Carl:J.MATNEY: The point of concern for me is again, the manner in which and of the owner-people that "promote" religious topics. When I first ran into the PISO site several years back it was titled,"The Origins of Christianity". I found that all it suggested was that religion was only a social controlling device, I left it at that. Others who I mention that site to, for a variety of reasons choose to discount the site's content, but miss the bigger picture which it portrays, IMHO. Religion serves those in control and that has always been my opinion since but a kid that was impressed by the JFK/catholic hoopla. Since then when I see social leaders I've since come to see- it seems, one of two things invariably juxtaposed to them; religion or race. The PISO is here, enjoy - 20:48:52 on 31 Aug 100 GMT

John Matney:I have not looked at the site yet (I am going now), but that seems to be over-simplistic to me. The meeting of Society, Culture, and Religion is many things, but never simple. Religion can be used as a social control method, to be sure, and we have seen instances of that in the past (ie the Middle Ages, Taliban), but I think that discounts the very personal side of religion that many people feel, whether superstitiously or not. Wicca and paganism in general, for instance, cannot be put into the category of social control in modern times, yet it is a religion. Also, many people create their own, personal religions - certainly that cannot be counted as social control. Yes, religion can be used as social control, but I do not think that that is its primary function nor do I subscribe to the idea that every religion is like Christianity (thank goodness). - 1:08:27 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Dan Have you realized that deity is myth? Like I said before Dan you have all these attributes for deity and refuse to name the source. Deity is a legend in your own mind Dan. - 1:19:14 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Be careful or you'll encourage him to start back on his insane rants. There's no sense in wasting precious bandwidth and data storage on that. - 1:41:59 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Greg:Hi, I'm new to this group, so I'm not sure if I'm "contributing" or not. My atheism began in high school, when I began to explore the religions of the world, and all of their conflicting viewpoints. It seemed to me that if there were omnipotent being/beings, we would certainly understand them better if they had communicated with us, or at least be totally ignorant of thier existence if there were no communication. Primitive man developed the concept of "spirits" in an attempt to explain nature, to fill a void that stemmed from lack of scientific understanding. As science and reason evolved, these spirits and superstitions were pushed farther and farther back. Rational people no longer believe that the earth is the center of the universe, as the church once insisted, or that woman was created from Adam's rib, or that the universe was created in 7 days. Now, rational people who still believe in deities feel that God designed evolution, or lit the fuse to the Big Bang. As the decades wear on, ignorance will continue to be pushed back, but I don't ever think religion will ever disappear. Humans are weak, and need something to cling to. "Religion begins where knowledge ends." In other words, if I don't understand it, it must be mystical. As far as people who say "I'm rational, and I believe in every word the Bible says, there is no Big Bang or evolution", I would simply invite them to argue their beliefs against Budhism, or Taoism, or any number of New World pantheist philosophies, or the pantheons of the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Chinese, etc. If you are going to beleive in a deity, then you should consider all theistic viewpoints. Or, you could just blindly accept the brainwashing given by your parents, who were themselves brainwashed by their parents.... a guilt trip handed down through the generations, based on... what? and mostly developed by the church as a method to control the people. Just my 2 cents. - 2:32:42 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:HI GREG and WELCOME- I thought that was a contribution. Unlike the church, we atheists ask only someone's opinion not their hard earned money. Yes, I think leaders of religions try to control, it's profitable, but I think the reason religions survive is humanity's "inflated ego". We can't admit we are but animals, we have to be "better" than everything else so we've decided we've been specially created by a creator in "his" image, no less. When we have to admit we can't control something because we are only animals in this vast universe, we create someone/something like us who can. - 3:13:50 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: For awhile now this DAN has been trying to make a statement for there being a god, a creator, a greator spirit, something inhuman anyways. Whatever it is, DAN also wants to link it to the human idea of change the now so worded, 'evolution'. While he twists and turns to do so the image he presents here is, well, the separation of idea to effort is as the distance between a snail and it's journey to a star. Of this the problem for theism its burdened by stone age accounts of the cosmos. Its adherents still collectively attempt to shoulder that cosmological burden via equally antiquated religionisms. Here on earth now and then an indivdual- as DAN, of that collective steps outside its self imposed confines in an attempt to dislodge that limited stone age theistic view. DAN may have encountered a neo-Darwinian adaptionist account somewhere which he opts to be indicative of a process for perfectionism. That point is like shopping at a thrifty store. Such stores have tables and shelves touting best buys for such and such items. In the rush shoppers have mixed-up things so, at the check-out counter the electronic-scanner says one thing but the shopper had another idea in mind when grabbing it from the sale table. The crux of the problem, the shopper didn't compare the selected item to the coded description of the sale item. Perhaps with that suggested idea above DAN figgers to have the perfect buy. Now at the register DAN asks others to go to the sale table to check out and verify the price of his item. DAN still seeks to explain the shadows on the cave-wall. - 17:28:04 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Dan:Greg: This seems very confusing to many people. People think that there are conflicts in the bible and among other religions, therefore(some people think) there is no God. There is a "God". This "God" manifests himself to certain people in different ways. All theists worship the same "God", be it Allah, God, or whatever else. This includes religions that have many Gods also. The conflicts are the people's understand of God unfolding. At times it has been very bad(heaven/hell concept). In Science, new discoveries change various fields constantly. Nobody every notes the conflicts between the early greeks interpretations of the world and our current ones. There obviously is not conflict, it changes. Think of religion in this sense. - 19:50:58 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:But it's interesting to note that a disease called hyperreligiosity is a form of TLE(temperal lobe epilepsy).This is when a person sees religious significance in everything and everywhere.And as you can guess, alot of religious leaders throughout history have had it.link: http://nasw.org/finn/brnstrm.html photism: is another disease, one thinks they have been hit by lightning. st. paul is a classic case on the road to damascus. "In colored hearing synesthesia, words, voices, environmental sounds, or music trigger the perception of an involuntary photism that is seen outside the body " "There is one form of sensory automatism which possibly deserves special notice on account of its frequency. I refer to hallucinatory or pseudo-hallucinatory luminous phenomena, photisms, to use the term of the psychologists. Saint Paul's blinding heavenly vision seems to have been a phenomen of this sort; so does Constantine's cross in the sky. The last case but one which I quoted mentions floods of light and glory. Henry Alline mentions a light, about whose externality he seems uncertain. Colonel Gardiner sees a blazing light. President Finney writes: "All at once the glory of God shone upon and round about me in a manner almost marvelous.... A light perfectly ineffable shone in my soul, that almost prostrated me on the ground. This light seemed like the brightness of the sun in every direction. It was too intense for the eyes.... I think I knew something then, by actual experience, of that light that prostrated Paul on the way to Damascus. It was surely a light such as I could not have endured long." * * Memoirs, p. 34. Such reports of photisms are indeed far from uncommon. Here is another from Starbuck's collection, where the light appeared evidently external: "I had attended a series of revival services for about two weeks off and on. Had been invited to the altar several times, all the time becoming more deeply impressed, when finally I decided I must do this, or I should be lost. Realization of conversion was very vivid, like a ton's weight being lifted from my heart; a strange light which seemed to light up the whole room (for it was dark); a conscious supreme bliss which caused me to repeat 'Glory to God' for a long time. Decided to be God's child for life, and to give up my pet ambition, wealth and social position. My former habits of life hindered my growth somewhat, but I set about overcoming these systematically, and in one year my whole nature was changed, i. e., my ambitions were of a different order." Here is another one of Starbuck's cases, involving a luminous element: "I had been clearly converted twenty-three years before, or rather reclaimed. My experience in regeneration was then clear and spiritual, and I had not backslidden. But I experienced entire sanctification on the 15th day of March, 1893, about eleven o'clock in the morning. The particular accompaniments of the experience were entirely unexpected. I was quietly sitting at home singing selections out of Pentecostal Hymns. Suddenly there seemed to be a something sweeping into me and inflating my entire being- such a sensation as I had never experienced before. When this experience came, I seemed to be conducted around a large, capacious, well-lighted room. As I walked with my invisible conductor and looked around, a clear thought was coined in my mind, 'They are not here, they are gone.' As soon as the thought was definitely formed in my mind, though no word was spoken, the Holy Spirit impressed me that I was surveying my own soul. Then, for the first time in all my life, did I know that I was cleansed from all sin, and filled with the fullness of God." http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/james9.htm - 20:00:01 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: old Dan is trying to keep the mystery of religion secret. You see it can all be explained in modern terms by certain diseases and ailments or induced trauma's. This is a real sore spot for xianity and other religions. Many brain diseases used to be though of as divinely inspired of possessed by one spirit or another. But there is a a better more modern explanation for everyone of these so called "visions". - 20:07:18 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:DOUG: What in the heck does that old bamboozler DAN, really think he can get away with, especially here? What he needs is to find a chat-site where somebody might give him a loud halleluyah ever so often, tell him how blessed he is or will be. So there is a god and it,"....manifest himself to certain people in different ways." hmmm, ain't that convenient. That sure looks like its just a talking devise with which to pry into a person, kind of like the 'god is in your heart' devise\utterance. Yep, r amigo DAN is in a critical need for a helping hand, anybody feel like praying? Some reports say it heals - 20:49:30 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I'll say a prayer: "Oh, Lord, bless this thine Holy Hand Grenade, that with it Thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy...." Amen. - 20:54:28 on 1 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Pie Iesu Domine, Dona Eis Requiem***** Libera me Domine in paradisum****** Dona nobis pacem********One of my favorites - 3:03:12 on 2 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Semper ubi sub ubi...(a joke for all my fellow Latin students) - 4:20:51 on 2 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN and DOUG- We had a Latin teacher here about five years ago. I still keep in touch. Maybe she'll revist the page since ya'll is speakin her language. - 17:12:26 on 2 Sep 100 GMT

Dan, I don't mean to get in an argument, but your retoric offends me. "...therefore(some people think) there is no God..." That rhetoric is insulting, You might as well have come right out and said "some misguided people". "People think that there are conflicts in the bible and among other religions"... You mean there isn't? They are all the same? Talk to an Aztec lately? I don't feel in the least bit confused. God has never manifested himself to me. I've had a really crappy life, and while I tried very hard in the beginning to stay faithful to what my parents taught me, I realized eventually that nobody is looking out for me. How can you believe in God when events such as the Oklohoma bombing occur? If there is a god, it's certainly either weak or lazy. I see absolutely no empirical evidence to believe in a diety. And I don't believe for a minute that if you talk to all the various religious groups that will agree with you that "we are really all talking about the same thing". My accountant is a pagan, and I think her beliefs are so far removed from what I learned about christianity as to be a whole other world of ignorance. Are you saying that pagans actually worship the same god you do? I think if you mention that to your church leader, he will have a different viewpoint. The point I'm making is that people invent things to fill the gaps in their knowledge, or even their lives. Look at the success of fortune tellers on the 900 numbers advertised on TV. Dan, take a long walk through your town one day. Where do you see the most churches, and the most bars? The poor sections. Those people who have little else in their lives need something to cling to, be it alcohol or hope. People in the nicer neighborhoods are cetainly not devoid of hope, they just rely on themselves more. Frankly, I'm fairly well off, and I'll stand or fall on my own actions. I'm well off because of my own actions, not some faith. I don't need some mystical force to guide me, or forgive me, or rescue me. I also note that while you state there is a god, you provide absolutley no substantiation. Isaac Asimov, whom as far as I know is quite religious, and who wrote more than 1 book on the old and new testaments, said "Faith strikes me as a sloppy way to run the universe." Me too. Believe just because someone tells me too? Nah. Especially when there are so many variations or downright deviations or even wholly separate viewpoints on what I'm told. "Nobody every notes the conflicts between the early greeks interpretations of the world and our current ones." Excuse me? Ever take a history of science class? Dan, EVERYBODY knows that we have a higher understanding of science than people did 5 or 100 or 2000 years ago. Maybe that's why it's not weekly news. At the end of your reply you ask me to consider the evolution of science from Greek understanding to today's theories in the same light as religion's evolution. (Can I put those words together like that?) No one is asking me to beleive science blindly, especially not that I should believe the Greeks, because they wrote something in a book a long time ago. The very nature of the scientific process says that any new idea should try to be ardently disproved, and in fact, given sufficient funds, I can exactly duplicate the results of any scientific experiment ever done, and therefore satisfy my own scepticism. Religion offers me none of that. P.S. "This "God" manifests himself to certain people in different ways." Sounds like a typical politician. Just one more dig: "The conflicts are the people's understand of God unfolding." This god must be a lousy communicator. When my students don't understand something, I repeat it until they get it. Sorry to go off like this. I don't like being talked down to. - 0:40:32 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: That's the Gregorian chant that's used in Monty pythons "In Search of the Holy Grail". Pie Jesu Domine, Dona Eis Requiem- means, sweet Lord Jesus give us rest. Libera me Domine in paradisum- means, deliver me Lord into paradise Dona nobis pacem- means, give us peace. Oh Holy hand grenade of Antioch LOL! - 0:57:09 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Doug: Isaac Asimov,was a atheist. He was a noble man who popularized science and made it exciting for the layman. It's too bad there are more like him. - 1:02:07 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..Latin wasn't an option here in the sticks:DOUG- Ohhhhhh! That's what it means. I saw that movie too. My favorite part was the guys riding pretend horses. That just killed me because I use to do that when I was a kid with a stick and a piece of binder twine. I lived on a farm but my dad felt horses were a waste of oats and hay so it was either the stick horses or the cows and those cows have awfully boney backs. - 2:25:27 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:AHHHHH??? Who was this masked atheist who wrote that little piece to Dan? - 2:28:37 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Sagan can go on the list along with Isaac although I'm not sure he was an atheist. Close to being an atheist, methinks, but not quite there. - 2:32:05 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Sagan was a atheist too. I've never heard him say that there was a deity. But he tended to be very diplomatic about it when dealing with the media by not giving too much info about his personal beliefs except for his love for science and exploration of space.Cows!!! yea, we did the stick for horses thing too.My friend had two horses but his mother wouldn't let us play with them as we were too young. - 3:09:15 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Sagan was an agnostic, and really didn't like to talk about his religious views. Look at Contact, which he wrote; the way it portrays religion is quite telling of his agnosticism. (Although, to be honest, I have not read the book. I'd be interested to know if that really was his handling or Hollywood's pandering.) Two things to add - Pie Jesu means Blessed Jesus ('Dolce' is Latin for sweet, not 'pie'), and I think Mr/Ms Masked Atheist should not take any offense at Dan's comments. Often the comments were much more abusive from the atheist side. While I think religion is ridiculous, we should not say so and expect not to be insulted from the Christian side. That would be duplicitous. - 5:36:10 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Open:Texas sheriff watches, waits as conflict with militia simmers By Paul Duggan Washington Post, 9/3/2000 TRINIDAD, Texas - John Joe Gray's land is 47 acres fenced with barbed wire off a dusty road in the East Texas woods. Posted by the padlocked gate is a hand-painted sign 8 feet wide: ''We Are Militia and Will Live Free or Die.'' Beyond the gate, past the guards in camouflage, Gray's acreage along the Trinity River is his self-declared sovereign oasis. Among the 16 people with him are seven children, a recent visitor said. In case of attack, there's a subterranean bunker marked: ''KIDS INSIDE.'' The adults vow to stay above ground and resist US government tyranny unto death. Of course, they have lots of guns. It is a familiar phenomenon in the United States now, a band of religious, antigovernment, paramilitary survivalists isolated in a rural compound. Ordinarily, Henderson County Sheriff Howard B. Alfred would just leave them alone. But since spring, his department and Gray's group have been locked in a curious stalemate in this county of sun-parched cow pastures 50 miles southeast of Dallas. Theirs is a low-boil conflict that Alfred is determined not to let erupt into a shooting war. The sheriff has an arrest warrant charging Gray, 51, with assaulting a state trooper. And Gray's former son-in-law, Keith Tarkington, has a judge's order for custody of his two small boys, whom he last saw on Gray's property with their mother more than a year ago. But Gray views the legal system as corrupt and ungodly. He is not coming out, he warned a district attorney's investigator, and anyone raiding his homestead should ''bring body bags.'' ''If the police move in there, people are going to die,'' reported an Austin-based talk-show host, Alex Jones, who recently spent a night with Gray. Jones, whose radio and public-access cable programs are devoted to exposing government plots, warned that if deputies cross the property line, ''It's going to be a blood bath.'' Gray's ''body bags'' threat came in March, after he was indicted for assault and failed to appear in court, hunkering down on his property instead. Since then, in a strategy bitterly frustrating to Tarkington, Alfred's department has been careful not to agitate Gray, making no attempt to serve the warrant or block access to his compound. The sheriff's chief deputy, Ronny Brownlow, said authorities are biding their time, occasionally conducting surveillance of the property while trying to devise a plan to arrest Gray without a firefight. ''We're going to try to resolve this peacefully because we're peace officers and that's what we're supposed to do,'' said Brownlow, a Texas Ranger for 19 years before he joined Alfred's office in Henderson County. He said he and Alfred, also a retired ranger, ''don't think executing a warrant is worth the risk of folks getting hurt.'' Tarkington, 34, divorced from Gray's eldest daughter, wants deputies to arrest Gray now, and retrieve his 2- and 4-year-old sons, whom he last saw in April 1999. ''I sleepwalk through the day, then I lay awake all night worrying about them,'' Tarkington said. ''Sometimes I just can't function.'' Tarkington used to work in Dallas loading sausage trucks. Now he is unemployed and lives alone in the trailer home he once shared with his family, before his wife fell sway to her father's beliefs last year and moved to the compound, taking the boys. ''A Christian man wouldn't hold a man's kids from him,'' Tarkington said. ''John Joe Gray claims to be a Christian, but he's putting me through hell.'' Gray, a carpenter, had no arrest record before he allegedly tried to wrest a gun from a state trooper during a traffic stop last winter. Gray says US officials are plotting to enslave the nation, Tarkington said. He added that his former father-in-law began calling himself ''Colonel Gray'' a few years ago and hosted the rag-tag maneuvers of the Texas Constitutional Militia on his property, where he keeps an arsenal of combat weapons. He said Gray is a disciple of the Oregon-based Embassy of Heaven Church, a separatist group that rejects any form of government regulation, considering it an affront to God's supreme authority. The group's Web site posts updates on the Trinidad resistance, featuring Gray's stern, bearded visage above a quote ascribed to him: ''I have come out of the system of the corporate US government. I use no Social Security number, do no banking, pay no income tax, do not carry license or insurance.'' Since sending out a note with the ''body bags'' warning shortly after the indictment, he has not communicated directly with authorities. Brownlow said he feels badly for Tarkington. But he is also mindful of the catastrophic 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, 75 miles from here. He recalls the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, where an FBI sniper killed the unarmed wife of fugitive separatist Randy Weaver. Brownlow said it is his and Alfred's job to prevent a similar tragedy, to make sure that Trinidad does not join the list of infamous places invoked by those who see government as the enemy of freedom. He would not elaborate on the periodic ground and aerial surveillance that he said is being carried out covertly. ''I don't want to say anything that Mr. Gray might construe as us being ready to make a move on that place,'' Brownlow said. But he added, ''We're doing a whole lot more than we're at liberty to discuss.'' Although he would not rule out an eventual raid, he said, ''What I hope is, we get a call either from him or somebody close to him, saying he wants to surrender.'' Tarkington said that he is sure Gray would rather die than give up and that the sheriff's office should stop waiting. ''Go in there!'' he said. ''That's their job! Go get my kids!'' How long are authorities willing to wait? ''I wouldn't guess,'' Brownlow said. ''We're comfortable with what we're doing now and we're certainly not putting any kind of time limit on it.'' Gray's group has come to be called ''the family,'' but it is unclear how many people on the property are related. On his Web site, talk-show host Jones mentioned ''a total of 10 adults and seven children'' ages 3 months to 7 years. This story ran on page A23 of the Boston Globe on 9/3/2000. ***************** http://www.embassyofheaven.com/ Embassy of Heaven church pastorpaul@EmbassyOfHeaven.com E-mail the leader and tell him what you think. - 20:35:38 on 3 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Interesting site, DOUG. I heard his story on the radio but it didn't make much sense-- I mean they don't sound much like your standard anarchists. It makes sense after reading 'Are all governments legitimate?' on that site. - 3:47:37 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

LERONE:WHEN ONE HAS FAITH, IT FEELS AS IF HE CAN DRINK THE WHOLE OCEAN, BUT SCIENCE(REALITY) SHOWS HIM HE CAN DRINK BUT TWO GLASSES. - 3:47:41 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- I think it's good to vent about religionists here if one so desires. Where else? IMO, Dan argues from near total ignorance and has no justification whatsoever for a condescending manner. It's almost funny. The sooner he figures this out the better. Maybe we can be of assistance. :-) - 4:09:21 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Hello, LERONE - 4:10:41 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Grant - If he's dumb enough to put the arguments forward, I'll bet you he's too stupid to know when he's wrong. And I think it's great to vent about religious people too; just make sure you can take what you can dish out. - 4:15:37 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- When I first found this site I did some venting. I think many do. After one gets it out of ones sytem one can move on. For some atheists there is no place other than cyberspace for speaking openly about such things. Do you think Dan was treated too harshly? - 4:24:38 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Ok...I am tired of being dishonest as Dan. I do that to try and percieve a view with no bias. I know, it is weird. - 5:19:46 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:I accept the principle as an atheist, as all atheists must do(I think so), that our existance has come about through various scientific processes. If this is so, then, our emotions and everything human about us has no meaning(please tell me if you believe something else about our human existance). I believe that last sentence. So why should we even bother living, knowing that we are only scientific processes and that anything we do has no meaning? That is just a question that has always bothered me as an atheist. - 5:33:16 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Dan:I am curious about where you people work. Just a curiosity... - 5:55:33 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:I am curious about where you people work. Just a curiosity... - 5:55:39 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:ack...Typo...Dan is dead. - 5:56:11 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:So you'll only be dishonest as "Ian" for now? Oh, joy. - 12:23:21 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- That's right, we are only meaningful to ourselves. As far being meaningful to the rest of the universe, there is no evidence that we are. Why don't we just lay down and die then? Because, Ian, we are animals and we strive to survive, it's a law of nature. If one of we animals decide to lay down and die then more than likely we don't need our genes passed on so that the rest of our offspring gets the same idea. It wouldn't be benefical to our species. - 14:29:22 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:But if our striving is just a law of nature, then what is the point? Then one can only exist for emotional satisfaction like just about everybody. I am not going to lay down and die. My own striving to understand is a law of nature. EVERYTHING I do and think is. Even a bad feeling I get from realizing that is also a law of nature. - 15:04:35 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Cmon Grant. Can you give me a chance? - 15:05:04 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Ian - what is "meaning"? "Purpose"? What are they? I think that you'll find that your problem is not that you have no purpose, but that you define it in an unreasonable way. If Yahweh existed, would he have purpose? Probably not by your definition - so, if we serve an meaningless God, doesn't that make us objectively purposeless? There is no way out of it - either redefine purpose, or live your entire life thinking you have none. Oh, and impersonating Theists to try to get some. - 16:11:13 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Well...God if he existed would be the end of all means, so there would be purpose. Since he doesn't it looks that there is no purpose. As you said defining "purpose" is hard to do but if there is a God(which there isn't) it can be done. Please define purpose without God. - 16:34:20 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:"Purpose" isn't a valid question to ask concerning life(right?). It has emotional ties which we have said are just laws of science. - 22:24:57 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:You toss around "the end of all means" as if it were a given and actually means something. Think about God's purpose FOR GOD. Some consciousness that has always existed...for what? Just because. You cannot define God's purpose in terms of his creation, because I think that would limit him. So, what is NOT his creation? Him. What is his purpose FOR HIM, without his creation (because presumably he once existed that way, and his purpose can not have changed if it is objective). You still haven't defined purpose...you just say it can't be done without God. How do you know, if you can't define it in the first place? - 22:41:39 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:God damn it John. I am an athiest, stop talking about God. - 23:50:20 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:The question "What is the purpose of life?" is not a valid question. If somebody could identify a "purpose of life" then one could always ask questions about that "purpose". Sorry for bringing up a question and then realizing it is not a valid question. I was just describing the realization one encounters with his/her own ego when you find out that your emotions and ego are scientific processes. Usually people get that realization within a few days. - 23:55:52 on 4 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- If you mean purpose as in "design" that human use then yes, we humans see design and if you mean purpose as in "direction", yes, we humans have been able to survive as a species when we use direction, both these meaning of purpose have been used as survival skills successfully. BUT purpose is a human word and has human meaning, there is no evidence that the rest of the species on this planet care about that meaning so meaningful to us nor is there any evidence that that human meaning has any meaning whatsoever in the rest of the universe. - 0:36:07 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:MARLENE: I agree with what what you said except about the "direction" part. We do not have a "direction". We are organisms and we adapt to our environment(for the most part). Evoloution does not have a "goal" or "direction". Perhaps you define "direction" differently. If this is the case then please let me know. - 0:40:49 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Yes, I guess I was using direction differently. What I mean to say is that people use direction in the planning of their lives, most times this is benefical. Of course we can't forsee the future so sometimes that direction that we use doesn't work out. We humans would like to control but have a hard time dealing with the lack of control. - 1:04:38 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Isn't that "control" wanted to ensure our survival? - 1:59:30 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- If we didn't want that kind of control we wouldn't have come this far. Of course, being the greedy little creatures that we are, we'd love to have complete control..sort of like the god we've created does. Good thing for this planet we don't have that kind of control. - 2:56:44 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:MARLENE: Yeah, without that control we wouldn't be here. But why did we want it? Why do we have a desire to live and survive? It seems every statement leads to a question. - 3:04:45 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:That question is, I believe, quite misleading - kind of like "Why is the universe fine-tuned for us?" Well, we are not the reason for the cosmic constants but the consequence. Also, our species does not have desire because it exists - we exist because our species has a desire to exist. We are biological machines that have evolved because of this desire, not the other way around. - 3:20:23 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Ah. So you are saying that the reason we want "control" and have a desire to live and survive is because certain scientific laws are present that permit it to happen? - 3:26:30 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So its "just a law of nature", what is more important than that? - 19:00:24 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Yes, I suppose many answers lead to another question but that doesn't mean that we know the answer to all the questions. All we know is what we can objectively observe. Speculation based on objectively observed data is much easier to buy than subjective speculation. You know the old story, 30 people can witness an accident and almost every story varies a little. It's what the 30 people agree on witnessing that counts, that's accepted. - 22:15:45 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Life is self-replicating. Lifeforms that self-replicate the best in their given environment thrive. Part of being good self-replicators is having the will to self-replicate. If life did not WANT to survive, it would die. Humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection - why would we, too, not want to survive? There are individuals who sometimes don't want to survive, but they are taken out of the gene pool rather quickly, in general. We, as a species and as individuals, want control because that is the prerequisite for becoming a successful species - and we are successful, therefore we must have the will. - 22:20:04 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: at another chat site the participants are going on and on about the USA founders being open to and embracing of the decalogue and that they even favored the xian religion. Well, from what I have read those old timers had one common concern and a primary objective. It was not god, not a jesus and not the xian-religion values, all they wanted was the land. In the letters these ol'timers composed they wanted the land, and they wanted clear unambiguous records of the acquisition of that land as it was gained. That kind of action did take place did happen long ago. Did any of the founders have a real interest in theism or any kind of religionism? What I get out of reading the letters composed by the founders was the concern that religious interests might prevail! I'd bet the emotion of then was a political battle of the haves and have-nots, even back then as now.[of that I've read that less than 1% of the USA owns all the wealth.] If the early american poetry I've read is indicative of the masses of the time, the commoner used the term g-o-d as a sound which comforted their minds. For that element of the body-politic I can see how and why the founders define religion as a concern not to be a matter of legislative concern nor involved with a political process. It looks as though contemporary USA means to stage a dark ages II, and not from ignorance but for ignorance. - 22:20:08 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:God is a scary idea. A society's God is a reflection of its values, but that very same God is used to strengthen the belief in the values, which strengthens the belief in God, which strengthens the values....Choose the wrong values and you're sunk for a while. (remember the inquisition?) And the catcher is that God isn't based on anything rational, so it spirals without being checked. Very scary. - 22:25:02 on 5 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- Very scary indeed. Really, what is rational about god approving the death penalty yet on the other hand disapproving of euthanasia? I would think revenge is a negative value and mercy is a positive value but it seems the west is suffering it's own little inquisition. - 0:16:47 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:John: As you have said we are the result of natural selection. How does natural selection "decide"? Rather why do the species choose certain adaptations over others? Just because they can survive? Why do they need to survive? Objectively speaking what is the difference between death and life? Don't think of that as a challenge; it is just a curiosity. - 0:26:32 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- You sound rather like Grasshopper asking Master John all these questions yet you seem very reluctant to try to answer these questions yourself. Why? Surely you must have some ideas or you wouldn't have asked such specific questions. - 0:33:32 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:"Regular" Christians don't scare me that much, even though they are ignorant. These fundamentalist, Waco, type people scare me. They are the type that kill in the name of God. The vast majority of these fundamentalists have extremelly low IQs and are uneducated. Hopefully these people will die out. I don't seem them every coming to any power, hopefully they don't. I am tired of worring about these theists views. Let's stop all the ridicule about xians, and theists in general. Yes we all agree with you; they are obviously ignorant. It gets kind of redundant. - 0:33:35 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: Sorry. I am lazy. - 0:37:33 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:If you know any books to recommend please tell me. Thx. - 0:42:28 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- I would disagree with you. Many of the wacko xtians have high IQ's. Sometimes this is the problem. Some people with high IQ's bore fairly easily and are drawn to something which seems quite complicated, like philosophy and religion. They get lost in it. Lots of good books out there Ian, how about some Vic Stenger or Shermer. Maybe Dawkins or Gould? I suspect maybe you too have an above average IQ and enjoy playing these little games, maybe because you're bored. Why not funnel that genetic motherlode toward actually discussing? The rest of us would likely benefit somewhat as well as yourself. - 1:18:46 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- You can start reading here. - 1:19:54 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Or here... - 1:20:59 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Thx Marlene. - 1:22:13 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN-OR if you are having problems understanding why John wins the debate hands down...try some debating skills here. - 1:24:48 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:What debate? The xian one? - 1:25:39 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: You ever see those preachers on TV? The penacostal type? Look out at the people who are there. They are not your smartest bunch to say the least. - 1:31:25 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- They kind of look like cows watching a passing train, I agree but then looks can be deceiving....many of these people are professionals and have a number of degrees behind their names. I don't think IQ has anything to do with believing or non-believing. I think believing or non-believing has more to do with an individual's psychological makeup. Maybe half genetic and half enviroment. - 2:09:37 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..Wally Walmart makeup and Fredrick's of Hollywood dresses:IAN- I can't believe some of the outfits these TV evangelists wear! LOL! I suppose they look attractive to some people but only their god knows why! - 2:14:08 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I would highly recommend Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene"), as well as "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking and "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbon. There is a new translation of Einstein's General and Special Theory of Relativity out - you can get it at any book store. Also, try some Immanuel Kant ("Critique of Pure Reason"), Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, and David Hume. You can get many of the complete texts online. Start at Project Gutenburg (click on my link). For good measure, read some Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker Series is one of the funniest things ever created by a mere mortal. - 2:45:21 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: I agree totally. hahahaha John: Cool...PG looks great, can't wait to dig into that. I'm looking for more the biology/evoloution type books. I have read some of Hawking's and Einstein's stuff already(But I am by no means an expert on the subject). It's interesting stuff though. - 3:47:00 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

John Mantey:Origin of Species (Darwin, of course) is available on Project Gutenburg. A bit outdated, but a classic of Western biological science. - 4:40:36 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: While we few here struggle to coherently understand and happily coexist, there are unfortunately still others who bank on utterances such as that given by the dope jp2. So, on one hand the dope yields some on the Galileo issue while with the other hand he reins-in, he hopes, all minds adhering to matters of religionism? Wow! glad that effort will not include me in my brief but enjoyable existence. It is a sad act but one that someone as me must-needs to note as an act to be wary of. Afterall here in the USA there is a guy who wants to be prezident and has said, ha!, that jc is his favorite philosopher. The dark ages II, are they in the very near future? - 16:39:31 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I believe they are if people continue in the same mode as those in Kansas have. - 17:31:30 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Don't know how closely connected you canadians are with the USA, or for that matter how much of the rest o'the world may be so connected. Of the DA1, wasn't that only the parts of the world under the wings of xianity? Of the xian influences now the only country wherein it is yet a serious question, would that be only the USA or what other country has that problem? I do not see Mexico as a country burdened with that problem, that nation is so drug laden and poor that the people there take the chance of being killed to get out of it to get in the USA. What's South America like, well no real development there, heck some o'those country still got Indian problems! What about Europe? There is the Vatican, o'course, maybe Italy, some of Germany, Spain no idea. But, you get my drift? While the actual mental DA prospect is before the USA, what other countries could suffer that kind of set-back, other than the USA? - 18:23:51 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- There is starting to be an over-whelming degree of religion here as well. One of the potential leaders of this country is Stockwell Day (not sure of the spelling). Mexico's people are afraid to use birth control for fear of the lord, most people there are catholics. Ooops...the baby is up..more later - 19:18:08 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Well the Mexicans which I speak to say that the educational system there is good. If their reports are true the next point to consider is how wide spread is that educational system? Are all mexicans learned or do most still travel about on the backs of burro's, do they still do the ritual siesta thingy? If the majority partake in the latter two points is it likely they would face or would know the difference of another DA2? I do not see a DA2 event in India or China or E.Germany or most of the ex-USSR. But, perhaps these country's never got out of their dark ages? The only group of people that 'know' the difference {dare it be said} is the group located on the N.American continent? Hmmm, is this just a bourgeois thought on our parts? - 21:39:43 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:I say when just start a nuclear terrorist organization and blow the whole western hemisphere into little pieces. It wouldn't be that bad of an idea. All we need is a few AK-47s and a nuclear physics person. Well and a source of U-235. Hmmm(thinks). If somebody can do that then we basically got the thing a go. We could start a Uranium mine company and secretly extract U-235(but thats kinda hard because for every 25,000 tons of Uranium only 1 ton is U-235). It would take some time, but it's possible. Anybody interested? - 23:55:53 on 6 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Will you be going down too? LOL! - 0:19:53 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: No. We must hijack NORAD first. - 0:56:01 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

Grant: --Get out much?-- :Can't quite believe what I'm reading, CARL. Are you really implying that the rest of the world, with the possible exception of Canada, is in a state equivalent to the Dark Ages? - 4:57:35 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Are you referring to the Vatican's reaffirmation of Catholic primacy? Guess they figured they were getting too chummy with the hellbound Protestants and such. I especially liked that "the document delineates the boundaries of the Vatican's forbearance of other faiths". Sounds as if it's almost too much for them to forbear. - 5:03:13 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I wonder what the rest of the world is like, where are they in the things which they "know"? Or too, here in the USA, perhaps we arrogantly or foolishly suppose things are done best here? So of this POV, I have to ask first who was caught in the dark ages? What was the dark ages all about and who was concerned? Was it a religious issue? Was it a science issue? Was it merely a reference to an issue before "some humans" but not all humans? O'course we in the mindset as processed by the western civilisation will say things for and of that paradigm, but is it true, or "the truth"? While the dope jp2 utters ideas as he did, on the flip side is the idea forming by the likes of Koffi Anan, et.al., for a global community. In that regard, does the dope jp2 means to preserve an ancient, stone age even, idea? So, I wondered who it is that is actually in the dark ages? - 16:06:32 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Hello again people. Just thought I'd let you know I've completely redesigned my site. Check it out and see what you think. - 19:26:05 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:"I have a general hatered for all of mankind." -James Keenan Maynard - 19:42:13 on 7 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Did James actually spell like that? - 2:18:32 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Greg:Sorry, everybody, that was I made who "anonymously" responded to Dan, er Ian, or, whoever. Didn't mean to, must be one of the vagaries of the world's largest network we call the web. Marlene, you have an interesting point, (in your now old post) and I hadn't thought about it like that. It certainly coincides with the church's old position that the Earth is the center of the universe, because god created man in his own image. Church officials refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they did not want to see what wasn't real. Modern day special effects aside, how can you see something unreal? Sounds like denial to me. However, I'm extremely disgiusted with religion's view that I'm a worthless piece of crap, a sinner who needs to kneal down and beg forgiveness. Of course, I'm quoting western religion, mostly southern baptist, and I'm picturing that hipocrit Falwell with the tears running down his face. I know my spelling sucks, believe me I could fix it, but part of my responsibility as a CTEC training manager is to critique resumes and websites, so I don't feel like doing it right now. As far as the meaning of life, yes, I feel that this universe is a totally random creation. It's very possible that there were millions of universes who came into existence before ours, and they didn't by chance have a happy conjoining of physical laws. If they were severely flawed, life that could marvel at its own existence would never have had the chance to evolve and admire (or prostrate) itself. In fact, our own universe is flawed, in that one day it will peter out into a total entropy condition. But, what you make of it while you are here, is totally up to you. I get a HUGE satisfaction out of my own technical certifications, and I just LOVE teaching other people who need career retraining. So do I feel my life is useless, because there is no higher power? On the contrary, the "thank you"s from my students, who were formerly at the end of their rope and are now (very) gainfully employed, is justification enough. I could be some looser drug addict in a back alley, causing only a drain on society, but instead, I make a difference. It isn't because of some notion of diety. - 3:17:16 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Greg:Hey, John, nice page. Of course the christians won't get it as obviously god himself put pen to paper, there was no influence of man, and the bible is all consistent. In fact, even the koran and eastern texts are all consistent with the bible. All a matter of interpretation, right Dan, I mean Ian, I mean-oh, never mind. - 3:39:44 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Greg:And just one last post tonight, somebody mentioned Mexico. I live on the boreder of Mexico, hell, I can look out my window and see it. I've never seen a more ignorant bunch of catholic/voodoo belief. Catholicism has that country totally under its thumb, which is exactly what the catholic church wants of all of us. While people there are nearly starving to death, they have 6 or more children because of fear instigated by the Pope. You know, for a celibate man, he has done more to help get unwed mothers started than any other being on earth ('cept other popes). In the middle ages, this helped build the catholic church's tax base. Now, the ignorance of this policy just keeps a destitute nation enslaved. And don't think that it's a matter of intelligence. While the stereotypical stupid wetback mexican ignorant lazy-assed looser is very much true here on the border, similar ignorance exists in the US. While I used to have hope that intelligent people would reason their way out of unreasonable beliefs, religion, while unrealistic, holds too much attraction for too many people. Too bad. - 3:56:50 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:ARRRGGGG. These Christians are driving me mad. I can't take it. The insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - 4:02:53 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Grant the pseudo-pedant:Perhaps your questions were rhetorical, but what the heck? The Dark Ages had little to do with religion and nothing to do with science. As I understand it, the Romans, no longer able to maintain control over such a large empire, pulled out of much of Europe leaving no one entity sufficiently powerful to govern. The result was a return to feudalism. Culture suffered of course but that was the least of anyones worries. It took a few hundred years for alliances to be formed and etc. to allow large governments to become established and so restore social order. The term "dark ages" is popularly used by various and sundry individuals now to refer to any time when ones particular values are out of favor. Christians, for example, use the term frequently to refer to a present or future of secularism or just lack of Christian ideals or influence. A quick internet search turned up "the dark ages of nursing", "The dark ages of computer programming", etc. There may be more clear and less tired analogies or metaphors or whatever the hell "dark ages" is, with which to order thoughts or views. - 5:00:02 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Grant --Oh, poop!--:That was to CARL. - 5:01:45 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Christianity has been giving Jesus a blow job for 1000s of years. Why do you think people always say "Jesus is coming"? - 5:20:50 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: aw-rite, it was just rhetorical gas for a fire question, and yes IAN also has a valid point. The mental state as revealed in the behavior and utterances of the religious adherent are evidence which can be argued as acts of an insane mind. At another site a participant posted an image claimed found in some bible. It portrays an image composed of waters in a firmament above an area indicated as the earth. Between but nearer to that firmament are indications identified as stars sun and moon. Between these indications upon the area of the firmament are points identified as floodgates. Around the area of the earth are the oceans beneath these words appear the areas of the abyss, like the movie. Beneath the earth are located the columns of the earth. The entire image is called the "Heavenly seat of the Divinity". I think we've all seen this picture. My comment is this; is that picture the best a supernatural creator can allow its best creation- the human being, to come up with? Furthermore, others are to accept such efforts over time with "carte-blanche understanding", and! we others also are to accept what the adherents of that kind of image may have to say about stuff like spirits and eternal souls? And these religious adherents have the nerve to say, only a fool says there is no god. Hmmm, who is the fool? - 16:25:47 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:GREG- Welcome! No one really cares about spelling but if one is going to quote someone then I think, out of respect, that the quote should be spelled right. - 17:32:28 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:I don't think that people that are religious are "insane". They merely find the concept of a fictional God as reasuring and stress reducing. Alot of people are too busy working/providing/struggling to live to give God a serious thought. - 19:52:36 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: Well why didn't you just say that instead of attributing your madness [= insanity], to xians. Did you really mean to perhaps draw attention to the possibility that most if not the majority of the USA don't have a real thought-out idea of a godthing? I could agree to that suggestion as the religious opinions here clearly have no sound thought behind any of the godthing comments or accounts I've been told. In fact, they can't begin to carry their part in a discussion of theism. But, they usually end their part of such discussion attempting to cling to that idea-theism, via the fundamental dogmas of virgin birth, immaculate conception and so on. Such theistic talk and the various religious behaviors supportive of that idea are what I see as insane. - 20:10:02 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Earlier I was just expressing anger towards the ignorant fundamentalist Christians. I am saying that Christians usually don't think to doubt their beliefs and rarely have the time. Their beliefs offer then comfort. Why should they wish to destroy that which emotinally pleases them? It is hard for the average person to do that so I am not surprised that there are billions of Christians. 5% of Americans are Atheists. That means that roughly 15 million Americans are Atheists. I seriously doubt that figure has seen a higher number in the distant past. This tells me that people are catching onto the idea of Atheism. - 20:18:20 on 8 Sep 100 GMT

Biblethumper:Why do atheists hate God ? A: They can't, they don't believe in Him ! How does an atheist find a wife ? A: He sniffs her ass, bites her neck and mounts her. What type of music does an atheist hate ? A: Soul What does an atheist say during sex ? A: "Oh fictional supreme being...oh fictional supreme being !..." - 1:41:43 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- So...maybe if people were busier..they wouldn't give god any thought at all? - 4:22:32 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene- What I am saying is that they do not give the thought of "the existance of God" any thought. They only cling to God due to emotional support. - 4:56:40 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- I agree with you that the need for god in one's life is emotional support. That support seems to blanket all emotions whether it be hate, love, envy etc. etc.. Many times people use god as a scapegoat for their moral vices. In other words, god is a creation of the human mind, created for the exclusively to bear the burden of human irresponsibility. Our pretend beast of burden. - 13:17:00 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I disagree with that assessment of "God". I would say the god idea is a result of three things - 1) a lack of scientific and logic understanding; a god was a great idea in small societies, because scientific understanding was not spread quickly, and it was not something that the majority of people had access to. Even now, most people cannot understand much of our scientific knowledge. 2) a need for purpose; ever since the first ancestral and city gods, gods have been identified with a person or state, or whatever. To be a servant of god is something that gives one purpose. Because most people get indoctrinated early, I think these are the two reasons that most play into belief. Kids love to think they serve some imaginary power. They also do not understand many ideas, and god is an easy answer. Kids do not generally need the same kind of emotional support as adults, and so do not rely on god to provide it - that's what parents are for. To adults, god is a pseudo-parent. - 15:06:59 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:"A need for purpose" is basically the same thing as "pleasing your emotions". I know many people who believe in God and have a great scientific knowledge, but Marlene had a good point about that. She said something to the effects that some people, who know alot and are intelligent, get bored with science and can get lost in the concept of a God, ect. - 18:15:45 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:How is a need for purpose the same as pleasing one's emotions? - 19:17:33 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:If you feel like you have purpose you are happy. As you pointed out there is a difference between the way adults and kids look at Christianity. Christians view believing in God for purpose(which makes them happy), helping them deal with stress that faces them, and many other thing. Making them happy and releaving stress is the same general field of "pleasing one's emotions". - 19:25:49 on 9 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN and JOHN- Gotta agree with both of you. I think as Ian suggests that purpose/direction is something that makes one happy. If purpose made one unhappy then there would be no purpose at all, would there be? For instance, people served the god of rain in bygone days because their purpose was they needed water, same with the sun god and the fertility goddess. We never hear of people serving the god of drought, or the famine god etc., there is no purpose to such gods. They would make us unhappy. Even the JCM god of the bible had a purpose intially, he was a war god and brought his servants all types of loot and property. Slowly he became the god of everything. He went from not so much war to a little love when ole JC came on the scene. He all of a sudden had an evil counterpart to blame all the negative things on that make people unhappy. Now he's the loving god of "everlasting life", the only thing science has yet to disprove. If we are ever able to prove there is no everlasting life then what will we serve him for, what purpose? BTW John, you mentioned three things and I seem to have only read two ideas..or did I miss something? - 2:55:31 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:"An agreeable opinion is accepted as true: this is the proof by pleasure (or, as the church says, the proof by strength), that all religions are so proud of, whereas they ought to be ashamed. If the belief did not make us happy, it would not be believed: how little must it then be worth!" [Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human)] - 3:53:05 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Hummm..where is Grant these days, and Doug and Greg. Is the subject too boring? - 4:20:13 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Not at all, just doing yard work and getting ready for fall/winter. What's everyone's take on George W. Bush's fall in the polls. Is it a "major league..." fall or because of the "major league...". LOL! When I saw this on the news ;I knew it would take away from his "bringing civility" to government BS. Another article says that women favor Gore over "major league..." Bush buy a large margin because he typifies the typical 50's male.Besides who wants a fundy for President of the USA. - 6:09:41 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Although I agree, you people don't need a fundy president, it's absolutely DUMB that the women like Gore because he reminds them of The Fonze. - 14:56:46 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: The "Foze" was slick and cool; Gore is a square stick man."Major league ..." Bush is the macho wife beater/abuser's dream. That's why women a repulsed by him. - 17:26:00 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I have to admit, I don't follow US politics very much, but I have seen both Gore and Bush. I have to wonder, are there any ordinary people out of Texas, other than Hank and Peggy Hill, that is? - 18:13:40 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Hey, I was born in Texas!! Are there any normal Canadians besides Tom Green? :) - 18:50:00 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Most of us are normal, as you've likely noticed the Liberals are in here so far. I will change that opinion is ole Stockwell ends up being our next PM. Scary stuff! He and Bush have basically the same fundy ideas. - 19:20:39 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I grew up in Texas and I can tell you, it is a backwards place. The Texas constitution includes a provision that makes belief in God a prerequisite for elected office. That is, of course, overridden by the US constitution, but still...how backwards! Marlene, you are right, I only explicitly mentioned two things - the third was emotional support for adults, but that really is not a reason for believing in God - that is a reason to continue an already established belief, as I said. About GW Bush, and fundy ideas - I wasn't aware that GW had any ideas of his own! The scariest part is not Bush - it is Lieberman. He has spouted a little too much religious rhetoric. I think I will vote socialist. Or for myself. Anyone want to start an "Elect John Matney" write-in campaign? - 19:49:46 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:They both project the same ideas but they do vote differently. Bush is clearly conservative in his voting record but has a liberal tone in his speaches whereas Gore is liberal in speach and voting record. Both of them are Christian pieces of shit not worth voting for. - 19:52:26 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:I would like to introduce a new topic. Do atheists need morals? Do explain your answer please. - 19:54:15 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Of course atheists have morals, at least some of us. There are also many xtians without morals. Morals aren't a religious commodity. Many religious people, for some unknown reason, think morals are a product of their belief in their god when morals are actually actions for the betterment of a society. Morals we have in North America are different in other countries. They are relative to the society in which we live. - 20:26:23 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Christianity, as most religions, stresses strong morals. This is evident if you read the bible(namely the gospels). Now you may say that it doesn't. You say this because you see most Christians acting absurdly immoral. Those Christians have took the bible and melded it to fit their ideals; this is far from what Jesus teaches. To be perfectly moral is impossible due to human nature but these people don't try. On the other hand you have Christians who are moral. The concept of God and Jesus,as we know it's obviously false, moves them to become moral. The PURPOSE of religion is MORALS but this PURPOSE has VERY OFTEN been IGNORED and MANIPULATED by many THEISTS. God's existance is false but the morals are real. Treat everybody as you would have them treat you. - 20:40:24 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- I don't know if the purpose of religion is morals. I think the purpose is, in this day anyway, is to attain everlasting life. Most especially in xtianity, on his dying bed, all Hacksaw Hank has to do is accept JC into his heart and he automatically is forgiven all his wrong doings. ...like hacking up his Aunt Gertrude and his little two year old nephew, Huey. Not to mention hacking the cat's tail off when he was 15 or his attempted hacking of Miss Morrel his homeroom teacher. Hank never had a moral in his life but he believed that all he had to do was accept JC into his heart and he would be off the Hacksaw Heaven. And he was right, no matter what his sin, he was granted everlasting life according to xtianity. Aunt Gertude and Miss Morrel, on the other hand ended up joining ole Stan, downunder, because they were atheists. It didn't matter that Aunt Gert made mittens for all the kids who's parents were unable to provide winter clothing not did it matter that Miss Morrel stayed hours after school helping the children understand their math...nooooooo...morals don't count if ya wanna get to heaven. - 21:12:21 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene:True, many people are that way, but they haven't interpreted Christianity correctly. People want "eternal life" and nothing else. As a Christian, it is their responsibility to read the bible and carry out it's teachings, which are highly moral. Worring about "eternal life" is not what a Christian should do but it is sadly what most do. "Eternal life" is stated by Jesus as not being a place, like heaven, but it is knowing God. There is a sharp contrast between what Christianity actually is and what the vast majority of Christians are. - 21:59:22 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- So you're saying all this christians "aren't really christians"...yikes, where have I heard this one before. I've read the bible. It's full of all types of immoral conduct carried out by ole god himself. Picture this Ian...a group of school children are outside playing and a guy with no hair walks by them. Children, being children, think the guy looks absolutely wierd and starts laughing and making jokes about him having no hair. Remember children who have no knowledge (lack of education on hair loss) are innocent of the "crime" of teasing. Then good ole god sees this poor adult being teased by the children and causes a bear to come out of the woods and tear all the children into pieces. What is the moral of this story? - 22:11:19 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- God is bald? - 22:14:12 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene- I am not saying that Christians aren't really Christians. Most just lack the perception of what Christianity actually is. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, not the Torah, or old testament. The old testament is ment as background information, not as the final picture. Christians, as you probably know, are people who recogonize Jesus as the messiah. Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus, not of Abraham, or the old prophets. They, Abraham and other prophets, are still important to the Christians but Jesus has the final say in it all. - 22:43:44 on 10 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- No silly, that was Elisha. God looks like me! I created him in my image. - 0:17:28 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- What JC taught doesn't negate what's in the OT. No where does JC suggest this. - 0:19:25 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: You mean do atheists have xian morals. The answer is no, because you have to believe in the xian god to have morals. Do atheists have ethics? Yes, many atheists have ethics and studies show that there is no difference in the conviction rate between theists and atheists(actually atheists have a lower rate).Believing in one type of religion doesn't make one all of a sudden moral and not believing in a deity doesn't automatically make one immoral. Other primates have ethics/morals much similar to the biblical ones. Kill the outsiders, kill all males, kill all children, kill all women except those of child bearing age who are virgins. Baboons and Old testament writers have alot of primitive ethics in common. - 0:37:47 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian : there is a major problem in that god is jesus is the holy spook. So the same SOB god who wrote the OT is now claiming to be the kinder gentler god/jesus. "Yet it claims to have created evil and there is no other but me". repackaging Mein Kampf would make a kinder gentler Nazi, AKA: David Duke. Xainity would have done better if it hadn't adopted the Jewish OT. There's too many contradictions and errors between the two. - 0:43:37 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: Jesus never said that he wasn't anything. Jesus usually stressed what he thought was important. The old testament is more of a historical document than what Christians. What do you see wrong with what Jesus says(besides the fact he believes in God)? He was kind, generous,loving, ect. - 1:27:38 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Doug: How does one determine the morals of atheists vs xians? It is impossible to determine somebody's moral character with any kind of realistic certainity. You are correct on the point of there being a contradiction between the two testaments. The fact is that the NT has a kinder gentler God/Jesus is proof to me that Christians, who follow the teachings of the Jesus, should be kinder. Marlene: Forgot one thing. The new testament does negate the old testament. - 1:35:19 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:ack...2nd sentence in my post to Marlene should say "The old testament is more of a historical document than what Christians actually are supposed live their life by." - 1:37:56 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- JC was likely a caring person, if he did actually live. There is no proof that he did. More than likely he disliked the old laws. He was likely like a John Lennon. But actually what I tried to say was that JC never said the old laws weren't to be followed. He disliked them and spoke out "he who cast the first stone.da.da.da" but he didn't say to go against them. - 1:53:31 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: Exactly. He was a caring person, probably like John Lennon. No proof that he existed. It isn't the concept of a God or Jesus that is important to me, it is the love and compassion that Jesus spoke of. How can you disagree to people being loving and caring? - 1:59:23 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- But one doesn't need to believe in a supernatural entity to be loving and caring nor does one have to believe in any religion. JC was likely a nice guy but setting himself up for execution was a little off the wall. Did you happen to watch the Peter Jennings special on JC a few months back? - 3:15:08 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:I won't put your name out infront because we are the only two people talking on here. As we have said God offers people emotional support and also tells people to be loving. Thus people can deal with their negative emotions by thinking of Jesus, who is kind, and then go project their positive emotions by being kind. This is a cycle that people can feed off of to become almost super-human in terms of what they can achieve and their kindness due in part to their emotional/mental health. Very few Christians are able to do this and it varies in effectiveness. - 3:44:15 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Missed the Peter Jennings special on JC. I forgot to say something in my last post. You obviously don't have to be Christian to be loving but I think it does help. And I am not about to believe in some God just to be kind. I can be kind by myself, or atleast try. - 3:46:28 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Haha! So IAN figgers to advance the bible myths as a source of "evidence" for good morals? IAN has the look and sounds of a lying immorally-bound xian. In various books I have read an account blossoms, as to why they-like IAN here, need or have to favorably rehash and retell the biblical tales and myths. Are these ancient rehashed retold storys moral? They are to the teller- this is how I see IAN, of the story. IAN as probably a xian really experiences the feeling of bravery here at bringing forward the bible as a source of morals. As you said MARLENE in the North American hemisphere the morals are different, are they good? In high school I once read a book about the state of California titled,"To Kill a Golden State" in its covers I did not read of a moral account for matters of natural beauty and wealth. As I've mentioned before I've read a book or two on the idea of manifest destiny, not a lot of moral values in the bookcovers here. So what exactly is a moral, and as you point out the bible is certainly not a clear cut example of moral storys. What this idea- moral, look like to me its a something simply related to the human as it is but a sack of cells. I mentioned before I am now reading R.Dawkin's book, "The Extended Phenotype". In the chapter on -Arms Races and Manipulations- on pg.63 he writes,"etc.etc.: the manipulation of one nervous system by another, in a way that is not in principle different from manipulation of a nervous system by a neurophysiologists electrodes." Here the subject of the paragraph was auditory drugs, what is an auditory drug, well in the most natural sense it is pure sound. For the human these sounds includes all words of any language. In the early 1950s V.Sokolov had published, a book of his psycho-physical studys on matters of orientation processes. When I'd finished rereading it I was impressed by the regularly appearing references to the comments that the assorted stimuli were markedly different when verbal instructions were made part of the test patterns. Sokolov did not indulge his findings on this point as a significant matter but, dare I speculate on this that, that is why religiously inclined folk like to go over and over biblical stuff, including praying and blessing each other. They use the same words over and over, why? It is quite likely and simply that these sounds do not cause neural excitement. These sounds are in effect restful to their pathology. Are they gonna'go to heaven or get any nearer to some godthing, well yes; for as long as the effects of the sounds continue to resonate upon their neural system. - 16:51:46 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

PETER:Christian morals are doomed from the beginning as they are based solely on deliberately unsupported arbitrary commands, written by those ancients having the ability to instill guilt and fear, andd subsequently seeking power over large masses of people. The Bible never describes WHY a certain principle or standard should be followed. It merely commands to do so, and backs up these commands with the threat of ETERNAL punishment--the harshest penalty imaginable. One is to believe' by faith' , and whenever this declaration is made, one need not look to far for the business end of a gun backing it up. Only force can back up faith, and as long as this is found acceptable by human beings, any chance of us being civilized would be only a dream. - 17:24:11 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:HI PETER! - 18:21:22 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The more I continue to look into the manmade, human deeds of past and present, religion as an institution designed by and for the supernatural, the supernatural part of religion becomes lesser and lesser. The grasping at for that part looks to be best represented by those who yet concoct tales of the unseen unknowable expressions of that supernatural whatever. The present best example of someone yet attempting to "keep alive" anykind of account for such things, are the reports of the dope jp2 now is or recently was exorcising the devil hisself, behind closed doors o'course, at the vatican. There are those still unlearned, gullible or who's interests are best served by such concoctions who will grab onto and hold high in hand such reports as unexplainable evidence for the unknowable supernatural. Thanks, these few mentioned will say, go to dudes such as jp2. All such "things" are alive and well for as long as words for such are retold and rehashed. Religion is not for theism nor morality, it is for those that can be described as like-minded human organisms. These chose religion instead of booze for the same reason boozers, i.e., alcoholics, choose the bottle, it lets either limit their focus of the All which is the ongoing neverending fullness of a living experience. Is religion just a response to the question of is it mind or matter? - 21:06:22 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:The bible(MT) has morals. I seriously wonder if you have ever read a page of it. Let me break it down for your pathetic little mind. I am not a xian. I am an atheist. Believe whatever the fuck you want to. Have you ever read the bible? You would find that JESUS is a very MORAL character. You assume an awful lot about my psycology from never meeting me before Carl. I seriously think that you need to change your way of looking at things. You claim that I am a xian when in fact I am an atheist, and you claim that we are going into another dark ages?! You are no better than the Christian who claims there is a God. You believe in outlandish things(that we are going into another dark ages) that have no basis in fact(the same thing Christians do). - 22:55:02 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

IAN-WONDERING IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOGIC BETWEEN YOU ATHEISTS AND CHRISTIANS:Peter: CHRISTIAN MORALS ARE NOT BASED ON COMMANDS. JESUS NEVER TALKED OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. JESUS NEVER COMMANDED YOU(OR ANYBODY ALIVE TODAY) TO DO ANYTHING. - 22:58:52 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Christianity is not what you see it represented as today on TV. - 23:01:54 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- NO NEED TO SHOUT! What Peter is saying is that JC is god and god is JC. JC made this very clear in the NT. SO...he did some commanding. JC wasn't or isn't an entity apart from god, he is god. - 23:43:03 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Vic left the state and now it's turned to crap.... ASTRONOMERS FIND GOD HONOLULU, HI (DPI) - In a report published this month in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, scientists at the University of Hawaii's Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea have concluded that a previously uncategorized blotch behind an enormous hydrogen cloud in deep space is indeed the Holy Face of God. "At first I thought we'd stumbled upon some remnant of a collapsed white dwarf or a nebula cluster," reported Dr. Robert Johannsen, the lead author of the report, "but after further research, I now accept the mighty Word of God into my heart and will live my life to further His way." Astronomers used additional data from the Compton X-Ray Observatory to conclude that three bright spots, previously thought to be gaseous pulses from an emerging neutron star, are actually The Lord's two eyes and part of His nose. Scientists were quick to point out that though the spots are far too small to be seen without sophisticated telescopes, we can all see the Light of God from our very own homes, just by reading the Holy Bible. Most of the scientists involved with the preparation of the report have gone on to other research in the fields of ministry and monastic studies. However, a small team has been retained in order to continue research after a UC Santa Barbara report later claimed that a patch of superheated hydrogen thrown off from a nearby binary system is actually part of a yarmulke. - Reported by Travis Ruetenik Please attach the following line to any forwarded portions: [ Copyright 2000 by Chris White info@dailyprobe.com ] - 23:47:26 on 11 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Jesus Christ is God, obviously. I won't deal with the contradictions between OT and NT since they are pointless and only deal with proving a God in which I do not believe. The NT clearly has positive morals; that is the basic point I am trying to get across. These morals are still important even if you do not believe in God. - 0:07:23 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Okay, I'll go there and even further...this morals were in place long before JC decided to teach about them. People have been around for more than 2000 years, JC didn't invent morals. - 0:54:49 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Also, the contradictions between the OT and the NT are not pointless, in fact they make a very good point. JC can not be god and xtianity doesn't follow god's bible. The contradictions don't prove that there is no god, they prove that xtianity's god isn't the god of judaism. - 0:58:17 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: The contradictions were not important in what I was trying to say. I know that Jesus didn't invent them, but he did do a good job of communicating and living out a highly moral life. I view the NT as a book. It isn't so important about the realistic value of the story, it is the deep philosophical insights. When you read a book with a story that does a good job in communicating a philosophical ideal, it inspires you to carry out that certain philosophical ideal. - 1:34:02 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- But again Ian, the NT has a supernatural entity communicating this ideal whereas good ole, very human John Lennon communicated basically the same ideal. Hell any of us who grew up in the 60's communicated that same ideal, without the supernatural (btw and some of us without the influence of drugs). - 2:06:27 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

PETER---IAN!:--You scream. I don't like that. Also, re-read my post. You have missed the point I made by one big honkin country mile..and until you can show signs that you at least understand where i was coming from, there will no longer be further discussion between us. - 2:08:09 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

PETER:hey there Marlene!..good to 'see' you. Joette is coming along somewhat better now as well. - 2:10:02 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: " CHRISTIAN MORALS ARE NOT BASED ON COMMANDS. JESUS NEVER TALKED OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. JESUS NEVER COMMANDED YOU(OR ANYBODY ALIVE TODAY) TO DO ANYTHING." *******LUKE 14:26 (xian family values) ******The Trinity--The Trinitarian belief that God is Unity, subsisting in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--all three are one God, equal in power and glory--represents one of the most incredible, albeit crucial conceptions in all of Christendom. Many observers throughout history have stressed the irrational involved. In discussions with biblicists I've often asked the question, "When Jesus said on the Cross, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34), to whom was he speaking?" To which they usually replied, "God." To this I responded, "But I thought he was God." To which they usually reply, "No, he is the son God." "In other words, we have two Gods," I said. "No," they replied, "just one God but three persons." Now let's pause and think, my friend, " I said, "we have one being, one source of intelligence--God--speaking to another being, another source of intelligence, which is also God; and yet, we are to believe there is only one God." This simple dialogue highlights quite well the incongruity of the problem.Clearly, logic and reason have nothing to do with understanding the Trinity. There is little rhyme or reason involved and, indeed many apologists will admit as much, since any other approach would border on naivete. Many don't even attempt a rational defense. They merely assert that, although opposed to sensible thought, it's true, nevertheless. "It's a mystery." That's the common refrain. - 3:05:03 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Doug: I see no command, or anything like eternal punishment. Jesus and God are the same "thing", but this isn't what I am trying to communicate. I've read some information about "Q" recently. It is the missing gospel. It doesn't emphasize the supernatural aspects as the others usually do. This is beside the point as I am not interested in proving God. I am strictly looking at the life of Jesus and noting that he led a "moral" life according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John. How can one argue against the kindness and love that Jesus had? - 11:39:30 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: You weaken quickly so I am to,"Believe whatever,etc., I want." That passage in regards to you. Well, at least you are aware enough to inscribe I don't know you. Now, to add to your awareness, what you inscribe here is all that I or anyone can know of you, so there is no reason for me to "believe" anything of you. That is what the religious minded do, in my opinion that is significant of a lesser mind, which you too may feebly perceive. [The possibility of others not knowing you takes for granted that you are not a significant other to anyone now participating at this chat-site.] I've read the bible as well as other's views of it, which spurred me to reread parts of it to see their POV, by various kinds of people. You on the other hand, ought to read a few things other than the bible, then you will very likely loose your tactless fundamentalist posture. - 15:03:09 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Those hey-why-ins can see the face of god? Geez, where does one send the check? - 15:33:08 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't have any idea why actual scientists would see "the face of god" it must be the Hawaiian Eye! - 17:35:29 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Ian- Peter this is for you:PETER:Christian morals are doomed from the beginning as they are based solely on deliberately unsupported arbitrary commands***Should the bible support its morals? Then support that which supports the morals? Where does it stop? Wouldn't you have a 1000000 page bible then? The support is obvious. Should we be hateful and mean(the opposite Christian morals) then? written by those ancients having the ability to instill guilt and fear, andd subsequently seeking power over large masses of people. The Bible never describes WHY***The bible is not a why book. It's point is not in proving why you should be moral, rather it shows it's effects.*** a certain principle or standard should be followed. It merely commands to do so, and backs up these commands with the threat of ETERNAL punishment--the harshest penalty imaginable.***Jesus never commanded anyone of us to do anything and Jesus also never talked of the threat of "ETERNAL punishment".*** One is to believe' by faith' , and whenever this declaration is made, one need not look to far for the business end of a gun backing it up. Only force can back up faith, and as long as this is found acceptable by human beings, any chance of us being civilized would be only a dream. - 17:24:11 on 11 Sep 100 GMT*** Because people believe in a God which does not exist is no reason to not act civilized. People believe some crazy shit, but that will not stop me from doing what I believe. Atheists should be moral; there is no excuse not to be.*** - 19:41:09 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Carl: Lets see what you "believe" about me. You call me a "lying immorally-bound xian". I have clearly told you that I am an atheist. You also have this to say about me "You on the other hand, ought to read a few things other than the bible, then you will very likely loose your tactless fundamentalist posture." If you have "read" the bible so much then truly you MUST understand where I am coming from, no? Let me say, once more, what my point is in this discussion. I am saying that the morals presented by Jesus, not the supernatural bull, are valid and have a high value. Are you saying that people shouldn't love, be kind, and compassionate? - 19:54:46 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN; You are a dope, or you are on dope. I said you "look like" a lying immorally-bound xian, the look here of course can only concern your written words. You may be on dope, however, if you assume to speak of a jesus, a letter-symbol reference to someone or something you know nothing about. All which you know of that letter-symbol is in a book composed by someone {not including the people at the publishers} none today ever saw write a word, never met and will never know. Get real IAN, for you to attempt to concoct a contemporary applicable account here, of words for things uttered long ago is far-fetched and requires a kid-mind or someone- as you, preferring the ignorance of by-gone times. What, do you walk around in sandles looking for burning bushes? - 20:44:02 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Ian-Carl, a few kernals short of a corn cob:Carl: I am tired of playing your little word games. You were suggesting that I was a "lying immorally-bound xian. Well..., Carl you look like a dumbass BUT NO NO I am doing anything such as suggesting that you are a dumbass. I agree Carl, we are going in another dark ages, and also I am not a Atheist but a Christian. And best of all, I am on drugs!!! LOL!!! Also I would love to note sarcastically(as I have been the past few sentences) that 1=0 to please you. OK? Now back to the substance(of what there is very little of in your posts)...You have yet to grasp the concept that I am not out to contemplate if Jesus even actually existed. Somebody thought of Jesus and wrote it down. These people obviously had some good ideas. Are you trying to tell me that the love, compassion, and understanding are not wanted? - 23:26:41 on 12 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- You've stated that JC presented morals. It will only take a few lines, quote them please. - 0:39:40 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: if god/jesus are the same then it's only a trite lesson in sematics.In other words we here really don't give a flying f--k about god. aka: jesus.Trashing a temple is considered a hate crime. - 3:49:42 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Grant: Enough is too much :IAN-- Do you think it's a good idea to try to avoid accidently burning up forests? Yes? Then why aren't you all doughy-eyed about Smokey the Bear? I'm not attempting to prove Smokey the Bear's existence. Some people may have just made him up, but those people had some good ideas. Do you think people should carelessly start forest fires? Could it be that you are not ga-ga over Smokey the Bear because he is not responsible for the developement of the belief that we should be careful with fire-- that in fact this belief far predates him and would be a common belief even had he not existed? Is it that when interested and curious or troubled about forest fires there are lots of modern, thoughtful thinkers to consult not filtered through myth-making processes by persons with particular agendas and not represented speaking simply as if to children? I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe you are nuts over Smokey too. - 5:55:34 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Grant:There are about 2 billion Christians. Those Christians "claim" to follow the teachings of Jesus. Those morals wouldn't be so widespread if Jesus had not incorperated it into his teachings. There is no way to know for sure what "would" have happened. We will never know if the morals that Jesus taught would be so prominant if Jesus had never become so popular. My point is saying that these morals are important. Do you agree or disagree? Marlene: I'll post a few verses later when I get back from work. - 11:39:27 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Grant: Too much is too much :IAN-- You suck as a conversationalist. You ask a question then refuse to accept peoples answers, insisting that they give an oversimplified yes or no answer which does not accurately represent their views. You're not really interested in what other people think, are you? - 14:41:15 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: What is it like on a slippery slope? So I have not inscribed anything of substance? Lets see, I've included authors, book names, specific pages and even the sentence number of paragraphs, dates, publishers; I've separated my own views of these accounts, as often as I can anyway, with appropriate and proper grammatical devices. You on the other hand want to argue 'for' some nonsense that you have chosen- at some point in time, to hold is something you inscribe here is a significant source for moral stuff. That source is the bible. I've responded to that matter already, dare I say you didn't get it? You still can't grasp that it is only a story that has been composed, redrafted and its various points have been argued in time by matters issues pertinent to the time. What you seek to establish here, a moral perspective, is commonly known. Its also commonly known, consider the recent impeachment attempt, that human morals are just a toything. The real human organism is not better nor less than any other living organism. Its purpose is the same as that of any other kind of organism, that is to exist. - 15:15:19 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Ian, do you think Jesus (if he existed) pulled those morals out of thin air? You say that the morals would not be widespread if Jesus had not existed. That is a ridiculous assertion, I think - After all, religions are as much a part of everyday life on this earth as food. If Jesus hadn't proclaimed these morals, someone else would have - as a matter of fact, others DID. Buhdda and Confucious did. You have cited the Golden Rule, but that is a fixture in many religions. Morals are simply a systematic way of determining the value of one act over another, and every conscious, free being must havve a system of morals, and the system of morals is adapted to an environment. Civilization needs something like the golden rule to exist - otherwise, things would get rather chaotic. If Jesus had not been the head of western religion, someone else would have been. Jesus was not important. As to Old Testament morality, it is correct that he did not seek to abolish it, but to reinterpret it. For instance, he worked on the Sabbath. Jesus was interested not in the RULES but in the reason for following the rules. Christians themselves very often forget this. Now take Paul and Peter - they went so far as to ignore the Jewish law, even if they say they meant to keep it. Remember Peter's animal dream, where God told him he could eat, and said no animal he made was unclean? Or Paul, saying it was OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols? At any rate, remember there is a difference between law and morality. Law is instituted by society - morality is personal (I am not a natural law advocate). - 21:00:21 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Yes, it's me. This is the first time stepping back in here since the last post, and I'm only curiously interested because I see the presence of another optimist tracking his head high above this mud swamp. --- IAN, honey, I know we have not met or even conversed before on this site, so take my words for whatever you need them to be. This room is comprised of Reductionist Literalists (yes, my concoction). In other words, they take things too literally to get the conceptual value of most anything. My view is this: beauty can be found in anything; sometimes we just have to dig a little deeper. In reference to your posts, I don't care who Jesus was, if there was a Jesus, or if what was written by and for him is true. There are some inspiring philosophical points, instead, that can be attained from weeding through the NT - and I think that's what you're getting to. What Grant and others in here fail to realize, in this respect, is that those "child-like" writings and mythological plot structures of old stories are the ways people communicated back then to impress upon the lay people the deeper meanings imbedded in the tales. Literalism was not invented, nor was it needed at the time. The ancient mystics who invented and passed on the stories fully grasped the higher concepts involved. What happens nowadays is that literalism prevents a full understanding of such things, as I'm sure you're aware. I realized this awhile back when trying to discuss with these people earlier. Granted, I don't think they are intellectually dishonest, just conceptually-challenged (to be politically correct), and this is being overly fair if you have seen some of my discussions in here. I'd be happy to discuss this further, but take whatever you like from what I have posted. - 21:20:29 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:Oh yea! BETTY the know it all. What did you inscribe was going with black-holes, as such might be concerned with your cosmological consciousness? The media is presenting a picture of a black-hole in a before and after image. - 21:33:06 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Isn't it something how Betty seems to appear just when peusdowhomever seems to be losing the cause. - 22:21:03 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Betty: Yeah. I have noticed that. Kinda thought I was the only one. I am getting tired of this site mainly because the people here tend to put their ego before the actual truth. For example, they ask me to prove Jesus was "moral". I could obviously do it very easy but the fact that they ASK for me to show Jesus was moral is absurd and shows their own ignorance of the bible. How could you think Jesus is not moral? They also never answer my questions(even after I ask them 3-4 times) so why the fuck should I feel inclined to answer their questions? I am a little busy at the moment(yeah, it is why I haven't been posting every hour LOL) and am tired of the bull shit on this site. Just to clear this up Betty, I AM AN ATHEIST. I don't know what you are but I have the feeling you are a Christian. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, BUT I DO THINK SOME PARTS OF THE BIBLE HAVE GOOD PHILOSOPHICAL POINTS. "Aristotle once said, "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth." So we say, "The Bible is dear, but dearer still is truth." [J. Frank Schulman, in UU pamphlet "UU views of the Bible."] - 22:37:37 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: You know the ways of ego-matters, are a psychologist now? - 22:47:21 on 13 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:IAN: Nope, not a christian. Like I said, I find beauty in just about everything - which includes, but is not limited to, christianity, judaism, buddhism, taoism.... The ancient mystics, I believe, were all talking about the same eternal questions anyway, just in different ways. If I have to be called anything I guess I'm a neutral spiritualist and an idealist - for the above reasons I mentioned. BTW, I don't believe in a god, either. And P.S.--- Don't let these people get to you. Anything that's slightly different from their strict materialist positions makes them feel threatened in their sacred little church here and they lose that 'ole objectivism they claim to hold so dear. - 0:34:58 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Do you happen to have a link to that media site? ha ha... - 0:38:04 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Grant: --More substantiation deficit disorders--:"BETTY"-- Praise for the ancient mystics and their "higher concepts" now is it? I guess they were into universal anthropomorphism too, eh? - 0:38:27 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..two nuts in a shell:IAN- And so have _Moby Dick_ and _Gone With the Wind_ and _To Kill a Mockingbird_ and..........it goes on and on. Many books and the heros or heroines of those books have some good philosphical points but we don't worship them or even pretend that they were the first people to come up with the idea. And even more important, most of these heroines and heros weren't real just as JC may have not been real. How can you claim he was mortal when there is no proof he even lived?!?! These ideas were the writers ideas. AND HERE WHEN I JUST THOUGHT YOU HAD HALF A BRAIN, YOU GO AHEAD AND PARTNER YOURSELF WITH BETTY.....hopeless Ian, hopeless. - 0:46:28 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:WEll ain't this something, three of us here at the same time..how cosmically conscious of us! - 0:52:22 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:IAN: See how they come crawling out of the woodwork all of a sudden, ready for battle, thinking everyone with different beliefs is "out to get them"? lol... - 1:05:10 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- I see you still haven't challenged the Skeptic list with your spiritual idealism. For someone so sure of themselves, why would you limit yourself to this little bunch of skeptics, why no challenge the big league? - 1:05:56 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Should you be kind or hateful? Just a simple question. Please answer(Carl,Grant,Doug,Marlene) - 1:10:09 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- All you need to do is email (listproc@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu) with (SUBSCRIBE SKEPTIC and your name) in the subject line and within minutes you'll have a chance to challenge the big guys. BUT..I know Betty..you can't seem to get the email to work..or some other lame excuse - 1:10:36 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- I thought you were tired of us? Using the "F" word and all. - 1:11:39 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: I agree! Moby Dick, To kill a Mockingbird, ect. do have good philosophical views!!! And yes, they aren't to be worshiped!! I agree and I have never said anything otherwise. MARLENE, you are seeing things. Thoughts are coming out of your brain that DO NOT EXIST. - 1:13:33 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DAH! IAN...what am I seeing? And if I'm thinking of you, does that mean you DO NOT EXIST? - 1:16:12 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: Whatever you do, DO NOT answer my question. Please, don't. - 1:20:55 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Marlene: I am saying that ideas are coming from you that are false. I have never said most of what you say I have said. Now please. Do not answer my question. Since we are both here. - 1:22:55 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Tell, Ian, what have I said that you said that was false? BTW, you haven't answered my questions either. If this is a "you first" thing, fine, I'll answer your question to the best of my ability. Here it is.....the question was "Should you be kind or hateful?" First of who is "you" and if you mean me...what I "should" be and what I really am are not the same thing. You really don't know me Ian, but people who do, would rate me as kind, a doctor I went to thought I "should" be more hateful but alas, hateful isn't my strongest emotion. I have the habit of being gullible enough to think everyone I meet would rather be kind and I think that's the way they "should" be but what I would prefer and what I would like to think is not always really what is. Hate is a human emotion which we all have and sometimes need to feel so we will never eliminate hate entirely. What would be ideal, is for those who feel hate, not to act on it, but that is an ideal, not a reality of human nature. - 2:22:10 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: - 3:26:34 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: LUKE 14:26 a classic case of hate mongering by JC. I find him a greasy little sleeze bag who uses fear and arrogance to badger people into compliance. - 3:30:21 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Ooops! Ian is just trolling for a reaction. The JC myth is an obvious composite of many myths and many martyrs. - 4:02:46 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: "Should you be kind or hateful? Just a simple question." OK a simple answer: depends. - 4:04:42 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Ah, the simply dichotomies of our favorite dualist religion, Christianity. You claim not to be a Christian, and I believe you - but you show the way it has clouded your mind. Can't you see, Ian; that is a meaningless question. What is kindness? What is hatefullness? Why can't they coexist? What does "should" mean to an atheist, with no god to which to be obliged? Really, Ian, you can do better. - 4:45:50 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: You are a flat cur-dog liar of the exchanges that transpire here, I for one simply do not care the attitude you play at here. Ideas what the heck, nothing wrong with ideas, afterall who knows what or when one might juggle free, something else. You had some interesting and oddly unusual accounts of and for things but are any true or right? IAN is annoyed and looks for anyone to hug and hold him, pat him on the head tell him he is so smart. Heheh, right! - 14:42:57 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You're likely right as usual, lol! - 17:35:57 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I agree there is no god to be obliged to but as a social species, we are or "should" be obliged to each other. Also I agree that christianity seems to be clouding both Betty's and Ian's objective view of what is. Both seem to need to believe in a higher power than themselves. - 17:41:59 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Carl: Awww how cute. Did I hurt your little feelings by noting the absurd stuff you say? Poor little baby. Marlene:CARL- You're likely right as usual, lol! - 17:35:57 on 14 Sep 100 GMT Was he right about the dark ages? Was he right about me being a Christian? As you have stated, you seem to be gullible Marlene John: Kindness: Being nice to other people. Hateful: Being rude and showing hate towards somebody. So you have no reason to be kind? - 19:27:04 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:Also,may we please stop talking about Religion(a topic I tried to bring up noting that it had SOME positive points). Doug: Please elaborate on "depends". - 19:28:47 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I agree that we are a social species, but to say that BECAUSE we are a social species, we are obligated to be social is incorrect. That is like saying that because women are the child-bearers, they are obligated to have children. Obligation, like purpose, must come from a source, and because there is no higher source, they must come from individuals. Because I do not place myself in obligation, I am therefore not obligated. This is where the idea of moral vs law comes in - My moral sytem says to do what is adventageous for me - the law makes it so what is adventageous for me is also adventageous for others. ie, it is not adventageous for me to steal, because I would get caught. I am not obligated to be honest. It is simply more adventageous for me to do so. - 19:55:18 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Sorry, that last post was to Marlene. Ian, so I see you are concerned with outward actions and not thoughts. If you'll read my last post, you'll see that very often we have reason to be kind, when it is in our best interest. Kindness, I would say, is not inherently better than hatefulness, and if you think it is you need to establish your criteria. Is a moral sytem based on kindness any better than one that is not? After all, how can a moral system be judged? By how many adhere to it? By the success of those who use it? By the happiness of those who use it? By the happiness or success of those around those who use it? I think we need to establish a criterion for judging moral systems before we actually judge them and say that Jesus' moral system was good or bad. - 20:02:53 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Awhile back, I presented the prospect of another dark ages, it was just a rhetorical question. When that idea got started has been over a few years. It began when I noticed religious books being sold in science sections of books stores. I seem to recall that several of you had noted the same unusual book store arrangements. Recently, I also have noticed a lot of science books for sale at library book sale stores. I just visited the local such store and the science selections available were most impressive. I wonder who or rather what kind of person is in charge to make such decisions. While I toy with dark age references, is it an amusement worthy of some concern? - 20:52:37 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I said "should" not what we as a species really do. To maintain the species, women are obligated to bear children. It's nature John, the same as any female of a species is obligated/responsible to bear offspring. Only we humans make it a choice but the majority of us do choose to continue our species. Maybe with some kind of technology we woman won't have to subject ourselves to that obligation to maintain our species. It's adventageous for our species. Maybe for you not stealing is as you describe but for me, I don't steal because I wouldn't like someone to steal from me, hopefully by me staying out of someone else's space, they will stay out of mine. This idea works quite well in a society. - 21:16:14 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Weren't the dark ages a time when "those in control" choose to throw out the idea of everyone gaining knowledge and keep the people poor and more worried about where their next meal was coming from than what those in control were doing? Sounds like the religious right these days. I wonder how many believers who send their 10% to The Church of Living Waters know what the actual bank account of the pastor is? - 21:22:49 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, To broaden your horizons: "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell. - 22:07:27 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Marlene, I'm not amused now and never was by your petty challenges. Subscribing to an email list to discuss things is neither challenging nor entertaining, but it does give me an idea of what you must do all day long. I gave you an opportunity to discuss things in here. It's obvious and it was obvious earlier that you don't have the capacity(ies) to discuss such things yourself. And just to remind you, I'm not back here to entertain your ignorance. - 22:13:58 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Ian's doing just fine on his own. Just giving him a little insight into the goings-on behind the goings-on in this room. - 22:16:37 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: He's about like you, selective in what he thinks he can see, and imaginative and etherial in what or how he responds, the only thing yet missing is an inequality of his devising. But if IAN is of your pursuasion he'll too, go war with the windmills. - 22:28:12 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:The Strict Materialists of this room carefully avoided this question earlier, so I'd be more than happy to re-propose it and see if there be any serious thoughts: In a godless (not-planned, not-designed) universe, why is there so much order? Additionally, in a universe which is seemingly constituted of naturally deterministic events, meaning a physical universe of seemingly causal relationships, how does one account for creativity, spontaneity, and change within a complete holistic theory? In other words, if science depends upon repeatability, mathematics, and the like, where does artistry, advancements, and even biological evolution fit into a logical, universal and deterministic theory without contradiction? Hint: They don't. The theory doesn't completely work. - 22:35:57 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Don't take this room so seriously. This room is hardly the place to discuss, conquer, and proclaim complete communication of any in-depth topic. Just be glad that people like Ian and me offer anything from the outside to let some light into this cave. To put it lightly, a discussion chat board will not settle anything. I think you missed the part about certain people getting superficial superiority complexes from this room..... This room is not the be all to the end of it all, hun, but keep your chin up. Don't let what I have to say get you down. Just keep wasting energy in here fighting your own little battles. Marlene will stick by your side.... heh heh - 22:43:22 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:BETTY: There you go again! You put any and all into a cornor of your devising your contrivance, I'll guess here, it is as you imagine matters to be for purposes of your mind-set, and dare anybody to contest your rules. Whats with you? - 22:44:58 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, Nope. I didn't make the universe. I didn't make its rules, either. You just can't figure it out on your own so it's easier to blame someone else, huh? Play the game or don't. No one likes a spoiled sport. - 22:54:26 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, I also did not invent naturalistic determinism. You can see by the rhetoric I use that I'm making a very obvious point. The game cannot be played by the current rules (not invented by me). At least you've given it some thought already. And I must thank you for doing exactly what I expected to receive at the end of what have might have been a very lengthy discussion to get to that same point. - 22:57:57 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:I am happy to report I just checked in on another atheist site, for which I proposed the same question. The answer received was: "...energy is nothing new to science. Introducing energy into a complex biological system, for example, catalyzes growth and development...evolution is the result over millions of years of ever-increasing complexity" - which I thought was very good, but doesn't explain change in a seemingly deterministic paradigm. Introducing energy is the secret formula for acausal events? Why don't we see more evolvements in our ever-increasing search for more energy? -- If I were to keep score so far: this room ( 0 ), room#2 ( 1 ), room#3 (0). Keep up the good work, guys! - 23:12:37 on 14 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:BETTY- READ BACK you frivolous ass. I certainly challenged you a number of times and you made sure you facilitated yourself elsewhere. All your dogma is a smokescreen for your desperate need to feel important in this universe. Well guess what Betty, you're as important as the puss from the pimple on the ass of Amit Goswami. - 0:40:56 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- He/she is obviously NUTS! Grant has banned her/him from here yet she/he compulsively comes here. It's obviously a sickness, much like the one the druid was afflicted with. If we are all such idiots as he/she asserts, then why does she bother. I wouldn't even think of posting on one of those new age sites. Well, I may, to let them know one of their fellow loonies is hanging around here.. - 0:45:34 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:LOL! She'll likely be checked out of that other atheist site soon..or maybe she already has been and that why she's back preaching here. - 0:48:11 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..REALLY: BETTY--"Subscribing to an email list to discuss things is neither challenging nor entertaining" Why not Betty? Don't know how to use email or have you been kicked off those lists too. Too embarrassed to use your real name, if I were you, I would be too. Preaching, of course, isn't allowed, only discussion which you don't seem to be familiar with. - 0:51:42 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Yes, wisdom is one of those words like energy that takes on a whole new meaning when read in a new age context. In this context, "wisdom" means "rambling meaningless drivel" and "energy" means "taking the time to post rambling meaningless drivel". - 1:15:22 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:What is advantagous to you John? To experience love and acceptance or to question your existance? - 1:41:08 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Ian: It's such a nebulous question. So because circumstances do vary it depends. - 1:44:38 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene - we are not obliged to further homo sapiens sapiens. If fact, evolutionary biology tells us that beings do not evolve to further the species, only to further themselves. There is no reason to think that we should further the species. As for the stealing statement, I would say that the true test is this question: Given a situation in which you could take something that would benefit you, and you know no one else will know that you took it (though it may have an adverse effect on whomever you stole from), would you? If you say no, your reasoning cannot be simply so that others will not take from you. Your actions very often have nothing to do with others' actions. Should one think that one's avoidance of stealing influences the other 6 billion people on earth to avoid stealing? Many atheists try to silence the Christians by saying "Hey, look! We have morals too!" without stopping to examine WHY these morals are held in the first place. Why should we put society ahead of the individual, as individuals? - 2:28:05 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Ian - because we are biological machines, we have primary needs, and our goals are to obtain these needed things. The The extent to which we attain these goals is the extent to which we are happy - a biological feedback message to tell us we are doing all right. Food, sex, power, health, non-conflicting sensory information, etc. These are the needs and goals. Our primary goal is "happiness". Anything that furthers this is advantagous. I suggest "How the Mind Works" by Pinker or various evolutionary biology surveys. It really is fascinating to look at how morals can arise out of biological beings like us. - 2:36:19 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I don't know if you understood what I was trying to say. We need to breed to continue our species. It's part of our nature and the nature of all other species of the planet. If everyone choose to quit breeding for the next 100 years, we'd be finished as a species. More on the stealing thing tomorrow. It's nigh nigh time for me. - 2:40:38 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - Have you ever thought that maybe the human mind, due to the very nature of thought, imposes order on things that are not REALLY orderly and looks for patterns where there are none? Look at your wall and you will see a wall, but this is really just an illusion. It is a mass of particles, all moving, held together by electromagnetism. At any rate, when you say, this universe is orderly, you haven't shown us a universe that isn't orderly to contrast it with. It may be that this is the only way that a universe can turn out. There you have two possible answers to your question. The appearance of design, to beings that think in patterns as a RULE, should not be taken as proof of design. - 2:42:13 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- My horizons are far broader than yours, but thanks for the concern. I'm familiar with Joseph Campbell and regard him favorably. I'll be happy to accept your recommendation if you will accept one of mine. BTW, you're here by grace. Don't blow it if you wish to hang around a while. - 2:43:19 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Good night Marlene. Let me add this before you go - you are right, if everyone stopped breeding, H. sapiens sapiens would be finished. But that is not my concern as an individual, and no biologist would say it is. An individual is only concerned with his/her seed, not the entire society. But, other things can override that will to procreate (financial stability, whatever) and thus to call it some kind of obligation is a mistake. - 2:47:29 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Oh BTW Betty, since when is the universe deterministic? Ever hear of QM? And please explain why biological evolution doesn't fit into a materialistic viewpoint. Science (a materialistic endevour) seems to have done pretty well in the past. - 2:56:14 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:John Matney:"I[n]f fact, evolutionary biology tells us that beings do not evolve to further the species, only to further themselves." By reproducing and having offspring who will do the same, we have "further[ed] the species"; Our gene pool has continued. And each new generation represents "evolution" in action. It's really that simple. - 12:21:58 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: What do you know of this BETTY that you can share here, like from where does BETTY post? I can admit I post from a place that is known for insanity and still people want to be known as part of it, does BETTY do likewise? Can you tell if maybe she's in some insane asylum or maybe a prison? The happiness she seems to revel in, at being an oddity, or just being contrary to anything with nothing as I see her posts, well that has me wondering of what is BETTY. It just doesn't seem healthy that anyone anything would want to be as perverted, as anti-social as BETTY is, as she carry's on here. Does she post from some government office or some religious site where the aim is to disrupt? Do you see what I ask about? I used to see kids and see still in adults high levels of some pathological need or want, maybe this BETTY is someone who figures they're royalty[?]. Wierd is BETTY, definitly. - 14:52:37 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: oh yes, since someone must be sincerely concerned so recommends 'broadening your horisons' via reading a book, have you read "Faces in the Clouds"? {think thats the title} - 14:56:47 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Doug - But it is not in our "nature" to further the species. It is in our nature to further our own genes. The argument was whether we are morally obligated to aid society, and Marlene said that women could be said to be obligated to do so because it is in their nature. I think this is false, for the reasons explained above. - 15:07:22 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:JOHN: What you say to MARLENE that humans "are not" obligated to continue humanity per-se, is probably on target in view of, perhaps the gene stuff. That idea would work for anything regardless of the living non-living perspective or whatever one's opinion of either. An idea I've read and pondered on concerns matters for a living or non-living thing which come into being for reasons of the "non-random". The mysticists glom onto the contrary idea of "random" for the simple reason that it best suits their position for unknowable but a nevertheless sensible mystery. Their position, I think, is based on that final connection for "life" as they choose to say it is, which is the event or occurence of when energy- I guess is the current term, joined with material to then "live". How that final connection happened is still outside of technological possibility, as it is today, but what and how an organism is, will become known. Anyone ever see a rock die? - 15:48:33 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John Matney, Great answers. Please understand that I don't imply that the universe is deterministic and nor that it is/was designed. You have come in late to an on-going discussion of sorts, but I still welcome your responses to that effect. I know about the surprises that have been found in QM, and I know determinism does not work but it's what materialism stems from - many people in this room, believe it or not, subscribe to naturalistic determinism (Yikes!). Materialism is based on the principles that (1) only the physical is real and (2) that the physical elements of the universe are basically independent of each other - meaning each element of the universe can be studied independently and separately and produce the same results over and over under the same circumstances, an obvious derivative of determinism. Also, to clear up something else, science is currently based on materialism - as an interpretive scale, not as proof of the theory of materialism itself. In other words, materialism is merely a current fad, a paradigm that many people subscribe to. Descartes' influence gave materialism its popularity. And, yes, materialism has proved very successful for many things but it is not conclusive nor is it an entirely complete theory, and it also has many serious faults. You mentioned QM and this should be your first understanding of this. Science began an as idealism, a search for answers. It did not start with a bias, such as materialism. - 16:06:42 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Now, of course I'm not just speaking of the order that humans impose to fulfill higher levels of comfort and security, but rather the electromagnetism itself- in other words, why an entirely physical universe would selectively join together at all. --- "It may be that this is the only way that a universe can turn out ."--- We're in this universe, we only know of this universe, so we'll speak of this universe. And there is selective order in this universe, and somewhere in this seemingly entirely physical universe we have electromagnetism which is not a physical element. It does not derive itself from physical traits. In fact, we can only point to it and say, "There it is!" but yet it's existence defies materialism's first rule. We speak of gravity as if the physical world demands it, yet it can also not be traced to anything physical. Why would a bunch of billions of bumbling atoms selectively join together at all? Materialism cannot answer this question. It only says, "because". Current scientism, along with a few wannabees in here, accept this theory regardless. I guess the basic idea is that materialism, they believe, will eventually find/solve all the problems....heh heh - 16:09:42 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, In answer to your question: "why biological evolution doesn't fit into a materialistic viewpoint…"? For the above reason I stated. Materialism stems from determinism - that based on the same preceding causes, the same physical effects will be reproduced independently, all over the universe. Does biological evolution show the same pre-determined events over and over? You can't have a basically unpredictable physical universe within materialism, seen in QM; classical physics demands some sort of stability. --- My point is that there is certainly enough evidence at this time that the few hundred year-old theory of materialism may have served its time as a great tool, but it's time we invented something better. - 16:15:21 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, I will remind you that your following statement is a result of the detriment of materialism's localization principle, not a naturally-bred gentic quality of the human species: "An individual is only concerned with his/her seed, not the entire society." In other words, we learned to be like this in certain societies. Obviously, more spiritual communities like the American Indians do not care so much for the individual as the living Mother Nature around them. Be careful not to generalize. - 16:20:20 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, BTW, that book recommendation was the "support" you were looking for when I stated that the ancient mystics were basically all talking about the same things. There are more suggestions if you like. Sorry if it sounded like a snide remark. - 16:32:49 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Carl, This is one of the major misconceptions I have encountered: "The mysticists glom onto the contrary idea of "random" for the simple reason that it best suits their position for unknowable but a nevertheless sensible mystery". --- Random is just a mystery as unknowable, only it leaves room for a chance that it exists within a certain set of variables. Materialists, for some reason, think calling something "random" settles the problem. The mystics, on the contrary, don't settle for "random" because doing so is simply a clever excuse for not admitting ignorance. They, rather, accept that it can't EVER be defined in human terms and leave it that, accepting that humans are too ignorant to understand something so immense and complex. Grant speaks of universal anthroporphism, but is this not exactly the problem materialists tend to have? Putting a definite label on everything? Why is calling something "random" better than calling it an "unknowable mystery"? - 16:49:52 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- True, we do, do this individually. So I will pull back on that statement that we are obligated. I suppose it's more like we are determined. BTW, have fun with Betty, we've had ours. - 17:43:25 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - the statement was made in an evolutionary context. Simply because there are societies in which the individuals seem to care about the greater whole does not mean that this was not formed from the foundation of individual primacy. Once mutual protection is ensured, as in a society, we can start thinking about "furthering society", but we are neither obligated not forced by our make up to do so. - 18:05:16 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - to the materialism question, you are mostly right. Yes, science is a purely materailistic enterprise. Over the past 400 years we have seen amzing things explained by this enterprise - things that religions could only explain by making up stories. Mental illness, weather patterns, embryonic development...etc. The implicit assumption in science is not that there is ONLY physical reality - it is that if there is non-physical reality, it does not affect the by which the universe operated to a significant degree. You seem to confuse determinism and physical law - QM has revealed that things are not and can not be pre-determined, however, the probabilistic rules hold for QM. This is not a lack of physical law, it is merely a different type of physical law. These laws hold, just like the former, classical laws. You point to forces as non-physical events. Well, we have four forces, and the only one we have not explained in terms of QM laws is gravity. Is gravity supernatural? It seems to act according to laws, just like everything else, so I see no reason to abandon the hypothesis that is is simply another part of our "materialistic" universe. Please don't equivocate on the meaning of materialism - it includes more than matter now days. - 18:19:00 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - (cont'd) You use a variation on the cosmological argument for your postulation of supernatural reality. Yes, I agree that if we keep asking "Well, WHY is the universe like this?" we will probably get no answers, because science seems to dig deeper and deeper. Our labeling, categorizing, stereotyping minds may not even be able to comprehend what the universe is really like. BUT, that is not an argument for the supernatural, as there is no reason to believe this. Let me ask you this, and please answer at least this in your next post: Do you believe in the primacy of reason? IOW, Do you beleive that belief must be based on a compilation of evidence, from which the most reasonable explanation is taken? Why or why not? - 18:26:04 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Like always, Betty is off on a sojourn when it's obvious she's lost another argument. Of course to this she'll reply..."I have better things to do than post to this page all day, hun and obviously you have nothing else to do but post here in Grant's church".....Or some other stupid comment. - 20:57:59 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: What if BETTY is ill? Here, there are some notable individuals that jump off buildings, now walking around talking to nobody about things. Heck there is even a fellow who was an editor for the NY times, walks around now in a dress. Two students age 13 and 14 were admitted full scholarship to study nuclear engineering, does that sound normal? Heck, BETTY might be an abused spouse or something else of perverted mal treatment. Why else would BETTY want to behave and carry on as we see here? I'm gonna go over some Freud writings on Ego and Mechanisms of Defence, cuz'man! BETTY just ain't right. - 21:26:49 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I went back over the archived posts. You guys have been here for quite a while. How did you all find it? Do you know each other offline. I hope that my site lasts as long as this one has - and I think it will, as long as the Disney lawyers don't put me on the rack... - 22:31:54 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- More than likely I've been here the longest, five years. I actually found the site by accident. I email some of the posters who no longer post here and I think most of us here have each other's email addresses. Grant took over the site a couple of years ago and has been good enough to keep it going even when only a couple of us were posting. The site originated in England, Ron took it over for a little while then it got spammed by a druid so Steven (whom we seldom hear from anymore, likely family obligations, lol) started a new site. Ron wasn't able to care for it anymore so Grant offered ( I for one begged him) to take it over. I love the format, I don't like the string thing. I hope you stick around. - 22:45:26 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Well Betty hasn't used the "ill" excuse so far but then she's likely clever enough not to, lol! - 22:46:30 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I was thinking about that...meaning the use of ole Mickey. You never know if Disney will throw a fit over it! - 22:48:16 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene - I actually would like them to try. I think I have protection under the Copyright ack as a parody site, and I think that is why I haven't heard from them...they know they'd lose. But I don't understand why they haven't threatened my yet. They know about my site - I got a muslim scare around six months ago, and they had an email campaign to Disney and FSU. I still have most of the death threats, too. Oh well. Religious intolerance never ends. By the way, check out Moster Truck Jesus at http://www.gluck.net/jesus - he has had legal problems lately, if you check out the "something missing" and "new paint job" sections. He even has an address at the end of the site to send cease and desist letters to! BTW, What do you mean by the "string thing"? - 23:16:05 on 15 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I mean those discussion sites where one has to follow a string. I like this better. If I've heard it all before from the same person, I just page down. BTW, thanks, I check out that site. - 1:21:10 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Oh..."thread"/string. I see. I wish this supported HTML though. I understand why it may have been removed, but I have had few problems even on my site, where I routinely get threatened by "HaCkErZ", or 13 your old Muslim boys. I guess they aren't bright enough to figure out how to use HTML tags in a guest book. - 4:04:47 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- I have a version of the script that allows HTML, but I hesitate to use it as I can't figure out how to contain it within one post. In other words it can effect all subsequent posts until I stop it. I'm only around early morning and mid-evening so not only malicious posting but simple errors can make a mess of things. - 14:45:04 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Yes, I know what you mean. Many people forget to put an tag, and it makes my entire guest book italic (it is 550kb, quite a large guest book). I wonder if you just modified the script to put all the ending tags on the end of every post, if browsers would freak out. For instance, , etc. - 16:55:55 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- So labels such as "reductionist literalists" are good but labels such as "universal anthropomorphism" reveal a materialist problem of "putting a definite label on everything"? I guess such labels as "double-standard" are bad too? And where has anyone implied that "that the physical elements of the universe are basically independent of each other..."? In order to understand, say an automobile, isn't it reasonable to examine the component parts individually without necessarily being unaware of relationships, or are we forbidden from looking under the hood? Does such an act tarnish the holistic automobile experience or something? And last, I was lamenting the lack of substantiation for your claims in general rather than disagreeing that ancient mystics were all concerned with basically the same questions. I agree with this assessment. On a discussion board, I don't consider naming book titles an acceptable substitute for substantiation of beliefs. Do you? - 17:17:55 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- I've thought about that. I'm no programmer. It would require not just modifying how the script manipulates posts, but actually making the script edit the posts themselves. I will look into it. I think at least italics, bold type, and line breaks would be really nice to have. - 17:22:54 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- Do you do CGI? - 17:29:26 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Once again it has to do with perception. The universe states no purpose for us, so at this time it's all speculation. People that believe they are only furthering their own seed are in their own right to do so, however, we exist in co-dependence of everything around us. Holistic awareness is never subjugated by reducing things to the sum of their parts. So even at an individual primacy the actions may appear to be singulary - but their effects are not limited to the individual, especially on an evolutionary scale. - 17:30:57 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Yes, belief is to be based on evidence. Undoubtedly. But what we're talking about here is materialism as a paradigm, not as fact. So when you reference possibilities of the supernatural as opposed to materialism you are making very large assumptions. First of all, there is nothing natural about materialism. It's just as man-made as the principles used to identify what we call "physical laws". My argument is not that physical laws do not hold; it's that the current model for the universe is obsolete. Materialists, instead of abandoning their theory, distort it's meaning instead of designing a new paradigm, or model for the universe. You see, instead of saying, "Wait a minute. Gravity isn't physical!" They say, "Nevermind. Just ignore it." just like you have. Think about your statement again, and tell me how and why materialism is still true: "... materialism - it includes more than matter nowadays." We're not talking about anything supernatural, just a different interpretation of things. This is part of the reason Einstein tried to search for the TOE (Theory of Everything), because he knew the current model didn't work, and he wasn't about to ignore it. - 17:48:33 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, "Probabilistic rules" - is this not an oxymoron? Probability does not hold like previous classical laws, I'm sorry. Ever heard of Heisenberg? He and a couple of others had a great deal of trouble trying to postulate laws for QM with the current laws. ---- Also, just because we can identify forces does not mean they correspond with physical law. Like I stated, there is no direct evidence for the physical world to have any combinatory traits. In other words, the glue that holds the universe together is something entirely separate and deserves an equal credit. So it's not that materialism has not been beneficial, just that it's not complete, without contradiction. - 17:59:06 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Unfortunately, and I think that we both agree, that this is not the place to discuss and conquer any such complex issues (re: the mystics). Naming the title of a book is nothing in itself, I agree, but in a balanced discussion it could spark individual insights for support or not. You asked for support. Was I to quote excerpts? What could I possibly give in this context as support that would be more acceptable to you and others? ---- Also, I wasn't degrading your labels, only, in general, the materialist praise for them. If you read my paragraph to Carl again, I stated that the mystics do not settle for the labels as the meaning, like labeling something "random" and settling on that, but rather that they accept that something so amazing as the universe doesn't need labels to be appreciated. Referencing your words was not an insult. I was pointing out how Carl insisted upon "random" instead of just leaving it as a less definable unknowable mystery. - 18:15:25 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, Also, one of the principles of materialism, stated or not in here (which is irregardless), is localization - meaning that there is an objective universe out there that we can break into pieces and/or take into a laboratory and study AND that all physical elements interract solely via local signals. In order for consistency, the general rule is that each of these pieces exist independently of each other so that they can be studied objectively. In other words, we can do things in the laboratory and produce the same results that exist independently in the outside physical world. However, localization (or reductionism) contextually can only describe the individual parts and their meanings between one and another separately because it deals with physical parts and not wholes, and that's what would destroy a holistic appreciation of the vehicle. So you can describe how all the parts work individually, but all parts working together in relationship is very important for a COMPLETE appreciation of the automobile. The difference here is the relationships identify a more complete picture, not that we can examine how they work under the hood. It's a contextual conflict of materialism, that's all. - 18:43:44 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- To milk out the automotive analogy a bit, we CAN understand the whole automobile by breaking it into pieces and/or taking it into a laboratory... To think otherwise presumes that the automobile is more than the sum of its parts; that some other entity or force becomes involved in automobileness. If you say the automobile becomes something more than a stack of parts, it becomes also freedom, or mobility, or a fashion statement, or a work of art or something, none of these things are actually physical attributes or components of the actual physical automobile. All these things are subjective interpretations or impressions of what the automobile is or does or how we interact with it or descriptions of our actions in relation to it. All these attributes are tenants of our brains rather than real attributes of the car. This does not imply that all these things are not valid or are contemptable. It just implies that we humans have a tendency to confuse that which resides in our brains with that which resides outside it, yes, in the objective real world. - 22:08:40 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Grant - I am learning Perl. I am very adept at learning programming languages, so I should have it whipped soon. It is very similar to C in many ways. - 22:10:22 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - I don't think anyone has ignored gravity, as you claim. Physicists are looking all the time for the ToE. String theory is one of those attempts. I would be very interested to know what you think "materialism" is. Please define it as you have been using it. Merriam Webster's definition is not very technical, so I'll take a shot at it: Materialism makes the claim that reality is fundamentally physical and behaves according to laws - physical including matter, energy, forces, time, and space; laws refering to the idea that identical circumstances yield identical results. You may choose to take issue with the 'laws' due to QM, but EVERY TIME one does the two-slit experiment, you get the same pattern. The individual particles won't go the same way, but the pattern is the same. Is that similar to the way you would define materialism? - 22:25:04 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - your analogy with the car was not good, as one who was looking at individual parts and never the whole could still create a model, or construct a thought experiment, that could predict the workings of the whole. Remember, we are material beings. It is completely reasonable for us to be think in material ways. What do you suggest we put in place of materialism? - 22:40:41 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- I can show you the CGI script if you are interested in it. - 23:55:23 on 16 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:If you'd like you can email it to me - mickeymouse121@excite.com - 0:51:16 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I guess the real argument lies in where and how one views subjectivity. Considering we can't appreciate anything without our individual perceptions the argument doesn't go much further than that. So now we're back to the validity of subjectivity - which materialists like to pretend gets turned off when they look at the outside world. Also considering human minds and motivations made the automobiles to begin with - with certain design considerations, technological advancements over the years, and trendy physical parts - subjectivity cannot be so easily dismissed. How can you say you're not using your own subjectivity to focus on reductionism rather than holism? A car is also made up of many individual parts, but it's the relationships involved that does make it more than the sum of its parts; the parts are useless by themselves. An autmobile is only useful based on many variables that constitute series of relationships of the parts involved. Where do these multiple relationships fit within reductionism? Again, how can you have a complete understanding of a car without all of its attributes? Mobility, freedom, and fashion are OUR intentions (yes, subjectivity) for the use of those parts to begin with. Breaking it into pieces is only a partial understanding. --- Remember, too, that we and our brains exist in that same "outside" world to someone else. To say someone else's subjectivity doesn't play a part in things is to say your own has no validity as well in the outside world. - 2:32:37 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Ignoring gravity only as a potential flaw for absolute materialism is what I was inferring. In other words, the glue (or forces) that holds the physical universe together in selective patterns is obviously transcendant of the physical parts themselves. Why do bumbling atoms in space have laws at all? The simple answer is that there is something more etherial that holds it all together that is not a constituent of its parts, like materialism would claim. Yes, I agree with your definition as far as I'm aware, and also it's obvious limitations - that probability, change, creativity, and subjectivity also exist in this universe and are not direct evidence of material substance. I'm aware of String Theory is a materialist concoction and it also shows no signs of reasoning for the above, so I've sought out other, more conclusive theories. - 2:50:02 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Thought experiments? Just another excuse to not accept holism. Afterall, the greatest sense of accomplishment is the final working product, and only then can it be fully appreciated. Once again, I think we should be looking for the most complete theories for things, not partial ones. - 2:53:43 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- I don't know how you devoloped these extrordinary perceptions of materialism. You sound as if it is some kind of component-worship cult. "Reductionism" is your term remember. Nobody pretends that subjectivity gets turned off when looking at the outside world-- quite the contrary I assure you. There are volumes and volumes written about this. The scientific method is precisely an attempted countermeasure, not against subjectivity or its validity or worth, but against the confusion of subjectivity with objectivity. I don't think you are aware of the body of literature on this subject. I've recommended books to you before, but I really think you owe it to yourself to read _Rationality and Science: Can Science Explain Everything_ by Roger Trigg. Hell, I'll lend you a copy. I gaurantee you will be very surprised. How can I say I'm not using my own subjectivity to focus on reductionism rather than holism? Well, I can't really. (Remember, I object to this label, or rather your connotations, but I know what you're asking.) All I can do is read and learn all I can and try to guard against errors the best I can, same as you. I wish you could hold your nose long enough to read some cognitive science. It's a whole fascinating world that you are ignoring, IMO at your peril. John mentioned to Ian a book by Steven Pinker: _How the Mind Works_. I've recently finished another of Pinker's books on jaywilson's recommendation, _The Language Instinct_. It's not directly relevant to the materialist/idealist debate, but it's really a remarkable book which serves to demonstrate how much we know about the brain from "reductionist" study, and I assure you, substantiation is offered for every claim, and the total whole big picture is never forgotten for a moment. As to your final statement, "To say someone else's subjectivity doesn't play a part in things is to say your own has no validity as well in the outside world", please understand that I'm not anti-subjectivity. I wouldn't and couldn't be without it. - 3:34:06 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Look into monistic idealism. The crowd here is pretty much sick of it so I'll explain as much or as little here as necessary. Monistic idealism states that the basic substance of the universe is an etherial consciousness, a basically creative, unifying and self-maintaining entity, and matter is an aspect of its expressions. As humans, we are especially tuned to this creativeness and thus unconditionally explains our obvious, but small scale, free will onto the physical world. Matter and mind are part of one ultimate reality and are intimately connected. --- Why was this theory invented? First of all as a complete unifying theory that equally supports our subjective intentions onto the physical world without contradiction. In material realism we are conditioned to believe we are machines - that all our actions are determined by the stimuli we receive by our prior conditioning. In other words, we have no responsibility, no choice, and our free will is a mirage. If everything is a random play of atoms then how can we deceive ourselves with free will, and then in some cases deny our own passion for it? Also, if only matter is real then reason would tell us that material possessions would be our only foundation for happiness. And on the very large scale, the universe shows patterns of selective order, it shows abilities to maintain a sort of homeostasis or a balance within itself, and it does all this in creatively, but linear, evolution - all similar traits of a conscious, living organism. Materialism in this view is a narrow limitation of conciousness where one looks only to the expressional parts of the whole as the meaning of the existence, not to the why or how the parts got, maintain, and take shape that way. Consciousness (as a universal metaphor) is the first existence, whereas matter is interrelatedly secondary. --- Monistic idealism, in my belief, is more complete, a more exciting view of the universe, and a more responsible paradigm in considering our relationship to the nature around us. - 3:35:25 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I didn't really mean to imply that you are anti-sujectivity - only that you seem to give it less credit than it deserves. Materialism states that free will is an illusion and I don't believe that - for all the effort we exhibit in here for one. In your own words and to the best of your ability please explain where interpretation stops and objectivity settles in, please. If we need to use the car metaphor, what makes the study of the individual parts more important than the interrelationships of the whole vehicle in your view? The whole "experience" of the car is based on the parts BUT more importantly their relationships to the individual engineer/mechanic/driver. The pursuit to study/invent the car began/begins with subjective needs for convenience, style, economical improvement, and personal safety. I don't see where you can logically separate intentions from the outside world unconditionally. - 3:54:23 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Jenn:shit you guys/girls have a lot of free time on your hands to do nothing but argue with eachother and smash eachothers ideas. Christ give it a friggin rest who cares what other people think. - 4:53:28 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Well Jenn, If it's any consolation, I don't care what you think. - 5:16:23 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - Just to let you know, I do believe that free will is an illusion. It would seem that you cannot accept this conclusion, and that is the main reason why you reject materialism. There are a few things I must ask you now - What evidence BESIDES attacking materialism is there for your conclusion of a collective consciousness? Remember, you cannot simply say because materialism is incomplete (something which may or may not be true) your theory is correct. Second, does this theory have predictive power? Third, what value is the theory? Does it just make us happy, or can we use the theory for practical purposes? (Many theories make us "happy" that aren't true or have no value) The reasons why science has been successful are two-fold: better communication of results after the 1400's, and the inability to ignore the RESULTS of the scientific enterprise - namely technology. Will (or can) your theory have such results? - 18:56:47 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- Free will is another question altogether. Since we've already bored everyone else to death, maybe we should let that go for now. Since the car metaphor seems to be working, imagine that every person on earth were suddenly to disappear. Now consider the car in the driveway (even though you have actually disappeared). Freedom, independance, beauty, and etc. are now absent from the car. All that remains is the physical object comprised of its parts. Where did these things go? They were never there. They were and are not parts of the automobile, they were and are, in a way, parts of us. To be objective in an inquiry regarding the actual physical automobile is to successfully separate our subjective impressions and feelings about the car, even though completely real and valid in another context such as inquiry regarding our relationships with them, from the object itself, in other words as I have stated, to successfully avoid confusing that which resides inside our brains from that which resides outside it. - 19:02:22 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Betty - You should read some cognative science if, as Grant implies, you never have. It is quite fascinating. Our senses are so unreliable that we MUST use science and reason and objectivity to make up for that, if we intend to learn anything about the universe. Our subjective realities are so formed by evolution that they are utilitarian, but hardly reliable. Have you every read any epistemology? - 19:34:05 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Let's get some things straight. Free will is only an illusion WITHIN materialism; if you accept materialism, then you accept the other. Monistic idealism, which is not MY theory, says let's step back and realize that materialism is just a tool, it's very popular, but it may not be the most useful tool. I will remind you that in more spiritual communities, materialism is not as popular and the people there do not begin thoughts with this kind of interpretation. Scientism is an unfortunate reasoning of the trade - whereas it rejects anything but what the current views hold; scientism, not science, is a form of elitism and is also part of the issue here. In other words, because materialism is popular to science it's still important to be objective about it and realize that it still only remains a metaphysical postulate about the nature of existence, not a directly evidenced trait of the physical world. This is where the argument begins. Not simply that I or others do not particularly care for materialism. Is this clear? Do you see where others do not view material realism with such overwhelming and absolute conviction? If you can see this I will continue with the benefits of monistic idealism, otherwise I'm wasting my time. - 20:09:09 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:This is a test of the script's ability to do HTML.
Hello
Click here
- 20:20:23 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, So the only way to be completely objective is to imagine yourself as an isolated ego existing inside your own body with no one else around? Is this not some extreme form of nihilism only so that the postulates of material realism can hold true? Like I said to John, step back and re-consider the entire drawing board here. The reality is that we CO-exist with many others here, all with differenting opinions about the outside world, it's uses, and it's meaning to us. The problem I still see is in your interpretation of the physical world. To separate your feelings and the impressions of the car is impossible - rather, you seem to think that a dry, boring, robotic materialistic world is all that is "out there". What if the only person in the world looked at those parts of the car and saw that elaborate relationship of parts and machinery and equated it to an alternate universe for which he or she was in charge of - everything from the lights to the steering wheel are different elements of a fantastic world; whereas someone like you would see it in a less poetic way. You're still assuming everyone looks at the world the same way you do, that there is some absolute interpretation we should all be using. Remember please, materialism is only about 400 years old. It wasn't exactly that "natural" to humankind more than a million years before it was invented. - 20:26:06 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I told you I understood that earlier. I understand the world view of materialism. I understand the fact that one cannot for certain say that there is only matter, energy, time, and space. I can see evidence around me for these things. All I'm asking for is evidence that there are more than these things. If you cannot produce it, that does not mean you are wrong - but it DOES mean you are wasting your time in here. An epistemic possibility does not translate into a fact. The "benefits" of monistic idealism was only one of my questions - an idea with benefits may be false. - 20:28:58 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, To be more specific, we refer to the outside world with the use of agreed-upon metaphors and models. These are universal tools so that we can communicate with each other. IF the only person on earth were to examine the car for him/herself, there would be nothing to compare his/her objectivisms to and therefore would invalidate any such notions; he/she would ultimately realize that he/she has the free will to interpret anything to his/her liking. Being that we share this world with other subjective interpretations in much the same way, it's all very relative to the individual to begin with. You can either choose to agree upon a collective reasoning with others or form your own, and neither would be more right or wrong; just a more accepted opinion or not. We can observe this kind of diversity in the world for this same reason. - 20:38:55 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..it's enough to make one sneeze:"rather, you seem to think that a dry, boring, robotic materialistic world is all that is "out there"." Just another example of fern sniffing ideology. I don't find the material world dry, boring or robotic in fact for a material girl like me, I find it quite comfortable. - 20:40:54 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Good. Since both materialism and monistic idealism are world views we can compare them on equal ground. They are both interpretive models, and being so, we can determine their utilitarian uses for the individual and the whole society. So now we have to look at these things and it really doesn't have to much further than realizing that materialism does not account for QM. Things like predictable laws and repeatability are not absolutes. Monistic idealism, which does not support such notions as transcendant universal laws, admits a universe based on change and habit. Order and stability are only part of the equation. The universe, much like biological evolution, can maintain itself in creatively new adaptaptions and it builds upon previous inspirations until they are no longer useful. Here the metaphor of a living entity, rather than a mechanical universe, shows a useful purpose. Additionally, monistic idealism no longer has to diminish our dreams and passions as "illusions" for the sake of it's acceptance. Our thoughts and actions are as valid as anything else in this universe, relative to our size and proportion on this planet. And even more so, with a forthright acceptance of genuine responsibility for our actions, we can realize a more important ecological responsibility. We would no longer treat nature as our guinea pig or trash can for our materialistic lives. We would accept our transitional lives here as an important co-existence and we'd be less likely to support industries that destoy our own home. --- In this paragraph, you can see how a lot can change just from changing one's perspective - and that's all where talking about here. Monistic idealism happens to be a better perspective for many reasons. The happiness you speak of is a nice after-effect of it. - 21:05:02 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:So, Betty, what you have said is that all viewpoints are equally acceptable, just not equally accepted. [Betty said] "neither would be more right or wrong; just a more accepted opinion or not." In all seriousness, you cannot, then, tell us were are wrong. If you are right, we are as right as you are. Kind of ridiculous, don't you think? If person A believes proposition p, and person B believes ~p, then, according to you, either (p+(~p)) or ~(p)+(~(~p)). In other words, logical contradiction. - 21:08:18 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:BETTY-- I don't have to imagine myself as an isolated ego existing inside my own body with no one else around to be objective. I just have to try to get YOU to do it so you can see what objectivity is. I told you six months ago you don't have a clue what it is. Maybe you realize that as with all religionists I have encountered, your argument against materialism is still equivalent to "materialism can't be true because I don't like it". If you still can't see this I'm wasting my time (still). Hmm, where have I heard this? - 21:12:58 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I guess for some, reality just doesn't cut the mustard> - 21:13:44 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, Additionally -- material realism cannot account for gravity, as we already conquered. Material realism has no substantial holistic theory as to why the physical world "glues" together at all. Monistic idealism steps back and says if the universe is self-contained it's reasonable to suggest that there is something more intrinsically tying the physical world together, which has not been evidenced within the physical world itself. The universe as, an etherial consciousness, maintains itself and the physical world is merely an expression of it's creativity. In other words, the meaning of the universe does not come from it's parts, but from what holds it together. Materialism does not account for this, or even why bumbling atoms should form together at all. - 21:18:51 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:The only thing in your last post that was not an emotional plea is "materialism does not account for QM." 1. Please tell me why. You could just as easily say that materialism does not account for inertia or thermodynamics. Like I have said, there will always be the question "Why is X true?", and science keeps digging deeper. For instance - > Why do balls roll? Because energy is transferred. Why is energy transferred? Because it cannot be destroyed. Why can energy not be destroyed? Well....science cannot answer that. Yet. But as soon as we answer the next question, another will pop up. I think this is where you have the problem - you need to put something at the end of the line, monistic idealism, god, whatever. I, however, withhold my judgement. You have shown no EVIDENCE for monistic idealism - just old attacks on materialism (which I have admitted may be incomplete) and emotional appeals ("We would accept our transitional lives here as an important co-existence and we'd be less likely to support industries that destoy our own home.") Please provide evidence. - 21:19:49 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Sorry, second to last post. I didn't see your last one. - 21:21:46 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, You missed the rest of that argument. I stated that after we put them on even grounds we have consider their usefulness. --- Go back and read some more, please. - 21:21:57 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:John, the evidence for an interpretive model comes in its usefulness, as I have explained. Sometimes you have to clear the drawing board and start over to get some amazing insights. - 21:26:19 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Grant, I clearly explained why your idea of objectivity doesn't work. It's not that I don't get it. It's simply that I don't believe it. I certainly know the difference between what's inside me and what's not, but the argument always goes back to interpretation and collective models that we use to communicate with. That's what we're dealing with. - 21:31:58 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:Had fun conversing today... maybe I'll check back later or tomorrow... Take care until then. - 21:33:36 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Jhon Matney:You haven't stated any usefulness, just emotional pleas. And you have not wiped the slate clean - you have simply placed two theories on it, stated that one has problems, and said "Look! now we see why monistic idealism is great!" Sounds like a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one. Is monistic idealism predictive? What test could we undertake to pit materialism against it? What test could we devise that would make monistic idealism the most likely choice out of all the competing theories, not JUST the two in question? - 21:40:10 on 17 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I would say that Betty's "theory" is more like "Theosophy". - 1:01:54 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Has studying all those lichens caused you to dislichen us ? - 1:03:21 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- Just on the small chance you haven't heard of Theosophy, here ya go. Ahhh! Thr fragrance of ferns! - 1:09:19 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I still Lichen you. Just came back from Vermont, again. This time we had a permit to chisel and collect lichens from the alpine zone on Mount Mansfield. The highest point in the state. It was part of the annual Andrews foray for bryophites and lichens. I certainly wasn't going to overlook this opportunity to collect legally from a alpine zone.*****Why is BBB back with her materialism? - 1:46:44 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Sure the hell is and John is going though the same old with her/him/whatever. Sounds like you had a good time! In this area this year, we have quite a bit of fungi growth. It's normally quite dry here but this year we've had an abnormal amount of rainfall. This has caused all kinds of mushrooms to grow in the yard. I wish I knew which are safe to eat. The squirrels are putting them away for the winter so I suppose they are safe to eat for them. - 2:13:34 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I was not aware of _Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion_ by Stewart Eliot Guthrie. That's gotta be the one, eh? I found it at amazon.com and have linked to a couple of interesting customer reviews. I have read a bit on this facet of evolutionary theory elsewhere. Have you already read the book, or are you considering it? If you've read it was that a recommend? Oh, and nothing to report on our persistant friend other than a handfull of IP numbers but I should confess that I do enjoy the battles about half the time, though I suspect I'm the only one who does. - 12:30:23 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL and GRANT- _Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion_ sounds like and interesting book. This theory may be the one. - 14:29:47 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: No I have not read that book. I have read accounts of it by some who have read it, these accounts make reading it sound very attractive. Have you read much by the muslim cultist? I just started a book- composed by a muslim type, titled "Man and Nature". There are several other books it recommends too when I recall what they are I'll note them here. So far like our fren BBB, it too attacks science related stuff to convey that it as a device of human's it attacks nature. An attack on nature, hmmm, the problem with that pretty point of view I read a news-report that the muslims will cane a 17 yr.old girl for 'illegal' premarital sex. The caning will be done after she has a child. The act of reproduction and reproduction itself are these not natural, of nature? While I've just started the book I wonder if the writer as a muslim really is a person who can say of natural things. About like our fren BBB here, it looks like BBB's problem is that BBB does not know how to live with the material world. If true then who is BBB to suggest to others in anyway anti-materialism views? What is the problem common to both that muslim account and our fren BBB? Well nature and materialism, as words/ideas, are these not for things independent of the human mind, while things of the imagination "birth-control" or "anti-materialsim" they are in the mind? Out of mind implys no control while in mind is total control, hmmm? - 15:22:16 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:There sure are some crazies in this world. Check out my guestbook. The debate has turned from religion to a Christian making racist comments, then calling SCIENCE racist. Where do they get this stuff? http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~rdm5570/guestbook.html - 19:22:27 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: 'Racist remarks' huh? I read an old but interesting idea in a book, seems it was something psychological, that concerned words. It was about the human animal and its use of words that are learning sounds of and for positive and negative matters. Racism I suspect was once a positive learning sound, how and when it became a negative thing I'd bet cold cash was at the hands of religion; you know the chosen people idea. Learning sounds expand the human experience of existence, Such as either IAN or BETTY and the matters they seek to assert here. Of IAN's view my reservation was simply that there was no way he could know that what he inscribed for his/her ideas of the bible and the characters in its storys. Sure the words looked good but the names and deeds connected to the words, IMHO, are contrary to IAN's claims. In my own review and the manner in which I see of those tales I can see ways which they are good. But, are they absolute yes they are, and that is as they are but storys. That very point was the one I brought to BETTY's attention when BBB first arrived here again, that was; is what {I knew} she would inscribe here, like what IAN inscribed of; is it true is it right? BETTY seeks to use words that belittle, ignore and insult others for her point, that is wrong. Not really important but like of the WJC thing when everyone said all lie, the kind of assertion that is just veils a larger issue. BETTY's negatives also veil another issue, IMO, BETTY just seeks to disturb and disrupt. She does this imaginatively but insubstantially. Of BETTY's efforts, in a book I recently purchased of the Jewish Kabbalah, one of the ideas for human existence it goes over concerns living in the material world. Not bad very understandable, - 21:35:13 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:CARL: I still do not understand the hostility you show towards me. Perhaps I represent everything that is Christian and has scorned you your entire life just for being an atheist. You associate me with Betty too for the same reasons probably. On the other hand I am glad you finally agree with me that you can see Jesus in a positive light. BUT that they are only stories, as I too agree. An idea can be inscribed to story that does not have a realistic value and still have a use in our lives. We, as atheists, should not reject anything that does not deal with the very concrete(I am not suggesting that we believe in anything supernatural) in regards to our behavior. JOHN: I had an interesting thought the other day when I was bored at school thinking about your "Prince type" philosophy . You stated that the End justifies the means. I could not find any solid argument against that statement but I could ask how the "Ends" are defined and what the means are that will get you there. Now in our society today we can classify specific "Ends" that would be "wanted" by the general public. Ends that everybody has the primal need for are as you most likely know the food, sex, sensory stimulation things. Will these ends change? After a long period of time and as societies advance will these primal needs not most likely be met by everyone? Then what? Then man tends to become more analytical and scientific in examining his life. This has happened in societies past, such as the Greeks. As soon as they were fed, fucked, and happy they started thinking and examining the world around them. The ends you seek today will most likely not be the ends you seek tomorrow. So why not seek the ends of tomorrow when we know the ends of today will be meaningless tomorrow? - 22:24:57 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN, I mentioned no names I said i can see good things and it was not a blanket approval. jc is not a good point for what you mean. The story book writers have made that rhetorical character stand for many things said by numerous others. - 22:36:49 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN, perhaps you've mixed the respondents I've never advanced ideas of means to end or such to you, hell I don't even know what that means. - 22:41:58 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN, hey! went dizzy there didn't see that part of your post was directed to JOHN, it was that haste thing - 22:44:28 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:IAN: hey, I ain't agin'ya, just rejecting your position because it is not set on or next to fact. As far as I can see of your position, it is built on social convention and from hear-say. Above I've mentioned what I see as the need for gaurded care of the words humans use. If the words are without fact as BETTY suggests, then yes it is imagination. If in the experience of some certain matters repeatedly happen, as a sunrise, then our common sense calls the sunrise fact. BETTY seems to suggest that even it is base materialism and as such it is unproven. That is imagination at its best, if that is what or how BETTY seeks to explain things. You alive today did not and cannot ever meet and know a jc as you and me will see and know a sunrise tommorow. - 23:00:18 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:CARL: Very misleading, "In my own review and the manner in which I see of those tales I can see ways which they are good." You seemed to admit that the bible does portray Jesus as a kind person. BUT you also do note that people will try and blend and focus on certain scriptures for their personal gain which they often do. For this reason I think that kindness should be viewed by itself or within a limited context to prevent twisting of the material(ie people using it to promote their personal views such as racism,ect). We should also not abandon the facts as you have stated. We can't base our existance on the facts alone; we need to investigate the relationship of certain facts(using our creativity) and continue to dig deeper to expand our awareness. - 23:38:26 on 18 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..getting fairly tired of the game:IAN/BETTY- What's next, Jesus was actually convinced of the collective conscience? - 0:43:44 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I was just going to ask you if you thought... Nooooooo.... - 0:48:13 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Ian:MARLENE: Collective conscience? Now where in the FUCK did I ever mention anything about a collective conscience? Collective conscience was proposed by Carl Jung who said it was the reflection of a societies subconscious. He said that a societies' subconscious was often was manifested in a God. I am not an expert on Jung's shit but I can tell you one thing... Our mind is nothing but lump of matter as Doug will clearly explain to you. He posted a great and very insightful article on that subject a while back. If you are refering to collective conscience in the term that it is usually thought of then I do not believe in that. The definition of collectidve conscience that says we are all one counsciousness, like after we die, is bull. - 1:11:32 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- Well that's a relief! Where were you all weekend? GRANT- with all the names that's person's posted under....one tends to be suspicious. - 2:11:35 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- With that being said...what do you mean by this "We can't base our existance on the facts alone; we need to investigate the relationship of certain facts(using our creativity) and continue to dig deeper to expand our awareness."? - 2:15:46 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:IAN- To expand on "what do you mean by this?", that statement was really quite vague, it could mean a lot of things, what are you saying, precisely? - 2:40:37 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:My main computer just crashed. It will only go into the windows safe mode. I can't even get the boot to work. It looks like the end for the old hard drive. Had some problems with modems loading and AOL keeps giving these add ons at the end of my logging off. The cost of fixing it is going to be higher than buying a new hard drive.The thought of losing some files is pissing me off, but there's not a thing I can do about it. I'm using my lap top for now! - 2:59:15 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Grant the half-fast ogre:Marlene-- Um, I sorta banned Ian and Betty. "They" have some talking to do if they wish to post again. I think both are just Joshing us. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see what happens. I expect we'll soon get a new poster with a new IP number but the same old modus operandi. - 3:06:57 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..with sympathy:DOUG- Yuck! Computer problems! I've only had minor ones so far. Maybe Grant can help. He knows what he's doing with computers. - 3:11:00 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- SO! As I suspected! LOL! - 3:11:52 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:It occurs to me that I don't know where you all are from - except Marlene. You are in Canada, right? What about everyone else? I am from Florida (In fact, I am a student at FSU). - 4:56:08 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- Interesting that you have a discussion going in your guestbook. --- I live in the Seattle area, by way of Colorado and originally Utah (yes). :-) - 12:34:08 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- Yes, Manitoba. - 12:48:50 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: They are now in the phantom zone huh? Well, maybe there they'll get their heads right. If they return and its not to soon, I ought to have read those Freud books. As I watched IAN and BETTY carry-on, the thought came to me what if someone plays that game? That could be done on this pc-gadget, yes/no? According to one of the thumb rules put forward by Freud was that in a psycho-analytic session in a bi-lateral arrangement both would improve. That could be done if one developed an approach to religion in the case here of xian stuff. Xian stuff is all rhetorical anyways. I see this in lots of the myths and superstitions of any group of people. J.Campbell attributed this view to the power of the myth, that power is just the rhetorical value. It will have no truth at question but is true in having no answer. Ahh! mysticism is a good fun thing. So with such a non-constrainted topic no holds are barred. Whoever was or is JOSH/BETTY/IAN, et.al., I find myself preparing for the insanity that this pc-gadget liberates. - 19:12:11 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You forgot JAKE and DAN, LOL! - 20:28:05 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Ian --------

Ian --------

Ian --------

Ian --------

Ian --------

jaywilson--inocent bystander--:ALL: Well, at least we know what's really on the minds of IAN and company. Always was difficult to take him/them seriously. - 20:54:06 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Ian --------

Ian --------

Carl:OPEN: Paranoid huh, to disagree is not good, to withhold an approval is not good, to question is not good, so anybody committing such a dastardly act gots psychological problems? - 21:02:07 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Ian --------

Carl:OPEN: Are these people, IAN/BETTY/et.al., insane or what, - 21:27:31 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:All: So the quantum fowl mouth has struck. Probably trying to make up for his short commings. - 22:10:46 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Poor Ian. Must be the first hint of puberty. Why are people so irrational? Maybe IAN should ask himself "What Would Jesus Do?" - 22:18:38 on 19 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Feel better now? Done with your tantrum? Now you can take your spray paint and go decorate your mother's car. You've truly shown what an idiot you really are! LOL! - 0:40:40 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- This has been a long time thing with an ass by the name of Josh, whom BTW, I disagreed with concerning the great R Sheldrake. He posts under many names but each time with the same controlling, luntic type of personality. I guess he can't hide that. - 0:44:31 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:It's the same guy? hmmmm. - 1:13:02 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Ian --------

Marlene:JOHN- Grant will just ban him again but like Grant had mentioned, in a week we'll have a "new poster" with the same personality preaching the same shit. You'd think he'd have better things to do. - 1:32:45 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Ian --------

Ian --------

Ian --------

John Matney:"Ian", if you'd like to talk about things, I'll give you my email. If, however, you'd like to continue bothering these poor souls (pardon the term), I guess it'd be really hard for Grant to stop you, due to the nature of the Internet. Email me at mickeymouse121@excite.com. Please stop bothering these people. - 2:01:59 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Hmm... picked a bad day to work late. Just let me get my rubber gloves on and some lysol-- I'll have this stuff cleaned up in a jiffy. - 2:55:09 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Grant -- Mr. Editor --:That's better. Nice editing job, if I say so myself. - 3:24:11 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

jaywilson--Egos Benedict (Arnold)--:GRANT: Yeah, I think you got to the heart of what he was trying to say. - 3:43:15 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Grant --Trickle down (your leg) egonomics--:JAYWILSON-- Oh good. I was afraid I had left too many dashes. - 4:08:53 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Betty:You guys crack me up. I don't know this Josh person or Ian. There goes those "skeptic" minds again. The thing is I think you guys really believe your own made-up theories. I guess if over 90% of the world disagrees with you on a general basis, you're bound to come up with some kind of defense mechanisms and then look for support for them in a room like this. - 12:03:37 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Grant (Sweep, sweep) :You never fail to disappoint, Betty. - 12:18:45 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:So Betty, you don't think 90% of the world can be wrong? Maybe we should push for a democratization of world-views - have elections and such. Maybe then we'd have to change our ways, huh? That'll show us. In all seriousness, though, the fact that 90% of the world doesn't understand my world-view doesn't phase me a bit. Should it? In other words, if 5.4 billion people jump off a cliff, should I follow? - 14:41:35 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:JOHN: That IAN's crack-up makes the second such occurence I have witnessed here, and 1 at another site I frequent, all three have been marked by some religious-like flair. While I have read some well written religious ideas of all I find most favor, in sufi and a few muslim writings. Good xian writings are nearly non-existent, unless one accepts early and some early 1900's science writers as religious. Early being pre-Copernican and shortly thereafter. I'll toss in here, that as I continue to read various religious stuff, it appears the godthing idea, a creator, is only the most recent extrapolation of the religious minded individual. In the books of the "war between science and religion" it is the religious minded group of people that targeted assorted ideas "for" their religiously supposed belief. Theism or an actual "god" is only a very recent development of only the xian cultist. The latter point is o'course due to the conventional constraints wherein my views have been exposed to. Examples of some of these conventions include the regular "newsreports" of possible evidence for the ark and the usual seasonal xmas storys. To get by such propaganda, could such acts be considered acts of a revolutionary? But in any case the god idea, looks to be a new idea of the religious minds. Religion itself is only an ancient form of a political party and process of bringing like minds together. - 15:44:13 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: It is an incredible thing to see, seeing someone's mind give-up. Was IAN that fragile? Was IAN just some kid looking and striving to understand things? That would be sad if it turns out IAN was being mentally abused by an overbearing parent or somesuch, and was merely looking for help. I wonder what poor BETTY wants? It always saddens me to watch a mind blow, so BETTY what do you want? - 17:41:27 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I agree, nice job! CARL- The "one god" idea is only a few thousand years old. Out of a thousand people, religion brings 900 like minds together so if as John suggests, if the dogma of that religion requires believers to jump off a cliff, that leaves 100 people with unlike minds still standing on the cliff with enough likeness to want to survive and enough variation to survive as a species I would think. SO, that 90% of sheep people are like the slough of the species. - 17:45:19 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Betty/Ian certainly has some problems but it's up to Betty/Ian to recognize them and deal with them. When there seems to be no desire to do so, then I don't feel sorry for them at all. People with this type of ego are dangerous if given any type of power, hopefully power will be something that constantly eludes them. - 17:51:24 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I suspect the "god" sound has been uttered for much longer a few thousand years. The idea- it looks like to me at reading and exercising some liberty at judging the read material, however, that its composed of a creator-thingy has been in the mental-works for perhaps several hundred years. When I read the old greek usage of that god-word I do not detect a grandioseness that the xians would have one see it. The India people have another accounting of that idea, the available chinese information of the or a godthing is very little. Romans just copied the greeks, it could be contended that copying is why jesus was made a god on earth. The greeks started that god on earth stuff the romans continued it, so when Constantine made xian stuff the state religion, jc became a mangod-on-earth. This latter point became embarrassing to the renaissance types so the god-idea became what contemporary xians still don't know. Make sense? - 18:53:16 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..when in Rome:Yes, the Romans did assimilate religions into theirs and I think you may also be right in the Romanizing of JC. - 19:17:35 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Carl - when you say you have not read good Christian writing, do you mean eloquent Christian writing, or good religious ideas (an oxymoron if you ask me), or both? I think that the universal ideas that people have in religions are not religious - for instance, love as (sometimes) preached by Jesus is a good idea, but not inherently religious - it is simply in a religious context. TRULY religious ideas (God itself, for instance) are not good ideas, though they may be eloquently stated; and I do think that Paul, however insane he may have been, was a good Christian writer. It takes a genius to fool that many people. - 19:47:16 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: heck! if I could edit the post to you MARLENE, I'd add a "than" between -longer, and, a-. oh well! GRANT good job, you are a regular edward scissorshand. Hope IAN finds help for that dementia problem. Oft times 'r fren BETTY has stated having a problem with the material world. Now to a certain extent I can appreciate that point of view, we all can. Seems we here have all attempted to inscribe some experience which was utterly indescribable. If we were together all we could do would be to point at whatever and wordlessly understand it. But what is that material thing but the matter it is? Like that passing by attractive blonde-like female outside in a sleeveless shirt wearing dark glasses who has just so favorably smitten, through and through, my sensibilities. Well, I just read a passage in the Dawkin's book where he asks,"Shall we write a book called, The Selfish Nucleotide?" That question followed the question of; "..have we, then arrived at an absurdly reductionistic reductio ad absurdum?" Some of us read the book of the gene. Well, may I suggest that here is where the notion of the random loses out to the is of whatever is. Only the non-random notion can account for the continuance of a thing- its matter its material, for it to develop into it, us. To the next question of the possibility of newness or change, that possibility comes with is borne by motion. Not in motion is that deadness? - 20:10:43 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- All of us have subjective "occurances" and likes and dislikes and love and hate and day dreams and nightmares, stark realisations of reality and instances of delusions but we all need to see that these all are subjective. People like Ian and Betty expect the rest of the species to live in their very personally subjective world. We no can do! - 20:29:43 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:JOHN: Well as that term goes "religion" it is being constantly revised in my mind as it can be or, will be utilised by me. As it looks like, you're aware too that it lacks a real an actual connection to any theism. Theism is as unconnected to religion as it is unconnected to a cosmology of nature. I view writing of so say religious matters for either theism or the human creature only as and when these are independent of the other. Sufi writing for the unknowable are some of the best human expressions of the human desire for that kind of idea I've yet read. The muslim types compose some of the most enjoyable reading for the human mind as the human is a part of existence; this existence seems to be as it is the human part and the all that exists. And of course the muslim has to toss in the god idea as 'a for' that existence to be possible. So the muslim folks, but not as badly as do the xian type, also run afoul of mere human to human expression by trying to afix a god in the 'formula' for the human's experience of an existence. I've read a few xian writings but these poor thinker\folk simply do not allow the human much credit, invariably throughout their writing they'll defer the good human quality to the godthing or a quantitative human value to jc, and what does either such forensics do "for" the mind of the human animal? Anyways thats how I see and seek to mean the expression of that idea. - 22:45:37 on 20 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Back on line after a horrible 5 days trying to access my computer so it could be fixed. Damn microsoft with their saftey features: I couldn't get in throught the DOS or DOS shell. The boot I made didn't work. I'll try it out later to see if it works now. My Big reinstall cd didn't work either. Damn microsoft, they suck.********I'm mean and ready to kick ass. Where's Bird Brain Betty? Quantum conciousness, my keaster. - 5:23:19 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- That do suck. Been intending to do a total backup for such an occasion for a couple of years now. Sigh... - 5:56:12 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Hey, there is a neat program at http://www.star-tools.com/drivestar/english/ that allows you to backup a partition in a file, kind of like those system restore disks that computer companies give you. Now that I have a CD-R drive, I've been thinking of backing up my partition just for those kinds of problems. I wonder if it compresses... - 15:14:19 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I think BBB and company took a forced vacation. Can't say as I'll miss them at all. - 16:59:45 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I read this- I am that supreme and firey force that sends forth all the sparks of life, Death hath no part in me, yet I do alot it, wherefore I am girt about with wisdom as with wings. I am that living and firey essence of the divine substance that flows in the beauty of the fields. I shine in the water, I burn in the sun and the moon and the stars. Mine is that mysterious force of the invisible wind. I sustain the breath of all living. I breathe in the verdure, and in the flowers, and when the waters flow like living things, it is I. I found those columns that support the whole earth...I am the force that lies hid in the winds, from me they take their source, and as a man may move because he breathes, so doth a fire burn but by my blast. All these live because I am in them and am of their life. I am wisdom. Mine is the blast of the thundered word by which all things were made. I permeate all things by that they may not die. I am life.- Hope I got it right and if so, what is this? - 19:38:27 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Carl: Sounds like magical myth time blow hard gods again. Yea, and I know of a perpetual motion machine!!!LOL - 21:55:12 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Is Ian a friend of BBB? They have the same MO. Or do crack pots like them all seem to blend in with their dogma. And such childish outbursts from them when they're losing! - 23:02:47 on 21 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I suspect Ian is Betty and Betty is Josh..is Jake..is Dan is..I forget them all. I agree, all have the same MO and it's just too coincidental. They are all arrogant, fantasy prone and throw tantrums not to mention they are just plain nuts! - 0:40:13 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Isn't life the answer? if not hydrogen? If not it must be Corny! - 0:43:27 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:I don't really know if Ian is Betty or not. I don't have much time to spend here and I'm not eager to spend it any longer on malicious problem posters. I'm also tired of nasty emails. Henceforth, if posters interfere with the intended purpose of this board or become too malicious or otherwise become a problem they will be banned. If banned they may approach me via email in a courteous manner to talk it over if they wish, or they may go attempt solo sexual maneuvers. So far I think I prefer they choose the second option. I've balked at having any rules here but we now have one rule: Post responsibly or go elsewhere. Maybe this sounds heavy-handed, but let me lay it out. I maintain this site as a place for atheists to speak freely and socialize. Persons with religious beliefs or personal agendas are welcome if they can recognize that they are guests here and can behave accordingly. Please speak up if you have a problem with any of this. - 3:53:57 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:On a brighter note, John has been kind enough to modify the script to allow HTML. The new script is being flogged and tamper-proofed and will soon be ready for prime time. - 3:56:52 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:So, far, I'm pretty proud of it. Hopefully we'll see it soon. - 6:10:14 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Not being computer literate, I don't know what HTML is but I'm eager to find out. I think that rule, rules! - 12:42:28 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Doug: That's great: HTML, I can't wait. So it's no graphics,so it must be HTML-1. That will help out alot and vastly improve the communictions factor of the board. Not that we don't have some really good posts now.MARLENE: here is a site for you to start and learn about HTML. At the bottom of the linked page is a online HTML tutorial to get you started. - 12:50:11 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:The idea of allowing HTML is to make available italics, bold type, and new lines and paragraphs. There are of course many other possibilities. Personally, I hope we don't get too carried away with it, and keep it simple. There will be another version of this page available for practicing and getting things to look just right before posting here, which I'll clear every couple of days. Maybe someone would be interested in doing a brief tutorial page? I'll do it if necessary but I'm not that fluent in HTML. Anything beyond the basics has me reaching for the books. - 13:40:53 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:It's not that it's no graphics, it that I added the ability for the script to remove tags. He could activate images if he wanted, but that can be abused. - 16:58:38 on 22 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Seems kind of dead here without Betty and Ian..Betty or Ian...whatever... :( Can you imagine how gawd awful heaven would be with no irritations! - 3:38:58 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL must have had a day off today..hopefully not sick. Well on the other hand..me being a little jealous of him being in sunny Cal while I'm shivering away in Winterpeg..I hope he's only a little bit sick. BTW, it's snowing here! - 3:42:16 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Have you been following the Catholic stuff lately? - 3:49:40 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Speaking of weather, we've just had our second tropical storm in 5 days here. School was canceled. - 4:04:08 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Test testtest - 4:29:15 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Hello all, in HTML! - 4:30:03 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Hey, Grant, what do you mean by Catholic stuff? Do you mean in Great Britain? - 4:31:49 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Go have a look here, John.Internet Infidels News Wire There are some stories about a change in position on condoms, and about a nun torture thing. - 4:36:40 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

:

Outdoor Shower by Sharon Olds

Crusted with dried brack, dusted with
sand, shaking from the cold Atlantic,
hair gristled with crystals, tangled with the
jellied palps of wrack--just step on this
slatted rack, pull the iron
handle of the forged world toward you.
The sluice courses, down your shin,
in a swirling motion, milk smoke, the
silky rush of fresh water, supple and alkaline.
Lids clenched, you reach for the small
oil torso of soap, run it
along your limbs and whirl it over the points of the
three-point shower star of sex:
Arm-pit, arm-pit, sex. Then the gritty
dial of your face, lather it, bring it
under the coursing, and open your mouth,
stone-sweet well-water,
and then the head,
delve it in so the sand around the scalp
dances like the ions at the edges of matter,
and the shampoo, mild soldier,
take her by the shoulders and pour the eel on your head. Then feel them going:
salp, chitin, diatom, dulse, the
blind ones of the ocean. Rinse until
it pours down your head like water, the dark
descendant pelt of land. Now open your eyes--
green lawn, silver pond,
grey dune, blue Atlantic,
the simple fields of God, liquid and solid.
Turn and turn in hot water,
column of heat in the cool wind
and sunny air, squeeze your eyes and then
open them again--look, it is still there,
the world as heaven, your body at the edge of it.

- 5:12:30 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Great job on the script, John. This is going to be a major improvement. - 5:17:12 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:This is neat! Who posted the poem? Anyway, GRANT- I've been following this sexual abuse by church workers for years. I grew up in an area where kids from the northern communities came down and lived in residences to attend school. My aunt worked as a cook in one of them. More on that later...If you mean the dope's head exorcist, exocising the demons from that girl in Italy, I've been following that too. Can you imagine the budget the church has to employ a chief of exocism! - 12:48:25 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:This is neat! Who posted the poem? Anyway, GRANT- I've been following this sexual abuse by church workers for years. I grew up in an area where kids from the northern communities came down and lived in residences to attend school. My aunt worked as a cook in one of them. More on that later...If you mean the dope's head exorcist, exocising the demons from that girl in Italy, I've been following that too. Can you imagine the budget the church has to employ a chief of exocism! - 12:49:42 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Have you seen the news of the siamese twins? Many people say, in defense of religion "Religion helps us deal with moral dilemmas in a way science doesn't", but I am convinced that religion actually creates more problems than it solves. The siamese twin case is a good example. Either both die naturally soon, or one dies as a result of surgery and one lives as a result of surgery. Is that so hard to decide? Why do we have to say, "Let God decide" when we know that "God" always decides in favor of what naturally would happen anyway. Do they think that God will magically make the child with no heart and lungs live? - 14:25:05 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:The test page is up, HTML Test Page - 14:32:25 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:I posted the poem, Marlene. Gotta work today. :( - 14:34:21 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Hello and Good morning Fellow Freethinkers - 14:38:28 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Testing Is the HTML on? - 14:41:26 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:I don't know. I did nothing. - 14:50:23 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- You have to check the little box at the bottom by the "add" button. It's unfortunate, but unfortunately required for security. - 14:53:39 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Hello and Good morning Fellow Freethinkers - 14:56:08 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Doug - you have to input it just like regular HTML and then check the box. If you don't check the box, it will replace all the tags with ampersand codes. - 14:57:39 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

jaywilson--hoping this works--:Nice Work, John and Grant! - 17:48:42 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:This should make the guestbook a little more colorful. The script is also setup to correct mistakes, just in case you forget a tag or two (or 150 - trust me, I tried). - 18:03:56 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Hello and Good Evening Fellow Freethinkers - 21:40:57 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:So if I want to make a break here;
It will put this on a separate line
E=MC² - 21:43:39 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:

 WATER IN BIOSPHERE                                              VOLUME                                                    THOUSANDS      PER CENT                                              OF KM3       OF TOTAL         RENEWAL TIME    Oceans                                    1,370,000         97.61            3100 yearsa      Polar ice, glaciers                          29,000          2.08          16,000 years  Groundwater (actively exchanged)b              4,000         0.29             300 years  Freshwater lakes                                125          0.009          1-100 yearsc  Saline lakes                                    104          0.008        10-1000 yearsc  Soil and subsoil moisture                        67          0.005            280 days  Rivers                                           1.2         0.00009        12-20 daysd       Atmospheric water vapor                          14          0.0009             9 days   a=Based on net evaporation from oceans b=Kalinin and Bykov (1969)estamated that the total grownwater to a depth     of 5 km in the earth's crust amounts to 60×106km3. This is a much greater     than the estimate by the USGS of 8.3×106km to a depth of 4 km3.     Only the volume of the upper, actively exchanged groundwater is included here. c= Renewal times for lakes vary directly with the volume and mean depth, and     inversely with the rate of discharge.     The absolute range for saline lakes is from days to thousands of years. d=Twelve days for rivers with relatively small catchment areas than     100,000 km2; 20 days for major rivers that drain directly to the sea.   The biblical narrative (Genesis 7:19) relates that flood water coverd "all the high    mountains under the whole heaven." But how much additional water was needed?    Computation, using the sphere-volume formular, 4/3pi r3, where the earth's    radius is 3,959 miles (6,371 km) and Mt. Everest's height is 29,029 feet or    5.5 miles (8,848 m), shows that an additioal 1,085 million cubic miles would    have been required to raise the sea level above Mt. Everest.     The ratio 1,085:316 gives a water volume that is 3.4 times greater than earth's    available ocean water inventory. Obviously, creationists must find additional    water--or  else drastically manipulate earth's topography. A similar computation of water needed to raise sea level above Mt. Ararat, where    Noah's ark is said to have landed, gives 2.2 additional ocean volumes. 

John:Had to scroll over quite a bit to see that one. - 21:59:17 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:John: The HTML doesn't take the >pre< tag.
I'll have to be creative when tying to mimic tables. - 23:03:46 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:If you look at the source, the

 tags are still there. In fact, unless you used table tags or image tags, or forgot to close tags, it leaves the text as you entered it. I think the problem is that a text box doesn't transmit hard returns to the script. Try 
 where you need a new line. - 23:46:25 on 23 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:tables are allowed, on the test board anyway. I'll do this board a little later.   - 0:31:44 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:Bug - 1:02:40 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

John:

Marlene...dah..help!:OKAY..How's you guys all doin this? I have no idea how to decorate like you people. - 2:54:32 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:y(x , t) = N ò_c dx(t)exp(tS[x(t)])
A little higher math - 4:33:54 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Now this is green with envy
I hope Marlene isn't seeing red at all this HTML.
Sometimes it's easier to cut and paste HTML codes from your browsers source page Marlene.
Most christains xians can't do this either. - 4:44:28 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Do you have Netscape or IE? If you have Nescape, look up top where is says VIEW. click it and you'll see "Page Source" it will show all the codes on this page, as well as the messages. Cut and past a few to try them out. Just remember, most need to have the shut off code at the end(the ones with or ) - 4:55:46 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: To make your name bold, cut and paste this code
Marlene
And it will look like this
Marlene - 5:00:25 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG I'm insulted! Comparing me to an xtian! Sheesh! LOL! Well I'm giving it a try, thanx! - 13:32:18 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG I'm insulted! Comparing me to an xtian! Sheesh! LOL! Well I'm giving it a try, thanx! - 13:32:25 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG Grant sent me a tutorial email but nothing on how to do this in color. I'm a black and white kind of girl but every once in awhile, I like a little color. What are the tags for color? - 13:41:49 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: to make something a color: let's say blue you would cut and Paste a blue code in here from the linked table.
cut and Paste a blue code in here from the linked table.
The blue code being 0040FF.
To make it brown :cut and cut and Paste a brown code in here from the linked table.
cut and Paste a brown code in here from the linked table.
The brown code being A04020
Pretty easy, and you're much smarter than the christians xians. - 17:27:28 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Actually, Marlene, to use blue you can just say if you like - most of the basic colors are able to be used by their name instead of their hex representaion (ie. "0040FF", which is hard to remember.) Here is a sample: This is blue. Just remember to close your tags (ie. ). - 18:16:14 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene: JOHN and DOUG Thank You, I think I'm getting it!! - 19:25:27 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene: JOHN and DOUG Thank You, I think I'm getting it!! - 19:25:41 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

: - 19:49:07 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

John:Marlene- make sure you type and not . Browsers treat as a , not a , and therefore your tag is not closed. - 19:52:26 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene...:JOHN- Thank you again, Grant sent me an email telling me the same thing. I'll practice some more on the blackboard page. - 20:57:53 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I just saw Bergman's The Seventh Seal (done in the 50's). It is very good. I highly recommend it. - 21:17:15 on 24 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene:
And now for some fancy stuff;
<*((_/DARWIN_\))><
<*((_/EVOLVE_\))><
<*((_/EVOLVE_\))>< - 1:10:50 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene: DOUG ooooooo you're such a show off, LOL! How'd you do that? - 1:53:32 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- I think I saw that movie a long time ago. Were you watching it on TV and if so, which channel? - 1:55:33 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- I agree about the siamese twins. Seems to me to be a way to avoid the responsibility of a decision. "Let God decide. God's will be done." The sad thing is, they really are not avoiding the responsibility. If they are successfull with their wish to do nothing they are still the ones responsible for the outcome. - 3:27:48 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene: No, we don't really watch TV here (my girlfriend and I), but we like to rent movies. There is never anything that good on TV....unless you count NOVA, on PBS. - 4:22:45 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Grant: Because I grew up fundamentalist Christian, I can normally understand where Christians are coming from - but this I can't. There are basically three outcomes:

• Both babies die
• One dies, one lives
• God intervenes and saves both

Grant:JOHN-- I have a fundie acquaintance who does not believe in birth control of any kind. When his eleventh child was born, the doctor told him his wife can not keep having children; she could die. (I don't know the particulars.) He says God obviously wants them to have the children, or she wouldn't get pregnant, and who should he listen to, a doctor or God? He now has thirteen children, and considers this evidence that God knows more than the doctor. I see this a little differently. I think he is avoiding responsibility for his penis, which, if this "God" fellow had any sense, would now be a pillar of salt or something.

This guy doesn't make much money. He relies on the charity of others for help with food, clothing, automobiles, etc., especially his church group, which I see as basically supporting his family with him. He is not shy about asking for things. He once asked me if I had an aquarium setup he could have because one of his sons wanted one and he couldn't afford one. Funny thing is, he considers the fact that people give him what he asks for as proof that God answers prayers, and as evidence he is doing the right thing.

Anyway, the point is, I think it's easy for people to avoid responsibility by passing it off on whoever is available, especially some malleable guy-in-the-sky. - 12:39:57 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:New toys huh? Lets see? - 14:52:56 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:Try again - 14:54:07 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:the 'toys' matter not to me, as long as I can post now and then that is all I need. - 14:55:54 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Well, over the weekend I watched the exorcist again. It was a fun movie, the local news reports tho'are doing their part in the hype by inviewing practicing exorcist priests and showing brief bits of people possessed with the usual disclaimers that, what you are about to see is intended for mature audiences. And o'course the priest type get to publically proclaim things for the power of jc. What is a thinking human to say when thoughtless topics such as this which requires no rigorous thought processes- demands the nonsuch, are given exposure and consideration? - 15:22:32 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

: hi - 18:35:44 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

: hey there - 18:52:01 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

:heck - 18:52:52 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

:hmmnow? - 18:53:48 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:_/DARWIN_\))><
I like it! - 19:33:30 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:oops. Darwin fish with no head. Maybe the Jesus fish got jealous and bit it off. - 19:34:36 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:The unique and the crucial feature of the case is that the twins share a common aorta. That enables Jodie's heart to pump the blood she oxygenates through Mary's body as Mary's heart and lungs have no capacity to sustain life. She would have died probably in the womb but certainly at birth but for the life-sustaining support she received from her sister. The sad fact is that she lives on borrowed time, all of it borrowed from her sister. She is incapable of independent existence. She is designated for death. Doing the work for two imposes a terrible strain on Jodie's heart. It is common ground that her heart will fail and she will suffer a cardiac arrest. She is not expected to live more than three to six months, or perhaps a little longer. Mary's death will inevitably follow hers. It is not in dispute that the twins can be separated without significant risk to Jodie. That will leave Jodie living a more or less normal life, not without its problems, of course, and no one will shoulder the burden of those difficulties more than these devoted parents, especially as the facilities at home do not match the services they can enjoy here. The separation will result in certain death for Mary within minutes of the common aorta being severed. Thus in deciding whether or not to consent to this operation the parents have had to confront the cruel reality that surgery will save Jodie but it will kill Mary. I would think it would only make sense to at least save one of the girls. If the parents plan to pray for some miracle, I can give them this advice, "nothing fails like prayer". - 19:35:19 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- How are you getting those strokes in beside Darwin? - 19:37:36 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Having fun, LOL! Grant has given me a tutorial email on HTML and John and Doug have helped me with the color thing. If you need a copy of the instructions from Grant, mail me. - 19:39:28 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Maybe this guy has a few relations up here. The guy up the road from me had a couple less kids, 9, but now he's asking for his grandchildren who, with their parents, all live in " his" house..(oh I forgot to mention the nephew and niece they get foster money for tax free), that my tax dollars has paid for, not to mention the welfare the guy collects, as well as the food bank stuff and the mythmas hampers and the van the church has given him. To top it, the guy has his own weed patch that he profits from without having to pay any taxes. They don't talk to me because I always ask him "did you find a job yet, John, I hope so" - 19:48:46 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Those siamese kids thats a tough call. Why the court has to stepin is clearly another issue. But, perhaps that is a sign of the times. The "state" as a thing has the what concern or compelling issue in the matter? Seems I have heard some references to the catholic angle in that siamese-kid story. If yes, then it looks like that could described as another battle of the titans; The state versus the church. It looks like the last man and woman on earth will be, of the atheist pursuasion? Why? Well, the legal system has a basis that says specifically non-theistic types are not, cannot be citisens. The church has no use for such. And if the atheist is not protected by being part of a "corporation", what else can an atheist be but the last real live only a man only a woman, responsible for themselves? - 20:31:35 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Heck! I rambled that time eh?It is the parent's say, but if they decide, elsewhere the question arose is that like slavery? Also, would the parents then be the gods? Or, too, my peeve, what would the survivor add to to the gene human gene-pool? On the later point, the survivor of course will be able to produce, correct? If the survivor is without reproductive capabilities then it is as just a thing alive, has it become but an enslaved thing, to please its gods which kept it alive? Or if without reproductive tools could it reproduce in the 'dolly the sheep' process? - 21:05:51 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I haven't a problem if the parents make a responsible decision but praying to a non-existant entity to make the decision for them isn't very responsible IMO. - 21:34:23 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene - If you look at the source of the darwin fish you can see that Doug used the tags - that makes the text "DARWIN" superscript. So it's not that the legs dangle, it's the text that is smaller and higher, giving that illusion.
Open - Being someone who does not believe that human life is sacred, I have no problem with a decision that lets the children die. It is the lack of reason and responsibility that bothers me. If the state steps in and forces the children to be safe, however, they should also be ready to foot the enormous medical bills that sre sure to crop up from the living child. - 21:49:38 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: On another matter but still church related, a thing I referred to as clever at another chat site. Perhaps some of you have heard about the longest winning streak in HS football at DeLaSalle? That HS is connected\funded to a nearby winnery and its operations entrusted to the catholics. The football program there hasn't lost a game in 8 years. In the beginning the newspapers would now and then refer to some father so-and-so or some aspect of faith. But as assorted records began to fall to their program the eclessiastics faded from the reports. Nowadays, I can't remember when last the ecclessiastics were mentioned in regard to that thing. They the catholics are clever. In the recent reports I've yet to see that team praying nor is there a priest like person around or near them. What the reports do mention with great regularity is the work and effort the young fellas put into that on going effort. Will these reports and people ever attribute this kind of deed to a god or the power of jc? Perhaps, they don't do it now, they the catholics know it would belittle them greatly? There is no god, nor godthing of anykind. - 22:26:43 on 25 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- The RC's and the church that I HAD to go to when I was a kid, Anglican (not too much difference in them really other than the king or queen of England is head of the church rather than the Dope, Henry wanted it that way for his own little selfish reasons, lol) don't pray for material things or things that are..how would one say...self indulgent, like winning a game or winning a beauty pagent and the like. At least the members aren't really responsible for that, the priest or reverend looks after the majority of it. Only the fundies members get into praying for whatever strikes their fancy. - 0:09:32 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- HA! Now I can show off just like <*((^/Doug\! - 0:13:14 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:OOPS! No tail, I shall try again <*((/^Doug\))<> - 0:16:36 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:There He is! JOHN- I agree, but even if these parents did make the decision that makes the most sense, I think the state should help out with the medical bills anyway. How can you tell I'm form Canada, lol! I'm not happy with our system as it is now as I think a two tier system would allow people better health care with more money in the system but when it comes to something like this child, one shouldn't have to worry about medical bills. - 0:23:01 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Sort of still along the lines of my peeve, that being a contribution the surviing siamese adds to the gene pool, I read a newsreport yesterday that somewhere someone said a human male could have a baby. The theoretical baby would be of the egg stuff that is in the human male. I was not stunned by the prospect having read Weininger's book, "Sex and Character" published in 1904. The information that book houses in contemporary science-like publications appears selectively, almost guardedly. Now if the prospect of an asexual reproductive process is within sight of the bioengineer one may ask, in what direction of the evolutionary process does that move, forward or backward? Also, the thing of that reproduction process is it the mere replication of existant genes, nothing else is added? What are the particular reservations of the church on prospects of bioengineering? The church which still bases its opinion of the human organism on myths and superstitions of herders still has force, note the olympic drug for muscle enhancement scandals. Here, the athletes are very human and the drugs or whatever, I guess make today's human creature a better and improved thing than those ancient herders? - 16:04:01 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Grant: The search for meaning :-) :CARL-- Am I reading into your posts a simultanious eugenic leaning and distaste for state intervention in such matters? How do you view individual worth in relation to contribution to the gene pool? - 16:37:34 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene...here's the whole story on that Carl:LONDON (Reuters) - Male couples could in future conceive their own children, a leading British scientist said on Monday. Calum MacKellar, a lecturer in bioethics and biochemistry at Edinburgh University, said male chromosomes could be inserted into a woman's egg and then fertilized with male sperm. "This is a technique that would be called egg nucleus transfer," he said. A healthy egg of a woman would be emptied of its genetic material and then chromosomes from a sperm could be inserted, creating "a sort of a male egg. "Then you could fertilize this male egg with sperm from another man," MacKellar told BBC radio. A surrogate mother would then be needed to bring to full term a child conceived in the laboratory using the egg nucleus transfer technique. MacKellar described the science involved as realistic but added: "It's not yet possible and I am sure it's going to take quite a few years before it is possible." He said scientists had already tried the technique with mice but had not developed it. "But some scientists are quite optimistic that this could be a possibility," said MacKellar, who runs European Bioethical Research, a non-profit body. Obstacles remained, he said, as an embryo created using only male DNA lacked the maternal genes required for it to develop normally."" .....I think it will have little, if any, impact on evolution as a whole. It won't change anything genetically. - 17:30:54 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I understand that the human growth hormone, which does inhance muscle growth, is not a substance that is detectable in any testing that would be taking place, mainly, I suppose because it's naturally occuring in the human body. I'm no expert on genetics but I would have to wonder that if one took this hormone during all their reproductive days, would that alter the passing on of their genetic code? And if so, how? If enough people did this it would have an impact on our evolution, no? - 17:44:28 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

:test - 19:26:35 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Well if there are "remaining obstacles", then a nice smile, some sweet nothings said, a gentle but guiding hand oughta'still come in handy. At another chatsite was a rebuttal to the above account, according to it research has disclosed such an occurance- human male reproduction, is not possible. Also at that other site is a link to a MA newsstory about same sex education in the public schools of that state. According to the report 'teachers' show films of such acts and present instruction on proper procedures for satisfying same sex encounters. Pretty kinky stuff. Wonder if that could mean the NAMBLA case will get tossed? - 20:49:34 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I don't think the gene pool could care less of what the individual worth might be. Individual worth, hmmm? that has the tint of heavenly desires. An individual's worth now that looks like a matter to be decided by whomever is in control. Or, on the other hand who controls the gene pool? Do scientists seek that? The theists have they resigned or enhanced their individual worth for their tinted desire? On this question I read an interesting passage in Ethan Allens book,"Reason; The Only Oracle of Man". Therein he wrote way back when that man can not know god, for that would mean it was no longer god. That conveyed truckloads to me why theists won't say what their godthing is or paint it in such grandiose- literally, out of mind terms. Must I or someone say the for all of the gene pool? - 22:09:58 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Grant Curiouser and curiouser (me, that is) :CARL-- I agree that the gene pool is indifferent, but what about you? - 23:26:54 on 26 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Who is this cold harded Gene Pool. Is he a fundy? Oh, never mind. LOL!
The gene pool is situation of the life process that represents the advancement of each sucessful reproduction towards the next reproduction. In other words: if you don't reproduce viable offspring your genes are out, you bodies representatives (genes) are extinct when you die. - 12:43:54 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Would you know the answer to the growth hormone question? - 13:42:47 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene - the taking of a substance (unless it is radioactive or the like) will not change your genetic code. The idea that something can modify your genetic code as you live is an old idea, and was popular before Mendel's principles on inheretance were widely accepted. You genetic code, except for variations caused by very very extreme circumstances, is fixed. And even then, it won't change the same way in all cells. That is what causes cancer. - 15:00:19 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I- A view of individual worth; II- Gene's pool. The view of both well, for my simple mind these are meaningful, are expressed even, after any rain. The puddles that remain in ground depressions, how long do these last as the clouds move away and dissipate before the sun? That pool one chooses to sit and watch lets declare it the human's gene pool. What am I? In that pool I am may be a water droplet or even just the basic H20 combination. That means nothing I do or think or whatever, will improve that puddle or get me out of it, excuse me that human gene pool. Well, when the sun does what it does to that pretty little rain puddle, it is ended. - 15:25:10 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:JOHN, thanks for mentioning the Mendel view of the puddle that is the human's gene pool. Of the individual's worth GRANT, that can take place only within the confines of and among the human creatures. That looks like the view of part I above, necessarily excludes the gene pool. But GRANT, as a human that learns I can "pass-on" an individual worth. if that is the point for which you pryingly inquire. The selfish gene in me does have a full array of, the complete compliment of psychological beings. The individual worth I pass-on that is of me which is of that outside me, I describe via the borrowed term, "time-binding". This is how one's ancestors go on, that is'til the puddle evaporates. - 15:56:00 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: If enough people took this it would only have a effect if they reproduce. But what one does to one self doesn't effect the gene pool. It's what you have already that effects the gene pool. EX:Some people may get cancer from taking the hormone at a early age and not reproduce. This would squeeze those "inferior"(genes to a situation) ones out.And the ones who thrive on the hormone will dominate the gene pool. - 20:16:17 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Then on the matter what makes one tick and does that have anything to do with the G spot? Well barring all myth and superstition, any organism has A- a past, B- a now, and C- a future. Filling or feeding or making up any one of these points during one's existence is simply all that one experiences. Do I include the religious experience, of course delusions serve some quite well, e.g., B.Graham, the pope, political types, etc.etc. However, do any of these kinds of individuals improve the G spot? With all the whatever others say that those individuals add to the world, what have they really done? I point to them because you ask me of "my worth"- I guess, in relation to the G spot. Obviously, I can't compare me to the "influences" of such individuals, but can they or any other so called "blue-blooded" individual improve the G spot? - 22:22:17 on 27 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:DOUG and JOHN- Thank you for your answers. Doug, are you saying that if most everyone took the homone and some didn't die of cancer that when they reproduced that their offspring would be genetically more likely to thrive as maybe stronger individuals? Truthfully, this is what I was thinking and I may be reading that into your answer because John suggests that our genes wouldn't change. I guess I would have to question that as many other things have been gentically altered with changing their natural chemistry but increasing a certain chemical or decreasing it. - 1:16:39 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN and DOUG- That should have been "by" instead of "but"..sorry. - 1:18:31 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene..gotta wonder how good a relationship he had with man's best friend:ALL- Can you believe the latest in American politics? People asking what kind of guy Gore truly is when even his dog ran away from home! - 1:21:01 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- True, the sun could dry up our gene pool just like that! One never knows...after all the dinosaurs were here about 600 times longer than we've been and Pouff! they were gone... at least the biguns. - 1:24:06 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Marlene - I think what Doug is saying is that the hormone theoretically increases the probability that person will breed successfully, due to increased strength and generally reproductive fitness. This is regardless of the person's genetic makeup, and does not change it. - 2:17:00 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Our gene pool Is changing every time we have off spring. The combinations of genes are endless. Remember that there are many different factors all working at once to keep the GP dynamic.If we humans isolate our gene pools into two separate envirnments:one the same old planet Earth and the other planet X, we might have a new species from the planet X group after a time.As the requirements for survival are very different on planet X , it would reason that Humans would be stressed; their gene pool might favor something that wouldn't survive on planet Earth.In evolution the time separating two or more species is call "distance". With Wolve's and domestic dogs the distance isn't great at all. The can interbreed. But if left to natures devices won't interbreed and will be more geneticly distant. Dogs are domestic and around humans; wolves on the other hand shy away from humans; this is the big separation point between the two species.Geneticly over time wolves and dogs will differ greatly. The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is genetic "distance". It's just as simple as that. - 2:39:36 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN- Thanks again. So one would have to actually have genetic changes in all cells to pass on a trait such as strength...am I getting it now? I guess what I was thinking of is the defects, if you will, of children born who's mother has taken a chemical of some sort. - 2:49:36 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Yikes, DOUG, you're going to think I'm as dumb as an X again with my former post! LOL - 2:53:53 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:My mind is just not with it today. A 17 year old girl who spent a lot of time with her grandparents who live across the road from me died today as a result of taking the drug, ecstasy. When one lives in a rural area like I live in the kids in the neighborhood all play with one another even if there is a few years difference in their ages. That little girl use to come an play here a lot in the summer. It's so sad someone so young dies as a result of taking a stupid drug. - 3:01:01 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: What an interesting image, that reproductive success can be determined by strength and fitness. Last night I watched a feature on the Komodo dragons. The commentator said that when the dragons reproduce, the strongest of the males and the most knowing of the females- having found a safe nest site, will reproduce. The image they showed of the dragons was of females running off the less experienced females and of course other creatures. The males wrestled standing upright on their hind legs throwing each other down until one was forced to stay laying on the ground, the winner on top and with its claws raking the looser. Can you imagine how much stronger the human animal would be if the weak were in like manner deprived of reproduction? Or, are we all supposed to, ala R.King, "just get along"? - 15:51:56 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Since humans are rather weak in their physical attributes, I would think it would be intelligence that would be the trait that would be top among the most successful to thrive but I would think social abilities would be important too. - 17:32:29 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:Has anyone seen this one? - 17:50:03 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

carl:MARLENE: death is weird that way, even tho'the person was only someone on the peripheral of your awareness, if they were there often enough then one will note their absence. We all have that rendezvous, perhaps that regret is for ourselves and that eventual day to come? - 21:00:23 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:No, I don't think so. I learned today that she was 16 instead of 17 for one thing. The other thing was that she had taken 3 hits of morphine and tylenol 3 as well as the ecstasy. I think the regret is that it is such a waste of life. The young lady could have many happy days ahead of her if she could have gotten through the teen years. - 21:42:16 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I am reading this book,"A Contribution to The Theory of an Organism" by an Australian biologist. It was composed in the 1950's or so based on Whitehead's Process and Reality. One of his lines states that science broke the human mind away from "animism", that it was that mindset which had hampered the human mind from developing sooner. I found that interesting. The author is from Australia and in the learning process of the author, could it be that process lacked or viewed religious inclinations in a lesser light? The only other prior paradigm I saw this treatment, was in books by Marx and Engels, especially Engels. I saw references to animism in some early books composed of human migration but these were USA connected so they invariably, it seemed, had to mention a religious connection. But then, you know the story in the bible of the golden calf and the one about the sheeps blood gettin'swabbed on the door, isn't it interesting that those are clearly examples of animism. Perhaps we western types have been hoodwinked, been fed religious propaganda? - 22:08:58 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Carl, don't forget the snakes in Exodus and the magic fish that swallowed Jonah. - 23:58:22 on 28 Sep 100 GMT

Marlene:JOHN and CARL- And the pigs that became possessed by demons in the NT, thanks to kindly ole JC. Not to mention, of course, my favorite, the bear that tore apart the little children with orders from godman. All this because they laughed at Elisha's bald head. You'd think that ole know-it-all godman would have talked to the children and explained that bald would some day be in fashion in the late 1990s but Nooooo...godman didn't like children. Besides this ghastly deed, he brought plagues and all kinds of pain on little ones and people worship this guy..sheesh! - 0:34:17 on 29 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:
I finally got a BBS working on my site!
If you would, I'd appreciate it if everybody that had a spare minute would head on over to Messiah Mickey to register for my new board. I just need to test it, and if you'd like to post, that'd be great. the URL is
http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rdm5570/YaBB.pl
Thanks. - 4:19:08 on 29 Sep 100 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Pondering this human thing after the impression as it was either implicitly put forward or begged the question by GRANT for "my part" in the posts above. That impression seemed to me to concern the idea of what is the human creature? Well, I've read some very interesting things all composed by humans of course. This site as an atheist haven allows one as myself to express ideas unique to myself and those of like mind, other atheists, can review and freely judge these ideas as expressions of and for the mere existence of another living creature. At other chat-sites I would have to expound within specific definitions or along pre-determined constraints or suffer expulsion and for sure a misunderstanding. If I recall correctly isn't GRANT one who has sort of sidled up to a metacognitive POV? If yes then perhaps at this time my views and so will follow my response, may be found in the opposite direction. The creature that we are lives of course and the only issues before us, is how did that happen and what will happen when our living ends. The other ideas of the human is that its an inhuman thing, actually given its "life" by an invisible unknowable source. That life is so "fantastic" it is the which becomes, as how some humans see feel know that It which they are. That looks like to me to be the point at where the idea of what is life has been split from the form of livingthing. And again, the living is just of that puddle. On the other hand if life is just a doing thing, as in it is mere energy in motion it can be a very knowable thing, yes? - 18:49:07 on 29 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:Thanks for registering on my board. I hope that the BB format will be more inclusive than the old format. - 20:34:06 on 30 Sep 100 GMT

Grant:JOHN-- That's a pretty nice setup, but its seems a shame to lose the novelty of a discussion going on in the guestbook. :-) - 22:03:55 on 30 Sep 100 GMT

John Matney:I'm going to keep the old guestbook up, so that people can read the old discussions. I have received emails saying that my site is an inappropriate way to comment on religion, but my gustbook is proof that it stirred up conversation. But, it's time for progress to take over.... - 23:58:04 on 30 Sep 100 GMT