Betty:Rob, Here's an earthly metaphor for you. Think of a mixture inside of a blender. Forget the blender for a sec - don't get caught up anymore with the machine idea, just the mixture by itself. It's equally whole with every food particle mixed in but intact with its own characteristics. The blending function refers to the constant need for creative change of the universe. Blend - blend - blend - for billions of years. Some things fade away and some become parts of other things but new, unexpected combinations is it's main outpouring. Here, consciousness is the constant blending process behind it all, but this function is not mechanical nor deterministic. Creativity fits NO such molds. In this way it corresponds to organic life, however, the new patterns of physical matter depend on the creative combinations of previous. Think of universal creativity as the opposite of void, with mechanism somewhere inbetween. A creative entity always has something going on, but because it 'seems to be' entirely self-contained it has nowhere to discard or poof things out of existence other then to let them slowly fade away out of the way for the new forms with better circumstances. This doesn't imply preference, however. In any constantly changing circumstantial entity, everything is related to one another through the principle of non-locality, and the circumstances leading to the rise of a new form is bound to force an opposite reaction elsewhere otherwise balance cannot be maintained and the entity itself will suffer some sort of collapse. Again, this is a conceptual argument. Understanding this metaphor helps us humans realize that our subjectivity is not found in any of the mixtures; it's entirely different. No other physicality (as far as we know) shows the same traits. Comparing our small, but valuable amongst each other, creative powers to operate and discover all that we can in the physical realm clearly establishes a non-contradictory explanation for an entire entity (the universe) based on change and order. When materialists conjured up an invisible wall called mind versus matter, they create the paradox that devalues their argument. People all over the world see the problem with materialism as a theory. The universe's origins? Why even bother making guesses? The point is, determinism has only been an adopted theory for a few hundred years. If determinists can simply conclude with no direct evidence that everything fits their mold without a verified conclusion, it's entirely more valuable to re-evaluate and establish a more complete theory that eliminates the pre-suppositions which lead to the paradoxes, and which meets the needs of all that is known. We can argue all day about possible origin theories, but unless this 'something' is entirely self-contained to begin with, you're leading to some higher power being idea, which is arbitrary at this point. - 17:18:16 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Betty:Atheistic materialism AND Religious materialism are both based on opposite mysteriously random particle theories, that somehow lead to order and form - minus one small God story in the first case. They key word, however, is materialism which creates the duality at all. Just in case the atheist materialists in here forget, they have even less of a foundation to stand on. The universe of mysterious, random shifting atoms, according to the theory of materialism, has no structure to it, and therefore no need or basis for order and form. Is order and form an illusion of human consciousness or can someone justifiably explain how something without structure and foundation produces order. If someone has the ability to honestly debate this, I'm game. - 17:36:29 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: I agree and thats my point re: origins. Some people have no idea of origins and the courage to say that, others have theories and have the healthy curiosity to search for truths, others look for simplistic answers (god created it all, etc.) and reject any information that rocks their cozy mindset. Therefore taking the origin question off the table, the primary issues (of many) appear to be: 1) random vs. order,2) order vs. creative change,3)'spirit'controlled vs a non-self-reflexive catalyst vs random , etc. 4) process (HOW any version of universe maintenance is accomplished) 5) WHY (for the bravest only, conjecture on if there are any reasons for events). Is this a relatively accurate, albeit simplified, list of discussion points to help frame my frame of reference? - 18:39:24 on 30 Apr 100 GMT

Marlene ..I sense a waver function:BETTY- The people on the Skeptic list have the ability to honestly debate you..although they will accept the dogma only once then just SNIP the repetition. I'm really interested how this "debate" will actually turn out. It will be less than a week now that we will all have the opportunity to witness this event...that is... if you've found the time to subscribe. If you'd skip the repetition here, I'm sure you'd have ample time to send off a 10 word email. Then of course there is the question if you have the backbone...my guess...you'll come up with some lame excuse why you can't subscribe...let me see..too busy..post your bull to too many other pages...email isn't working... - 0:44:18 on 1 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- Or maybe...you would have to let everyone know who you really are... - 1:21:01 on 1 May 100 GMT

Marlene:I think you've all seen the webpages and even met a few people who have come here claiming to have turned from atheism and become a christian. I can buy that an agnostic would turn from atheism but an actual atheist, I doubt it. Betty raised the point that 90% of the pop. have some type of spiritual belief and this is true. 74% of these people believe in god. Now, I also don't buy the claim that a believer has abandoned all belief and became atheist. Can a leopard change it's spots just that easily and completely? What do you all think? - 3:48:07 on 1 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Maybe you folks ought to stop contesting the views of this BETTY and allow him\her a few days to say only what she/he wants for his\her point of view of this "consciousness". Its a bit troublesome to pick out what he/she means that's simply for that POV and what she\he seems to mean is in defense of it. What say we others allow this BETTY several days to lay out this non-religious materially disconnected everywhere idea. Sure it will probably look like a spammer, but in this case we'll know before what is supposed to be transpiring. As far as what he/she seems to want to say, is that as far as BETTY is concerned nothing else is needed in order for BETTY to exist. If he\she could simply lay out, state her/his ideas and its supportive whatever without antagonism, what would we others apprehend? - 18:54:10 on 1 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Betty has posted what Betty wants to say over and over and over again without any supportive whatever. I can understand what she's claiming the same as I can understand someone claiming that there is a personal god. We've had many people here claiming the latter but there again, without any supportive whatever. I think it may be time to move on to something more interesting. - 20:38:34 on 1 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I think ignore, ignore, ignore is the only way to end an undesired conversation on a public forum. Anyone other than a malicious spammer will usually vamoos if they get no response (the druid being an exception?). There really is no point debating/arguing with someone who holds with all their might the fact that they are unquestionably right and anyone that disagrees is stupid/wrong/evil/etc. Closed minds are like brick walls we bang our heads on...why bother? Be it Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, the druid, or Betty, a zealot will NOT be influenced by any form of discussion. And this is NOT a forum for preaching, so let's all just not encourage Betty to continue preaching to us. - 21:16:13 on 1 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Yea! Yea! So what do you think? Can a believer completely become an unbeliever? - 21:24:59 on 1 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: What you point out above, for the most part has seemed to me to be true, but just in case I speculated a what if "for-BETTY". You know, give her another try but this time without the extra of responding to or of having to defend something. Then, if BETTY is just an emperores/emperor in new clothes, well you get the picture. - 21:28:27 on 1 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I think believers can become complete unbelievers. Look at me! And Dan Barker. Many people are raised believers and accept it without ever being given the chance to question it. I believed pretty wholeheartedly...just something I assumed was true, as a kid assumes Santa is real. If everyone around her is assuring her that he is real then that, with the "circumstantial evidence" of presents from Santa, are plenty for an unquestioning mind to accept as "fact". But once a child starts asking the hard questions, like how could one fat guy POSSIBLY fly all over the world and cram himself down chimneys, it may hurt to have it confirmed that he's not real but it's not that hard to quit believing it. Problem with religion is that there is no one in authority (like your parents were when you were a child) telling you "sorry babe, but we just invented all that to make you happy...it's not real". The guys that invented religion never would 'fess up! - 22:17:17 on 1 May 100 GMT

Rob::Open: jesus is a fat guy and goes down chimneys? I would contend that it is more likely that a believer, especially one simply socialized into a dogma from a young age, who through life experience /maturity, begins to question their brainwashing, is much more likely to be able to become a nonbeliever....than the liklihood someone who has been socialized to not believe in a god, would have a religious conversion and cast reason to the wind once they were older. The exception being the 'how low can you go' crowd who through trauma, drug abuse or extreme crisis in their life choose to believe out of sheer desperation. Hey, everyone's a christian on death row. - 23:07:29 on 1 May 100 GMT

Bill....Betty dearest, :answer just one difficult question for me and you can have my babies….the one's I'm having trouble raising, that is! I asked you some questions once before and you did not respond…. perhaps there were too many questions, so I will try asking only one this time. First of all, as you probably know, if energy is converted into matter in the lab there is an equal amount of matter and anti-matter produced. Likewise in the early universe there existed a similar situation where energy was converted into matter/anti-matter and subsequent collisions of these two products lead to the conversion back into energy. As the universe expanded and cooled from this chaotic early state there must have been a slight amount more of matter verses anti-matter or these two products separated into different quadrants in the universe and the annihilations subsided (This doesn't seem like the creation of a rational human like deity of higher intelligence to me). What I am getting to is that there seems to be a duplicity or paradox when one looks at the universe and it seems that there are two determinants governing the universe… one of "organization_survival_procreation" (what you attribute to universal consciousness and materialists attribute to random collisions and force fields) and secondly one of "disorganization_entropy" (decay, death, etc.). The earth with all its organizational splendor will eventually, one day_once again, collide with an asteroid/comet and be completely destroyed…as history has shown with the extinction of the dinosaurs (a seemingly random event to me). Or the tornado/hurricane will emerge from this same beautiful nature and destroy that which it has produced. So my question to you is this: If there is a universal consciousness governing organization by the creative means of survival, procreation, and natural selection….. what consciousness governs disorganization? In other words if this consciousness created life (which we consider good), what consciousness creates death (which we consider bad)? What rational consciousness would create this duplicity? This is a paradox to me, and my babies' futures depend on your answer? Cheers! - 0:15:11 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB and CRISTY- Thanks for the comments! So in reality, 90% of the western population has had some type of belief taught to them by an authority figure. In a free country, they've had ample chances to question such an authority. Even in a family situation, children automatically question what their parents have taught them starting at about 11 years old. Some people raised in an atheist home still grow up and adopt a belief so the parental authority thing doesn't seem to work there. People have a real need to belong so I think maybe religion is a cultural thing. If one doesn't believe what most of the others believe then they are shunned, an outcast. How many people are able to handle that? So is the authority the village? - 0:42:31 on 2 May 100 GMT

Bill..:Hi Rob, How's it hanging man…speaking of which, I just got back from Miami beach, where I went to buy an SUV, and I have never seen so many naked people in all my life in this one section of beach near the hotel where I was staying. I had to convince my wife that this was a totally random encounter and not something I found on the Internet. I guess I need to stay in a more expensive hotel next time, ha! I have never before seen a quarter mile of bodies (300 or so) of all ages (kids to 80-year olds), races, and genders, families, and body sizes (300 lbs to playboy center folds) etc. congregated in one place before all doing their own thing. I have always been a little modest that way (I'm not that macho) but the curiosity overcame me as I have always wondered what it was like to wear only sunglasses and parade in front of that many people. The feelings were a cross between exhilaration to total honesty with a few flashes of modesty (what the hell am I doing!) here and there when encountering those with cloths on. Oh well, this was a natural spontaneous random event that I did two different afternoons just to make sure I thoroughly experienced it all. Aren't you a psychologists or something? Why do people want to do this? - 0:59:59 on 2 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, that makes sense "the authority is the village". Once you get past about 10 years old you no longer thing your parents are worth listening to! But peer pressure, and "what others might think" is everything in your teens/20's (for most, who are conformists...there are always a few free spirits). It takes alot of self confidence to be able to think you could be right, and 90% of the people around you might be WRONG. Even more to let them know you think they are wrong! As a person that doesn't have a strong individualistic or confident side, these were big obstacles for me. Nevertheless, the search for reason was worth the struggle. I think alot of people don't like to think that hard *g* - 2:16:00 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Bill, Bill, Bill.....sounds like you had a hoot! - 2:52:30 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- More tomorrow on this subject, I'm off to bed for tonight. I think this could be interesting. Analysing atheists and why they don't make good village people or..do they? - 3:04:46 on 2 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Then if that BETTY personae really posts a long long piece for her consciousness, let somebody "delete" the whole thing! Just an after-thought. - 14:44:34 on 2 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Ok, so that was an infantile immature red-neck idea I passed on to MARLENE. Hmm, would that be a hoot? Enuff o'that, due to the cuban kid fiasco I grabbed up my book on Otto Gierke's natural law. A key idea referred to is the social contract and one passage about that topic is this, "we find something of a tendency to develop the view- which had been originated by Suarez and Molina- that while the existence of civil society may be allowed to be the work of individuals, the power of the associated community over its members proceeds from god." That appears to me as an attempt, a counter view to the idea, a direct refutation of the theory that social authority was first derived from individual authority. Later I ran into another idea somewhat related that goes thusly,"Those who believed in an external force might regard man as naturally an anti-social being, who could only be compelled to enter a community by the pressure of external necessity." Something I look for but never see in such books is a clear unequivocal statement that law and the human organism are made by some godthing. What I seem to regularly see instead, is an anti-climatic simple exasperation by these thinker\writers when they sum up a sound POV to deferring such to the word, g-o-d. So who plans on seeing the movie "Gladiator"? - 15:17:36 on 2 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I think the xians definately make it hard for us atheists to be "village people" (heh heh). If we aren't willing to conform to their "values", then they don't want us teaching their children, etc. But as far as wanting to reach out and help fellow man, look out for the environment, etc I think atheists are usually MORE concerned and giving. Realizing that this is the only life we have makes most of us want to make the best of it, for us AND those around us *I think*. - 19:03:03 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, Your list highlights a good portion of the arguments, but it's important to explain why creative change is different than all the others and why it's not exactly oppositely equal to any individual item. The difference with all of the other points is that they stem from material realism, a dualistic perspective, in one form or another. The atheistic or theistic materialism arguments negate any value to their own arguments with their respective interpretations of the value of one's free will and subjectivity, and therefore any emotions, thoughts, feelings, expressions, philosophies, and theories one may use to rationalize a materialist perspective. This is the duality of mind and matter. For example, the doctrine of atheist materialism declares that free will is an illusion because the human organism is merely a randomly conditioned sack of cells responding to it's environment - which makes the argument in the first place self-defeating to even argue. The doctrine of theistic materialism declares that an all-powerful being created everything, everything except free will - which is an automatic logical fallacy of an all-powerful Creator. So here we're really talking about a balance between what one feels and what one experiences in the world, and what happens outside of you - subjectivity/objectivity - which, inherently, all depends upon individual and collective interpretation anyway. In order to balance the two in a complete theory without contradiction to either reality, they both need equal consideration. This is the concept of monism - oneness. The consciousness monistic idealism, for example, accepts that our choices and decisions are actual first causal events based on an observable creatively changing universe. With a creatively changing structure to the universe, our use of consciousness even in our small ways sufficiently credits our experiences and thoughts and actions unconditionally as real and valuable occurrences, even if we humans are the only scale to judge it with. The idea is that if one were to conceive of a theory of reality, it wouldn't need any conditions to explain it. The universe being one whole entity deserves a single, monistic perception. With this in mind, here is the list I would make: - 21:13:19 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:DUALISM, which is highlighted by the concept Material Realism - a structureless and/or mysterious (non-interpretable) physical world principle, which by it's own definitions negates any subjectivity. (1) atheism - random coincidences of shifting atoms produces order vs. (2) theism - spirit or God maintained design. (2a) The Watchmaker theory - a "a non-self-reflexive catalyst " set in motion at one time, but otherwise left to it's mechanical self. ---VS. --- MONISM - a principle which clearly identifies a working structure of the physical universe that incorporates unconditional uses of inter- and subjectivity actions as part of the physical world. (1) Consciousness - a perception of a creatively changing, self-maintaining, self-explorative universal entity, with the human organism as a small self-reflexive model of itself vs. (2) String Theory - a universe comprised of infinitely reaching and invisibly small vibrating strings, which produce flexible order in the physical world. Everything from sound vibrations to probability patterns of electrons are theorized to be stemmed from these strings. ------ - 21:14:29 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, hopefully, you will see from this paragraph that the individual arguments are not so diametrically opposed as traditionally proposed. Being both derived of dualism, for example, the ideas of randomness and 'spirit' controlled all repeat the same things, only in different contexes and in different interpretations from each other- all under the guise of the same precept. These things all end up in petty differences and superficial pride. As for me, I'm an atheist of course, but because I accept the universe as it's own existence, not because I think things are random nor 'spirit' controlled. Atheism only applies to me when people ask me to fit into a category that they can understand based on their own traditions, and only then does this apply to me. And wherein an atheist materialist accepts that 'randomness' and 'coincidence' are satisfactory descriptions of physical world events, monism displaces these arbitrary, and really ignorant meanings with creative expressions and progressive forthcomings of a meaningful universe. Sure, it may sound flowery and excessive, but only after hundreds of years of materialist traditions. If you watch others in here they can't handle these ideas. They have no place in their way of thinking, and I never expected it to fit into their ways. I said that from the beginning. What's even more dense is that they treat these points as being offensive and unintelligible because they have set their sites on their own adopted ideals based on poor precepts. I guess it's easier to relate with offense than compassion when you're nothing but a random sack of cells! I look at it like this, we can look around and determine a world of separations and disagreements, or we can look and see how we all relate. We can clearly point to cultural materialism as the mistake here, because it's traditions teach to separate and individualize everything into categories and differences. When I talk about balancing, I use it in the sense that we learn from what we already know, including our mistakes, and then go on from there. - 21:15:42 on 2 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, It was so much fun, I think I need to buy another car the first of the year, ha! I got $350 towards another ticket in the Orlando airport when I gave up my seat because they overbooked. I was flying on my wife's free ticket anyway and I waited till they raised the offer from $250 to $350 before I inquired and accepted a flight to Fort Lauderdale, which was the same distance to the beach hotel as it was from Miami international, so I really lost little time. I experienced several things there for the first time. A man in rags digging through a dumpster refused money for food when I offered. I couldn't believe it when he groaned out something that sounded like a NO, so I offered again and he repeated himself without ever looking up! Spanish, not English, seemed to be the dominant language in most of the places I went and I had a problem communicating over the phone to some of the locals. Also the Jews on the street are all dressed in black with their big-rimed hats and all and are walking all up and down the streets in the evenings. They wouldn't speak to me (and I had my cloths on too, ha) when I said "HI" in passing on the street like the other people did. I couldn't figure where they were all going every night….my wife said later that they don't work and are studying the Tora, or something like that. They are family or State supported and Israel is upset with them. They are the Orthodox Jews (like fundamentalists) and are an obnoxious bunch indeed. The few Jews I know around here are a least social. Oh well, enough for now! - 21:20:40 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I don't know why my goings-on have so much affect on your personality in this room, unless we're dealing with some superiority or insecurity issue here. This is a public forum. Don't take so much offense. ---- In answer to your naggings, (1) I haven't had time to pursue other activities, which needs no other explanation, and (2) I sent the email to Skeptic three times, each time with an Error message reply back. This time it says something like incorrect room name or something. If they made it any easier for me, maybe I would have put some extra time aside. In the meantime go watch some TV. I'm not going to fix my schedule around yours. And what's with this him/her his/her Betty stuff? Cool it with the conspiracy mumbo jumbo. You've turned from discussion member to annoying sidekick. I don't use the phrase 'bitch slap' simply because it sounds nice. I'm all woman, and can be prim and proper, but when things turn ugly I don't take any shit. My life doesn't revolve around this room or your expectations. What I find amusing, dear, is that I can walk away anytime and you'll still be holding your head up high, proud no one took the Queen Bitch title away from you this time.... - 21:43:51 on 2 May 100 GMT

Carl:BILL: 'Studying the tora' isn't it amazing what the human mind can focus on and totally disregard anything or even everything else but! Its kinda like the BETTY player here, hell not one of us is arguing or denying anything! We've a question or two, o'course and thats it. Its nice that he\she has some opinions and who don't, but she/he seems so focused on some chosen preference, that nothing and nobody else really counts. She just like those old jews, if you said to them that you had some questions on the truths in their sources, then they could have or would have wanted to "Teach-you" their or the truth. Isn't that amazing how these "truths" shut out others and make some few the better? - 21:57:51 on 2 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: is that what truth is supposed to do? - 22:00:40 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Bill, I'm putting your silly panderings aside. I've got enough kids already, so thank you very much. As to your question, I have already addressed this in a paragraph to Rob: "What consciousness creates death (which we consider bad)? What rational consciousness would create this duplicity? Is the consciousness responsible for entropy?" ---- First of all a self-contained universal entity explained without unnecessary conditions would only have one existence. And a transcending creatively changing consciousness entity would only have one function: to maintain it's existence; it's neither rational nor irrational as a universal trait. To have conflicting underlying properties would surely cause some sort of imbalance; an imbalance on universal scale would inhibit any ability to maintain itself and force a collapse. With one consciousness there is one function. The things we call 'bad' (such as death and entropy) are merely local interpretations of the entire process, and are not themselves equivocal to a full undersstanding of the process. The rest comes from my post to Rob: ---- "...Think of universal creativity as the opposite of void, with mechanism somewhere inbetween. A creative entity always has something going on, but because it 'seems to be' entirely self-contained it has nowhere to discard or poof things out of existence other then to let them slowly fade away out of the way for the new forms with better circumstances. This doesn't imply preference, however. In any constantly changing circumstantial entity, everything is related to one another through the principle of non-locality, and the circumstances leading to the rise of a new form is bound to force an opposite reaction elsewhere otherwise balance cannot be maintained and the entity itself will suffer some sort of collapse." Think of the universe, for a sec, as the contents of a balloon of sorts, being entirely self-contained. If one part of it becomes imbalanced completely, the whole thing is destroyed. This requires a holistic conception as I've explained. Some things die, in order for some things to live, so that the whole process continues. That's about as basic as it gets, but I'd be happy to continue discussing this with you. - 22:14:29 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene...aren't you full of it :BETTY- I knew you'd come up with some lame excuse, typical! Maybe you should go watch tv. Walk away Betty, I won't miss you, smirk! - 22:15:57 on 2 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: Why do people want to do this, you ask? Because SUV's are roomy and can go anywhere, of course. - 22:19:16 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, As to "hell not one of us is arguing or denying anything!" I beg to differ. As to teaching "their truths", hun, you still don't get it. My argument, my position is positive relativism. And my arguments are that if one intends to argue their "truths" with any real meaning, they need solid foundations for arguments sake, including establishing that relativity, or our "truths" are our own. Determinism, and therefore, materialists argue with haphazard skill that "truth" is relative to a physical reality. If you think I'm especially biased, or 'focused' on some chosen preference, you still don't get it. We all are, but the trick is to find ways instead to illustrate the similarities, by exposing the faults in picking out superifical differences. What is truth? It's whatever we want it to be. Even if you think you don't agree with me, you are. See what I mean? If you say no, you're still 'focusing' on looking for differences. Either way the truth is exposed; it's what we want it to be. - 22:31:05 on 2 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: When I bought our SUV, they only asked for a down payment, not a cavity search (talk about credit check.... OK I'll stop). I'm a psychiatric nurse practitioner and director of nursing. People do new behaviors for a myriad of reasons, pick one. 1) thrill/adrenaline rush 2)boredom and need for stimulus (or stimulation as the case may be) 3)mid life crisis 4)curiosity 5)actual danger seeking 6)spontaneity 7)attention seeking 8) hooters 9) shock value 10)revenge 11) self expression 12)too many margueritas. 13) penile exuburance (you have to mention penis or else Freud would roll over in his sexist grave). Sounds like you had a blast. - 22:35:06 on 2 May 100 GMT

Rob: :Betty: Thanks for the feedback. - 22:36:48 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Marlene provides a good example. She wanted to believe something to differentiate herself from me, and then looked for ways to back it up. We all do it in one way or another. That's how we find our 'truths'. Thanks, Marlene, for the example. Regardless, if I can find time I'll make my way to that room. No promises were ever implied. - 22:37:10 on 2 May 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: I for one got already have it, as far as I can tell some of the others have it to, you are the only one here with a chip on the shoulder. Questions to you it seems are the enemy, or your enemy. You say nothing I've not seen said better elsewhere. - 22:38:15 on 2 May 100 GMT

Bill..:BETTY, CARL, ROB, Thanks for your responses; I'll have to respond later; the wife's making me go to a dinner thingie; the dress is casual, so i guess i'll go, since i'm a casual kinda guy, i think! - 22:39:43 on 2 May 100 GMT

Bill..:Rob, haha! - 22:40:48 on 2 May 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, No prob. I might be away for a bit while I plan my daughter's wedding. I should really take a week or two, but I'll keep an ear in here every now and then. Peace to you. Take care. - 22:41:23 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene..You're so obvious!:BETTY- BTW notice any one else treating you like you're Miss Congeniality? Not Grant, I'm sure after you accusing him of being "dense". Actually your bitch title belongs to you whether you be male or female. You call ME a bitch when I ask you for evidence or ask that you preach your beliefs (which are decorated up with scientific words) in front of actual scientists. You sound just like any other nutcase theist that comes here EXPECTING an accepting audience. You get shot down and then you get hostile. Like I said, typical. - 23:00:33 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL-This is the page to access the Skeptic mailing list from. Poor sweet Betty couldn't seem to subscribe so the whole procedure is right here. Of course if someone is on a troll list or spam list they will be rejected. - 23:10:52 on 2 May 100 GMT

Rob::Betty/open: Here is my understanding of your view, picture a line drawn on paper with atheism and theism endpoints and monistic idealism, in the middle: [atheism/randomness/matter...........monistic idealism/one universal entity..........theism/mind/spirit world] on a one dimensional polarized line in which monistic idealism is a centralized belief, in that it incorporates the universe as a mind/matter/one entity whole. (ie your reaction to death was that the ONE universe does not die only transforms), the one dying may not wish to make that contribution to the universe, I'll bet. I'd ask you to consider for a moment this construct as a TWO dimensional illustration in which a mid point is set OFF the central point (creating, in essence, a triangle). I agree that a strictly held 'all we can know comes from matter'/ materialism would be an end point and that the theistic 'all we have/can know is from the spirit world and is thus, god originated' at the other. Now, set a point OUT OFF the midline so that lines drawn to it from the atheism and theism endpoints create a triangle. The triangle would represent the INTER-RELATIONSHIP between mind and body, man and environment, world and universe. (Another example would be cojoined interlocking circles with subsets) You do not need to believe that everything is ONENESS, to deny the idiosyncracies of either endpoint of atheism or theism. Again, WHAT the universe is needs to be understood by HOW it works. The 'universal consciousness' you describe appears to be a universal UNCONSCIOUSNESS (man excluded). I still don't see any reason why this version has any more (or less) validity than atheism or theism. Where are the indicators or proofs for this view? - 23:35:01 on 2 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- LOL! Yes, those Jews just may have been booted out of Israel because they were opposing the Palestinian settlements. Imagine them just brushing you off like that and you were even nice enough not to disrobe! Maybe next time, use the wife's curling iron and get yourself one of those wild looking hats, you may get a shalom out of them. Otherwise it sounds like you had a fine time! - 0:10:15 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- One doesn't need to prove a negative. Atheism doesn't not accept god, gods or the tooth fairy. Atheism says that there is no evidence of a god so it stands to reason there is no god. The same as there is no evidence that a cosmic consciousness exists so it stands to reason that a cosmic consciousness does not exist. Yes the believers will try to reverse the whole thing and say, prove it doesn't but that means shit. But in an effort to do just that Vic Stenger will be coming out with a new book with a title that goes something like, evidence against god. He's already written a book on the quantum quackery that Betty holds dear. - 0:20:07 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- An example would be, a psychologist says..homosexuality is "caused" by bossy mothers. I would say as a person who doesn't accept this statement..there is no evidence to back this statement up. The onus isn't on me to prove that homosexuality isn't caused by bossy mothere, the onus is on the psychologist that's made that extraordinary claim. - 0:26:17 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I know this atheist does for others but I'm not sure all atheists do. We could have in the village, an atheist who's a robber, an atheist who's a recluse and indulges in old films and books and couldn't care less what goes on in the world around him and we could have an atheist who runs a shelter for those in need. We could replace the word atheist with theist in each of those instances and this could be true too. I don't think atheism or theism for that matter has anything to do with the morality of the village. Being atheist, though is still not acceptable in the village. Why? - 1:05:21 on 3 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, because the only way to keep people willingly captives in religion is to convince them that people outside that sphere are BAD. If the outside is shown to be just as pleasant as the inside, who would stay inside all the time?! They must FEAR the outside to willingly stay cooped up. - 2:26:10 on 3 May 100 GMT

Cristy:Just came back from a "girl's night out" and one good friend is a pretty holy-rollin' Catholic. She was talking about when they moved into their first house and were short on $$, they prayed their heads off and lo and behold, her dh got a raise! Then they moved to a bigger house, needed money again, and lo and behold, another raise. I was laughing to myself because her dh works with mine and I wanted to say SO BADLY "hey dh got those raises too and we never prayed one iota". Heck, every programmer in the company got them! I'm sure those prayers did the trick. heh heh - 2:28:46 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I had to LOL at that prayer thing. I use to go to the local cafe for coffee in the morning and normally met a lady there. If just the two of us were alone, she wouldn't talk religion because she knew I was atheist and that I knew my bible. I'd always end up winning when discussing the "truths" in the thing. But if another couple of ladies came in, they's start with the prayer thing. They prayed for fridges and cars and even if their husbands were going to take them out for dinner. I'd sit and have my coffee, trying not to laugh. You'd think they would feel absolutely ridiculous but then again, they made up the majority of our little village. I wasn't about to leave though. - 2:54:12 on 3 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Things invisible, such whatevers sure do let a person at the very least carry on and all, no? It appears that once one "understands" that invisible whatever, be it some godthing or a cosmological consciousness, then one isn't really a mere human anymore! It looks one becomes, via that god or consciousness thing, the "next" kinda'whatever form or thing o'existence. In the glee of this experience all one wants to do is tell others about the wonderfulness of this invisible thing, for best of all it was right there, the whole time! There is only one thing that is best of all and it has to be gotten and enjoyed, as often as possible. - 15:29:05 on 3 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: I'm with you on the burden of proof is on the theists,certainly. " If you assert something exists, where's the proof." The fly in the ointment however, is when people seek an explanation for their existence, source, reason, etc. ....they attribute the unknown , to god to relieve the cognitive dissonance of life. An example which demonstrates the need to prove a negative is, disease. Many people have the need to prove cancer, for example , does not exist in them. Hold up, I know that sounds like faulty logic because cancer is a REAL disease and as such,MAY exist in them and god is not a proven, like cancer. My point is that of PERCEPTION. Because atheists live in a theist world, they sometimes feel the need to refute such claims. Regarding the issue of CAN you prove a negative. In the strictist sense, no. (Technically, you cannot prove that zero cancerous cells exist with certainty, but through testing you can certify, with a high probablity, that there is no cancer in a patient. Patients pay millions of dollars annually for that high probability assurance. - 16:56:22 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Maybe it's a matter of words and the proper structure of a sentence in the cancer question. One can be tested for the existence of cancer cells because cancer cells exist and have been found in humans before. I don't think this would be considered a negative. - 17:25:34 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Once again perception can be one's own understanding of something which could be very subjective and has obviously proven to be. - 17:30:06 on 3 May 100 GMT

Bush/religious rt. info:....FYI, Cristy - 18:35:35 on 3 May 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Is that really the way of TX? That is the environment from which GW Bush has wriggled? Is that the future of the USA? Will that be the future in general? Is that what the 95% really thoughtfully see and behavior they will accept as leading to allowing the formation of good morals? Isn't the living experience in and of all much grander and greater than the whippings and negative deeds that those kinds of people want, a better source for forming and developing ones morals? The wanna'be next prez, eh? - 19:07:35 on 3 May 100 GMT

VERY irreverant!:I thought this take on "The Church Lady's" advice letters were hilarious! - 19:11:22 on 3 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN1: Wow! From the views of the BETTY known here to those reported of the that TX article, and still its reported that 95% o'people say yes to an invisible whatever? Does it mean that such desires "for" an invisible whatever indicate the human organism is in a sorry a most regrettible state? Is this really true, or just the human animal? Or, is this the future? - 19:51:04 on 3 May 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, Texas is one of the states that have passed legislation guaranteeing your right to hit your child. I don't doubt this was done under the Bush administration. Teach the kids to be non-violent by beating the crap out of them! Personally I think that just teaches them that it's OK to hit if you are bigger and stronger (and not that I'm so holier-than-thou that I haven't resorted to spanking one of mine when at the end of my rope, but I don't want to be that way). Bush really is promoting a non-violent future for us huh...right to carry concealed weapons and right to hit your kids guaranteed here! - 19:51:43 on 3 May 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy/open: that article is another spooky example of the thought police in action. Some of you may remember the example I gave in the past about the christian homeless shelter that received federal funds, but would only help homeless people if they pledged their allegiance to jesus! I wanted to let you know that after one and a half years of attempting to get our patients off the wards for active treatment programming, we had our FIRST day today for our long term patients. As recently as yesterday team members were finding reasons why it wouldn't work, paients wouldn't go (we had 100% turnout), refuse group activities with violence (no incidents), wouldn't participate (all were active). Our next goal is developing wards with more freedoms, some would prefer to keep the mentally ill down. - 21:28:57 on 3 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe in beating one's child but being a parent that didn't spank, I think my kids could have used one once in awhile. I disagree that spanking is teaching a child violence. I think that's a lot of pop psychology but beatings may be a different story. I got my share of spankings as a child and I sure as hell didn't turn out violent, in fact just the opposite. To give a spank (not a beating) when all else fails is likely the proper thing to do. It's quick, to the point and the pain leaves a lasting impression on what the child and what he was doing at the time to deserve it. As far as carrying weapons of any kind...I don't think that is neccessary in most of North America. I know it's not legal here, thank gawd! - 21:30:35 on 3 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: you restated the point I already made, its how you define negative and the example of cancer is a little lame in that we know cancer exists, god is not a given. My point however was that even though you can't PROVE a negative (i.e. total absence of a knwon, you can produce a high PROBABILTIY, which is reassuring to some. - 21:34:52 on 3 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: As a survivor of severe childhood abuse, I draw the line at only parents using corporal punishment, think it should be a last resort, done only when calm and when considered necessary by loving parents. I have worked with tens of people who were abused by baptist minister type fathers who used the bible's lunacy to justify excessive violence against kids. That being said, sometimes only a spanking worked when my kids were small. - 21:46:55 on 3 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, CARL: I'm not sure if the Miami Orthodox Jews were kicked out of Israel for opposing the Palestinians or because they lost their ability to rock and nod at the Waling Wall….maybe that's why they have such a hard time nodding and speaking on the streets, ha! Carl you mentioned something about the Jews wanting to "Teach-you" the Truth, but from what my wife says, they don't want to even talk to you or recruit you at all. Us Gentiles are just not the "chosen" race, just the "genteel" race, and are not worthy in their eyes! They only want to increase their numbers within their own race. The Jehovah Witnesses are just the opposite (can't shut them up) so I have a solution: Ship and equal number of these Witty-nesses to Miami so that through random encounters the Orthodox Jewish Fun-dies might, like the matter/anti-matter thing, just "poof" and "annihilate" into a more useful form of energy! Actually I'm being silly here, and of course referring to the extremist Jews, for some of the greatest minds and entertainers are Jews; however, I am pressed to say the same for the JW's, ha! - 0:27:17 on 4 May 100 GMT

Bill..:ROB, So now I know why people do the nudity thing and you know most applied to me! 1) Thrill – I was when no one threw anything at me or called me honey! 2) Need for stimulation – My focus has never been better. 3) Mid life crisis – Doesn't apply, as I've been in one since puberty! 4) Curiosity – I wonder if they can tell my gender….the water was kinda cool you know….excuses, excuses! 5) Danger seeking – Yep, while swimming I had flashbacks of my "trolling for fish" days and using live worms while fishing on my grandmothers' creek. 6) Spontaneity – What the HELL did I just do!!! I can't put them back on now…..I'm a man you know, and I'll never ask for directions and admit I made a wrong turn! 7) Attention seeking – Didn't work for me, ha! 8) Hooters – Yep….Red ones….I recommend using at least sun block 15 or above in places your not use to using it on….remembering that you'll spend 3x the amount of time laying on your stomach….i can't imagine why. 9) Shock value – Yep, kids went screaming to their mommas when I walk by. 10) Revenge – My wife would never let me do this at family reunions. 11) Self expression – Very little here, to the point of almost not applying. 12) Too many marguerites – Nope! Too many cheap beers. 13) Penile exuberance -- Might have been true if I could have picked the 95% to eliminate! Cheers to those who drink cheap beer! - 0:29:12 on 4 May 100 GMT

Bill..:BETTY, You're right, I was being silly and my babies (both boys) have recently graduated from college and are now working as Engineers in Atlanta. We were there a week and a half ago visiting and my neck is just now healing up from going on some of the fastest and newest rides at Six Flags Over Georgia….you gotta try the BATMAN! It hurt to turn my head while being lost in downtown Miami driving around or just looking on the beach, ha! My wife has suggested adopting a little girl, but we are going to just mentor one (6 to 12 yrs old), for a least a year, from a single-family home. The social worker is going to pick one out that supposedly fits our family situation. The oldest was married last year in my back yard at sunset, so I know what you are going through right now….hahahahahha….sorry! Concerning your post to me, I can relate to some of what you say like the universe being a self-contained entity. Hawkins has theorized that the universe may have been a self-creating entity with no "point source" beginning but rather a "curve source" beginning. Opps, got to finish this later as "Who wants to be a Millionaire" and Rosy O'Donald is on and I'll finish this later….bye! - 0:34:15 on 4 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I was going to post to you too but it's time for "Who wants to be a Millionaire" here too, BTW you got Rosie's last name wrong! No wonder those Jews shunned you! I want Raymond to get into the hot seat, anyhoo, gotta go ! - 1:01:22 on 4 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- The burden of proof is with the more extraordinary claim, whether positive or negative. No matter what the degree of probability, this still isn't hard evidence. BTW, I agree with your comments on spanking. I know of a family who's father used the belt in god's name, horrible! - 1:54:52 on 4 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I believe the mentally ill are treated very well here in the GWN. As many people as possible are living in group homes or personal homes and working if they can. I know of one lady who has a daughter who is mentally normal. I haven't seen this lady for a couple of years but her daughter would now be in her teens. Anyway, through programs, the lady was able to live on her own with her daughter and raise her. My partner's uncle lived in a group home for 15 years and worked full time. Most people who are on meds receive therapy as well. If you don't mind me asking, which state are you in and is the healthcare of the mentally ill there a state responsibility or is it a federal one? I had a huge argument with a lady who is running a program here for mentally disabled people. When it was time to vote, she wanted to go into the booth with all the people she had under her program. It's illegal to do so for more than three people in the first place and in the second place , I suspect this lady was influencing their vote. Anyway I made it clear that as long as the voters understood how to mark the ballot and they were capable of understanding the names and parties on the ballot they could do so themselves. I was the DRO at the time. This election year, she applied for and got the RO job. None of the people under her program went to vote at their designated poll. They ALL voted at the returning office when she was present. You wouldn't believe how much this pisses me off. Bad enough this lady has three of these people living in her yard in a junky old trailer out the back and that they do all the housework and yard work, to top it off she uses them to cast votes. SO..although I think our handicapped people here have more freedom and care, we need to be more careful of who we allow to run these programs. Many people get all gushy about how caring this lady is when her and her husband are living quite well off these people and using them to boot. - 3:05:04 on 4 May 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: When pondering the recent topics of discussion here from a wide perspective[a perspective is all that we have of all, and it ain't bad] they seemingly have one concern, the human organism and its relations. Those who favor a religious significance of or for that relationship appear to be in a serious backpedal. That, especially in the USA. Why else the recent topic of 'family values' and nuclear family concern as favorable to single-parenting? I recall an article authored by a psychologist who seemed to link "atheism" from some oedipus idea to some faulty father thing to atheism, which the psychological cry that "god is dead" is the concluding expression. The father figure it said, is the family deal maker in the western-religious and societal view [None of these ideas were a concern when I was involved with the herd, hmmm?] The foremost problem of invisible things, as creators and cosmological consciousness, they do not move and are in no time. I and all I know move in time, how does one determine morality of such whatevers? Morals are important to the all of human relations. Then there are the machines of the article that, are such things the future? - 16:25:11 on 4 May 100 GMT

Franz:Its ok to be an atheist. We should not feel bad to be different from other people.All my life ive feel like an outcast for not believing in god or whatever. Ive finally realised its ok to be an atheist. - 17:18:59 on 4 May 100 GMT

Carl:FRANZ: Was it some particular event that brought you to the realisation 'atheism' is ok? If yes, that must have been a very weighty event which in its very transpiring and wake, whatever you knew before, became meaningless. Is that about how it came to be that now you "accept" the expression that atheism is ok, thats interesting. - 18:27:33 on 4 May 100 GMT

Cristy:FRANZ, AMEN! *g* - 20:31:04 on 4 May 100 GMT

Marlene:FRANZ-It's not only okay to be an atheist, it's likely more reasonable, healthy and comfortable. You'll enjoy life more knowing this is the only one you got and you'll die with the peace of mind that you won't be jumping the brimstone fires with Mother T. - 2:01:46 on 5 May 100 GMT

Bill...finally got time to respond...:BETTY, As I was saying, I don't have a problem looking at the universe as a closed, self-creating, interconnected system as you seem to describe when you talk in terms of a balloon. In fact they just recently found the missing matter (based on the big bang theory) in the universe that they suspected was tied up in black holes. It seems that its really ubiquitous, in the form of hydrogen I think, throughout this supposed "empty space" but is so thin that telescopes have in the past just seen right through it. Despite it's thinness in space, this missing matter makes up more than all the organized rest that we have previously identified. Concerning your post to Rob, me, and others, I think I have two areas of concern, for now, about your paradigm. 1-Your concept of entropy (death) seems to be for the good of this creative consciousness (of which there is only ONE, right?) so it can continue to create and, as you say, *** let them slowly fade away out of the way for the new forms with better circumstantial entity. *** In other words, with universal consciousness and organization we have death of the old to make way for the new and better organized cluster. Since there's nowhere for the old to go, it has to deteriorate and be absorbed, right? I still don't see how this consciousness would organize, organize, and organize, to produce higher intelligence say over thousands/millions of years and then produce and asteroid to destroy it all to create a better circumstance. There are TWO determinants at work here and not just ONE as you seem to suggest, IMO. 2- How can you associate "consciousness" with the universe? Consciousness is a word related to a brain (animal or human IMO) that is self aware to some degree on a macro level of existence. Sub-consciousness is also a word related to a brain with the capability of having consciousness. Awareness, however, can be related to the universe, as it doesn't require a brain. A jellyfish is a sack of cells and nerves that has awareness of its environment but no "brain" and no sense of "identity" and no sense of "time" and no possibility of "consciousness." Moving on down the evolutionary chain, and also on a "micro level," a tree may have "awareness" and exist as a living cellular cluster with no sense that it's a tree and no consciousness. A trees' "present state" micro awareness probably blends with other cellular clusters (organizations), air molecules etc., and is interconnected to all micro particles in the universe. This micro awareness is probably similar, and very much the same, throughout the universe. Its probably a pure, timeless, but positively creative and changing, "present" state of existence and awareness with no ability to identify, rationalize, conceptualize, or perform any other brain function such as "consciousness." Universal "micro awareness," YES (via gravity and micro interconnectivity). Universal "consciousness" NO. Since humans have evolved and become more complex clusters (sack of cells, ha!) over millions of years and since they have pasted through this "micro awareness" state of existence (fetus) in their lifetimes, they posses the ability to rediscover or re-experience this micro state of awareness. This is the goal of those who meditate. Lastly, sorry this is so long, you ask once *** Is order and form an illusion of human consciousness or can someone justifiably explain how something without structure and foundation produces order. *** Order and form IMO are not illusions of human consciousnesses but rather a "function" of human consciousness. There is no form or identity without consciousness as it's a macro level (brain related) conceptualization for the purposes of improving the odds that our particular cellular clusters or organizations will survive longer as a unit. This is getting too long and this seems to be my current thinking on these subjects and is only my subjective observation/experience, so I could be wrong! How's the wedding going anyway? - 2:04:08 on 5 May 100 GMT

Grant:This ought to be good- pantheism versus collective conciousness. Maybe we can come up with a Mormon and a Baptist next. - 3:45:12 on 5 May 100 GMT

Grant:CARL -- Finally got time to look at the sites you linked the other day. The Wired one is very interesting. The 'very irreverant' one is really funny. - 12:44:32 on 5 May 100 GMT

Carl:BILL: Thats a dandy fine piece o'writin'ya'll strung out. I suspect the response will be a shift by BETTY to maintain a role o'being a teacher. I suppose that is an ok deal in that it beats the heck out o'listening and simply accepting someone interpreting the writings of old for us. I'd bet we all have and find certain pleasures at sharing with others what and how we experience things. I found this passage said by Nettelbladt of a theory of his begins,"the entire world of human groups is dipicted as developing, in an uninterrupted series, from the one conception of societas: but that conception itself- in spite of differentiation of form through which it passes, and the constant enrichment which it acquires, in the course of his exposition- never gets beyond the limits of individualism." The concluding word individualism, that was is and will always be a very difficult idea to deal with. Our 'fren' BETTY apparently has the opinion the "a-theistic" mind is a choice for the disjunctive. That, it seems to me, is my why for what she seems to project on us few here. Dare it be thought BETTY for whatever reasons has connected a spiritualism to theism that she says, here, is in error. I guess BETTY figgers too, since we here say we're agin'a godthing, we are guilty by association of the same spiritual-error. I don't know for sure about you nor any of the others here, but I don't resist or battle against a nothing. The all of that now present, is more than enough to enjoy. - 16:18:23 on 5 May 100 GMT

Bill..:CARL, I experienced one more "first" for me in Miami. I encountered an Albino Orthodox Jew……. Yep, out of about 200 or so that I must have seen in three days there he was the only one with a "white" big-rimed hat on! Do you suppose he was the "Grand Marshall?" I am from the south here, so I hope he wasn't the "Grand Wizard" of the JJJ's (Joyless Jew Junkies). White caps can portend scary things you know, ha! Well, I gotta go out again now to some cook-out relay race or something like that and then overtime tomorrow to another plant to help solve to problems, so I'll be back Sunday…..take care! - 22:15:36 on 5 May 100 GMT

Lori:I have just found this page and find the conversation to be fascinating. I've had questions about religion since I was a child growing up in a Pentecostal religion. My family is horrified that I do not belive in god and I feel like such an outcast. I need some conversation w/ other intelligent, freethinking people! - 10:45:19 on 6 May 100 GMT

Lori:I don't have a computer of my own (I want one so bad!) so I don't know when I'll be able to check back but this will certainly be my first stop when I get back online. Look for me soon to join this enlightening conversation. - 10:50:13 on 6 May 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, LORI, and welcome. - 11:51:52 on 6 May 100 GMT

Michelle:HI everyone, Though I haven't posted before, I just wanted to let you know that this is a most interesting place. Bill, you are a hoot! - 2:28:01 on 7 May 100 GMT

Grant:Hi, MICHELLE. This place is sometimes a bit dead on weekends. Stick around. - 4:02:40 on 7 May 100 GMT

Marlene:HI MICHELLE and LORI- Welcome! - 4:02:51 on 7 May 100 GMT

Gipson:Another atheist pops into the discussion board and says "hi!" - 12:43:51 on 7 May 100 GMT

Rob::Greetings to all of you. - 12:52:43 on 7 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill the nudist: I with ya , I agree that people throw around collective consciousness as if to imply a singular awareness in the heavens, yet most are quick to deny that is what they mean. If so, its a misnomer. Collective unconsciousness doesn't make sense either. How about uncollective unconsciousness? Man has an unconscious (not subconscious), its a cool defense for sleep walking murderers and such, but does not show intent or awareness for the rest of us. Someones reading a book here referring to man as having 'self-consciousness', (I thought thats what you probably had in a throng of nudists). Next we'll hear how the universe has self consciousness. Can you imagine the universe saying, "Do you think I'm getting fat"..... - 13:05:48 on 7 May 100 GMT

Marlene:YIKES ROB! Haven't you been reading what Betty has been posting??? She says the universe IS conscious... - 13:24:15 on 7 May 100 GMT

Bill..:ROB, Yea, I like the "uncollective unconsciousness" idea which is a state of "semi-awareness" that allows one to spread their stuff around without "conscience." Of course cheep beer always helps to set the stage for this state of mind, mitigating any sense of "self-consciousness." Man has no conscience (especially when confronted with sexual situations), as you probably know from your studies of Freud, and I am reminded of the joke my wife told a co-worker about the elephant meeting the naked man in the woods. *** The elephant looked down at the naked man and said "cute, but can you breath through it?" Of course my wife's co-worker friend quickly chimed in and said, "No, but he can think with it!!!" *** hahaha! Rob, we men are so stereotyped you know and like many labeled ones, we continue to perpetuate these myth, ha! Why, I don't know! Do you think we need some sort of "collective therapy? " - 14:23:19 on 7 May 100 GMT

Bill..:BETTY, I hope you aren't doing to your husband like my wife does to me. When my oldest boy got married last year in my back yard, my wife had me remodeling the whole durn house, for the previous year prior to the wedding, including new furniture! This week she killed ALL my overtime money on an expensive political dinner (in which some woman stuck my middle finger with her diamond ring when I shook her hand) and on a charity "cancer" relay for life donation and fundraiser. Mind you it wasn't too bad getting stuck in the finger, but now I am reminded of this event every time I shoot someone the "bird"….hahaha! I'm just curious Betty…….. Who wears the pants in your family……or is it a "collective" sort of thing….hahaha? I can personally attest to the fact that there are two ways to argue with my wife, but neither one works! Who ever said that marriage is a fifty-fifty proposition doesn't know the half of it. But if I had any fatherly acumen, that I might take the liberty to gratuitously champion to my boy (he's a lot like me), I would have to say that, "Some men are born with a "conscience" and other's just marry them"…..hahaha! Ahhhh yes, marriage is entering into a holy institution……but why is it called an "institution" anyway Betty? Sooo many questions and sooo little time, so I won't hold you to answers if your too busy…..I know what your going through! Actually I am only joking around here and my wife knows first HAND of my marriage BLISS…..ters! Cheers! - 14:25:34 on 7 May 100 GMT

Bill..:ROB, Of course, in reference to my statement above about man having "no conscience" when confronted with "sexual" situations, I've been told that it's a biological thing….you see we men not only have one less rib, we have one less pint of blood in our systems, compared to women, and when we become sexually aroused there's a quick exit of blood from our brains to "you know where" and there's not enough blood left to allow for any real sense of rational thought! What do you think Rob? Have you ever heard of this theory? - 14:42:28 on 7 May 100 GMT

Bill..:Welcome to all the new people!! - 14:44:21 on 7 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: collect-ive therapy for men, I believe thats called alimony. - 21:30:51 on 7 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: We are less something , but its not a rib man. Be careful, don't get truncated. Don't you mean rationalizing thought. Dug your 13 reasons men streak-bit. Heard of this theory? yeah, it's 'busted at the door at 3 a.m.'. - 21:40:39 on 7 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: Freud was a perv. - 21:42:46 on 7 May 100 GMT

Betty:Hey, everyone. Nice to see some new posters here. Marlene, thanks for the website address. I'll try "hooking up" from there. Believe it or not, but as posted, your instructions are not sufficient. - 23:06:33 on 7 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY-Characteristically some people couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag. - 0:05:47 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB&BILL- Freud is a has been in more ways than one, thank gawd! - 0:22:42 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene ..collect-tive therapy swings both ways:ROB- Hooooo-LD on thar! There are a whole lot of women out there paying alimony too. - 0:25:35 on 8 May 100 GMT

Michelle:To all of you, I am not in sync with the ongoing conversation so forgive me if my comments seem out there. I decided to post after watching this site(suggested by someone I met). Thanks for the welcome. What topic are we on anyway? I haven't read all the histories as I can't get on this thing very often. I just usually check my email and off I go! Does anyone care to reiterate a short life story? or is that taboo? - 1:26:32 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MICHELLE- Sure! Born.. raised in a slightly religious home.. had to attend church when mom did.. hated it.. never bought the dogma... now a aging white female and still not buying the dogma.. likely will go to the grave not buying it. BTW, there really isn't a topic we actually concentrate on. Anything you want to post relating to or not relating to previous post is just fine. BTW..the person who suggested this page..would it be anyone we know or is that taboo? - 1:36:44 on 8 May 100 GMT

Michelle:Marlene- Sounds like my life...except mom told me at the little old age of 12 that if I didn't want to go anymore, she wouldn't make me...Needless to say, I haven't stepped foot in a church in a very LONG time. I hope its not verboten but I am an agnostic, not an atheist. But I am ok with that even if others aren't. Don't worry, I am not going to push my beliefs on anyone...its just nice to feel comfortable with mine. It took along time to come to that place in myself. So would anyone else like to say a little something about themselves...oh, your question about the person who suggested mm...I am asking them about it right now. If you don't mind..I will tell shortly. - 1:55:40 on 8 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I think Michelle is the same person that I met in training (right Michelle?) not long ago and we had some interesting conversations on the JW's and I suggested this chat as an escape from the closed minded society we live and work in! - 2:32:34 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MICHELLE and BILL- Great! Speaking of JW's did you watch the X-Files tonight. They were riding around the neighbourhood on bikes bothering everyone, lol! - 2:40:46 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Speaking of nutty religion...is anyone planning to see _Battlefield Earth_? I read the book and I actually liked it. I wonder if any of the proceeds from the movie will go toward funding Hubbard's church? - 2:44:05 on 8 May 100 GMT

Bill..:No, I see enough JW's, as I work with one, and if Michelle wants she can vent her frustrations here. Occasionally I like just cornering one or playing with them, but usually just live and let live. - 2:44:50 on 8 May 100 GMT

Lori:MICHELLE, I am a newcomer here, too, and I wouldn't mind sharing life stories. I'm 26 and grew up with Pentacostal religion shoved in my face. My grandparents were very hard-core but my parents were just looking for what they believed. They are now Christians and they are horrified that I do not believe in their "god". They say I'm going to hell! They are both intelligent people, too! They just really believe in god! Thank goodness I met a man who believes almost exactly how I do! Here in Kentucky, I have yet to find any friends who agree with me. That's why I've been looking here for interesting conversation. - 4:28:37 on 8 May 100 GMT

PETER:Lori--This will be no problem, just as long you avoid Bill and his tiresome panderings. Just kidding Bill. Well, sort of kidding - 7:25:26 on 8 May 100 GMT

Lori:I really want to ask the question of how can people who call themselves intelligent NOT question the bible and christianity? Most of it just doesn't make sense to me! There are so many unanswered questions, how can we just be expected to blindly believe, or have FAITH, as my parents argue? Especially when their god is so vengeful and mean? - 8:35:20 on 8 May 100 GMT

Lori:I just want to know how people who call themselves intelligent can NOT question the bible and christianity, even other organized religions? My parents think my 9th grade biology class "turned me" when I learned about evolution. I try to explain that I believe what makes sense to me and not what people tell me to believe! I have had questions since I was old enough to read the children's Bible Stories books you find in the doctor's office. I thought how can Noah fit all those animals on that boat? How can god create all this all by himself, in 6 days? everyone I know has the "fear of God" so bad they will not even entertain my thoughts and questions on the subject. I can only believe what I feel is right. My parents say I have to have faith. They say they are so sure god exists b/c they know him, have a relationship w/ him. Then why don't I? I am wide open for the truth, whatever it is. I don't know yet, but I am desperately searching... - 8:49:37 on 8 May 100 GMT

Lori: I just read the Frequently Asked Questions and Arguement Page and I truly feel like I am "home". I've been feeling so passionate about this issue in the past few years but my family, except my husband, all look at me differently now after they have learned how I feel. But I stand firm b/c it feels right. Does anyone want to talk about it? I know you've all been here for a long time and you may have moved on to deeper conversation, but I'd like to catch up. I actually think this issue is very deep and profound. Who shares my passion for the truth? - 9:41:21 on 8 May 100 GMT

Michelle:Bill and to all of you, Yep that's me. Bill and I met at a training session for our company and he figured out I would be opened minded about things that some others would not. We live in the Bible belt and sometimes it gets so old to hear the constant barrage of "christians". I have already told Bill this but at work I don't participate in those "opening prayers"(just stand there WITHOUT head bowed. I don't agree that they should even be there, but it got a number of comments before they accpeted the fact that I wasn't going to go along with it). It feels good to be myself...besides, I just Know others in those meetings don't believe in it either but just go along with it in order not to stand out. - 10:53:14 on 8 May 100 GMT

Carl:MICHELLE: No or yes to a godthing for the everday Jane or Joe blow, I am inclined to say is at the bottom of their list of daily concerns. It is so low that its actually one of those blow-off concerns, a thoughtless 'yea!' response is all such needs. Serious thought of first cause, ever so easily takes one far away from the xian stuff. The religious xian types grab onto the coat tales of such thoughtful first cause moments and zealously claim, however, that such deeds are for their godthing. They are so infantile - 16:04:52 on 8 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MICHELLE, LORI, GIPSON.....WELCOME! We love fresh blood, er, viewpoints! *g* Although after a while of someone trying to beat their new viewpoints down our throats, it get's a bit tiresome. That is where you are coming in on the BETTY conversations. She has a "theology" of, well, I'll let you go back and read it if you are up to it. Being atheists here (it says so right at the top :-) we don't buy ANY theology, be it Xian (short for Christ-ian), Islam, collective conciousness, whatever. We tend to question ALL that cannot be proven, no matter HOW HARD your parents, teachers, coworkers, friends, and strangers on the 'net try to cram their BELIEFS (i.e., that which cannot be proven) down our throats. - 16:09:20 on 8 May 100 GMT

Cristy:LORI, that is one of my most frequent questions...how can intelligent people NOT question it? The inconsistencies seem so GLARING that to me they BEG to be questioned. However in my experience there was a big obstacle of fear standing in the way...fear of a vengeful god and fear of what everyone around me would think. I think the turning point for me (being able to say it's OK to doubt) was going to college and finding out some respected friends and professors were atheists. Then the atheists weren't some evil "THEY" out there, they were nice, ordinary, intelligent people. That is one reason lately I have become more open w/ my non-belief...maybe someone around me who is wanting to question will know me and think "hey, she seems nice and hasn't been struck down by lightning yet" *s* - 16:13:11 on 8 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MY INFO...I'm 31, stay at home mom to two boys (age 2 and 4 *today*). Sadly the birthday boy has the croup :-( ANYWAY (I'm easily distracted by mom stuff :-) I live in the Texas bible belt and am constantly surrounded by Xians. I was raised Xian, though my parents weren't devout or anything. I always had questions as you did, but took longer to find answers as my school wouldn't even teach evolution. I thought it was some bizarre thing about monkeys turning into humans. When I got to college and took a REAL biology course, I was astounded! Ended up majoring in biology, I was so thrilled to find stuff that made SENSE. It still has been a long and gradual journey to saying out loud, around other people, "I'm an atheist". I attend a Unitarian church here, just to find other "liberals". There are a few atheists there, and lots of agnostics/spiritual people. I see them as my allies against the Church of Christers :-) - 16:19:59 on 8 May 100 GMT

Bill..:Hi LORI, Welcome! Don't believe all that nonsense from Peter :~), my pandering just give him some pondering to do, haha! Hi Peter, long time no talk! Lori, I'm 55 in October and will probably retire the first of the year so I can play more on the beach, ha! I personally don't like the idea of a label so what you perceive is, I guess, what you get. I'm not really a collectivist at heart, but lean towards groups that are free thinkers and are open to new ideas. Concerning your comments, not everyone is satisfied with the "Teddy bear" or "Santa" or "Faith" approach to life's unknowns and you seem to be one of them. I certainly don't have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe, and I think most here would admit the same, but I keep trying to rationalize the unknowns as much as I can to try to make sense of it all…..why, I don't know….it's just the way I'm wired….maybe I'm bored with nothing else to entertain me! It helps to talk to others and get different ideas to think about, but keep in mind that most of the population needs a "feel good" approach to help them survive. Survival is inherent in nature and it's probably natural to even extend this into the afterlife. Research has suggested that having a God helps people to live longer. You are causing your parents, by questioning everything, to face their fears and mortality and thus their ability to survive now to some degree and also into their perceived eternal afterlife…. there are some very deep emotions involved here. I tend to ignore, minimize, or live and let live a lot with family differences (thank goodness most are open-minded), as long as these differences don't have a negative affect on me personally…then I would be doing myself an injustice to ignore them. The problem is while others are "feeling good" it usually cost the rest of us, and nature, in some way shape or form. It's not easy questioning everything, but I believe somebody has to do it for the overall good and to eventually improve and harmonize each life's position in nature by way of an improved overall understanding. Good luck! I gotta go to work! - 17:06:13 on 8 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: An interesting media-like point I saw, young people have a higher buying response to image like-ads than older people. The older people have a higher buying response to references they get from people they know. Both points were related to the buying patterns for each group of people. So, what do I see shortly after seeing that bit of info? I am sure we've all read or studied Piaget's notions of this stuff, but even so, last nite I see this tv commercial showing a Catholic like setup with choir boys. Maybe you've seen it too, but the commercial goes through its verbal presentation like they're reviewing a sports film. The image was clearly religious the verbiage was fully favorable of that image, is this the direction that the religious plans as a move to update its, dialogue? - 18:59:28 on 8 May 100 GMT

Cristy:Irritated at parenting forum again...... some of you will remember a few weeks ago that I was fed up w/ all the bible thumping on the moms forum I frequent, and I posted something to that effect. Well since then some of the thumpers post things like "start scrolling CRISTY"...yadda yadda religious crap "OK quit scrolling CRISTY". Now is that rude or what? Now they have to make a point of drawing my attention to their religious posts. Now MOST of the moms have made an effort to be less religion-obsessed and sensitive, and a few others are atheists like me, but I don't know how to combat the few OBNOXIOUS THUMPERS w/o offending the ones sympathetic to me. - 20:52:11 on 8 May 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: Well, in the same way a son's faults are but the faults of the father, so too is a daughter's faults but the faults of the mother. How is lack of one's concern for the invisible a fault? - 21:06:43 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- I wise lady once told me to "ignore, ignore, ignore". Likely your best bet. Those obnoxious xtians will likely keep on doing what they are doing because they do it "fer the laird". - 22:06:37 on 8 May 100 GMT

Rob::Open: backround: I make live sacrifices to my lord and master satan, oops, wrong site. I'm 42, work in mental health. Went through the catholic brainwashing thing as a child. Exposure to extreme situations very early made me question the whole 'christian prayers are answered' thing at about age 9.Had gone from catholic to 'christian' to mono-theist by adulthood. Work as a counselor helped me to see the terrible suffering people experience because of their own twisted belief systems and 'god's will', 'why am a made to suffer, what did I do to cause this..'. Read the bible twice, 20 years apart. This year wrote a book on the bible (as yet unedited). Live in the south, so I deal with christian stereotyping, discrimination and religious attitudes DAILY much to my frustration, especially toward the mentally ill. I am currently somewhere between (unconscious?) grieving the loss of the definite belief in a kind creator to the view that the answers simply aren't attainable regarding origins, if answers there are.... - 22:18:20 on 8 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: I wasn't implying that women don't pay alimony, it was a play on words. - 22:19:41 on 8 May 100 GMT

Rob::Lori: Forget all the animals (from across continents, many predators) for a moment. Ask a christian who hadn't thought about it, how did Noah capture/culture MILLIONS of microorganisms without thousands of helpers, microscopes, etc., that'll get them going. - 22:24:56 on 8 May 100 GMT

Lori::Rob: vengeful and mean, which version of god, I count four. The 'jews are the chosen people so you have divine province to KILL any nonjew" god,or the 'jews in exiled slavery so I'm gonna rant about killing all the gentiles repeatedly and think up more rules to gain god's favor' god, or the 'jesus is the way' god, or the 'jesus was a high priest and follow jewish law god'? - 22:30:28 on 8 May 100 GMT

Rob::Lori: truth is THE search, watch out for the 'thought police' and don't let them get you down. - 22:33:10 on 8 May 100 GMT

Rob::OOPs, that second last post was TO Lori not from her, sorry. - 22:39:14 on 8 May 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: Hey, ignore them if it works for you, personally I'd confront them and the ones loyal to you will select out/support you (if you're not to crass). I' m not for being held hostage be religious hypocrites. You do risk group rejection, but some are already trying to discredit you now. Take the abuse or take a risk, but make it your choice, not their control.... - 22:43:49 on 8 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Just didn't want you turning sexist on us now, lol! BTW..what do you think "if the church of scientology stands to make a bundle out of _Battlefield Earth_? - 23:32:24 on 8 May 100 GMT

Michelle:Cristy: I have seen what is happening to you with others and like someone said before, they aren't going to quit. I think its their way of bullying you out. ANYONE who has different beliefs other than the "norm"(whatever the hell that is) are expected to be "outcasts". I think the fact that you stand up for yourself speaks well of you. Its generally a no-win situation with the thumpers. My feeling is the same expressed in the movie, "The Matrix"---so many are so dependent on the system and don't want to know the truth...I guess its easier for them not to question, but I believe a lot of alternative believers CANNOT NOT question. YOu know a long time ago when I wasn't comfortable with religion but wasn't comfortable with agnostic/atheistic beliefs either, I would wonder.."perhaps they are right?" But I overcame that with one simple question. Would I EVEN want to be part of belief system that would punish, condemn me for what I felt was ok? And that was all it took. Religion and fear, shame, etc are synonymous in my book. No matter how they put it..it is still a control thing. I think Bill mentioned that we had talks about JW's. My husband had been raised as one, but left of his own volition. For that he is totally and directly shunned by his so-called lifelong friends. Its one of the most cruel, but childish "Simon says(religion's rules)" I have seen. To watch (sane?) adults run in the opposite when he happens to run into them at the store is something to behold. I feel like screaming nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo! Its laughable, but I am appalled that what brains(gifts) they were given WERE and ARE now MUSH! - 1:10:05 on 9 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MICHELLE- I remember a kid in school who's mother was a JW. The poor kid couldn't participate in anything conventional, like halloween parties, mythmas concerts, valentine's parties. I think it's cruel for parents to do this to their kids. The main influence children have in their lives are their peers (contradictory to the popular belief that the biggest influence are the parents). If a child doesn't fit in as a kid, how will he fit in as an adult? The only place this peer thing may not effect a child is when the family are the only other people the child sees. His/her siblings are the only other children and of course they would be raised by the same parents and be restricted likewise. Other situations that wouldn't be tough on the kid would be Hutterite colonies where all kids are of the same religion and culture or if not culture at least religion such as in catholic schools. - 1:41:28 on 9 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ISN'T ANYONE GOING TO COMMENT on the church of scientology? This is a real nutty religion, ya know! - 1:43:41 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:Hi Lori. Since Cristy felt the need to introduce me with "theologian" views, I'm forced to defend such ignorance. It'd be quite a bit different if she and Marlene attempted to avoid generalizations without seeking an understanding first. Anyway, that's my little wave hello. Nice to have you here. - 3:05:34 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, My view does not put atheism and theism at endpoints on a piece of paper, as you suggest. As you know, I didn't invent the concepts atheism, theism, the mind/matter debate, and also the consciousness idealism. I don't think you doubt this but it's important when you state these as "your beliefs" - referring to me, that it was not me who created the division of terms. It is my belief to adopt consciousness monistic idealism, however, as a more useful theory based on the cases of the other points. In this instance, I'm only pointing out the issues and my preferences are not the issue. That aside, I'd like to clear up this misunderstanding between dualism and monism. In plain words, atheism and theism are only polar opposites WITHIN the precept of dualism. As I've stated, they are both based on mysterious and/or structureless physical world theories AND intend to idealize but ignore some inherent paradoxical mind/matter presuppositions. They BOTH depend upon fundamental materialism, and such metaphysical assumptions as determinism. Monistic idealism is nothing close to a "centralized belief" between the two because it does not depend upon materialism as a precept. It's not atheism vs. theism with monistic idealism somewhere inbetween. Monistic idealism is an entirely different coin than dualism, and I made this point very clear. Somewhere along the line you misunderstood the difference, as you state, "You do not need to believe that everything is ONENESS, to deny the idiosyncracies of either endpoint of atheism or theism." This is a crucial difference here in understanding the argument, and no 2-dimensional triangle can arrange an equilateral vision of monistic idealism and atheism and dualism. It's apples and oranges. Maybe I should have been more specific in details but it's the difference between Western and Eastern philosophies, i.e. [ Judeo/Christian faiths and atheisitic materialism ] vs. Buddhism, Hinduism, String Theory, Native American faiths (all of which are conscious monistic idealisms, because they do not separate the free-willing individual from the whole) etc. Please go back and read those paragraphs again because you are still making poor assumptions without understanding all the issues. - 3:07:03 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:ALL: This question is due for a serious analyzation: "Where are the indicators or proofs for this view?" It doesn't mean much by itself, however, unless we determine, What is 'proof'? Is 'proof' an absolute objective formula existing somewhere on a rock in space for all those to understand, or is 'proof' an interpretation of the individual or group of people? 'Proof' is a subjective conclusion, folks. Please digest this. Asking for 'proof' is like asking someone to beat you over the head and forcing their ideas into it until you accept them against your own will. ---You're only going to accept them if you want to. This is called confirmatory bias. The bias is the individual interpretations that either seek understanding or seek to differentiate. --- As this relates to the discussion, no one in here has yet to identify material realism as an ignored cultural bias. ACCEPTING THAT THIS TRADITION HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE IS A MAJOR WORLDLY IGNORANCE. It's no surprise then that people don't even realize that every aspect, including sociology, psychology, religion, economics, and politics of the Western world revolve around the dominant acceptance of Material Realism. Not too often do we question if just because things are the way they are that this is how they should or should not be. But once again, material realism is a precept that preludes any interpretation. Anything that acts as a precept to an argument of the physical world is a metaphysical assumption (a forced explanation of the physical derived after the experience of it). The purpose of pointing this out is to show that material realism is not an embedded truth of reality - rather, it is a forced traditional dichotomy, also based on the previous assumption(s) of determinism and such. People use these assumptions all the time and fail to realize it because it has been engrained by tradition. - 3:08:31 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:After explaining this, let me explain the ridiculous stance of arguing for 'proof' for conscious monistic idealism: There is no proof that we need any precepts, any interpretations, or any guidelines to create our own models of the universe. Proof is a conjured up materialistic assumption. One needs no proof to accept one interpretation over another. The real argument here is WHY one interpretation may be a better interpretation over another. One who asks me, "What is the proof for conscious monistic idealism?" will get a taste of their own rhetoric: "What is the proof for material realism?" In this case, anyone who argues for 'proof' of why we use interpretations at all to understand the universe is ignorant of the real argument. - 3:10:50 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:I'm gonna take a second to ask this one more time, Does anyone else understand that material realism is a projected bias onto any interpretation of the universe, and that it's traditional use is simply nothing more than a convenience, which has never been proven through direct evidence of the physical world? - 3:11:50 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:Bill and Rob, Here's consciousness again. If you wonder why we tend to think of consciousness as how it solely relates to us humans; i.e. "an awareness of one's own existence", I'll be happy to remind again that this is materialism once again seeped into the minds of budding intellectuals (that the meaning of physical bodies is that they exist relatively independent of each other and of the whole). Is it sinking in yet?? When using it as a universal metaphor, however, human traits are only part of the equation, and a very little consideration at that. As I've explained, the meaning of consciousness is: 'scire' - to know, and 'con' - with - "to know with". This is an implication of a non-local knowing. Whoever invented the meaning of consciousness was not a materialist and understood a lot more about consciousness in this way: Distance and time are hardly obstacles to the evidence of the 'knowing' we share with each other all over the world in any given moment. And in fact, the understanding of consciousness we associate with each other ("distance" and"time" - from the principle of locality) is only part of the whole, which is why it requires a prefix: self-consciousness or human consciousness. Bill, the micro level awareness you refer to is still dependent upon the same principles of creative, adaptive change. The physical molecules make the changes in the present, but based on a fluid, flexible structure which is a trait NOT found in the molecules themselves and is not dependent upon localization. There's a whole process going on here. Which brings us back to universal metaphors, consciousness is a non-local, collective sharing. It's also a creative complex response to environment. The universe we experience is not based on pre-determined rules, and nor does it show any reason to assume that the physical world has an inherent desire to assemble itself, BUT it does maintain itself, it shows change, and these same features are conditions shown in our own evolution, and in our own functioning, in addition to other aspects of the biological world. In addition, this collective knowing we share with each other (self-consciousness) has never been traced to the physicality we call the brain. These are all additionally contrived metaphysical assumptions of material realism, and in fact the limitations one may normally think in terms of consciousness nowadays are due to accepting materialism as a cultural identification - as I continuously explain to others in here to no avail. The problem, or the real obstacle here, is that people don't realize what material realism really is, and how it's influenced in ALL aspects of culture, including interpretation. - 3:12:52 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:Bill, BTW Thanks for asking! Wedding plans are moving along, I'll save the room from the harrowing details. I'm actually sad because it looks like I'll have to dye my hair for the wedding after all this planning's overl! Haha… ---- Continuing with the discussion…. as to your first concern of a conscious universe "organizing, organizing, organizing, to then create an asteroid" and destroying it, which seems contradictory to you. Again, this deals in the principle of locality (Yep, a limitation of materialistic traditions). If all the organization on this planet is destroyed it'll be because the universe has other goings-on than us, and the distribution of entropy has swayed to us as part of a perpetual blending motion. I am not doubting that an asteroid is counter-producive to our own lives, but the universe doesn't "know" this, as I'm sure you'll agree. The universe maintains itself in every and anyway possible. It's not telling itself anything to the like of it's preferences to invent so-called "higher intelligence". We're one of the universe's creations because of the conditions of creative change, creative expression, and probability, not specific guidelines or intentions. I think it's important to point out that consciousness monistic idealism does not raise the universal value of the human species. Value is a human concept to begin with, so conscious monistic idealism serves as an unconditional metaphor for the value of the experiences of our own awareness - in place of the metaphors that don't work and are counter to the passion we place in our lives. The idea is that if we want a justifiable excuse as to why we have intentions in our lives with each other and upon the physical world, it might as well be useful to credit it accordingly based on the empirical evidence of the physical world's existence. What I'm saying is that the "better circumstance" of the universe is for the continuation of the process which lead to our development, but not for the continuation of our own lives. "Higher intelligence", and such localized organizations are only a small piece of the big picture. The ONE and only determinant is the big picture maintaining itself. I hope this, in addition to the previous paragraph, gives you a better idea of consciousness on a universal scale. And thanks for your honest discussion habits as well. It's so rare in here that I'm forced to "consciously" recognize it. (C: - 3:14:42 on 9 May 100 GMT

Betty:*Whew* ... until the next time..... - 3:16:14 on 9 May 100 GMT

Lori: Marlene, I only just last night looked up Scientology on their site, just curios b/c I'm curios about everything, and AFTER I took their 200 question personality test and gave them my name and address, I read some other sites that talk about how evil they are and about many mysterious deaths of their members. It said they are like the mafia, once you're in, it's hard to get rid of them! It just struck me as scary and when I saw your post about them being nutty, I thought I'd comment that I agree totally! I plan to stay as far away from that as possible, if it's not already too late. - 5:48:56 on 9 May 100 GMT

LOri:Thanks everyone for welcoming me to the discussion. I must not be as educated as you all b/c frankly, I am totally lost reading Betty's posts! No offense either, please. The only thing I THINK I gleened is that you assert that looking for proof is a useless waste of one's time and will not get one anywhere in their quest. My idea of proof is simply anything that rings true to MY mind. Sometimes I get this tingly feeling upon hearing or seeing something that I am trying to determine is fact or fiction. It resonates slowly all aroung my body, like electricity or cold chills. It is something I haven't been able to ignore when it occurs and I know it means something. Or it means something to me and that's all the proof that I need. I am missing that feeling when I talk about god. It's funny though, because when I hear stories about Jesus, I get that feeling. I have come to the conclusion that Jesus did exist, but not like the bible portays him as son of god. Only as an extraordinary man who was able to use the gifts that most of us have deep within that 90 percent of brain that we are not using to heal the sick and other "miracles" he performed. This is only my hypothesis, though b/c lord knows (ha!ha!) that I haven't studied on this. I haven't had a college education. It just feels right when I think about how it really happened during that time in our history. I'm just saying that the only proof I need it what feels right. That feeling of truth resonating. - 8:51:38 on 9 May 100 GMT

Carl:LORI: Don't let the posts by BETTY over-concern ya'. I'm pretty sure she's doin'her darndest here to sell some snake oil. Like you I too, as well as most others here, know what is proof, but BETTY seems hell bent to "tell us others" what and how it is that we know whatever we know and also there is a better way. Does that not sound like some kind of people of which we already have an awareness? I call them idiots BETTY asks if 95% of the world accepts spirits and the invisible are they wrong, well of course they are. Human adherents of spirits and the invisible ruin and destroy, that seems to have always been. The 'native americans faith' what the heck was that, research suggests these old humans destroyed the North Am. large ice age animals, was that good for this "consciousness"? Up to now the only thing BETTY has not clearly disclosed is, is consciousness good? If it is invisible then how does it make a difference? If its just a word for the electrochemical composition of living things, then what is alive, and how do we know its alive if its as she seems to portray it, as a disembodied whatever? - 14:49:51 on 9 May 100 GMT

Bill..:BETTY, No, it's NOT sinking in yet! The world of form on a macro level does have separate identity. Words were created by us humans (call it materialism if you want) and assigned specific meanings for the purposes of communicating life's experiences in this macro world of form and you are trying to redefine words like "consciousness" to apply to the micro universe, in accordance with your paradigm. I'm sorry Betty but the majority rules and most people, I think, will disagree with you. In this subjective world of form, if the majority wanted to make horse_s#&^ a delicacy to behold, then I'm afraid that's what it would be! The words "Micro awareness" applies suitably IMO to what you describe as the interconnectivity and communications between micro particles and I agree it's a world of creative, adaptive change. I base this, not on assumption, but on what I can see, experience, and relate to in my environment (ie jelly fish, trees, meditation, etc.). Even in your own definition of consciousness, *** As I've explained, the meaning of consciousness is: 'scire' - to know, and 'con' - with - "to know with". *** to me implies a brain (to know with…. Your brain!). Concerning the asteroid thing and the principle of locality you say things like *** If all the organization on this planet is destroyed it'll be because the universe has other goings-on than us. *** Betty how do you know this? For all I know, based on the evidence, we are the only higher intelligence in the universe. Based on probability though, and similar planetary systems, there PROBABLY are countless other earth like organizations, so I SUSPECT they exist, but I don't KNOW they exist…. this approach is called, BEING RATIONAL! But without evidence we cannot just make that broad leap of faith. These "leaps of faith" are exactly what the thousands of different religions in the world today have done and you see the conflict we can have as a result. I will agree with one thing you said once, "the universe is neither rational or irrational." Any rational consciousness would not have created this duplicity and paradoxical situation where we have matter/anti-matter or organization/entropy or life/death. But these things I can see, experience, and relate to. I see you as creating another religious like paradigm….as if we needed more! And lastly, just how is this paradigm of yours going to elevate my consciousness and means to a level where I can purchase a more expensive beer? Cheers! - 17:17:17 on 9 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- That's "evidence" hun, not "proof". - 17:52:15 on 9 May 100 GMT

Cristy:LORI, LOL don't worry, NO ONE knows what the heck Betty is talking about. She is happy to tell us how stupid we are pretty often, so you're in good company :-) You don't need a college education, just use your scroll button! I also believe that some parts of the bible have factual basis. It's impossible to tell which ones after all these years and translations, but I'm sure it reflected times, places, and people of when the chapters were written to some extent. - 18:18:41 on 9 May 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- John Travolta (sp) is a COS member and he is the star in the movie _Battlefield Earth_ which is based on the book _Battlefield Earth_ written by the same Ron Hubbard who founded the COS. I read the book and actually enjoyed it but then again I'm a sucker for any kind of sci-fi. Speaking of sci-fi and nutcase religions...Betty follows the Capra newage movement which believes the universe is conscious and we are a huge part of that consciousness. She'll use all kinds of scientific words, all mumbo-jumboed up, to try to impress you with her so-called knowledge. I do know what she's talking about but it makes as much sense as pink unicorn magic. - 19:30:02 on 9 May 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- BTW, I haven't much time lately to really get into a discussion on anything but when I do have some time, I'd like to discuss this "using only 10% of the brain" idea. - 20:32:25 on 9 May 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: Your posts were a bit long , so I'll have to answer in parts. 1) I didn't imply that you invented theism or atheism. 2) You didn't have to invent the concepts to agree that they ARE opposing, WITH REGARD TO a. god or no god and b. matter/science/knowns vs. spiritual/faith/unknowns. 3. monistic idealism IS centralized in that at takes a view between the absolutes of god or no god (cosmic collective connsciousness) and accepts BOTH matter and nonmatter influences. I think what you are objecting to is the idea that your view can be compared to others on any level.... - 21:20:05 on 9 May 100 GMT

Paul McCartney:Betty...I am pleased that you have adopted "The Long and Windy Road" as your theme song. - 0:08:37 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:LORI: I just had to speak up. It is not true that humans only use 10% of their brain. That's a myth. Check out any neuroanatomy book and only scan it and you'll see that every neuron in your brain has a job. Now, it is true that, if it isn't called upon to perform that job by the time a child is about 12, that neuron will die. (It's really quite an interesting phenomenon, the development of the human brain through infancy and into adulthood.) Point is, if you only used 10% of your brain, you'd have a very small brain in deed - because those neurons you didn't use wouldn't lie around dormant, they'd shrivel up and die, literally. To prove to yourself that you use more than 10% of your brain, ask your doctor to perform an extensive series of MRI's, which measure activity in your brain, while you are performing various tasks -- just walking will require more than 10% of your brain. You'll see that middle school science teachers don't really know what they're talking about (that's where I first heard the 7-10% myth). As for Jesus having actually lived - check out a book called "The Odd Index" (can't remember author's name). He lists sixteen saviors of previous religions with eerie similarities to Jesus. Some say Jesus is a mythical figure based on some of these ex-saviors. - 0:45:30 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I'm glad you addressed the "10% of the brain" issue. There has been so much talk of this that many people assume it to be true. - 1:16:22 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Paul Mc -Maybe Imagine came into play as Betty adopted the long and windy road. - 1:19:12 on 10 May 100 GMT

Rob::open:I gotta get that book - 1:20:40 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- Where are you? Have you been assimilated by the COS? Yikes! 200 personal questions and you gave them your real name and address? If ya got any money..they'll be in touch. - 1:21:42 on 10 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: Barbarino is a cos? Who else that I'd know is into that crap? - 1:22:38 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY: I read through your posts and I don't see how you expect people to "get it". You use a lot of philosophical lingo (buzzwords) to which most people have never been exposed - I myself have only been exposed to such concepts on a basic level. I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say though - sort of. Ever since I started reading about String Theory I began to realize that there was much more to the universe than meets the eye. However, I think you're overanalyzing the whole situation of existence in general. I think. As for consciousness, if you're posing that the universe HAS a consciousness, then I agree -- WE, and every other living being on earth and in the universe, are the cosmos made conscious of itself. I don't know, maybe I don't get it either, but I do find it a shame that we are limited to experiencing existence with our sad collection of rudimentary senses, evolved for mere survival on earth instead of exploration of every level of BEING possible in this universe. Also, I wonder, why are you getting married? I ask this with all due respect, because, isn't that concept filled with "materialistic realism" precepts? I mean, once my partner and I decided that no god existed and marraige only worked less than 50% of the time, that it was just a social ritual with no meaning in the "real world" (especially that of superstrings), well, it just wasn't necessary for us. So I'm just wondering, how is marraige consistent with your philosophy? - 1:24:58 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Actually a lot of Hollywood is into this church. I'll see if I can hunt down some more scientologists. - 1:25:19 on 10 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: L. Ron is looking for Lori now from his vantage point in the cosmos. - 1:29:27 on 10 May 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: nice expose' on 'proofs', but I believe most here are simply referring to EVIDENCE, any evidence, that there is a consciousness in the heavens. Simply, what can you point to that suggests a consciousness, other than personal preference? My favorite question remains, how can you call it a 'collective consciousness' when you don't identify collective what(everything?)? that is conscious of what? - 1:39:25 on 10 May 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: You state that there aren't any rules in the universe, ever heard of physics? You state that there is no evidence to link thought with the brain. Boy will neurologists, psychiatrists, radiologists and others be disappointed to find out their work life is a sham. If you get a chance to check out a good pathophysiology book , you may change your mind, then again..... - 1:47:28 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Do you think a parent should allow their child to participate in the BELIEF that Santa Claus or the Toothfairy or the Easterbunny etc. exist? I have two sons, a nearly-two-year-old and a nearly-born, and their father and I are really not sure how to handle this aspect of childhood. We put a tree and lights up on Christmas and set toys out and take him to the grandmas' and grandpas' houses for gifts, but we didn't put an easter basket together for the nearly-two-year-old, though he does get them from the grandparents. I refuse to have their pictures taken on Santa's lap, or any other non-existent creature's lap. I just don't wish to foster any belief in the non-existent, be it Santa Claus or god. But I do wonder if it's unfair for me to keep him from experiencing these social traditions. I remember how much fun Christmas night was thinking Santa was going to be visiting soon - I could hardly sleep. On the other hand, I remember how devastated I was when my parents forced me to realize that THEY were really Santa (I was 11 - pretty hooked on the fantasy). - 1:48:39 on 10 May 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Consciousness is neither good nor bad. Like I said, self consciousness or human consciousness - the part of consciousness we use - has a meaning entirely exclusive to us humans who invent the meaning. Why would a universe, in this case a creatively changing entity be good or bad? That's anthropocentrism sneaking in. You're trying to attach forms and meaning to a universe void of any. Also, people don't "work for or against" consciousness as you hypothesize with Native Americans, they simply use it for their own creative experiences. Here is the argument again: Consciousness is a universal metaphor, a metaphysical assumption the same as material realism, only consciousness provides a fluid structure where materialism does not. This remains a misunderstanding for the most part in this room. - 1:50:27 on 10 May 100 GMT

Betty:Bill, You're still looking for other intelligent "going-ons", when I stated that intelligence is a human trait, not a universal trait. The goings-on I refer to are changes that influence other parts of the galaxy, that with more energy and mass have the ability to destroy the organization on this planet without some perceived prejudice or lack of favoritism. In order for the universe to maintain itself, like I've explained, some things have to 'suffer'. Our planet would not be an exception. The universal consciousness (which is not my paradigm, btw) is neither rational nor irrational, but simply a creative explanation for structure of the physical world. That's it. Also, consciousness means "to know with..." - a non-local knowing not limited to any individual brain, but the collective whole. Also, the attachment to forms (i.e. materialism) is the problem, not the forms themselves. Yep, it's not sinking in. - 2:01:22 on 10 May 100 GMT

Betty:Hi Melissa. This time around my daughter's getting married. I have no problem with two people spending the rest of their lives together, but this itself is not materialistic. We live in a materialistic world, and therefore marriage constitutes some kind of socio-economic unity here. That's the difference I would point out... and YES! Thank you. "WE, and every other living being on earth and in the universe, are the cosmos made conscious of itself." If I hadn't said it any clearer, I apologize. The only thing to add to this is that the physical bodies we occupy are not the origins of this consciousness. The physical world has no origins for this consciousness within itself. Conscious monistic idealism is a structure theory which completely includes the evidence of change and creative free will, that other precepts such as materialism have found no place for. Anyway, we each have our own ways of saying the same things. Also, I can't apologize for using big philosophical words. When I use them I always explain their usage. If others find it confusing, I'd suggest that they step up to the challenge of understanding them before casting judgement, which is too often the case in here. Thanks again. - 2:16:52 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I don't know Melissa. I believed in Santa, the tooth-fairy and the easter bunny and it was fun (and profitable too, lol). God wasn't so fun, it was a boring ole minister, yapping about sins (whatever they may be) on a nice Sunday morning when I could have been outside playing. It was grownup shit and god didn't bring me easter eggs or presents or money for my lost teeth. Of course as I got older, I learned all the good pretend things like fairies, easter bunnies and santa weren't real and I accepted that with no problem ...But..still expected the easter eggs, presents and a buck or two from my parents. One thing I couldn't understand and still don't is why grownups still believe in boring ole, kind of cruel, totally narcissistic, god. SO I guess it depends on the kid, if they like the fantasy of the pretend entities or what they can get out them. I was the latter type of kid. I couldn't care less about staying up to see Santa, just that he left me something. That's not saying I didn't have fantasies. I wrote a ton of sci-fi essays in school but I always could accept what was real and what wasn't. If your husband and yourself are both unbelievers, chances are that your children won't be as 50% of their personality is genetic so they may not be fantasy prone. - 2:19:01 on 10 May 100 GMT

Michelle:Betty-You sound like a solipsist(?)or everything is relative. You are responsible for your own reality. Look, I believe we all make a choice as to what feels right to each of us. I know, I know a strict determinist would say bah, humbug...you don't have any free will...you are so ignorant, BUT I do feel we all have to decide what is believable to us. The proof thing you speak so much of is really not provable to anyone, no matter how you lace it up. In this world we must have some social order and rules in order not to have total chaos. For a long time I didn't believe authority figures should have the right to tell you what to do...that was for you to decide. However, I have decided that some authority is necessary. Kind of like the analogy to the rose bush trimming-a child needs structure and discipline along with love. You don't let a good rose bush just grow weedy. You nuture and care for it and some of that caring necessitates you selectively prune it. I hate the thought of cutting a child off from their full potential, but how will they learn to exercise their potential without any structure. With this in mind, i have no problem searching philosophy, science, etc for some hint of what makes sense of the universe, but we are just one people on the 3rd rock from our sun. We all have to suppose some structure for our lives, regardless of where we come from. Simply put, I don't believe we have access to ABsolute Truth in this life. I know I will get an argument from the romantics of the group, but I don't believe Love or god or anything else is an Absolute. Keeping this in mind, I am left with my "decided on" structure. It FEELS right and it allows me comfort and peace where previously it didn't. I think that's where most of us are and that is ok. I 'know' it allows me to enjoy other beliefs without instant aversion or contempt. I still make judgements but only after careful consideration and not because I don't like what I hear. (Besides a determinist I knew very well was very much IMO, in major denial of his human, emotional self. He was a very sharp individual but he totally lacked the acceptance of himself on the feeling side. His 'structure' had beauty(though you really had to open your mind to see this) but it was one of the toughest, saddest, but incredible 'structures' I have been exposed to. I learned a lot from him, especially this; Your reality is not affected by anything from a religious zealot to an atheist UNLESS you let it. I tend to equate defensiveness in discussing philosophy or anything else with denial. There is no need to deny others existence(they don't nor won't). They won't see any other 'truth' UNLESS they want to and that's it. The only way I have had any luck in this area is to approach it from the others perspective and not necessarily from my own. I think some of this group is expressing frustration over your choice of presentation, not necessarily the ideas themselves. I have seen a lot of people turn off when new or unusual ideas are presented in a very tightly worded way. - 2:39:39 on 10 May 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, sweetie, you are still misunderstanding the argument. First of all, you will never find any branch of study that claims complete understanding or trace of origin for consciousness within the physical world. This is a metaphysical assumption of material realism. If your books comply with this practice, then they rest their cases on the assumption of material realism - which you seem to ignore as either your misunderstanding or irrelevant for some reason. Also, let's talk about the laws of physics. If you are referring to classic physics, then you are also relying upon material realism. Regardless, the laws of physics are not rules, they are man-made descriptions based on humankind's early interpretations of the physical world. The laws of physics have never proven an absolute stance, nor a foundation larger than those that invented the laws. The phenomenon of repeatability exists, but keep in mind the difference between the phenomenon and the model to explain it. Newton and Descartes invented an interpretation not universal rules. The new physics, named specifically for it's difference, does not correspond to 'determinism' and therefore is not consistent with classic physics. You may have to look this word up as well. Also, having not paid attention, I will remind you that universal consciousness is not conscious of itself. The universe is not self-reflexive; Us humans are. Consciousness is a creative, complex response to environment, it's also non-local in nature - meaning that the whole is not reducible by its parts - which also means that it is not limited to the individual. Here it is in plain words: There is no more "evidence" for consciousness than material realism because they are both human schema for interpretations. Why is this so hard to grasp? Conscious monistic idealism is a unification philosophy, not a physicality. You can't show any more proof for universal consciousness from the human mind than material realism as an absolute reality. The advantage of a monistic idealism is that it is different than dualism. If this doesn't fit in with your understanding, then you are most likely used to traditional dualism as your guidelines which is a reasonable explanation. However, in order to explain a universe consistent with the known elements of probability, evolution, an unconditional free will, all unconditionally, monism is this principle. Material realism, a highlight of dualism, is not a sufficient explanation, but it remains a convenient solution in the meantime because of certain traditions only. Oh wait, I already explained this a few times hundred times.... Let me turn the tables. Show the evidence for a completely deterministic universe and you will have invented your own metaphysicality. --- Also, so I don't hurt your pride or that of any neurologist, material realism is so engrained that people like you don't even realize that you use it- which is overtly obvious here. It's no big sin to step back a second and realize you may have been interpreting things with inconsistent assumptions. Galileo was 70 when he realized the galaxy was not geocentristic. It wasn't his fault either. That was the current tradition. --- - 2:53:45 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:HO-Humm..that Betty does go on...goodnight atheists! - 3:44:19 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MICHELLE- As part of this group, I'm not at all frustrated with Betty's posts. I admit, at first I was because the way she dresses up her ideas with scientific words, I was thinking..yikes physics...something I couldn't begin to understand unless I had decided to study it for 25 years. But I am on a mailing list which has quite a few well known and respected scientists some of whom are physicists. I needed some clarification on "what this means" and "that means" so I posted some of Betty's "explanations" and soon learned that Betty's meanderings are similiar to those of the Wizard of Oz or as some of the people of Betty's example of monastic idealism, the First Nations , would say "Big smoke, no fire!" It's the preaching that actually irritates me, no different than Pastor Pisstor coming here and TELLING us the truth about jesus. - 4:20:12 on 10 May 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: you are the idiot here, we all have an understanding I for one don't accept the poppycock and bullshit you pass out here. As you have taken a holier than thou position here, I too could just as easily come up with some line of thought which if any or all the others here didn't accept then obviously, they don't understand. If you have a good clear thought to pass-on it follows that it would easily be ingested. The best example of something easily 'ingested' is the g-o-d idea, which for me clearly appears to address and accounts for the unknowable. Afterall, the mere human organism has to earn a living in its social environment. I tried and found out, one can't live on only love. "remains a misunderstanding" snicker! - 15:11:34 on 10 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MELISSA, my kids are 2 and 4, and we do all the fictional characters. They even learn about God and Jesus at their Mother's Day Out program. I figure that they hear about TONS of fictional characters, from the Poky Little Puppy to God, and if I don't place too much emphasis on any one of them, they won't get too "hooked" on the story and will let it drift away as they mature. For example, Santa brings a few things for their stockings, but most of the gifts are from people who they can say "thank you" to (why give the fat guy credit for my gifts? :-). We don't do the "Santa is watching you" or any of that...just make it a fun little cute thing that they'll outgrow. Same w/ Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. I think fantasies like that enriched my childhood, and I do think it would be kind of robbing them of some fun, not to mention always being the stick-in-the-mud at parties (I don't care if all the other kids think that guy is Santa, he's really just some guy in a suit honey). To me it's hard enough being an atheist in a Christian area, w/o making our lives less fun and ostracize ourselves more by excluding the kids from stuff all the other kids enjoy. My principles aren't that important *g* - 15:53:12 on 10 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So then, if consciousness is neither good nor bad, is it a human thing at all? Everything that humans say they do is morally or immorally bound. If its a human deed, it will involve something outside that thing which is the human's self. Hmmm? Who misunderstands what? - 16:09:28 on 10 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MELISSA, The voice of reasons, welcome back! A mind is a terrible thing to waste….especially 90% of it; but I don't believe that information either for, as my wife once said, research suggest that young males think about sex every 11 seconds…..in which they would have to use more than 90% of their brains, right? Well, I am wondering if there is any research that suggest males over 50 think about "retirement" every 11 seconds? I know your steeped in "brain knowledge," so pleeeessssseeeee help me out here! - 16:12:31 on 10 May 100 GMT

Bill..:ROB, Hang in there man….I still respect your opinion the day after inter_conversing Betty haha! BETTY, You come across to me as one who is inconsistent when you shoot down PROOF and then, in the next paragraph, say things like, *** it's never been PROVEN through direct evidence of the physical world. ***. Also your redefining of words for you paradigm such as "consciousness" (which I think you are still confusing for awareness….please try to get this!) or a universe that is "self-conscious" confuses most people. Like ROB, when I here that the universe is "self-conscious," the first thing that comes to mind is a thinking rational universal mind that says, "I think my expansion rate is WAY too fast and I am getting too FAT for my own good!" Lastly, you use terms (in reference to molecular creative changes) such as FLUID FLEXIBLE STRUCTURE in your sentence *** based on a fluid flexible structure which is NOT found in the molecules themselves ***. What the hell is this Betty? I can't relate to this at all! Having said all that, I will say that I've enjoyed reading some of your stuff and even agree with some of it. Of course it could be argued that the macro world is all "subjective" and nothing more than different models that people use to relate to the universe and predict present and future events. But there's nothing wrong with this and we use defined mathematical things like 1+1=2 in a very useful way. We also define words, in accordance with what the masses accept, to project a particular macro human experience or event. It would be easier for you to invent a new word, and define it, than try to change the interpretation or definition that everyone has of some of the words you use here. So what is all this leading to….I don't really know….haha? I guess I can accept your paradigm as being right for you, but why are you trying to sell this with such vigilance to others? I am very content with my own paradigm and non-collectiveness and assume "no-label." I feel connected to nature and feel the creativeness of it all within. However, I feel that I'm not the apotheosis of universal knowledge, nor do I feel that I've got to preach or sell others on my paradigm! Why do you seem so compelled here? Why do I need what you have to offer? BTW, I've never dyed my hair, which no one believes, as its still thick and not gray (I'm not self-conscious either!)…..don't sweat the mule, just load the wagon as my gandpa use to say! Pretty soon it'll all be over and there will be nothing left but your "collective bills"…..hahaha…..sorry! - 16:13:36 on 10 May 100 GMT

Bill...:MICHELLE, Work sucks… Overtime sucks…. Paying all these taxes suck….I'm ready to retire! Thank gaud I got out of the stock market the first of the month because it sucks too! I've gotten to where all I want to do is vacation and enjoy family and friends. Work is really interfering with all my pleasures in life and its five more weeks before I have another vacation :~( I guess it could be worse though……I could be in your shoes, haha! Come see us when you get over this way and we can sit and watch the sunset, have a cheep beer, and feel sorry for each others situation, OK! - 16:14:23 on 10 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: The religious followers say the unknown is their godthing and depending on who the religious speaker is will the godthing be either good and bad or its just love. BETTY sez the cosmologic consciousness is neither good nor bad. Are the cosmological consciousness or that godthing knowable? If I recall correctly, the religious say yes and no for their godthing, what does BETTY say for her rendition[s] of that "consciousness-thing"? Will it somehow also communicate to a person, if one opens their heart or mind to it, like the religious say for their godthing? BETTY just wants other folk to "believe" her, and nothing more. - 16:45:08 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY: Sorry, didn't read far back enough. Congratulations to you and your daughter. As far as people needing to do a little more research before they blast an idea or philosophy, I couldn't agree with you more. Ignorance breeds hatred, a truth to which any nonbeliever can attest. I do disagree, however, about consciousness, and I think my disagreement lies with what I have come to understand as monism and dualism. What I know as monism and dualism stems from what I've learned about the brain and early concepts of consciousness. Dualism, in my learning, is the belief that there are two realms, the physical and the spiritual -- Descartes is a good example of a proponent of dualism. He believed the pineal body was the seat of the soul in the brain, and therefore consciousness. Monism, on the other hand, declares that there is no soul, only the physical brain, and that consciousness is a product of the brain's biochemical processes. So when you say you're monistic, then claim that consciousness is not contained within the physical body, but elsewhere, well it sounds like you're reversing the definitions of monism and dualism to me. Either way, all conceptual labels aside, with what I have learned about the human brain, I cannot accept the idea that consciousness is elsewhere. I think consciousness is an illusion, sort of. Free will as well, sort of. I think both "consciousness" and "free will" are valid concepts, but that, in the end, we are all just bags of subatomic particles interacting with one another in such complicated ways that we are made to think of ourselves as something special, when we're just stardust really. And yet, another part of me says that, somehow, life in general, be it "intelligent" or otherwise, is, on the whole, greater than the sum of its parts, and is probably the most exciting creation this universe ever produced. I think both these ideas are true, and that their ability to coexist, though contradictory they seem, is what puzzles us, frustrates us. We want it one way or the other, but not both - and prefer to think we're pretty cool stuff anyway, egoists that we are. And I don't think the "new physics" (post-Newtonian, right?)is inconsistent with a materialistic view of the universe. Everything in the universe, from a superstring to a sillystring is material, rather EXISTS (assuming string theory is correct). And even if there is something else out there, something immaterial, ethereal, that permeates all of existence, is it so hard to understand why a brain that has evolved to be concerned with only the immediacy of the material world for the sake of survival has such a hard time relinquishing that focus? Anyway, I don't think materialistic realism is such a bad thing. It's gotten us this far. Also, most of the people in here are pretty nice, rational people - I've had previous experience with most of them over a few years of off-and-on posting. What they can't stand is someone who seems to have a holier-than-thou attitude, and whether you mean to or not, you do come off that way occasionally - probably due to your own frustration with people not outright accepting what you think are somewhat self-evident, easy to understand concepts (I had that problem in the beginning and was somewhat confrontational in my postings). Most of the regular posters here are fairly patient (much more patient than I) and have put up with a lot of badgering and, well, bullshit, in the past. Words are all that are seen here and tone and meaning must be determined by the reader based on the words, so choose words carefully - that's what I've learned. P.S. Sorry about the length. - 17:06:53 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE and CRISTY: Thank you for your insights. You both make excellent points that I will definitely consider. I don't want my sons to be humbugs, and that stuff was fun as a kid. I think I'm just hung up on my own emotional dependence on Santa as a kid. I really loved that guy. He was happiness and outlandish possibilities to a kid that didn't have a lot of either, and I was crushed when my parents had to MAKE me realize his non-existence because they were poor and couldn't buy me the big stuff I was beginning to want. Being a parent is tough. - 17:22:10 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BILL: My experience with my dad says its more like every 5 seconds! Also, in your post to Rob and (indirectly) Betty, you said a lot of things I wanted to say, but didn't want to take up more room to do so. I just wanted to second those feelings. - 17:26:33 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I think you'll find that other children will have a lot more influence on what your kids believe or don't believe. I think you'll find that in the past, most kids learned there really was no Sanata from their peers and not their parents. - 18:03:13 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Also, Betty uses the term "monastic" I believe, which is associated with Zen. I don't think she means monism. - 18:09:32 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- You remember NC? Who use to post here until someone was so totally rude to her she packed it up? That was about four or five years ago now but I know you where here when NC was still here because she asks if you still post. Anyway, we've maintained a close email relationship over these years. She recently suggested a book called _The Nurture Assumption_ by Judith Rich Harris which I've been reading and I'm almost finished it. I would recommend this book for every parent. I thought you might want to check it out. - 18:17:41 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: She types in her most recent post to Rob (and this is direct copy and paste): "The advantage of a monistic idealism is that it is different than dualism" . . . also . . . "monism is this principle" . . . and then compares it (monism) to dualism again. - 18:20:48 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I believe I spelled that wrong, it should have been "monistic" but nevertheless, this is more about where she's coming from. - 18:27:53 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Hummm..that site isn't working very well for me..you'd think he's be more conscious of setting up a proper site but anyway here's another one with some comments. - 18:33:58 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Yes, I remember her. I hope it wasn't me that was rude . . . I know I used to be. Thank you for the suggestion. I inhale any book I think might help me be a better parent. I recently finished _Positive Discipline: The First Three Years_, a book I picked up because I don't believe in physical punishment for children, especially children that young. While I think you're right, peer pressure is much more pervasive than parental pressure as children get older and start realizing the universe doesn't revolve around them, I think parents are very important during the first years for helping instill self-confidence and a sense of self-worth to help them cope with peer-pressure. It was a terribly enlightening book that made sense with what I've learned about early development of the human brain. Anyway, (I get longwinded I know) thank you again, I'll check it out. - 18:34:08 on 10 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- NO! It wasn't you. It was someone else who decided NC and Richard were a threat to that someone's obviously limited intelligence. If you remember Richard..he was the tax prof from downunder. Anyway Richard has gone on to rally for the churches to pay tax. He's been all over Europe doing this for the last few years since his retirement. NC is still teaching Latin. And me..I have my little granddaughter living with me. She's been with me for three months and will likely be for another couple of months. She's 17 months now. She's having her nap, so I have time to post but otherwise all my time is hers. - 18:45:33 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Aha! I think I get it now. I'll have to read into it more at a later time. For now, the boy is hungry and I must heed his cries "Food now!". - 18:47:22 on 10 May 100 GMT

MARLENE: I see we're in the same boat. And what a magnificent boat it is, eh? - 18:49:44 on 10 May 100 GMT

Melissa:oops . . . that last from me. - 18:50:26 on 10 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: Yep! someone really went after those two. Did not that person use their pseudonyms in some very sexually graphic ways? I guess the power of deletion is still here, so far there has been no need. But, today that would cleanse this site of such action. Gads! I read that dumbo GWB jr now has better numbers than Gore. Not that wimpy Gore is a better option. Wonder if Gore suffers from WJC still not telling truths? Who wants more of such untruths? On the other hand who wants religious untruths over them? I wonder how that one state will handle its motto problem? So they o'that state wanna'say that via a god, all things are possible? But again, what is god? - 19:56:36 on 10 May 100 GMT

Michelle:BIll- Will you have some good beer or at least a daiquiri because I really NEED a few? I have about 55 hrs. OT for 10 days. I guess the ol check couldn't hurt, but I would prefer my time off. I see you are getting TF for your new group leader. Good Luck on that one!! He is something special. LOLOLOL - 0:51:25 on 11 May 100 GMT

Betty:It's really quite interesting to see people try to shwoosh their arms around and fend off something they don't understand. This is something I've noticed quite a few times in here. I've seen a few posts like, "Betty is a Capra Follower" - meaning Fritjof Capra, writer of 'The Tao of Physics'. Stuff like this just wreaks of blatant ignorance. Anyone who's truly taken the time to examine his works will understand that he simply re-introduced the hundreds of year-old Eastern philosophies back to the Western world because of their resemblance to the new discoveries. When someone makes reference to him or his work, it's a mark for a readily accesible piece of information. Anyone who knows the issues pretty much has heard of Capra. When the new physics was established one can't help but notice the similarities between the two fields. This is no more prophetic than any other scientific discovery. New discoveries lead to new understandings. In this case, it has simply shown that certain traditions are shown to be more adaptible than others. All this aside, stuff like "Capra following" is just another narrow-minded, small-world view. There's any number of books just as readily accesible to the honest intellectual that deal with the same issues related to monism which have an entirely separate origin from Capra. It's funny too because you can always pick out the Anonymous Materialist Members in the group. They only pick up on key words here and there, and if it's new and different and they don't understand it, they find someone else's opinion to argue with and rush to get on the bandwagon. Any Vic Stenger Followers in here? Lol… - 0:59:08 on 11 May 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Bit and pieces are part of the misunderstandings. This is it in plain words: Universal consciousness, the structure theory of the universe, is neither good nor bad. As especially tuned self-reflexive universal entities (humans) we invented the words good or bad to suit our existence on a much smaller scale. Consciousness theory credits free will as a valuable reality, and therefore our actions are up to us and we receive full credit for them. Together we decide what these actions mean or don't mean here on this small planet, but the power we use is neither good nor bad. Think cosmo then biological. The power to lead creative lives is a direct metaphor for an ever-changing universe. - 1:08:37 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yes! The idiot accused NC of having affairs with her students and of having an affair with Richard although it would have been very difficult with Richard being on the other side of the planet. Whomever it was, they were extremely jealous of the knowledge both NC and Richard imparted and/or extremely pissed that either NC or Richard wouldn't buy their beliefs. There have been more than a few people here with some extraordinary ideas that have no evidence to support them. - 1:13:39 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I can accept Vic's expertise, can you? (smirk) - 1:18:03 on 11 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, As I've stated, someone like Marlene who doesn't understand the issues is always more than willing to jump on someone else's bandwagon. Marlene doesn't understand the issues but confirmatory bias led her to find a carboard cut-out she can hold up instead. I will say, however, that I appreciate her research. The website she posted is obviously from a material realist perspective and everything pointed out as paradoxical to the writer is based on this poor precept. If you'd like to continue where Marlene cowers, it would be a nice change for once. - 1:19:17 on 11 May 100 GMT

Betty:Bill, You and Rob and Marlene fall into the same materialistic principle of locality. Separating individual phrases into separate quotations is part of the problem here. Just to be clear, as I've explained proof - it's an entirely subjective conclusion. When I say that "consciousness has never been PROVEN through direct evidence of the physical world," it doesn't change the value of 'proof' at all. It simply states that all the human theories in the world cannot contain consciousness into the physical realm. It looks like you saw two words that looked similar and you planned some small scale attack there. I also stated that self-consciousness is entirely human related. Universal consciousness is a whole lot more than us humans. If you don't understand what a fluid structure theory is, it's not a surprise because traditional science has none. It assumes the structure of all form and order in the universe stems from random shifting atoms (material realism). Of course this idea is new but I DID NOT INVENT IT. Consciousness theory has been a long time in theory. From all accounts, Bill, I can't say we agree more about things. It's only when I put words to it that this misunderstanding comes in. I have all the same feelings you have expressed, but as explanations to others they require solid empirical models. From all accounts my unlabeled friend, you also subscribe to the practice of neutral or monistic idealism, but not the understanding that it's already a philosophy. Okay, it would be great if we didn't use labels for everything. But we live in a world that needs them. Sorry if this offends you. I am simply stressing the importance of understanding these issues, which obviously go undiscussed. If 'preaching' is the label you need then you fail to understand that if others intend to have a discussion, they need to be prepared to argue entirely their opinions with sufficient expertise if they want to negate others' points of views. Heck, I like the challenge too. - 1:39:34 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene the merry materialist:BETTY- Speaking of cowards, I haven't seen you on the Skeptic list where you can show your expertise in science to real scientists. You see Betty, I don't pretend to be a physicist and I wouldn't dream of using scientific words as stupidly as you are famous for doing here. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. As I've told you, I've posted your posts word for word on the list and the actual scientists there call it ICK/garbage/balongna. I'll stand with their opinions. We all can't know everything about everything like you Betty (actually you don't either) but at least I can admit when I have to rely upon authority. - 1:44:34 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene..time to grow up and accept responsibility:BETTY- Like I said, you could not have possibly dreamt all that crap up on your own but these are your beliefs. You've made it quite clear you own them. Well Betty take your non-physical evidence to court and see if it will keep you out of jail. Don't you get it! No one here buys the ICK you preach and stop using me as the scapegoat. If no one is buying it, it's because your product stinks. Who do you think I am, Mikey? Marlene says? - 1:52:37 on 11 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, It's monistic idealism, first of all. Also, "And I don't think the "new physics" (post-Newtonian, right?)is inconsistent with a materialistic view of the universe. Everything in the universe, from a superstring to a sillystring is material, rather EXISTS (assuming string theory is correct). " --- This is also a material realistic assumption. Once again, the purposeful bias to assume against all known evidence to the contrary, that consciousness is not completely defined in the physical matter of the brain, is a result of traditional neural materialism engrained into our patterns of interpretation. Also, the apparent contradiction of a free will as an illusion is a direct result of deterministic traits of material realism. Why would someone bother arguing that their opinions stem from the random combinations and conditioning of the world around them and therefore declare that their opinions are not valid?? This is the point I've been making. We need a new conceptual model of our lives, if we intend to proceed as the (contradictory) free willing agents that certain philosophies propose. Monistic idealism completely credits our opinions in conjunction with a fluid structure theory for a creatively maintaining universe as witnessed in contradiction to the long-held views of determinism. If you want to know the problems that stem from material realism, I would be happy to explain. We've grown accustomed to dealing with its problems, I will state first of all because we can't separate the problems from the tradition. - 1:52:47 on 11 May 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, It's so easy to push your buttons that I couldn't resist. Pay attention to the fact that I don't look for your loyalty, or that I don't feel the need to follow your superficial "calling-outs". Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that your materialist physicists can only respond with "ICK/garbage/balongna" with whatever dissections you copied and pasted. They fall to the same faith you do. You might as well take a backseat again, hun. If and when I decide to jump on over to your tag-along spot on the internet, it'll be quite amusing like always to watch you sit in the dugout and call out your ignorant replies. I don't need any sidekicks, thanks. ( I stoop down to this level, so that we can still converse. You seem to feel left out of the intellectual stuff. ) Oh, Marlene. lol. - 2:07:14 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene the cowerer:ALL- Just so you all know...I'm not a physicist, don't pretend to be one, don't even want to be one..But..I do rely on authority it these matters. I don't think it is unusual when one needs assistance in understanding something, that one asks someone who knows what they talk about. In this instance I asked physicists, not just any physicists but well known and respected physicists. They of course called this crap, ICK. I would also wager that Betty herself is not a physicist and that is why she has made the ideas she's tried to push on this page look like ICK, smell like ICK, sound like ICK and we all know what that means, it must be ICK. I've decided that since I'm not a physicist, I'm not about to continue to play Betty's game..if this sounds like "cowering" so be it. I just would love to see her try to defend this stuff in front of real scientists though. - 2:10:38 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene this is becoming a little more amusing all the time:BETTY- You don't need to stoop, you're already as low as you can go. BTW I seem to push your buttons much more strongly as go so low as to keep refering to me when you want to make 10 pointer with another poster. You're the lady( arff!) with the problem here. - 2:16:51 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene..LOL!:BETTY- What makes you think you're in the front seat? As I see it, you've even missed the damn bus here. You know, this "hun" "sweetie" stuff is something NO woman would say during a argument. Methinks you're Josh and you're still pissed from the last go round! - 2:21:39 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene..:ALL- What do you all think, would a woman of "Betty's" so called "intelligence" use Ricky Lake show language to argue an argument that is important to "her"? - 2:24:30 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY/WHOMEVER- IMO, You've degraded yourself enough. I'll no longer post to you or anything about you. If you think you can get along without using me as your scapgoat, you won't need to post to me or mention me either. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm truly bored with your preaching and arrogance. - 2:35:15 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Now Back to atheist issues "The American Atheist Magazine On-line Poll... "BATTLEFIELD EARTH" -- SCI-FI THRILLER OR A RECRUITING FILM FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY The long-awaited science fiction movie "Battlefield Earth," based on the novel by L. Ron Hubbard opens this week in theaters. Some critics of the Church of Scientology are urging a boycott of the film, charging that revenue from the movie will flow into the coffers of the controversial religion. There are even claims that the movie promotes the theological teachings of the Church and Hubbard, it's messianic founder. What do you think? Do any links between "Battlefield Earth" and the Scientology empire justify boycotting this movie? Should the religious, personal or political opinions of actors, writers, producers and others be a litmus test at the box office? The latest American Atheist Magazine On-line Poll wants to know. Answer our ballot questions, get background on this story (find out about a bad guy named Xemu...) and leave your comments for others to read. - 2:39:21 on 11 May 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: Please don't confuse the situation, we UNDERSTAND what you are saying, we just DON'T AGREE with your belief. I don't find the concepts complex, rather VAGUE and VERBOSE. It appears to be a defense mechanism you employ, unconsciously perhaps, something like, "These people don't agree with my beliefs, but how can that be, they are TRUTH! How could any intelligent person not believe,that's it they're simply ignorant!" You are making assumptions about views that are not accurate. A comparison for your perusal: PROOF vs.EVIDENCE: Looking only for the latter, which increases the PROBABILITY of a perpsective being true. ABSOLUTES vs. PATTERNS: ALL views have value, without any absolute truths found. Materialism IS relevant, we live in a material world, scientific design as a construct, does help us search for patterns. I use 'patterns' here because your dogma does not allow you to say 'laws', but patterns are close enough for me. please don't generalize this to mean that I believe materialism is all encompassing or that science can't be flawed. Generalization is a way to make an argument seem more extreme, but its not accurate. The paradox, for me, is that monistic idealism seems spawned out of a need to be 'unifying' (it's interesting that you consider it unifying but won't accept that it is centrist in trying to incorporate the extremes of strictly material vs. nonmaterial causation in the universe) and fluid. Yet, it relies on ambiguity to wriggle out of a stance. For example, consciousness IS the awareness of self through the senses in the environment ( or some reasonable facsimile). I KNOW you don't mean that when you use it in your description of a universal consciousness. You mean," a nonlocal collective sharing ....which is creative... and its one and only determinant is the big picture, maintaining itself." You do go on to say that this consciousness IS WITHOUT INTENT....in creating intelligent life forms, etc. I characterized this as a 'self perpetuating machine with a corrective override program' and you were offended by this. But sincerely, how is it different? It appears that yours is a suedo-religion for its adherents, and as such the UNIVERSE is elevated to a GOD status. The universe is in control, so we'll be alright. Yet we can't define it (god is too complex to understand, you know). Don't hold it up to the scrutiny of experimental design (thats irreverant) and it is all powerful, able to self generate all its own needs(god is eternal, afterall). The universe is an answer is actually SIMPLISTIC and incomplete..... - 2:50:21 on 11 May 100 GMT

PETER:BETTY--You obviously want to convince others the validity of your position. However, I do not even read your posts anymore. They are simply put-too long. Way too long. It would appear that you do plan to hang around for a while, so why not address each point of argument ONE at a time? - 7:04:38 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene..you can try but..:PETER- If you go WAY back, I tried the point by point thing. It wasn't responded too, likely not even read. I addressed each point that was made and pointed out the flaws. I'm not about to go to the work of doing it again. But after all that work, I was accused of being a "side-kick".."taking a back seat"..."not understanding" etc. etc. I did get some email saying that my posts throughly addressed the claims. At least someone read them or I should say "acknowledged" them. - 14:46:25 on 11 May 100 GMT

Bill...:BETTY, Again, as Rob has stated as well, I see nothing wrong with using the model of materialism as long as one knows it's just a model and not an absolute model. When people start elevating their particular models to the "absolute truth" levels, and insist that all must follow or die, then we're all in trouble. We can argue over words, logical fallacy's, and ambiguous terms all day long, but what I was really looking for, in your reply to me, was the WHY and the HOW Betty. Why do you feel compelled to change us? How will your paradigm improve my situation? I'm already content just to BE and to PLAY. And your right we do share some similarity in our views of the universe, but I haven't read all the books you have (too busy working overtime!…..actually I can't read, ha!) and have arrived at my paradigm by introspection, experiment, observation, or meditation. Religion is definitely not for me! I don't feel compelled to put a "label" on what others might perceive me to be either. And last of all…. No….. Your comments, or those of others here do not offend me, as it's just a civil discussion to me, and a creative outlet (form of entertainment). And I know you enjoy the "challenge" (as you say) too when you LEAP into this room and LOCK the door behind you and proceed to strip away our material paradigms via your ponderous reiterations of conscious monistic idealism! And after many prodigious dissertations you end it all with one big "Wheeeew!!" But when you have had your WAY with US, what I really want to know from you is not universe related; What I want to know is: Do you flop down afterwards, in your favorite chair, with feelings of emancipation/bliss and light up your favorite cigarette??? Hahahaha! - 15:20:58 on 11 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just checked out some articles at the site MARLENE is nice'nuff to share. The piece on that now dead catholic was sort of enlightening, I got a kick out of the opening quote atop the piece. Wonder what kind of thing one has to be for the acceptance of someone like that O'conner as a good creature? Hey ROB PETER, while breesing over MARLENE's site I also read about the TX blackwidow and the references it made o'the pick-ax chick. Remember how the last images one has o'her is that of seeing an enraptured person? I guess I am "to understand" that the pick-ax babe knew of things the commoner didn't yet know of? Kinda'like BETTY's post to me about good bad consciousness? Is this BETTY so enraptured by the revelations of the cosmos, that one can figger she must view herself as 'happily' swaying behind bars of materialism cuz'she knows, what? - 15:21:25 on 11 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MICHELLE, Actually, my wife drinks the HARD stuff and I….well, no comment! She likes Scotch on the rocks, martinis, and the like! I like an aggressive "hard stuff" kind of a woman, ha! Yes, we have a good selection unless the boys drink it all when they come home this weekend, ha! I sent you an email about TF, BTW! I had to work over again last night :~( - 15:34:49 on 11 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: or should that be a monadistic enrapturement? I mean afterall, we don't unnerstan'these things. As one of my reference-points in my dealing with the interactions of people, here too, is the quote dated around 1853-5 by Arthur deGobineau,"Every people, great and small, has begun by making inequality its chief political motto." We others have tried to be nice to this BETTY, dispite her paternalistic assertions that we don't understand, either her or that fanstastic thing. I suspect that BETTY has assumed a position or a something of the situation here for BETTY's POV, of which that quote now fits that person that cosmological POV. Is this just a religious gambit? - 15:35:15 on 11 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: Don't know about you others, but BETTY is loosing my interests, in leaps and bounds. If BETTY cannot present some clear accounts supportive of the consciousness topic, reading-time becomes waste. What does BETTY misunderstand? That must be that I for one, do not search for an almighty of "any" kind. In fact, what else is the answer for what can be the almighty, but just that it is each of us. This reminds me of a so-said old jewish thought about a piece of wood. The twists and turns of the message was fun and interesting it surely was said before the advent of xian ideas, even had me wondering of its buddhistic connections. The only game the BETTY can play here- on this electronic thing, is that the BETTY itself is consciousness, but that would mean its as inconsistent as any scientific theory is to fundamental data. So what is BETTY? - 19:19:12 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- That's what I've decided. - 19:32:06 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ALL- But..that doesn't mean that I won't post on the absurdities of the new age religion that has been badgering this page for the last nine months. - 19:36:19 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:And in case you haven't had your daily dose of absurdities..here's some more - 19:43:53 on 11 May 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: So, to move on in an article on the DRUDGE, it sounds as tho'some kinds of people are going allow it reported, that research involving 'lesser creatures' these things have feelings. The report goes on that these lesser kinds of creatures must be "conscious" of things around and about them. But, if the way contentions here would have it, these unfortunate creatures, cockroaches, slugs, monkeys etc., must "misunderstand" even more than we here who experience some comprehension of the meaning of that finding. So will there be a slug-god and so on? I recall other reports that some other kinds of people have reported creatures such as crows count! The report, maybe its the beginning of a myth, says a farmer once sought to rid his barn area of crows. Day one he hid in the barn and did shoot a few to begin his ridance process. Day two he got a few more, but after that none. He'd go on about his chores, and the crows seeing him returned to the barn area and whatever so annoyed him. The farmer went into the barn again and waited and waited, no crows. He'd again go to his chores and the crows ret'd, again. The farmer sought aid from a sympathetic aquaintence and the two went into the barn and one came out, so a few more crows died. The crows caught onto this and as long as one remained inside and one came out the crows stayed away. The farmer tried more guys going in and some leaving and soon the crows stayed away. This process continued and the farmer eventually concluded, due to his interest, that the crows could count, seems like the number was 8 or so. But poor us, we here misunderstand things oh so easily. - 20:05:15 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- That's nothing! My dog can sing and my cat can play the piano. - 22:39:14 on 11 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: but, are they cosmologically conscious of doing that? - 22:41:02 on 11 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: We are in a 'New-Age' you kno', heheh!!! - 22:42:23 on 11 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Naaa! They're Western animals! You know, the ole fashioned sack-of-cell type. - 3:32:19 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE (re: Battlefield Earth): I for one am going out to see it when it debuts tomorrow (my tomorrow) night! I am a total sci-fi freak! Couldn't care less if all the money goes to Scientology. They have just as much right to their beliefs as I have to mine or Betty to hers. I still think they oughta be taxed just like any other business though (that includes all churches), if you're gonna tax business, which I don't believe is necessarily right. - 4:23:04 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Me too! I love sci-fi. I read the book many years ago and enjoyed it. I'm not totally sure on this but I think the COS does pay tax as it isn't recognized as an organized religion, could be wrong on that though. The COS has a reputation for criminal activity..I don't think I'd support them. - 4:44:53 on 12 May 100 GMT

Lori:Other COS members include, I have heard, Tom Cruise, Jenna Elfman. And I have no money so I hope I'm safe! I certainly have learned a lesson. I read the negative points AFTER I answered the 200 personal questions of COS! I'll never do it again. I'm already a little paranoid. But there is no affiliate in my area so they won't be knocking on my door. About the 10% of the brain issue, true I learned this in school but also have heard it from other sources. So, it's not 90% going unused, but we certainly aren't tapping in to all that our brain has to offer. Psychic abilities, healing powers, maybe even mental telepathy. Do you all think that we all have those capabilities somewhere deep inside and only some of us have tapped into them somehow? I feel that truth confirmation thing when I hear some stories, so-called miracles. we all know it's not god, or most of us here. I'd like to know, like my parents (christians) say "they know god and have a personal relationship w/ him", then why don't I? - 5:30:48 on 12 May 100 GMT

Betty:Thank you all for your kind posts. Against each of your insights, I will state that I have never offered anything to "convert" to, other than a more conclusive model for the universe, against all criticisms. Once again, in simple terms, the theory of consciousness monistic idealism (NOT invented by myself) is as follows: The universe is a consciousness ("to know with") which corresponds to an existence not based upon local interactions, but on holistic or non-local relationships. This is the structure for the order and form in the physical world. The physical is an expression, therefore, of this consciousness. ----Material realism, on the other hand, proposes a structureless particle theory philosophy - not a reality as some still insist upon. The theory states this, that the structure and order of the physical world stems from the physical world itself. Somehow order and form stems from randomly shifting atoms. This poorly constructed precept and it's inherent contradictions are the reasons to consider an alternative. Like I've explained, consciousness theory is not a religion, a cult, or an insult to materialists. It's simply a broader, more complete philosophy. I apologize if my intensity for this subject increased as the insistency against it followed, but my only goal was to impress a largely neglected point. Material realism is a model good enough for classic physics, but not necessarily good enough for the new physics, and it has failed largely on cultural and sociological levels as seen in the Western world. Scientists have been debating this for years, and regardless of Marlene's opinions, one need not to have a degree to be familiar with these concepts. We'll start again here: Does anyone agree that the detrimental effects of material realism over the past few centuries is enough to reconsider it's cultural value, and if so, what would be a substantial replacement? - 5:33:57 on 12 May 100 GMT

Betty:BTW, the "Whew" remark was meant in fun. Certainly typing as long a post as I do is likely to exhaust anyone else in here. Emancipation? Bliss? Very funny, I might add. (C: - 5:41:13 on 12 May 100 GMT

Betty:Rob, Your last explanations show the closest resemblance to a free-flowing path of communication I have seen yet between us. And it's a welcomed reprieve for you to state in clear terms your perceptions of my views, because they have never been quite stated as such, otherwise we could have avoided any extra tension. Let's continue. "...monistic idealism seems spawned out of a need to be 'unifying' (it's interesting that you consider it unifying but won't accept that it is centrist in trying to incorporate the extremes of strictly material vs. nonmaterial causation in the universe).." This definition is correct, however you had previously stated that you believed monistic idealism to be better placed between atheism and theism. The current standards of atheism and theism are BOTH based on strictly material world theories, or particle theories. Atheism declares a random shifting coincidental particle world, whereas theism offers a mysteriously and also arbitrary particle theory world vision. In this circumstance, these two stem from determinism - an entirely causal perspective, however vague the cause may be. 'Monistic' idealism for this reason in not a centrism. It can't be. It incorporates a philosophy of equal acausal and causal relationships. It also has no contradictions to the argument of free will, unlike determinism. ----- The argument I stated with your "self perpetuating machine with a corrective override program" definition, is that monistic idealism is not deterministic, and therefore not mechanistic. Creativity is a contradiction to mechanism, and vice versa. The rest of your implications are so overly stated that you miss the point, "The universe is in control, so we'll be alright. Yet we can't define it .... Don't hold it up to the scrutiny of experimental design .... and it is all powerful, able to self generate all its own needs ...... The universe is an answer is actually SIMPLISTIC and incomplete..... " The consciousness definition, as a unification, is intended as a simplification. There is nothing more unique and unexplainable than the entire universe... BUT our lives depend upon models and theories of it in order to operate in and work together, Like you've addressed. The consciousness label is not so much an absolute as it is a fluid theory, as I've explained. It doesn't hold itself to any one standard because the universe at it's heart is creative, it's relative, and it offers probabilities and tendencies on it's most basic levels. If you can't handle this simplicity, I'll remind you in very polite terms that all our definitions, theories, and models are our own tools, and they themselves may just be over-complicated. Consciousness theory is complete in that everything and anything fits in with the irreducible whole, regardless of the categories and labels we use to promote or deny certain things. If it can be imagined, talked about, smelled, witnessed, painted, or felt, it's real - unlike materialism's obvious bias, for example, for a reality of only the physical. - 6:16:55 on 12 May 100 GMT

Betty:Without sparking anyone's engines, my use of the words "hun" , "sweetie", etc. are only reassurances to others that I am not simply arguing with egoistic pride. I use them just as frequently for serious discussion and in terms of endearment for close loved ones. Thanks. - 6:22:51 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I know you have access to books where you are. The people on the mailing list suggested I read _The unconscious Quantum_ to familiarize myself with this "new physics". I just started it a few days ago, a kind person who had the book loaned it to me. It's unbelieveable how the local bookstores fill their physics section with puesdoscience and neglect real science. The Chapters bookstores here are famous for this. I guess it's what people request that sells and that's what they stock. I suppose that's why real scientists have decided to write books trying to light the candle in the dark for lay people. - 14:45:11 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- Being not a totally trusting person, I wouldn't answer one question without knowing why someone is asking it..but that's me. As for ESP and the like..many people think this may be possible but to date experiments haven't netted any positive results. The "new physics" claim that this may be possible with non-locality but non-locality is just a theory and there has been no evidence of anything travelling faster than the speed of light. - 14:50:00 on 12 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: "does anyone agree that the detrimental effects of material realism over the past few centuries is enough to reconsider its cultural value, etc". Such a generalisation easily hides so very much. "A material" first perhaps, we ought to determine if something material can be or is a thoughtful independently acting thing. There has been at least one reference of the micro\macro analysis for how things are currently understood, but where in either 'm/m' does independent thought finally happen? A "material realism" what is the It to which one can apply that term? I find that the so called science minded uses that term as an expression to communicate to others certain perceptions. In a contrary to that term are those that appear to me to seek to communicate their mindful issue, which they proclaim is spirit or some other invisible stuff. Of the 'detrimental effects', hmm, this looks like someone means to convey a perception of things and others may rest that all concerned "see" that materialism is a fact! - 15:20:45 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:LORI: I don't believe in psychic abilities, mental telepathy, healing powers, etc. I believe the human brain is an amazing organ with powers to deceive itself - did you know there's a "god module" which many neurologists believe contributes to life-after-death experiences and religious fervor? Anyway, I believe most "miracles" and what-not have natural explanations, and most spoon-benders are hoaxters. What I was trying to get across is that we use 100% of our brains to live and function, there's nothing left to "tap into". - 15:39:41 on 12 May 100 GMT

Carl:LORI: It seems like MELISSA may accept that, us as simply a living thing is the all as the all, we are to simply experience all that is ourselves, completely. On this point it appears that MELISSA utilises the brain as a reference point for that whole experience. Now that is an idea, a topic that could be worthy of an in depth discussion. I can foresee an on going extrapolation of the relevance of events and the indeterminableness of things not that which is ourself. Now that kind of discussion would be relevant and meaningful in that a mediator-thing is not required. Would the discussion be of the living and in a like-pursuit of the alive? - 16:34:14 on 12 May 100 GMT

Bill...very quickly here...:OPEN, Survival folks…. that's what it's all about…. why, I don't know…it's just the way the environment seems to be wired! Models/paradigms are just personal perspectives that we all live by to interpret, cope, and thus help us survive longer in our environments…..IMO. I'm not concerned with other's adopted models as long as they are positive adaptations for natures' survivability and organization in general. They have to work not only for the individual, but the environment as a whole; otherwise, I will DESTROY them, haha! I am open for different models but I cannot relate, at this time, to a "conscious" (ie rational, human like) universal mind. I can relate to a micro universal awareness, as I have posted before using examples of the jelly fish and the tree, that is creative, positive, and ubiquitous, as I've experienced this state before while mediating (minimizing most all conscious thoughts to leave one in a baby-like existence). This practice helps me to be creative, positive, and better cope with the everyday realities, and I see nothing wrong with it personally. Lastly, I feel that Personal Gods are fabrications of one's ego and is IMO creating God in man own image. And now, since I haven't been able to break the HABIT, I have to EAT and go to WORK, so I can thus SURVIVE! Have a good one, especially all you MOTHER's out there…it's almost time to celibrate YOUR day! - 16:49:43 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Fabricating any theory where humanity becomes something other than an intelligent mammal on this planet is but an ego booster, non? I agree that everyone has a right to boost their ego and do what it takes to do so as long as they aren't treading into someone else's space. - 17:00:30 on 12 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: There are two kinds o'book stores one is fictional and the other non-fiction. In the area I reside there are some really really good book stores for either interest and I like both. The regular Joe average-consumer book store seems to be the Barnes and Noble stores. In these stores you see a lot of spiritual, new-age and illuminata kinds of tales. In these stores one does not find good science or pure math kinds of books. What you see of such books are typically for ways to go beyond and into some wherever. By the way, B&N was on a nationwide bookstore buying frenzy down here, and the prospects of even more such spiritual books instead of 'atheistic' types was noted as very real. Atheistic so used here is meant not in reference to a specific kind of person but in general to denote the 'other kinds' of books B&N would have promoted. That concern seems to have died down. My concern of that B&N action was in the dumbing-up of the USA. Up\down what is it, the point is the increase of instead of a decrease of dumb types. - 17:35:41 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Is anyone else here running the SETI AT HOME program? - 20:02:13 on 12 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: awhile back I bookmarked a philosophy site that is loaded with quick and dirty accounts and explanations which'r fren'BETTY, it appears so freely uses here. There are several others I like to refer to but geez, BETTY's posts gots lots of bounce, since the assorted posted points sure seem to come from all over. Perhaps BETTY figures once enough stuff has been thrown on the wall some o'it will stick and well, thats what BETTY means! That must be her ego booster, huh? - 21:00:36 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think the hope and dreams that we are more than what we are and that we may live beyond our physical selves turns to we ARE more than what we are and we do live beyond our physical selves IS some people's ego booster. It's religion, hopes and dreams accepted as fact and based on faith. Whether that faith be in god or a fringe theory. - 21:26:17 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:LORI- "Giovanni Ribisi, of "Saving Private Ryan," tells W magazine: "Without Scientology, I'd be in an alley somewhere, looking for dope." " Of course..the same ole line everyone says when they've found a religion. - 21:28:32 on 12 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Your 21:26:17 12 May post, is a well put point. - 21:37:50 on 12 May 100 GMT

Cristy:COS, I haven't heard much about them to discuss MARLENE, but I'd love if someone could fill me in on the highlights. - 22:19:45 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- The Church of Scientology humm..where to start...maybe best to leave you a website of their dogma. - 22:32:51 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Think I'll become quoted, LOL! Good ole Robert T Lee has taken a few of my quotes and plastered them all over his webpage..desperate man! - 22:37:21 on 12 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- And now for a more realistic look at Scientology.. - 22:51:24 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY (re: 1:52:47 11 May post): What is "It's monistic idealism, first of all" supposed to mean to me? I mean, I can read, I know that's what you call your philosophy/religion. I was just wondering if the word monistic was derived from the word monism, defined in my dictionary as "The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from or reducible to the same substance or principle of being", and was therefore supposed to carry some of the same meaning, or whether it's meaning is altogether different. Since you claim that consciousness is NOT contained within the physical body, meaning mind and matter are separate, of different systems, "monistic" idealism seems to me to be a misnomer. In the aforementioned statement, you're just NAMING your beliefs again, not answering my question, i.e., EXPLAINING what YOU mean by "monistic". - 23:39:36 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY (re: 1:52:47 11 May post): Next sentence: You quote my claim that the "new physics" is not inconsistent with a materialistic universe, yada yada yada, then say this is a material realistic assumption (apparently a bad thing in your view). Well, are you saying my assumptions that I exist, that sillystring exists, that the big mack truck that could kill me if I step in front of it as it barrels down the roadway extists, are all false assumptions? Because it seems that a material realistic assumption is, in your book, a false assumption. If I'm to understand you correctly, it seems as though you're saying that all material existence is an illusion, produced by the somnambulant rumblings of some quasi-self-conscious "universe" (I put universe in quotes because I really don't know what you mean by the term. When I say universe I mean all material existence – you would obviously have arguments against that assumption.) - 23:40:05 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY (re: 1:52:47 11 May post): "Once again, the purposeful bias to assume against all known evidence to the contrary, that consciousness is not completely defined in the physical matter of the brain, is a result of traditional neural materialism engrained into our patterns of interpretation." According to this statement, you are claiming that I still adhere to the doctrine that consciousness is NOT completely defined in the physical matter of the brain, even though I have witnessed evidence to the contrary. I don't think this is what you meant to communicate. I think you meant the opposite (because I believe I've made it rather clear that I DO think consciousness is confined to the physical matter of the brain), in which case I would answer – I have yet to witness evidence to the contrary. - 23:40:39 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY (re: 1:52:47 11 May post): Then you state: "Also, the apparent contradiction of a free will as an illusion is a direct result of deterministic traits of material realism." I don't believe I said free will as an illusion was an apparent contradiction. Contradiction to what? I think the illusion of free will is a perfectly natrual resultant of the complexity of the human brain. Also, you say "Why would someone bother arguing that their opinions stem from the random combinations and conditioning of the world around them and therefore declare that their opinions are not valid??" I never said my opinions stemmed from random combinations (something you might falsely assume by misunderstanding some of the "new physics" you love so well). I do not in any way believe that the universe is a place of "random combinations". I think that at first, because of our incomplete knowledge of the workings of the cosmos, it may seem that its processes are random, but as we learn more about certain phenomenon, we find that the universe does follow a rational, albeit bizarre and non-common-sensical, pattern. Neither quantum mechanics nor evolution are random phenomena. Both operate by specific rules. Nonetheless, if I HAD argued that my opinions stem from random combinations, I don't see how that would make such opinions invalid. As for arguing that my opinions stem from the conditioning of the world around me – didn't do it. Wouldn't mean my opinions were invalid if I had though. - 23:41:15 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY (re: 1:52:47 11 May post): As for the rest of the post, you have yet to convince me that your view of the universe is any more valid than mine. You simply label my ideas as "entrenched in material realism" and don't really explain anything. You have given me no evidence that my consciousness is a product of anything more or less than the biochemical processes of my brain, but simply throw buzzwords at me and expect me to bow in admiration of your superior knowledge. Well, buzzwords have never impressed me – explaining the concepts behind them in a logical manner has. Anyway, I am perfectly happy wrapping myself in the fabric of material realism (I don't know about determinism – I don't necessarily agree with that, I don't think). It's helped me survive so far – and isn't that the most important thing in our sorry little lives – survival. Without it as a first priority, we wouldn't be around to discuss such wacky, interesting topics like material realism and monistic idealism :) - 23:41:59 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Your point about nothing traveling faster than light is a good one. Doesn't the idea of non-locality presuppose an instantaneous transmission of some phenomenon? Light isn't even transmitted instantaneously, so how could anything else be? The idea that nothing could travel faster than light used to confuse me, but the book I am currently reading, _The Elegant Universe_ by Brian Greene, spends about three chapters discussing Einstien's Theories of Relativity (Special and General) and explains WHY nothing can travel faster than light very, very well. I highly recommend it. - 23:54:08 on 12 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY (re: - 5:33:57 on 12 May post): Sorry, I just read this one. I'll try to keep my response short. Your claim that material realism states "somehow order and form stems from randomly shifting atoms" shows that you don't understand quantum theory. (As a matter of fact, even quantum theorists don't completely understand it.) Anyway, while the uncertainty principle introduces probability waves and a certain measure of "randomness", this randomness is on the level of quantum distances, not nearly enough randomness to discount the possibility that the macro-world in which we live can exist through their (subatomic particles) actions. Also, the existence of randomness and probability waves in quantum theory is merely a reflection of our incomplete knowledge of the patterns existing on such small scales. It just seems to me that you're assuming that material realist scientists have the arrogant position that their science describes the be-all-end-all of existence, and I just don't think that's so. Also, when you say "new physics" do you mean post-Newtonian, i.e. post-classical physics, or something totally different? Because I don't find post-Newtonian physics to be inconsistent with material realism (as I've said several times). - 0:11:52 on 13 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA(you ole sack of cells, you)- Sounds good, you've likely read I'm reading _The unconscious (capital"u" doesn't work on my keyboard)Quantum_ by Vic Stenger, also very good. He posts on the mailing list I'm on and has a new book coming out this summer on evidence against god (should be interesting as this is going to the extent of trying to prove a negative). - 0:21:14 on 13 May 100 GMT

Michelle:Bill-Thanks for the vote of recognition for us moms! Its pretty neat that several people wished me this Happy Day today and throughout the week. Well, 4 weeks in a row now and counting...we had another near miss yesterday(big poles fell and crushed a bunch of stuff) and as I was driving to work I came upon a 5 minute old accident. It was horrible...I looked over and saw a dead man's mangled body still uncovered in the middle of the highway. Now that will make you think...my stomach was queasy all day. Couldn't we talk about something else over the next few days? There must be some other topics that are bound to be interesting to us. - 1:07:44 on 13 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MICHELLE- Do you mean "us" on the board talk about something else or you and Bill? If us, suggest something! I know what you mean by awful accidents. I've driven most of the highways in both the States and Canada and have seen my share of them. After seeing something like that it doesn't leave one's mind for days. I guess reality hits home at those times letting us all know how vunerable we really are. - 1:21:05 on 13 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MICHELLE, Just email me about work things (especially details)…..I'm exaggerating here, to some degree, about the work SUCKS thing! I gotta have something to SLAM, don't I? It's only normal, right? Actually nothing really bothers me a whole lot…..I feel GOOOOOD! - 14:51:03 on 13 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, I do agree with your comments and the ego booster thing. Again, I think belief systems are more of a coping/survival thing…as the alternative is, unknowns, fear and shorter life spans! Since it's almost Mother's Day, I will mention my mother who has been a very devote xtian all her life and gives generously to charities….she is now 87 and her belief system has helped her cope and endure all this time. She's never dumped on or judged others for what they believe. While it's not for me….too many beatings from dad…who was the opposite, I do respect her and her beliefs and even take her to church out of respect. She's never judge me for not going to church…other than infrequent quips, nor have I felt the need to tell her my beliefs…..she's never even asked, so it's a live and let live thing. The younger in my family believe much like I do. For her it seems to be a positive thing and the environment suffers no less for it, so I will continue to respect her and her belief system. Who among us could not respect someone that has given a major portion of his or her life for your sake? Not all people can face reality, as you and I seem to interpret it. While I would like to believe in a parental type higher guidance, I just can't force myself to see the universe created and governed by a human like rational mind. What rational mind would have created this duplicity and paradox, that I have mentioned here before; not to speak of, one organism creating pain and suffering while feeding off of another…..it just doesn't follow! - 14:51:46 on 13 May 100 GMT

Bill...:ROB, I ditto your post, as we seem to have similar viewpoints. What kind of a "belief system" do you adhere to? You seem pretty open-minded. I haven't read Melissa's yet, but I usually agree with her as well….gotta go for now - 14:54:30 on 13 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I don't know that no belief system causes fear and shorter life spans but it may...I'm not afraid but I can't comment on my life span, who knows..I think it's great that you're respecting your mom's beliefs though, if it weren't for her you wouldn't be here. I got a really nice card from my son in the mail yesterday with a message written in his own words inside. It's the appreciation of a mom's loving effort and time being recognized that really makes mother's day. - 15:45:28 on 13 May 100 GMT

Rob::Bill: I'd echo your sentiments stated earlier in that others are more into categorizations than I. But since you ask, I had some real reality checks as a kid (mother murdered, foster father very violent,yada yada) which made me assess values (and yes survival skills). I guess I'm a contradiction, in that I believe in humane efforts, goodwill, tolerance and respect for others....and yet think life's a shit sandwhich for everyone at some point. A grad school chair once asked me how I could work so hard to help whatever cause and yet say I'm a pessimist (she'd seen a genogram of my family history,enough to scare anyone) and was implying that I was an optimist in pessimists clothing to have survived it. I'm not an optimist, closer to a realist. So I compartmentalize.... Do what I can in my little corner (I know its not altruistic if you get paid and other secondary gains). What happens in the rest of the world, can't change it, doesn't shock me cause I've already seen worse.... Beliefs: Don't believe ANYONE knows the truth about the universe, believe in my own judgements, think people could do alot more to help each other, but we're all too self absorbed (self included). Know man is capable of more savagery than people realize. Think we're moving away from independant thought to Orwell's groupthink fears. The media supports this with the corporate ownership of 'news as entertainment' crap. Americans are poorly informed , short attention span theater people, as a group. Think we're doomed, but enjoying the ride....... - 21:53:58 on 13 May 100 GMT

Bill...:ROB, It seems that we have had similar, yet different, challenges in life; similar in the emotional stresses which we have had to overcome, but somewhat different in the experiences themselves. That's so tragic about your mother and today must be really tough for you, but her short influences must have imparted some good things upon your life, right? Of course I can relate to a father beating the s&*^ out of you as mine used a razor strap on my bare skin that left welts and even kicked me down the stairs once…I'm lucky I didn't break more than a tailbone, ha! I felt very inferior back then but now I walk naked on the beach and feel good, ha! When I was 15 or so I swung at him with my fist but hit his hands that he threw up to block…you see, I can take an untold amount of verbal abuse but when he grabbed me and started shaking me it just happened. I'm still the same today…so don't grab me, ha! He said if I ever did that again, I would be out on the street. My sister was 16 and she got the strap one morning in bed cause she fell back asleep….Oh well, you can't spare the ROD and SPOIL those damn kids, right? You can see why I am turned off to FUN_DAM_MENTALIST, HA! Also, without a lot of details, my oldest boy overdosed and was in a coma twice over a four-year period. He was born depressed and was tested for everything you can imagine (even brain scans) as a kid and finally the medications improved to the point that he can function rationally and is very gifted and successful as a Software Engineer writing Java code for a telecommunications company. I tend not to like LABELS as THEY (psychiatrists) labeled him and wanted him committed long term….said he was one of the worse cases they had seen and that he would never function as an adult! Fortunately my wife (married now for 30 yrs) and other son are what society would consider "normal" (what ever that is?) and we all were emotionally stretched by the oldest and you know, we are all better off for it. Not only was I motivated to go out and invest to bring in more money to pay all the medical bills, these investment put both boys through college and will now allow me early retirement. Also, as one psychologist noted during a week of intense family group counseling, I have develop "coping skills" that he has never seen before, do to all the family stresses during these trying time. And these coping skills, like my investments, enrich my family and my life every day. I never imagined the future benefit of facing my problems and never giving up…. But you know ….I wouldn't change a thing…. And I'm sure we all have our stories to tell….Cheers! - 14:10:52 on 14 May 100 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Of course when I say "belief system" I am applying it to everyone's adopted paradigm; whether it's xtian, materialism, objectivism, atheism, humanist, etc. It's our philosophy or interpretation of our perceived macro reality. People have to bring some sense of order to their lives and what seems to work for some may not work for others. Personally, I can see myself going 100+, haha…sorry world! Concerning Mother's Day, I totally agree with your statement, "It's the appreciation of a mom's loving effort and time being recognized that really makes mother's day." It's also important to relay this appreciation at other times during the year and, since my mother is getting very old, I ended my xmas letter to family and friends this past year with *** Mom has learned to laugh at her physical challenges, and never seems to get that upset or give up on the simple joys of life. She writes letters to all of her friends, never misses Wheel of Fortune, and loves family holidays and get-togethers. She's always interested in the grandkid's relationships, buying presents and giving to others, reading books, reading her Bible, going to church, and most of all she still thinks of and loves us all. Yes, Mom, we are blessed by your life. Thanks so much for your unconditional love, which has given us all personal security, an example to live by, and inner strength to deal with all that we may encounter in life. For it's the little things in life that are important and this time of the year gives us a special opportunity to show how much we do care. Mom, thanks for being here for us and we love you for being you. *** Happy Mother's Day to all!! - 14:11:18 on 14 May 100 GMT

Bill..:BETTY, I'm afraid on this most auspicious parental day that my baby (child within) will, for now, have to be nurtured by me for a while longer. Your "conscious only" belief system seems "unaware" of "awareness" and has failed to ameliorate my babies existence and thus it's survival abilities. This universal "one only" determinant (to maintain it's existence) adds little and seems somewhat trite as compared to my babies' experience of "organization" and…. Uh… the "reverse." But cheers non-the-less and Happy Mothers' Day ;~)! - 14:47:33 on 14 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Thankyou!! - 18:05:12 on 14 May 100 GMT

Betty:Thanks, Bill. Mother's Day was especially wonderful today, with my future son-in-law... Anyway, the fashion in which you propose your understanding of monistic idealism is evidence to why you can't "relate" to it. You read the word consciousness and relate it to traditionally narrowed (materialistic) perceptions immediately. I've explained numerous times that conscious is a non-local sharing. This means that it is not limited to any one or the whole of the biological (physical) world. It doesn't spontaneously surface in a new born child, and nor does it cease to exist when this person dies. We all experience this pre-existing universal transcending consciousness due to the fine tuning of our sensory inputs and elaborate physical brain wiring because awareness and rationality are traits we have ascended to, not because consciousness itself is "aware" or "rational". Humans are an evolutionary miracle, in the sense that we are an expression of consciousness ( a creative, fluid universal structure ) on it's physical expressions. Additionally, rationality is an after-effect of humanity's self-perceived visions of their purpose. The vision of consciousness you speak of, "..to a "conscious" (ie rational, human like) universal mind," is still a premonition of a mix of materialism, anthropocentrism, and misreads of my posts. The consciousness monistic idealism is neither rational, human-like nor a universal mind. I will propose that the following quote, "I can relate to a micro universal awareness, as I have posted before using examples of the jelly fish and the tree, that is creative, positive, and ubiquitous," is short of one small and often ignored precept - that this creativity is only assumed to stem from the elementary particles of the physical world. Matter itself has no organizing capabilities, and therefore has no omnipresent or creative qualities. What we call gravity - a cardboard cut-out sign so we can point to the organization we see (and that's all it is), for example, can be replaced with a perception of a fluid structure of consciousness, a transcending creativity not located in matter, but the immaterial organization process behind it. - 3:21:36 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, I'll get back to you later in reference to your other questions, but please refer to the above paragraph to Bill about monistic idealism. I'll state in another way here again: The universe is a consciousness, a creatively, self-maintaining, self-organizing immaterial entity. The physical world is an intimately tied expression of this consciousness. This is why it is a monism: 'The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from or reducible to the same substance or principle of being'. Consciousness is the underlying process, substance, existence, and being. What we call mind and matter are our uses of this consciousness, both physically and mentally. There would have to be a quality that we use to act causally (free will). And this quality cannot be found in matter and our own sacks of cells alone, which is why it's necessary to consider an inclusive, complete causality existence such as monistic idealism. Idealism is an important part of it this specific philosophy. Talk again soon... - 3:37:00 on 15 May 100 GMT

Doug:As we imagine extrapolating the history of the Universe backward in time, the big bang theory tells us that the Universe becomes more dense and hotter, and the relevant distance scales become shorter and shorter. *************The Planck Scale************* But we have already seen that if the distance scales become short enough (of atomic dimensions or smaller), the theory of quantum mechanics must be used. Therefore, as we extrapolate back in time to the beginning of the Universe, eventually one would reach a state of sufficient temperature and density that a fully quantum mechanical theory of gravitation would be required. This is called the Planck era, and the corresponding scales of distance, energy, and time are called the Planck scale. The Planck scale corresponds to incredibly small distances (or equivalently, incredibly large energies). The corresponding lengths, energies, temperatures, and times are displayed in the adjacent table (the unit GeV stands for 1 billion electron volts of energy). Planck length equals roughly 10^-33 cm,The energies needed to smash particles to within a Planck length of each other are available to the universe at a time equal to the Planck length divided by the speed of light. Lot's of green veggies Betty, keep those cals. burning! ***********Quantum Gravitation**************** But the General Theory of Relativity does not respect the principles of quantum mechanics. What is required then is a theory of gravitation that also is consistent with quantum mechanics. This could be termed a theory of quantum gravitation. Unfortunately, no one has yet understood how to accomplish this very difficult task, and we do not yet have an internally consistent theory of quantum gravity. The most promising present alternative is called superstring theory, but it is not yet clear whether it can provide a correct picture of quantum gravitation. Yet Betty says she and her cohorts know lots more than the greatest minds of our era. How can this be? Maybe if those scientists beefed up their language with trendy catch phrases and nebulose meannings their knowledge of the unkown would be like yours: made up of wishful and illogical watered down religious dogma. - 12:59:33 on 15 May 100 GMT

QuickFinder::) - 15:01:46 on 15 May 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG,et.al: Ms.BETTY ain't really tryin'to say anything in particular. As far as one understanding what BETTY seeks I can make out two possible accounts. One is simple "rapture" and the other one is "hypothetical". While I compared her conduct here somewhat comically, as to the pick-ax babe, I still meant it to be seriously viewed as rapture. That would lessen the expectation that BETTY can or could better explain whatever it is that she experiences and understands of that cosmolgical consciousness. As far as that idea- per se, goes at this time as it might be conveyed it is only a hypothetical expression. "Humans are an evolutionary miracle" ooh, geez, now I'm impressed. Ha!hah! This looks like the cogitations of a new-age xian. No more old fashion apologetics for BETTY. Even the coos and mews of theology ain't gonna work for what this BETTY means to say against that old-fashioned idea of atheism. That, afterall is what concerns this BETTY most of all, anyone who does not know the one and all. - 15:23:43 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Funny, how only the scientists we want to agree with suddenly appear more reliable than others'. Sounds more and more like people in here simply do not like the sound of anything spiritual (or religious in nature, which monistic idealism is not), which is nothing more than a preferential bias for atheistic material realism, and not "real" science. Yes! Real scientists theorized conscious monistic idealism. I can hear the lumps in peoples throats. "No, those guys aren't scientists! They don't subscribe to strict material realism!" I do credit Doug, however, with being one of the first in here, even if he may have copied and pasted his argument, with the recognized need for a unified structure theory. I mentioned String Theory before - which is still a materialistic grabbing at very, very, very, small straws (pun intended). In other words, material realists are still looking for something physical as a complete theory. I've already explained that matter, and therefore the entire physical world, has no inherent need or property that lets it design and order itself. There is something else going on, whether it's consciousness theory or not. - 15:26:45 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:"Yet Betty says she and her cohorts know lots more than the greatest minds of our era" - "good old-fashoned atheism" - good examples of support for those 'great minds' that invented material realism, only. Doug, I'm sure you speak of Descartes, and Newton, and Galileo, and so forth. Like I've stated, materialism was a great tool to get us to where we are today, but it still only remains a metaphysical assumption. Descartes transformed our world. Because of him, we were released from the stonghold of Orthodox dogmas. The technology gained from material realism has allowed us more efficient and longer life spans - and that's about it on the large scale. Yeah, we can understand our world better because of materialism, but what I'm addressing is the excessive pride in praising matter as absolute. Because materialism has also caused gross consumerism, world land and resource disputes, neglect of holistic ecological values, technological and warfare disasters, and even more so, a forced deadened perspective of life, based on viewing the basis for our lives as random shifting particles alone. Traditional pride often CONFUSES the difference between a belief and an absolute. - 15:48:41 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, I've noticed that you use the phrase, "from what I gather" often in referring to my posts. I can understand if the specifics get in the way here because if you have noticed I use specifics to show the misconceptions. I'm sure you're familiar with the term, self-evident. Just in case, it means that the belief itself is enough for anyone to accept; further investigation is unnecessary. Material realism is just such a thing. It's not and has never been a fact of the physical world. Material realism is Descartes' and so forth, methodology to compartamentalize the whole of physical universe into separate localized experiments. In short, material realism is like Xianity's revelatory perceptions. "God shows his work through us" = "The physical world is proof of material realism (which already means, only the physical is real)". Both self-evident phrases. ----- You want to hear a real hilarious trendy catch phrase? "Selfish Genes" - I still have yet to see one, but it's only "hypothetical" afterall. lol. ---- - 16:10:14 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, BTW, if you plan on quoting me again, please don't compartamentalize the argument into such things as "Humans are an evolutionary miracle". It's obvious that you picked up on the world 'miracle' in the whole paragraph (materialisms' localization principle), disregarded the rest of the text as part of your argument in this case, then shot off from there: "Miracle!!? Miracle = religion! Humans are miracles? Humans and religion and miracles? Haha. Me know what to say here. I reckon, it's self evident. Me no like what Betty posts because me think atheistic materialism is better than theistic materialism. Me am clever.".... lol.... - 16:16:05 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, I'm not ignoring you, hun. I'm just having some fun in the meantime. I've noticed already that you've made some claims about me that are incongruent with what I've stated. More later... - 16:19:37 on 15 May 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: you are just a religious adherent and certainly nothing else that is better than some J.Falway follower. - 17:45:35 on 15 May 100 GMT

Bill..:BETTY, I'll go so far as to admit that we may be talking about similar things to some degree, in reference to universal connectivity or creativity, except using different words….you just don't attach the same meaning to words that most of us do. And yes, I did say, *** I can relate to a micro universal awareness, as I have posted before using examples of the jelly fish and the tree, that is creative, positive, and ubiquitous *** because I've had direct experiences, via meditation, that left me with those feelings, and I can rationalize back in time the evolutionary processes that have occurred. After all, we have all grown through these various stages (it's recorded in our brains, right?) and it's simply re-experiencing this state of awareness…. seems totally natural to me! It's free and sure beats going to church, haha! But, unlike you, I'm not proposing to know "why" or "how"…. and quite frankly don't even care that much, as I doubt anyone would ever be able to quantify it…. Re-experiencing my possible early stages just makes me "feel" good and "confident" and thus helps me to "survive" and "cope!" Nothing mysterious here! Bye! - 17:51:27 on 15 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MEthinks there has been enough well accepted argument against this monistic idealism dogma. Most here (including myself) have went to a lot of trouble posting arguments that just has been a waste of our time. Anyone for moving on OR discussing real scientists who's theories are acceptable and those fringe scientists who's theories are out in left field. This arguing with a religionist is getting really tired. - 19:10:29 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Moving along.... Bill, I'll remind you again that I didn't invent the theory or the words. Like I said, the use of the words have changed over time, because of this certain engrained tradition I've explained. The entire concept the words meant to point to is the biggest change. Instead of searching for the "HOW", this tradition seeks the "WHEN", "WHERE", "HOW MUCH" and "TO WHAT EXTENT" the purely quantitative results as opposed to qualitative "HOW". If the "HOW" seems unnecessary to you, that's fine also. Some people just accept meanings as they are taught and work their way from there. My interests delve deeper than self-evident claims, which is fine by me. I don't claim I know an absolute "HOW", but I know it's more important than the surface stuff. - 21:27:10 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, There are a few things to clear up. A materialistic universe is different than a material universe. The term materialism comes from material realism, a metaphysical assumption that only random shifting atoms in space are real. Material is the matter or physical part of the universe. The big mack truck will hit you, but you can never directly prove that all of the order and form in this world depends upon the organization of the elementary physical particles alone. It's not a false assumption to assume a materialistic universe, just a limited one. --- Also, I apologize for the extra word "not" here, please read it this way as: "…that consciousness is … completely defined in the physical matter.." That was an accident of semantics. - 21:28:48 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, "…that I DO think consciousness is confined to the physical matter of the brain), in which case I would answer – I have yet to witness evidence to the contrary…" Limited to whose brain? Yours, mine? Consciousness is a shared trait, which is not understood through strict materialism's locality principle. Consciousness is, however traditionally disputed, non-local in nature. Material realism started the idea of the isolated ego within it's physical form to study isolated conditions which is why it doesn't work holistically. Reconsidering that everything is interdependent of each in other in a self-contained universe, the locality principle does more harm than good. For example, traditional doctors are nothing more than car mechanics. If something's wrong, they throw some pills at you or remove the organ, never considering all the transpiring factors that may have lead to the illness in the first place. You can watch commercials on TV for prescription drugs nowadays. They say, it may cause any number of symptoms, headache, diarrhea, upset stomach, yellow-ish coloring to take a pill to cure ONE problem. This is a detrimental cultural effect of the materialistic traditions. People will say, "But it works this way!" ---- It only works on a very small scale, because we still have all the same problems, only sometimes getting rid of polio and such - and "It'll take too much energy to change how our system works." Well, not if we all do it at once. Melissa, The "apparent contradiction of a free will as an illusion is a direct result of deterministic traits of material realism" was not your statement, so I take credit for pointing to a contradiction, which is this: If free will was an illusion, then all opinions are invalid. You may as well hang up your hat if you believe this because you cannot argue with any value in an illusion. If, however, like most of us passionately assume that our opinions are valid, we need a better foundation for supporting this. If you believe that the workings of the brain are entirely self-contained, then this is reasoning to call it an illusion. It is also a very narrow-minded observation. ---- - 21:29:58 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, "…that I DO think consciousness is confined to the physical matter of the brain), in which case I would answer – I have yet to witness evidence to the contrary…" Limited to whose brain? Yours, mine? Consciousness is a shared trait, which is not understood through strict materialism's locality principle. Consciousness is, however traditionally disputed, non-local in nature. Material realism started the idea of the isolated ego within it's physical form to study isolated conditions which is why it doesn't work holistically. Reconsidering that everything is interdependent of each in other in a self-contained universe, the locality principle does more harm than good. For example, traditional doctors are nothing more than car mechanics. If something's wrong, they throw some pills at you or remove the organ, never considering all the transpiring factors that may have lead to the illness in the first place. You can watch commercials on TV for prescription drugs nowadays. They say, it may cause any number of symptoms, headache, diarrhea, upset stomach, yellow-ish coloring to take a pill to cure ONE problem. This is a detrimental cultural effect of the materialistic traditions. People will say, "But it works this way!" ---- It only works on a very small scale, because we still have all the same problems, only sometimes getting rid of polio and such - and "It'll take too much energy to change how our system works." Well, not if we all do it at once. Melissa, The "apparent contradiction of a free will as an illusion is a direct result of deterministic traits of material realism" was not your statement, so I take credit for pointing to a contradiction, which is this: If free will was an illusion, then all opinions are invalid. You may as well hang up your hat if you believe this because you cannot argue with any value in an illusion. If, however, like most of us passionately assume that our opinions are valid, we need a better foundation for supporting this. If you believe that the workings of the brain are entirely self-contained, then this is reasoning to call it an illusion. It is also a very narrow-minded observation. ---- - 21:31:02 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:Melissa, The one thing I found through your posts that made any real sense was your inconsistency. ---- "Your claim that material realism states "somehow order and form stems from randomly shifting atoms" shows that you don't understand quantum theory." It's you who doesn't understand material realism, and it's precepts when approaching quantum theory. Then you post this, "Also, the existence of randomness and probability waves in quantum theory is merely a reflection of our incomplete knowledge of the patterns existing on such small scales." Exactly!! Materialisms' precept of locality deconstructs the possibility for a more unified theory of quantum mechanics. ------ Here's my favorite one: "Because I don't find post-Newtonian physics to be inconsistent with material realism." You mean quantum mechanics follows determinism? Classical physicists have found no paradoxes when examining quantum mechanics?? What a brave (and ignorant) position. Still holding onto the materialist membership card? Lol. - 21:32:03 on 15 May 100 GMT

Betty:This one cleans the crumbs off the table, however: "….but simply throw buzzwords at me and expect me to bow in admiration of your superior knowledge…. [instead of] explaining the concepts behind them in a logical manner …." - and then I stopped and decided whether I should bother posting all the above replies. I mean, what are you really arguing if you don't know the concepts? It's all nonsense otherwise. The concepts are plain and clear. And that's when I realized it's not just you. Doug invented the phrase "word salad" because he couldn't follow the concepts, Marlene admitted her ignorance of the subjects but yet continued to banter, Carl is just as stubborn against anything he can't classify into his limited "atheist" category, Grant gracefully bowed out a long time ago, and Bill and Rob like to engage the concepts but with certain stubborn precepts - and then accuse me of the error. I certainly didn't trot in here thinking I was superior, but the honest truth is I'm working on a different level of intellect here. It's not anymore right or wrong, just different. Some people just don't get it. That's their nature. Anyway, I was hoping that at least an atheistic materialistic room would have been more objective, even if they don't understand the concepts in full. Take care. - 21:34:18 on 15 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Hummm, ya all remember someone once posted here that she didn't have all day to post on this board and that she felt some of us were posting too often? Wasted space, IMO. - 21:52:34 on 15 May 100 GMT

Marlene:"Marlene admitted her ignorance of the subjects but yet continued to banter" Shee-it! I seem to understand her bullshit better than she does! Does she think no one reads the back posts? - 22:24:03 on 15 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: So how is it, whenever a religious-xian type shows-up and the non-xian question of where is their godthing, the non-xian's simple question render them a lesser person? So now there is this new age view of the whole as it is one and all, and for those who question it really being so, the questioner too is the lesser for asking a simple question. Hmmm? Either looks simply religious to me. How so? Well, advocates and adherents for the creator idea, form concepts which are only words in that the religious must first discredit the substance that leads to thought. The basic substance of thought is something's movement in time. The religious types discredit the matter moving in time or require that one's mental focus discount that thing moving in time. These types attack such substance in that by so doing the thing they point at may become known before it moves or, with a clear mind it can be _____ as it is. Until one arrives at that instant actualisation, well then they must be all those terms and whatever else that your fren BETTY inscribes above. Gads! it must be nice to be inhuman, a spirit-thing, a supernatural whatever, or have a blank-mind but contrarily still at one with the all! heheh, what an act of idiocy - 22:38:08 on 15 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- A blank-mind that someone, somewhere has decided to scribble on. - 23:30:45 on 15 May 100 GMT

Cristy:The boys had a mother's day program at their church "preschool" and one of their songs had the refrain..."be careful little minds what you think...cause the father that we love is watching from above, so be careful little minds what you think".........now is that trying to train the next generation of sheep or what? "Big powerful guy is watching you so you better not use your mind for anything but mindless obedience". Blech. Well, it's not like my kids ever participate in the singing anyway. Kyle stands there grinning shyly and Ryan zones out like he's on sedatives. Maybe that's their coping mechanisms when faced w/ blatant ignorance *g* Glad we're going to a new school this fall, where hopefully they'll actually stimulate some brain cells instead of trying to generate drones. - 1:23:57 on 16 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- Poor kids! I think it's called "programming", it can be dangerous stuff. Like you say, good thing the kids are going to a new school. - 1:35:21 on 16 May 100 GMT

Doug:Betty: please give us some scientific references supporting thr theories you're spouting off on.No philosophy please.Surely they have been published in peer-reviewed journals.Oh I've read and known about the string theory long before the new age quacks saw the resurgence of the dogmatic soul. - 3:22:38 on 16 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug--You're not likely to get an answer for that one. If not, I think I know the source of this drivel. - 4:05:40 on 16 May 100 GMT

Melissa:Dear BETTY: You claim to want some objective dialogue. Well I thought that was what we were engaging in. But you don't want objective dialogue, which is apparent in your claim that "The concepts are plain and clear" and "the honest truth is I'm working on a different level of intellect here." Because you haven't been explaining concepts, you have been labeling comments as "ignorant" or full of "material realistic precepts". Only two posts came close to what I was trying to get out of you: - 3:37:00 on 15 May 100 GMT when you explain why your philosophy merits the label "monistic" and - 21:28:48 on 15 May 100 GMT when you try to explain the difference between a material universe and a materialistic universe. BTW: I thought I explained that I don't believe that "only random shifting atoms in space are real", the definition you give to material realism (which you didn't do, that I had seen, previous to my post in which I equated material realism to quantum theory and said you didn't understand quantum theory; this is what I mean by don't throw buzzwords at me and expect me to "get" the concepts, define the buzzwords first. If I neglected to see the definition previously, just correcting me graciously would be appreciated, but calling me an idiot is not). I believe that the universe is composed of much smaller material than mere atoms and that these smaller material's movements only APPEAR random because we don't fully understand the world in which they live. So we stand in agreement here, as I have tried and tried to make apparent. But pardon me for not immediately jumping on the monistic idealism bandwagon. I am not an idiot because I ask you to clearly define some of the buzzwords you throw out. As Bill has stated before, and as you have readily admitted about the word "consciousness", we don't seem to be speaking the same language, which is why I ask you not to litter your posts with the same buzzwords over and over again, like simply telling me "It's monistic idealism first of all" instead of explaining why monistic is applicable to your philosophy at all. Words can only have meanings when we both understand and agree upon to which concepts they are intended to point. Frankly, what it comes down to is that I'm insulted. I find that the true mark of human intelligence is the ability to question all information that leaks out of man's anal retentive, egocentric little brain, and that includes monistic idealism. If this philosophy works for you, great for you. But don't you dare brand yourself "of a different level of intellect" because you have yet to convince me that your way is better than any other way posed by any other man woman or child. You think the most sensical thing about my posts is their inconsistency, fine (frankly, that doesn't make sense). I think if you read deeper, you'd see I don't buy into the whole deterministic, static, "material realistic" model of the universe either. But that doesn't mean I have to accept monistic idealism. It is not an either-or situation to me. I think it's possible to shrug off classical physics, determinism, static universes, etc. and still believe that this is a material universe, not necessarily materialistic. That's all I've been trying to convey really. That I have yet to encounter evidence of the IMmaterial (how would you go about even gathering evidence of the IMmaterial) you talk about. So I live comfortably in my MATERIAL, not materialISTIC, universe, where consciousness is singular and physical. If you have a problem with this, so be it. - 7:21:49 on 16 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY: On a lighter note, I wanted to say that I agree with your post about doctors and pharmaceuticals and what-not. I was studying neuropharmacology in college and learned that we're all guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical companies really, and that they don't have any interest in finding real solutions for our ailments, just more ways to make money, like marketing a drug that's chemically similar to an anti-psychotic for oh, I don't know, allergies maybe, because maybe that anti-psychotic cleared up the itchy watery eyes and runny nose the schizophrenics were suffering without making them drowsy. Anyway, my point is, I think you're right, there has to be a better way out there - but then again, my son, born prematurely and unable to produce surfactant (sp?) on his own initially, is alive because of modern medicine - so they must be getting something right. - 7:29:12 on 16 May 100 GMT

Melissa:ALL: So did anybody else take in "Battlefield Earth" over the weekend? I'm guessing that, if so, no one thought it was anything spectacular (me included) . . . given the silence. - 14:36:57 on 16 May 100 GMT

Melissa:BETTY: How can consciousness be non-local? If it is non-local, then it is everywhere instantaneously, am I right (in other words, perhaps you need to explain the phenomenon of non-locality if I'm getting this wrong)? And if I am right, how do you resolve the conflict with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity (is this part of the concept you call "new physics" - cuz I have yet to see a definition of "new physics" and I am always assuming it means "post-Newtonian", which includes Einstein's theories of relativity, quantum theory, superstring theory, and M-theory in my dictionary). The Theory of Special Relativity states that no phenomenon can travel faster than the speed of light, even gravity (which is a material concept based on matter, I know, but is it a materialISTIC concept?), and light is not an instantaneous phenomenon. It is not non-local. Sure, it changes positions in space (not time though, light is ageless), but it is still confined to a certain area of space. It does not travel through the space around Alpha Centauri and our sun simultaneously. So, if this is the physics your philosophy is based on, what you call "new physics", how do you resolve the conflict between non-locality and the light-speed barrier? If this is NOT what you base your philosophy on, if this is NOT your definition of "new physics", then we need to exchange dictionaries again. - 14:59:01 on 16 May 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: The church-critters, do they resemble the creatures imaged at this site? - 15:14:06 on 16 May 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, ROFLOL nearly falling out of my chair! Oh my GAWD whadda hoot. - 19:56:57 on 16 May 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: Well, the lord do work in mysterious ways and 'things', thats fersure. - 20:12:01 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Betty: I'd hate to see you go, I like to see a variety of opinions here, and you definately bring that. I can tell you are bright and sincere. In your frustration with us you bring the 'we just don't understand' defense. I understand that dynamic, but it does wear thin on people. I wish it had gotten past the adversarial thing. Best of luck to you either way. I like this site and the people here alot and hope'd you would too. Take care..... - 21:18:32 on 16 May 100 GMT

Michelle:Marlene -I have been working so much lately I missed the last couple of days postings. I was suggesting other topics for mm. I meant that something other than strict philosophy might be interesting. That man that was killed was a contractor where I work. Just a very sad story. Let's see...what topics...well, for simple starters. Has anyone seen the movie "Frequency". It started out slow but was pretty good by the end. You know you always have to suspend a bit of reality in the movies. The audience actually Clapped. Haven't seen that in a very long time. - 21:32:25 on 16 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MICHELLE- No I haven't seen it nor have I seen Battlefield Earth as Melissa had asked. I don't have the opportunity right now to get out much. I've only been out once in the last three months as I have my little granddaughter living with me full time. I agree that philosophy gets old after awhile most especially if one hasn't adopted any special one as some here have. I think though that this forum is atheists discussing beliefs and those things that go along with them and philosphy is part of that. This isn't a forum though for preaching one's belief as has been the case for the last while. - 22:14:44 on 16 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Really, Rob, when someone such as Betty comes here and calls everyone dense while she goes on to preach rather than discuss, do you expect anyone here to accept that behavior. When an xtain comes here and calls us all dense because we don't understand the jesus concept, which has happened many times in the past, would you consider us adversarial. - 22:21:30 on 16 May 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: I find BETTY's position of other worldliness, as it grew that way, more and more pretentious and exclusive. If a thing an idea a notion a concept, whatever, is meaningful and good anyone will get it. I've seen at least one idea I think similar to what BETTY presents here. It wasn't called consciousness but it was quite comprehensible as it was presented. I've read a thing or two of other storys like what BETTY tells here which were also quite comprehensible. The noteworthy point of those accounts, the writer\thinkers did not exclude things for the sake of their presentation. That has been the more difficult aspect of BETTY, and was it JOSH's too, presentation for the consciousness thing, they almost seem to seek of others an admission of some "sin" or other degradation of oneself in order to arrive at that other state of mind. Is that a worthy kind of knowledge that can, might or will bring together the human creatures? Maybe BETTY should rethink and say again whatever is in that mind. - 22:35:37 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: I'm not blaming anyone, I just meant the DISCUSSION broke down and think there are less controversial subjects (than the meaning of life) we could've debated. Thats all. I'm not fond of the negatives either.....I've reacted as much as anyone to the judgement of my views. - 22:50:53 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: I understand your point, Carl. - 22:54:23 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: As you teach your kids to think for themselves, thats a wonderful gift to givr them. - 22:57:40 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Melissa: Which antipsychotic could be used as an antihistimine? Hypothetically, of course. You know, the mono-cyclic antidepressant, wellbutrin, is marketed as a smoking cessation drug. The FDA does NOT research any foods or drugs! They only REVIEW the research (paid for by the companies trying to market the drug!). Americans have the false perception that they're safe. (I've made the point here before, but someone thought I was a conspiracy theorist). A report was mentioned in the media last week that stated there are THOUSANDS of additives in the american diet which have NOT been tested for the safety of human consumption. My wife gave my daughter a 'Little Debbie' type snackcake last week. It had propelyne glycol (antifreeze), titanium (heavy metal?) and a host of other 'goodies' in it. Little Debbie wouldn't hurt anyone would she? Oh, and to whoever thought that was conspiracist, I DO think the government killed Kennedy but I Don't look out the windows for black helicopters (obscure reference). - 23:12:24 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Hey Bill, whatya up to? - 23:17:13 on 16 May 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: I heard my brother's been posting stuff about our trailer park on the internet, you got any idea how to stop him? - 23:27:22 on 16 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB and MELISSA- While there are a whole lot of irresponsible doctors out there, modern medicine has only been around for a century. I remember when people were dying of diseases they can now cure, when people had surgery and had to stay in bed for weeks as opposed to days now. They've come a long way and in time will likely go further, especially with what they now know about genes. I know a doctor in this area that was perscribing heart pills as a smoking cure. It also goes without saying that he also owns the pharmacy. Like I said, some irresponsible doctors then like in Melissa's little one's case, some very good doctors. I think with time, medicine will reach it's goal. - 1:15:15 on 17 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: higher profits? - 1:27:16 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- This discussion IS about the meaning/non-meaning of life. This is where most discussion breaks down between religionists and atheists. Religionistss believe on faith with all they own and atheists ask "how Do you know this?". If Betty came here asking, "what do you think of this?" or "do you think this may be possible?" "or "this is the evidence I have, is there a problem with this" then there would be something to discuss. But..this is not what Betty/Josh has done. They've posted their beliefs in an evangelistic fashion, on an atheist discussion, no opposing views welcome, then had the nerve to call us idiots because we don't buy it. Bill, for instance, is not atheist, he admits that and has not expected anyone to accept what he thinks is meaningful to him. We've all asked Bill for evidence and posted our views on his ideas with realtively few real clashes (right Bill, lol). Bill doesn't preach here. He's been here as long as I have. As you've likely noticed in his posts to Betty, Bill can accept his beliefs are subjective and can also relate and accept objective reality. Betty's views were welcome, her evangelism isn't. - 1:30:28 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I think you're thinking medicine in the financial arena and I'm thinking medicine in the scientific one. Maybe our two countries are more concerned with finacial gain but I would think that other countries like a few in Europe are more interested in curing people (I hope!). - 1:33:25 on 17 May 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: LOL! from the "annals of the crack-pot academy of pseudoscience".It's worth a try, I mean they must have done some fantastic research, that the rest of the educated world hasn't heard of. - 2:10:11 on 17 May 100 GMT

Doug:Melissa: Maybe Betty can tell us how she and her pseudoscientists measured this phenomena ,because Stolkholm is giving out noble prizes for discoveries like that. - 2:14:56 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug--I think these are some of THE great and wonderous scientists and other professionals, arf! lol! - 2:48:56 on 17 May 100 GMT

Doug:"Similarly, although most of our experiences can be traced to the local senses, certain experiences--the creative, the psychic, and the mystical--smack of non-locality. The validity of these experiences is debated incessantly, reflecting a strong material realist prejudice against them. But the data concerning the non-locality of some experiences is as good as other cognitive data (Jahn, 1982)." ********The old non-locality; Bell will be turning in his grave.The only problem is: non-locality breaks down above the atomic level. So how does a brains cells reproduce and transfer to the subatomic level? No evidence has been presented that it does transmit at that level; and we can measure it.Ideas or shall I say thoughts from a human mind need a physical structure(brain) to contain and to process Consciousness.No evidence exists to the contrary. ESP has been debunked as false,etc.As my Ecology modeling profesor used to say garbage in garbarge out.Shame on the physicists for turning to Charlatans. - 5:45:25 on 17 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: That site you linked to was HILARIOUS! Thanks for helping to sweeten up an otherwise sour day! - 6:08:27 on 17 May 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Here it is the source of the data and "facts" of the quantum hauntum: "One of the principal aspects of quantum functionalism is non-locality. Evidence for quantum non-locality of our experience abounds in the literature of paranormal phenomena (see, for example, Jahn, 1982)."*** So pseudoscience and quackery are the evidence that the make believe exists. Gee I'll have to join up right away.LOL! Another quack exsposed for what she is, "A QUACK" "But there is a second part to the mind-body problem. It is about the "minding" that mind does--thinking, feeling, and so forth. Material realists assume that these mental properties emerge as higher order functions of brain-matter--mind is the software function of brain hardware. Even quantum functionalism implicitly goes along with this idea. But I now think this is not enough. Dualists, to their credit, have always insisted that mind and brain are fundamentally different (Eccles, 1994). Their legitimate claim has been overlooked because the difficulties of dualism in the form of Cartesian interactionism have been considered to be insurmountable. I will now show how this difficulty can be overcome (in a manner quite different from Eccles (1994) and yet that captures his intention)." How come mentally retarded people can't transfer their "soul" out of their defective brains.(psst! that's where karma[original sin] comes in) I don't buy the soul crap.When you die Consciousness goes with the body, no evidence ever to the contrary. Oh and the refs: one of my favorite quacks: Sheldrake, R. (1981), A New Science of Life (L.A.: Tarcher). - 6:09:17 on 17 May 100 GMT

Melissa:ROB: You're right it's Wellbutrin. I couldn't remember what, exactly, they were side-marketing this anti-depressant for, but I knew it was for some semi-common use. And there are more instances of this practice. I am just as horrified as you at all the preservatives and additives found in most manufactured foods today, as well as livestock and fruits and vegetables treated with hormones and other chemicals and fed to the public without the effects of such treatments being seriously researched. Yet, it is hard to find unadulterated food in the supermarkets today. Even the orange juice I buy, NOT from concentrate, still has two preservatives added to it. Granted, they've got to keep it fresh, but I don't want that stuff in my body. Anyway, I don't think you're wacko. I think it's unfortunate that the American public is so ill-informed about what they put into their bodies. I don't know how other countries deal with this situation. - 6:18:58 on 17 May 100 GMT

Doug:morphogenesis is a quantum leap of "faith" you have to ignore the facts of science and only pick those which you can ride on. ESP has never been shown, the soul has never been shown. They run a clever gambit of explaining quantum theory and injecting pseudoscience into it. "Materialist biologists have long abandoned the simplistic theory of preformation, they now believe that the genes, the DNA of the embryo cell contains a blueprint of the form that develops." To bad the quacks aren't held to the high standards of testing that the real scientists are...Suppose the quantum superpositions of mutated genes wait in limbo, until enough of them accumulate to give rise to a phenotype trait leading to new form. Not only the gene mutations are quantum processes, but also the making of form from genes, morphogenesis. Both evolution (of the mutated genes) and morphogenesis of the new trait wait in limbo as superpositions of many possibilities from among which consciousness can see a pattern that is just right for mapping a meaning-blueprint contained in its vital body. " Give me a break, were's the hard data of thousands of hours of work and reproduction of the results 100 times and more. What a half baked idea not even worthy of publication without hard data and testing. And this one takes the cake:"How does quantum healing work? Since the blueprints are available in the vital body, via intention and imaginative, creative efforts, a patient may be able to use these blueprints to make new pathways of body functioning leading to healing. "I'll stick to modern medicine not faith healing and xain science reinvented. Another one of my favorite quacks:Chopra, D. (1990), Quantum Healing. N.Y.: Bantam-Doubleday. Being a MD is hard long work in Stoneham ,MA. Now you can promote QH(Quantum Healing) and charge for check without ever even seeing the patient.The best thing is if they die they're not having the right vibes. - 6:34:12 on 17 May 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG/OPEN -- Part of the problem with Betty's stance here is that she is already committed to dogmatic conclusions. This is resulting in non-standard, peculiar usage of words, terms, and concepts. For example, she is not using "duality" the way everyone else does to refer to the mind/body problem. She is using it to refer to a supposed separation of the self from the universal conciousness. To have such a duality, one must presuppose the existence of such universal conciousness. She makes a poor spokesperson for her beliefs, because she is unable or unwilling to present them in neutral terms not reliant on acceptance of all or part of the package. - 13:27:14 on 17 May 100 GMT

Carl:MELISA: nothing like other kinds of people, or oneself, to cause laughter. - 15:08:12 on 17 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Someone here was it not inquired of the COS movie w/ J.Travolta? The movie house manager I know reports that the overwhelming review, its stinks and the patrons want their money back. The movie may not last a week as it looks like the number of viewers will decline, probably rapidly. The movie Gladiator does well, more pleased than displeased. Any here watching the ABC mini-series on jc? I've seen it sed the xians are disappointed, in fact dislike it. Hmmm? Wonder if its too lifelike, not mythical or religious like? - 15:44:47 on 17 May 100 GMT

OPEN01: Several months ago, I think I mentioned I met some Canadian hikers - 16:19:10 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug- A man after my own heart! I think the new age crap is just as concerning as the fundie religions. I glad to see more people concerned about them. Good posts! - 16:44:40 on 17 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: the higher profits wisecrack was, a joke..... - 17:23:07 on 17 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: I don't think that you or anyone else here has to tolerate preaching, don't mean to imply that. - 17:24:43 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I accept you didn't mean to imply that, sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't know if the higher profits thing is a joke or not. Some of the newer, more expensive medications, are prescribed where older, less expensive ones will do the trick so I agree that medicine isn't without it's capitalistic components. - 17:38:54 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- So I've heard, the movie stinks. The book was good though. At least the COS won't stand to gain any large "donations". - 17:40:35 on 17 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: hah! that was to'a started my next post. O'those hikers, they mentioned that India was quite religious, and another person whom I know from India says the people there hold that all of the life and land in India is sacred. That could be why it struck me that it seemed so many names at MARLENE's site are from India. The Indian people, I've been told, are taught since day one o'their existence that its all holy, whatever either its or holy may mean. Must be an interesting culture that an Indian has to deny to be an atheist. (Those USA types that say North America is a godthings land, to say so really got to squeeze tightly their closed eyes.) Yesterday I saw some moving pictures of the North African deserts. The terrain imaged was very bare of course, but the most impressive aspect of the moving picture, was the sheer expansiveness of the bluesky overhead. Amused, I could very well imagine what or even how some ignorant goat or sheep herder in antiquity could or would have wanted to convey being conscious of such immensity and his own insignificance. Very likely both the desert and India religious penchants and the recent visitor's position for consciousness all advocates for such peculiar accounts seek some need to account for their withness, with that immenseness. On the other hand I wonder what else can there be? The simplest account is; there is the universe- lets so say, and respectively so- me. - 18:01:00 on 17 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE and ROB: I read a pretty good book about a year or two ago called _Blaming the Brain_ by Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D. It focuses on some of the drawbacks in neuropsychological research, and how many neuropsychologists have jumped on the "drugs can cure everything" bandwagon. At first I thought, oh great, another holistic medicine man trying to befuddle the public. But something about it made me buy it and read it anyway, and I found that he wasn't trashing neuropsychology or the merits of neuropharmacological research per se, just the eagerness with which the medical community clings to the discovery of neurotransmitters and their apparent roles in psychological phenomenon, as well as HOW neuropharmacological research gets its funding - from the pharmaceutical companies who dictate WHAT research will be conducted, which questions will be asked, and so on. Anyway, it was a VERY good book and I recommend it to anyone interested in what is going on in the field of neuropsychology, and why certain drugs are being prescribed for certain psychological phenomenon (Rittlin is an especially interesting case, being prescribed for children even though it hasn't really been tested on them). - 20:24:33 on 17 May 100 GMT

Rob::Melissa: Its deplorable. Ritalin is just one of the many drugs abused. The insurance companies, psychiatrists and others (pharmaceutical industry, etc.) are all strongly motivated to revert to a strictly medical model because its cheaper than months of therapy for insurers, keeps docs in control as gatekeepers for care and reaps large profits for drug companies. What a sweetheart deal. Only problem, patients no longer get THERAPY. Take a pill, hope it works.....Patients are missing the'adjustment tothe illness' piece. Managed care now authorizes 5 to 7 days for inpatient stays in private facilities. Thats putting out fires/stabilization only, no real treatment. Private psych facilities declined from 750 to 500 in the last decade in the US, as need for care INCREASED. (NOT coincidentally prison populations jumped from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000). Reimbursements from the feds were quietly slashed (medicare/medicaid) in 1996 and 1997. I work as a director in mental health and secretly long to return to the time when I worked as a therapist and saw significant gains in quality of life for my patients. Unfortunately, the trend is in the opposite direction. Most people in the field avoid patients other than to diagnose and medicate. Its dehumanizing........The newer classes of antipsychotics are a good example. They have less side effects, therefore patients are more likely to continue on them as outpatients. The dirty little secret is that they don't work as well, for some groups of patients. In the rush to embrace the meds, because outpatient care is cheaper, few if any want to talk about the patients on the atypical antipsychotics who continue to be--psychotic. I'd rather be rid of hallucinations and delusions and have the minor side effects, if the new classes didn't work for me...... - 21:26:23 on 17 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA and ROB- I agree that Ritalin is a very much abused drug. Every kid who happens to be active seems to get put on it depending on the school psychologist or the district psychologist. I think that many people's personality traits are genetic and just because they may be "aggressive" or "hyper" doesn't mean they are abnormal. Psychology, IMO, wants to create a "norm" for humans, especially children, and there really IS no "norm". If Sally is a more easy going kid and Jane isn't then supposedly Jane has a "problem". Jane get's the Ritalin. Truth is in years gone by, Sally may have given up during a long trying drought on the plains and Jane would have been stubborn enough to see it through. Billy is Mr. Empathy and Donald is Mr. Aggressive, Donald get's the Ritalin. In years gone by, Billy would have been a poor soldier and Donald would have been a General. I think this personality typing then trying to make everyone be the same is bullshit. When I was a kid, only one kid in our whole school was on meds and that was because he had epilepsy (sp). We never thought of any kid as "abnormal" or "agressive". - 0:48:05 on 18 May 100 GMT

Rob::I think Bill would have made a fine soldier. - 1:17:42 on 18 May 100 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Bill isn't Mr. Empathy either, LOL! - 1:54:33 on 18 May 100 GMT

Doug:Grant/Marlene:I visited the site that Marlene posted and picked up those tidbits on the "new age" garbarge.Betty is as determinded as Josh that quack science is somehow proven. They would have us believe that reality is channeling,ESP,OBE'S,NDE"S,ghosts,gobblins,past lives,UFO'S,and ETC. Betty has proven to us that beneath all the pseudointellectual jargon; she believes in "souls" and "afterlifes".What the theists have continued to stumble over are, the methods that the body would have to use to before it(Consciousness) goes into never never land. Since Consciousness isn't at the atomic/sub atomic level (quantum mechanics doesn't work at the cellular level) a shall we say "organ" would have to be utilized to put the "Consciousness" into the atomic/sub atomic format. In this way science would be able to measure the energy and possibly the content.But alas, nothing has been presented about the human body that fits this "missing link" in their half baked assumptions of never never land. - 2:09:18 on 18 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug- These new age gurus would have us believe that consciousness creates the physical. Sort of like, god said "let there be light and there was light" or Captain Piccard "make it so". Consciousness is "mind" without beginning or end, sound familiar? No matter how much they protest that this "mind" isn't like human mind, it sure sounds like "god made us in his image but he's not like us" doesn't it? It's just new words to an old myth. BTW, Betty was really pissed when I LOL at Sheldrake's ideas months ago. When I mentioned to her, oops, to Josh that Sheldrake believed in angels he didn't like the idea of angels...collective consciousness was alright, but heaven forbid, not angels! - 3:19:18 on 18 May 100 GMT

Johnny Angel:*in loud, echoed voive* Listen to Betty - 15:06:17 on 18 May 100 GMT

Carl:Hmmm?: looks like Josh, aka Betty now aka Johnny angel is here still. - 15:38:50 on 18 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Interesting direction for a discussion, a supposed behavior pattern and an alteration of that behavior. It is interesting for the chemical influences now being mentioned and the ultra expansive view of consciousness that BETTY so seemed to advocate. Perhaps BETTY said It was adversally affected by a material realism, i.e., stuff outside the human's being and the chemical view appears to say It can fixed from the inside. I can make out another account that I think may be rationally described as outside affects on the inside stuff which are based on built on ones genetics. Another angle of this genetic stuff is that it is another theory of learning. Let me ponder this a bit more, but I think I spied the phantasms of something. - 17:48:37 on 18 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Johnny angel,LOL! Likely! - 18:42:19 on 18 May 100 GMT

Doug:Carl:Johnny angel most likely will try the same tact as Josh and Betty did.He will pump word salad until we get salmonella posioning of the brain from it.Johnny angel doen't even have to post here, he can transmit the data directly to all of us using "Quantum Consciousness". LOL! - 22:08:11 on 18 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug- Ouch! Puke! I'm getting the signals now! LOL! - 22:42:53 on 18 May 100 GMT

Melissa:I knew I was spelling "Rittlin" wrong. I didn't know you were a Mental Health Director, ROB. I bow in admiration, a lowly on-again-off-again undergrad student, to your superior knowledge and experience :) The reason I study neuropsychology is because I am so, I don't know, flabberghasted by the phenomenon of consciousness. I get chills up and down my spine just thinking about it. This is probably also the reason I was interested in discussing with Betty her view of consciousness, and continued to TRY to discuss it even when she became belligerent. I've never claimed to know everything, or that my knowledge of any subject is perfect - which I think she assumed I was doing. And I've always believed that no question is a stupid question and no opinion is invalid, but may be based on poor interpretation of information, or lack thereof (my opinions and interpretations of info I've read not excluded). So that's why I drop in occasionally, after sufficient time to gather more info, and throw my ideas out to be (constructively) critisized, such ideas not usually being based on any expert level of understanding of any subject. And when Betty demanded that everyone be up-to-date on all the monistic idealism lingo, well that was just aggravating. Anyway, that's enough about Betty from me I think. I feel that people like her probably get a kick from disappearing, then hovering over the site and finding that they're still talked about. - 22:49:22 on 18 May 100 GMT

Rob::Melissa: I'm not a stuffed shirt, dropped out a time or two, was homeless as a kid, etc. - 11:19:26 on 19 May 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: I have seen the claim made by site hosts that in the beginning of the site's activity, or inactivity as it was, the two of them took on several pseudonyms and began a dialogue. The pseudonyms took on a personae and eventually drew in atracted- whatever, a group of participants. I read this several years ago, seems that I recollect the site was the Godless Zone. The point JOSH and BETTY and now JOHNNY ANGEL could be one. Now I didn't get to read any of whatever the GZ people sed, or whoever it was, only that they said they engaged that schizophrenic behavior. But the posts of JOSH and BETTY, leave me hearing the same something I've heard, once before. - 15:08:32 on 19 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Are you saying the cult were recruiting on the Godless Zone also? - 16:33:44 on 19 May 100 GMT

Rob::Melissa: I had to quit posting earlier, I was going to say I agree with you. I HATE the superior acting 'let me teach you how to think and feel about something' approach many can take when they're frustrated. I dislike intellectualizations that are used to try to impress or persuade, arguments should be evidence based- not ego trips....... - 17:55:02 on 19 May 100 GMT

Rob::Carl: any pseudonyms I should watch out for at the godless zone, since my cosmic consciousness floats over there..... - 17:57:09 on 19 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The folks who I recall mentioning that behavior also said that they did the multiple personality game "only" to create and establish the appearance o'a dialogue, in the beginning of that site. I myself did not see it. I don't need to cause a stir for any, the point was; a person could do that for a particular POV. I suggest that is what the consciousness advocate does. The other site was an atheist concern and they did mention how their concern grew as a consequence of the sites apparent lack of traffic. The one site that has disappeared, however, that had good participation was one out of Oklahoma. The server[this what its called?] was geocities. Geocities is still around. - 18:26:24 on 19 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Haha! hope that thing I recall reading ain't a shot across a bow of someone's ship! - 18:30:09 on 19 May 100 GMT

Melissa:Just got back from the Godless Zone. I'd say the trip to Egoville is the most popular seller at that travel agency. - 5:47:10 on 20 May 100 GMT

Grant:Now, don't be wandering off, MISSY. :-) - 15:11:25 on 20 May 100 GMT

Grant:What distinguishes one these arbitrary beliefs from the others? How can one rationally select such a belief? - 15:19:45 on 20 May 100 GMT

Grant:Oops! Forgot the link. - 15:20:27 on 20 May 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I don't know but obviously some do...strange... - 16:08:11 on 20 May 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: Must'a been before I was there, I've never heard of them.But It doesn't surprise me, that someone would do that to push crack pot ideas.The GZone has a neo nazi link to it. About half the male posters are goose steppers,It's really sick, that they latched on to the GZone.They're anything but proggresive and couldn't give a rats arse about anything but their racist agenda. - 23:36:30 on 20 May 100 GMT

Bill....Work, work, work.....:work, work, work……Work, work…..work, work….work………….Oh, did I say I was working? - 0:27:22 on 21 May 100 GMT

Bill..after working on my STUFF....:I've been reading back through some of the post…CARL, Loved that link; my boys will DIE to come home (homesick) after I email the trailer park link to them, hahaha! MARLENE, Yep…. EVANGELISM SUCKS!!!!; A true sign of insecurity….hahaha! - 0:44:00 on 21 May 100 GMT

jahol:u guys r all insecure - 2:18:57 on 21 May 100 GMT

jahol:with the peace of god be with u and restore your heart ever more - 2:20:06 on 21 May 100 GMT

haledude:god bless yall - 2:20:51 on 21 May 100 GMT

gtynrh7:we r very reilgious freaks! AND WE WORSHIP ALL OF THE GOD LOVERS OUT THERE! - 2:22:38 on 21 May 100 GMT

JAHOL:R U GUYZ GOING 2 CHURCH 2MORROW????????? - 2:23:40 on 21 May 100 GMT

SALOMAY876:NNOOO I AM AN ATHEIST AND PROUD OF IT >GET OFF THIS SITE JAHOL U CHURCH FREAK - 2:27:24 on 21 May 100 GMT

johal:DEAR CHURCH MEMBERS OF THIS CHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK U FOR YOUR COAPERATION OF BELIVING IN GOD! PLEAS SEND YOUR NAME AND ADDIE FOR A FREE SAMPLE OF THE BABTISING WATER OF JESUS! ALSO LEAVE UR ADDIE FOR A WONDERFUL JOYFUL COPY OF THE BIBLE OF GOD AND DECIPLES. CAST OUT UR SINFUL SOUL AND JOIN US ON OUR MAILING LIST! AT jaz_gurL22@hotmail.com again we thank u for a wonderful coperation of church! ur wonderful children of god jess, holly and haley *REMEMBER* this is just a copy of the weekly newsletter! - 2:33:04 on 21 May 100 GMT

JAHOL: NEWS LETTER OF THE DAY! To all of you sinners you should be ashamed of your self. here is the prayer of the day "Lord help us not sin to thy good and bad. Help us be nonsinners so the world will never die. Deliver us from bad to good. Lift up our soles and pray to the Lord. Amen." "In the name of the father and the son and the holy spirt. Amen." Call us at 563-7023! THANK YOU! - 2:44:14 on 21 May 100 GMT

GODLOVERS2000: *Newsletter of the hour* NEW ADDITION: SUNDAY SCHOOL (WEEKLY ON SUN. FOR ALL YA SINNERS OUT THERE). jOIN US OVER OUR WEBSIGHT( WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING IT AND WILL TELL U THE ADIIE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! THANK U SO EVER MUCH AND WE WILL GET BACK O YA AS SOON AS OUR GOD MADE HANDS CAN MOVE THE MOUSE! - 2:53:30 on 21 May 100 GMT

Doug:Well folks, those bad spelling theists who never graduated the 5th grade said if first. Don't be superstitious like them, continue with school. - 3:08:54 on 21 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug- I suspect we have spammers. Grant will likely take care of them. How about the "soles", pretty fishy huh? LOL! - 3:54:41 on 21 May 100 GMT

Marlene..just when you've thought you've heard everything..:MYSTERIOUS CROP CIRCLES WERE MADE BY SUPER-SMART ANTS MANCHESTER, England -- The mystery of crop circles may finally have been solved! A top scientist has concluded that the strange circular patterns that appear in rural fields worldwide are made by super-intelligent ants!............hummm, at first I thought this "top scientist was Sheldrake, lol but.... Dr. Robert Edmond Eastwall, one of Great Britain's leading entomologists, theorizes that the creatures form the elaborate markings in an effort to communicate with humans. "We have just begun to interpret these messages," says Dr. Eastwall. "But from the translations we have made, it is evident that these insects see themselves as the rulers of Earth." "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." Dr. Eastwall's blockbuster announcement, made at an April 17 press conference, has rocked the scientific community, which has been struggling to understand crop circles for decades. The weird circles have been found throughout the American Midwest, England and Australia. Some researchers are convinced that the circular patterns are the landing marks of flying saucers. Other experts have argued that the circles are the handiwork of pranksters laboring in the dead of night. But incredibly, some crop circles have appeared overnight in fields while the area was being carefully monitored by observers -- who saw no sign of the creators. How are we sure the "observers" didn't make them? "When I learned of this, it became obvious that the circles were created by entities too small to be seen," said Dr. Eastwall. "I thought immediately of insects." By examining soil-disruption patterns beneath crop circles, Dr. Eastwall has confirmed his theory. "There were distinct traces of ant activity," he said. Now, when is the last time anyone saw evidence of ant activity in a farmer's field? I mean, come on now! This doesn't happen every day, you know! "However, as I observed the complexity of the symbols, it was clear to me that these were no ordinary ants, but a highly intelligent mutation." The bug expert points out that the use of body movements to communicate is common among insects, particularly bees and ants. "But it's a leap forward to leave a record of those movements in soil as a form of writing," he said. Aided by his knowledge of insect languages, Dr. Eastwall and a team of top British linguists have been painstakingly translating crop circles for nearly a year. He has concluded that the as-yet-undiscovered species of ant dwells far beneath the surface and sends "scientific expeditions" to leave the messages by plowing dirt and munching away crops. Imagine ants plowing dirt and eating crops. Who would have ever thought it possible? One of the handful of crop-circle messages successfully translated by Dr. Eastwall says, "Greetings. We are the Earth masters. "We are peaceful. Do not fear us. We will be coming soon." "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." He is currently excavating a crop circle in a bid to capture some of the elusive ants for study. Of course, they could have gotten the idea from a couple of blokes in the UK. - 4:02:24 on 21 May 100 GMT

Melissa:WOW . . . will wonders never cease. I guess I better go pack my bags - wouldn't want to get the little guys testy. They bite you know. - 4:39:32 on 21 May 100 GMT

Melissa:Or do they pinch? Either way, I'm not into pain. - 4:40:57 on 21 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Actually they urinate on you. When I was a kid I got badly pissed on, very painful! Really, they come in peace. What kind of peace do they mean? - 4:56:22 on 21 May 100 GMT

Melissa:Well, they've infiltrated MY kitchen and MY bathroom, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let them take over. I WILL fight the assimilation!! I WILL resist!! I will NOT go in peace!! - 16:02:25 on 21 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- It must be true, they've invaded my kitchen too! I don't know if my resistance is working...I'm feeling kind of pissy. - 17:27:05 on 21 May 100 GMT

Marlene...she had a so-called illness, now she's dead from the cure..:COPIED FROM: THE TIMES - May 20 2000 UNITED STATES Girl, 10, dies in 'rebirth therapy' FROM CHRISTOPHER REED IN LOS ANGELES THREE health therapists who ignored a 10-year-old girl's cries that she was dying in a bizarre "rebirth" ritual have been arrested and charged with causing her death. The girl's mother, Jeane Newmaker, watched in horror from a nearby room as the ritual was filmed on closed-circuit television in Evergreen, Colorado. The girl, Candace Newmaker, was taken to hospital but died the following day. Mrs Newmaker had travelled across the continent from Durham, North Carolina, and paid $7,000 (£4,600) for the treatment that the therapists believed could cure troubled and difficult children by re-staging the birth process so they could "begin life again". The accused - Brita St. Clair, Jack McDaniel and Julie Ponder - tightly wrapped the girl in a flannel sheet. Both ends were twisted above her head and large pillows placed around her head and body to simulate the womb. She was then told to push in an imitation of contractions for the "rebirth" while the therapists pressed on the pillows. According to police reports,they said: "You've got to push hard if you want to be reborn or do you want to stay in there and die?" Candace cried out seven times that she could not breathe and then shouted that she was going to die. The therapists waited 20 minutes after the girl apparently breathed her last before unwrapping her, according to a detective who watched the taped recording. Mrs Newmaker said she had adopted Candace in 1996 and had sought help from several people for the girl's depression and attention deficit disorder, itself a controversial "illness" that some child experts say is an exaggerated disorder. When she paid the Evergreen therapists the $7,000 Mrs Newmaker also agreed to let them keep the girl for two weeks at the counselling centre run by a group called Connell Watkins and Associates. An arrest warrant was also issued for a fourth person in the name of Connell Watkins. - 0:13:15 on 22 May 100 GMT

Pyramid scheme bullshit deleted..... - 3:42:53 on 22 May 100 GMT

Cristy:Oh lord help us, we've been invaded by the illiterates! Now if reading that doesn't tempt you to find religion, I don't know what will *g*....................Did anyone see the bishop on 60 Minutes last night? Some of his understanding of religion sounded an awfully lot like ours. Imagine, a freethinking bishop! The guy should be a Unitarian :-) - 14:41:17 on 22 May 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: So someone left the trailer-parks front gate open, huh? - 15:59:19 on 22 May 100 GMT

Rob::Open: the horrible deth of the child described is not a 'guided imagery' case gone awry (although their are too many mental imagery charlatans out there already). This girl likely suffocated becuse she was wrapped to tightly in their 'swaddling' for her diaphragm to expand and contract. Crackpots who dabble in bizarre 'corrective' treatments should be locked away, as I hope these idiots are. It's so popular to 'sell' a treatment that involves a 'process of correction' for kids because many people want kids to suffer. My wife said last week alone 3 talk shows had 'scared straight' kinds of pieces. I'm not opposed to showing kids the outcome potentials of risky or criminal behaviors, but one show had kids go to prison and then the morgue to watch a young girl who died that day from drug overdose AS THE AUTOPSY was performed. "Give me that saw, Fester, while I remove the skullcap." Everybody loves the 'tough love' scenario because it appears to be a quick fix. People don't acknowledge their anger/frustration with difficult kids behavior sometimes and would rather channel it into 'treatments' that resemble punishments.... - 17:07:01 on 22 May 100 GMT

Carl:ROB: That 'tuff-love' is one of grossest misnomers, spin-talk, or psychobabble now going on. But, on the other hand the time when the child needs or when that kind of action can be meaningful, it is only when they're very young. But, lets not forget, I am an atheist. I expect nothing from anything which is outside whatever I am. The human thing, is it an animal? Well, that depends on what an animal might be, and this line of reasoning can take us to asking, what is life? Of kidz, there is a 'stage' of the lifeform the human is, when they can be, if fully functional, impressed with some very basic values for an existence. I dare say that I do think that stage is specific to when kidz are learning to speak, probably around two, three and maybe four. A timely thoughtfully administered swat at the time of a meaningful event in their young time and of course they must be fully functional little creatures, will serve them and the parent very well in their days to come. When people do not exercise responsible care at these times is when they fabricate alternative notions of 'tuff-love', after all they missed the goodtime when they could have expressed their real love. - 18:12:54 on 22 May 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL...ROFLOL! at the trailer park "escapees". - 19:21:15 on 22 May 100 GMT

Cristy:OPEN...RAISING KIDS: I am curious about how those of you w/ older kids or grown kids dealt w/ the religious issue when they were growing up. Were you vocal atheists then? Were they? Did they experiment w/ religion or take crap from the xian majority in school or wherever? I'm just wondering how it was for them growing up, and how they ended up feeling about religion. - 19:23:19 on 22 May 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Yea, the GZ does have a neonazi flair about it now. I recall that appeared several years ago via one poster, it got real bad. That 'nn' personae took on the relentlessness that that we here are familiar as practiced by R.LEE. I had a fun discussion line with one of the GZ players but that 'nn' stuff got in the way so I eventually just let it go. A neo-nazi view, you'd imagine such political views would seek real validation by arguing at political sites. A non-belief in a god hypothesis as in the GZ and neonazism, whats the connection? - 19:24:55 on 22 May 100 GMT

Cristy:CONTINUED...or for that matter how was it for some of YOU who grew up in atheist households. Since I was raised in a somewhat xian household, I tend to forget atheism has been around since *we* were kids :-) Seems like kind of a new thing since I hardly heard of it till my late teens. - 19:26:00 on 22 May 100 GMT

Carl:CRISTY: Atheism as a word a concept did not appear to my thinking until very recent. In fact I was very wary of it because my initial view of such self-proclaimants was that they took an atheist position only to be social contraries. I have never been concerned with religion or its supernatural objectives nor its hypothetical object. In fact my more recent opinion is that "religion" is a real concern. Its hypothetical object however, is not any more than BETTY's view and accounts of the cosmological consciousness. I can inscribe of it easily as well as BETTY might and never could I or anyone say enough of or for it. BETTY's topic and religion's godthing are of the same category in that regard. One can go on and on about either, does that make either real? Who knows? Atheism, that is a 'no-concern' for me and mine. We find it easier to understand people "and" religion thereby do we get along easier with those who find "their" comfort and misery in such relations. Religion brings them their misery because religion offers them the cure for that misery. Neat trick! That is what and how me and mine see religious adherents. - 19:58:15 on 22 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: well, looks like the trailer people are invading other places, at another chat site "they" are claiming that the bible is historically acurate and the usual rot. And they even inscribe the claim that they are educated, right! - 22:51:52 on 22 May 100 GMT

Marlene:I don't think tough love had anything to do with the "therapy" that was carried out on the "sick" now dead child. I also think some people have a poor concept of tough love. Basically all tough love is, is allowing your child to have consequences for their actions whether they be good actions or negative actions. Allowing them to be responsible. Of course whether they take the responsibility or not, is their choice. Tough love is NOT taking the responsibility for their actions and NOT making excuses for them. - 23:20:48 on 22 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- One of my kids wants to believe in a god and kind of does and the other one hasn't even thought about it nor likely will for some time. He leans toward the atheistic view though. - 23:24:50 on 22 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- My mom was the church goer and of course, we were dragged along. My dad though didn't go to church and actually made light of religion. When asked, he said he went to the round church where the devil can't trap him in the corner. I do think though that he throught there was a god and a heaven. - 23:27:45 on 22 May 100 GMT

Rob::Marlene: Sounds like it was a symbolic exorcism...... - 0:38:13 on 23 May 100 GMT

Rob::Cristy: Brainwashed catholic through school. Kids are middle school age,only. Moms very religious. Kids get other version from 'dad'. Oldest understands and is able to filter any religious teachings she gets about once a month at a bible group thing. She was really into a book I wrote (unpublished) on the contreadictions of the bible, much to mom's exaccerbation...... I want them to choose for themselves, but hear both sides instead of pressure to conform to ANY belief system imposed. - 0:43:09 on 23 May 100 GMT

Rob: :Carl: agreed. - 0:43:50 on 23 May 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: That World Church of the Creator is an alledged racist atheist church.They have the link to the GZ. They're crazy murders and pass out the regular xian nazis pamplets too along with their racist garbarge. I doubt they really are atheists, they are too buddy buddy with their Xian nazis friends.They are most likely using the atheist cover as a way to deflect the blame on atheists for all the xian nazi acts of horror that they do.Very clever SOB's.I mean most atheists they would murder if they had their way while kissing their xian Hitler's rear end. - 6:39:24 on 23 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug- The nazis likely claim to be atheist because they also hate atheists as much as they do other races and religions. Nazis are believers in christianity and all the racism that goes with it. - 12:11:35 on 23 May 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: what's scary is that they are so bold and brazen about their hate.They deny preaching any of the violence but hate all gruops, but as I said before; the xian nazis.The moderator of the board poo pooed it, until last year when nazi members of that church went on shooting sprees in Illinois and california murdering non-whites at random. The WCOTC is the most violent and active of all the racist groups.I really hope our FBI monitors that site,but as usual they'll go after the peaceful leftists instead. - 12:27:08 on 23 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Doug- We have basically the same thing here in Canada and they are most active in Alberta. Scary people, IMO, but then again there are Aboriginal groups here, one calling themselves the Indian Posse, that are just as racist and just as scary. They get away with much that they do because they would cry "racist" if anyone came down on them. - 15:27:00 on 23 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I have certain fantasys not many but a few. Like I fantasise of one day sky-diving. Another is ski-jumping and I bet it would be very interesting to hitch-hike through the states on the south side of the mason\dixon line. The last fantasy would be to see and hear for myself what those southerners are or may be like. And I mean both blacks and whites as well as whatever other kinds of people are there. Those canadian aborigines, they would be an interesting group to visit for several reasons. Some books say in time nearly all of the north american aborigines were destroyed. On a foxnews program I listened to a report about a Connecticut tribe in charge of a $1.xx billion casino. Cool right? Well a fellow investigating the people involved found that none of the primarys involved are aboriginal Indians and even that that particular tribe may be extinct as of the turn of the 20th century. My point,that exemplifies why I'm curious about the things that people will do and say such as the neo-Nazis, the aboriginals, the trailer parkers, and of course the religious adherents. The sack o'cells view and acocunt seems quite stable. - 16:22:56 on 23 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You ole sack of cells! The Aboriginal culture here is very interesting and most of the people are very nice. I did visit a town about 15 years ago in Ohio that had a black cafe and a white cafe. Actually the whole town was segregated, it was horrible. Hopefully times have changed there. And yes, our Aboriginal Bands are going to be starting up casinos too. I say, why not! Hopefully they will eventually support themselves. That may sound like a "racist" comment but it isn't. Anyone who expects others to support them is a leech IMO and can damn well make an effort to support themselves, no matter what color, religion or brand of coffee they drink. - 17:48:53 on 23 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Of towns like that mentioned it is a hardcase example of why theism or stuff like BETTY's idea, are just useless and meaningless. These kinds of people are really hoping for things beyond and out of this world, the earth. They are strange animals. Awhile back coupla'JW types said they wanted to talk about things. You kno'w their stuff so when they got to the part about the last days, I asked the question did they know that the other of the two would be here tomorrow? They tried the biblical promise stuff, so I took the moment to suggest that perhaps the last days may refer to everyone and that it was in that wide regard in which the last days was every day. Neither one o'the ol'gals wanted to actually discuss matters. I found myself thinking that the JW are just like many people, they want to talk. They too would like to talk about the unknown, for them they refer to that unknown as a god. At issue is how to make the unknown a known topic for talk. Actually all people know they can factually convey true or lie of only the known and merely refer truthness and falseness to the unknown. - 19:25:36 on 23 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- They aren't supposed to think for themselves nor were we when the topic of the collective consciousness came up here. In reality, we don't know what will happen the next day nor the next few minutes but by taking into account historical factors we can predict with some accuracy. The people who discount historical factors and trust what will happen with faith may as well be forgetting about predicting at all. In fact they do, they take the responsibility off themselves and leave it all up to some imaginary character, no wonder people like these don't think for themselves, they don't want too. - 19:36:00 on 23 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: from the parameters and perspective that you have portrayed "that" kind of faith, clearly has no place in the real world. The real world upon which all walk their every prediction and anticipation of matters in motion around and about them indeed allow for their very next step. The natural on-going dynamical interaction of these ideas from the outer world and concepts in one's mind accounting for that outer stuff, I think this is to be understood as human sanity and is the natural aspect of existence which could be termed an act faith. In this regard, a human one, it is not supportive of an out of mind religious act nor ought it be attributable to the design of an unknowable creator. Here, could the notion that a being is involved as it moves that essentially so constitutes a consciousness? But now what is alive? - 21:04:19 on 23 May 100 GMT

Ryan:I have a question before the little hook goes dead. How Do you deal with JW's and Christ pushers. And on a sorta related topic, does anyone have extreamly religious parents, and came into conflict with them about how you raised your kids. I was just wondering. peace. - 3:16:00 on 24 May 100 GMT

Marlene:RYAN- Tell them I'm atheist, they normally have nothing to say after that. Once they know they haven't a believer in front of them, they have the sense to know they are wasting their time. Some of course, the really stupid ones, automatically think I'm "from the devil" and can't leave fast enough. - 3:22:18 on 24 May 100 GMT

Doug:Ryan: Once a long time ago on a perfect(or so I thought) Saturday afternoon I was lying down listening to all my record albums(music); just drifting with the pleasant dreams. Ding Dong!! It was two JW's bothering me, (damn bastards on my perfect day)"With all the problems in the world, what do you think the solution to the worlds problems are? the Double Knit suited JW asked. I looked at him and then his neuter gendered (former woman) partner, and a wicked thought popped into my head: "COMMUNISM", I blurted out,that's the solution to the worlds problems. Both JW's eyes bugged wide open and the neuter gendered partner said a swallowed "OH". Stunned with a resonse, they hastily left. - 5:39:33 on 24 May 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: Foxwoods is run by a native American,Haywood 's grandmother was the last native American to live there before He returned to start the casino. Whether or not she was a Pequot(CT) or a Narragansett(RI) indian is really moot.The tribes are right next to each other within 10 miles (New England is small,Foxwoods, CT is about 10 miles from RI.) She and He really are native americans no more that one claims to German or Irish generations down the road. His grandmother lived and dressed the part on the resevation if that's the superficial requirement for being a native American. Just as all Irish are required to be drunks and all Italians are required to belong to the mafia in order to claim membership in their respected ethnic groups.LOL! And Donald Trump is mad that Foxwoods have taken away businessfrom Atlantic City. - 5:53:56 on 24 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: That the CT fellow doin'the casino has connections is the point DOUG of my post to MARLENE. People say anything to have their way. So on that note of folks sayin'anything, I heard of a bishop on some tv program who rocked the xian world by saying the church has to change or die! That was an interesting bit of news. Sounds like he wuz saying that the church's dogmas gotta go. That would start that change, for sure! Of course things won't change in a mere decade or two. Of change some politicians, like the sr.Bush, mention and call for a new world order and well the concerned ought to wonder what 'they-mean'? I may have a suggestion on this point, most here are familiar with Paley's comment on the need for a designer, recall the watch found on an island's sandy beach? Well, Paley also had some very profound comments on morals and political philosophy. Profound to me because Paley was keen to or very insecure in terms of what he held that he religiously knew and valued. Paley wrote this, "As ignorance of union and want of communication, appears amongst the principal preservatives of civil authority, it behoves every state to keep its subjects in this want and ignorance, not only by vigilance in gaurding against actual confederations and combinations, but by a timely care to prevent great collections of men... from being assembled in the same vicinity...leagues thus formed may overawe or overset the power of any state." I read this in matters of natural law and was magnetised to the words of the passage after the 1st comma. This thought and the concern mentioned by Bush sr.and that Bishop, I wonder what is going on? - 19:19:47 on 24 May 100 GMT

Melissa:RYAN: my mom and dad were always religious, took my two sisters and brother and I to church off and on, even used that stupid and cruel Jesus is watching you, you don't want to go to hell do you? crap on us - my dad was especially fond of that one. But it took me becoming an atheist to get them to attend church every Sunday. My mom wants to make sure she doesn't make any mistakes with the other three. We've had discussions about how I'll raise my sons. She wants to be able to take them to church. Wants to make sure I don't "hide" religion from them (as if that's possible in today's culture). I don't know if we've ever outright argued about it - I try to be very civil, to assure her that they'll be introduced to as many religions as possible (I don't think this approach is really satisfactory to her, after all it puts all religions on equal ground). She just wants to make sure that I don't "shelter" them from god or discourage interest in religion (esp. hers). What's interesting is that, while she wants to be able to expose my sons to her beliefs, she doesn't want me to talk to my siblings about MY beliefs. I don't think she even wants me to say "I don't believe in god," because she knows they'd ask me why, and that I'd answer that question. I've explained to her my reasons for not believing and I think she finds them very valid - she even went so far as to say it was hard for her to reconcile the fact that she's a fairly skeptical person in her own right, yet she can't be skeptical about religion (because she knows she'd have to deny its veracity). In rare moments of insight, she'll actually admit the reason she still clings to her god is because she doesn't want to believe she won't see her mother again (who died when she was 18 of a brain tumor). Anyway, she still tries to get me to go to church functions such as Easter Brunch, or to help her in the nursery on Sundays (wouldn't be so presumptuous as to ask me to go to services, though she did ask me to talk to their preacher about my views). What would her fellow church-goers think, I asked, a heathen atheist handling their precious babes? Oh, they wouldn't have to know, she says. Typical Christian response, deny the truth at all costs. - 22:02:51 on 24 May 100 GMT

Melissa:P.S. I just want to make sure you understand that, while I'm a little harsh on her at times, I still love my mother dearly. She is a strong, kind, and intelligent woman who DOES respect my beliefs (though with the hope I'll change them one day) and whom I look up to in most respects - so please don't take the above as a bash on my mom. (Just feeling a little guilty :)) - 22:09:47 on 24 May 100 GMT

Ryan:Melissa: Thanks, I'm just a teen, but I do look foward to having my own kids someday... my parents are still in the force religion on him till he gets it stage. I was just wondering if I would have to go through it all over again with them. thanks for the help :) peace. - 22:22:18 on 24 May 100 GMT

Ryan:Doug: hehehe, I like your thinking. :::awaits the next JW::: - 22:24:22 on 24 May 100 GMT

Carl:RYAN: Neither religion nor theism of anykind was ever nor are they now a problem. - 22:42:47 on 24 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: I just read your post to ROB on the 22nd about "tough love". Am I correct in interpreting that post as supporting spanking or swatting children between the ages of two and five? If so, why do you think this particular age span is so critical? On what evidence do you base this position? Personally, I am vehemently opposed to any sort of physical punishment for a child of any age, but especially this young an age - and punishment in general, at this stage in life is, according to my research and understanding of child development, fairly ineffective, confusing, and downright humiliating for a child of this age. At this age, what are commonly thought of as "misbehaviors" are just manifestations of the child's frustrations with his own physical and mental limitations. A child's brain is still making important connections at this stage and it is important to foster those connections by acknowledging the child's feelings, i.e. naming them and letting them know you understand - that what they're feeling isn't wrong or bad - and showing them how to better manage their frustration. Children, especially between 2 and 5, do NOT need to suffer even minor pain and humiliation in order to learn socially appropriate behaviors. (Of course, it is rude to let a child pitch a fit in public, not only for the public, but also for the child. One should remove an upset child to a private area and let him settle down in private.) And let me ask you, no matter how many times you spank your child for running into the middle of the street, would you allow him to play in the front yard alone at the age of even 5? If your answer is no, then how can you claim that spanking, even to curb life-threatening behavior, is effective? If your answer is yes, well, good luck. I think all too often parents, and people WITHOUT children especially, are simply interested in how to make a child BEHAVE, or rather, sit still and be quiet and make their presence and inconspicuous as possible, instead of worrying about how they can help children grow to be self-confident, self-sufficient individuals. As for those poor kids on the talk shows, I think they are the product of inconsistent and ineffective discipline methods. Yelling, spanking, threatening punishment and not following through, or parents who are too permisive, or just not present most of the time. I don't think spanking them early in life would have been the solution, but rather, may be a cause. (P.S. I am obviously very passionate about this subject and tend to get very verbose about it. Apologies for the length.) - 22:43:59 on 24 May 100 GMT

Melissa:RYAN: You'll probably have to go through it again, or something like it . . . but the great thing about being out on your own is that you can say, "Thanks for the advice." pick up your things and go home - or send them on their way if their visiting you. And live YOUR life YOUR way. - 22:47:13 on 24 May 100 GMT

CommentsPlease:..... - 6:22:17 on 25 May 100 GMT

Grant:After reading this, I think you need to learn to relax, and maybe cut down on the coffee. - 6:33:09 on 25 May 100 GMT

Melissa:Grammatically, a failure, but as a concept I kinda liked it . . . though I don't think the concepts of individual freedom\free enterprise and Socialism can co-exist . . . and I see the whole cosmicGod(dess) concept as a backlash against the misogynist male god of Christianity, more of a "Well I worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn so there" type argument than a serious religion. Quite amusing really . . . and kinda sad, because I really do wish there was a promising plan to overthrow our insanely corrupt, born rich, male-dominated, quasi-fascist government here in the U.S. - 16:31:48 on 25 May 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- LOL, the resurrected Carl Sagan? Wouldn't he be pleased! "That women set the spiritual tone of public policy and rule over", one comes to mind that would love that position! Actually I love it because the author/authors must be really into George Orwell. - 18:13:32 on 25 May 100 GMT

Cristy:GRANT, I'm writing out my check to "tithe" to them right now, I was so impressed! - 18:40:56 on 25 May 100 GMT

Joette to comments please:cosmic and economic PLANE??????? What airline will be supplying this? Let me know so I can avoid travelling that particular airline. - 0:23:58 on 26 May 100 GMT

Carl:MELISSA, so spanking has been found to be bad? In this day and age seems someone daily comes out with "findings" that a-whatever is bad for one and all. Perhaps one would be better served, if they wondered about such verbal hueristics or, wondered about the reporters of the report? Above, I asked what is alive, for this post we'll say we as human creatures are alive. Xians like to ask "who" gave you life? As the term atheist goes, I prefer to think atheists have wondered of the reporters or such reports, you know the heaven and hell stuff. Of science, the religious, IMHO, cry foul because they seem to hold that science lessens the values of their heaven and hell. That heaven and hell scenario essentially is it not the modus operandi of the relationship of their percieved experience to their very contemplation of their existence? Science for others dare we say is merely an account of things as a non-religious experience? With this painting of the two perspectives, nowhere does one see it stated that it is only the human part that can make the whole whatever it is. The human part I believe is composed of knowing what transpires around and about it. The xian patriarchs and others prior oft mentioned that a key time to "instill" a religiously favorable POV, is in one's childhood. Of the reasons for this I think you know, its because children do not know what or how to think of the matters before and in motion around and about them. Here some have described children as an empty blackboard upon which things can be composed, others, I think I've seen say, the child has all in them already and "it" just needs to be fanned into a fire. What do you think? What happened to the child is asked whenever they exhibit ill or bad deeds. As organisms they simply do not know how to function. Here at this site and elsewhere, I have always portrayed the human organism as merely an electrochemically charged sacks of cells. In order for the event that is that sack of cells to know how to understand other events and to know the matters in motion around and about them, the child most be educated of what are good and bad for it. If the organism exists for 80 years its childhood is but what 12 - 15 years? When does childhood end, it can only be when they can reproduce. Now you mention these children need to know someone 'understands' their feelings, too? What does the child know? How does it know what or that it understands? Feelings are what? The window of time when the rudiments of a learning pathway can be instilled is very brief. I suggested it was around 2 - 5 years of age and during which time spanking can be administered. Spanking after that becomes punishment for some mal or ill deed. Spanking in that period of time is to be instructional not punishment so you don't stand there beating-on and or screaming-at the kid with a club or bullwhip. You love the child, you don't hurt it. A parent can only teach the child how to handle matters around and about them. The parent does not experience the childs life events. Perhaps a parent ought to understand or hold that what they are doing, is not raising a child; they are teaching the offspring to be an adult. And, most important the child must be taught to like itself. Shall we continue? - 17:18:48 on 26 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL and MELISSA- I have to agree with you Carl on this one. For some children, a spank is what it takes, for others, not. I was one of those parents who never spanked and bought all the new psycho-babble on child rearing. One of my kids could have used that spanking for sure. We all try to be the best parents we can be but I think we can take a few lessons from people in some of the third world countries on child rearing. The biggest bull of all is that children who were spanked will grow to use violence in handling problems. The reality is, most violent children have never been spanked and all methods have been tried with them. This is a real involved discussion and I doubt we should start it up here but I figured I'd add my 2 cents. - 20:15:08 on 26 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I think some and not all too, need and utilise well a spanking. O'my four offspring two I swatted and ka'thunked their ears. Two very few times and one maybe not at all. So far they are all physically healthy and mentally sound. - 20:43:40 on 26 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: why shouldn't we start it up here? I thought this forum was for discussing issues relevant to atheists, religious or otherwise. Am I mistaken? If so, I apologize and will refrain from bringing up other issues. - 22:05:51 on 26 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know if swatting kids on the ears is very safe although I know I got a few when I was a kid but I don't think a little swat on the bottom when all else fails is harmful. Like your kids, I got my share of spankings etc. and I can't even remember if my mom or dad ever said "I love you", I guess we just knew it. Kids didn't have half the problems when we were kids as they do today and I think we can owe a whole bunch of that to we baby boomers and our big ideas on how we were going to change the world. We did, in many cases for the better, but much of pop psychology is as much a religion as any other and many "studies" are taken on faith and not actually done by the proper method. - 23:33:58 on 26 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Hey, I have no problem discussing this, in fact I'd love to but I'm just thinking that the others will say, "what the #$%^!, what's this got to do with religion?". If they don't have a problem..let this be the topic of the week. Hell, we had the damn universal collective conscious preaching for months, it's time to discuss something more "earthy", lol! - 23:37:52 on 26 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: You state "You love the child, you don't hurt it. A parent can only teach the child how to handle matters around and about them." How does spanking, basically a Pavlov's dogs approach to education, help teach a child to handle matters around and about it? Spanking a child simply tells them, "Hey, I don't like that behavior, but I don't respect your intelligence enough to explain to you why." It's just a quick fix, and it does hurt. I don't believe physical harm, I don't care how small on the pain meter, communicates love. A child is not going to handle the dangers of crossing a busy street by spanking itself. It will not handle its inability to afford a candy bar by spanking itself. And the fear of being spanked will just keep the child from doing the thing you don't want it to do while you're present. You also state "children do not know what or how to think of the matters before and in motion around and about them." Again I ask, how does spanking help them here? They learn by us TEACHING them. I fail to understand how a good swat on the butt is an effective TEACHING method. Sure it might keep them from exhibiting a behavior in front of you out of fear of physical harm, but how does that teach them WHY a certain behavior is inappropriate? You also state, "Here some have described children as an empty blackboard upon which things can be composed, others, I think I've seen say, the child has all in them already and "it" just needs to be fanned into a fire. What do you think?" I think both are true. I think children have certain personalities based upon their genetic makeup; that they will begin to develop and exhibit these personalities between infancy and the age of three; that how others react to this personality will greatly affect the child's feelings of self-worth and further curb how this child develops toward one direction vs. another. I think that children who are naturally active, inquisitive, exploratory, and vocal (not necessarily in words) about their feelings, their frustrations, are usually the ones labelled "in-need-of-a-good-spanking" (my son happens to be one of these), whereas the more passive, observatory children are labelled "little-angels". As for my son, I have refused to spank him (have swatted him on the hands a couple of times out of frustration, didn't work) and have tried to use the methods of Positive Discipline. When I am constistent in using these methods, we have a great time together. However, I am in my last month of pregnancy with my second child and find myself usually just yelling "NO NO NO NO NO!!" at him out of exhaustion (it ain't so easy getting up off the couch and removing him from the offensive situation anymore) -- VERY ineffective. I do agree with you that our goal as parents is not to "raise a child" but to help our children to become autonomous, self-confident adults. I just question whether spanking is an effective way of doing this for ANY child. (I don't think spanking necessarily produces violent children, nor that NOT spanking produces violent children. I think it's inconsistent parenting that produces violent children with no sense of boundaries.) - 23:53:20 on 26 May 100 GMT

Melissa:OH YEAH ONE MORE THING ON SPANKING: I see the spanking theory of discipline as being equal to the Ritalin-as-a-cure-for-ADD theory. A psychologist sees an overly-active, hard to "control" child and prescribes Ritalin. A parent sees an overly-active, hard to "control" child and prescribes the age-old cure, a good spanking. Both theories seem to stem from the desire to CONTROL an active child. - 0:04:35 on 27 May 100 GMT

Melissa:AND CAN I ASK ONE MORE THING (not about spanking) WHILE ON THE SUBJECT OF PARENTING?: It's funny, but I seem to get more grief from my family about my decision not to circumcise my sons than I do about being atheist. So I am wondering, as atheists and parents, if it's not too personal a question, did you guys have your sons (if you had any) circumcised? If so, why? If not, why? I am especially interested in the practices of parents outside the U.S., since I've heard that circumcision is mostly an American phenomenon. Because I'm atheist, my family knows religious arguments for circumcision are meaningless to me (though they did try this argument in the beginning), so they tell me horror stories about how the chances of catching AIDS, the development of prostate or penile cancer, and other medical malidies increases for men with uncircumcised penises. I did some reading on the pros and cons and heard men in European countries especially are generally uncircumcised and determined the medical reasons were just as bogus as religious reasons (after all, would we have made it this far, assuming circumcision is a fairly recent phenomenon - w/i the last couple thousand years or so - if our uncircumcised ancestors were proned to diseases of the penis?) And finally, the biggest con of all IMO: it's my sons body, not mine, and I don't think I have the right, unless there is definite evidence of a medical necessity to do so, to mutilate it without his consent, and how's he going to give consent at the mere age of 24 hours old? Anyway, my intentions aren't really to start a debate, but to poll some fellow atheists on their opinions on the subject. And you guys are the only atheists I know :) - 0:23:04 on 27 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I had to LOL when you said you have a hard time getting off the couch to remove the little one from doing whatever, how well we women remember those times! I had a "child in need of a spanking" who BTW never got one but he did have consistent parenting and unfortunately that didn't change a thing. Now he's suffering consequences much worse than I could have given him. After this happening, I've had to rethink all the good points you brought up in your above post, because up to 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you fully. Along with Carl mentioning his kids grew up sound, I'm remembering when I was a kid and a child I knew who was like my son. He got a spanking. Yes, he feared that spanking. In school he got the strap, and yes he feared the strap. But that fear was the only thing that kept him from harming himself and others. Because of the fear of harsher punishment, because he knew what punishment was, by the time he was a teen, he checked himself on most occasions. It wasn't until he was 25 that he settled down. Now he is socially successful. His siblings, two sisters, BTW never had a spanking, they didn't seem to need one. The reality is, it's the pain whether it be physical or psychological and the fear of that pain that leaves the most lasting effect on how be behave socially. - 0:38:23 on 27 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- The circumcision topic has been in the spotlight on the local radio talk show for the last two mornings. Yesterday, the host, a Jew, had a lawyer from the uS (capital"u" doesn't work on my keyboard)who has tried to sue doctors who have performed circumcisions on children who are now adults. In a nutshell, this host and 90% of the listening audience has pooh-hooed this lawyer's case. They've used all the so-called health reasons and of course couldn't resist throwing in the religious ones as well. Today, he had two doctors on, one in favor of circumcision and one against. Again he and the audience, pooh-hooed the doctor against saying that his "professionalism" was in question. This show pissed me right off (partly because this host uses the phrase quite often "lying atheist")because the whole thing was so one sided and not because of "health" reasons but because of their religious views. A few people even thought it was absolutely off the wall to be calling it mutilation. I tried to call in and ask if parents felt they had the right to remove a childs left side of his nose or his right ear, would they all feel that wasn't mutilation? But..I couldn't get through. Who did get through was some asshole woman who said that she would not perform oral sex on an uncircumcised male and she thinks all males should have this done so they can have the pleasure of oral sex. All excuses and any excuse of god I suppose! Anyway, no, I didn't have my son circumcised, the doctors were horrified but I insisted. He hasn't had any problems with his penis that I know of and didn't have any problems when he was a child. - 0:58:43 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MELISSA, good question on the circumcision...I hadn't made the connection but I'll bet atheists are less likely to circumcise for the main reason that we are less likely to CONFORM. Circ'ing is nowadays mainly about conforming. If you ask parents why they would do it, knowing it would offer little/no health benefit, they'll say "to look like Dad" or "so he won't get made fun of in the locker room". Well, I think if Dad and son are comparing "parts", that's just a bit BIZARRE, and same goes for guys checking each other out in locker rooms. Dh said that didn't happen in his locker room. So anyhow, to answer your question my 2 boys aren't circ'ed. Never been any kind of issue IRL, though have had some debates on a parenting forum. Judging from that little window to the parenting world I'd say circ'ing is becoming less common.

- 2:01:11 on 27 May 100 GMT

No-circ URL :This is a very informative site MELISSA, can't remember if you have boys or not - 2:02:16 on 27 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: My son's pediatrician had the nerve to say "You don't want to make him pretty?" when I refused circumcision. I was so shocked all I could do was sit there and look at him in disbelief. Frankly, I think the doctors are in it for the quick fifty bucks. You know they don't even anesthetize the poor kids? - 2:03:34 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:On SPANKING, spare the rod spoil the child ya know! haha...... actually I am not a fan of spanking. I read something in a parenting book that really jives w/ what I feel: if it hurts it's cruel and abusive, if it doesn't it'll just become a game to the child. I also feel that physical punishment does make a child more aggressive, violent, and liable to lash out. I have spanked in the past, and I have seen the effects in my son's behavior. He began hitting more, and getting in trouble more. I have had friends report the same thing...the more you spank the more you have to spank. Personally, the times I have done it it has felt like a parenting failure; giving in to the simplest method to relieve my anger rather than trying to actually help the child learn and grow. Not to mention feeling like a total hypocrite and bully..."we don't hit" *smack*; "we don't hurt other people" *smack*......In other words "we don't hurt people unless we're way bigger than they are". If you hit your spouse, it's spousal abuse. If you hit your parents, it's elder abuse. If you hit a stranger, it's assault. But hitting a small defenseless person is guaranteed by law! I need to look up some stats on violence and the percentage of criminals that come from physically abusive homes. MELISSA, if you ever need an online "support group", I can steer you to a NOSPANK mailing list. It generates a very low volume of email so it's not overwhelming, but somewhere to turn for discipline alternatives. - 2:11:56 on 27 May 100 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE: Perhaps there are kids out there that do need a spanking every now and then. I don't know. I guess I'd just like to think it's not necessary because it seems so degrading. I hated getting spanked when I was a kid - with switches or belts or hairbrushes or flyswatters, you know, whatever was around - and it never made me change my behavior. I still mouthed off and procrastinated on doing my chores, up until I moved out. I guess I should just be glad I don't have to spank my child, since I have such an aversion for it. I don't think it physically or mentally scars the child, I just don't want to have to do it to mine. - 2:12:21 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MELISSA AGAIN, ACK! I can't belive your pedi said that!! Does he insist little girls have their ears pierced before they leave the hospital too?! Can't have ugly babies w/ intact bodies out roaming the streets scaring old ladies. - 2:13:45 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:SPANKING, I should mention that I have 2 boys (2 & 4) that are relatively well behaved. I haven't been in the shoes of someone w/ a behavior problem child, but have seen people struggle mightily w/ such children and usually resort to spanking. Who knows what I'd do in that situation, but one lady I know who started out "positive discipline" literally BEATS her son w/ a wooden hairbrush. When I babysat him he was NOT impossible to control, all it took was consistency. Some people want a quick fix, which IMO can make worse kids and more work for parents in the long run. Yes I know, the parents of teen+ are laughing saying "just wait and see amateur" :-) - 2:19:14 on 27 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CRISTY: Thank you VERY much for the no-circ link. It actually answered some concerns I've had about whether or not I'm supposed to retract the foreskin when I change his diapers. See, my pediatrician said we should start doing this pretty early on, otherwise it won't retract later in life. I did this a couple of times, but it just didn't seem right. His foreskin would not retract and I wasn't about to force it to. Also, my husband (who IS circumcised, and pissed about it) said he thought it was insane. That we should just leave it alone. So I haven't messed with it, and apparently he was right. About the spanking -- you echo my sentiments to a tee. Thanks for your responses. - 2:30:44 on 27 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CRISTY: I have a 2 year-old boy and, according to the sonograms, another boy in the oven, to pop on the 20th of June or so. - 2:34:48 on 27 May 100 GMT

Doug:Melissa: don't force it, go as far as it will easily go. As they grow older it will retract fully. By then the boy can be taught to retract it and wash it every day when he bathes.If you force it, an infection may result and he may need to have it removed.Ouch! - 6:10:58 on 27 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Doug's post was basically what I was going to say. A friend of mine did force it, on the advice of her doctor yet, and her little guy ended up with a doozie of an infection. - 14:37:25 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MELISSA, I took my oldest boy to a family practioner when he was 9 mos after his pediatrician had left the practice. She (FP dr.) started trying to (gently) force the foreskin back, telling us we needed to do that regularly. I just wanted to grab her hand and make her stop, and told her I didn't think you were supposed to do that. That's when I started researching it for myself. I never went back to her, and found a new pediatrician that agrees it should never be forced back. He doesn't seem to know a whole lot beyond that on intact boys, but still that's better than most drs. - 15:17:58 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:LOL, Melissa and I are going to turn this place into an alternamoms site! Shall we get into extended breastfeeding?! *big evil grin* - 15:20:29 on 27 May 100 GMT

ACK ACK ACK, I f - 15:25:30 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:ACK ACK ACK, I finally finished "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck. It is being discussed at the UU discussion group I attend. I thought the guy was pretty wise and insightful during the chapters on discipline and love, although he was awfully arrogant. But when I reached the chapter on Growth and Religion, he ended up turning EVANGELIST! He uses things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics to try to prove that evolution couldn't happen w/o a higher power, and concludes that "grace" is a factual phenomenon and therefore proves that their is a higher power (God). Those that don't see that are just lesser evolved minds, childlike, or deluded by the "tunnel vision" of science. The old argument that because science doesn't have all the answers now, it never will. I was SO DISAPPOINTED in this book because I felt so misled by his seemingly objectivity up until the very end, when he turns into an arrogant know-it-all about the unknowable. The discussion on it should be interesting, I am hoping the others want to rip him apart as I do, and not think he is some insightful prophet, by saying our unconcious is really God and mental illness stems from our conscious refusing to go along w/ what our unconcious (God) wants. *blech* - 15:37:17 on 27 May 100 GMT

Bill...finally off...:Hi guys…just a quickie here, haha! It's a holiday play time day with the family home, yea! As a well established parent (old, ha) and related to the discussion; and as one who was spanked/beat pretty regular growing up (including spankings at school…what would you expect from a small country school named Isabella w/ 300 kids counting the first graders??? haha!), I will say that spankings should be a last resort (this does not include babies, IMO) and should not cross the line into physical damage….a little redness/pain – Yes; broken bones/welts/blood – No! Again it depends on the child (some seem to never need this form of discipline and can be disciplined in other ways) and while the urge was strong to spank my kids as a quick fix, I tried very hard NOT to pass on the spanking thing; but sometimes (with certain kids) there seems to be no other way out when your pressed to the limit…..I know it's a weakness in character, but no ones perfect and we do have to survive and we do have breaking points. As an individual relayed to me once, when I was telling them about the spankings/beatings growing up ***Well it doesn't seem to have hurt you, as you turned out OK*** At first, I didn't know what to say (how could I argue with that, haha!), but I quickly remembered the energy and time it took to build my self-confidence and overcome my younger-day insecurities. Not everyone DOES overcome their childhood insecurities/pain and I know very bright people today that are insecure, have no ambition, or no self-confidence (want to blame everything external) as a result of past negative experiences. It DID hurt me growing up, as I might have gone further in life if I had more love and positive support from my father in my younger days. I always felt distant to him because of the force use; however, it did not stop me as an adult from developing a small relationship, on his level, that he related to. Getting to know the real me was not his concern….shame! I feel it would be wrong of me to allow these past negative feelings to interfere with my present life. Should the pain in life, or spankings growing up, be the real issue here anyway???? What's MORE important IMO than the spanking issue is the genuine love and care/concern that a parent feels and demonstrates to their child. Spanking, coupled with genuine love and concern (tough love), are a judgment call and do not have a negative long-term effect IMO on a child. Pain is a part of life and sometimes a parent has to allow the kid to feel the pain for the child's overall learning experience and thus overall good. It's not just the spanking; it's the understanding/respect you show your kids (while you may totally disagree with them). Hell, my oldest even got himself locked up (thrills/excitement overcomes depression, temporarily) two week before his first year of college ended and didn't get out till 3 months later and several court appearances. Did I feel the urge to bail him out and save his college semester…oh yes! It just WASN'T the right thing to do, but I visited frequently, went to court, and always let him know I cared. He's a very successful software engineer today and controlling his depression with medications. I learned to accept them, and love them, for who they are…not just control/convert them to my way of thinking! I always voiced my concern and opinion (when they were older…teenager/young adult say), but allowed them to try and fail; and when they failed, I equally allowed them to suffer the consequences…for it would be doing them a disservice to do otherwise. This is getting entirely too long and besides I've got to go play with family/friends now. Have a good holiday weekend! Cheers - 15:55:03 on 27 May 100 GMT

Bill...forgot to mention something religious....:There was this little boy sitting on the curb shaking a bottle of turpentine, and watching the bubbles float up when a priest came by. The priest asked, 'Son what is that?' The boy replied, 'This here is turpentine the most powerful liquid on earth.' The priest said, 'Oh no son, the most powerful liquid on earth is holy water. Put two drops of holy water on a pregnant woman and she will pass a baby boy.' The boy said, 'THAT AIN'T NOTHING, take two drops of this here turpentine and rub it on a cats butt and it will pass a motorcycle. - 16:43:56 on 27 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I'm reporting you to the Humane Society, LOL! Poor cat! Also I agree with your post on child rearing, being there and done that myself. Good post! - 17:38:54 on 27 May 100 GMT

Cristy:Bill, I enjoyed your post too. We may not agree on all the finer points of discipline, but overall I think what you conveyed was great about loving and respecting them being the most important thing. They should be listened to and treated as people, not things to be trained, and we will be rewarded greatly I think by relationships with these wonderful little people (rather than scared obedient possessions). I think these kind of attitudes are more common in the freethinking segment of society, since we are not so focused on disobedience being a huge SIN. Worshipping a tyrannical "father" often leads to tyrannical parents. - 20:20:41 on 27 May 100 GMT

Bill...life is a beach....:CRISTY,I'm glad to hear that your kids aren't going to be subjected to the "Obedience out of FEAR of GOD/SIN indoctrination," as I was subjected to. I grew up thinking that God would punish me for my sins and, as a young adult, finally rationalized that the only one punishing ME, was ME. When one devotes the time necessary to work on personal responsibility and self-acceptance, then and only then will this positive attitude projected out to your kids and to the world. The problem is that many people still blame their "present/past" environment (possibly parents or even genetics), or point to external things (my job sucks and my spouse…..well better not go there, ha!….sorry!, etc.), or simply just make excuses as to their present misery or lack of success in life….. WE MUST WORK ON OURSELVES, CONSTANTLY – the only ONE that we really have to right to PREACH to or CONTROL! Kids must grow to realize that THEY are responsible for their ACTIONS and will be allow to reap the reward or pain of their decisions. While I am proud of the role I played and the way my kids turned out (so far, ha!), I always give them the credit for their success because THEY ARE responsible for THEIR SUCCESS. Obliviously, we must control their actions from the beginning of life, but the hardest thing I had to learn was to turn loose and that I couldn't control (nor was I responsible for) their actions and choices when they entered the preteen years. This is one of the biggest mistakes that parents make, I think….they just can't adjust to the changing environment because their whole life is wrapped up in their kids and they have let their own lives/relationships do without (big mistake!). Also they have never done the internal personal work necessary to clean up their own internal conflicts (empty the garbage, etc.) and thus develop to some degree self-love/self-acceptance. And when you do all that there is a beach in Miami……..no, better not go there either, ha! We can never give our kids the love and attention that is necessary in their developmental needs until we first learn to love/accept ourselves. You see it's not the kids that have all the problems; it's the dearth of self-love within us that prevents us from really loving and caring for our children in the mannor in which they deserve. And now I must go as my place is a MESS from all those DAMN KIDS yesterday, LOL! - 14:50:50 on 28 May 100 GMT

Bill..Prayer never fails ...:Did anyone hear the story about the man who went walking through the forest one day and he came upon a bear. He immediately became fearful and dropped to his knees to pray. "Oh Lord, he cried, please spare me from this bear that I shall not be its next meal." At that point the bear dropped to his knees and said "Dear Lord, thank you for this meal you have set before me. haha! - 20:36:55 on 28 May 100 GMT

Bill...never judge a man....:The last post was in response to an atheist' comment that "Nothing fails like prayer!" On the other hand, A religionists once said, "Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in their shoes"…..And I whole heartedly agree, cause then you are a mile away and have another pair of shoes!!! hahaha! It's a little slow today and I am talking to myself here, ha! - 20:55:47 on 28 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I guess prayer works for the bears and the birds, lol! - 22:33:43 on 28 May 100 GMT

Bill...speaking with forked tongue...:MARLENE, Yes, prayer is a relative sort of thing, ha! Concerning problem kids etc.;it's always best to do what's right and not worry about what others think of your actions, no? Having had problematic kids to deal with one can become encumbered by the thoughts of "what will the family think?" or "what will my workgroup think?" or "this/that organization think?" I've reached the point where I've just gone my own way and have little concern what the world thinks, ha! And when I think of "blind_followers" I am reminded of one of our old friends….. RON; I wonder what he is up to these days?? I will always remember him for one of his comments, in relation to blind followers of any faith, when he said, "They remind me of * cows * staring at a passing train!"…….hahaha! He could make some of the most * udder_ly * applicable statements, at times, that I have ever * herd *! The problem with groups is one tends to not want to become the * laughing-stock * of the group and thus they are encumbered by doing what's right at times. Or if they do what's right it becomes one of those * do_plicity * things and eventually you become buried by the * bile * of it all. Whether your an * im_bull_cile * or just an * udder_ly * ridiculous type gender, caught in a bad situation, one should NEVER worry about what the * collective_herd/heard * mentality thinks…..NO? And now I must be * Mooooo_vin * on to more * pastoral * settings…..cheers! - 13:16:17 on 29 May 100 GMT

Marlene:SO! It looks like all you 'Mericans are whooping it up this weekend and completely forgetting about we Canuks,lol. Hope you all had a great weekend! - 0:33:04 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene:BILL- I had to LOL! at the "cows looking at a passing train" line Ron use to use. I use it myself now as it describes some people to a T. This is just an awful thing to say but it is true, ever look at the faces of the 16-appox. 21 year olds working at Walmart.....I don't know if it's boredom, drugs or the generation in general. Ask them where something is! Ever watch _King of the Hill_, which I love BTW because it somehow reminds me of Ron and James. Anyway Lou-Anne's now deceased boyfriend use to work at the Meglomart, he had the same look and the same attitude. I love that show, it captures everything! - 0:39:27 on 30 May 100 GMT

Jake:I scrolled through some of the pages here. Is there any on-going topic here or just ramblings? I don't remember who wrote it in here, but I'll agree that the term and concept of 'atheism' is a socially driven outcasting. It has to be, if over 90 something percent of the world is not-not theistic. I mean, isn't it time we call ourselves something different than "disbelievers (of what others believe)"? The whole idea of insisting on an opposite label for myself according to someone else's nonsensical belief is pessimism at it's worst. I guess 'physical monist' is too fancy? Thoughts? BTW, hi to everyone. I'm new here. - 1:40:44 on 30 May 100 GMT

Jake:Also, would anyone else consider Buddhism a form of atheism --- since it meets all the requirements? I've met a few rigid atheists who don't get this at all. Any thoughts? - 1:44:45 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- IMO, buddhism accepts the supernatural, the whole universal consciousness idea. For this atheist it's still fantastic claim for which there is no evidence. You see, this label of atheist is really quite deceiving because it actually means that one does not accept god, gods or goddesses (and to be really specific good ole "G"od himself), so one can say they believe in no gods but still believe in other fantastic ideas like the blue fairy, esp, etc. etc. I'm an atheist who also does not accept the existence of anything that has no evidence to show that it exists. - 2:51:00 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene:JAKE- I forgot to say_ Welcome_, and I'm disappointed that you didn't like our "ramblings"..maybe you'll become a rambler too if you hang around. Now Jake, this word "monist" leaves me with the sensation of someone scraping their fingernails across a blackboard. Maybe you can disburden me of that sensation by explaining what "monist" is to you. - 3:01:20 on 30 May 100 GMT

Melissa:Tread lightly JAKE. I sense MARLENE'S hackles are raised and readied for the kill! ;) --- BTW: Welcome. - 3:32:25 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene..:MELISSA- I don't know if I'm at the point of kill but I still have this tension headache lingering from the last episode of monist mania, hopefully Jake isn't going there... - 3:40:14 on 30 May 100 GMT

Melissa:ALL: Thank you all for "rambling" a little bit and sharing with me your parental POV's concerning some very controversial topics, on which I think one's opinions are directly related to one's religious persuasion. They were all very enlightening and helpful. - 3:46:00 on 30 May 100 GMT

Melissa:JAKE: You speak of "requirements" which must be met for a belief (or non-belief) system to be called "atheistic"? What are these requirements? My visits to some other atheism chat sites have taught me that one person's perceived "requirements" can differ from another's, that it's a good idea to clearly define these requirements and determining whether all in the discussion agree on them - then moving forward. - 3:57:34 on 30 May 100 GMT

Doug:Jake: "Also, would anyone else consider Buddhism a form of atheism" You know in his tale The Buddha meets gods and goddesses under the bhodi tree (spelling?) but is not moved. So how on earth can you not call Buddhism a form of theism. Yes,Meditating to achive nervana is a mental task, Just as praying the rosary is a mental task too.So you could call xianity a form of atheism too. - 4:54:39 on 30 May 100 GMT

Cristy:Dr. Laura "fans" should get a kick out of this ;-) - 15:10:50 on 30 May 100 GMT

Carl:MELISSA, Now that you've mentioned defining matters as important to any determination, what is the defintion and composition of a "spanking"? From where I am I see you as seeing a spanking as an act that leaves the child with hideous marks on their physical being and then its left in a daze of the just passed spanking event, confused by the few objects it thought it knew, asking repeatedly why, why, why? What is this "spanking"? Once way back, I mentioned that fear is a valuable learning experience, without fear to temper one's comprehensions of the passing events and those objects around them, mindless acts will occur. A spanking as I knew and utilised it was made relevant to some specific event of my one's involvement and explained as a good for those objects important to my or my offspring's continued well being. What constitutes an act of spanking, that act you now see? - 15:15:39 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- LOL! LOL! A good kick! - 16:15:15 on 30 May 100 GMT

Cristy:CARL, to me a spanking is when you hit your kid, period. A slap on the hand is still hitting, and is a mild form of spanking IMO. There is certainly a wide range of spankings, from the hand slap to the beating. The problem I see with it is once you OK hitting your kid at all, it becomes more reflex and more likely to be done in anger. I myself have experienced this, and decided that it was just not OK to hit, period. I don't want my kids to do it, so I shouldn't do it. I have talked to some parents who used spanking in what I would consider a more acceptable manner, where the child was advised of the consequences of an action yet chose to commit the offense anyway, and the punishment is carried out with discussion before and after, when the parent is NOT angry but matter-of-fact. This takes a great deal of discipline on the part of the parent IMO to follow the routine of calming down and talking, rather than just reaching over and smacking them. I don't think a whole lot of people have that kind of control on their temper. Maybe I'm just more temperamental than most! But I still don't see it necessary to discipline by fear of pain for most children. After all, someday they'll get too big to hit and then you have to scramble for some other methods. - 18:06:47 on 30 May 100 GMT

Cristy:What is an atheist? Well, to me it means not believing in any supreme power, be it a being (god), collective conciousness, aliens pulling our puppet strings, whatever, that cannot be proven. - 18:09:38 on 30 May 100 GMT

Cristy:Science as religion...in that Road Less Traveled book I was reading, author claimed that religion= your world view, and as such science was a religion because that is what some people use to make sense of the world. Do y'all agree w/ that? - 18:11:08 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- No I don't because science is the "study of" something and religion is the "worship of", one accepted or not on fact and the other accepted or not on faith. - 19:34:38 on 30 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: Excellent question/point. I should've defined "spanking". I'll just point you to Christy's post, since she defined it as I would. I think your view of spanking, however, is tempered by your "tabla rasa" POV about the brain in the "sack of cells". I disagree with this view of human development. I think nurture is just as important as nature, whereas you seem to see children as lab rats or Pavlovian dogs - that aversive stimuli can be used as effective teaching tools. Well children are not rats or dogs -- they have much larger cerebral cortexes, even much bigger limbic systems (though much smaller olfactory bulbs) than both species. Fear, IMO, is NOT an acceptable way to TEACH children. - 19:36:36 on 30 May 100 GMT

Joette:JAKE - I like much of Buddhism myself but I have a problem with the concept of loving a person just because he/she exists. There are some trangressions that can leave a person injured for life whether physically or emotionally, and having to remain steadfast in the love of the person causing the harm is non-sensical IMHO. - 20:08:57 on 30 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Our personality is 50% nature and 50% enviromental. When the children are very young, unless they spend 8 hours of their waking hours at a daycare or at a sitter, their enviroment is in the home and they are almost 100% influenced by their parents. As the children become older they spend more time with little friends and what ever time they spend with friends, these friends are influencing the child. As the child yet becomes older, 7 hours of their day is spent at school being influenced by friends and teachers. If they are allowed to watch TV, a couple of hours of after school time is taken up and they are influenced by what they watch. Then some of the rest of the day is spent on homework or activites with friends outside the home. We parents like to think that we have a huge influence on our children and that they are an extension of yourselves. In reality, unlike the olden days when kids did spend a great deal of their time with their kids, parents these days do not, so really, how much influence do they have? I totally agree that 50% of one's personality is formed from enviroment but parents who think that most of it comes from the home aren't really looking at the big picture. We as parents hate to admit this. - 1:05:48 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Yikes lots of slips in that post, corrections "when kids did spend most of their time with parents" - 1:08:23 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:Melissa and Cristy- I'm still with Carl on the spanking issue, maybe because Carl and I are a little older and had a few spankings ourselves and didn't find it troublesome. Like Cristy had mentioned, a parent shouldn't be spanking out of anger. My parents warned me, if I did such and such again, I would be spanked, and they carried through. I didn't do it again. Like I said, I didn't spank my kids. I did the time outs and removing priviledges and the whole bit. I carried through on those things but it didn't change their behavior. If I had to do it over again, I would have used my parents way. Sometimes the new way isn't the better way. - 1:15:17 on 31 May 100 GMT

Cristy:MARLENE, I definately had a few spankings myself! Some of my most vivid memories of my dad are of him reaching for that belt buckle and yanking that belt out of the loops. I did obey him out of fear, and didn't have much relationship beyond that until adulthood. I also remember my mom chasing me w/ a flyswatter, and when I was about 12 grabbing the belt from her and hitting her back. I don't ever want my kids to feel that way! Yet as soon as I got out of the house I turned into a wild child and landed in the pokey one night while in college. I had been trained not to do bad when there was a chance of them catching me, but out of reach was another matter. I can't help but think there is a better way to teach, and still maintain a close parent/child relationship not clouded by fear. - 2:53:59 on 31 May 100 GMT

Cody:Excuse me, but I would like to say that if you need anything in anything in life, Jesus is alive. I know that. No matter what you've done you can turn to Him for love and support. God bless - 3:35:26 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CRISTY- That's horrible! As you likely know, I wouldn't call that spanking, that's fairly close to down right abuse. My spankings consisted of three spanks on my bottom and then getting sent to my room. That was it! I did fear the spanking but unlike the new pop psychology pushes, I believe everyone should experience a little fear otherwise one doesn't learn to have any in any situation. I didn't fear my parents though. No, I definately don't believe in beating your children and having them terrified of you. - 3:40:49 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CODY- If you want to believe that, you just go asking. Don't give me that tired old line. If there was a jesus, he's long dead, he didn't rise again, and he won't "come" again. He was just a man trying to change the bullshit religion of his time. He got killed for it. Like I said, if he did actually live, he was likely an okay guy. Maybe you should jump on the bandwagon and start looking at what is wrong with religion in this day. - 3:50:23 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene..J..B..J , I know it's The Monist Code!:Hummm...let's see so far we've received visits from three different but so alike cult members, Josh, Betty and now Jake...who's next Barb? We haven't had a Barb here before..let's use that name next time. - 3:54:05 on 31 May 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Nice response MARLENE to the assertion that science is 'religion-like'. In the mental turbulances and emotional tornadoes of the here-present of todays world it is easy to lose sight of the slimey beginnings of religion. The xian religion exemplifies best what religion must do for it to exist with the comment of that one patriarch, Tertullian I think, who said believe first then learn what you believe. Or Martin Luther who said,"Whoever wishes to be a xian, let him pluck out the eyes of reason". Obviously science could not be without some semblance of the notion of reason. How likely is the possibility that the writer of the book CRISTY mentions above, just wanted to use the science to religion link only to sell a book or two, you kno'pay a few bills, feed the family, get the wife or significant other a new pair o'shoes? Maybe huh? - 15:45:28 on 31 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL and MARLENE: It's funny . . . Cristy's story sounds a lot like mine -- belts, switches, flyswatters, my mother's hands even up til I was eighteen and finally was able to move out (she had a hard time letting go). Maybe our similar backgrounds have led to our similar attitudes toward spanking - or rather, hitting of any form, like swatting hands or spanking butts even with clothes on and even fairly lightly. Perhaps due to my parents' extreme reactions, I have taken the extreme position of no form of hitting EVER. I think I need to make clear though that I've been talking mostly about VERY YOUNG children - birth to three years old. CARL suggested spanking children from the ages of 2-5, and that's what got my hackles up. Children between the ages of birth and 3 don't understand the CONCEPT of punishment, or the word no. Their view of the world is "It's my world, you're just living in it." No amount of spanking, whatever your definition, will change that. It's the way their brain functions. Children this age should not be punished for doing what comes naturally, for doing what helps them learn about the world around them. It is because they put themselves in life-threatening situations sometimes that adults should be very vigilant in watching them and rescuing them (not spanking them) and explaining WHY this activity is dangerous - ask them what they think will happen if they run out into the street and the big car hits them - don't spank them, they won't understand. After 3, now that's a different story. I still don't think a child should be spanked, but at this age children begin to grasp abstract concepts and can be reasoned with, to a point. I definitely don't advocate PERMISSIVE parenting. I do advocate structured, kind, and firm parenting -- you're right Marlene, parents lose influence on their children as they grow older. This is why those first three years are so important for fostering trust and self-confidence in children, instead of trying to train them through fear. I just think we need to take into account the developmental stage of the child before automatically prescribing spanking. The human brain functions differently at different stages in life. For instance, I heard about a study awhile back which showed that teenagers' brains were more active in the limbic region than in the cortical region - thus explaining why they seem so much more emotional and irrational to older, more experienced people. Should they be ridiculed because they carry such a large chip on their shoulders, or should we understand they have no other choice in the matter and react accordingly? - 18:47:13 on 31 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL and MARLENE: It's funny . . . Cristy's story sounds a lot like mine -- belts, switches, flyswatters, my mother's hands even up til I was eighteen and finally was able to move out (she had a hard time letting go). Maybe our similar backgrounds have led to our similar attitudes toward spanking - or rather, hitting of any form, like swatting hands or spanking butts even with clothes on and even fairly lightly. Perhaps due to my parents' extreme reactions, I have taken the extreme position of no form of hitting EVER. I think I need to make clear though that I've been talking mostly about VERY YOUNG children - birth to three years old. CARL suggested spanking children from the ages of 2-5, and that's what got my hackles up. Children between the ages of birth and 3 don't understand the CONCEPT of punishment, or the word no. Their view of the world is "It's my world, you're just living in it." No amount of spanking, whatever your definition, will change that. It's the way their brain functions. Children this age should not be punished for doing what comes naturally, for doing what helps them learn about the world around them. It is because they put themselves in life-threatening situations sometimes that adults should be very vigilant in watching them and rescuing them (not spanking them) and explaining WHY this activity is dangerous - ask them what they think will happen if they run out into the street and the big car hits them - don't spank them, they won't understand. After 3, now that's a different story. I still don't think a child should be spanked, but at this age children begin to grasp abstract concepts and can be reasoned with, to a point. I definitely don't advocate PERMISSIVE parenting. I do advocate structured, kind, and firm parenting -- you're right Marlene, parents lose influence on their children as they grow older. This is why those first three years are so important for fostering trust and self-confidence in children, instead of trying to train them through fear. I just think we need to take into account the developmental stage of the child before automatically prescribing spanking. The human brain functions differently at different stages in life. For instance, I heard about a study awhile back which showed that teenagers' brains were more active in the limbic region than in the cortical region - thus explaining why they seem so much more emotional and irrational to older, more experienced people. Should they be ridiculed because they carry such a large chip on their shoulders, or should we understand they have no other choice in the matter and react accordingly? - 18:47:14 on 31 May 100 GMT

Melissa:oops . . . sorry bout that double post - 19:13:47 on 31 May 100 GMT

Carl:ANY: Religion seems to render the here and now of living in a direful negative and the afterlife as some positive. Must it do that? It furthermore supports that POV on things kept in a book of tales and storys of a before that none now alive could ever know. Even those now living cannot "know" what another knows or experiences. I've oft wondered what did the idea of believe first then learn what one believes, what does that really mean. MELISSA seems to hold certain beliefs about what a child "knows" of which the POV is that yes, others can {somehow} corroborate what it knows. I do not assume that she sees such corroboration in terms of non-religious spirits and such, but I do suspect that MELISSA actually refers to some learning theory. If she could point to one that would clear away some of the superficial questions. Once that is identified then we might become better prospectors of this kid thing. - 19:18:31 on 31 May 100 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: I guess your rearing when a child was a barbaric experience, you were struck when an old teenager? That is the time and age to fight back. "Punishment" what a religious idea and response for personal interaction. So far you've not clearly responded to what I see as important to the childs experience. The child, and parent, has to be healthy and sound mentally and emotionally in order to function within their environment. You've presented the analogy of a child in a street, I think it would be a mark of retardation if the kid ran in front of an on-coming vehicle. Or the parent would be severally handicapped for not warning their child of a dangerous street by maybe once pointing to a squashed cat or dog on the street as example of that danger. True it is a child does not know what "no" means, they have to learn what it means and this means it somehow ought to be made relevant to them. If the child disregarded the squashed cat or dog on the street then a swat or two with a strap or willow switch must become the substitute. Instead of an on-coming vehicle. Why tell them in a hospital, "Now do you see what I mean?", or later in some jail or prison. But geez, pavlovian dogs, for crying out loud, obviously you didn't grasp or read that I wrote one loves the child. As for fear, you have no fears, are you a pollyanna? My fears prepare me what I think I love, my fears for what I love prepares me in all things I do and read and think, why, as I also wrote one has to first like themself in order to like others. - 19:57:43 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I haven't any time today but hopefully tonight I will post more on the science/religion idea. It's relatively a new age idea in that the new age religions do not separate the natural from the supernatural as do the older religions. - 20:01:29 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't agree with a willow switch or belt but I do agree that after a certain number of warnings, a spanking is in order. I also agree with you that a child learns to understand "no". My little granddaughter who is living with me does understand "no". If I say "no" she knows what that means, if I want her to do something she doesn't want to do, she shakes her head and says "no". I also think spanking is appropriate as soon as the child learns that not listening to "no" works for them and can be administered until about five or six years old, after that the child is more capable of reasoning. Again, spankings are neccessary for every child and again should be used only as a last resort. If other things work like Melissa and Cristy have mentioned then I think they can be used and be more beneficial. - 20:09:25 on 31 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: Again, good point. I said before (I think) that I ascribe to the Positive Discipline theory of child development, which bases its claims on the development of the human brain. Basic neuro-anatomical studies - not any one theory - show that the human brain is not done developing at birth. It actually continues to develop for at least another 12 years - then, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got, and a little less as the years go by. But from birth to three years, the neurons in a child's brain are making important connections. This is evident as you watch your child learn to walk and talk (first it's one word at a time, then two, then full-blown sentences). When I read the book on Positive Discipline, I was pleased to find that their theories were based on the latest developments in developmental neuro-anatomy (not freudian-like child psych theories, but physical evidence), and that their accounts of neonatal brain development were not contradictory to what I had recently learned. I admit, some of their suggestions for alternatives to spanking and yelling seemed a little too, I don't know . . . laughable. But I tried them and they worked. If you want to understand the entirety of this theory of discipline, read _Positive Discipline: The First Three Years (or From Birth to Three Years; can't remember which). As for my "belief" that others can "know" what a child "knows" - it's a "belief" founded in scientific evidence, in research on brain development. I'm sure you've heard that there are "windows of opportunity" in which a child's brain is primed to learn certain skills, that after that window closes, it is still possible to learn a skill, but much much more difficult than when the window is open (some skills, like critical thinking, I wonder if it's possible to pick up even after the window closes). Anyway, your assertion that 2-5 is the best age to teach through spanking is an example of this concept. (BTW: you have yet to explain what evidence or learning YOU base YOUR theory on, which, if you'll read back to my first post on this subject you'll see I asked you to do before giving you my POV.) Language is another great example. Between the ages of birth to about 5 years I think, a child can be taught multiple languages with ease. After this window of opportunity closes, it becomes more difficult to do. Possible, yes, but difficult. Anyway, my point is, the brain is not some static vessel waiting to be filled with knowledge, or some blank tablet waiting to be written upon. It is a living, growing organ which is genetically programmed to accept certain types of info at certain times, to establish as many connections as possible (did you know that at a certain point in a child's life, I think between the ages of five and seven, a child's brain has twice as many neural connections as the average adult brain?) and to make use of as many of those connections as possible before the Great Weeding Out occurs around 12 yrs, when all the unused connections die. This is Nature giving Nurture its chance to "mold" the brain, a window of opportunity to learn all of which it is capable. It is possible that spanking can affect this process detrimentally. Has this been proven? Not that I know of - it'd be impossible to get permission to conduct an experiment which might give viable evidence for or against such a conclusion - too many ethical problems. But from everything I've learned so far about the development of the nervous system, from conception to death, I've decided that the theory of Positive Discipline makes sense to me. Perhaps I started from the "belief" that spanking is bad, and then learned info that supported that belief and ignored evidence to the contrary, but I don't think so. I try very hard to be objective, but I don't deny that I am human and biased, but I TRY VERY HARD TO BE OBJECTIVE. Sure I searched for an alternative to spanking, but I didn't just willy-nilly choose Positive Discipline. I read about it (thought it made sense) and tried it and IT WORKED. It is not something I BELIEVE but something that has proven SUCCESSFUL in my experience. There were other ideas, like time-outs, that I read about, thought "Hmmmm, on a two-year-old?", tried, and found DIDN'T work. You see, I see parenting as a process of trial-and-error. Right now I'm trying Positive Discipline, and it's working. When that doesn't seem to do the trick, I'll try something else -- always leaving spanking as the very last, and probably never likely, resort. Also, please don't think I condemn you or think you're a bad parent for choosing to spank your children. From both your and Marlene's descriptions, it sounds like you let your children know you still respected and loved them and didn't chase after them and hit in anger, as my parents did. OK . . . I think I'm done . . . Wait, wait . . . I think there was something else . . . No, no . . . I'm done :) - 21:10:24 on 31 May 100 GMT

Melissa:CARL: Above post was in response to your post to ANY, to try and explain where I'm coming from -- then I saw your second post, to MELISSA (me :)) and thought my above post probably could've been shorter. But you and Marlene bring up two points that I was struggling with til I read _Positive Discipline_ and it explained these phenomena and ways to deal with them to my satisfaction: spanking to deter life-threatening actions, and that children under the age of two "understand" the word "no". I thought my son understood "no" - he knows it means I don't want him doing what he's doing, but he doesn't understand WHY, and he can't, so why should he listen? And why should I spank him because he can't understand WHY? That's like spanking a kid cause he can't hit a homerun to save his life. Anyway, I won't go into depth (I MUST stop myself before I do), if you're really interested, read the book. - 21:25:45 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I'm not sure if you understood that I spanked my children or not...no, I've never spanked my kids. Like I said though, if I had to do it over again, I would have likely spanked one of them. - 21:43:32 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Children understand that "no" their parent doesn't want them to do whatever, the why they may not understand until they are able to. One can tell them why and then in turn they can tell you why but the understanding isn't there. Even when they do understand, children are invincible, lol, it won't happen to them. - 21:50:24 on 31 May 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The anti-spankers seem to figger that spankertypes as me stand by fully "armed" just to beat our offspring. I myself see that spanking or its like after a certain point in one's existence becomes punishment. I am dead set against punishment. Punishment only gives life to the negative, here, as MELISSA and CRISTY point out, I think yes it lingers, is in one. I for one do not think that I ought to be responsible for anything that is a negative experience in my loved ones. In my ideal, romanticised view the negative does not need to or has an existence anywhere. Many are a society's negatives that are for them. Now I am not addressing the social views, just what I see as for one's offspring. The idea of preparing children to be adults means to me, me and my offspring can and will discuss and enjoy discussing the experiences of our existence. Punishment, thats for you others to impose but not me on mine. - 21:56:58 on 31 May 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I have to agree that in the Western world that spanking seem to have become almost as bad a murder and attributed to all types of things like learning disabilities, violence, turns the children into child beaters and women beaters and old people beaters but if these studies were to go beyond the West we'd find that the findings are not at all the same. - 23:03:12 on 31 May 100 GMT