet interrelated forces which impose influences upon each other? The earth wouldn't be the earth as we know it(and hence define it) without our climate/weather? Is the WEATHER technically EARTH? Does it become EARTH when rain falls in the ocean? Interrelated, interlocking circles of shared subsets? - 22:34:00 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Corporate welfare was my eventual point. Of individual concern, one basically just wants to get on their feet. Not all want to be b.gates. Those with the f-you money, well anyway they can get it is just fine. Have you read the reports of Gore with his oil ties to S.America where the oil co.is gonna have its way in some forest where the indiginous types are gonna commit suicide if that oil company goes forward with development? While the price o'gas is outta'sight, its no skin of my nose. Walking just makes one healthy anyhows. - 22:54:04 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB; an afterthought of that federal welfare system, one of the beneficiaries of that free money system good ol' Ross Perot. Others include the Nixon gang and his supporters and even the S&L bailout that you've pointed to. The peanuts of your barb, anyone even moderately read on such matters know the down troden are nothin'but fodder and fuel for newspaper and tv tales. I walk around the same sleeping on the street few morning after morning. I see the same few out begging and once in awhile I'll see some kids begging but they probably in their silliness spent their bart money. So they bum for travel cash. Despite all the cry for sympathy and the grab for altruism in others it has always seemed to concern a very very few. Poor, sure there are poor but those I hear don't want handouts, only the f-you money types want that. - 23:35:11 on 13 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Carl/open: Carl don't delude yourself, if what I get from your statements is that the poor are few and 'always with us' and that the poor don't want help, just the rich want breaks... I'd have to disagree with you. The poor aren't few, their numbers are growing. The fact that they are a nonvocal and everpresent population does not justify our treatment or neglect of them. Some ethicists would argue that you can judge a society's evolution by their treatment of the poor. For every few homeless you see, MILLIONS of americans (34 to 60 million depending on whose math you use) are suffering in silent desperation. With less 'leg up' programs out there, many turn to substances, suicide, or crime. We can't lock up all first time offenders in the name of 'tough on crime'. Stereotyping the poor as entirely shiftless is only a way to soothe the conscience of the disinterested. All those republicans out politicing for right to life, are the same people who give no thought to QUALITY of life as kids grow up in poverty, dysfunction, chaos and abuse. Get real. - 0:52:34 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: but the facts bear out cooperate welfare is alot more than what we spend on the poor.Yet most of the fortune 500 co. pay little or no taxes and it's got alot worse since The GOP and Reagan+Bush opened up the tax coffers to the rich.For all there talk, the GOP business men could survive in a real free market like the poor do.I don't know about you, but it turns my stomach to see childrens lunch programs for the poor being cut, while business lunches are at the best resturants that you and I can't afford .Yet these rich parasites can afford to pay their own meals, but we have to pay for the Gourmet meals of millionares. Another thing for example is that our business leaders are rewarding themselves for failure. A case point is The Harvard HMO that filed Chap 11 in Massachusetts a few months back. The CEO and his buddies all tried to take a 2 million dollar bonus each, before bailing out. The state attorney general has made them give it back. This is a exception to the way thinks are run today. In any other time or country these business people would have a deserved black mark of failure on their record.But in America the rich failures are rewarded. - 5:04:45 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Doug: Of course we spend alot more on 'corporate welfare'than the poor, that reinforces my point that the poor are underserved. where do we define/ draw the line on the definition of corporate welfare and business bailouts? With an impending spring drought, there will be crop failures, do you bail out the family farmers with 100 acres?, 200? the guy who bought his fathers and brothers farms and has 3000 acres? What about the company in the business of buying up farms and owns 20,000 acres... do you pay them for failure (crop failure)??? - 10:39:43 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:ROB-- CARL-- That's pretty much it regarding the brain. Scientists have mapped nearly all of the brain's functions. The brain is not nearly so mysterious as it once was. In regard to Betty, ideally people use specialized terminology in order to be more clear and precise. Some find it convenient to use specialized terminology to be vague and evasive. Betty has so far failed to offer any substantiation for her beliefs, or even to state specifically what they are. She is refusing to be held to any standards of physical evidence, instead suggesting that it is merely an assumption that the physical, material world exists at all outside the mind. In other words, she is defending her arbitrary beliefs by claiming that all beliefs are arbitrary. This is no different from the tactics of those Xtians who claim that reason cannot be valid because it does not lead to where they wish to go. As you can probably tell, I'm still trying to push for substantiation and clarity. - 13:29:25 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I wonder if McCain ran independent if he'd draw more voters from the R or D's? The Dems are looking for someone more honorable, and alot of less vocal Reps are looking for someone more moderate. I never paid Jesse Ventura much thought until he said that about weak-minded xians. Maybe there is something to that guy! I don't think his lack of tact will give him much political future though. Kind of the same problem w/ McCain...not enough kiss-ass. - 14:39:07 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:BETTY--Come on. Consciousness is a phenomena that cannot be traced to any causality? Of course it can. We know that when we die, we no longer have consciousness. This is where the word 'dead' can be safely applied. We may not know the precise mecanisms of consciousness, but we do know that when a living protoplasmic organism dies--so does its own consciousness..it is a bodily function. No one suggests that breathing and digestion continue before and after life do they? Also, you have not convinced me how the concept of consciousness can exist, without there first being existence. You see, as previously stated, If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness,A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is CONTRADICTION IN TERMS. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself AS consciousness, which is what you suggest in your model of there being an 'uncaused consciousness'--would also result in a self-contradictory assertion in that before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. A consciousness MUST have a first cause-- and that it existence--as only existence can cause existence, because if you refer to something as acting as a cause, you are identifying it as SOMETHING, therefore implying existence..and regardless of how much one wishes to put the cart before the mule, a self-contradictory concept will appear. - 17:41:30 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:PETER: SO far it looks as tho'BETTY drifts at Berkeley's thinking and sayin's after the ol'bird dismantled matter. I read some o'his stuff but could never follow Berkeley into the devine mind conclusion. That devine mind and that one has soul or spirit stuff is just an extrapolation, at best, that can serve only a creator relationship. So far BETTY could be described as tryin'to dance on a pin head with who knows how many other things. - 18:17:14 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Ha! the old site has some odd characters playing there can one witness it slowly take on another lifeform? - 23:40:17 on 14 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Andrei Codrescu did a great commentary on the Pope's apology yesterday on NPR. If you have RealAudio you can give it a listen. Scroll down near the bottom to Pope's Apology. - 4:52:03 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Steven:<<>> hi guy's! Its been a while, thought i would drop a note and say hello. - 5:03:35 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:The CGI script for this board doesn't seem to be able to handle the ampersand in the URL. Here's the URL: http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=3%2F13%2F2000&PrgID=2 - 5:10:22 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Hello, STEVEN. I thought you ran off and joined the Mormons or something! - 5:11:43 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: Whoa Rob , your building a straw man here. I'm talking about corperations that pull in profits of 600 million dollars a year and not paying a cent in taxes.All the fortune 500 companies are pulling in profits and most of them aren't paying ANY taxes. The farmers aren't corperations or at least the "A" type corperation of the big boys. Farming exemtions are a focus in policy for the common good. Even farmers have to pay mimimuns in taxes, unlike their class "A" fortune 500 corperations that pull in profits yet pay ZERO in taxes(no minimum). - 5:12:03 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:HEY STEVEN- Worse yet, I hear the CoC is popular in your state, lol! Cristy is from Texas also. How are you? - 5:20:43 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I was listening to a radio discussion on the Dope's speach this morning. I understand the church isn't apologizing to the people but to god. - 5:23:10 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- Yes, it's also couched in dogma speak such as "..while in defense of Truth", but I think it's still significant. - 5:28:17 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: Didn't catch the poop's speech, but-i-gotta-tellya, honestly, any step in the right direction is...a step in tthe right direction, I applaude him. - 10:17:13 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Doug/open: I'm right with ya on the abuses/excesses of corporate america. But did you really say agriculture is not big business?? Ever heard of IBP? Large corporations DO own most of the farmland in the united states, and DON'T necessarily operate for the 'common good', they prefer the bottom line. Your turkey's, chicken's, beef and pork are PUMPED full of growth hormones and steroids just to be brought to market quicker. Corporations use greater amounts of pesticides than family farmers, common good? Farmers are paid for NOT producing when supply is high, couldn't some of the excess be sent to say STARVING COUNTRIES? Challenge the family farm myth, what's left to attack mom and apple pie? - 10:33:43 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- No applause from me! The only reason the Dope is apologizing is because it benefits the damn church. The same reason ole Bill apologized for the Monica thing. Do you really think he's sorry? Of course not! He had a good time. He didn't want to loose his position or his family so he played the damn game. I also say that the apology should have NOT been made to god but to those who suffered from the crap the church dished out. This apology is just another example of telling lies for god (and to god in this instance but god will forgive him come confession time)for profit. - 12:59:21 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Do you know how to access old posts back beyond 200? After you post or use the "view older posts" function at the top of the page, in the URL in your address box will be a number such as 40, for example ...show=40&user=&url... You can change the number to, say, 250 and hit enter. - 14:13:26 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Steven:Grant <<>> No, i did not join the mormons, I actually decided that the Hari Kristna sect was for me, haha, j/k. No, i became extremly busy with life, (kids, new job, new house etc.) and just have not been at the PC much. I used to post from work, but im too damn busy to even bring up my browser these days. MARLENE <<>> CoC, are you talking Church of Christ, ACK!!!! - 15:31:29 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: What a world, huh? So the pope was making some verbal gesticulations to the invisible all-powerful thing of his imagination? That, even as some people hope to prolong one's existence by diggin'into inhibiting the aging process and as othe peoples develop cloned animals for "spare body parts" for the human organism for when it breaks down. Then too, for a few days now I've read reports that tell of some gene selection process soon may be available for wanna'be parents to preform their own reproductions as they choose! Looks like the performance of nasty ol'intercourse is dead, is this insane, or am I being an ol'stick in the mud? - 17:34:54 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- That's the one ACK UCK POOEY! - 20:17:27 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You're just an ole stick in the mud, lol! I understand cyber-sex is the thing for those in the action scene and I suppose cloning would be more convenient. I think I'll be just an ole stick in the mud too and stick to the old fashioned, right in the face kind of thing. - 20:20:29 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I saw that on the news the other day, I thought it WAS quite significant that the Pope was at least addressing that perhaps it isn't the most "godly" thing to go around murdering people that don't buy your theology. At least they are making teeny steps of progress!.............STEVEN, Hi! fellow bible-belter Texan!................OPEN, anyone know any good quotes or intellectual insights on Hell? Got a good debate going on a mostly xian Mom's board I frequent, figured you guys might have some good (but not TOO inflammatory) material that might open someone's eyes. The debate comes on the heels of the new hell "revolution" where some are saying maybe it's not LITERALLY torturous fire and brimstone, but more of a solitary separation from God thing. Some want to make the faith look nicer, some want the ammo to scare people into believing. Interesting article on it in USNews few weeks back. - 20:26:36 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Rob: you're right about big business owning alot of agriculture, but it is speculative by it's nature and not like the factory type businesses.In Vermont and Maine they are mostly family owned. The corperations that do own farm don't even do contour farming, because it decreases profits.These jerks should be fined for destoying valuble farmland.I'm waiting for the day that US corperations decide they can get more $$$ for US grown food on the world market. You know they'd let us starve and the government wouldn't give a crap, or at least the republicans wouldn't. - 21:46:09 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I've been pondering the pope's aberrant behavior of talking to the cosmos for forgiveness. While CRISTY means good o'course by attributing redemptive-like values to such poppycock behavior, the popes behavior is still well in the category of being utterly, non-responsible. Why, well whats talking to the cosmos got to do with what a life organism on an iota of a what that organism has the temerity to say is a planet got to do with anything? The "religious" types just gotta face facts, the behavior proper to that human organism's continued and happy existence is to be responsible for themselves[nobody has died for them] and that first of all, just in order to know how and why and when to be responsible to others. Prayin'to the the cosmos, geez is it time for a reality check or what? - 22:07:21 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Open/Cristy: Cristy I'm with you on the prop's speech, although I must 'confess'I hadn't seen much of the content, but I can tell you that in my little corner it was a 'revelation'to nearby catholics who did some 'soul-searching' and had to face the reality of the atrocities of the papacy, for the first time. Acknowledging a crack in the armor of perfection is a first small step toward tolerance. Marlene/Grant: I'm not debating the intentions of such gestures, pragmatically, it will help some in catholic countries that are discriminated against, aren't you for that? - 22:09:34 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Doug: ditto - 22:10:40 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Marlene:The poop apologised for the same reason slick willie did...I didn't know the prop even knew monica. - 22:13:42 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Who know's if the Dope knows Monica and even if he does, could he keep up? I hold with my position on the RC's and their vunderful apology. It's bullshit and only done because they are losing respect and more importantly, money,otherwise. How is this going to make it easier on RC's in third world countries? - 22:32:21 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Cristy/open: What about hell? I hear its really hot in the summer. You probably want a little more than that. Although I'm not an expert, I've read a bit in the book of 'salvation' and it appears to me that hell is RARELY mentioned in the babble. I believe its first introduction was by king david in psalms (if its any earlier, I don't remember it, or it was a fleeting reference). David's son solomon developed the concept further in proverbs. This is extremely interesting, that two of the most murderous rogues of the old testament would develop the concept of hell. David was a RUTHLESS raider and murderer who built power through force. Solomon's avarice is world reknown as some say he is STILL the richest man that ever lived. Jews like to thank David and Solomon for the great temple which they built (on the backs of tens of thousands of SLAVES). Solomon had numerous concubines (sex slaves). David, a great fighter,killed any opposition. One of the most MIS- INTERPRETED 'prophecy's ' occurs here where david is supposed to be predicting that jesus will re-build the great temple in the end days. He ACTUALLY says his SON will build a great temple. David's slaves prepared the site and his ACTUAL SON, Solomon, built the temple for the FIRST time, no prophecy fulfilled here. By far the greatest obsession with the concept of hell was Matthew's gospels. Matthew claims jesus talked about hellfire and being cast into hell for anger toward 'your brother'. Unfortunately for the babble literalists, that verse is sandwiched between the he who'looked at a women has already lusted' and the most damning of all, where jesus says he has come 'not to abolish THE LAW but to FULFILL IT'. Ask your christian friends how jesus can Be the new covenant(grace through him) and fulfill the jewish salvation through works religious laws???? The two covenants are opposites! The only other reference I know of is James (jesus Brother). Curiously, je sus also claims to be direct descendant of David, a murderer he admired. - 22:50:12 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: NOT the RC cola's, the YOU and ME's in RC cola lands may catch a break on discrimination, if its not cool to hate the minorities because of the infallability of poopdom. - 22:53:33 on 15 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:I think the Catholics are interesting. Many of their schools of theology are now requiring postgraduate work in philosophy as prerequisite for entrance. The Catholic theologians are thinking types who explore and understand all points of view. It's not an anti-intellectual and anti-reason religion as most are. But Catholic history is a history of abuse of power. They practically wrote the book. :-) Every ounce of power they could muster they have used ruthlessly. Last year the Pope acknowledged evolutionary theory with the qualifier that evolution is/was directed by God. Now we get the acknowledgement of Catholic atrocities. This isn't magnanimity. The significance of these things, IMO, is that they are symptoms of the increasing relative impotence of the church which once ruled by force, then through fear. General ignorance of the masses is in decline, and so their power. The Pope is squirming. - 5:07:30 on 16 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: I happened to attend a catholic university for one l-o-n-g year back in the 70's. I was amazed that the professor who was NOT a priest taught about the tremendous contradictons and hypocrasy of the bible and books such as Job. The next class, taught by a priest, covered issues such as the CERTAINTY that the body and soul were ONE and that you must care for the body since you will retain it in the next life and ANY life has value and the sanctity of life must be retained (regardless of pain, quality of life,etc.) Of course the newer priests are more open minded I understand. - 6:59:43 on 16 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:ROB -- Individually Catholics are just like everybody else. People are people. Coming from a cultish fundamentalist background where reading anything other than "uplifting" Xtian material was strongly discouraged and too much learning was considered a direct affront to God, I appreciate religionists who don't have their heads in the sand. I'm a volunteer editor for Netscape's Open Directory Project, where I edit the Religion and Spirituality/Opposing View categories, the Religious Studies category, and various atheist categories. We have lots of problems with religionists trying to suppress opposition, particularly Muslems and Scientologists. The group of editors who are guarding against this and support openness, objectivity, and free exchange of ideas is comprised of me, a couple of editors whose beliefs have not been stated but seem to be atheist or agnostic, a Buddhist, a Pagan, and three Catholics, one of which is a theologian. The theologian is an absolute pleasure to talk to and to see in action. She is at least as objective as me, and much more knowledgable. She is the first religionist I've ever talked to who completely understood what the issues really are for atheists without lengthy explanations and without feeling threatened or being defensive. But anyway, Catholicism is in decline, especially here in the U.S. There are few people interested in becoming priests, for example, and this is becoming a large problem. Ironically, they are going to have to evolve or die, and I think we are seeing it. - 13:27:52 on 16 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That editorship you practice must be interesting. I oft ask people what they mean to mean with their use of the word 'believe'. Having read a few things written by folks over time and from various parts of the world some regular ideas appear. These assorted ideas seem like- to me, the substance of that word, I was wondering if you've held and read anything of that word which one could refer to as a good explanatory account? It seems likely to me that the meaning conveyed by that word is simply prehistoric and for those of such mind, it is definitely pre-scientific. The contemporary supporters of religionism must "absolutely prefer" that pre'nesses[above] of that word just because of the mysteriousness of one's relationship which was and is yet, an ancient value. Mystery made some better than others. Hmmm? In 1853 or so A.deGobineau said,"Every people, great and small, has begun by making inequality its chief political motto." - 15:55:33 on 16 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:CARL -- I've been reading the book I suggested to Betty. In it they figure that as it is necessary for survival, the brain evolved in such a way that it seeks patterns and meaning. We have no say in this, according to them. The brain is constructed to do this and it does, whether we wish it or not. They refer to this trait as the cognitive imperative. The implications are that since the brain functions this way, it will find patterns and meaning whether or not they exist. It's what the brain does. So in purely mechanical terms, belief would be that which, combined with what the rest of the brain already thinks or holds, adequately imparts meaning on that which we observe or infer from what we observe. Belief, then, would only be "prehistoric" in the sense that the design of our brains is prehistoric. A belief in science, for example, would work the same way as a belief in Thor and what-not did for previous brains, at least in the mechanical sense. The shift would be when we allow or force reason to take precedence over automatic brain function if this is even possible, or at least incorporate it into the brains search for meaning. ...or maybe not. I don't have all this stuff figured out! :-) ---- I like the deGobineau quote. - 8:20:02 on 17 Mar 100 GMT

Joette...more anti-American sentiment....:Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God, "Where have you been?" God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael, look what I've made." Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?" "It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put LIFE on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance." "Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused. God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth, "For example, Northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while Southern Europe is going to be poor; the Middle East over there will be a hot spot and the Antarctica in the South will be very cold." "Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of black people," God continued, pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot and arid while this one will be very cold and covered in ice." The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a large area and asked, "What's that one?" "Ah," said God. That's the "South", the most glorious place on Earth. There are beautiful mountains, lakes, rivers, streams and an exquisite coastline. The people from there are going to be modest, intelligent and humorous and they're going to be found traveling the world. They'll be extremely sociable, hardworking and high-achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace. A truly great people." Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there will be BALANCE."? God replied wisely. "Wait until you see the loudmouth obnoxious people I'm putting north of them." - 16:28:04 on 17 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: As you may or may not accept and understand of the godthing, I for one have not percieved nor experienced anything outside my being that I would declare to be a god of anykind. Of the thing that I am in mind, nothing therein hints at anything in any way that I might declaim a god of any kind has ever been involved. On these accounts do I see it only proper that thinking and its conveyance grows and expands within all the human organisms as does a nuclear chain reaction. Religious 'belief' is prehistoric and prescientific in that its allows 'a' coherence that was based on those long ago accounts of the all. The all that they of long ago were aware of was further compounded in its organismical limitations with verbal shortcomings of then than is today's human organism. What they underwent and expressed to other human organisms was first cloaked in mystery and expressed so for social coherence. But, did that intial coherence probably become a tool for the purposes contained and conveyed in the deGobineau quote? So GRANT, for me the prehistoric and prescientific view is not as you've linked it to be. The current scientific views and its assorted accounts have an effluence that I see as the quality and value of being responsible and, surely- even independent. Of the catholic favor you've mentioned, they are quite the cats. While they house as much of that learned and said to be known by the human organism in their records, the catholic encyclopedia, they still mean to cloth it with shrouds and mystery. Ergo, the war between science and religion. - 16:52:07 on 17 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- LOL! - 18:47:35 on 17 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So who is winning the war? Strange as it may seem and dispite reported data, the thinking human wins. With only this site as an example, the religious adherents which can not engage and maintain a discussion seem as though they fall into two categorys. One such religious category is madeup by bible thumpers, these folks carry on of a book of myths and simple-minded superstitions. The other category is made up o'adherents of some godthing. Religion per se, is it neccessarily bad when the given two categorys are understood? I seem to recall of views here, that in general it seemed as tho'when religion had humanitarian social-like purposes or marked by such deeds it could be considered a good thing. In scenarios as this it can usually be determined that religion was composed of people being good to people. The simple-minded, however, link their goodness to the myths and superstitions. Those who want more{isn't this selfishness?} for their goodness declare that they've a godthing. A third category I think can be defined as madeup of those who feel "spirit" things. These spritualists would be the folk who hold that the material- o'anything, is without spirit and only that spirit world is real. So, with such handles placed, what does science do to these various people that is bad? - 21:21:42 on 17 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Carl/open: What does science do that is bad?? How about invention without concern for consequences. Science has given us: the verge of destruction for our ecosystem, global warming, the nuclear bomb, a false sense of security in man's ability to 'fix' any blunder we pull, an air of false assuredness that the latest research is a final 'truth',thereby actually REDUCING the exchange of new ideas. I'm speaking of 'science' in the broadest sense i.e. learned academe's, NOT the experimental process. I also wouldn't rather live in any other time. - 0:09:56 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Carl/open: What does science do that is bad?? How about invention without concern for consequences. Science has given us: the verge of destruction for our ecosystem, global warming, the nuclear bomb, a false sense of security in man's ability to 'fix' any blunder we pull, an air of false assuredness that the latest research is a final 'truth',thereby actually REDUCING the exchange of new ideas. I'm speaking of 'science' in the broadest sense i.e. learned academe's, NOT the experimental process. I also wouldn't rather live in any other time. - 0:12:27 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Rob:Joette/open: You put the concept 'southerner' and 'intelligent' and 'hardworking' in the same pargraph, gosh, that really was funny... - 0:17:54 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: sounds like an interesting gig. Catholics take a bad rap here in the SOUTH as many people consider them the link to the antichrist, no less. They are accused of worshipping mary and the saints and considered a great evil. Some people here have told me that, as kids, they cheered on the bus when Kennedy was assassinated (one less catholic). It is the religion of my formative years (latin mass every morning). It strengths were: that most nuns and priests never met a 'bad kid' or gave up on anybody, which was touching. Many were open and tolerant and programs like catholic charities actually DID good works for the poor. Many in catholicism seemed to care about ALL of humanity. It weaknesses included: ritual and dogma it had to protect, its ignoble past, opposition to 'women's' issues, pedophile priests, etc. In college enjoyed caroling with the priest who had a few drinks with us along the way-way cool. Hated the years of GUILT GUILT GUILT shoved down innocent kids throats for no good reason. I thought I was going to hell for accidentally seeing a girls underpants in first grade mass. All catholics were taught to hate and fear sex. Girls were characterized as 'saints' or 'whores'. Alot of catholic girls were messed up about their sexuality as a result. I understand the american church has become more progressive, though. - 0:41:08 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- You are absolutely correct. The RC's have been famous for instilling fear in children. They have terrified many a young woman when it comes to sex but the kids are also terrified of death, graveyards and serious illness. - 2:47:58 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL- Many times posters will claim that atheism is a belief. Of course a belief has to have some dogma attached and some kind of purpose which atheism really doesn't have. I have posted an argument posted by a person by the name of Ed. I thought it interesting and maybe you may too. "It is important to note that Marxism is founded upon the superstitious "dialectical materialism" derived from Hegel that presupposes an intelligent historical progression. Like the Christians of the Inquisition and the Witch Trials, Stalinists and Maoists have a correspondingly superstitious belief in a "purpose of life" that justifies killing other people. > > As opposed to the Christians we meet on this list, Stalin, Pol Pot, Judge Hathorne, and Torquemada have a refreshing honesty: They recognize and indeed assert that their belief systems justify or even demand these atrocities. And they are of course correct: If the Bible is true, witches and heretics must be exterminated; and if Marxism is true, so must anyone who opposes it. > > Above, Jim attempts to divert the question of "purpose in existence" to a question of the existence of God. As Pol Pot and Stalin demonstrated so eloquently, one can believe in a transcendent purpose to existence without believing in a deity. And as the great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell saw, this belief makes Marxism a religion. - 2:52:27 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene/open: You had to fear DEATH, it was the devil and demons, the spirit world and unknown (which you weren't allowed to think about) all rolled into one. Gregorian chants anyone? The first catholic church I ever attended(DAILY no less)was an old and spooky place, with jesus' 14 stations of the cross showing grotesque tortured statues mounted on its dark walls, in first grade. My kids got Barney's "we're a happy family..." imprinting instead. The thought which stuck with me most of all the memories was how devoutly catholic my mother was, and how helpless and depressed she seemed when her desperate prayers went unanswered ....false hopes, false hopes. - 13:56:52 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: Just a ramble...:Great perspectives, ROB. I'd almost forgotten all the anti-Catholic stuff from my childhood. There is still lots of opposition to Catholicism. It's interesting to me that in the ODP opposing views listings there are 44 anti-Catholic sites, mostly from other Xtian groups, but only 14 anti-atheist ones. There are surprising difference between Catholic theology and actual Catholic beliefs and practices. I once had a semi-retired priest for a neighbor who held the simplest beliefs and seemed never to have experienced or even been aware of the slightest doubts. His life and beliefs didn't seem to have any connection to actual theology. He often commented that he couldn't believe I was atheist because I seemed like such a nice guy. I get this fairly often but was disappointed to hear it from a priest. There is a Catholic group called "Our Lady's Warriors" who are about as fundie and intollerant as anyone. They attack just about everybody, but especially dissenters within the church and those who question the authority of the Holy See. Of course the Catholic church is the ultimate example of a group setting itself up as a moral authority. They wish to hold authority over the people in the way that a parent holds authority over a child. This is pretty repugnant to me. It's an effort to keep people in a child-like dependent and subordinate role in order to maintain control, IMO. At least they offer they perfect example for why a religion cannot be allowed to be in power. - 18:13:06 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT/ROB- I think the RC's have had their day and I think this may be why they are doing the apology thing among others. Rob, yes death to a RC can be very scary. This is the time of judgement. Remember the RC's aren't totally forgiven at any time, the priest can only forgive to a point. They spend a time in pergatory(sp) before the big judgement comes down. Sins are so terrible in the RC religion that one is almost sure he/she will be going to hell when their time comes. Of course, in cases where the born agains claim that murderers and those that cause pain and suffering to others are forgiven, one would rather see the RC's handle those people. - 19:35:32 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, thanks for the hell references. I have an online friend (a fundie) wanting to have an email "conversation" about it now so I may have to look up some of the stuff you referred to. I feel like I'm everyone's pet project lately! Weird...........Hi JOETTE, LOL at 'southern superiority'!..........ALL, I'm enjoying the RC conversation! - 20:59:44 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy/Open: Glad to help anytime. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I just read the ENTIRE bible for a second time (21 years apart) and here are some interesting 'facts' fromthe bible: 1. There were really FOUR incarnations of god:A)God the "jews are my chosen people allowed to massacre for the chosen land.B): god of fire and brimstone or 'let the jews suffer in slavery for a thousand years, so he must be really pissed"god C); Paul's/Jesus version of 'god loves gentiles on second thought, if you worship Jesus since I can't get the jews to fall for it'-god and D)the apostles hebrew-ized christianity'jesus was really a only a high priest and the gentiles better follow jewish law if they want to join our church' god. 2. (there are alot more but i've got time for only a second ) jesus is NOT PROPHESIZED ANYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! The christian 'argument' falls like a house of cards with that fact. Most are duped in to believing he is, but THEY ALL were speaking of IMMANUEL, the mythical HEBREW GOD WITH US, who was coming in the END DAYS to lead them in a HOLY BATTLE AGAINST the GENTILES!!! KILL the GENTILES and SAVE the gentiles are mutually exclusive. If you want any help,just hollar or list the site if you'd like reenforcements, and good luck. - 23:26:53 on 18 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:NEWS FLASH: the Ten Commandments kills; warning do not post in schools it can kill.**** At Least 235 Die in Uganda Cult Suicide (Reuters) - At least 235 members of a millennium cult, including dozens of children, are believed to have died by mass suicide in a blazing church in southwestern Uganda. Expecting the end of the world, followers of the obscure ''Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God'' locked themselves in the church in the small town of Kanungu at breakfast time on Friday, police said on Saturday.** Here we go again folks; More deaths due to religious beliefs. - 2:25:01 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- MY GAWD! There was an ass here that had a webpage dedicated to the 10. I'm not sure weather it was Quake, Quietsun or...now I remember! It was none other than Robert T Lee. Here's his page. Try to read the whole thing, the guy's a real zinger! - 4:06:52 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:I see I'm still not "authorized" to enter his chat room, LOL! I did enter at one time saying that he had to be desperate to copy posts off this page and paste them on his to "prove" that atheism was evil. That's when I was booted. Not very christian of him, is it? Then of course, don't ever dare mention one is gay, that should qualify you for the boot from ole RTLee too, LOL! - 4:14:30 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: the guy seems to hate everyone who is not a christian (thinks just like him), hey- sounds like a christian to me. - 13:46:50 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - it's funny that you posted RTL's webpage at the same time that cult in Uganda did their "thing". When I heard the news reports, RTL was the first person I thought of, as he and the Ugandans are (were) all tied into the Ten Commandments. On a lighter note, the Ugandans imported a large amount of soft drinks in the last while, and I wonder if Coke will be able to incorporate this into their nauseating advertising campaigns. - 17:10:01 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:I've been following the Pope's impending visit to Isreal (sP?) starting tomorrow. It is interesting to note that this will be an official "state" visit, a privilege normally extended to political leaders only. It concerns me greatly that a religious leader is being allowed to pose as a political leader. Early reports indicate that the regular population of that country object to his visit, and I anticipate their will be even more tension in that country than usual during his visit. Even Yassar Arafat has gotten into the act, in that the Pope will visit a Palestian refuge camp. Are they all hoping that the Pope will be able to solve all the political problems of the world? I am of the opinion that some have lost sight of the Pope's actual place in society, being only a head priest, and not the peace maker some are making him out to be. - 17:14:55 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Hello JOETTE. I've missed you. --- I don't see how the Pope's visit can be other than harmful to the situation. Of course visiting the two places claimed to be the location of Jesus' baptism will go far in smoothing Arab-Jewish relations, I'm certain. What's he going to say, "Come on guys, you're equally evil and hellbound. Can't you just get along?" - 17:43:20 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/open: or: 'my dogma can kick you dogma's ass' or he could break the tension with one liners.... 'where can a regular joe like me get some action around here'(needs to use a beetlejuice delivery to get the laugh though). or 'heard the one about the jews and muslims hating each over for 1600 years, and they say we catholics can hold a grudge...', or 'hey, Yassar, what you need is one of these big pointy hats I get to wear to cheer you up' or 'don't tell my fans back home, but you guys will love the 'hows jesus like elvis' stuff I picked up off man-made.net and lastly 'if you guys stop fighting I'll give you each your own personal patron saint, nudge, nudge' - 18:27:44 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:Enjoyed going to the UU today, had a visiting minister talking about how you should always ask questions and not be satisfied with "that is not for us to know". You may have to accept that we don't know, and MAY never know, but it shouldn't stop you from trying to find out and most importantly doing what you can to improve things. COOL, that's my philosophy too! I think this will be a really good place for the kids when they are bigger, to ask all the questions I could never ask as a kid w/o getting the pat "God's will" answer. We're having a "flower exchange" service next month where everyone brings a flower and takes home a different one. Kind of a nature appreciation, beauty, and sharing thing. Should be interesting! - 18:59:15 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Oh yes Robert T. Lee; the xian who would exterminate the world.One wishes that he would go quietly like the Uganda cult(I'm upset over the children though). The more that these cults murder their own children the more scrutiny social services should put into determining the potential for violence happening.In Massachusetts they are questioning a xian religious cult who had a baby boy, but he disappeared. The parents say he died; but aren't telling any more due to some garbarge about freedom from government. Well I think the State should look into just what happened to this child.What's the problem with these religious nuts that they don't understand; children just don't disappear or die and nobody takes notice. - 19:25:08 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:THE POPE, I am glad that he is trying to use his office to do some good (whether it will do any good is another question). I like to think that the guy's not all bad and is trying to see beyond the church's self-centered attitude to the world beyond. I am always glad when people of influence, even religious, try to change the world for the better..........ROB, love your one-liners! - 20:23:58 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:DOUG, I wonder how many kids ol' RTL has buried out in his back yard?! That scripture he quoted about any child that curses or strikes his parent must be put to death...that'd sure put an end to population growth if we followed that! I'm surprised anyone in biblical times survived past age 2! - 21:19:38 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy/open: I'm happy to hear the UU church is working out so well for you. I read parts of Race Toward Lunacy's site, hadn't looked at many sites like that before. Not surprised to see the hatred seething from it. Everybody sing (to the melody of waltzing matilda)"Hating fer Jeezuz, Hatin' fer Jeezuz, won't you die a-hatin' fer Jeezuz wit me." - 22:11:23 on 19 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Li-an' fer Gee-zus, Li-an' fer Gee-zus, Won't you die a -Li-an for Gee-zuz wit me! Prayn'fer Gee-zus, Prayn fer Gee-zus, won't you die prayn'to Gee-zus wit me! - 3:08:29 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:More later, I'm really busy today! - 3:09:46 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Grant :CRISTY -- I'd like to hear a little more about the UU. Do they go in for ritual and praying and such? What is the flavor of the services? Is it structured like other churches as far as "worship services" and such? - 4:23:13 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: Sheep in wolf duds?:CARL -- Jaywilson has been posting here for a couple of years or so. It surprised me a little a couple of weeks ago when you questioned his atheism. Now you seem to question mine. Do you suppose that anyone who disagrees with you about anything can't be a "true" atheist or something? Are you always so suspicious? Have you somehow missed my last 600 or so posts, or am I just too subtle? - 4:33:51 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Doug:Cristy: Yea, the state authorities should keep an eye on creeps like RTL; He no doubt practices as he professes. - 5:27:12 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: I've been to 4 diffrent UU groups in the past. The 2 in larger cities offered more interesting and thought provoking agendas. One smaller towns had to rely a little more on structure, had a little poorer turnout and had the stereotypical cast (spiked hair/black nails youth crowd, the 'alienated in a small town' groups). All were tolerant and open to different views, as I remember. - 10:19:33 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Thanks ROB. I guess what I'm wondering is whether it's a spiritual type group or more social or educational. It's not one of those "search for enlightenment" things, is it? - 14:15:12 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, this group that I attend is a liiiiiiittle spiritual. Everyone sits in the meeting room (they are planning to build a sanctuary someday) and they have a candle lighting. Kind of like a church would have people stand up and say "pray for great aunt Rosa who broke her hip...", here they light the big candle saying some quote about light and unity and such, then people come light a little candle from it for a "joy or hope" they want to share. Usually someone sick, or someone getting married, or something. They do sing a couple of hymns, and some of them are traditional hymns like Amazing Grace. Alot don't mention any god and are just about beauty of the world and such. Then there is a children's story, like this week a story about letting go of grudges. The kids leave and the adults have a service. Sometimes God is mentioned, but their idea of god is more what most would call spiritual...they have stated they don't go for the trinity of Jesus, ghost, god. Acutally the beginning of UNItarians was to get away from the TRINITarians. Several people are "runaways" from traditional churches but still hold some Xian beliefs, but most seem to have a belief of "something is out there, we don't know what". However it is never presented in a way that those of us who thing NOTHING is out there feel uncomfortable. All opinions are welcome. It is mostly older folk, like a regular church I guess. There are a few younger families, and a couple of the radical college kid or military type (we're near a base) but I say radical as the hippies were "radical", not black hair and fingernails types. Basically it is sort of a religious service for those who would like that type of community w/o the dogma attached. I don't really have an ongoing NEED for that actually, I just wanted to meet some "liberals" in my area and mainly find a place for the kids to learn about religion objectively. I really REALLY think this will be a good place for them. Next month the kids will be studying lent and Mardi gras, but before it was Native American religion or Buddhism. Oh, the service quotes Christians some, and maybe read prayers, but never say "let's pray". Sometimes they read something "deep" and say "let's take a silent moment for prayer, thought, or meditation" and some people will say "amen" at the end, but the Ministers haven't said amen or acted like it was a prayer. They are just as likely to read a native American or Buddhist prayer. - 14:30:35 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I agree, great to see you back! I was thinking of RTL too when Doug mentioned the mass suicide. I don't know if RTL would encourage a suicide for the 10 believers but I would imagine he would condone the murder of atheists and gays. - 14:32:25 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, so to answer your specific question, it is sort of a "search for enlightenment" group, or searching for answers and community with people that have the same questions you do "why do bad things happen to good people", etc. My "church" has service every other week, and "discussion group" (like Sunday School) on the other weeks. That is more of a social and educational gathering, where something like racism, classism, etc is discussed. This is a VERY small congregation though, w/o their own minister, so their programs are kind of whatever they can throw together. The ones I've kind of described were done by visiting UU ministers from other towns. - 14:33:45 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I also agree the dope has no business in politics but it seems the church has been involved in this kind of stuff for years. I can just imagine the born agains interpreting his visit to the middle east as the anti-christ who seems to make peace between everyone. - 14:35:31 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I think it's great that you've found the uu (my keyboard refuses to type capital "u"). I wonder what the fundie there think about this church? - 14:38:01 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I bet a whole lot of children died as a result of the 10 in past years. I know a few fundie fathers myself that use the 10 as an excuse to beat their children. Then again many "god of Abraham" believers do terrible things to children. Take for instance the muslims and circumcision of females (sp), normally done at the age of five. Horrible! - 14:43:11 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: Not sure what kind o'science minded folk you hang with as in read and perhaps study with, but geez, do these folks really inhibit or stop one's idea processing? They must be, as people, more like RT Lee whose site with its be-no's so clearly exemplifies that kinda' odd mind. Since I've been sort of investigating religion what it looks like I am finding is a act of self-preservation. It was in this light that I posed the question above; science, bad to, those categorys of people. Your response, well I'll just figure it made you feel good to get that out. Of that self preservation, first it appears that it does not honestly involve wishes for another life after death. Instead, it looks like the concerted effort 'to preserve' one's thought in the minds of others and in a state of unbound time. Unbound time is anything of the past and in the future. If anything it appears that is known to be the one sure way of 'living on' and has probably been the regularly appearing one motivating aspect of the human organism. Religious types have concocted a story and have retailed it wholesale, come one come all. The appeal o'that story, it places the religious adherents into that unbound time zone. That seems harmless enough, donut? - 16:41:05 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: When my general queries and perhaps specific questions appear here or elsewhere they become points for my own on going consideration. In today's public it seems difficult to dislodge good questions from others, I suspect that its the contemporary prevailing PC bullcrap that stems good questions and healthy doubt. I find this site to be about the only one with its own history site, I find that very handy. Redundency like prayer is for the quaint minded - 19:20:02 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--I think I've found Alfred von Neumann ("What, me doubt?")--or at least his answering machine--:CARL: Incisive response--not! - 19:31:10 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:JWILSON, thats my hero, ty! - 21:29:22 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Ryan:Hey... I've been reading these boards for sometime now... and this is the first time I've posted. I am not UU, I am an atheist.... my best friend however, is a UU, if you'd like, I could ask her to talk about their beliefs here. - 22:16:06 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:WELCOME RYAN, I'm also an atheist, just happen to be going to UU as that is one of the only places here in the bible belt they won't start doing the sign of the cross if you say you are atheist :-) I don't necessarily believe in anything AT ALL "out there", nor am I particularly spiritual, but I like to see if there is anything I might learn from them anyhow. Hope you stick around and post!!! - 23:34:44 on 20 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:CRISTY -- Thanks for all the information. I didn't mean to sound critical. I've been wondering if it could be a compromise for my Lutheran sweetie and me. She doesn't like to go to services alone but it's not the ritual and dogma she misses, it's just getting spritzed up and socializing a bit. I don't mind that either but I can't see myself lighting candles and getting all inspirational and stuff. You have me interested enough that I may check it out for myself. I agree with you that it could be really beneficial for kids, especially if they are learning about various religious beliefs. After all, we all function in a world of religious people. - 3:12:47 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Hello, RYAN. I would be interested in whatever your UU friend has to say. And no need to be shy yourself. - 3:19:59 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: I always thought Alfred looked like a math whiz.:JAYWILSON -- Are we getting a glimpse of real verbal antimatter? - 3:27:13 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:GRANT - getting a bit soft in your old age? What's with this "sense of community" everyone seems to be seeking here? Whatever happened to good old-fashioned individuality. These posts are leaving this pseudo-objectivist cold. - 3:32:37 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:JOETTE -- Soft? I don't know. My beliefs are still exactly the same. My recent posts to Betty are a lot like my posts to Tony back in May '98. Am I getting too tolerant? - 3:50:20 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:GRANT - your tolerance is only one of your many charms :o) - 4:02:48 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:JOETTE -- Hmmm.. OK, what are the others? :-) - 4:06:01 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:JOETTE, imagine! A group of like minded individuals becoming repeat posters on a board to share thoughts on their common philosophy...those people might want a sense of community somewhere?! Gads! Hey, I suggest if you want to avoid all sense of community you turn off the internet and move to Alaska! Personally I missed the rule book that says atheists are supposed to be anti-social hermits. Or perhaps you just see this need to be with like-minded individuals as inferior to your "individuality". Adios, Ice Queen! - 4:12:32 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL- I'm rather like Joette. I don't really seem to need to get out and mix with the community but we are all individuals here and some people do have that need. This is maybe the reason many atheists join atheist clubs that actually do things together and meet regularly in person. For me this internet thing seems to be enough. Cristy, I've known Joette for some time now and an ice queen she's not, lol! Ask her about the going topless thing in Ontario! - 5:26:10 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:Welcome RYAN, if you are still lurking and don't be shy. As you can see this a casual board and not many of us are scientists or anything overly educational like that. There are no credentials required. - 5:28:47 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant: Howdy. This is kindofa cleanup paragraph to keep things flowing. I have to take a raincheck for reading any new books at this time, but thanks for the suggestion. Also, after the whole Thomas Clark science fiction stuff you posted as a discussion idea, I had believed, didn't spawn a retort to my comments. It was either a sort of "Here, Betty. Read this and shut up"-kinda thing or a wimpy throw away and you made me feel as if I wasted my time reading, analyzing, and responding to it. I would have preferred to discuss more of the information there before moving on. So I guess I'll do the "do-rite purty like" (which I like, btw Carl!) thing and maybe save a little frustration. Back to your actual responses, Yes, I agree with our definitions of naturalism/materialism. It's always been that way. And this is no more of an "assault" as you have noted. I have already stated by beliefs but I think the problem you and others in here may have with them is that they aren't concrete, "Here take this" and hold it in your hand kinda stuff and that's the only reason it has no value to you in the form of an argument. That's materialism. If you feel like claiming that my posts are abstract and therefore undiscernable to you, honestly, that's materialism getting in the way. I already stated that these concepts won't make sense with materialism as a precept. And I'll say again, I don't speak about things and expect to be taken literally- that's also materlialism. I thought it was quite funny actually, that you thought I was "too deep" for you guys. I have to tell that one to my ex and maybe score some points for intellectualism afterall! - 5:36:59 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, And nope, I never stated that the material world is an assumption. That's a misunderstanding. The material world is merely secondary to a continually and creative, working, conscious universe. Since materialists find no substantial value (other than that they can be reduced to their smallest parts and be categorized) in the objects of the physical world, well I don't either. The other thing is that you are still missing the point about the duality. I'll state again since you lost the context of the original argument, that the duality contradiction is ONLY in the realm of the formidably, rationalized, mental constructs of materialism. The main contradiction of duality comes in the form of neural materialism, where on one hand materialists want to assume that they are individually capable of self-determining the physical objects of nature, and ALSO as self-assumed, random calculations of nature believe that this self-determining is an illusional free will, being merely the conditioned "sacks of cells" of nature that they are. This is why cognitive neuroscientists discarded neural materialism long ago to give value and credit to consciousness. When I said "How can something made of something else act upon what it's made of," – this was in reference to the postulate of epiphenomenalism, as a mind/matter resolution argument. Once again, this theory states that brain matter specifically produces this after-effect of consciousness, not as matter, but as a phenomenon of this matter. I don't know where you went astray, but I hope this reclarifies things. This is where I assume you got lost. - 5:39:01 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Peter and ALL, "We may not know the precise mechanisms of consciousness." Your assumptions, like most in here, are based on materialist, mechanized views. That's a clear cut observation. – Consciousness IS the existence, first and foremost behind everything, and it's mystery is it's underlying uncausal nature, and this is where it needs clarification to someone who approaches it from a materialist view. When we look at the physical objects of this world we find that they constitute various combinations, they are attracted or not to other elements, certain molecules form one thing and others another, and bodies of mass are generally attracted to each other. We can point to this and call it gravity. Gravity doesn't explain these attractions, it's merely an invented concept to point to a natural phenomenon. Things are naturally attracted or disattracted to each other and these form the relationships within materialism. Materialism is a focus on forms and objects and the relationships they constitute. Focusing on materialism is like explaining an automobile by each of its various, detailed, engineered parts. Sure, it explains how it works but it doesn't explain why the car works that way in the first place. Some people might see this as the classic design argument in progress. This is not the case, however. The universe is a single conscious entity in the sense that there is an underlying, or rather transcendent, attraction that binds things together in continually new organizations / combinations. If this weren't so, the forms and shapes we can detect would no longer be detectable, if we even had any shape or form to ourselves. Consciousness is an underlying, creatively driven force that holds and binds the universe in a working (as in changing to suit overall) order. That's where materialism goes awry. It immerses one into a meaning based on superficial, transitory physical expressive relationships, instead of the overall holistic process at work, and it's no wonder consciousness cannot be traced to the physical world. As people in here have tried to decipher this meaning of a universe within the outward, expression in objects and forms of an entire expression of consciousness, it's no wonder they find it hard to understand. When you mention "conscious of", it's a very good point to understand what this means. "Conscious of" implies a self-reflexive capability. As far as we know, we humans are the only self-reflexive entity of and in the universe. We have, in our smallest and newest part to the universe, the appreciation of it all. Our especially tuned sensory inputs guide us through the material world, but they shouldn't be confused as the meaning themselves. The fact that we can decipher forms and objects is not a true claim to say that we are separate physical bodies, rather we are tuned into the creative tendencies and probabilities of the universe, which includes but is not limited to, and the forms and objects are merely the tools of expression. When someone dies, sure their unique material elements erode, but self-reflexive consciousness doesn't die. There are other self-reflexive entities that continue to share this experience collectively. Consciousness on a universal scale is not self-reflexive however. The self is entirely in human form. And as we all know, no one is the center of their own universe. Give way, and look at the whole picture here. Just like there's no need to assume there is a man behind the curtain throwing the switches, there's no reason to assume the objects that give the universe form is what gives it meaning. It's bigger than we can imagine, which is what gives us plenty of room to learn and grow. - 5:50:13 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:HI BETTY, Good to see you back. All this is interesting but how do you KNOW this? - 6:06:43 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..better take the trivia game along:This was aahh..interesting :::"Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:36:26 -0800 From: "Dean A. Batha" Subject: Scientists' research reveals Heaven X-Sender: dabatha/postoffice.pacbell.net@127.0.0.1 To: skeptic X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Reply-To: skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu Sender: owner-skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu From the weekly World News Scientists' research reveals . . . It takes 3 million years for a human soul to reach Heaven . . . and no one from Earth has arrived there yet! Heaven is a mind-boggling 3 billion light-years from Earth, space scientists have recently determined -- a distance so vast that not a single person who's died in all of recorded history has yet reached the Pearly Gates! "Even traveling 1,000 times faster than the speed of light, a human soul would take 3 million years to cross that gap," explained French astrophysicist Antoinne Letelier. "That means that even the earliest prehistoric ancestors of modern man are only now beginning to arrive in Paradise. "Apparently, that 'tunnel of light' described so often by people who've had near-death experiences is far, far longer than any of us previously imagined!" Startling photos taken by both the Hubble Space Telescope and the Mars Pathfinder have pinpointed a shining white city suspended in the blackness of space, roughly 3 billion light-years away. Those secret NASA photos, leaked by an insider and published in Weekly World News, are widely believed to depict Heaven itself. And the implication of the great distance is staggering. "Even a single light-year, the distance light travels in one year, is enormous -- 5.8 trillion miles," said Prof. Letelier. "Presumably, the human soul has zero mass, allowing it t travel at the speed of light -- the fastest any natural object can move. "In fact, let's assume that because of its supernatural nature, a soul can travel 1,000 times faster than light. "Even at that breakneck rate, the earliest cavemen would just now be arriving at Heaven's gates. . . and if you died today, you wouldn't get there until the year 2998003 A.D." Even the Greek philosopher Socrates, who died in 399 B.C., and Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in 1865, are still in transit, according to Prof. Letelier's theory. The scientist noted that the time factor is important because people should know they must prepare mental games to keep busy on the long voyage to Paradise: "You certainly don't want to show up at God's home as a raving lunatic!" While not endorsing Prof. Letelier's theory, church leaders are intrigued. Said a Lutheran minister, "Science is showing us that the afterlife does not consist merely of a quick trip straight to Heaven but a long and wondrous journey." - 6:08:13 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:OOPS didn't mean to include the first part of that post but the more informational part. - 6:10:11 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Actually, the Thomas Clark thing, like the book suggestion, was an attempt to gain some specific footing for the conversation but as you recall you dismissed it out of hand. If you remember, you were the one who suggested you were too deep for us. I suggested that you are merely too vague and evasive. From my subjective perspective, any attempt to address specifics with you results in a shift in your position. This is pretty frustrating for me and makes me wonder why I bother. Are you suggesting that your position is actually one of non-specificness, because it sure sounds like it to me. - 12:45:16 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- But Hell is right underfoot! - 13:08:26 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- LOL! Or back in time. Likely we can get there at 5000 times the speed of light. - 13:42:34 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- LOL! Or back in time. Likely we can get there at 5000 times the speed of light. - 13:42:53 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Very timely post after BETTY's bit. I'd like to take a shot from the hip to say, it looks like you have at least a source to understand what BETTY so strives to convey here. It looks like what she says and that terribly long trip to a heaven are both accounts of a view of the horizon. See it out there? Both accounts seem to say that while that "horizon" is always out of reach and always there, it is nonetheless worth reaching and striving for. Its a beautiful day here the sun bathes the whole bay area which is all I can see. I bet the warmth and all the rain of the past few weeks will cause an eruption of new growth. Alas, though, BETTY say such material stuff is not there, its just a self-reflexive conciousness, where? Is that not like the question of the godthings of the prehistoric pre-writing human organisms of, where are they? Looks like they will be or even as we speak, being replaced, in BETTY's accounts, with another or some other unknowable source of force and power. Or maybe BETTY is tuned in on some Jewish sitye where I just read they are saying there g-d is hidden! Those people, they just do not want to be alive "and" responsible. - 16:00:27 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:Christy - YAWN! - 17:05:04 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

MARLENE, I wasn't referring to whether or not Joette chooses to bare herself in public, but the fact that she said she was - 19:15:03 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:oops, continued...MARLENE, I wasn't referring to whether or not Joette chooses to bare herself in public, but the fact that she was "left cold" by our conversation, yet felt the need to tell us all how lame we were rather than just go off by her rude indivudualistic self. What does that say when one is seeking community in a place that obviously offers them no stimulation? That they are just looking for a place to be obnoxious? I would say that answer is obvious. Perhaps she is feeling the need to flaunt her "mental superiority" and show us how small and needy we are in comparison. GET A LIFE JOETTE! - 19:18:22 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:Christy - zzzzzzzzzzzz - 19:24:54 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:JOETTE, you are so extremely clever, why not write a book?! *g* - 19:31:38 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I bet those that left for heaven w/o their Game Boys or a few magazines are kicking themselves! But then can you read at 1000x the speed of light?!.............BETTY, what do you mean by "superficial, transitory physical expressive relationships" in referring to such phenomena as gravity? I get the impression you are saying the laws of nature are superficial? And how does this "consciousness" theory apply to non-conscious beings? You say yourself only humans, so far as we know, are conscious. - 19:39:17 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: fight! I like Texans they's tuff! but I kno'Bazooka Jo hits like a mule kicks, so - 19:54:04 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/Grant: Betty you're not too deep, don't flatter yourself, unless you need the positive stroke.I have enjoyed your posts,at times, but like Grant find your COMMUNICATION STYLE hard to understand. Intellect is demonstrated by the EFFECTIVE transfer of information, in other words,it is more impressive to demonstrate intellect by conveying complex thoughts in a way that can be understood by most. Unless of course the goal is to' baffle with bullshit'. Rather than focusing on comparing Weschler IQ scores or trying to insult others (which has brought you a fair amount of retaliatory digs)it would be a much more productive to focus on defining terms and ARTICULATING views. This would be easier to consider than your loose associations. Regarding the question "how can something made of something else act upon what its made of". This,I assume since I don't read all your posts, refers to 'how can the mind -a part of the brain- influence brain matter?' The mind/consciousness is not made of the brain in the strictest sense. Rather the mind and its MENTAL STATES are a COMPOSITE of brain matter, the chemicals brought by the blood through the blood/brain barrier, electrical impulses through the nervous system, physical /mechanical processes and assaults upon the brain, etc. One with a psychiatric backround could certainly argue (and I will) that the mind is also influenced by a persons interpretation of reality, past experiences, feelings, recurrent thoughts, interpretations of behaviors, self concept, perceived reality, illness, stress, trauma ,coping style and success at getting needs and wants met (self efficacy, deprivations,etc.) Some people have argued more outlandish influences such as ancestral archetypes. How can something influnce something its made of is a distortion of the real litmus test. How can something that CONTINUES to be DEEPLY interwoven, intertwined,connected to the brain NOT have a profound effect upon the brain??? One quick example is that people form thousands of new red blood cells per minute. People in a calm state generally create healthy cells. People under stress form a much greater number of irrregular cells incapable of carrying oxygen effectively. Didn't stress have an impact? der - 22:26:32 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--That's right, I'm not MAD--:GRANT: So glad you picked up the thread; I'm guilty of being over(t)ly cryptic from time to time, but it seemed the best way of communicating my response. Hope all's well with you. BTW, thanks for your support; mine is still a dog's atheism, as I pointed out here over two years ago. - 22:43:56 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- A dog's atheism..which is???? - 23:02:56 on 21 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:BETTY--Your assertion-"The universe is a single conscious entity in the sense that there is an underlying, or rather transcendent, attraction that binds things together in continually new organizations / combinations" ..remains unsupported in that you have not demonstrated what the alternative would be to an 'unconscious' universe. We know that existents possess certian traits as per their identity, however in order for them to possess 'consciousness' ( a term which I will not allow you to obfusicate any more than you have now ) I suggest they would have to possess the ability to make choices when confronted with similar situations. Since the physical laws of the universe have been identified and defined, the bility for existennts to make these choices would have rendered this feat impossible. In the end, your argument of the universe being conscious, ultimately falls into the category of pantheism, which is is just a superflous, reduntant method of redefining 'existence'. In summary, this can be easily demonstated by asking the question, 'if the universe was NOT conscious, how could it differ than it is now?' Would all subatomic particles just float around in space, not affecting each other in complete apparent indifference? - 1:47:50 on 22 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: I just read your last post and it was clear even to this non-metaphysicist, thank you. I agree with you that the simple existence of objects doesn't go far enough in understanding origin, purpose, etc. I also agree that their are obvious/apparent relationships from which one could infer intent or design. I'm not clear on the conclusion of a cosmic universal consciousness construct. Holistic or 'leap of faith'? It's 'consciousness that binds the universe in a working order'? I believe thats called energy. - 2:58:38 on 22 Mar 100 GMT

Grant - with a dog's determination:JAYWILSON -- Must confess, I don't catch all your tosses by quick reflexes, but can't seem to let them go by. Some can be slowly recovered from the ground after they bounce off my face. I love 'em. Where would we be without Original Syn-tax and such? - 4:34:18 on 22 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Awfull quiet... Storm brewing. - 2:05:31 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, *LOL* Texans is stubborn, that's fer sure! GRANT, everyone is out stuffing their mind for that long journey to heaven...I personally am working on memorizing all the "Barney the dinosaur" songs for my trip. Maybe that's too optimistic, "Some Like it Hot" or "Ring of Fire" might be more appropriate.................. OH WAIT, here is a quote from a "thumper" on the Mom's forum..."I believe that hell will be...The knowledge of being forsaken by a Holy God and being able to see Gods backside but Him never looking at you. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!" ..............ROFLOL, I told her if God had a butt anything like George Strait in Wranglers I couldn't imagine any better punishment!! - 3:02:34 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:HI GRANT- All's quiet on the home front too, my little mouse finally feel asleep. It's too bad Betty isn't able to post more often. I'm curious what her answers for Peter's, Rob's and your posts will be. - 3:04:06 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Hey, I know those Barney songs now, lol and I also love watching Lindsey's House! - 3:05:43 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:In light of this statement: "In fact, let's assume that because of its supernatural nature, a soul can travel 1,000 times faster than light. Even at that breakneck rate, the earliest cavemen would just now be arriving at Heaven's gates", I think there obviously exists a super-supernatural. Think about it. If something exists outside the physical universe, doesn't it follow that something also exists outside of that? A super-supernatural existence implies that the soul also has a soul, which can travel 1,000 faster than a regular soul. Now if there is a super-natural, and the completely logical by the same precepts super-supernatural, then wouldn't it follow that this super-supernatural must have a supernatural too? The soul's soul's soul would travel 1,000 times faster than the super-supernatural soul, which travels 1,000 times faster than the soul which travels 1,000 times faster than the speed of light. The inescapable conclusion? Don't bother to learn all the Barney songs. You'll be there before you know it. - 3:37:07 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- You could start a new belief system with that post above. Maybe even attract some groupies, lol! - 4:31:19 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- That would be "devotees". Hmmm... - 4:41:43 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I didn't know this about the effect stress has on blood cells, neat! BTW, I've had one bad bout of depression in my life but maybe got through it okay because I have read some about the brain and how it works. It's always been an big interest to me. At the time a took and older anti-depressant (amitriptaline) (sp) that seemed to work very well for me as well as seeing a doctor. - 4:44:38 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Rock bands, cult leaders, what's the dif?! LOL! - 4:47:19 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene:Thats elavil, a tricyclic. Nortriptyline or 'pamelor' is a derivative which effects the same sites, to retain norepinephrin and seratonin, but with much lower risk of side effects. Tricyclics are a good class of drugs that are widely avoided today in our litigious society. Most Psychiatrists won't even prescribe them for fear of side effects,law suit. Now the only meds most can get are the politically correct SSRI's (prozac,paxil,zoloft)which only essentially deal with seratonin imbalance to the exclusion of norepinephrin. The result,IMO (hey, I figured out one acronym), is that people with an anxious type of depression are under treated. Therapy and drugs work best in combination. This is also rare today because, therapy=time and most won't give /don't know how to do it. I had a few relatives with depression. Most didn't realize its a CHEMICAL problem (unless linked to a recent situational crisis). For people with psychotic illnesses, they have also gone away from older classes of meds to newer ones(atypical antipsychotics) because of fears of side effects. The dirty little secret is that the atypicals, for some people, don't work as well. So now you have a polically correct med class pressured to use so that patients have less risk of side effects. But some that could be free of halluciantions and delusions aren't because we've limited our interventions. If I were psychotic, I'd take a fine hand tremor AND my mind back. Which is really more humane.... - 11:13:39 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/Marlene: Why don't we start a group, SOL2 (speed of light squared). We can all get lobotomies and start building that spacecraft. - 11:18:37 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: I too went through a hard time (mother murdered, saw grandpa pass with MI, abusive foster home= knocked unconscious, thrown off fire escape, trapped under building, sister had been molested, homelessness) you know, the usual. Didn't know where to turn and didn't trust anyone. In fact didn't even mention it until I was in my 40's, for fear of being looked at differently or thought people would think I was looking for sympathy. Fact remains in my religious town, noone cared. One night after being beating out my sleep I went to a shelter and explained I needed help 'go away kid, this place is for unwed mothers'. At this stage of my life, I take time to mention this, about twice a year as is appropriate. Because I think its important for people to know child abuse exists, people can survive and be normal, and it helps that I no longer give a shit what people think about it.... - 11:32:52 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Betty -- Physicist Freeman Dyson is this years winner of The Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, "which honors a field omitted by the Nobel prizes". Ten of its 30 winners have been scientists who explore religious questions. Others include Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, blah, blah, blah. This is of particular interest to me because of a quote of his, "...religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance." This seems to me to be similar to your sentiments, Betty, but if you read anything about Freeman you'll find that his beliefs are completely different from yours. Assaults on materialism are easy to find. They come from people with every kind of supernatural (religious) beliefs. Putting aside my personal preference for, and assumptions about the desirability of restricting beliefs to things somehow directly discernible or connected to reality, doesn't this demonstrate the major flaw in non-materialist thinking? Doesn't it render all non-materialist beliefs down to arbitrariness? So far, and this isn't a dig, your arguments against materialism have been unsubstantiated (By this I mean that they are arguments such as that materialism is too limiting rather than specific inconsistencie or flaws. And BTW, I think I completely understand what you are saying, and how this very statement looks to you) and circular. It seems to me that materialism is the obstacle you must clear if you wish for some kind of validation for your beliefs here. - 14:06:01 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Its safe to say we here do got r opinions. There are idealist like the philosopher Rodney King who calls for everyone to jist get along. Or even the pope who apologises for matters which are "not now" and "in mind" only. Is it the ol'boys opinion that he interprets such, in quotation, as the domain of the human spirit? It seems too that BETTY seeks a similar such domain with her purported views for a cosmological consciousness. The problem for both BETTY and the pope is simply that of the philosophy of seeing- with one's own eyes, that one and all do and have. gotta run later - 16:35:25 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: Following the news reports of the pope's visit, looks like he's doing a fine job. He's gone into the den of religious hatred and bigotry and tried to heal wounds. While many are saying he didn't go far enough (to recognize the palestinians, apologise to the jews, etc.). I think there is sincerety in a decrepit man's efforts. He doesn't appear to have alot of time left and he's not dodging the problems. I commend his efforts at breaking down walls of hatred and intolerence. - 18:12:16 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:ROB: you commend his efforts at breaking down walls of hatred and intolerance...do you really think his visit is going to have any significant impact there? And considering he represents an organization also rife with hatred and bigotry don't you think it's a bit pompous of him to be spreading a blessing of a god that those he is visiting don't even recognize? - 18:59:37 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB/JOETTE- I agree with Joette. The only thing the old fart is interested in is selfishly following the supposed footsteps of the supposed jesus and not so selfishly bringing attention to the RC's. Remember, it's the same god they are all worship, only different interpretations of him. - 20:37:32 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I read an article by John Leo in USNEWS that basically commended the Pope for doing more than any OTHER popes (or most religious leaders) but pointing out how he is apologizing for "these things that happened" rather than really owning up to the roles xians have played. Leo was pursuing it from the Jewish persecution angle, and how the xians have been subjugating them for millenia. His opinion was that at least this pope is setting the stage for his successor to have to do even more amend-making, but they are going to have to do alot better than the empty "we remember this..." apologies that basically admit no wrongdoing. He's an interesting writer, for a somewhat right-winger. - 21:19:14 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Just finished a trip to a bookstore and stopped off at a library book-sale store. Paid $2.50 for a book published in 1888 "Unity of Nature" by some duke o'Argyle. Its index is loaded with terms and ideas which in my opinion fit with inscribed religious positions that seemingly I see still. Its got several chapters with opinions of Darwin as he was viewed at the time. That ought to be interesting. If there is a serious first and foremost problem that an atheist has to face its ages of old things said of and for religion. It is my guess that I will read many such views that guys like R.Lee and others sat still for their religious "belief". - 21:19:58 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, I have some questions about foster parenting if you don't mind...I've been thinking about doing it but wonder how one knows if they are really suited to the task. It sounds like you have probably seen the whole range that is out there, if you think you might want to talk w/ me about it my email is: cristyleean@hotmail.com - 21:54:01 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: again of the in mind, not now, and cosmological grandioseness, these strike me as matters of and somehow, also for the non-entity state of the advocates of such abstract efforts. How do I mean this? Well I commute on the BART transit system. One day I was lucky enuff to be ina car with a poem to someone spied, admired and desired once, and the stanzas of wishes to see that person again. Well, be that as it may sometime that person, gets scared. These people prefer the non-being of a faceless commuter. I've made, I think, the mistake of smiling at a person and never see them again. So anyway, it seems to me that non-entity non-person states are or have attractive 'things' about'em. The religious types like the in-mind not now stuff because, dare I say, it takes them their minds away from wherever they are. The cosmological stuff of BETTY it too makes it so one is not really here. that IMHO. - 23:05:11 on 23 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: Living in SpecifiCity:More specifically, BETTY, how can one distinguish your beliefs from other beliefs involving supernatural events or conditions or attributes? How do your beliefs differ causally or structurally from any of the myriad religious beliefs? As Marlene asks, how do you know these things? What is the process? What is the mechanism for determining "truth"? If you are not using material evidence to determine truth, aren't you using emotion? Aren't you determining beliefs on the basis of how things feel to you? Isn't this precisely how all religious type beliefs are selected? If beliefs are not teathered to the material world they are not tethered at all. They become a matter of personal taste. What other determiner is there? The Xtian uses the semantically absurd reasoning that if one has faith one will believe. Aren't you using the very same reasoning? Aren't you saying in effect that all we need do is accept that there is more than the physical in order to understand that there is more than the physical? When you say things like "Consciousness IS the existence, first and foremost behind everything, and it's mystery is it's underlying uncausal nature, and this is where it needs clarification to someone who approaches it from a materialist view", without substantiation this is the exact equivelent of every other supernatural belief. There is a pattern to the approach common to religionists. They argue backwards from a conclusion. They assume, and charge that all opposing beliefs have no more substantiation than their own, and in fact are essentially identical in nature. They argue that their beliefs are true because they are "better". They try any argument that they think may work. You, Betty, are doing all these things. - 7:02:27 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I agree with Grant. Your beliefs do seem to be totally subjective. I know you rule out objectivity but when you do, you rule out the rest of us as well as what really is. When you say something IS, it sounds very much like the words of the xtian god saying..I AM. I'm sure you would agree that there is no evidence for the xtian god which follows there is no evidence for the objectivity in the I AM. - 15:33:00 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:I'm at the unfortunate disadvantage here knowingly from my own volition that I have to defend these arguments all by myself. In order to have equal time, and I truly enjoy this, and all that… but I would like to address all questions and points to their fullest. Some may see this as an offensive barrage of posts, but please take it lightly. If everyone wants to discuss this individually, I have no choice but to address these things accordingly. That's my disclaimer. If it seems I'm posting too much, consider that everyone who posts to me rightfully deserves my response, however long it may be. Thanks. - 16:39:09 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Regarding the mentioned flaws of materialism I posted, they have been addressed in detail. By some notion that because I don't subscribe to materialism, you seem to be dismissing all arguments and lumping them into one "unsubstantiated" title. You have declined any discussion of neural materialism or epiphenomenalism, the self-contradiction of an individually valued subjective argument in a deterministic world of random bumping atoms, why consciousness has not yet been unconditionally and fully explained as a product of physical matter, instead of rationalization based on a precept of materialism- how to explain subjective experiences as first causal entities, and phenomenalism itself as a precursor and priority to human meanings, and the like. I can demonstrate this in your own words, "Putting aside my personal preference for, and assumptions about the desirability of restricting beliefs to things somehow directly discernible or connected to reality, doesn't this demonstrate the major flaw in non-materialist thinking? Doesn't it render all non-materialist beliefs down to arbitrariness?" Here, your line of questioning leads to that only materialism is "connected to reality", to further unknowingly deny that materialism is indeed a "personal preference" , which you don't put aside at all. The same here--- "truth"? If you are not using material evidence to determine truth, aren't you using emotion? Aren't you determining beliefs on the basis of how things feel to you? Isn't this precisely how all religious type beliefs are selected?" --- "What is the mechanism for determining "truth'" – Once again, using the precept of materialism, you are eliminating what doesn't fit, only accordingly. Mechanism for truth?? Come on. We're not robots. If you intend to argue that truth does not rely on the big picture of everything, which includes both worlds of spirituality and the material and whatever is left to be discovered, then you're in a tunnel vision. Subjective experiences exist and they are only rejected with the precept of materialism. ONLY because they don't fit in with a certain scheme of interpretation. They certainly existed long before mechanism's grubby hands took the life out of the world. And if you intend to argue that emotions have no basis in truth, you will find yourself passionately and fervently arguing that you are a bunch of random atoms. Guess what? You can't disclude things just because you don't like them. There's a bigger picture involved. And if materialism is not flexible enough, look for something better. - 16:40:17 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant and ALL, Materialism, like I said, is not my obstacle. It's your chosen standard. Non-specificness? Find it hard to believe (joke), but it's relativity. Just as someone would decide that the best view of the universe is a breakdown of its physical elements, we choose our focuses. My focus is admittedly and knowingly much more relative, as you have noted. When it's time to focus on the small stuff to understand why my car isn't working properly, I shift to the physical. When pondering the nature of existence, it's a whole lot more. You might find it hard to believe but no two people see things exactly the same way. The things out there are a preface to us humans and we interpret them with all of the tools we have, which are largely based on emotion anyway. We wouldn't be seeking to understand anything at all if emotion was not involved. Like I said, specifics, "precise" wordings, etc. are all personality decisions based on your personal focus of a world-view of materialism. I can't take credit for your frustrations. To make the specifics thing a little clearer, I'm just gonna dive in here and give everyone a little laugh. We all know that the musician Prince no longer refers to himself by his original stage name. He uses a symbol, which I can't recreate here, but to point to him and reference his existence he asks that people refer to him as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince. Conveniently, I find it a good reference here. The Artist part or the symbol is not a substitution stage name or billing icon anymore, it's merely a tool to point to him now as a creative entity assumedly relative to a physical stakehold. Unfortunately, most people fail to realize and get caught up in the images, and not what they inherently mean. Instead of just appreciating the work of artists, our culture largely idealizes them. In other words, he exists but he wants to be known for what he creates and not his physical appearance or material-ness. I can bet that most people still don't get it, either. Thanks, Prince! Love ya, babe! haha... - 16:41:26 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, "just a self-reflexive conciousness, where?"… We exist in a universe, made of the universe, a very small inseparable part of it, and have the ability to appreciate it, and manipulate it on a very small scale. The universe has no other self-reflexive capabilities as far as we have found yet, in other words, no other creatures resembling humans in all respects. Think of us humans as the ears, nose, sight and sound detectors, and feelers of the universe itself. By inseparable, we're all inclusive. This is the best way how to describe how we fit into the universe, or rather what our "purpose", of sorts is. - 16:41:52 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Cristy, You only picked up one part of the argument there. Gravity is not superficial or transitory, but the physical objects it ties together are. And also, consciousness applies to everything. As I've explained to Carl, consciousness is not limited to self-reflexive humans. The worlds of biology, geology, etc. are in a continual, maintaining flux. The harmony found in this constant equilibrium is more likely explained by a force transcendant of what we see, hear, touch, feel, etc. But as humans, we are especially tuned to this underlying creative force as an appreciation and guideline for constructing our lives here together as we see fit. To be redundant many times over, we too easily get caught up with the images out there, instead of their underlying meaning. - 16:42:18 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Peter: 'if the universe was NOT conscious, how could it differ than it is now?' Would all subatomic particles just float around in space, not affecting each other in complete apparent indifference?" – Without something keeping everything together, does it not fall apart? Not necessarily retract, but YES fall apart. Like I've explained, gravity is a term only to point to the phenemenon, it doesn't explain it. This basic attraction is the key to the state of the universe today. That's pretty basic stuff. Your idea about existents having consciousness and the universe, thereof: "suggest they would have to possess the ability to make choices when confronted with similar situations" – The universe as a self-contained entity (imagine a gigantic bubble here) largely exhibits seemingly endless, but not limited to, causal relationships whether it's star production, down to the fact that we can basically assume the sun will come up next morning. The choices are based on a whole outpouring of simultaneous universal creativity and equilibrium. The everyday choices of the universe, are in fact, based on keeping things together.. once again, going back to consciousness as a driving, attractive force. And I can tell that you're still looking at things as possessing consciousness. Consciousness possesses the physical. Consciousness is the underlying reason why matter gravitates or why it exists at all. Pantheism would be a good word, except that you don't have to subscribe to a belief system to see what's going on. A creative entity like the universe is certainly amazing, but leave the theism stuff to organized religions also caught up with the materialistic images and forms. Yadda, yadda, yadda… - 16:43:22 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, "Holistic or 'leap of faith'? It's 'consciousness that binds the universe in a working order'? I believe thats called energy." Energy is great to define the momentum, but because objects and forms produce certain effects, they constitute a majestic canvas of space/time events, and they create us lovely humans to be a part of it all, what makes you think it likely that energy instituted the all-encompassing drawing board (the creative framework here) in the first place? Energy is just like the concept of gravity as well, we use these concepts to point to the phenomenonae we observe, but they aren't the reason they happen. - 16:43:45 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant & Marlene, How do I 'know' these things? Well, it's not because I feel as a subjective person that the 'I' IS or has all the answers. How do you 'know' materialism is an accurate methodology? For the same reason we are posting to this discussion board. We feel passionately (emotions) or not about certain things based on experience, study, and indoctrination of traditional values, which ironically includes materialism. The world isn't full of religion, faiths, spiritual claims, etc. because of an individual statement. These people, myself included, actually 'feel' part of something more than a random collection of atoms. The same with scientific review boards, research laborers, and laboratory scientists, etc. Others feel passionately that materialism must be defended. We inherently 'feel' included, no matter how much we argue we're really separate, elementary objects in space. This is the substantiation that consciousness is an underlying or transcendant trait. With the right specialization of material parts, we humans are able to 'appreciate' the material world as a creative outpouring, and not as the ultimate truth itself. I would like to know otherwise why a random bunch of atoms in the right combination would materialize together in what we know now as the human form, a byproduct of an evolution of species over a few million years, to stand up, look around, take a deep sigh and emotionally argues that it's nothing more than just a "sack of cells". -- What a waste of time and energy. It's obvious that this is simply a limited interpretation of our existence. I don't know why people still argue for it. - 16:44:09 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: try as you have to be more or something else than what you are, you're still just a sack of cells. That sack of cells are together either as a result of evolution or some act of a "poof-like" creation. As far as I can tell no one yet has defended "materialism". I for one await your presentation of something for what you seek to say. At the moment it appears that you are attempting to grab aholt of when thought occurs. That makes me figger you are just recreating rewording refocusing arguments of old for how wonderful is the human organism. If you noted I picked up a book published back in the days when certain individuals of society were held in high esteem and as an authority others listened to them with bated breath. A picture only of the guy appears in the book and he as the author is referred to as "The Duke of Argyle". Whatever his other name was, never appears. I mention that to exemplify that human importance which you seem to hold high, and so wonderful. True it is we live and we just true that life ends and whatever we were we die. - 18:06:32 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: "They say" the USA has moral problems. Kids shooting each other pro-athletes killing and beatin'on people and of course politicians doing all manner of criminal deeds. Then there is the NCAA basketball tournament. That is a pretty wholesome national event, right? So on I-net there's a site for the best sports events bars, across the U.S.o'A! All one has to do, pick your nearby major city and a list o'bar-names appear. Go there and well, alter your consciousness into oblivion and at the same time enjoy[?] the wholesome NCAA event. And, "they" are concerned about morality in the USA, really? - 18:56:38 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY01: while you it obvious that you dot u're eyes and cross u're tees all proper and purty like, for my concern I'd like to see how or when or what is good about your way? In order to do that, what will you 'show' how can you 'show' whatever it is you mean, if I can't become part of you thought? Above you did mention relativity, but do you mean it in terms o'Einstein's view for the time factor? It seems here, that AE had it that time was relevant to being found "in nature" and not that nature was found in time. If you accept that then how or what do you propose to replace the matter the material that time is relevant to? Or do you simply hold that time is inconsequential, ergo we really do not get old and die? - 20:05:41 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL/BETTY- If Betty's idea of consciousness is correct and we are physical creations of consciousness, after the 100th person she's educated in her ideas, we all should know exactly what she's saying. Just another argument against the 100th monkey idea, methinks. Anyway, I'm limited in time so I'll answer Betty's posts tonight. BETTY- BTW there is no such thing as posting too much. Although we may not always agree, I'm sure most of us enjoy them. Also we each post I think we can better understand each other. - 21:45:57 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..long but appropriate, methinks:I thought this interesting.....HOW TO BECOME A PROPHET In the old days, it took years to establish yourself as a big-time prophet. You had to journey to far-off lands, wear poorly cured animal skins, and run the risk of martyrdom in order to make a splash. Now we have the Internet. Set up a Web site with a snazzy URL, post your most attention grabbing prophecies, and bingo - in less then 24 hours, you're being denounced by Responsible Prophets for reckless disregard of truth. H. L. Mencken once said, "The prophesying business is like writing fugues; it is fatal to everyone save the man of absolute genius." Mencken was too pessimistic; you don't have to be a genius (or a man) to be a prophet. Just follow these six simple rules. 1. PREDICT THE PAST Sam Goldwyn, the legendary Hollywood producer and malapropist, once advised: "Never make predictions. Especially about the future." There is more wisdom in that comment than you might think. Just about anything that might happen has happened before, and it's a safe bet it will happen again - someday. Wars and rumors of wars? Guaranteed. Signs and portents in the heavens? A lead-pipe cinch. Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famines, plagues, riots, the fall of kingdoms, and the rise of false prophets? Check your daily newspaper. The trick is not to let yourself get pinned down on when these things are going to happen. Which leads to our next rule... 2. AVOID SPECIFICS Geronimo Cardano, a 16th century mathematician and astrologer, foretold that King Edward VI of England would fall desperately ill at the age of 55 years, 3 months, and 17 days. Unfortunately, the king ruined everything by dying at the age of 16. Cardano tried to recover his reputation by predicting his own death at the age of 75, and went so far as to kill himself in order to make it so. Most successful prophets employ vague but colorful language to get around this problem. "In the fullness of time" is a convenient phrase, if a bit archaic. "Lo, it shall come to pass" has a nice ring to it. Remember, anything might happen in the long run. As the economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, "In the long run, we are all dead." 3. PREDICT THE OBVIOUS You have to stay in touch with current events. For example, a smart would-be prophet will look at the newspapers in the fall off 1999 and issue a prophecy that sounds something like this: "Lo, there will be signs and portents in the heavens (the Leonid meteor shower comes every November). And there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth (something upsetting or startling will be happening in politics), and the false prophets (the media) will be confounded." A corollary of this might be, "Predict what's possible." For example, saying the Moon will turn the color of blood is not only poetic and exciting, it's something that happens every now and then under certain atmospheric conditions. But you don't want to predict that the Moon will turn lime-green. 4. LEAVE HOME As it says in the Bible, "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." A guy on a city street, raving about the end of the world, hardly merits a passing glance. Your Uncle Ike, who has been intercepting E-mail from the Trilateral Commission through his fillings for years, almost never sees his letters to the editor published. You, a prophet? Get a grip. We've known you all your life. Ah, but bill yourself as the Master Sukkimam, just in from the foothills of Bangladesh, and people sit up and take notice. List a few advanced degrees from foreign educational institutions (Freedonia Technical - Mystical Institute, the Center for Intergalactic Pulchritude), and you'll be invited to the best parties. 5. LEAVE YOURSELF AN OUT When I was a freshman in college, a professor in introductory psychology told us about something called "cognitive dissonance". If I remember correctly, the term refers to situations in which the facts conflict with what we wish to believe. In such situations, we often ignore, deny, or distort the facts in order to defend the cherished belief or activity. For example, take flying saucer cults. Every now and then (especially approaching a new millennium), some prophet or other warns that Earth is about to be destroyed but that the faithful will be saved. Often the faithful are ordered to gather in high places, where they will be picked up in the nick of time by angels, or a flying saucer. So the faithful pack their bags, quit their jobs, and show up on the mountaintop at the appointed time. But - no flying saucer appears. No end of the Earth. They all go home disillusioned and resolve never to be suckered again, right? Wrong. They believe in the prophet more strongly than ever. Why? Cognitive dissonance. The clever prophet always leaves an out. Maybe it was the wrong mountaintop. Maybe the calculations were off. Or, more likely, the prophet appears to his people and says, "Your faith has saved the whole world!" 6. PREDICT INTERESTING STUFF I once represented The Old Farmer's Almanac on Geraldo Rivera's TV show (the old one, before he got respectable). It was taped for New Year's Day broadcast and the theme was "What to Expect in the Coming Year." The guests included a Hollywood astrologer, a fashion maven, a political pundit, an economic forecaster, and me, the hick from New Hampshire. Before the cameras rolled, the director told us he'd begin the show by focusing briefly on each of us for a quick prediction. "Make it short and exciting," he advised us. I gave it my best shot. "What's happening in the weather?" the announcer boomed. "Hurricanes early and often," I said. "Great!" the director cried. "What's the latest in fashion?" "Legs and cleavage!" shouted the fashion expert. "Perfect!" "What do the stars tell us about the stars?" "Michael Jackson hears wedding bells!" the astrologer twinkled. The director was in ecstasy. And then the economic forecaster. "What's going on in the economy?" "Big business will look more like small business, as executives try to respond more quickly to market trends, while medium sized business..." "Cut!" the director cried. "I wasn't finished," the economist said. "Shorter. More exciting," said the director. "Let's try it again, shall we?" "What's going on in the economy?" the announcer intoned. "Big business will look to small business for models of economic behavior, while..." "Cut!" You get the picture, even if the economic forecaster never did. Guess who got the most questions from the studio audience? The folks wanted to know who Michael Jackson was going to marry. The astrologer was the star of the show. None of the rest of us got a single question. By the way, the astrologer predicted Michael would marry Whitney Houston. He actually married Lisa Marie Presley. And that poor economic forecaster was dead right. Big companies did start imitating smaller ones. But who cares? The successful prophet if often wrong - but never boring. - 21:47:24 on 24 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I think I'm beginning to appreciate your special brand of humor now. I'm not all cosmologically mystical in everyday life, so thanks for the 100th monkey bit. I thought that was cute. BTW, when you refer to these posts as "her ideas", it's not entirely accurate. There are books and books on this stuff. Just about every other book in the science section of Barnes and Noble now is written with the new physics/new paradigm theme and their overall interpretations in mind. "On Creativity" by David Bohm, for example, more than a few years old, was all ready ready for these concepts, if you're not inclined to read stuff like "The Tao of Physics", or the like. Bohm's emplicate and implicate order models are variations of the same things I discuss. Anyway, please search around. I don't deserve all the credit! But, thanks! lol. - 1:33:50 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I would hazzard to bet that _The Tao of Physics_ is accepted by only a fringe of physicists. I have read some of this stuff but find I can't really live on the fringe..so to speak. BTW, the 100th monkey thing was not meant to be mystical but is more like pseudoscience. - 2:05:54 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, What will I show? How can I show? It's deeper than that, hun. Ever hear the phrase, "Only the ultimate is unlimited. As you say more and more about the ultimate you begin to limit it."? I can't know how or to what extent you or any other perceives things. It's the way we communicate and participate together, and literally as a world population, that we find 'good'. So it's a way of incorporating all areas of science, spirituality, and religion into a cohesive framework, void of conditional statements. Extremes are poisonous, as we can see in the Western world. With materialism ingrained, this side of the world in general has lost a conscious control (an actual realization that they can step out of it) of the physical world that dominates their lives, and our spiritual lives suffer. Obesity, excessive wealth, fast cars, reductionism, etc. You simply don't find these things in spiritually and material balanced cultures. There's an awaiting paradigm suitable for the diversity of the whole world. That's what my posts are about.-- In reference to relativity, yes, Einstein's work is a good example. We all perceive things in different ways at different moments in times. At different speeds, time is basically arbitrary unless their are two consciously, determined references to measure from (special relativity in a nut shell). In this way, our own perceptions create the meaning of the physical world. Also, the speed of light has an assumed speed of something like 360,000 mph(?). In certain circumstances, light is theorized to decrease it's velocity by, a granted small, but relevant amount because of the curvature in spacetime. Absolutes, as an antithesis to relativity, are pretty much romantic ideals. I don't pretend to live by them is all I'm saying, even in daily conversations. Specifics and precise meanings are cardboard cut-outs we try to impress each other with, and to make the world seem a little more safe and manageable, in my views. - 2:19:50 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I haven't said that I know materialism is an accurate methodology, in fact, I haven't mentioned materialism as something I actually accept at all although it does have a great appeal. I don't think I feel passionately about the idea that we are a sack of cells, in fact, it rather stinks, it would be nice to be more than that, but evidence to date supports that's really all we are. Spirituality is again very subjective and can not be a valuable or precise tool when assessing the objective. Subjective and objective are opposites. We can all "feel" all we want or we wish to. This is much different that what really is. For instance, I can say I feel when my kids are unhappy. When looked at objectively, it is likely the expression on their faces, or situations they are in or observations of their actions which makes me "feel" they are unhappy. Then again if I say this and know nothing about what they are up to, I'm likely just making a subjective assessment of how I feel they feel as I would have no evidence to base my claim on. - 2:35:23 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- To finish off that post. I could say the same as you. There are many other people who "feel" that their kids are unhappy. Just because many other people make the same claim as I did doesn't mean the claim has any reality to it. Such claims are extraordinary claims and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - 2:39:15 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- "Obesity, excessive wealth, fast cars, reductionism, etc. You simply don't find these things in spiritually and material balanced cultures. " which cultures would these be, name some specific ones. - 4:35:33 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:BETTY-- Your idea of what 'consciousness' in your response may sound impressive to all the googly-eyed fans of any new-age publication, much like a creationist 'scientist' rhetoric sounds impressive to his googly-eyed congregation but will get big fat zeros in Phil 101, not to mention Cosmology 101. Of course the subatomic particles of the universe possess a charcteristic that makes it 'aware' of its surroundings, but from this observed fact one cannot then assume some accumalative effect as a result thus creating a huge 'universal consciousness'. Again, science has been able to detect four physical laws, that are consistent. There is no evidence anywhere of any consciousness making certain 'choices'--or any function we associate with consciousness, other than in animals which have brains, and it has been consistently shown that when these brains die, so does the consciousness. You continually accuse many of us here being 'materialistic' thus giving what you consider to be a way out in your argument, but I'm not buying it, as you can see. If one were to accept these parameters, ANY claim that has been painted into corner, could escape by asserting that the nay-sayers are being 'too materialistic'--which would thereferore render this argument worthless. You do offer some interesting views, however if they were presented in some comprehensive syllogistic form, I for one would give them some credence. I find as I read your posts, I find so many areas where I could attack them as they are preenteded now. In fact, if I were to address all the inconsistencies my posts would be far longer than yours, which are too long as it is. I certainly do not want to accuse you of using the same tactic mant thesists use when they come in here, which is to present these humongous posts--and then when no one can be bothered addressing all the arguments, they assume they have scored some cheap 'victory' by tongue-tying and silencing the dissenters. Betty, oh please. - 5:25:17 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Your whimsical dismissal of materialism as just another personal choice of belief based on personality type and what-not is irrational, and your statement "Specifics and precise meanings are cardboard cut-outs we try to impress each other with, and to make the world seem a little more safe and manageable, in my views" has cost you your remaining credibility, at least as far as I am concerned. - 14:53:33 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, that's sure a clever guise for intellectualism. Anyone can take the last sentence of a few paragraphs of an argument and hide in the perceived conclusion. Whew! And to think all this time I thought I wasn't giving YOU enough credibility. lol. You are obviously focusing your attention on a very small part of the argument. If you ever want to discuss the detailed points regarding the flaws in materialism, I won't let this little ditty get in the way. - 15:35:13 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY -- Detailed points? You mean specifics? :-) This isn't personal, Betty. I enjoy many of your posts. Your just too, um, undisciplined in your thinking for my personal subjective tastes. - 15:41:36 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Damn, I did the "your" thing. That would be, of course "you're". - 15:43:04 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, after Grant posted that Thomas Clark essay site, weren't you the one who admitted to being of "the materialist persuasion"? I'm not being snotty, I just would like to know what you meant by it. Also, you aren't grasping the idea of spirituality. Spirituality is personal, but it's nothing without others. That's where intersubjectivity is involved. Spirituality is a collective feeling, plain and simple, as one feels part of a social group. It has nothing to do with reading others thoughts or feelings. It's a together feeling knowing that you are gathered for a deep felt reason, just like bond in a family. Consciousness is the avenue that we can relate to each other. By the way people gather to this discussion board, there's a collective spirit of emotion in this room. For some reason, atheists especially do not like being associated with spiritualism. From all frames of references I have noted, materialism forbids it or discards it as "whimsical" because you can't see or touch this natural attraction. Funny, huh. - 15:49:04 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Good one. Your specific meanings are different from mine, however. If you insist on materialism as your ruberic we're gonna remain at an impasse. How about seriously removing your personal preferences (objectivity) and we can continue? I gave you a shot at defending materialism. If you think I glanced over anything you want to discuss, that's fine. I can certainly admit that I may have taken certain steps along the way for GRANTed. (: - 15:57:24 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Or maybe you could seriously remove your personal preferences (subjectivity) and we can continue? Hmmm, I think I see a problem. I have to go... - 16:08:11 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Betty..Betty.. once again you seem to be making up you're (GRANT,notice I spelled it right this time too, lol) own definitions. Spirituality is defined as ; 1)devotion to spiritual things instead of worldly things....getting together on this board is a worldly thing. Emotion is a worldly thing 2)the fact or quality of being spiritual, being neither corporeal or material..once again Betty, thoughts and emotions are physical. 3) the clergy..which of course, you are not suggesting. - 16:08:32 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Yes, I am persuaded by materialism and likely accept most of it although I haven't in my own posts referred to materialism, I've been more specific. The one area I agree on which you do not is that the mind and that which it produces, thoughts, emotions etc. are corporeal not spiritual. - 16:13:15 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Oh, please Peter, "Of course the subatomic particles of the universe possess a charcteristic that makes it 'aware' of its surroundings, but from this observed fact one cannot then assume some accumalative effect as a result thus creating a huge 'universal consciousness'." Universal consciousness is redundant, still insisting that consciousness fills a separate space than the material. This is what I said, "The universe is a conscious entity". It's the difference between defining a trait and describing a causal effect of the material world. Right there, it's your interpretation that poses the contradiction. Just like the universe is made of mostly empty space, think of it as a realm for which the space and material exists. I hate to point fingers accusingly but this what it comes down to; looking at the situation critically and determining the best solution Others in here have taken this quite personally, which was never the intent. This kind of interpretation is a direct result of an adopted materialist tradition. Additionally, the accumulative effect, like I've explained to Marlene, is an intersubjective participation between everything in this universe with everything else. This participation is made of choices in the way subatomic particles will react and attract and the way we respond to and try to make new friends. We, humans, are the inner voice, of sorts. Consciousness is our universal metaphor, and I think that's the problem people in here are having. Your reference to animals and brains and consciousness is also related to what's called neural materialism. Reconsider, as I have stated from the beginning, that you if you're finding inconsistencies in these explanations then take a look at your schema of interpretations, and see if that is not at all the problem. If the entire universe had inconsistencies, you'd find it a much different place. So take into consideration that maybe it's us who perceive and invent them where there may not be any in the first place. Materialism is only a few hundred years old, by the way. The universe, well… --- And thanks for your honest responses. - 16:26:15 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, This is fun how we can post and respond on the same day! I wish I had more time for this. That aside, there are still a few things to make clear. The individual feeling to be a part of this room is a spiritual reality. The collective assemblage and agreement to gather for certain reasons that we 'feel' necessary to discuss is also part of this, that's intersubjectivity. Typing the words and using a computer is the worldy, physical thing. It's the togetherness and group feeling of this room that transcends what we type onto the screen... Also, I know very well that you and others have this corporeal (I had to look up, btw!) view. In detailed posts, however, I explained how consciousness is not unconditionally explained in the physical world. Look back to my posts on neural materialism and epiphenomenalism for reference. This would be great if it was a "I guess we just both agree to disagree thing", but I spent all that time explaining why consciousness is not directly found in the physical brain and why it would have inconsistencies in this version. This is what I meant by starting with the right interpretation to understand things like quantum physics. I guess I just wasted all this time posting to people who refuse to accept and release their griping hold of materialism, a physical basis for everything. It's hard to say this without sounding offensive and giving you another setup to poke fun at me, but I guess it's a subconscious denial. People in here forget and cannot seem to step back and see that they are using materialism as their basis, as shown even in your explanation of why we inherently gather to this room at all. And that's an objective view, hun. I'm not making cracks at anyone. BTW, a corporeal explanation is exactly that which is found in Clark's essay of neural materialism. - 16:48:08 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY..sweetheart, yes the view that most of us accept some type of materialism here is objective. It is also an objective view that you base your ideas on your own subjective feelings. - 20:20:24 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I ask again, which cultures? - 22:44:06 on 25 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: I'm back. The pope can be BOTH the physical representation of a sick and sordid past and present dogma filled with religious righteousness AND trying to make a bad situation better, from his own mindset. What difference can he make?, little to most people, profound to those who would be influenced by his position or message. - 1:46:06 on 26 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: I was of course, referencing your comment'that consciousness BINDS the universe in a WORKING ORDER'. NOT the universe ITSELF! The BINDING and WORKING ORDER or the GLUE and MOVEMENT (you coined' momentum',which is close but not synanymous)Is energy. It is a known that ENERGY is the force, by definition, that causes things to act upon each other. You are attempting to look at the cause of the universe itself, not its catalyst. The belief that consciousness drives the universe is one I LIKE, PREFER,hope to be true... but appears to be conjecture. Where's your evidence to the contrary? - 2:00:32 on 26 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: I've worked with children (in mental health) who were foster kids and was one personally also. Not to be taken lightly, its a big investment. Most foster children are NOT adopted, but people care for them and are reimbursed by the state. I'm a little biased and think there should be more emphasis on adoption,long term stability/committment, better oversight of the program and MATCHING children with prospective parents. Adoptions tend to be for babies, and the older kids (with more time to develop problems in dysfunctional environments) are in foster care. It can work if,the child and parents know the probable length of time the kid will be in the home. There is full disclosure to the prospective foster parents of emotional or behavioral problems the child has, if any. Is there the option to adopt if attachments occurr? Does the child come from a similar cultural backround, or are the parents willing to accomodate(accomodation over MONTHS not days)? Many kids that wind up in mental health from foster programs tend to be given up on awfully quickly. 'That boy said 'fuck' in my home, he has to go!' 'O.K., so how are you willing to work with him on that and are your ears burning?' Most kids are pretty good kids if given some stability, IMO, if you get them before teen rebellion time. - 14:14:53 on 26 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: Better brush up on my superlatives:JAYWILSON -- Unable to find the specific Walker Percy book you mentioned, I tried another of his books, 'The Moviegoer'. I've gone back and ordered the Lost in the Cosmos book, and picked up 'The Thanatos Syndrome'. This not being a literature discussion, I'll just say that this stuff is definately up my street, and offer some more thanks and some regrets regarding inability to reciprocate. - 16:52:50 on 26 Mar 100 GMT

PETER:BETTY---Still, you are making all kinds of unsupported jumps from particles having an innate awareness about them to 'making new friends'(!). Your conclusions are all purely speculatory, lacking entirely in syllogistic form, and still you enjoy using this perpetual trap-door escape route by continuing to refer to the 'spiritualistic' when your 'materialistic' when you discover your very own arguments are unsupported. - 19:11:57 on 26 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--well, good for you--:GRANT: I'm glad you've 'found' Percy, and since I've not yet read _The Thanatos Syndrome_ I'll join you in discovering that, his last novel. BTW, if this is truly a discussion forum for atheists, could it not follow that anything discussed by atheists is appropriate, to include 'outside' reading? - 20:14:18 on 26 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT, JAYWILSON, ROB actually ALL- This reading a book and then discussing it on this page has been done before and it was interesting as well as fun. All you have to do is give everyone a chance to get a hold of a certain book and then we can maybe do this. Anyone interested? - 0:01:54 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, Thank you for your input! My ultimate goal is to adopt an older child, I thought foster parenting might be a way to get started, see if we've got the right stuff. We've got a lot of time (wouldn't do it till my kids were older) and probably need some classes or something. I appreciate your perspective. I always say if all the people out picketing abortion clinics would adopt a child, we wouldn't have that foster-home problem! - 3:10:06 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene..reminds me of when the Flanders took in the Simpson kids:CRISTY and ROB- I agree. I know in this neck of the woods, most of the foster parents are "nice xtian families" that wouldn't consider adopting because they like to bitch about the $1000+ check they get every month, tax free. They wouldn't have respite paid for either if they adopted. All the foster children, of course, come from terrible homes where the parents haven't asked jesus to come into their lives. The first thing on these nice xtian families's agendas are to take the children to church to ask jesus into their lives. It doesn't matter, of course, if these children are First Nations children who's parents may believe in the Children of the Earth faith, nooooo, these nice xtian families just SAVE those children as long as they are being paid to do it. Don't even get me started on this subject!!! - 4:13:38 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Grant - Anything goes:ALL -- Anyone interested in talking about a specific book, let's try the one suggested by jaywilson, 'Lost in the Cosmos: The last self-help Guide' by Walker Percy. We could begin in a few weeks. Maybe we could work into what makes one person a "searcher" while the next person is content to select a complete belief system "off the rack" like a suit of clothes, or about whether or not a lack of supernatural beliefs robs one of a sense of awe or appreciation for the mysterious as many suppose, or ? - 14:26:09 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Joette:Is my computer conscious? - 15:43:15 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: So far BETTY's point of view spins on the idea that we here- on this inclusion I guess, are so intertwined with something called materialism that her first wall to destroy is that idea. I guess she figgers we here are "all mentally" stuck in a middle ages thought of materialism. Of that idea- materialism, my general opinion of those here who BETTY must see as somewhat retarded appear in A.N.Whitehead word's, "The materialistic theory has all the completeness of the thought of the middle ages, which had a complete answer to everything, be it in heaven or in hell or in nature." BETTY's opinion of others here seems to have inserted them/us in the middle of that passage. As if we others are one and all certain that the 'theory of materialism' is. Has BETTY hooked us others in a contentious affair involving a strawman? - 15:57:07 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/jaywilson:I'll be happy to read the book jay suggests if he's either already read it and recommends it or is very familiar with the content and will give me a good idea of the topic. - 22:45:10 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy/Marlene/open: Good luck Cristy and you're welcome. Marlene, I'm with ya, I don't know how many kids I've seen over the years who have had a traumatic childhood experiences WORSENED by religious types thinking a good dose a religious guilt is what they need to 'shape them up'. The air of secrecy and guilt only further supresses/represses the truth of sexual abuse, neglect, alienation, etc. We've had sunday school teachers and boy scout leaders turn out to be pedophiles (hey they go where the kids are). One foster parent was sure that god told her that her foster child should only be allowwed to drink apple juice to 'purify' them. And of course we've had our share of MINISTERS molest children, position of trust and control. This shocks most religious health care staff. The catholics aren't the only religion that has a problem with child abuse. BTW, you didn't happen to see the recent report out that states priests have a HIV rate 400% the general publics, alot of divine carnal knowledge going on somewhere! - 23:00:33 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: I would get more out of this strand if we all tried to get on line at the same time once a week or so for more timely feedback on opinions, like a dialog. The time could be rotated out of consideration for personal preferences. Anyone for synchronizing our watches once in awhile? - 23:04:32 on 27 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:ROB -- I read a bit. I've read seven books on jaywilson's recommendation, all excellent. When I come across a really remarkable book I recommend it to him only to find that he has read it. At this point when he mentions a book I go and buy it. - 4:11:20 on 28 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY, when I allow for the creative and imaginitive side to come forward that is in all, I can fully appreciate what you post here. But of late of your posts I notice what I take as exasperation on your part. How, well you attribute problems to others. You paint the lack of understanding of others as if its some "fault" of their's. You've inscribed of late that some here take personal offense at what you post. Hmm, that's silly. For my part I think I can see and understand that you have experienced something in the various sources you've read and seen. Perhaps it is that very thing, that whatver thing intuitive understanding any know, it is its logic that for which you now seek. But any thinking person does that same has that same motivation, and here I for one gaurd agin painting myself in a corner. It looks to me like you do that very thing. Its not good to talk to oneself. - 16:59:58 on 28 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:Has anyone read this guy's books and what do you think of his ideas on the evolution of consciousness? - 21:29:48 on 28 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--verrrry interesting--:Y'ALL: Jaynes has a fascinating idea--seems to me quite plausible that what we describe as 'consciousness' was derived from _first giving voice (including vocabulary) to our instincts_, and once we had those down, mankind could extrapolate and invent the gods of history. And then, of course, move on. Just that some of us haven't, or won't. I'm going to order the book, as a matter of fact. GRANT: You are very kind. - 22:11:02 on 28 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: That looks like it would be a good buy interesting and of the wall entertainment. It sounds like it may be in a direction that I play at in regards to human language. I am of the opinion that 'spoken language' may be the root of many human problems. - 22:16:03 on 28 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Open: consciousness is an awareness of the self in its environment, not a vocalization of instincts, IMO. Awareness can exist quite independently from speech. Of course a common understanding of speech symbols allows a much greater communication,to allow a shared processing of perceptions between two people. - 22:36:21 on 28 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--Not so fast, grasshopper--:ROB: Explain how the self may be aware in its environment without the need for language. Or for that matter, describe Helen Keller's 'awareness' before she met Annie Sullivan. You cannot. Consciousness requires language--whether spoken, written, or otherwise symbolic. And if you'll take the time to peruse, and not merely skim, my post, you'll see that I posited consciousness as having evolved from the first use of language--that being to describe our instinctual reactions to/perceptions of the natural world. Gotta start somewhere. - 0:22:30 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:Did we luck into a real discussion here. If everyone else is buying the book, I will too. What does everyone say? I think this may be an appropriate subject. Betty has brought up the subject of consciousness but seems to have a idea of what it really is. It would be discussion, methinks. - 1:53:20 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:OR..I know that Robert Ornstein's ideas on consciousness are likely more scientifically sound, how about one of his books? - 3:25:01 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE -- The Julian Jaynes book works for me, but I'll read whatever a few folks agree to. - 4:35:03 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::jaywilson/open: sorry sage, but Helen Keller was deaf and BLIND which significantly limited her awareness of surroundings and only STRENGTHENS my point that consciousness is one's awareness of the self in one's environment. 'explain how one can be aware without language?' you ask.... its called THOUGHT. People who can't speak (or sign) would take exception to your premise that they are not conscious. Children, before they have the tools of language for conceptualization, still have thought, are aware that' mama left the room and its scary without her' (just ask Marlene if her grandbaby has consciousness without the mastery of language). As Costner said in The Untouchables 'so endth the lesson.' (just kidding). The archeology types that pretend to know depict ancient man with a very limited vocabulary of a couple hundred words at best, yet apparently having some rudimentary belief system as evidenced by paintings on cave house walls , burying their dead, signs of ritual activity, etc. Language certainly enhances the validation of perceptions of others to allow better reality testing, however isn't required for consciousness, if you define consciousness as awareness of the self in their environment. Some would argue that you don't need the environment ('I think therefore I am'). However, comatose and brain injured patients reportedly can have some level of thought activity. If you do not have some level of orientation/interaction with you environment, you don't really have consciousness. Language ENHANCES consciousness , but doesn't cause consciousness, IMO. - 9:47:00 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--cart before horse, take 2--:ROB: Your muddled 'argument' conveniently leaves out the acid test, one I put to you yet again: how can there be thought, or awareness, or consciousness, without language? You still haven't given me an answer--just a lot of airy claptrap like "enhances the validations of perceptions of others to allow better reality testing" and so forth. Language, whether spoken, written, or otherwise symbolic, does not 'enhance' consciousness; it _is_ consciousness. Even you have to put words in Marlene's grandbaby's mouth to communicate its predicament. In summary, you insist on confusing electrical activity in the brain with thought. You are still mistaken, grasshopper. - 11:06:26 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON/ROB- I don't know about my grandbaby but I've definitely been conscious of the little girl. I've had three days of a sick baby with a viral ear infection. With that said, she was looking at me and tugging on her ear. That's communication, is it not? - 14:35:09 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I think you may be interested in a new show that airs on NBC tomorrow night called _Wonderland_. It's about a mental hospital. I'm looking forward to it, if not for anything else but the theme song by the Jefferson Airplane, lol! Actually I love learning anything about the human mind, the normal as well as the malfunctions. - 14:40:48 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Also, one's consciousness will include the matters of experience memory and time. Seems it was a few days past that someone mentioned the theory of neurophysical learning, while the word "consciousness" strikes up a good deal of concern, what if it is an idea that merely yokes the mind? How? Perhaps it akin to or similar to the dark ages idea/myth of geocentrism, or that there are witches? Perhaps a better idea\word of how what we humans are gets from our electrochemical components to etherial thought and consciousness should be engineered? Or, as living things are we really just a little less than angels, for now? - 16:50:45 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

jaywilson--no angel but an occasional pinhead--:CARL: I love that turn of phrase, "an idea that yokes the mind." - 22:15:35 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Jaywilson/open: You're right, that statement could have been worded more clearly. Kind of like the run on sentence "Jaynes has a fascinating idea--seems to me quite plausible that what we describe as 'consciousness'was first derived from_first giving voice (including vocabulary)to our instincts and once we had those down, man could extrapolate and invent the gods of history". Talk about a run on sentence! Oh wait,I'm sorry, that was your loose association wasn't it. I already answered your question, but I won't accuse you of not reading it, that's your bag. People who are mute ... have thought , awareness and consciousness. Small children with a limited vocabulary, have consciousness. You must be the only person who has had thoughts or feelings that "words can't express". If you were bumped on the head, for example, you would be aware of the pain even if you couldn't SPELL it! (meaning having a word for it). Most people who hyperventilate are VERY conscious of the event and their anxiety in reaction to it induces further CO2 loss. Just because they don't know a WORD for it,doesn't mean they are not AWARE of it. Some eskimo group has about 18 words for snow. We have about 2. You may not be aware of the finer differentiations of snow , but you aware of snow when you're standing in it, you big dummy. The caveman type who has NO word for snow can still have an awareness of it the first time he migrated north and stood barefoot knee deep in it. If he stayed in the north , THEN he developed a word for it. You have to experience something( hence be conscious of it ) THEN you develop a word for the experience. The term AIDS became a part of language AFTER the first experience (conscious awareness of 'the unnamed illness'). - 23:44:44 on 29 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: I've heard of the show. I received an E-Mail that NAMI (nat'l allliance for the mentally ill), is strongly opposed to the show . It is reportedly a gross stereotype which reenforces the 'untouchable' views of the lay public toward the mentally ill, lack of hope for mental illnesses and the second episode includes a detailed suicide event. They are asking for disclaimers, notification to suicide hotlines, balanced show content ,etc. - 0:03:17 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Dance on top of the pin-head/open: Did anyone see the CNN report about the article coming out in 'Nature'. It reportedly has research showing that 40,000 and 100,000 year old neanderthal skeletons's provided conclusive evidence that neanderthals' are NOT genetically linked to humans. The variation was 7%, far to divergent to be of the same 'family tree'. - 0:44:24 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Dance on the top of a pin-head/open: Did anyone see todays CNN report stating that scientists research proves that neanderthal's are NOT genetically linked to humans? - 0:47:37 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- CNN reported that someone created cold fusion too, lol! I would imagine it is being discussed on one of the newsgroups like alt.atheism or something similiar but I don't have time anymore to do that search. If you have time, check out to see what people are saying. - 2:24:30 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:Geez, ROB. You completely missed the boat on the consciousness thing. Your irritation is totally misdirected. - 5:59:19 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: What did I miss....and what's misdirected? - 10:09:57 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: No harm intended. - 10:13:08 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Grant:We think in symbols whether or not we are able to communicate. It's how the brain works. It is thought that consciousness and language had to evolve together, that it's not possible to have one without the other. Consciousness and language are so interrelated that it's hardly possible to consider one without the other. I'm not referring exclusively to a formal spoken language, rather some kind of system of representational symbols. Cognitive scientists and linguists say that not only do we think in words (symbols), but that we are unable to comprehend concepts for which we have no words, and further must almost constantly resort to metaphor. As is frequently the case, one must be careful with definitions. "Consciousness" in this context does not generally refer to such things as fear. A mouse exhibits fear when cat is near but this does not necessarily demonstrate an awareness of self other than in the most basic sense that all creatures must have some rudimentary, probably unconscious awareness of self in order to react to things other than self. What consciousness is precisely is still very much an open question. Whether or not jaywilson is right, I don't think you are understanding what he is saying. - 13:43:59 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Pondered the line o'JWILSON's that consciousness requires language and GRANT's line in regards to basic communication as well as what I take to be ROB's joining of both mentioning the words that human's use. Words though, are these nothing more than sounds? And, any and all sounds are they not but disturbances of the air? My point is that the medium thru which communication takes place is the air. Would that render consciousness to the realms, as a matter of philosophy, as it is one's mind which deals with the outer-world for the good of the whatever? If this is true then accounts I've read that say the rudiments of life itself are conceptual I'd link consciousness to the organismal amalgamations of that conceptual processas it is the composition one's very being. Here, everything that is one's being, does it scream out to continue to exist? - 18:00:19 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:JAYWILSON, on what authority do you *know* your theory is right and ROB is mistaken? Is it a proven published fact somewhere, or your opinion? As GRANT said we don't even know precisely what consciousness is, so I don't see how anyone can be the ultimate authority on it!.............ROB, the Neanderthal's certainly ARE genetically *linked* to man, we're genetically linked to lobsters if you go back far enough! Whether they are in our direct line of ancestry has long been up for question, I have often heard them referred to as an "offshoot of the family tree" that lived about the time of Homo habilis who was thought to be our true ancestor. Of late I have heard some question of whether these two species intermingled to create *our* ancestors, or if the Neanderthals were the end of their line. Sorting out the fossil record is no picnic, but all the new genetic sciences might speed things up! - 19:31:33 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:"BOOK CLUB" hey I'm game to read that book "Lost in the Cosmos"...I'll look for it at the library. - 19:32:26 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:Shoot, I used to have a book on the evolution of the human mind I never got around to reading. Y'all are going to get my curiousity up to where I have to dig everything out of my closet to find it. Thanks alot! :-)............MARLENE, too bad about the ear infections. The docs are pretty antibiotic happy 'round here, but I wonder what % are actually viral. I really had to push NOT to get Ryan on antibiotics the last time, and he fought it off by himself. Hopefully built a little immunity to boot. - 19:38:55 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- This is the first time she has taken an antibiotic but I guess my question would be is the 10 days of treatment really needed? I always thought this was a long period of time. One would thing the body's immune system would kick in after the antibiotic took care of the part it couldn't handle. - 20:26:39 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Marlene:SO, LIKE..has everyone agreed on which book we are going to discuss so I can buy it? Let's have a time limit on this, like an agreement in the next few days? - 20:28:34 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Surfin'about there are quite a few opinions on the Neanderthal report. Interesting observation, I have yet to read an account by a Greco-Roman-xian relgious adherent that states their biblical-genesis account is true and a fact. [note, I've left out the "Judeo" reference because o'their acceptance o'same-sex marriages] But come to think of it, do these type religious folk ever claim their creation myth is true in a general biological geographical fact? They do seem to ask others and point at things with the probable expectation that one will blurt out,"Gee that looks like a creation of jc!" or whatever. But of the cave-dweller, the issue I have with the comments of such absolutists, yes it is or is not a link to modern human, these comments seem to lay outside of the basic idea of an evolutionary biological process. True it is I do not have an extensive amount of study and familiarity with biology, but what such individuals may mean to convey, as the neanderthal report, I listen to with sincere askance and even doubt. As CRISTY points out It is linked to the modernday human. But today's human isn't even what it was 5000 years ago. Such creatures are dead and gone, they do not exist. But if evolution is relatively accurate then it is the idea of change, and that explains when, where, why and how the human is what it is today. Altho'I have seen a neanderthal lookin'guy and gal or two, in my day. - 21:02:21 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, why is she on antibiotics if it is a viral infection? Well, as there is no way to tell that I am aware of what kind it is (short of piercing the eardrum to sample the fluid) the docs there must be like here and prescribe ABs for them ALL just in case. There are some ABs that you can take less than 10 days, but they are more $$. You can even get a one-time shot. But my pediatrician thinks 10 days of something like amoxicillan are NOT ENOUGH because the infections frequently come back. The trick is, once you start killing the bacteria you have to be sure to get them ALL. Because exposing them and leaving some alive will allow a few to develope a resistance to that drug, then they grow and re-infect and you can no longer use that drug to treat the infection. Eventually you can run through ALL the ABs like that and develop super-resistant "bugs". That is really a problem since ALOT of people do stop taking them once they feel better. It is better not to take them at all then to start then quit before the dose is out. Then your body can learn to fight and develop immunity w/o risk of creating resistant "bugs". However, non treatment causes longer duration of the infection, more pain, and more likelyhood of eardrum bursting. If it's viral, you get the same risks cause the ABs won't do a danged thing against a virus. I am told in Europe they tend to wait longer before prescribing ABs to try to determine bacterial or viral, but here they start writing the script the minute you walk in! THE REST OF YOU sorry to drone on about non-site related stuff! Give me an opening and the (former) microbiologist in me will pop out :-) - 21:16:51 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant/open: I understand what you are saying and I agree that animals generally do not have a conscious awareness of themselves. I only say generally because a few animals are able to communicate in symbols( i.e. the chimpanzee that learned to communicate by punching 70 or so'thoughts'/ symbols on the keyboard. He was even able to repeatedly combine the symbol for bathroom and face when angry at the researchers, essentially calling them 'potty faces'). When people use absolutes, i.e.'...consciousness and language had to evolve together, its not possible to have one without the other...', it suggests a closed mindedness to other perspectives. I generally agree with you that they both COEXIST and that conciousness is linked to conceptualization to symbol to language. My only point is that you CAN have an EXPERIENCE which you are CONSCIOUS of which is NEW to you and hence FIRST be conscious of the phenomenon, without having developed a concept to symbol to language paradigm YET. Again the first person sick with AIDS was conscious of their illness without benefit of understanding of the disease. There is a tendency for closed mindedness on a couple of levels at this site that I'd like to expand upon 1) there appears to be a different dogma traded for religious dogma 2) it is easier to attempt to discredit research or science findings if it doesn't fit into the accepted dogma 3) when someone disagrees it is assumed that they must not understand the point. After all, if they understood they would agree, right? 4) barbs can be given but not returned in kind. If you are really seeking an open discussion of different points of view, tolerance is important. It is actually possible to have your own point of view without the need of a given authors seal of approval. If we want an open discussion of a given author I prefer to avoid any groupthink, flavor of the month , latest research requirement in favor of an open dialog. This is much more meaningful to me. I enjoy the discussions here but would prefer to pass on the questioning of various peoples license to have opinion, which theory or author they must adhere to qualify or their IQ. I'm speaking in generalities, not specifically to you Grant. - 21:18:09 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy, regarding my neanderthal uncle:, I am not sure which point of view is right. I just thought it was an interesting finding to discuss. There was also an article about the findings in yesterdays USA today. Evidently, they're saying that 40,000 and 100,000 year old skeletons were tested.CNN stated 7%, the USA today article reported 3 1/2% difference in DNA, which they concluded was too divergent to be cousins. Is 3 1/2 to 7 % a significant difference (if accurate) to preclude kinship? - 21:29:11 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: I'll never eat lobster again - 21:31:42 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene/Cristy: regarding antibiotics:echo what Cristy said....super strains are out there due, in part, to the mutations of incomplete antibiotic regimens. Bacteria are clever little buggers and hospitals are filled with resistant strains. Antibiotic tx regimens went from 14 to 10 to 5 days for newer classes of antibiotics. The one infection I think they should treat more aggressively are sinus infections , because of the tendency of the bacteria to convert or switch from aerobic to anaerobic and hence bringing on recurrent sinus bouts. - 21:46:37 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Cristy:ROB, don't worry, our common ancestor with the lobster probably dates back about to the flatworm. Much more logical to give up eating mammals! I will look into the % differences tomorrow, right now I have a 2 yr old wanting to read "Go Dog Go" :-) - 22:17:44 on 30 Mar 100 GMT

Grant: This on that:ROB -- Would you say that this famous chimp exhibits some form of consciousness? And this occurred as a result of acquiring LANGUAGE? You can't "generally agree" with me "that they both COEXIST [consciousness and language] and that conciousness is linked to conceptualization to symbol to language" because I didn't say that. First off, I'm saying that 'symbol' is equivelent to 'word', and numerous ones in relationship constitute language. There is no "symbol to language". Second, consciousness is not linked to conceptualization. Conceptualization does not exist in itself but is an act or action much like running or speaking, and is a function of consciousness. And third, I'm not saying consciousness and language coexit, but that language is a component of consciousness. It may be as you imply that I don't think you understood jaywilson because you didn't and don't agree, or it may be that you really didn't understand what he was saying, and the implications. Thanks for the benefit of doubt. I have more to say but am out of time. I'm glad you brought up the criticism of this site and its atmosphere. Wish I had more time. Gotta go... - 14:16:57 on 31 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: that on this, regarding the chimp, only an example and I don't have a strong opinion on the level of consciousness of a chimp. However, if you accept the definition of consciousness I proposed.... a certain awareness of the self in the environment, then yes the chimp would have consciousness. Again, I can say 'generally agree' if you are clear on your terms (the same standard you wanted to hold Betty to). For example, you write 'symbol is equivalent to word'. Technically, that is not correct because while all words are symbols, not all symbols are words. My point being that I can say I generallly agree with you on that because I realize you didn't mean that you should be held to the literal meaning of your statement.Its funny that we're talking about communication when you and I aren't doing that very well. For example, you tell me that there is no 'symbol to language' and then proceed to tell me your intent, which is '...word, and numreous ones in relationship constitute language.' Well, THATS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT BY MY ABBREVIATED ' symbols (combine) to (form) language'. You are telling me that I don't understand and that we don't agree! I did and we do. On this point at least, I meant the same thing you're espousing! When you say that 'conceptualization does not exist by itself but is an act...and is a function of consciousness', YOU ARE AGREEING with my point the,'FIRST be conscious ...' piece. You're hung up on the 'coexist' point, but I'm telling you that I AM AGREEING with you on the conceptualization is a process (act). You also state that 'consciousness is not linked to conceptualization' but go on to say 'conceptualization ...is a function of consciousness.' When I stated that you can have an experience that you are first conscious of, without having a developed a concept to symbol to language paradigm yet. That means that the ACT of conceptualization occurrs after the experience. You also say that you're '....not saying that consciousness and language coexist, but that language is a component of consciousness. Many things can be BOTH A COMPONENT of something else and coexist, in fact component IMPLIES coexistence. You don't think that the brain and mind coexist?? Is not the mind a component (roughly ) of the brain?? I'm enjoying, hope you are. - 20:29:33 on 31 Mar 100 GMT

Rob::Grant: meant to include, that when you say that consciousness and conceptualization are not 'linked' ( my phraseology) but then go on to say that conceptualiztion is a FUNCTION of consciousness. Anything that is a function of something else IS linked to it! (and I din't say that it wasn't a function of consciousness...shouldn't I be telling you that YOU didn't understand??) Anything unclear due to my style I'll be happy to try to restate. It's the implied assumption that one view is clear and the other not I would take exception to. - 20:41:29 on 31 Mar 100 GMT