why I believe in God
Dale Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
biology and physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
how does the soul interact with the material realm? it does so by the
intervention of God, when you will your body to move, God moves your
body, the material realm is simply a projection of God's will, there is
no real thing such as physics or biology, ask yourself how your body
moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
nervous system, do you?
early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
God is just like us, except he has domain as well as will, he has needs
and wants, and orchestrates reality to serve his purposes as well as ours
for instance, if there was not suffering, there would never be the joy of
invention and overcoming suffering, there is a logical purpose for all
things in God's will, in the end of all consideration
cause and effect goes in cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
raven1
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
I've taken plenty of LSD, but I stopped tripping once it was done.
You, on the other hand...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Steve Marshall
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote
> free will implies an indeterminate reality
What makes you think you have free will?
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physics
Says who ???
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
>
> how does the soul interact with the material realm? it does so by the
> intervention of God, when you will your body to move, God moves your
> body, the material realm is simply a projection of God's will, there is
> no real thing such as physics or biology, ask yourself how your body
> moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
> nervous system, do you?
>
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
> this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
> have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
> auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
Utter nonsense. You frazzle your brain and you tell us you know what was
going on ? Don't be so bloody stupid.
Steve M
John Harshman
[snip]
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
> this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
> have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
> auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
[snip]
Higgamus hoggamus, to quote Aldous Huxley.
Sean Carroll
Are you a human male? A human male named Constantine once saw a flaming
cross in the sky and heard a voice booming out the words 'In hoc signo
vinces', and immediately became convinced that it proved Christianity
was the one true religion. Ergo, all human males must be raving lunatics
without basic critical faculties who will believe in any fool thing that
crosses their minds.
'What a complete load of crap', to quote Gregory House.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'What else turns you on? Drugs? Casual sex? Rough sex? ... Casual rough
sex? I'm a doctor, I need to know.' --Dr Gregory House
Gerry Murphy
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
<snip>
I'm sorry. Have you mistaken me for someone who gives a shit?
Sir Frederick
See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy
Notice I said APPLIED.
The human condition makes full use of hubris and deceit,
you included.
CreateThis
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>... when you will your body to move, God moves your body
Mm hm.
>early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
>this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
>have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
>auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
Count your blessings. Most god-addicted creationists don't have a
clue why they're nuts.
CT
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Dale Kelly wrote:
>
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
>>>this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
>>>have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
>>>auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
>>
>>[snip]
>
>
>>Higgamus hoggamus, to quote Aldous Huxley.
>
>
> Are you a human male? A human male named Constantine once saw a flaming
> cross in the sky and heard a voice booming out the words 'In hoc signo
> vinces', and immediately became convinced that it proved Christianity
> was the one true religion.
Actually, no. He had trouble figuring out whose sign it was, and Mithra
was one option for a while. He didn't become a Christian until he was on
his deathbed, if then.
> Ergo, all human males must be raving lunatics
> without basic critical faculties who will believe in any fool thing that
> crosses their minds.
To a first approximation that seems to be true. How else to explain the
state of the world?
> 'What a complete load of crap', to quote Gregory House.
"Thick as a whale sandwich", to quote another Hugh Laurie character.
dkomo
This is all a joke, right? I bet you consider yourself quite the Merry
Prankster prowling Usenet aboard a Magic Bus.
Desertphile
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> free will implies an indeterminate reality
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Therefore "free will" does not exist. Thank you, but we knew that
already.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Ross Langerak
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
Haven't we already discussed this? Maybe you weren't there, but we
certainly were.
You keep posting the same assertions over and over again, but rather than
support these assertions with reasoning or evidence or responses to your
critics, you post a couple of one-liners and then run away to start another
thread. That's what you did in your last thread. And the one before that.
And the one before that.
You run away rather than defend your posts. That tells me that you are a
coward. You post the same assertions even though you know we've already
raised doubts about them. That tells me that you are a liar. You have no
integrity. Do you really think that the people watching this group haven't
noticed?
Rich Townsend
Nope, have a look at Dale's website. He's quite the fruitcake he comes across as.
Lee Oswald Ving
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another
> soul,
That is, "Earlier in my life, with my 5-HT2a receptors artificially
scrambled to hell and back, I had an hallucination that..."
VS Prasad
human beings. One researcher proposed the expression "intelligent
animal". After advanced studies on monkeys, it was dropped. Another
researcher proposed "tool using animal". After observing some animals
making wooden tools and sharpening them with knife like stones, it
was dropped. Another researcher proposed "weapon using animal". A
decade ago, a rare film was shot by an amateur in an African forest.
One short monkey was hit very badly by a big monkey. The short monkey
prepared a wooden knife using stones and hid it on the top of a tree.
After some days, when the big monkey came to attack the short monkey,
it ran up to the tree for the weapon it has hid and killed the big
monkey. The one thing that the anthropologists found with any group
of human beings, even if they did not have contacts with the out side
world for thousands of years, is spirituality with some form of
religion. So, man is a "spiritual animal" if you want to call him
that way.
The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so named because he has
"Manas" a mind higher than that of the animals which realises the
divinity in creation. It was present since the creation of human
beings. Religion is the characteristic feature of most of the human
beings. It was not attained through reasoning using mind. Illiterate
tribes located in inaccessible forests also have religion. It is as
eternal and and as unchanging as the Almighty. Disbelief by a few
will not affect it.
ZerkonX
> God is just like us..
How could it be otherwise?
.
Grandbank
(snip)
> Religion is the characteristic feature of most of the human
> beings. It was not attained through reasoning using mind. Illiterate
> tribes located in inaccessible forests also have religion. It is as
> eternal and and as unchanging as the Almighty. Disbelief by a few
> will not affect it.
Try working on the difference between "religion" and "the almighty".
KP
Kermit
Noting that religion is universal among all cultures (but not all
individuals) does indicate that it is a natural condition for human
beings. The fact that all cultures have different *contents to their
religious myths argues strongly against any of them being literally
true. Whether they are metaphorically or psychologically true is still
undetermined.
Humans also have a sweet tooth, which is universal, and was beneficial
in paleolithic times, but has become increasingly detrimental as
technology advances.
I note that the evidence indicates that human development has produced
religion first, then art, and only in historical time science. Perhaps
this indicate progress. (I understand that properly interpreting the
motivations for human behavior in the past is pretty iffy.)
Kermit
Kermit
> free will implies an indeterminate realityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
What is free will? I am, as far as I can tell, completely determined,
and make my own choices (according to the current interaction of
various needs and motives). Do you mean there are no reasons for your
behavior?
>
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
But apparently it has. Which is more likely - you are wrong, or the
evidence?
>
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
Or magic, or aliens, or an increasingly understood biological process,
or any other conceivable mechanism which you do not acknowledge.
>
> how does the soul interact with the material realm? it does so by the
> intervention of God, when you will your body to move, God moves your
> body, the material realm is simply a projection of God's will, there is
> no real thing such as physics or biology, ask yourself how your body
> moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
> nervous system, do you?
I *am* my central nervous system.
>
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
Do you have objectively verifiable evidence for this? The psych ward I
worked on had several people who thought they (or others) were
telepathic. Yet there was no verifiable data supporting their claims,
and much supporting the hypothesis that they were psychotic. LSD can
mimic psychosis in many ways. It is a strong medicine, and if you do
not consider your experiences with a skeptical eye you are more likely
to fall into self-deception than learn from them.
> this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
> have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
> auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
Yes, several people on the psych ward heard voices, believed
unverifiable things, and thought themselves more important than they
were.
>
> God is just like us, except he has domain as well as will, he has needs
> and wants, and orchestrates reality to serve his purposes as well as ours
You are not the first person to think that the Creator of the Universe
shares your prejudices.
>
> for instance, if there was not suffering, there would never be the joy of
> invention and overcoming suffering, there is a logical purpose for all
> things in God's will, in the end of all consideration
Yes. When I was nine I looked forward to understanding the mysteries.
Unfortunately, by the time I was thirteen I realized that the adults
in my church were all insane. The problem was not the sublime nature
of some of the myths. The insanity results when people try to
interpret them concretely. When you get to the point where you have to
deny reality to cling to your beliefs, it is time to drop the beliefs.
>
> cause and effect goes in cycleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Kermit
Sean Carroll
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>>God is just like us..
> How could it be otherwise?
'God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned
the compliment.' --'Inherit the Wind'
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Sometimes the best gift is the gift of never seeing you again.' --Dr
Gregory House
Roger Pearse
wrote:
> > Are you a human male? A human male named Constantine once saw a flaming
> > cross in the sky and heard a voice booming out the words 'In hoc signo
> > vinces', and immediately became convinced that it proved Christianity
> > was the one true religion.
>
> Actually, no. He had trouble figuring out whose sign it was, andMithra
> was one option for a while.
No evidence for this statement exists, tho.
> He didn't become a Christian until he was on
> his deathbed, if then.
Actually this story was made up around 1850 for political reasons.
His policies as emperor indicate that he was a very enthusiastic
Christian, albeit a tough and brutal man as all late emperors were.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
LT
> free will implies an indeterminate realityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
>
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
>
> how does the soul interact with the material realm? it does so by the
> intervention of God, when you will your body to move, God moves your
> body, the material realm is simply a projection of God's will, there is
> no real thing such as physics or biology, ask yourself how your body
> moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
> nervous system, do you?
>
> early in my life, on LSD,
*snip*
Troll.
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
LT
skyeyes
> free will implies an indeterminate realityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Having gone through menopause, I no longer believe in free will.
Never was a huge believer in it even before then.
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
Please demonstrate why.
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
Please demonstrate why. Bald assertions don't cut it, Lambchop.
> how does the soul interact with the material realm? it does so by the
> intervention of God, when you will your body to move, God moves your
> body, the material realm is simply a projection of God's will, there is
> no real thing such as physics or biology, ask yourself how your body
> moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
> nervous system, do you?
Please define the soul, then provide evidence that such a thing
actually exists as is more than simply a theological conceit.
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
That explains *so* much.
> this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
> have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
> auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
>
> God is just like us, except he has domain as well as will, he has needs
> and wants, and orchestrates reality to serve his purposes as well as ours
Please provide your definition of "God," then provide evidence that
such a critter actually exists.
<Snip remaining drivel>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
collec...@googlemail.com
women. The only reason women didn't work as much as men before, is
because they didn't want to. Most likely because work wasn't so easy
as it is today.
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/bax/1895/07/woman.htm
Ernest Belfort Bax
The Woman Question
(27 July 1895)
The Woman Question, Justice, 27th July, 1895, p.6.
Transcribed by Ted Crawford.
Marked up by Einde O'Callaghan for the Marxists' Internet Archive.
Taking a hint from the suggestion of "TATTLER" a few weeks ago in
Justice that it is time above question was fairly thrashed out among
Socialists the editor of Justice has invited me to briefly state my
views.
Up till quite recently Socialists like Radicals other advanced
persons, were supposed, as a matter of course, to swallow that
conventional lie of modern civilisation - the theory of "woman the
victim of man's oppression." This dogma, which, like the doctrine of
Manchester school, that the ideal of human liberty is attained under
the capitalistic regime of free industrial and commercial competition,
has dominated the thought of the Anglo-Saxon race for two generations
and has been the chief instrument in effecting a revolution which has
placed the whole judicial and administrative machinery of the country
at the disposal of one sex oppress the other (in all causes, i.e. into
which the sex question prominently enters.) Let us look at the present
condition of this so-called "victim."
While under our present marriage laws the wife is under no obligation
to maintain the husband, not even though she have money and he be
destitute (saving the ratepayer's right to be recouped for his
maintenance in the workhouse) the husband is bound at criminal law to
maintain his wife in comfort under all circumstances. Hitherto
exception has been made in the case of adultery on the part of wife.
Now, in a Bill before Parliament this last reservation is proposed to
be virtually abrogated by a "caoutchouc" paragraph which enforces
"alimony" where the husband can be shown by his defect or "misconduct
to have contributed to the adultery. "
Thus, if a man has ever had a dispute with his wife or even come home
late, as in a recent case, he will presumably have, "by defect or
misconduct, contributed to the adultery;" just as now if a man ever
had words with his wife and raised his voice above its normal pitch or
come home late he may deemed to have committed technical cruelty
entitling the said wife to separation or divorce with "alimony."
2. A wife is perfectly free to leave her husband at will, and he has
no remedy (Jackson case). If a husband leaves his wife she can compel
him to surrender to her a third of his income or earnings, and for
desertion, i.e., for leaving her without money, he can be punished
with hard labour.
3. A husband is further liable for her debts and her civil
delinquencies (torts).
4. A husband cannot obtain relief against a wife for any act,
negligence, or language of hers, while for any one of these
considerations she can get judicial separation, exclusive rights over
the children, if any, and a third of his income or earrings for
herself, with so much per head in addition for each child. Thus if a
man gives his wife an unfriendly pat on the cheek with his open hand
she can get established comfortably for life on the fruits of his
labour; if, on the contrary, she smashes his head in with a poker she
may be fined five shillings which the injured husband has to pay; and
should he succeed in obtaining a separation it is only on, condition
of his keeping the virago in comfortable idleness.
A little illustration will bring home to the reader this complete
serfdom of the husband to the wife under our marriage laws. A man, not
long ago, obtain the offer of employment in America. His wife did wish
him to go. Not having any money or work home he insisted. The wife who
had money of own, and to whom he moreover gave £25 with promise of
more on his arrival at his destination, went straight to the
Guardians, had him arrested on board ship at Southampton, dragged
before the magistrate, and sentenced to three months hard labour. The
sentence was subseqently quashed after the man had been in gaol and
was ruined. Most feudal barons would surely have been satisfied with
such powers as this over their "villeins."
At criminal law it is a well-known fact which anyone may verify by the
records of the courts that women enjoy an almost complete immunity for
all offences committed against men, as such. For assault, perjury, and
blackmailing practised on men, women are virtually never even
prosecuted, let alone convicted. On the other hard, savage and
vindictive laws, savagely and vindictively enforced by judges are
dealt out to men for the most trifling assaults or other offences
committed against women. In fact it seems that the express aim of the
modern political woman and her "Women's" Associations is to deprive
men of the last shred of protection against criminal women with a view
of giving the latter every facility for exercising their calling.
If one looks at the matter fairly, one surely cannot be surprised at
occasional violence committed on women - wife assaults, wife murders,
&c. Legalised tyranny and inequality has always throughout history led
to sporadic outbursts of brutality on the side of its victims. It is
always so, and always will be so.
Such is the present position of advantage enjoyed by women by virtue
of their sex. Such are the facts as opposed to the popular "legend" on
the subject. Space forbids my further analysing the present subjection
at law of men to women in this article, which is the more unnecessary
as I have elaborated the subject in further detail elsewhere.
Of course, under Socialism, the side of the question based on property
falls away. Our existing infamous marriage laws must disappear when
both sexes are alike economically free. When once this is so, a
perfectly free marriage, without let or hindrance, would necessarily
result. Should, as Herbert Burrows seems to have suggested, a bastard
"public opinion" try any games on of attempting by ostracism to supply
the place of the defunct coercive legal bond in enforcing any special
form of marriage, such as monogamy, we shall have to do our best to
strangle that "public opinion" as quickly as possible. If driven to
it, even opponents might combine in an association whose members
pledged themselves (like the Oneida Creekers), to marital relations
strictly limited to a fixed period, say six months. To thus raise anti-
monogamy to the level of a principle would surely be a pity as a
result of the "cussedness" of trying to compel outward conformity to
monogamy among people whose temperaments were unsuited to it. In using
the ugly word "lust" for any form of marriage he does not like,
Herbert Burrows resembles the respectable bourgeois of my boyhood's
days who used to stigmatise every form of liberty he did not like
(e.g., the right of workmen to combine) as "licence." No, friend
Herbert, I trust a society even half-way into Socialism will be past
being caught with that sort of chaff.
At the same time I regard it as highly probable that for a long while
to come voluntary monogamy (voluntary, in fact, and not in name
merely) will be the dominant form of the sexual relation. The attempt
to enforce it, however, whether by law or "public opinion," will I am
equally convinced be contrary to the whole spirit of a reasonable
society. To make out that there is an absolute and immutable moral
superiority in monogamy irrespective of temperament or circumstances
over every other form of sexual relation is surely absurd. Only by
society encouraging perfect freedom can the most perfect form of the
sexual relation, that best adapted to human needs, be wrought out.
Monogamy, like every other institution, will have to make good its
case by showing its superiority to other forms, and not by the aid of
external tyranny, whether juridical or social.
Before concluding this article I would point out what is liable to be
overlooked, viz., that the coercive effect of "public opinion" could
only be operative in a Socialist society when the whole community was
practically unanimous in condemning a course of conduct and not in
defence of any arbitrary dogma, however strongly held by a section of
the community. The case is different under capitalist conditions when
a man can be forced to wear a "pot" hat against his will, owing to the
"public opinion" of the class on whom he is dependent for his
livelihood insisting on it.
E. Belfort Bax
Boswell
wrote:
>During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to how to classify
>human beings. One researcher proposed the expression "intelligent
>animal". After advanced studies on monkeys, it was dropped. Another
>researcher proposed "tool using animal". After observing some animals
>making wooden tools and sharpening them with knife like stones, it
>was dropped. Another researcher proposed "weapon using animal". A
>decade ago, a rare film was shot by an amateur in an African forest.
>One short monkey was hit very badly by a big monkey. The short monkey
>prepared a wooden knife using stones and hid it on the top of a tree.
>After some days, when the big monkey came to attack the short monkey,
>it ran up to the tree for the weapon it has hid and killed the big
>monkey. The one thing that the anthropologists found with any group
>of human beings, even if they did not have contacts with the out side
>world for thousands of years, is spirituality with some form of
>religion. So, man is a "spiritual animal" if you want to call him
>that way.
Unspecified animals "making wooden tools and sharpening them with
knife like stones"? I don't believe it. Although both chimpanzees and
monkeys have been observed using stones as tools, they don't, so far
as I know, shape wooden tools with stone flakes. I think you're
relaying urban or rural legends.
Human beings do have a tendency to believe in, and become emotionally
attached to made up stories. If we like a story, often we don't bother
to check whether or not it's actually true. We take it 'on faith.'
That seems to be what you're doing with the stories you tell here. The
one about the monkey carving the wooden knife and hiding it is sort of
entertaining, but I think it's bullshit. You haven't presented any
evidence that "man is a 'spiritual animal.' " You have merely
presented yourself as another example of someone who believes bullshit
stories. If you can back up the story, I'll apologize.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> free will implies an indeterminate realityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
>
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
Hey bozo, whats a god? Define it via and in your words, *what you have
observed* See if ewe can do what no other mystics in 4,000 years has
ever done.
If there was nothing, no matter before god then what did god use to
create it / / matter anything from?
MG
Sean Carroll
> Please provide your definition of "God," then provide evidence that
> such a critter actually exists.
God's not a critter! She's a thirty-seven year old accountant from
Nebraska wrapped in plastic and duct tape.
Get it the fuck right!
Ian Chua
> free will implies an indeterminate realityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
reality.
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
>
> how does the soul interact with the material realm? it does so by the
> intervention of God, when you will your body to move, God moves your
> body, the material realm is simply a projection of God's will, there is
> no real thing such as physics or biology, ask yourself how your body
> moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
> nervous system, do you?
>
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
> this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
> have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
> auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
>
> God is just like us, except he has domain as well as will, he has needs
> and wants, and orchestrates reality to serve his purposes as well as ours
>
> for instance, if there was not suffering, there would never be the joy of
> invention and overcoming suffering, there is a logical purpose for all
> things in God's will, in the end of all consideration
>
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
The Sun (SOL) is my god. Couldn't get anything done with out it.
WOMP WOMP
TOM
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
raven1 wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:56:33 -0500, Dale Kelly
>
> >early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
>
> You, on the other hand...
> --
>
> "O Sybilli, si ergo
> Fortibus es in ero
> O Nobili! Themis trux
> Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
ENESA QUA ONNICA - you all.
I took more acid than I should have dozens
of times in the sixties and loved ever trip. I
no longer do it --- if I did I'd become so enlightened
I'm vaporize.
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
Sometimes it is - sometimes it's very serious.
I bet you consider yourself quite the Merry
> Prankster prowling Usenet aboard a Magic Bus.
I don't prowl the Usenet. I have 3 NGs I subscribe to. ADP
is one of those. The Magic Bus is not mine to use on Usenet
nor elsewhere.
It's at the Smithsonian last I heard - as an exact replica
of the original which has now become a permanent hidden
rusted heap in the woods of a big old farm - slowly dying
in a tye-dyed cluster of underbrush and mose and trees.
All but 2 of the
original Merry Pranksters have gone over to the other
universe of love and joy and grins and bliss and euphoria
and blah, blah, blah.
The last two living - live in Laytonville.
Wavy Gravy has a 500 acre multiple
use ranch Black Oak Ranch 5 miles
North f me on Hwy 101. I suggest you
check my profile and then browse well
my website. Then figure the rest out
yourself. Being; The Psychedelic Pope
-- The Psychotic Pope -- Saint Isadore
of Laytonville --- Patron Saint of the Internet
and a Merry Prankster is a ruff bunch of
stuff to be ---- It's HARD & FUN and I'd
never stop it.
WOMP WOMP
Tom
>
> --dk...@cris.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NEVER SHOW QUOTED TEXT
it waste precious bandwidth and
we don't want that to grow or it
will only slow down the net to
a snail crawl no matter what kind
of computer, system, IP..............
fuck this shit - I'm wasted and tired
and old and need my sleep NOW.
WOMP WOMP & LATER
ENESSA QUA ONNICA
Tom
dkomo
In many ways, Usenet *is* a Magic Bus, considering the freaky people who
drive over it.
> It's at the Smithsonian last I heard - as an exact replica
> of the original
Urban legend undoubtedly.
which has now become a permanent hidden
> rusted heap in the woods of a big old farm - slowly dying
> in a tye-dyed cluster of underbrush and mose and trees.
> All but 2 of the
> original Merry Pranksters have gone over to the other
> universe of love and joy and grins and bliss and euphoria
> and blah, blah, blah.
>
> The last two living - live in Laytonville.
> Wavy Gravy has a 500 acre multiple
> use ranch Black Oak Ranch 5 miles
> North f me on Hwy 101. I suggest you
> check my profile and then browse well
> my website. Then figure the rest out
> yourself. Being; The Psychedelic Pope
> -- The Psychotic Pope -- Saint Isadore
> of Laytonville --- Patron Saint of the Internet
> and a Merry Prankster is a ruff bunch of
> stuff to be ---- It's HARD & FUN and I'd
> never stop it.
>
> WOMP WOMP
> Tom
>
Kool! Tom Wolfe is also still alive and kicking.
ML
> skyeyes wrote:
> > Please provide your definition of "God," then provide evidence that
> > such a critter actually exists.
>
> God's not a critter! She's a thirty-seven year old accountant from
> Nebraska wrapped in plastic and duct tape.
>
> Get it the fuck right!
>
> --
> 'Sometimes the best gift is the gift of never seeing you again.' --Dr
> Gregory House
And that is "Ms." God to you, sir.
ML
> > Please provide your definition of "God," then provide evidence that
> > such a critter actually exists.
>
> God's not a critter! She's a thirty-seven year old accountant from
> Nebraska wrapped in plastic and duct tape.
>
> Get it the fuck right!
>
> --
> 'Sometimes the best gift is the gift of never seeing you again.' --Dr
> Gregory House
Or maybe God IS a critter, a female black lab perhaps, or even more
likely, a beautiful cat.
Cemtech
says...
/deletia
I believe in God too, also I think she used evolution along with many
other things science has discovered. That's my faith.
And wouldn't even start to try to prove it scientifically because 1)
science wouldn't care, that's not what science is about and 2) what's
the point of faith if I tried to prove it?
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Sean Carroll
>>>Please provide your definition of "God," then provide evidence that
>>>such a critter actually exists.
>>God's not a critter! She's a thirty-seven year old accountant from
>>Nebraska wrapped in plastic and duct tape.
>>
>>Get it the fuck right!
> And that is "Ms." God to you, sir.
Well, yeah, to most people, but not to me. She lets me call her by her
first name because I was the best fuck she ever had.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Fascinating story. Have you thought of adapting it for the stage?' --Dr
Gregory House
ML
> ML wrote:
> > Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>skyeyes wrote:
> >>>Please provide your definition of "God," then provide evidence that
> >>>such a critter actually exists.
> >>God's not a critter! She's a thirty-seven year old accountant from
> >>Nebraska wrapped in plastic and duct tape.
>
> >>Get it the fuck right!
> > And that is "Ms." God to you, sir.
>
> Well, yeah, to most people, but not to me. She lets me call her by her
> first name because I was the best fuck she ever had.
>
> --
> 'Fascinating story. Have you thought of adapting it for the stage?' --Dr
> Gregory House
Oh, you are SO going to hell.....
ML
> ML wrote:
> > Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Get it the fuck right!
> > And that is "Ms." God to you, sir.
>
> Well, yeah, to most people, but not to me. She lets me call her by her
> first name because I was the best fuck she ever had.
I'll see you there, I'll save you a place at my table.
Sean Carroll
> Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>And that is "Ms." God to you, sir.
>>Well, yeah, to most people, but not to me. She lets me call her by her
>>first name because I was the best fuck she ever had.
> Oh, you are SO going to hell.....
Already there, m'dear. It's actually called Earth.
--
--Sean
Desertphile
<sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ML wrote:
> > Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>And that is "Ms." God to you, sir.
> >>Well, yeah, to most people, but not to me. She lets me call her by her
> >>first name because I was the best fuck she ever had.
I boinked the Great Whore of Babylon once..... and it wasn't all
that great.
> > Oh, you are SO going to hell.....
> Already there, m'dear. It's actually called Earth.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Rusty Sites
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
One night, after taking LSD, I was leaving glowing footprints.
(Note: I was not alone. We investigated the situation carefully and
determined that I actually was leaving glowing footprints and even
discovered how it happened. Can any of you biologists solve the
mystery? Here is a hint. We were walking around in the forest at
night. It was in the south, which might be relevant.)
John Wilkins
Phosphorescent fungi?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Noelie S. Alito
> Rusty Sites <Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>> Dale Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
>> One night, after taking LSD, I was leaving glowing footprints.
>>
>>
>> (Note: I was not alone. We investigated the situation carefully and
>> determined that I actually was leaving glowing footprints and even
>> discovered how it happened. Can any of you biologists solve the
>> mystery? Here is a hint. We were walking around in the forest at
>> night. It was in the south, which might be relevant.)
>
> Phosphorescent fungi?
Some years ago, a friend and I went to a Pensacola beach
(on the "redneck Riviera") during a luminescent tide.
That night we saw green fire below the water line on piers,
and were followed by glowing footprints that lasted several
seconds. That was _so_cool_!
This may be the cause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcomastigophora
Noelie
P.S. No psychoactive drugs were involved.
--
"Wow. Ever notice how 'cat' spelled backwards is 'Tac'?"
Rusty Sites
> Rusty Sites <Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>> Dale Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
>> One night, after taking LSD, I was leaving glowing footprints.
>>
>>
>> (Note: I was not alone. We investigated the situation carefully and
>> determined that I actually was leaving glowing footprints and even
>> discovered how it happened. Can any of you biologists solve the
>> mystery? Here is a hint. We were walking around in the forest at
>> night. It was in the south, which might be relevant.)
>
> Phosphorescent fungi?
Some sort of glowing microorganism. The person with me saw the
footprints, too, but on another similar occasion, we had both seem giant
diamonds and rubies hanging from the trees and I was pretty sure they
weren't really there, so I counted to three and we both pointed at the
lead footprint. After repeating this process a few times, it seemed
that we were were pointing at the same thing. We then followed the
footprints back to a crumbly, rotting log which had the same glow. The
trail of footprints ended there. I had read about this phenomenon, but
had never actually seen it.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> free will implies an indeterminate reality
It also repudiates the notion of an omniscient entity; given that many god
constructs seem to have such an ability claimed for them I have to wonder
why the proponents of gods are so hopped up on the whole free will
question.
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physics
What makes you think either of those is a determined system?
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention,
Totally unnecessary.
We see, we experience this realm; it exists. That is all that is required
to cope with it on its own terms; anything else is icing. Possibly tasty
icing, but icing.
We might decide, through sheer curiosity, to ask how it came about. If
so, we will very quickly run into a problem; our tools of investigation
are actually limited to how the realm works; they are wholly unsuited to
seriously investigate how the realm came to be. The best we can hope for
is to create sub-realms of our own, possibly even one with similar
properties to the one we inhabit; if we do this, we have a possible, even
a likely explanation of how this one came to be.
Either way, convincing oneself of much beyond "it exists" is riding very
close to the thin ice of delusion, confusion, wishful thinking and similar
territory.
> but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God
Oh? Of course. I'm sure you can prove this. Perhaps you could start by
showing us that a god - any god - actually exists; that way there would at
least be a point to attempting an examination of the subject.
As it stands, the statement is no more compelling than my saying it all
happened because I accidentally poured ink down the drain; there is
nothing indicating any actual causality in the claim, nothing testable,
nothing amenable to study and examination. It is an empty claim, devoid
of meaning.
> how does the soul interact with the material realm?
Soul? What is a soul? Demonstrate it - but define it, first, so we know
what we're all talking about. You've already introduced one empty
statement, now you're bringing in another.
> it does so by the
> intervention of God
Now you're asserting that one undefined, unevidenced entity is influencing
another undefined, unevidenced entity. Fine; I'll say that the bloosargs
intervene and operate the gimjos. Meaningless? Of course it is - it is
applying two undefined terms and asserting a causal relationship between
them, yet failing to even describe the properties of them, let alone the
mechanics of this interaction.
If we're to take this seriously, we're going to need both solid
definitions of "god" and "soul", evidence that each exists, a list of
verifiable properties of each and a verifiable mechanism by which the one
affects the other; so far none of these are on the table.
>, when you will your body to move, God moves your
> body,
Actually, when I will my body to move, my brain generates electrochemical
signals which control my muscles; those, in turn, convert chemical energy
into energy of motion, resulting in my body moving. You, of course, may
operate by different processes, but I suspect you'll find that the vast
majority of humans - and in fact animal life in general - operates on much
the principles I've described.
> the material realm is simply a projection of God's will
Neat trick; an entity for which there is as yet no definition, let alone
evidence, is claimed to be responsible for all of what we consider reality
- and still no explanation of the mechanics of the process.
>, there is
> no real thing such as physics or biology
Odd; last I checked there were, in fact, such things. Physics deals with
the way the universe is put together, biology deals with how life works.
We're pretty sure there are both life and a universe, given that we
experience them on a daily basis; arguing they don't exist strikes me as
either solipsism or suicide of personality - possibly both.
Meanwhile, that aside, we're left with the niggling little problem that if
these things are not in fact real, how is it that they appear to be?
Let's put that another way: the simplest explanation is that they *are*
real. Adding in an extra "layer" - mental projections of undefined god
things - increases complexity without actually adding anything; Ockham's
Razor applies, and will continue to do so unless it can be demonstrated
that what we see is not in fact sufficient to explain what we see and how
it works.
Even then, should that day ever come, all we'll actually be left with is
an open-ended question, namely "what else?" What else is needed?
Whatever that thing is, whether you want to call it a god or a
transcendental tortoise, unless and until it is evidenced and its
properties defined well enough to allow it to be examined and studied, it
will even then remain completely irrelevant to us; if we cannot study it
and know it, we gain nothing by even postulating it.
>, ask yourself how your body
> moves when you will it, you do not consciously interact with a central
> nervous system, do you?
Unnecessary; our systems - bodies and brain - manage such details for us.
If they didn't, we wouldn't have lasted long as a species; we'd be so busy
trying to remember to fire the neurons to breathe to defend ourselves,
feed ourselves and the rest. We'd be sitting ducks - so to speak - for
every half-baked predator that came along.
Fortunately, our systems do manage this for us. Better yet, since we know
how the signals propagate, how they control things such as breathing and
movement, all that's left is the actual management of them; given that
even unicellular creatures can manage this to some degree at least; it
should be apparent from this that the mechanics, even if not fully
explained in every last detail, are nevertheless not all that complicated,
so there's no need to posit additional unevidenced entities such as
undefined god concepts to deal with it all.
> early in my life, on LSD, I was telepathically visited by another soul,
That's the problem with LSD; it affects the thought processes. It induces
altered states where perceptions are sufficiently altered that they cannot
be relied upon to reflect real events, real sensations. Such experiences,
while potentially moving, are simply not reliable.
> this phenomena has stayed with me during all the times in life when I
> have had time to be philosophical, I receieve thought communication,
> auditory communication, and visual communication, with God
I'm sure you recall the old adage, "When you talk to God, it's prayer;
when God talks to you, it's psychosis". There's a reason for the saying;
if you are "hearing" something for which there is not even a definition,
let alone evidence that it exists, this strongly argues that your mind has
taken a break from reality.
> God is just like us
It's rather hard to assert that when there is not yet even a definition of
the generic term "god" in terms of things we can examine, nor evidence of
any such entity. Perhaps, once those criteria are met, we can try to
determine which god - or gods - actually exist. Until then, there is no
way to meaningfully assert anything of the qualities of gods in general,
or in specific.
>, except he has domain as well as will, he has needs
> and wants
Hmm. Doesn't Matthew say that with God, all things are possible? Yup, it
does. If all things are possible, this in turn requires the power to
actually do all things - this means God must be all powerful. Why would
an all-powerful being have any needs and wants, given that he can fulfill
them all with the merest whisper of a thought?
Doesn't wash. Despite being undefined and unevidenced, God is claimed to
have assorted attributes - based on what? Who examined him to find out? -
yet now those attributes contradict your statement - or your statement
calls into question those attributes. Either way.
You know, when you're dealing with so many undefined, unknown things,
things with no demonstrable or even hypothesized methods of interaction or
influence, things which, even if we posit them to exist, we have no way to
determine their actual attributes... when you're dealing with so many
unknowns, unknowns piled on unknowns, it strains even the credulous to
accept such proclamations.
> for instance, if there was not suffering, there would never be the joy
> of invention and overcoming suffering
I'm quite sure that a baby, slowly roasting in a burning building, dying
in agony, alone, afraid, will be very comforted to know that its agony and
terror is intended to make someone else happy.
I'm even more certain that a being, person or entity who stands idly by
while the merest thought could save that same child, is a monster beyond
description, worthy only of the utmost disgust and contempt.
You're not seriously trying to sell us a line that we're supposed to
accept, respect, even worship such a monster, are you? What would that
make you, you who willfully seek out more victims for this depraved
lunatic?