Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Barry, Everybody here knows you're the FFL troll. Your act is getting old. You can't reason on your own. So, you resort to adolescent behaviour. We'd like to know who is your guru these days? If none, I think you should find one to, at least, avoid becoming an internet troll. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? M: Couldn't help overhearing... Atheism is not a belief because it is not a positive assertion that there is no God. It is the assertion that there is no compelling evidence to support the belief. And John is such a feeble-minded idiot that he doesn't get this distinction. We don't need to have a belief that there are no unicorns. Maybe there are. We just don't have any evidence to support our belief in one. (Probably people made the story up, they tend to enjoy that being such creative creatures.) We are certainly able to say that no one can claim there are unicorns without showing us evidence of them. Yet idiots like John try this all the time with their belief in a god. Jr: The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts. M: It does not for two reasons that come to mind. Here is a formulation (feel free to substitute your own if this is not the right one in your eyes..) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; Unwarranted assumption. Exactly, but he won't be able to understand this. We don't know if this is true at the scales of time and space involved in creation. It is a typical imposition of our limited view of the sensory world to scales that are completely unplugged from our ability to intuit about it. It is unnecessary and merely contrived as if to say : There must be a God so there must be a God. Logic is not a proof. It can preserve truth through proper syllogistic form, but it is only as good as the assumptions which must be proven another way. This is not a good start. 2. The universe began to exist M: There are a lot a problems with this assumptions since it imposes sequential time assumptions on an event which by nature is beyond time and space. This is the realm of you probably don't really understand it physics. (Me either, the subject requires math way beyond my pay grade.) The words Prove it spring to mind. Yet another unwarranted assumption from the god-idiot. therefore: 3The universe has a cause. Yeah, surprise surprise. This is no proof, it is an an assumption disguised as something logical as if that makes it less assumptive-y. It doesn't. Exactly. John is *demonstrating* the Checkmate, Atheists! mentality I mentioned earlier -- declaring a bunch of assumptions as true and then defying anyone to disprove them. Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you claim that there are unicorns, produce unicorns. If you claim that there are gods, produce gods. If you can't, shut the fuck up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. As usual, Curtis, I am in awe of your ability to interface with idiots as if they were actually worth the time. I keep getting stuck on the idiot part. To me, if a person believes in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect, that's kinda like the Trifecta of Idiocy. You can't actually become much more of a loser than that. :-) M: Well to be fair, there is nothing I have read hear (Nabbie included) that I didn't wholeheartedly embrace at one time in my life. I don't think of my past self as being an idiot, just a practicer of fallacious reasoning. I was just wrong about almost everything I believed. Simply and earnestly wrong. Kinda humbling really. I guess you're right about that. I had left the TM movement before they started all the Maharishi Effect crap, so I didn't have a chance to buy into that, but I definitely spent money on astrologers once. I never really had any feeling for the existence of a God, either, but I played the game by using that terminology when it was called for in TM talks. But I definitely did and believed a bunch of things that qualified me as an idiot back in the day, so I should try to remember them when dealing with those who are still living in those mindstates. That would be more compassionate, after all. It's just that there is so little PAYOFF in dealing with people who still believe these things. They just go round in circles and then come back to the very things they started with. Their thinking seems to be as non-rigorous as it is circular.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer. Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Curtis, My responses are shown in red below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? M: Couldn't help overhearing... Atheism is not a belief because it is not a positive assertion that there is no God. It is the assertion that there is no compelling evidence to support the belief. We don't need to have a belief that there are no unicorns. Maybe there are. We just don't have any evidence to support our belief in one. (Probably people made the story up, they tend to enjoy that being such creative creatures.) Atheism is defined as a belief in no god, according to Webster's College Dictionary. By the suffix of the word ism, the word is self-defined as a belief, according to the rules of the English language. It appears that the self-proclaimed atheists should understand what the meaning of the word Atheism means before saying that they are not believers. M: You had to overlook the first definition to make your point a disbelief in the existence of deity Which is as I said, not the same as having a belief. It is the absence of the belief in God. Not believing in something is not a positive belief. Most atheists would say they don't know if there is a God, only that there is no evidence for one if they are being careful with their words. I do not have a belief in God. There is no belief that takes its place. I think it is unlikely that there is a God or that if here was one that man could know about him. But that is not a firm belief in no God, it is the lack of a belief in God. Do you see the difference? I am not sure why some here are so careful to avoid being called believers. They act as if this is just about the worst thing someone can say about them. Is this because to be 'a believer' it implies one has closed ones mind to other options? Does it imply that one is a slave to their beliefs in some way and therefore rendered impotent in some way? Does being a believer mean one is a dupe or in danger of being duped? What is it exactly that is so odious about believing something because you sure are doing a lot of wiggling to avoid having your atheistic assertions not categorized as beliefs. And I reiterate again (from a previous post) I haven't yet come to any hard and fast conclusion of what I believe when it comes to God or no God or many Gods so it is not the viewpoint I am interested in but the way in which one comes to investigate or the embrace or reject that viewpoint.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
John is *finally* starting to get it. I'm treating him (and other idiots that believe as he does) the way *they* (believers in the invisible man in the sky) have been treating non-believers for thousands of years. Back in the Middle Ages, these thugs who believed in an invisible man actually ganged up and burned those who *didn't* believe in the invisible man at the stake. John wants things to be that way again. Unfortunately, they're not, and they'll never be again. Now, it's fairly obvious in any discussion between a believer in the invisible man and someone who doesn't believe which claim is rational and sane, and which is not. All that the non-believers have to say is, SHOW US this invisible man you claim exists. They can't. End of story. But that makes them pissed off, because their act of being better because they believe in an invisible man goes poof! and disappears. They're revealed to be Just Another Crazy person raving about this invisible guy who watches everything they do and controls the world. It's all pretense, and just as meaningless as someone claiming to be enlightened. For which the same response applies -- SHOW US something 'enlightened' -- if you can't then we reserve the right to think of you as just another arrogant crazy person, and write you off as the idiot you are. On a practical level, both John (jr_esq) and Jim (whoever he is this week) are simply Not Very Bright. They've both got IQs that never broke the 100 level, and they're lucky to be able to get through the day in terms of practical intelligence. The *only* thing that either of them seems to be any good at is standing there yelling, I'm BETTER than you are, because of the (select one: A. things I believe, or B. things I claim about my 'enlightenment'). I don't buy it. You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, and it's about time someone treated you as what you are. There IS a bottom line in all of this, and you guys are doing everything you possibly can to try to distract from it. That bottom line is: You claiming to *know* that 1) there is a God, or 2) that they are 'enlightened.' Fine. You can believe whatever they want. All we are saying is, PROVE IT. Oh, and STFU until you can. As Curtis has patiently been trying to point out to these two idiots, we really *don't* claim to know anything for certain about whether there is a god or not. We are saying that we don't see ANY reason to either believe in one, or even to conceive of the need for one. The onus is on those who claim these things to PROVE that what they believe is true, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. From: jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer. Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Curtis, as jr. says, you guys say there is no God. Its not like it is ambiguous. M: But I don't say this. I say I see no reason to believe in one. There is a huge difference between these statements. I am amazed that I cannot communicate this difference effectively because it keeps coming back misstated. I keep trying to explain this to you, Curtis. You cannot convey this simple difference to Jim and John BECAUSE THEY'RE IDIOTS WITH BRAINS THE SIZE OF A PEA. :-) Here, let me demonstrate. I shall make a statement about what I actually believe. Then wait to see how long it takes one or both of these idiots to come back claiming that I said the exact opposite: I do not believe that there is any need to either hypothesize the need for a God, or to believe in the existence of one. I do NOT declare that There is no God, because that seems to be obvious. Even those who claim to believe in one can't produce him/her/it. Now, how long will it take before these two mental midgets transform what I said above into me declaring my absolute belief that there is no God and thus demonstrating that atheism is my religion? I admire Curtis his patience at dealing with these mental midgets, but I don't have that level of patience. I'd rather just point out how idiotic their beliefs are, ask them once again to PROVE their beliefs, and then sit back and watch. Unlike Curtis, who seems to think that he can actually communicate to these two numbnuts, I have no such illusions. Within a couple of days (probably less), they'll be back claiming the same things about what I supposedly believe that they always do, which is always 180 degrees opposite from what I actually believe. You really just CAN'T deal rationally with minds this weak. So I've given up trying...
[FairfieldLife] The world before Google and internet
The world before Google and internet http://www.zamson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/life-before-google-500x496.jpg http://www.zamson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/life-before-google-500x496.jpg https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QstUNDVHymc/TU9SrT4n5FI/Ahk/KLuSVMfWJ8s/s1600/social%2Bnetworking.bmp https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QstUNDVHymc/TU9SrT4n5FI/Ahk/KLuSVMfWJ8s/s1600/social%2Bnetworking.bmp http://liberonet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/world-before-social-550x500.jpg http://liberonet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/world-before-social-550x500.jpg http://www.comics.wombania.com/cartoons/2013-05-23-life-before-the-internet.png http://www.comics.wombania.com/cartoons/2013-05-23-life-before-the-internet.png http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e7/15/93/e7159321232a2eeaee2368250ce27495.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e7/15/93/e7159321232a2eeaee2368250ce27495.jpg http://acpladult.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/prehistoric-googling.jpg?w=500 http://acpladult.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/prehistoric-googling.jpg?w=500 http://api.ning.com/files/zAECsrr7CFQXV94F27w*ynHSxsr4R8IziA6Gmjk9MJHq7LJUflz7BRrQm1ZEHlD45DT7SyuFEwp50G74BCnaCxOQd-CWJUGM/computer23.jpg http://api.ning.com/files/zAECsrr7CFQXV94F27w*ynHSxsr4R8IziA6Gmjk9MJHq7LJUflz7BRrQm1ZEHlD45DT7SyuFEwp50G74BCnaCxOQd-CWJUGM/computer23.jpg
[FairfieldLife] New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas
Nablusoss, crop circles are appearing on the continental US too. I feel it is a sign of the spiritual-but-not-religious generation of this new born millenarian generation coming along. A further indication of the coming of the Age of Enlightenment. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas
Agreed Buck. There has been many Crop Circles in the USA, particularily in California during the past few years but they are rather poorly documented so far, hopefully this will change. If the one you post is a genuine Crop Circle is impossible to say from a picture. The straws has to be examined; are they bent or broken, is there mud or footprints in the formation, and what kind of radiation is found within the circle and so forth. Also the actual design will often give a clue, if it depicts humans in some form or another they are seldom genuine but rather part of some ad-campaign. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Nablusoss, crop circles are appearing on the continental US too. I feel it is a sign of the spiritual-but-not-religious generation of this new born millenarian generation coming along. A further indication of the coming of the Age of Enlightenment. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
turq, the compassion IS the payoff. This is in response to your sentence: That would be more compassionate, after all. It's just that there is so little PAYOFF... On Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:41 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:50 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. As usual, Curtis, I am in awe of your ability to interface with idiots as if they were actually worth the time. I keep getting stuck on the idiot part. To me, if a person believes in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect, that's kinda like the Trifecta of Idiocy. You can't actually become much more of a loser than that. :-) M: Well to be fair, there is nothing I have read hear (Nabbie included) that I didn't wholeheartedly embrace at one time in my life. I don't think of my past self as being an idiot, just a practicer of fallacious reasoning. I was just wrong about almost everything I believed. Simply and earnestly wrong. Kinda humbling really. I guess you're right about that. I had left the TM movement before they started all the Maharishi Effect crap, so I didn't have a chance to buy into that, but I definitely spent money on astrologers once. I never really had any feeling for the existence of a God, either, but I played the game by using that terminology when it was called for in TM talks. But I definitely did and believed a bunch of things that qualified me as an idiot back in the day, so I should try to remember them when dealing with those who are still living in those mindstates. That would be more compassionate, after all. It's just that there is so little PAYOFF in dealing with people who still believe these things. They just go round in circles and then come back to the very things they started with. Their thinking seems to be as non-rigorous as it is circular.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, Typical of the Turq and a way of behaving he STILL carries with him from the time spent with his crazy guru.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Nablusoss, crop circles are appearing on the continental US too. I feel it is a sign of the spiritual-but-not-religious generation of this new born millenarian generation coming along. A further indication of the coming of the Age of Enlightenment. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck So who kicked this guy in the balls?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:57 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Nablusoss, crop circles are appearing on the continental US too. I feel it is a sign of the spiritual-but-not-religious generation of this new born millenarian generation coming along. A further indication of the coming of the Age of Enlightenment. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck So who kicked this guy in the balls? And why does he keep them in that carrying case next to his feet? Is this the way you say to your alien overlords, Skip the rectal probe this month, please...I already gave at the office. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
Maybe just stick with movie and tv reviews Barry. I think you'll be happier. That may cut down on the 25 to 30 posts per week you make just telling everyone how stupid they are. And how long have you been willing to put up with that so little payoff? Give that some thought, Barry, if you get few minutes. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : That would be more compassionate, after all. It's just that there is so little PAYOFF in dealing with people who still believe these things. They just go round in circles and then come back to the very things they started with. Their thinking seems to be as non-rigorous as it is circular.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:57 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Nablusoss, crop circles are appearing on the continental US too. I feel it is a sign of the spiritual-but-not-religious generation of this new born millenarian generation coming along. A further indication of the coming of the Age of Enlightenment. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck So who kicked this guy in the balls? And why does he keep them in that carrying case next to his feet? Is this the way you say to your alien overlords, Skip the rectal probe this month, please...I already gave at the office. :-) Over all though, I'm impressed that the vast wisdom and technology of the Space Brothers has finally led them to realise that, due to the Earth's axial tilt, the seasons don't all occur at the same time and they can travel round the globe in a perpetual summer, trampling crops as they go instead of nipping back to The Pleaides to wait for the next planting season in Dorset.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
You sound very much like Freddie, here, Barry. Here's the Lenz playbook: 1. Always go after the last one who disagreed with you. This is why jr. is finally coming in for some serious attention (abuse), from you. Lenz did this as a means of keeping his chumps in line, like playing whack-a-mole, with his students. Unfortunately, all you are doing, is alienating everybody here, one by one. 2. Call out anyone who makes statements, that compete with your self-deluded grandeur, or signal a complete independence from your thinking. This is why it bothers you to no end, when I describe my enlightenment, the actual experience of it. Enlightenment is the antithesis of the waking state slavery, that you relish in, with your teeny tiny manipulations, a sad escape, from a sad and wasted life. It is never too late, dude. 3. Use ridicule, distortion, and insult, *always*, against those who threaten you. Lenz used this all the time, even on you, Barry. Remember? But what is the pay-off, here, on FFL? It is as if you have picked up Lenz's behaviors, but there is nothing to gain from it. You are not Lenz. You can't command us to send you money, or do anything else. There is no inner circle of yours. This is why you have become simply an abusive prick. Hope you have a nice day - looks beautiful up here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John is *finally* starting to get it. I'm treating him (and other idiots that believe as he does) the way *they* (believers in the invisible man in the sky) have been treating non-believers for thousands of years. Back in the Middle Ages, these thugs who believed in an invisible man actually ganged up and burned those who *didn't* believe in the invisible man at the stake. John wants things to be that way again. Unfortunately, they're not, and they'll never be again. Now, it's fairly obvious in any discussion between a believer in the invisible man and someone who doesn't believe which claim is rational and sane, and which is not. All that the non-believers have to say is, SHOW US this invisible man you claim exists. They can't. End of story. But that makes them pissed off, because their act of being better because they believe in an invisible man goes poof! and disappears. They're revealed to be Just Another Crazy person raving about this invisible guy who watches everything they do and controls the world. It's all pretense, and just as meaningless as someone claiming to be enlightened. For which the same response applies -- SHOW US something 'enlightened' -- if you can't then we reserve the right to think of you as just another arrogant crazy person, and write you off as the idiot you are. On a practical level, both John (jr_esq) and Jim (whoever he is this week) are simply Not Very Bright. They've both got IQs that never broke the 100 level, and they're lucky to be able to get through the day in terms of practical intelligence. The *only* thing that either of them seems to be any good at is standing there yelling, I'm BETTER than you are, because of the (select one: A. things I believe, or B. things I claim about my 'enlightenment'). I don't buy it. You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, and it's about time someone treated you as what you are. There IS a bottom line in all of this, and you guys are doing everything you possibly can to try to distract from it. That bottom line is: You claiming to *know* that 1) there is a God, or 2) that they are 'enlightened.' Fine. You can believe whatever they want. All we are saying is, PROVE IT. Oh, and STFU until you can. As Curtis has patiently been trying to point out to these two idiots, we really *don't* claim to know anything for certain about whether there is a god or not. We are saying that we don't see ANY reason to either believe in one, or even to conceive of the need for one. The onus is on those who claim these things to PROVE that what they believe is true, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. From: jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 8:55 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer. Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Yes, without serious therapy, it is the only behavior he knows. It was deeply programmed into him, by someone who I believe, was simply a criminal. As much as I dislike Barry's behavior, he didn't dream it up on his own. However, he is still responsible, for its consequences, and for his lack of insight, regarding Lenz's HUGE impact on him, and his life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, Typical of the Turq and a way of behaving he STILL carries with him from the time spent with his crazy guru.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer. Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative? I know and it is very random. Because every single human being on this planet has hundreds if not thousands of beliefs that they act on every day of their lives. Beliefs are not something you can not change in an instant nor do they necessarily result in death, dismemberment or fatal disease. Often they are very private things that undergo constant revision in the mind of the believer or non believer. It is as easy to change one's mind (belief set) as it is to sneeze. It is not beliefs that are dangerous it is what someone does with the belief just as it is an exercise in futility to go around poo pooing other's beliefs in an effort to do - what? Change them? Mock them? Show the believer how superior you are in your alternate beliefs? Those who claim they don't believe in anything are like those who claim they don't need a solid surface to occasionally stand upright on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John is *finally* starting to get it. I'm treating him (and other idiots that believe as he does) the way *they* (believers in the invisible man in the sky) have been treating non-believers for thousands of years. Back in the Middle Ages, these thugs who believed in an invisible man actually ganged up and burned those who *didn't* believe in the invisible man at the stake. John wants things to be that way again. Unfortunately, they're not, and they'll never be again. Now, it's fairly obvious in any discussion between a believer in the invisible man and someone who doesn't believe which claim is rational and sane, and which is not. All that the non-believers have to say is, SHOW US this invisible man you claim exists. They can't. End of story. But that makes them pissed off, because their act of being better because they believe in an invisible man goes poof! and disappears. They're revealed to be Just Another Crazy person raving about this invisible guy who watches everything they do and controls the world. It's all pretense, and just as meaningless as someone claiming to be enlightened. For which the same response applies -- SHOW US something 'enlightened' -- if you can't then we reserve the right to think of you as just another arrogant crazy person, and write you off as the idiot you are. On a practical level, both John (jr_esq) and Jim (whoever he is this week) are simply Not Very Bright. They've both got IQs that never broke the 100 level, and they're lucky to be able to get through the day in terms of practical intelligence. The *only* thing that either of them seems to be any good at is standing there yelling, I'm BETTER than you are, because of the (select one: A. things I believe, or B. things I claim about my 'enlightenment'). I don't buy it. You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, and it's about time someone treated you as what you are. There IS a bottom line in all of this, and you guys are doing everything you possibly can to try to distract from it. That bottom line is: You claiming to *know* that 1) there is a God, or 2) that they are 'enlightened.' Fine. You can believe whatever they want. All we are saying is, PROVE IT. Oh, and STFU until you can. As Curtis has patiently been trying to point out to these two idiots, we really *don't* claim to know anything for certain about whether there is a god or not. We are saying that we don't see ANY reason to either believe in one, or even to conceive of the need for one. The onus is on those who claim these things to PROVE that what they believe is true, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Did you shove a burr up your ass and not realize it? Bend over and have a look before you do anything else, I promise you might feel better if you do. Then we might all be spared the excrement you think of as either a valuable contribution to this forum or a way of showing off to your imaginary characters in your head called reporters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: New Crop Circle Appears in Kansas
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : Nablusoss, crop circles are appearing on the continental US too. I feel it is a sign of the spiritual-but-not-religious generation of this new born millenarian generation coming along. A further indication of the coming of the Age of Enlightenment. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck So who kicked this guy in the balls? This is a good one. But if you look at it the right way up it is a paper clip balanced on a ball. See examples below:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You sound very much like Freddie, here, Barry. Here's the Lenz playbook: 1. Always go after the last one who disagreed with you. This is why jr. is finally coming in for some serious attention (abuse), from you. Lenz did this as a means of keeping his chumps in line, like playing whack-a-mole, with his students. Unfortunately, all you are doing, is alienating everybody here, one by one. 2. Call out anyone who makes statements, that compete with your self-deluded grandeur, or signal a complete independence from your thinking. This is why it bothers you to no end, when I describe my enlightenment, the actual experience of it. Enlightenment is the antithesis of the waking state slavery, that you relish in, with your teeny tiny manipulations, a sad escape, from a sad and wasted life. It is never too late, dude. 3. Use ridicule, distortion, and insult, *always*, against those who threaten you. Lenz used this all the time, even on you, Barry. Remember? But what is the pay-off, here, on FFL? It is as if you have picked up Lenz's behaviors, but there is nothing to gain from it. You are not Lenz. You can't command us to send you money, or do anything else. There is no inner circle of yours. This is why you have become simply an abusive prick. Hope you have a nice day - looks beautiful up here. I've been reading the Lenz book that you mentioned in a post yesterday and last night saw a quote from Lenz that used the term thang, I guess it was something he used to say a lot. Now I realize bawee has held onto that little mantra all this time (and apparently a whole whack of other crap as well.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynisting/files/2013/05/218863_1829061123648_1153920770_31704147_5306920_o.jpg http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynisting/files/2013/05/218863_1829061123648_1153920770_31704147_5306920_o.jpg --- sharelong60@... wrote : turq, the compassion IS the payoff. This is in response to your sentence: That would be more compassionate, after all. It's just that there is so little PAYOFF... From: curtisdeltablues@... Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. --- turquoiseb@... wrote : As usual, Curtis, I am in awe of your ability to interface with idiots as if they were actually worth the time. I keep getting stuck on the idiot part. To me, if a person believes in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect, that's kinda like the Trifecta of Idiocy. You can't actually become much more of a loser than that. :-) M: Well to be fair, there is nothing I have read hear (Nabbie included) that I didn't wholeheartedly embrace at one time in my life. I don't think of my past self as being an idiot, just a practicer of fallacious reasoning. I was just wrong about almost everything I believed. Simply and earnestly wrong. Kinda humbling really. I guess you're right about that. I had left the TM movement before they started all the Maharishi Effect crap, so I didn't have a chance to buy into that, but I definitely spent money on astrologers once. I never really had any feeling for the existence of a God, either, but I played the game by using that terminology when it was called for in TM talks. But I definitely did and believed a bunch of things that qualified me as an idiot back in the day, so I should try to remember them when dealing with those who are still living in those mindstates. That would be more compassionate, after all. It's just that there is so little PAYOFF in dealing with people who still believe these things. They just go round in circles and then come back to the very things they started with. Their thinking seems to be as non-rigorous as it is circular.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kRLZxm3JXkw/VEO_nf_6CcI/A4o/yduhXKVm7A8/s710/epicurus_777.png https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kRLZxm3JXkw/VEO_nf_6CcI/A4o/yduhXKVm7A8/s710/epicurus_777.png --- fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Curtis, as jr. says, you guys say there is no God. Its not like it is ambiguous. From: curtisdeltablues@... M: But I don't say this. I say I see no reason to believe in one. There is a huge difference between these statements. I am amazed that I cannot communicate this difference effectively because it keeps coming back misstated. --- turquoiseb@... wrote : I keep trying to explain this to you, Curtis. You cannot convey this simple difference to Jim and John BECAUSE THEY'RE IDIOTS WITH BRAINS THE SIZE OF A PEA. :-) Here, let me demonstrate. I shall make a statement about what I actually believe. Then wait to see how long it takes one or both of these idiots to come back claiming that I said the exact opposite: I do not believe that there is any need to either hypothesize the need for a God, or to believe in the existence of one. I do NOT declare that There is no God, because that seems to be obvious. Even those who claim to believe in one can't produce him/her/it. Now, how long will it take before these two mental midgets transform what I said above into me declaring my absolute belief that there is no God and thus demonstrating that atheism is my religion? I admire Curtis his patience at dealing with these mental midgets, but I don't have that level of patience. I'd rather just point out how idiotic their beliefs are, ask them once again to PROVE their beliefs, and then sit back and watch. Unlike Curtis, who seems to think that he can actually communicate to these two numbnuts, I have no such illusions. Within a couple of days (probably less), they'll be back claiming the same things about what I supposedly believe that they always do, which is always 180 degrees opposite from what I actually believe. You really just CAN'T deal rationally with minds this weak. So I've given up trying...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the stink face he says, prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and you seem to hold a belief that it will not, so prove to me that it will not work, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my belief. Do you have to hold a positive belief that it will not work or even prove that is will not work or can you just say, I don't accept your reasons for your belief, so hand over some pain meds with better reasons to believe that they will work than: I read it somewhere. No one is claiming they don't believe in anything. But distinguishing beliefs with good supporting evidence from those that do not is a fundamental skill for educated people. Even in the elementary school curriculum. But the sad fact is that society has bought into religious beliefs as a class of protected beliefs where it is wrong to use the same thinking tools we use in literally every other area of our life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. On 10/18/2014 7:17 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: As usual, Curtis, I am in awe of your ability to interface with idiots as if they were actually worth the time. I keep getting stuck on the idiot part. To me, if a person believes in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect, that's kinda like the Trifecta of Idiocy. You can't actually become much more of a loser than that. :-) /Let's be logical: Just a few months ago Barry said he believed in levitation - suspension in midair with no visible means of support. If true, then Frederick Lenz is Lord Vishnu, God. Only a God could possibly levitate - by definition. Therefore, what Curtis says is true according to logic, but what Barry says is a contradiction, Barry being the True Believer. There seems to be a clear case of cognitive dissonance going on: mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs at the same time. Go figure./
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the stink face he says, prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and you seem to hold a belief that it will not, so prove to me that it will not work, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my belief. Do you have to hold a positive belief that it will not work or even prove that is will not work or can you just say, I don't accept your reasons for your belief, so hand over some pain meds with better reasons to believe that they will work than: I read it somewhere. No one is claiming they don't believe in anything. But distinguishing beliefs with good supporting evidence from those that do not is a fundamental skill for educated people. Even in the elementary
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/19/2014 9:30 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. /You seem to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance or mental stress. There's no objective proof that anyone can levitate - except a belief in God, the all-powerful Lord Vishnu. This has already been established. That's probably why you're experiencing discomfort - experiencing two or more contradictory beliefs at the same time. //Only God can levitate, Barry. ///It's not complicated. /According to your logic:.IF Lenz could levitate THEN, Lenz is Rama, ELSE GOD. / *From:* curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the stink face he says, prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God
All good points, Curtis. Yeah, the God thing is a real conundrum. Something in this universe likes the polarity of it; can't prove it/it is everywhere. Unlike any rational argument, I cannot justify God in any other way, except for a subtle *sense* of His and Her work. There is no way to prove it. It is a sense that has changed throughout my life. I enjoyed Edg's equating God to pure awareness, because as I have come to appreciate God more in my life, a growth in continuous pure awareness has accompanied that. I can appreciate that these experiences of mine are not provable, but what is provable, is the ongoing success and happiness I enjoy, for myself, my family and friends and acquaintances. What is also provable is that way that God enters all my creative work. What is also provable, is that He and She point the way, and I continue to do the heavy lifting. No magical thinking, here, simply a deeper revelation of what it means to be human. So, it simply comes down to a consciousness of God, or not God. Thanks for writing this, and managing to keep a subject close to our hearts, open for discussion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the stink face he says, prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and you seem to hold a belief that it will not,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. View on infidels.org http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
I was taught that 24x7 pure awareness, constitutes the foundation of enlightenment. It still does.:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the stink face he says, prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and you seem to hold a belief that it will not, so prove to me that it will not work, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my belief. Do you have to hold a positive belief that it will not work or even prove that is will not work or can you just say, I don't accept your reasons for your belief, so hand over some pain meds with better reasons to believe that they will work than: I read it somewhere. No one is claiming they don't believe in anything. But
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Take Me For A Ride; A look inside Lenz's cult, and Barry's mind
On 10/18/2014 3:36 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: yes, the Barster was holding back on us. He doesn't want to talk about it very much. Maybe the memories are just too painful. Or, maybe he never really was in the inner circle of the cult, just another student attending some computer training sessions. Or, maybe he was one of the top cult leaders - maybe he still wants to keep secrets concerning the special kundalini techniques he learned. Go figure. /There was a real Nadia, although she was// //German and the incident didn't really// //happen to Rama. It happened to one of// //his students, who told Rama about it and// //was later rather surprised to see the whole// //story in Snowboarding To Nirvana.// // //For the record, I thought that second book// //sucked dead dogs, and the first, Surfing// //The Himalayas, was awful compared to his// //earlier writings (now almost all out of print).// //There is a rumor, which I happen to believe,// //that he didn't even write the second book,// //but had it mainly ghost-written for him by// //one of his students, and then just rewrote// //and edited the result./ Subject: Fwap! Author: willytex Group: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: August 8, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/oqj67tb Claims to have left the Rama mindset, but was secretly promoting the pushing of buttons agenda. Aw, Barry, tsk, tsk tsk. You knew that truth was going to leak out. But, Barry has become more like a door bell button pusher. Like maybe some of us were, as children. Push the door bell, then go and hide behind the bushes. Provides a momentary thrill, but not much else. Time to grow up!! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Yes, take a look at the book - It explains Barry's thinking quite well. A good read, sorry I didn't see it sooner. Freddie said he was the perfect mirror, and if you perceived something negative in him, you were really seeing it in yourself. Sounds so much like Bawee. Explains all the golden light and levitation crap, too. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Look, every body gets the pushing of buttons. We all get ours pushed sometimes, and we all do some pushing ourselves. But, from what you've found below, it does it appear that Barry has elevated this pushing of buttons to, well, some kind of religion. And as in most religions, some things get distorted. Helps to explain things, I think. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : If you want to know how Barry thinks, and how he got so screwed up, there is a free ebook, from someone who was very close to Freddie. The name of the book is: *TAKE ME FOR A RIDE Coming Of Age In A Destructive Cult, **by Mark E. Laxer. *Available on the link that Richard posted. * * Here are some quotes from the book. When I read them, they sounded strangely familiar. Note: Freddie used to call himself, Atmananada (Soul of Love), before he decided he was the final incarnation of Vishnu. The guy sounds VERY CRAZY: Atmanandaexposed his Big Nurse nature in other ways. He claimed, for instance, that he had to press all the right buttons to help people overcome their resistance to the Light and to him…. He taught me to fear what would happen if I left the Centre. You know too much to leave. It's a greedy, materialistic world out there. Your soul would be miserable. Besides, the Forces would flatten you like a bug. You would lose thousands of lifetimes of evolution. He taught me to fear, not just the Forces but people, particularly old friends and family. It's best if you don't tell them what we do here. Believe me, they won't understand. They'll end up blocking your progress and sapping your power.“… = Atmananda, I suddenly announced. I *saw* the Warriors. Others in the circle soon *saw* them too. Atmanandaheld desert trips once or twice a month and, by mid-1983, followers *saw* him walking above the ground on a cushion of light, flying to distant mountains, sending columns of light into the sky, and causing constellations to gyrate and disappear. On one starlit night, Atmanandaraised his hands above his head. As he slowly lowered them, he made a low, whistling sound like the wind. What did you *see*? he asked afterward. I didn't *see* anything, one new follower bemoaned. Advanced psychic vision is necessary to perceive what I am doing… == Are you Rama? someone asked. Yes, he replied. I am Rama, the last incarnation of Vishnu. You people think that I am a person, but I am not. Over the years I watched my various selves fade away. I fought the process tooth and nail--like each of you are doing now. But it was in vain. I could not stop the process of dissolution. I had to admit that I was no longer a person. This morning I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the stink face he says, prove that it will not work. I am saying it will and you seem to hold a belief that it will not, so prove to me
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
OK Jim, lets look at your claim to be in a higher state of consciousness with a special access to knowledge. This is your claim so I say, show me how I can distinguish your claim from that of a born again Christian who claims to have had the experience of being saved. You both are claiming subjective knowledge that cannot be evaluated from outside. But you have an advantage in enlightenment. That package comes with the added claim that you can know things that people like me cannot know. Can you express one single thing as evidence that you are functioning on a higher mental level rather than a state of self delusion? There must be some way that you can demonstrate that you actually have a special mental ability with your higher state isn't there? And if there is not, then your state of mind is indistinguishable from any other person whose opinion of their specialness exceeds what others see in them. One more thing. The God you know inside had better keep his trap shut. If he decides that you are the pure vehicle for one single message to us, anything: Lil Debbie cakes are superior to Hostess cupcakes, The Mets will win whatever it is that those teams want to win, Halloween candy corn will cure cancer but only if you eat each section starting with the tip separately, ANYTHING... you will go from enlightened guy to lunatic in the time it takes anyone here to read your message. (Nabbie excepted course) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : As long as you are on the path to know the creator of the universe, as you put it, I am OK with that. I understand that your previous experiences with religion and TM, may have created a confusing concept of God, that you have rejected. No problem, God is endlessly creative, and will no doubt eventually make him and herself known to you, in a way that is yours alone, personally tailored for you. Once God awakes within you, you will know what I am talking about. Otherwise, it is nonsense to the waking state consciousness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : J: Er, Curtis, you are mistaking your failure, for certainty M: I have no certainty and don't buy yours. J: And being very arrogant about it. M: I am the on saying I do not KNOW the creator of the universe. You are saying you do. Perhaps you have redefined this word too. J: Without a sense of pure awareness, not the forced experiences from rounding, that you have mentioned, but the real deal, 24x7, you are basing your conclusions on fantasy, and have no clue about real enlightenment. M: So you know all about my awareness from inside too perhaps? J: Your choice, and so far, a very poor one, just like yer buddy, there, in front of the tube. M: Yeah, I don't buy your claims. Sorry that this frankness makes you feel hostile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. As usual, Curtis, I am in awe of your ability to interface with idiots as if they were actually worth the time. I keep getting stuck on the idiot part. To me, if a person believes in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect, that's kinda like the Trifecta of Idiocy. You can't actually become much more of a loser than that. :-) M: Well to be fair, there is nothing I have read hear (Nabbie included) that I didn't wholeheartedly embrace at one time in my life. I don't think of my past self as being an idiot, just a practicer of fallacious reasoning. I was just wrong about almost everything I believed. Simply and earnestly wrong. Kinda humbling really.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. Wrong, Taxius. Barry is insulting people. Barry is cursing people's beliefs. Barry is denigrating people, distorting who they are, and treating them with incredible disrespect. We are not his guinea pigs. He, rather, has become quite a specimen of craziness and abuse, under the scrutiny, of those he inadvertently attracts, through his antisocial behavior. You are a fool for taking his emotionally unbalanced state, for some sort of wisdom. Grow up, and smell the reality. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. Yep, absolutely correct. That is why we practice TM, to clear past impressions, so that we can one day see reality, as it is, not as we think it should be. Otherwise, we would remain impaired, as you say - in a state of ignorance. There is no way to follow the knowledge associated with TM, without doing TM. It makes little sense, like reading automobile service manuals, without owning or driving a car. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. View on infidels.org http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
Sure. As I said, my enlightenment is not provable. I DO achieve everything that I desire. Enlightenment is the state of pure awareness, 24 x 7, universal synchronicity. It is a famous expression in the Gita, that an enlightened man sees darkness where the ignorant see light, and vice versa, so your comments are appropriate. Yes, I appear crazy to you, but you also appear out of touch with reality, to me. Other than that, I hope your day is going well! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : OK Jim, lets look at your claim to be in a higher state of consciousness with a special access to knowledge. This is your claim so I say, show me how I can distinguish your claim from that of a born again Christian who claims to have had the experience of being saved. You both are claiming subjective knowledge that cannot be evaluated from outside. But you have an advantage in enlightenment. That package comes with the added claim that you can know things that people like me cannot know. Can you express one single thing as evidence that you are functioning on a higher mental level rather than a state of self delusion? There must be some way that you can demonstrate that you actually have a special mental ability with your higher state isn't there? And if there is not, then your state of mind is indistinguishable from any other person whose opinion of their specialness exceeds what others see in them. One more thing. The God you know inside had better keep his trap shut. If he decides that you are the pure vehicle for one single message to us, anything: Lil Debbie cakes are superior to Hostess cupcakes, The Mets will win whatever it is that those teams want to win, Halloween candy corn will cure cancer but only if you eat each section starting with the tip separately, ANYTHING... you will go from enlightened guy to lunatic in the time it takes anyone here to read your message. (Nabbie excepted course) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : As long as you are on the path to know the creator of the universe, as you put it, I am OK with that. I understand that your previous experiences with religion and TM, may have created a confusing concept of God, that you have rejected. No problem, God is endlessly creative, and will no doubt eventually make him and herself known to you, in a way that is yours alone, personally tailored for you. Once God awakes within you, you will know what I am talking about. Otherwise, it is nonsense to the waking state consciousness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : J: Er, Curtis, you are mistaking your failure, for certainty M: I have no certainty and don't buy yours. J: And being very arrogant about it. M: I am the on saying I do not KNOW the creator of the universe. You are saying you do. Perhaps you have redefined this word too. J: Without a sense of pure awareness, not the forced experiences from rounding, that you have mentioned, but the real deal, 24x7, you are basing your conclusions on fantasy, and have no clue about real enlightenment. M: So you know all about my awareness from inside too perhaps? J: Your choice, and so far, a very poor one, just like yer buddy, there, in front of the tube. M: Yeah, I don't buy your claims. Sorry that this frankness makes you feel hostile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Atheists do not have to define what they do not believe in. They take the definitions from the believers and find them wanting. Yours included, to the degree that you have spelled out what it is. As usual, Curtis, I am in awe of your ability to interface with idiots as if they were actually worth the time. I keep getting stuck on the idiot part. To me, if a person believes in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect, that's kinda like the Trifecta of Idiocy. You can't actually become much more of a loser than that. :-) M: Well to be fair, there is nothing I have read hear (Nabbie included) that I didn't wholeheartedly embrace at one time in my life. I don't think of my past self as being an idiot, just a practicer of fallacious reasoning. I was just wrong about almost everything I believed. Simply and earnestly wrong. Kinda humbling really.
[FairfieldLife] Chopra got it right!
Deepak Chopra: That’s one school of thought, but not what I learned. I had my spiritual apprenticeship with the Shankara- charya school in India, and my immediate mentor was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who brought Transcendental Meditation to the West. Maharishi was a disciple in turn of the Shankaracharya. That tradition goes back to the ninth century sage Adi Shankara. Their interpretation always has been that the eight limbs of yoga are practiced simultaneously. In that way it is similar to the Eightfold Path in Buddhism. The eight limbs are Niyama, Yama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi and are all actually combined into one discipline. Yama and Niyama are rules of social and personal conduct, so why not include them as things that you do? It’s about the internal shift in attitude that you have to make. Pratyahara and Pranayama are actually forms of Raja yoga, and therefore they are complementary to Asana. Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi are supposed to be the culmination of this practice, but all eight limbs are still part of your daily practice. Wgm says: Even MMY says the same in his BG in the appendix on Yoga! All limbs were meant to be practiced 'simultaneously, many meditators have this confused, mostly because MMY himself said one thing and wrote another, see for yourself. (Gita Appendix/Yoga)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Thanks for getting it. From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:50 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity Cosmological Kalamity Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. View on infidels.org Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
[FairfieldLife] Identity of the Ripper remains a mystery!
As expected, the enigma will keep running for a while yet Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wrong, experts say http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wr... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Scientists claim that work by a genetic expert that appeared to unmask Jack the Ripper is wrong, and the notorious murderer's identity still remains a myste... View on www.dailymail.co.uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. M: I couldn't agree more. We do the best we can with what we got. Excellent post. Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: ISIS Now Has an Air Force
On 10/18/2014 6:29 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Over 5000 bombs and artillery shells with Sarin and Mustard gas found - so far. Now owned by ISIS - the compassionate, the merciful. /OT: No WMD were found in Iraq?// //http://tinyurl.com/pz5rean/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
I must be prescient, having just said: I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. :-) From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Share, your comparison to watching movies is a good one, except that we are each watching a different movie, that none of the others have seen. So there is plenty of description and evidence, but it is largely meaningless to convey, as no one else has seen our movie. Glad you got an 'A' on the paper, but I'll give you a 'D', (for 'doesn't work'), on your comparison.:-) The statement about the aspirin borders on feeble. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. M: I couldn't agree more. We do the best we can with what we got. Excellent post. Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Fleetwood, I was comparing what my film prof said to his class to what Curtis was saying to his class. I wasn't comparing anything to watching movies. As for something being feeble, how's your reading comprehension these days?! On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:01 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, your comparison to watching movies is a good one, except that we are each watching a different movie, that none of the others have seen. So there is plenty of description and evidence, but it is largely meaningless to convey, as no one else has seen our movie. Glad you got an 'A' on the paper, but I'll give you a 'D', (for 'doesn't work'), on your comparison.:-) The statement about the aspirin borders on feeble. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. M: I couldn't agree more. We do the best we can with what we got. Excellent post. Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
uh...Barry...you being a former TM teacher and all, Maharishi wasn't talking about subjective experience, constituting objective proof, for anyone else, only for the subject, and only in a life of enlightenment. The meme for waking state is to always doubt experience, and it is an appropriate caution, for such a state of immature consciousness. But, as we grow up, and see waking state for what it is, a very incomplete picture of life, the subjective, and objective experience merges. So much easier that way, going about life, knowing what to do, to help others, and ourselves. Again, it is a personal thing, for each of us to personally evaluate, for ourselves, regarding our own experience. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I must be prescient, having just said: I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. :-) From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Some more Halloween entertainment
Yet another bagain priced Halloween film is The Possession of Michael King. This one has a decidedly FFL flair to it especially with the chatter here over the last couple of days. Michael King is an atheist who decides to make a homemade documentary to debunk religion and spirituality. So he visits some priests and spiritualists. Of course things go awry in the process of his investigation. This film is rated not for Buck and probably a lot of the folks here but I thought it was quite good for the genre. Here's the trailer: http://youtu.be/rIZbq7V2xvs After watching a few Willow Creek QA from film festivals with Bobcat Goldthwait which were very fascinating but even the film geeks did not ask what camera was used I found a press release for the film that said a consumer grade Canon camera was used. I suspect a Vixia model. I love guerrilla film making. Of course nobody uses film anymore, just memory cards. On 10/18/2014 02:43 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] wrote: I've been hearing about Bobcat Goldthwait's Willow Creek for some time. It's a film about a couple who go to Sasquatch country in search of Big Foot and film their search. it's a found footage film so be ready for plenty of shaky cam. I'm still trying to find what it was shot on because I think Bobcat went all authentic and even used a consumer cam rather than making Red camera footage look like that in post. The film has been in theaters for month thoughs I don't know exactly what theaters that would be and priced streaming appropriately ($7). Thus I was pleased to discover that Amazon has it for 99 cents and rented it to watch last night. I found the film entertaining though it has been very controversial in the film community. Probably tame enough for most folks here except for those who hate the found footage genre. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2885364/?ref_=nv_sr_1 After watching you might enjoy this clip with Bobcat and the two principals. http://youtu.be/P_2BSIfYML8
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
The assumption in your grad school film class, was that everyone had seen the same film, and so was evaluating the same film. I certainly hope your esteemed prof had seen the Weir film you wrote about! Not the case with our unique consciousnesses. Each of us is, in effect, watching a different film. So, despite the presentation of evidence and arguments to back everything up, we are watching different films. So your esteemed prof may be able to think about film, but nothing he said had to do with evaluating another person's consciousness. Are you now able to comprehend that, the second time around? As for the aspirin comment, it just sounds spaced out and flaky to me. I would never have told a child that, for example. Definitely irresponsible, and possibly dangerous. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Fleetwood, I was comparing what my film prof said to his class to what Curtis was saying to his class. I wasn't comparing anything to watching movies. As for something being feeble, how's your reading comprehension these days?! On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:01 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, your comparison to watching movies is a good one, except that we are each watching a different movie, that none of the others have seen. So there is plenty of description and evidence, but it is largely meaningless to convey, as no one else has seen our movie. Glad you got an 'A' on the paper, but I'll give you a 'D', (for 'doesn't work'), on your comparison.:-) The statement about the aspirin borders on feeble. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. M: I couldn't agree more. We do the best we can with what we got. Excellent post. Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Fleetwood, are there children reading these FFL comments?! I'm pretty sure people here have already made up their minds about the efficacy or harm of aspirin! As I've said many times here in true FFL redundant fashion, I don't evaluate states of consciousness of others. I go more by how someone feels to me, how their energy feels. If they feel grounded, integrated, for example, then I consider their opinions, insights, suggestions with some care. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:17 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: The assumption in your grad school film class, was that everyone had seen the same film, and so was evaluating the same film. I certainly hope your esteemed prof had seen the Weir film you wrote about! Not the case with our unique consciousnesses. Each of us is, in effect, watching a different film. So, despite the presentation of evidence and arguments to back everything up, we are watching different films. So your esteemed prof may be able to think about film, but nothing he said had to do with evaluating another person's consciousness. Are you now able to comprehend that, the second time around? As for the aspirin comment, it just sounds spaced out and flaky to me. I would never have told a child that, for example. Definitely irresponsible, and possibly dangerous. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Fleetwood, I was comparing what my film prof said to his class to what Curtis was saying to his class. I wasn't comparing anything to watching movies. As for something being feeble, how's your reading comprehension these days?! On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:01 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, your comparison to watching movies is a good one, except that we are each watching a different movie, that none of the others have seen. So there is plenty of description and evidence, but it is largely meaningless to convey, as no one else has seen our movie. Glad you got an 'A' on the paper, but I'll give you a 'D', (for 'doesn't work'), on your comparison.:-) The statement about the aspirin borders on feeble. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. M: I couldn't agree more. We do the best we can with what we got. Excellent post. Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are
Re: [FairfieldLife] Chopra got it right!
Too bad Marshy was a proven liar and his disciple Deepak, while making a load of money has become his very own brand of spiritual huckster From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Chopra got it right! Deepak Chopra: That’s one school of thought, but not what I learned. I had my spiritual apprenticeship with the Shankara- charya school in India, and my immediate mentor was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who brought Transcendental Meditation to the West. Maharishi was a disciple in turn of the Shankaracharya. That tradition goes back to the ninth century sage Adi Shankara. Their interpretation always has been that the eight limbs of yoga are practiced simultaneously. In that way it is similar to the Eightfold Path in Buddhism. The eight limbs are Niyama, Yama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi and are all actually combined into one discipline. Yama and Niyama are rules of social and personal conduct, so why not include them as things that you do? It’s about the internal shift in attitude that you have to make. Pratyahara and Pranayama are actually forms of Raja yoga, and therefore they are complementary to Asana. Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi are supposed to be the culmination of this practice, but all eight limbs are still part of your daily practice. Wgm says: Even MMY says the same in his BG in the appendix on Yoga! All limbs were meant to be practiced 'simultaneously, many meditators have this confused, mostly because MMY himself said one thing and wrote another, see for yourself. (Gita Appendix/Yoga)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Identity of the Ripper remains a mystery!
When the experts can say he DID put the decimal in the wrong place instead of he MAY have, then we should pay attention. Also find out if any of the other folks who make money off the mystery paid the experts to find doubt in the research. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:24 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Identity of the Ripper remains a mystery! As expected, the enigma will keep running for a while yet Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wrong, experts say Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wr... Scientists claim that work by a genetic expert that appeared to unmask Jack the Ripper is wrong, and the notorious murderer's identity still remains a myste... View on www.dailymail.co.uk Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Sure. As I said, my enlightenment is not provable. M: Provable is one thing. Not being able to demonstrate anything that you would need to assume a higher states model is another. I hear music in my mind. That is subjective. I can't prove that I do. But I can demonstrate on the outside that I have a musical awareness. It just seems odd that such a state would have absolutely zero manifestation of better. And of course Maharishi disagrees with you about the proof. The proof was supposed to be the siddhis but it just didn't turn out. And he did not believe that siddhis could not be demonstrated for the skeptical. He believed they could but again, failed. J: I DO achieve everything that I desire. M: I am not sure what you are saying here. So do I then. We all work toward our goals and if we haven't set the bar ridiculously high, we get there. Are you claiming that your version is somehow different from mine? What have you desired that came true that could not be explained by the process we all use to fulfill desires? Are you aware that the human mind has a cognitive flaw of shaping our memories so that we only remember the things we got fulfilled and conveniently forget hose that did not turn out? We are terrible at such self reported score keeping. J: Enlightenment is the state of pure awareness, 24 x 7, M: First of all you couldn't even know if you black out in deep sleep in between periods of wakefulness. You would have to have an MRI. I have nights where I don't believe I was ever in deep sleep, but by the clock I must have been. We are terrible reporters of sleep states. I am aware in my dreams too so that doesn't really count. And lets say you did, what is the value of that? Sleep is nice and it helps organize all sorts of stuff in our minds, creatively and for memory access. You are selling a feature as a benefit and I don't see what that is. During the day I have pure awareness too, it is called being alive as a sentient being. J: universal synchronicity. M: What is this and how do you know this? Can you distinguish this from a fanciful notion you have? J: It is a famous expression in the Gita, that an enlightened man sees darkness where the ignorant see light, and vice versa, so your comments are appropriate. Yes, I appear crazy to you, but you also appear out of touch with reality, to me. Other than that, I hope your day is going well! M: Always with the on upmanship putdowns. You don't appear crazy to me. You appear to have a fanciful notion about yourself as living in a superior state of consciousness that manifests absolutely nothing that seems superior. It comes off as a little insecure. You don't have to be a superior being to be respected and liked you know. Being an ordinary human is wonderful enough. But I do reject the notion that you are enlightened and I am ignorant. That is pure poopy pants posturing about something you could not know. By your own no-proof-needed assertions criteria, for all you know I am in the next state of enlightenment and am your guru trying to coax you along to my higher state. Subjective inflation can go both ways you know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : OK Jim, lets look at your claim to be in a higher state of consciousness with a special access to knowledge. This is your claim so I say, show me how I can distinguish your claim from that of a born again Christian who claims to have had the experience of being saved. You both are claiming subjective knowledge that cannot be evaluated from outside. But you have an advantage in enlightenment. That package comes with the added claim that you can know things that people like me cannot know. Can you express one single thing as evidence that you are functioning on a higher mental level rather than a state of self delusion? There must be some way that you can demonstrate that you actually have a special mental ability with your higher state isn't there? And if there is not, then your state of mind is indistinguishable from any other person whose opinion of their specialness exceeds what others see in them. One more thing. The God you know inside had better keep his trap shut. If he decides that you are the pure vehicle for one single message to us, anything: Lil Debbie cakes are superior to Hostess cupcakes, The Mets will win whatever it is that those teams want to win, Halloween candy corn will cure cancer but only if you eat each section starting with the tip separately, ANYTHING... you will go from enlightened guy to lunatic in the time it takes anyone here to read your message. (Nabbie excepted course) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : As long as you are on the path to know the creator of the universe, as you put it, I am OK with that. I understand that your previous experiences with religion
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. Wrong, Taxius. Barry is insulting people. Barry is cursing people's beliefs. Barry is denigrating people, distorting who they are, and treating them with incredible disrespect. We are not his guinea pigs. He, rather, has become quite a specimen of craziness and abuse, under the scrutiny, of those he inadvertently attracts, through his antisocial behavior. You are a fool for taking his emotionally unbalanced state, for some sort of wisdom. Grow up, and smell the reality. Xeno appears to be that kindly uncle who thinks up every excuse for why his nephew, while being roaring drunk, pukes on the dinner table then falls into his soup after abusing his aunt with profanity and insult. Xeno is either a misguided enabler or he simply doesn't get it. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. Yep, absolutely correct. That is why we practice TM, to clear past impressions, so that we can one day see reality, as it is, not as we think it should be. Otherwise, we would remain impaired, as you say - in a state of ignorance. There is no way to follow the knowledge associated with TM, without doing TM. It makes little sense, like reading automobile service manuals, without owning or driving a car.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The world before Google and internet
And drones were something a queen bee kept around for sex. On 10/19/2014 02:49 AM, blue_bungalo...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: The world before Google and internet http://www.zamson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/life-before-google-500x496.jpg http://www.zamson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/life-before-google-500x496.jpg https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QstUNDVHymc/TU9SrT4n5FI/Ahk/KLuSVMfWJ8s/s1600/social%2Bnetworking.bmp https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QstUNDVHymc/TU9SrT4n5FI/Ahk/KLuSVMfWJ8s/s1600/social%2Bnetworking.bmp http://liberonet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/world-before-social-550x500.jpg http://liberonet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/world-before-social-550x500.jpg http://www.comics.wombania.com/cartoons/2013-05-23-life-before-the-internet.png http://www.comics.wombania.com/cartoons/2013-05-23-life-before-the-internet.png http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e7/15/93/e7159321232a2eeaee2368250ce27495.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e7/15/93/e7159321232a2eeaee2368250ce27495.jpg http://acpladult.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/prehistoric-googling.jpg?w=500 http://acpladult.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/prehistoric-googling.jpg?w=500 http://api.ning.com/files/zAECsrr7CFQXV94F27w*ynHSxsr4R8IziA6Gmjk9MJHq7LJUflz7BRrQm1ZEHlD45DT7SyuFEwp50G74BCnaCxOQd-CWJUGM/computer23.jpg http://api.ning.com/files/zAECsrr7CFQXV94F27w*ynHSxsr4R8IziA6Gmjk9MJHq7LJUflz7BRrQm1ZEHlD45DT7SyuFEwp50G74BCnaCxOQd-CWJUGM/computer23.jpg
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Fleetwood, are there children reading these FFL comments?! That made me laugh, but not why you think. On the other hand, who knows who you tell this stuff to? For all I know, you were passing out flyers, at the nursery school down the block...lol I'm pretty sure people here have already made up their minds about the efficacy or harm of aspirin! see above. As I've said many times here in true FFL redundant fashion, I don't evaluate states of consciousness of others. I go more by how someone feels to me, how their energy feels. If they feel grounded, integrated, for example, then I consider their opinions, insights, suggestions with some care. A left turn, down a dirt road, and one I'll accept, but what does that have to do, with the price of cheese? On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:17 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: The assumption in your grad school film class, was that everyone had seen the same film, and so was evaluating the same film. I certainly hope your esteemed prof had seen the Weir film you wrote about! Not the case with our unique consciousnesses. Each of us is, in effect, watching a different film. So, despite the presentation of evidence and arguments to back everything up, we are watching different films. So your esteemed prof may be able to think about film, but nothing he said had to do with evaluating another person's consciousness. Are you now able to comprehend that, the second time around? As for the aspirin comment, it just sounds spaced out and flaky to me. I would never have told a child that, for example. Definitely irresponsible, and possibly dangerous. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Fleetwood, I was comparing what my film prof said to his class to what Curtis was saying to his class. I wasn't comparing anything to watching movies. As for something being feeble, how's your reading comprehension these days?! On Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:01 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: Share, your comparison to watching movies is a good one, except that we are each watching a different movie, that none of the others have seen. So there is plenty of description and evidence, but it is largely meaningless to convey, as no one else has seen our movie. Glad you got an 'A' on the paper, but I'll give you a 'D', (for 'doesn't work'), on your comparison.:-) The statement about the aspirin borders on feeble. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. M: I couldn't agree more. We do the best we can with what we got. Excellent post. Curtis, my grad Film prof at Univ of Maryland said the same thing to a Film criticism class: that we could say anything about the film we were discussing, as long as we could back it up with evidence from the film itself. I love that kind of exercise, got an A on my paper about Peter Weir's Witness! I've found that proof and evidence are funny, slippery things. Just to keep it simple, if I have a headache and take an aspirin and the headache stops, was it really the aspirin that worked? Or was it the fact that the atmospheric pressure subsided? Or that I drank some water? Maybe I breathed a little more deeply? Or did the aspirin taking have a placebo effect? Since we can never have 100% certainty about cause and effect, I guess we all like to get as close to 100% as possible. Makes us feel safe. So we use all sorts of stuff for evidence besides our own experience. What people we trust tell us for example. I guess what I'm getting to is that basically we gotta get peaceful about not knowing anything for sure. Lately it's what works for me. On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Fleetwood, Excellent observation of Barry's behavior here on this forum. IOW, he's become the self-proclaimed troll here. But I'm not sure if he really knows what he's doing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You sound very much like Freddie, here, Barry. Here's the Lenz playbook: 1. Always go after the last one who disagreed with you. This is why jr. is finally coming in for some serious attention (abuse), from you. Lenz did this as a means of keeping his chumps in line, like playing whack-a-mole, with his students. Unfortunately, all you are doing, is alienating everybody here, one by one. 2. Call out anyone who makes statements, that compete with your self-deluded grandeur, or signal a complete independence from your thinking. This is why it bothers you to no end, when I describe my enlightenment, the actual experience of it. Enlightenment is the antithesis of the waking state slavery, that you relish in, with your teeny tiny manipulations, a sad escape, from a sad and wasted life. It is never too late, dude. 3. Use ridicule, distortion, and insult, *always*, against those who threaten you. Lenz used this all the time, even on you, Barry. Remember? But what is the pay-off, here, on FFL? It is as if you have picked up Lenz's behaviors, but there is nothing to gain from it. You are not Lenz. You can't command us to send you money, or do anything else. There is no inner circle of yours. This is why you have become simply an abusive prick. Hope you have a nice day - looks beautiful up here. I've been reading the Lenz book that you mentioned in a post yesterday and last night saw a quote from Lenz that used the term thang, I guess it was something he used to say a lot. Now I realize bawee has held onto that little mantra all this time (and apparently a whole whack of other crap as well.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Barry, Calm down. You're hallucinating or maybe you're delusional. I never said anything that you think I may have said. I merely said that you review the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You never responded to me about what you think about it. It was Curtis who responded about his thoughts on the KCA. But he declined to provide any evidence for disagreeing with any of the statements on the KCA. It appears to me that he's avoiding the issues by not providing the evidence. That shows me that he's unwilling to debate the statements on the KCA. If that's the case, I'm not going to pursue the point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : John is *finally* starting to get it. I'm treating him (and other idiots that believe as he does) the way *they* (believers in the invisible man in the sky) have been treating non-believers for thousands of years. Back in the Middle Ages, these thugs who believed in an invisible man actually ganged up and burned those who *didn't* believe in the invisible man at the stake. John wants things to be that way again. Unfortunately, they're not, and they'll never be again. Now, it's fairly obvious in any discussion between a believer in the invisible man and someone who doesn't believe which claim is rational and sane, and which is not. All that the non-believers have to say is, SHOW US this invisible man you claim exists. They can't. End of story. But that makes them pissed off, because their act of being better because they believe in an invisible man goes poof! and disappears. They're revealed to be Just Another Crazy person raving about this invisible guy who watches everything they do and controls the world. It's all pretense, and just as meaningless as someone claiming to be enlightened. For which the same response applies -- SHOW US something 'enlightened' -- if you can't then we reserve the right to think of you as just another arrogant crazy person, and write you off as the idiot you are. On a practical level, both John (jr_esq) and Jim (whoever he is this week) are simply Not Very Bright. They've both got IQs that never broke the 100 level, and they're lucky to be able to get through the day in terms of practical intelligence. The *only* thing that either of them seems to be any good at is standing there yelling, I'm BETTER than you are, because of the (select one: A. things I believe, or B. things I claim about my 'enlightenment'). I don't buy it. You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, and it's about time someone treated you as what you are. There IS a bottom line in all of this, and you guys are doing everything you possibly can to try to distract from it. That bottom line is: You claiming to *know* that 1) there is a God, or 2) that they are 'enlightened.' Fine. You can believe whatever they want. All we are saying is, PROVE IT. Oh, and STFU until you can. As Curtis has patiently been trying to point out to these two idiots, we really *don't* claim to know anything for certain about whether there is a god or not. We are saying that we don't see ANY reason to either believe in one, or even to conceive of the need for one. The onus is on those who claim these things to PROVE that what they believe is true, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Did you shove a burr up your ass and not realize it? Bend over and have a look before you do anything else, I promise you might feel better if you do. Then we might all be spared the excrement you think of as either a valuable contribution to this forum or a way of showing off to your imaginary characters in your head called reporters.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Chopra got it right!
MMY said that the ethical, religious, exercise-full life-style of a law-abiding householder in any culture was enough to be counted as simultaneously practicing the other limbs of Yoga that weren't directly addressed by TM practice. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Too bad Marshy was a proven liar and his disciple Deepak, while making a load of money has become his very own brand of spiritual huckster From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Chopra got it right! Deepak Chopra: That’s one school of thought, but not what I learned. I had my spiritual apprenticeship with the Shankara- charya school in India, and my immediate mentor was Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who brought Transcendental Meditation to the West. Maharishi was a disciple in turn of the Shankaracharya. That tradition goes back to the ninth century sage Adi Shankara. Their interpretation always has been that the eight limbs of yoga are practiced simultaneously. In that way it is similar to the Eightfold Path in Buddhism. The eight limbs are Niyama, Yama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi and are all actually combined into one discipline. Yama and Niyama are rules of social and personal conduct, so why not include them as things that you do? It’s about the internal shift in attitude that you have to make. Pratyahara and Pranayama are actually forms of Raja yoga, and therefore they are complementary to Asana. Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi are supposed to be the culmination of this practice, but all eight limbs are still part of your daily practice. Wgm says: Even MMY says the same in his BG in the appendix on Yoga! All limbs were meant to be practiced 'simultaneously, many meditators have this confused, mostly because MMY himself said one thing and wrote another, see for yourself. (Gita Appendix/Yoga)
[FairfieldLife] Re: ISIS Now Has an Air Force
Aren't most of those so old that they are as dangerous for the handlers as for the intended targets? L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : Good points Willy. Over 5000 bombs and artillery shells with Sarin and Mustard gas found - so far. Now owned by ISIS - the compassionate, the merciful. Apparently that constitutes a Lie for this shill of the appeasers. That also is true for thisshill of the TMO. Once a shill - forever a shill. Hail to such Great Enlightenment! Shill enlightenment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM Free Excerpt
Are you suggesting that people on this forum didn't already realize all these things? L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : A little excerpt from a recent TM Free post: Fairfield residents have been dragging their feet around suicide prevention for years. This is due not only to the American stigma around mental illness. It is also exacerbated by TM official and unofficial doctrine. Just a few of them are: - Maharishi disapproved of Western psychotherapy. - If you saw a psychotherapist, you could be disqualified from attending a TM course. - TM is supposed to make you emotionally healthy, therefore if you report emotional problems, you are making TM look bad. - People with emotional problems have been advised to do more asanas or learn the TM-Sidhis, rather than to seek professional help. - People with emotional problems have been told they are unstressing rather than being advised to seek professional help. - When people have had emotional problems (including hospitalizations and suicides), the TM organization has tended to hide the information or blame the person for being too emotionally unstable to begin with. - People with emotional problems have been misdiagnosed by TMers as being in higher states of consciousness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
The lurking reporters will have a hard time trying to figure out how much the hate-posts from the Turq are leftovers from his time with his Lentz-guru and how much is legitimate criticism of the TMO which he left. or as some claim; was kicked out of, more than 40 years ago. Journalism was never supposed to be easy :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Thanks - No, he is emulating Lenz, without thinking it through. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Fleetwood, Excellent observation of Barry's behavior here on this forum. IOW, he's become the self-proclaimed troll here. But I'm not sure if he really knows what he's doing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You sound very much like Freddie, here, Barry. Here's the Lenz playbook: 1. Always go after the last one who disagreed with you. This is why jr. is finally coming in for some serious attention (abuse), from you. Lenz did this as a means of keeping his chumps in line, like playing whack-a-mole, with his students. Unfortunately, all you are doing, is alienating everybody here, one by one. 2. Call out anyone who makes statements, that compete with your self-deluded grandeur, or signal a complete independence from your thinking. This is why it bothers you to no end, when I describe my enlightenment, the actual experience of it. Enlightenment is the antithesis of the waking state slavery, that you relish in, with your teeny tiny manipulations, a sad escape, from a sad and wasted life. It is never too late, dude. 3. Use ridicule, distortion, and insult, *always*, against those who threaten you. Lenz used this all the time, even on you, Barry. Remember? But what is the pay-off, here, on FFL? It is as if you have picked up Lenz's behaviors, but there is nothing to gain from it. You are not Lenz. You can't command us to send you money, or do anything else. There is no inner circle of yours. This is why you have become simply an abusive prick. Hope you have a nice day - looks beautiful up here. I've been reading the Lenz book that you mentioned in a post yesterday and last night saw a quote from Lenz that used the term thang, I guess it was something he used to say a lot. Now I realize bawee has held onto that little mantra all this time (and apparently a whole whack of other crap as well.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
e-n-a-b-l-e-r. Hadn't thought about that angle. Also likes to idealize Barry, and participate vicariously in his adventures. LOL - Your hilarious description of the nephew reminds me of Will Farrell's kids, in Talladega Nights. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. Wrong, Taxius. Barry is insulting people. Barry is cursing people's beliefs. Barry is denigrating people, distorting who they are, and treating them with incredible disrespect. We are not his guinea pigs. He, rather, has become quite a specimen of craziness and abuse, under the scrutiny, of those he inadvertently attracts, through his antisocial behavior. You are a fool for taking his emotionally unbalanced state, for some sort of wisdom. Grow up, and smell the reality. Xeno appears to be that kindly uncle who thinks up every excuse for why his nephew, while being roaring drunk, pukes on the dinner table then falls into his soup after abusing his aunt with profanity and insult. Xeno is either a misguided enabler or he simply doesn't get it. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. Yep, absolutely correct. That is why we practice TM, to clear past impressions, so that we can one day see reality, as it is, not as we think it should be. Otherwise, we would remain impaired, as you say - in a state of ignorance. There is no way to follow the knowledge associated with TM, without doing TM. It makes little sense, like reading automobile service manuals, without owning or driving a car.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
No, people become insulted. A person saying x might be interpreted by y as an insult, but interpreted by z as a helpful hint. Being insulted is a response. What to some might seem a pox on their cherished tradition others might see as a reasonable evaluation of idiotic beliefs, or even championing truth. You can swear at an anvil, and what does it do in response — nothing. You can berate someone in a language they do not speak, and while they might notice you are agitated, in not understanding the words, they will not responds as if it were an insult. So it is all in the interpretation. I have never said what Barry says is wisdom. It is what Barry says, that is all. People respond in different ways. He clearly knows enough about certain aspects of human nature to elicit the responses he gets on FFL. If I lived where he lived and saw him every day, I probably would have a better idea what he is like, but I tend not to draw conclusions so readily based on what he writes. Wisdom does not come from others, if you want to be wise, you have to mine for it yourself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. Wrong, Taxius. Barry is insulting people. Barry is cursing people's beliefs. Barry is denigrating people, distorting who they are, and treating them with incredible disrespect. We are not his guinea pigs. He, rather, has become quite a specimen of craziness and abuse, under the scrutiny, of those he inadvertently attracts, through his antisocial behavior. You are a fool for taking his emotionally unbalanced state, for some sort of wisdom. Grow up, and smell the reality. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. Yep, absolutely correct. That is why we practice TM, to clear past impressions, so that we can one day see reality, as it is, not as we think it should be. Otherwise, we would remain impaired, as you say - in a state of ignorance. There is no way to follow the knowledge associated with TM, without doing TM. It makes little sense, like reading automobile service manuals, without owning or driving a car. I do not think you understood what I said here. What I said here was in a state of ignorance, you are incapable of knowing whether the TM program, in total, is a scam or not, based on its own philosophy, so saying that it clears past impressions and so forth, is a complete unknown, for in a state of delusion, you cannot come to a correct evaluation of whether the program has any valid reason for being followed. You cannot use the philosophy of the program to determine if what it says is true, that is circular reasoning. You cannot even evaluate the practices, at least initially. Lots of people have been practising TM for 50 years and still seem to be in the dark as to what it is all about. So the fact you found value might just be a random quirk. I myself found value in the program, but I also am aware of many limitations it has, and it has been useful for some, a stepping stone to other things for some, just so-so for others, and a nightmare for a few. There is nothing about enlightenment that is not experienced before starting a spiritual path. If enlightenment seems different from the way you were before engaging spirituality, then the process is not complete. Enlightenment does not add anything to life, it removes a misunderstanding about what has always been happening, what has been the case. During the unpacking of misconceptions, experiences may seem quite unlike what one had previously known. Witnessing 24/7 is an example of this. This is a dualistic conception of experience that arises because the mind is becoming familiar with the nature awareness. Unchanging awareness has been there from day one, but just unfamiliar because one did not know how to look at the situation. Once one knows how to appreciate the situation, you know it was always there, you just trained the mind to notice it better. So awareness 24/7 is not a special state. I have awareness this way, what is the big deal? It is not the cause of anything other than it enables you to experience, which is what you have always done. Consciousness has been present all one's life. You do not get any more, you just get to notice how it plays out better if you train the mind to appreciate, which is what meditation does. All an effective spiritual practice does is remove some clutter from the ol' mind. Most such practices seem to do
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
There is nothing to prove, and nothing to demonstrate for you, Curtis. enjoy your waking state shudder. PS Deep sleep does nothing to interrupt or destroy pure awareness. Yes, I sleep very, very deeply, with pure awareness accompanying it all. Dreams too. It is not the same as thinking, or even the pure awareness you may have had during TM. It is always there, no variation, during *everything*. Never goes away, and I cannot destroy it. You must experience it, for yourself, to see what the benefit is. Otherwise the waking state just gets confused and frustrated, hearing about this permanent, yet non-quantifiable state of consciousness, pure awareness. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Sure. As I said, my enlightenment is not provable. M: Provable is one thing. Not being able to demonstrate anything that you would need to assume a higher states model is another. I hear music in my mind. That is subjective. I can't prove that I do. But I can demonstrate on the outside that I have a musical awareness. It just seems odd that such a state would have absolutely zero manifestation of better. And of course Maharishi disagrees with you about the proof. The proof was supposed to be the siddhis but it just didn't turn out. And he did not believe that siddhis could not be demonstrated for the skeptical. He believed they could but again, failed. J: I DO achieve everything that I desire. M: I am not sure what you are saying here. So do I then. We all work toward our goals and if we haven't set the bar ridiculously high, we get there. Are you claiming that your version is somehow different from mine? What have you desired that came true that could not be explained by the process we all use to fulfill desires? Are you aware that the human mind has a cognitive flaw of shaping our memories so that we only remember the things we got fulfilled and conveniently forget hose that did not turn out? We are terrible at such self reported score keeping. J: Enlightenment is the state of pure awareness, 24 x 7, M: First of all you couldn't even know if you black out in deep sleep in between periods of wakefulness. You would have to have an MRI. I have nights where I don't believe I was ever in deep sleep, but by the clock I must have been. We are terrible reporters of sleep states. I am aware in my dreams too so that doesn't really count. And lets say you did, what is the value of that? Sleep is nice and it helps organize all sorts of stuff in our minds, creatively and for memory access. You are selling a feature as a benefit and I don't see what that is. During the day I have pure awareness too, it is called being alive as a sentient being. J: universal synchronicity. M: What is this and how do you know this? Can you distinguish this from a fanciful notion you have? J: It is a famous expression in the Gita, that an enlightened man sees darkness where the ignorant see light, and vice versa, so your comments are appropriate. Yes, I appear crazy to you, but you also appear out of touch with reality, to me. Other than that, I hope your day is going well! M: Always with the on upmanship putdowns. You don't appear crazy to me. You appear to have a fanciful notion about yourself as living in a superior state of consciousness that manifests absolutely nothing that seems superior. It comes off as a little insecure. You don't have to be a superior being to be respected and liked you know. Being an ordinary human is wonderful enough. But I do reject the notion that you are enlightened and I am ignorant. That is pure poopy pants posturing about something you could not know. By your own no-proof-needed assertions criteria, for all you know I am in the next state of enlightenment and am your guru trying to coax you along to my higher state. Subjective inflation can go both ways you know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : OK Jim, lets look at your claim to be in a higher state of consciousness with a special access to knowledge. This is your claim so I say, show me how I can distinguish your claim from that of a born again Christian who claims to have had the experience of being saved. You both are claiming subjective knowledge that cannot be evaluated from outside. But you have an advantage in enlightenment. That package comes with the added claim that you can know things that people like me cannot know. Can you express one single thing as evidence that you are functioning on a higher mental level rather than a state of self delusion? There must be some way that you can demonstrate that you actually have a special mental ability with your higher state isn't there? And if there is not, then your state of mind is indistinguishable from any other person whose opinion of their specialness exceeds what others see in them. One more
[FairfieldLife] Re: ISIS Now Has an Air Force
Go read the NYT article. It is a very good piece of writing that discloses the testimony of numerous soldiers chemically exposed while trying to decommission some of those WMD's. Most of what was found was mustard gas but some was Sarin or VX gas. Many of the dual-mix chemicals in the canisters were leaking or simply sloshing around when picked up and carried. Barack Hussein Ebola withdrew our troops, including all those discovery and cleanup troops. As a consequence, ISIS now controls that territory. Their liege-lord, the daimon known as Allah, is now controlling these warheads. Allahu Akbar. One Oath to rule them all, One Oath to find them, One Oath to join them all and in the darkness bind them
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM Free Excerpt
nope - its just a nice little summary of the shuck and jive tactics of the Movement on all subjects not just suicide. From: lengli...@cox.net [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TM Free Excerpt Are you suggesting that people on this forum didn't already realize all these things? L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : A little excerpt from a recent TM Free post: Fairfield residents have been dragging their feet around suicide prevention for years. This is due not only to the American stigma around mental illness. It is also exacerbated by TM official and unofficial doctrine. Just a few of them are: - Maharishi disapproved of Western psychotherapy. - If you saw a psychotherapist, you could be disqualified from attending a TM course. - TM is supposed to make you emotionally healthy, therefore if you report emotional problems, you are making TM look bad. - People with emotional problems have been advised to do more asanas or learn the TM-Sidhis, rather than to seek professional help. - People with emotional problems have been told they are unstressing rather than being advised to seek professional help. - When people have had emotional problems (including hospitalizations and suicides), the TM organization has tended to hide the information or blame the person for being too emotionally unstable to begin with. - People with emotional problems have been misdiagnosed by TMers as being in higher states of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
I wasn't sure before, but you have clarified for me, that you are an enabler, of Barry's abusive behavior. There is nothing remotely helpful, or hinting, at cursing and insulting someone else, distorting their values and ideas. You really need to step back, and do a reality check. Barry is an abusive, bitter, and negative individual. Simply because he has learned to manipulate people for a predictably outraged response, does not mean this is positive, educational, or socially appropriate behavior. Where did you grow up, anyway? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, people become insulted. A person saying x might be interpreted by y as an insult, but interpreted by z as a helpful hint. Being insulted is a response. What to some might seem a pox on their cherished tradition others might see as a reasonable evaluation of idiotic beliefs, or even championing truth. You can swear at an anvil, and what does it do in response — nothing. You can berate someone in a language they do not speak, and while they might notice you are agitated, in not understanding the words, they will not responds as if it were an insult. So it is all in the interpretation. I have never said what Barry says is wisdom. It is what Barry says, that is all. People respond in different ways. He clearly knows enough about certain aspects of human nature to elicit the responses he gets on FFL. If I lived where he lived and saw him every day, I probably would have a better idea what he is like, but I tend not to draw conclusions so readily based on what he writes. Wisdom does not come from others, if you want to be wise, you have to mine for it yourself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. Wrong, Taxius. Barry is insulting people. Barry is cursing people's beliefs. Barry is denigrating people, distorting who they are, and treating them with incredible disrespect. We are not his guinea pigs. He, rather, has become quite a specimen of craziness and abuse, under the scrutiny, of those he inadvertently attracts, through his antisocial behavior. You are a fool for taking his emotionally unbalanced state, for some sort of wisdom. Grow up, and smell the reality. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. Yep, absolutely correct. That is why we practice TM, to clear past impressions, so that we can one day see reality, as it is, not as we think it should be. Otherwise, we would remain impaired, as you say - in a state of ignorance. There is no way to follow the knowledge associated with TM, without doing TM. It makes little sense, like reading automobile service manuals, without owning or driving a car. I do not think you understood what I said here. What I said here was in a state of ignorance, you are incapable of knowing whether the TM program, in total, is a scam or not, based on its own philosophy, so saying that it clears past impressions and so forth, is a complete unknown, for in a state of delusion, you cannot come to a correct evaluation of whether the program has any valid reason for being followed. You cannot use the philosophy of the program to determine if what it says is true, that is circular reasoning. You cannot even evaluate the practices, at least initially. Lots of people have been practising TM for 50 years and still seem to be in the dark as to what it is all about. So the fact you found value might just be a random quirk. I myself found value in the program, but I also am aware of many limitations it has, and it has been useful for some, a stepping stone to other things for some, just so-so for others, and a nightmare for a few. There is nothing about enlightenment that is not experienced before starting a spiritual path. If enlightenment seems different from the way you were before engaging spirituality, then the process is not complete. Enlightenment does not add anything to life, it removes a misunderstanding about what has always been happening, what has been the case. During the unpacking of misconceptions, experiences may seem quite unlike what one had previously known. Witnessing 24/7 is an example of this. This is a dualistic conception of experience that arises because the mind is becoming familiar with the nature awareness. Unchanging awareness has been there from day one, but just unfamiliar because one did not know how to look at the situation. Once one knows how to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : There is nothing to prove, and nothing to demonstrate for you, Curtis. enjoy your waking state shudder. M: As I'm quite sure you enjoy too Jim. You can't resist overplaying your hand can ya. The whole story would play so much better without the compulsion to put me down for being in what you consider as a lower state of consciousness than your own. It is hard to accept that one of the superlative qualities of the unified field is infinite douchiness. It kind of tips your hand concerning the purpose of the whole routine for you. It also gives a nice from their fruits ye shall know them lesson. You see Jim you actually CAN prove your state of consciousness. In fact we really can't help but reveal it in how we communicate. Jim: PS Deep sleep does nothing to interrupt or destroy pure awareness. Yes, I sleep very, very deeply, with pure awareness accompanying it all. Dreams too. It is not the same as thinking, or even the pure awareness you may have had during TM. It is always there, no variation, during *everything*. Never goes away, and I cannot destroy it. You must experience it, for yourself, to see what the benefit is. Otherwise the waking state just gets confused and frustrated, hearing about this permanent, yet non-quantifiable state of consciousness, pure awareness. M: Gotchya Jim, even your sleeping is better than mine! More enlightened-y I think we can skip the MRI Jim. That wont be necessary. I read you loud and clear from my (shudder) waking state. Loved the string of jargon mumbo jimbo words on parade at the end. Communicating nothing but trying desperately for the fayest of putdowns. Your consciousness is quantifiable, neener, neemer, neener! Great rap, very entertaining so thanks for that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Sure. As I said, my enlightenment is not provable. M: Provable is one thing. Not being able to demonstrate anything that you would need to assume a higher states model is another. I hear music in my mind. That is subjective. I can't prove that I do. But I can demonstrate on the outside that I have a musical awareness. It just seems odd that such a state would have absolutely zero manifestation of better. And of course Maharishi disagrees with you about the proof. The proof was supposed to be the siddhis but it just didn't turn out. And he did not believe that siddhis could not be demonstrated for the skeptical. He believed they could but again, failed. J: I DO achieve everything that I desire. M: I am not sure what you are saying here. So do I then. We all work toward our goals and if we haven't set the bar ridiculously high, we get there. Are you claiming that your version is somehow different from mine? What have you desired that came true that could not be explained by the process we all use to fulfill desires? Are you aware that the human mind has a cognitive flaw of shaping our memories so that we only remember the things we got fulfilled and conveniently forget hose that did not turn out? We are terrible at such self reported score keeping. J: Enlightenment is the state of pure awareness, 24 x 7, M: First of all you couldn't even know if you black out in deep sleep in between periods of wakefulness. You would have to have an MRI. I have nights where I don't believe I was ever in deep sleep, but by the clock I must have been. We are terrible reporters of sleep states. I am aware in my dreams too so that doesn't really count. And lets say you did, what is the value of that? Sleep is nice and it helps organize all sorts of stuff in our minds, creatively and for memory access. You are selling a feature as a benefit and I don't see what that is. During the day I have pure awareness too, it is called being alive as a sentient being. J: universal synchronicity. M: What is this and how do you know this? Can you distinguish this from a fanciful notion you have? J: It is a famous expression in the Gita, that an enlightened man sees darkness where the ignorant see light, and vice versa, so your comments are appropriate. Yes, I appear crazy to you, but you also appear out of touch with reality, to me. Other than that, I hope your day is going well! M: Always with the on upmanship putdowns. You don't appear crazy to me. You appear to have a fanciful notion about yourself as living in a superior state of consciousness that manifests absolutely nothing that seems superior. It comes off as a little insecure. You don't have to be a superior being to be respected and liked you know. Being an ordinary human is wonderful enough. But I do reject the notion that you are enlightened and I am ignorant. That is pure poopy pants posturing about something you could not know. By your own no-proof-needed assertions criteria, for all you
[FairfieldLife] Re: ISIS Now Has an Air Force
And now has to deal with them. As I said, the aged WMDs are at least as dangerous to the handlers as to the intended targets. L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emptybill@... wrote : Go read the NYT article. It is a very good piece of writing that discloses the testimony of numerous soldiers chemically exposed while trying to decommission some of those WMD's. Most of what was found was mustard gas but some was Sarin or VX gas. Many of the dual-mix chemicals in the canisters were leaking or simply sloshing around when picked up and carried. Barack Hussein Ebola withdrew our troops, including all those discovery and cleanup troops. As a consequence, ISIS now controls that territory. Their liege-lord, the daimon known as Allah, is now controlling these warheads. Allahu Akbar. One Oath to rule them all, One Oath to find them, One Oath to join them all and in the darkness bind them
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, people become insulted. A person saying x might be interpreted by y as an insult, but interpreted by z as a helpful hint. Being insulted is a response. What to some might seem a pox on their cherished tradition others might see as a reasonable evaluation of idiotic beliefs, or even championing truth. You can swear at an anvil, and what does it do in response — nothing. You can berate someone in a language they do not speak, and while they might notice you are agitated, in not understanding the words, they will not responds as if it were an insult. So it is all in the interpretation. I have never said what Barry says is wisdom. It is what Barry says, that is all. People respond in different ways. He clearly knows enough about certain aspects of human nature to elicit the responses he gets on FFL. If I lived where he lived and saw him every day, I probably would have a better idea what he is like, but I tend not to draw conclusions so readily based on what he writes. Wisdom does not come from others, if you want to be wise, you have to mine for it yourself. Xeno, one of these days you're going to have to have to take a real stand on something. I don't know on exactly what or exactly why but it will happen, if you are lucky. Because to go through life waffling like you do, running the middle ground and basically existing in some sort of nebulous haze where nothing has any edges or definition is my idea of a nightmare. However, you seem to have chosen this sort of outlook and means of surviving but by doing so you are doomed to embrace all sorts of ugly and the noxious along with the mediocre and unremarkable.
[FairfieldLife] Take a Look
Are there any creatures more incredible, more moving, more astounding than elephants? I think not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_mAAQO3UdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_mAAQO3UdE
Re: [FairfieldLife] Identity of the Ripper remains a mystery!
On 10/19/2014 10:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote: As expected, the enigma will keep running for a while yet So, let's review what we know, for sure: * /The ghastly events took place from August to November 1888 in London. / Maybe Jack returned to his place of origin in the U.S.A. where he was born Herbert Webster Mudgett - aka H.H. Holmes. For decades English investigators have been convinced that one, or two, of the Jack Ripper murders were committed by an American surgeon visiting London. Not long after Jack the Ripper haunted the dimly lit streets of 1888 London, H.H. Holmes dispatched somewhere between 27 and 200 people during the Chicago World Fair. Go figure. Works cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes /Bloodstains/ by Jeff Mudgett http://tinyurl.com/n6bqo9n /The Devil in the White City: A Saga of Magic and Murder at the Fair that Changed America/ by Erik Larson http://tinyurl.com/lw7h472 Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wrong, experts say http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html image http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wr... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Scientists claim that work by a genetic expert that appeared to unmask Jack the Ripper is wrong, and the notorious murderer's identity still remains a myste... View on www.dailymail.co.uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Identity of the Ripper remains a mystery!
On 10/19/2014 11:34 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: When the experts can say he DID put the decimal in the wrong place instead of he MAY have, then we should pay attention. Also find out if any of the other folks who make money off the mystery paid the experts to find doubt in the research. /It is a fact that Joseph Hyam Levy, a Jew, sponsored Martin Kosminski, a Jewish immigrant from Kalisz, Poland, on Kosminski’s 1877 British naturalization application. Works cited: Paul Begg, Jack the Ripper: the Uncensored Facts. London: Robson Books, 1995, pp 206–207. http://www.casebook.org/suspects/kosminski.html http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-polishjew.html/ *From:* salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 11:24 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Identity of the Ripper remains a mystery! As expected, the enigma will keep running for a while yet Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wrong, experts say http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html image http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Claim that Jack the Ripper was Polish immigrant is wr... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Scientists claim that work by a genetic expert that appeared to unmask Jack the Ripper is wrong, and the notorious murderer's identity still remains a myste... View on www.dailymail.co.uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798856/claim-jack-ripper-unmasked-dna-evidence-polish-immigrant-barber-wrong-say-experts.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Take a Look
Traveling up Kerala I wished I had kept my camera handy because we drove right past an elephant used to clear trees where they were replacing the two lane let's play chicken highway with a freeway. On 10/19/2014 02:18 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Are there any creatures more incredible, more moving, more astounding than elephants? I think not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_mAAQO3UdE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Barry's preferred definition of God appears to be an old man with a beard who resides above, and harshly judges people. He likes this characterization because he feels it is easier to lampoon. And he's been a roll lately. A target rich environment of his own making. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer. Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative? I know and it is very random. Because every single human being on this planet has hundreds if not thousands of beliefs that they act on every day of their lives. Beliefs are not something you can not change in an instant nor do they necessarily result in death, dismemberment or fatal disease. Often they are very private things that undergo constant revision in the mind of the believer or non believer. It is as easy to change one's mind (belief set) as it is to sneeze. It is not beliefs that are dangerous it is what someone does with the belief just as it is an exercise in futility to go around poo pooing other's beliefs in an effort to do - what? Change them? Mock them? Show the believer how superior you are in your alternate beliefs? Those who claim they don't believe in anything are like those who claim they don't need a solid surface to occasionally stand upright on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Take a Look
Like. On 10/19/2014 4:18 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Are there any creatures more incredible, more moving, more astounding than elephants? I think not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_mAAQO3UdE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Fleet is right. Barry is capable of making decent posts but his recent efforts are no more than juvenile trolling. I don't know what he gets out of it. I read the Guardian a lot and they have a comments section. Sometimes moderators remove comments that don't follow Guardian guidelines. One of those guidelines is this: 1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. The key to maintaining the Guardian website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics. Barry is a perpetrator of exactly that persistent trolling and mindless abuse. I would prefer it if we had more active moderators who would simply remove abusive posts. Most of them originate from Barry. As others have pointed out, he has chosen simply to dump all his anger and frustration on people in this group. No one else does this. Barry's recent attack on John Jr. (not sure I have that moniker exactly right) was particularly egregious, since that poster is a model of civilized discussion and respectful behavior, which he continued in spite of Barry's insulting and extremely rude comments. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I wasn't sure before, but you have clarified for me, that you are an enabler, of Barry's abusive behavior. There is nothing remotely helpful, or hinting, at cursing and insulting someone else, distorting their values and ideas. You really need to step back, and do a reality check. Barry is an abusive, bitter, and negative individual. Simply because he has learned to manipulate people for a predictably outraged response, does not mean this is positive, educational, or socially appropriate behavior. Where did you grow up, anyway? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : No, people become insulted. A person saying x might be interpreted by y as an insult, but interpreted by z as a helpful hint. Being insulted is a response. What to some might seem a pox on their cherished tradition others might see as a reasonable evaluation of idiotic beliefs, or even championing truth. You can swear at an anvil, and what does it do in response — nothing. You can berate someone in a language they do not speak, and while they might notice you are agitated, in not understanding the words, they will not responds as if it were an insult. So it is all in the interpretation. I have never said what Barry says is wisdom. It is what Barry says, that is all. People respond in different ways. He clearly knows enough about certain aspects of human nature to elicit the responses he gets on FFL. If I lived where he lived and saw him every day, I probably would have a better idea what he is like, but I tend not to draw conclusions so readily based on what he writes. Wisdom does not come from others, if you want to be wise, you have to mine for it yourself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. Wrong, Taxius. Barry is insulting people. Barry is cursing people's beliefs. Barry is denigrating people, distorting who they are, and treating them with incredible disrespect. We are not his guinea pigs. He, rather, has become quite a specimen of craziness and abuse, under the scrutiny, of those he inadvertently attracts, through his antisocial behavior. You are a fool for taking his emotionally unbalanced state, for some sort of wisdom. Grow up, and smell the reality. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. Yep, absolutely correct. That is why we practice TM, to clear past impressions, so that we can one day see reality, as it is, not as we think it should be. Otherwise, we would remain impaired, as you say - in a state of ignorance. There is no way to follow the knowledge associated with TM, without doing TM. It makes little sense, like reading automobile service manuals, without owning or driving a car. I do not think you understood what I said here. What I said here was in a state of ignorance, you are incapable of knowing whether the TM program, in total, is a scam or not, based on its own philosophy, so saying that it clears past impressions and so forth, is a complete unknown, for in a state of delusion, you cannot come to a correct evaluation of whether the program has any valid reason for being followed. You cannot use the philosophy of the program to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Barry, you have picked up this rather annoying habit, I presume, from Michael, that every discussion must have an anti TM component to it, and preferably impugn MMY in some way. You are unaware of this, obviously, because most of your posts are rote responses with a small, fill in the blank. We are talking about fill in the blank, but the real issue is that you are a cult apologist. I want to comment about fill in blank, but you realize that MMY was a con man. I saw this fill in the blank the other day, and it reminded me of all the small minded people on FFL. This is pretty much the daily fare of Turquoise B. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I read this in a book I found in a second hand book store on witches spells and I believe it will work When you give him the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God
Very nice piece Jim, and mirrors my own feelings on the subject. There is no Crusader mentality here regarding the belief in God, or a higher power, as some here would like to imagine. Of course in the greater world, this is not the case, but we are having a discussion here, and it is nice to keep it honest. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : All good points, Curtis. Yeah, the God thing is a real conundrum. Something in this universe likes the polarity of it; can't prove it/it is everywhere. Unlike any rational argument, I cannot justify God in any other way, except for a subtle *sense* of His and Her work. There is no way to prove it. It is a sense that has changed throughout my life. I enjoyed Edg's equating God to pure awareness, because as I have come to appreciate God more in my life, a growth in continuous pure awareness has accompanied that. I can appreciate that these experiences of mine are not provable, but what is provable, is the ongoing success and happiness I enjoy, for myself, my family and friends and acquaintances. What is also provable is that way that God enters all my creative work. What is also provable, is that He and She point the way, and I continue to do the heavy lifting. No magical thinking, here, simply a deeper revelation of what it means to be human. So, it simply comes down to a consciousness of God, or not God. Thanks for writing this, and managing to keep a subject close to our hearts, open for discussion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/19/2014 4:36 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Barry's preferred definition of God appears to be an old man with a beard who resides above, and harshly judges people. He likes this characterization because he feels it is easier to lampoon. And he's been a roll lately. A target rich environment of his own making. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense. /Barry uses the straw man argument quite frequently//.// // //For those unfamiliar with the term, a straw man is a common type of argument that someone brings out to intentionally misrepresent the original topic of the argument. // // //It's like when two people are debating something and one guy is losing the argument big time, sohe tries to change the subject. // // //The logic of this is that if the debater can't win an argument on his or her own merits they then try to shift the topic of the argument. It's a very common tactic used by anonymous informants on the internet./ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Ann, Your observation is excellent. It appears that for some people here think that being called a believer is uncool and, a worst, an Ebola case. As such, they avoid giving any logical evidence for their assertions in order to be undefined, ambiguous and definitely not known as a believer. Who would have thought the B word has become pejorative? I know and it is very random. Because every single human being on this planet has hundreds if not thousands of beliefs that they act on every day of their lives. Beliefs are not something you can not change in an instant nor do they necessarily result in death, dismemberment or fatal disease. Often they are very private things that undergo constant revision in the mind of the believer or non believer. It is as easy to change one's mind (belief set) as it is to sneeze. It is not beliefs that are dangerous it is what someone does with the belief just as it is an exercise in futility to go around poo pooing other's beliefs in an effort to do - what? Change them? Mock them? Show the believer how superior you are in your alternate beliefs? Those who claim they don't believe in anything are like those who claim they don't need a solid surface to occasionally stand upright on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/19/2014 4:55 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Barry, you have picked up this rather annoying habit, I presume, from Michael, that every discussion must have an anti TM component to it, and preferably impugn MMY in some way. You are unaware of this, obviously, because most of your posts are rote responses with a small, dick. We are talking about _/dick size/_, but the real issue is that you are a cult apologist. I want to comment about dick-waving, but you realize that MMY was a con man. I saw this Phillip K. Dick movie the other day, and it reminded me of all the small minded people on FFL. This is pretty much the daily fare of Turquoise B. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. *From:* curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he is going to hand you something that has some good reasons for the belief that it will help you. You know, clinical trials, curing mice headaches, the works. Instead he hands you a bat's wing and says, boil this into some tea. I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
maybe if we say it enough, Barry will get. then again, maybe not. maybe there is a different agenda at work here, this so called testing memes aren't we lucky. why not call it what it is, a twenty year experiment of pushing other people's buttons to see what rise one can get. Okay, not an particularly endearing trait, but not criminal. But then, distorting what people believe so you can ridicule them? Again, not criminal, but a pretty sad way to communicate. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
dang Barry, can you not read? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I must be prescient, having just said: I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. :-) From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
Turq- Subjective experience only verifies subjective proof, INITIALLY, but eventually, what we find, if the theory bears out, is that the objective World is nothing BUT the subjective World as well. It's a dichotomy that only experience can sort outall is one. The relative World is nothing but Maya-Shakti, (the play of Mother Divine) you know that. The 5 physical senses will never be able to perceive that reality, only the subtler senses can discern that reality, which is SUBJECTIVE, I can't prove it to YOU because it's a subjective experience, FWIW. (Got me thinkin' anyway :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I must be prescient, having just said: I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. :-) From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
SHUT THE FUCK UP. On 10/19/2014 8:40 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Did you shove a burr up your ass and not realize it? Bend over and have a look before you do anything else, I promise you might feel better if you do. Then we might all be spared the excrement you think of as either a valuable contribution to this forum or a way of showing off to your imaginary characters in your head called reporters. /If monkeys were flying out of your butt all night, you'd probably be crabby in the morning too, Ann.//Go figure./
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked...
Fleet is right. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : uh...Barry...you being a former TM teacher and all, Maharishi wasn't talking about subjective experience, constituting objective proof, for anyone else, only for the subject, and only in a life of enlightenment. The meme for waking state is to always doubt experience, and it is an appropriate caution, for such a state of immature consciousness. But, as we grow up, and see waking state for what it is, a very incomplete picture of life, the subjective, and objective experience merges. So much easier that way, going about life, knowing what to do, to help others, and ourselves. Again, it is a personal thing, for each of us to personally evaluate, for ourselves, regarding our own experience. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I must be prescient, having just said: I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. :-) From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/19/2014 8:11 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, without serious therapy, it is the only behavior he knows. It was deeply programmed into him, by someone who I believe, was simply a criminal. As much as I dislike Barry's behavior, he didn't dream it up on his own. However, he is still responsible, for its consequences, and for his lack of insight, regarding Lenz's HUGE impact on him, and his life. /If only half of of what MJ says about cults is true, Barry is one screwed up individual//.Twenty years of cult indoctrination. // // //Obviously Barry had been programmed by Lenz using mind control techniques that Lenz learned from Chinmoy: drugs, isolation, sleep deprivation, low protein diet, long work hours, disorienting travels to strange places for no apparent reason; endless lectures and seminars. // // //Over a period of ten years how could anyone deny they were in a trance induction state? The problem is that Barry has not admitted to seeking any counseling or psychiatric help. So, how did he cure himself? Or, has he? If he knows how to deprogram himself he should reveal the secret to everyone on FFL. // // //Instead of helping Barry, why is MJ enabling him? Go figure./ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, Typical of the Turq and a way of behaving he STILL carries with him from the time spent with his crazy guru.
[FairfieldLife] Indian City Becomes First Vegetarian City in the World
by Sarah Von Alt - Oct 8, 2014 Worldcrunch http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/in-india-the-world-039-s-first-vegetarian-city/india-palitana-food-meat-fish-gujarat/c3s17132/#.VDL6_fldXm7 reports a historic change in Palitana, an Indian city, which has become the first all-vegetarian city in the world. Behind this revolutionary change are monks who went on a hunger strike to pressure the state of Gujarat to outlaw animal slaughter in their city. The hunger strike was successful and the Gujarat government imposed a ban on animal slaughter and outlawed the sale of meat and eggs. Indian City Becomes First Vegetarian City in the World http://www.mfablog.org/indian-city-becomes-first-vegetarian-city http://www.mfablog.org/indian-city-becomes-first-vegetarian-city Indian City Becomes First Vegetarian City in the World http://www.mfablog.org/indian-city-becomes-first-vegetarian-city Animal slaughter and sale of meat and eggs outlawed. View on www.mfablog.org http://www.mfablog.org/indian-city-becomes-first-vegetarian-city Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Belief and Transcendentalism
Yup, Fleet and Wgm4u are right. We Transcendentalists don't have to be believers, We simply are knowers by virtue of experience. I ain't no true- believer, I know what I know by experience. I yam what I yam. Transcendentalism meditation beliefs? Hah. Who you talking about? Not me. We experienced transcendentalists go way back and beyond in time. We know what we are talking about by experience.. “We have a belief that we need not to believe in. No dogmas, no ritual, no mythology, no churches, no priest, no holy book -what a relief!” -Frederick Franck Yep, I'm a satisfied customer of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that way. Use what is useful and leave the rest behind, by experience. Jai Guru Dev, -Buck in the Dome wgm4u writes: Fleet is right. fleetwood_macncheese wrItes : uh...Barry...you being a former TM teacher and all, Maharishi wasn't talking about subjective experience, constituting objective proof, for anyone else, only for the subject, and only in a life of enlightenment. The meme for waking state is to always doubt experience, and it is an appropriate caution, for such a state of immature consciousness. But, as we grow up, and see waking state for what it is, a very incomplete picture of life, the subjective, and objective experience merges. So much easier that way, going about life, knowing what to do, to help others, and ourselves. Again, it is a personal thing, for each of us to personally evaluate, for ourselves, regarding our own experience. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I must be prescient, having just said: I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. :-) From: wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Billy Graham: America is Just as Wicked... Turq-No one can *prove* the existence of God to you or anybody else! God can only be proven to yourself through your own *experience*. God is a subjective reality, and as MMY used to say, The proof is in the pudding, ie the taste!
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Mon 20-Oct-14 00:15:08 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 10/18/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 10/25/14 00:00:00 247 messages as of (UTC) 10/19/14 23:59:40 38 fleetwood_macncheese 37 awoelflebater 33 'Richard J. Williams' punditster 25 steve.sundur 18 TurquoiseBee turquoiseb 17 curtisdeltablues 11 salyavin808 10 Michael Jackson mjackson74 10 Bhairitu noozguru 9 jr_esq 8 Share Long sharelong60 7 nablusoss1008 5 wgm4u 4 emptybill 4 LEnglish5 3 blue_bungalow_2 2 dhamiltony2k5 2 anartaxius 2 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569 1 feste37 1 Duveyoung Posters: 21 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Xeno, I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But he just gave me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his arguments. Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the statements in the KCA have a flaw? Let's take the KCA which states: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not? If not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. View on infidels.org http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. M: My evidence was to point out that the assumption is not necessarily so, especially at the scales of the beginning of creation. You then asked me give an example of something that does not have a cause,which is absurd because I am only familiar with biological processes at my own sensory scale. I have no idea what the rules are before space and time are relevant. Some physicists who do think about these scales believe that quantum processes begin to exist but have no cause. So my point is that it is not necessarily so and cannot be used as a first irrefutable part of a syllogism stands as a refutation to the conclusion because of flawed premises. J: But he just gave me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his arguments. M: Right, you didn't understand my point so I was doing a song and dance. Very intellectual of you. You don't even seem to understand the use of syllogisms or how they are constructed to preserve rater than generate truth. So why don't you just say you believe in God because you believe in God. It saves a lot of song and dance of flawed syllogisms. Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the statements in the KCA have a flaw? Let's take the KCA which states: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not? If not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years old. View on infidels.org http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God
Thanks, Steve - ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Very nice piece Jim, and mirrors my own feelings on the subject. There is no Crusader mentality here regarding the belief in God, or a higher power, as some here would like to imagine. Of course in the greater world, this is not the case, but we are having a discussion here, and it is nice to keep it honest. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : All good points, Curtis. Yeah, the God thing is a real conundrum. Something in this universe likes the polarity of it; can't prove it/it is everywhere. Unlike any rational argument, I cannot justify God in any other way, except for a subtle *sense* of His and Her work. There is no way to prove it. It is a sense that has changed throughout my life. I enjoyed Edg's equating God to pure awareness, because as I have come to appreciate God more in my life, a growth in continuous pure awareness has accompanied that. I can appreciate that these experiences of mine are not provable, but what is provable, is the ongoing success and happiness I enjoy, for myself, my family and friends and acquaintances. What is also provable is that way that God enters all my creative work. What is also provable, is that He and She point the way, and I continue to do the heavy lifting. No magical thinking, here, simply a deeper revelation of what it means to be human. So, it simply comes down to a consciousness of God, or not God. Thanks for writing this, and managing to keep a subject close to our hearts, open for discussion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just as happy if there was one, but I am not going to accept his existence on the basis of what I consider to be poor reasons. One more example. You go to the doctor with a bitch'n migraine headache and seek relief. You are assuming that he
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Steve, it is Lenz. Almost like he is channeling him. Lenz famously denigrated and mocked any spiritual or religious belief, save his own, which changed constantly, to keep his dweebs off balance. Barry is more about opposition and confusion, but he is not really clear on why he does it, hasn't come face-to-face with his experiences with Freddie, the public humiliation, the confusion, the turning on others in his spiritual circle. Hasn't looked in his mirror, and seen Freddie staring back, yet. Maybe one of these days. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Barry, you have picked up this rather annoying habit, I presume, from Michael, that every discussion must have an anti TM component to it, and preferably impugn MMY in some way. You are unaware of this, obviously, because most of your posts are rote responses with a small, fill in the blank. We are talking about fill in the blank, but the real issue is that you are a cult apologist. I want to comment about fill in blank, but you realize that MMY was a con man. I saw this fill in the blank the other day, and it reminded me of all the small minded people on FFL. This is pretty much the daily fare of Turquoise B. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Well said. I honestly think that a large part of the problem is that many of the players on the Believer side of this particular discussion have been indoctrinated by Maharishi not only with poor critical thinking skills, but with an actual false belief. That is, they believe that their subjective experience constitutes objective proof. It doesn't, and never will. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 4:19 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness You are both missing my point. I am not anti-belief. I have a million of them that I have chosen, and some that I just absorbed without good reasons. I am anti bad reasons supporting beliefs. Tomorrow I will be in a class of 5th graders using blues songs to demonstrate how you have to pay attention to the details in a song in order to determine the intended meaning of the songwriter. This is a critical thinking skill, not just in science, but in the arts. If a kid says, I believe that the writer hates his father, I will say show me the supporting evidence for that belief. It will not be OK for the child to say It is my personal belief and you have no right to challenge it by questioning what I am basing it on. This is how good thinking works, we construct beliefs out of the best evidence we can find and don't just make shit up for no reason when it concerns the author's intention. The distinction between a positive belief in God and not accepting the proposed evidence for God is not a comparison of equal beliefs. This distinction is so huge that our whole modern society and way of thinking emerged from the dark ages of superstition and unwarranted beliefs through this gap. You are a witch No I am not Prove that you are not a witch or we will burn you alive. Little problem. You can't prove a negative. Because the burden of proof has been shifted from the person with the belief, who by good thinking skills should provide evidence for the claim, to the accused, who has no chance of doing so, we get human toast. Now today we can analyze the evidence and see right through it. Evidence given was often disobedience to their husbands, surprise surprise! Today we say they had shitty reasons for their belief. We judge them. Just like we judge ISIS's shitty reasons for the beliefs supporting the things they are doing. Back to the God belief. People believe in his existence for reasons that are known and categorized by both the belief systems themselves and philosophers interested in human thought and the distinction between good and bad reasons to support a belief. I invite John to let us know the supporting reasons for his belief in God if he would like to continue the discussion. Jim has shown us at least one of his reasons for his belief in God which falls philosophically in the area of mystical experience claims. We then can evaluate how convincing we find this claim. But I don't have to have a belief in the opposite to not judge his reasons as good ones. I can't know if there is a God or if Jim is experiencing a state of mind here this reality is as he claims, self evident. I just see no reason to buy the whole story, So I don't have a belief in no-God which is on a par with the positive belief in a God. I just don't accept the proposed reasons for the belief in him that I have come across to be convincing enough for me to adopt it. I would never undertake the fools errand of proving a negative, and am not interested in trying to support a belief in no-God. I would be just
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
You continue to avoid jr's question, due to weak reasoning. Obviously none of us were around even a hundred years ago. Nonetheless, your argument that you don't know cause you weren't there (as time and space were getting their act together), is not a very good one. Using this weak logic, one could then claim, that because we are not yet familiar with the quantum mechanics involved, when a zygote is produced, that the creation of a human being, is also random. One could always hide behind the limitations of science, and claim thus and such, is meaningless, and has no inherent cause to exist, simply because science has not anointed it with some sort of temporary explanation. So, no go, on the I can't come up with an example, because I was not there. You simply do not have the consciousness at this time, to apprehend God, the experience of which is more the natural result of an unencumbered nervous system, than pie in the sky belief, or even faith. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. M: My evidence was to point out that the assumption is not necessarily so, especially at the scales of the beginning of creation. You then asked me give an example of something that does not have a cause,which is absurd because I am only familiar with biological processes at my own sensory scale. I have no idea what the rules are before space and time are relevant. Some physicists who do think about these scales believe that quantum processes begin to exist but have no cause. So my point is that it is not necessarily so and cannot be used as a first irrefutable part of a syllogism stands as a refutation to the conclusion because of flawed premises. J: But he just gave me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his arguments. M: Right, you didn't understand my point so I was doing a song and dance. Very intellectual of you. You don't even seem to understand the use of syllogisms or how they are constructed to preserve rater than generate truth. So why don't you just say you believe in God because you believe in God. It saves a lot of song and dance of flawed syllogisms. Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the statements in the KCA have a flaw? Let's take the KCA which states: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not? If not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. A discussion of the Kalam argument: Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Cosmological Kalamity http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made everything, who made God? my daughter
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : You continue to avoid jr's question, due to weak reasoning. Obviously none of us were around even a hundred years ago. Nonetheless, your argument that you don't know cause you weren't there (as time and space were getting their act together), is not a very good one. M: That was not my point at all. F:Using this weak logic, one could then claim, that because we are not yet familiar with the quantum mechanics involved, when a zygote is produced, that the creation of a human being, is also random. One could always hide behind the limitations of science, and claim thus and such, is meaningless, and has no inherent cause to exist, simply because science has not anointed it with some sort of temporary explanation. M: Are you really so dim that you miss the point that it can be imagined otherwise, I don't need an example (although I did provide one physicists use) to show that this is an unwarranted assumption. F: So, no go, on the I can't come up with an example, because I was not there. M: None of us are functioning at that level of creation so our intuition about what must be is worthless. Turns out quantum events begin with now cause. But the burden of proof is not on me to come up with an example of a contradiction, even though I did. The burden is on the guy pretending this is an irreducible irrefutable first principle. No one has made a case for that because there is no case for that. It is the kind of unfounded assertions that are your stock and trade. F: You simply do not have the consciousness at this time, to apprehend God, the experience of which is more the natural result of an unencumbered nervous system, than pie in the sky belief, or even faith. M: Your unencumbered nervous system is producing very cloudy thinking. All you have is bluff and bluster and that isn't working for you is it? You have demonstrated a very poor understanding of the conversation and don't know anything about syllogisms and how they are used in philosophy. Neither does John. You should just discuss amongst yourselves. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. M: My evidence was to point out that the assumption is not necessarily so, especially at the scales of the beginning of creation. You then asked me give an example of something that does not have a cause,which is absurd because I am only familiar with biological processes at my own sensory scale. I have no idea what the rules are before space and time are relevant. Some physicists who do think about these scales believe that quantum processes begin to exist but have no cause. So my point is that it is not necessarily so and cannot be used as a first irrefutable part of a syllogism stands as a refutation to the conclusion because of flawed premises. J: But he just gave me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his arguments. M: Right, you didn't understand my point so I was doing a song and dance. Very intellectual of you. You don't even seem to understand the use of syllogisms or how they are constructed to preserve rater than generate truth. So why don't you just say you believe in God because you believe in God. It saves a lot of song and dance of flawed syllogisms. Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the statements in the KCA have a flaw? Let's take the KCA which states: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not? If not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. Take the TMO memes. On
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Steve, it is Lenz. Almost like he is channeling him. Lenz famously denigrated and mocked any spiritual or religious belief, save his own, which changed constantly, to keep his dweebs off balance. Barry is more about opposition and confusion, but he is not really clear on why he does it, hasn't come face-to-face with his experiences with Freddie, the public humiliation, the confusion, the turning on others in his spiritual circle. Hasn't looked in his mirror, and seen Freddie staring back, yet. Maybe one of these days. Funny you should say this. I just finished reading the whole book, from beginning to end, the Mark Laxer book chronicling his years with Lenz. It was very, very interesting. It explains a whole lot about bawee and his way of interacting here, even including his jargon and especially his viewpoints and modalities for dealing with others at FFL. But most of all I can more fully understand why bawee is the way he is. It is an interesting book and definitely worth a read, not because it is particularly well written but because it addresses some quintessential aspects of the dangers that seekers can fall victim to when faced with a ruthlessly needy 'teacher'. Take the ingredients of charisma, an accessibility to some form of power through a tapping into seductive forces and entities, a healthy dose of ego and add a group of people whose egos can be cajoled and stroked into submission and it results in an undying loyalty to some teacher who will ultimately exercise a dangerous power and influence over them. There are some spooky similarities between my time with Robin and what Mark describes in his experience with Rama. However, I believe the two men were very different although the manifestation of their dis-ease was similar in some essential ways. Rama became a train wreck long before his suicide/misstep off a dock into deep water. Based on Mark's account, I believe Rama aligned himself intentionally with the bad guys and while it gave him the ability to have unnatural influence over others as well as abilities to see things and do things beyond what I, for example, am capable of it all came with a terrible price. The guy was also a raging narcissist and extremely self indulgent and most likely sociopathic. In reading the book I found myself vacillating between disgust and pity for the man. He was terribly weak in the ways that count. I wonder how the others who were with him fared in later years. Some of those people were with him an awfully long time. Anyway, for those interested enough to check it out it is a few hours read. I find the phenomenon of guru attraction fascinating and, of course, I compare it to my own experience having joined my own brand of cult.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Yep, Lenz was fucked up, no doubt about it, but I question that he aligned himself with the 'bad guys'. Despite confusion about it, and longstanding stories, there really are not any 'bad guys' who can produce any results worth noting, in the average person, with a healthy mind. Lenz was a shrewd manipulator, and used the power of suggestion brilliantly, but had no more power than the average criminal, in waking state. No particular alliances with any subtle beings - all fear and imagination. Pretty obvious when he talks about it. Building nightmares in people's minds was a specialty of his. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Steve, it is Lenz. Almost like he is channeling him. Lenz famously denigrated and mocked any spiritual or religious belief, save his own, which changed constantly, to keep his dweebs off balance. Barry is more about opposition and confusion, but he is not really clear on why he does it, hasn't come face-to-face with his experiences with Freddie, the public humiliation, the confusion, the turning on others in his spiritual circle. Hasn't looked in his mirror, and seen Freddie staring back, yet. Maybe one of these days. Funny you should say this. I just finished reading the whole book, from beginning to end, the Mark Laxer book chronicling his years with Lenz. It was very, very interesting. It explains a whole lot about bawee and his way of interacting here, even including his jargon and especially his viewpoints and modalities for dealing with others at FFL. But most of all I can more fully understand why bawee is the way he is. It is an interesting book and definitely worth a read, not because it is particularly well written but because it addresses some quintessential aspects of the dangers that seekers can fall victim to when faced with a ruthlessly needy 'teacher'. Take the ingredients of charisma, an accessibility to some form of power through a tapping into seductive forces and entities, a healthy dose of ego and add a group of people whose egos can be cajoled and stroked into submission and it results in an undying loyalty to some teacher who will ultimately exercise a dangerous power and influence over them. There are some spooky similarities between my time with Robin and what Mark describes in his experience with Rama. However, I believe the two men were very different although the manifestation of their dis-ease was similar in some essential ways. Rama became a train wreck long before his suicide/misstep off a dock into deep water. Based on Mark's account, I believe Rama aligned himself intentionally with the bad guys and while it gave him the ability to have unnatural influence over others as well as abilities to see things and do things beyond what I, for example, am capable of it all came with a terrible price. The guy was also a raging narcissist and extremely self indulgent and most likely sociopathic. In reading the book I found myself vacillating between disgust and pity for the man. He was terribly weak in the ways that count. I wonder how the others who were with him fared in later years. Some of those people were with him an awfully long time. Anyway, for those interested enough to check it out it is a few hours read. I find the phenomenon of guru attraction fascinating and, of course, I compare it to my own experience having joined my own brand of cult.
[FairfieldLife] Speed of Ignorance -- Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
This piece is just so wonderfully packed with facts that tickle the ribs of my philosophy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
x exists x does not exist
I do not know what the phrase 'begins to exist' means, especially in regard to
the universe as a whole. If x were an auto-mobile, perhaps one could say that
when it was partially assembled, it began to exist, but all the components of
that were manufactured prior to that and merely gathered together with welds,
bolts, and glue. And those parts had precursors, ad infinitum (almost) to the
beginning of the universe, before which we have no knowledge, and in fact we
have only induction as to regard the early universe. And induction is logically
invalid.
The link I gave in the previous post did do some analysis why the Kalam
argument is flawed, apparently you did not read it. Here it is again:
Cosmological Kalamity
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
Cosmological Kalamity
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library »
Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made
everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years
old.
View on infidels.org
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
Preview by Yahoo
I do not know how the universe began.
I do not know what 'begins to exist' means in this context, can you fill in
some detail?
If this were science, all I would have to do is wait for your demonstration of
the truth of the argument, but as it seems no one knows, I doubt this would be
forthcoming. As Curtis pointed out, proving a negative is impossible. It is a
time waster. In science one simply ignores those who do not show up with
evidence for their claims and thus science ('to know' is the meaning of the
word) only works with people who actively produce results.
For all I know the Kalam argument might be accidentally true, but essentially
I just find it unconvincing. If god is un-caused, then god did not begin to
exist, and if god did not begin to exist, he cannot exist. The word everything
would seem to include what is called god, other wise, the first sentence
includes a false concept. We would have not 'everything that begins to exist
has a cause', and then we would have a number of possible things that were
un-caused. For example, Zeus, the king of the gods, a step higher in divinity
than the other gods, of which perhaps your god is one of those lesser ones.
I can say on the basis of experience, that the universe was re-created this
morning when I woke up. It was recreated again this morning and this evening
when I came out of meditation after a timeless spell (I am not saying what sort
of meditation was happening or not). I am un-caused, and therefore I must not
be beginning to exist, and therefore I am not the universe, but seeing the
universe seemed to emerge from what I am, I must be a creator of some sort. So
if this happens with me, what am I? I must be more than a human form and mind,
being able to contain all this.
Since in my own estimation, I seem to have created the universe, where does
that leave your argument? If the universe has a cause, how do you determine
what that cause is or is not? Simply stating that the universe has a cause does
not reveal the nature of the cause. It could be a quantum fluctuation in a
multi-verse continuum. With multi-verses, maybe some have gods, and some do
not. Maybe some are created by farts in a hyper-cosmic digestive system.
You have also not mentioned the argument that the universe has no cause.
Suppose we say, that in spite of all appearances, the universe has no cause at
all. It was a spontaneous event that had no priors; that would mean that all
the stuff in the universe ultimately had no cause either, the stuff within
would have prior events but ultimately could not be traced back to a primal
cause. Accidental existence. Perhaps we are all part of an unwanted pregnancy.
Curtis is actually much better at this kind of reasoning than I am. I think he
just wanted you to provide a positive example of the stipulation you made,
something he could work with. A philosopher needs an argument, and needs to be
able to state the other person's position accurately so they can look for a
weakness in definition of terms and logic. You need to provide that. Otherwise
you are not worth his time. He might as well waste his time with a
Bible-thumping preacher from Hicksville. His time would be better spent
teaching kids critical thinking. I can tell you when I was young in school,
this is a skill that was not taught. America is a nation of idiots and climbing
out of that pit of un-reason is no easy task. To be fair, had I ever remained
in Greece, I doubt I would have fared better, though there are more
opportunities for causes way back at the beginning of our place in the scheme
of things:
Greek gods prepare for comeback
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Xeno,
Are you saying that the human mind would not be able to fathom the meaning of
begins to exist? If that is so, how is it possible for you to begin and end
a project at work or at home?
But we know that NASA has been able to send the Curiosity rover to Mars which
is a very high technological feat. So, it appears that humans know can
understand the meaning of begins to exist. If not, NASA would not have been
able to send the rover to Mars.
I believe you're avoiding the question by claiming that you don't know what
statement 1 of the KCA means. In other words, you're being disingenuous. Or,
that you're pulling a Curtis on us.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
x exists x does not exist
I do not know what the phrase 'begins to exist' means, especially in regard to
the universe as a whole. If x were an auto-mobile, perhaps one could say that
when it was partially assembled, it began to exist, but all the components of
that were manufactured prior to that and merely gathered together with welds,
bolts, and glue. And those parts had precursors, ad infinitum (almost) to the
beginning of the universe, before which we have no knowledge, and in fact we
have only induction as to regard the early universe. And induction is logically
invalid.
The link I gave in the previous post did do some analysis why the Kalam
argument is flawed, apparently you did not read it. Here it is again:
Cosmological Kalamity
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
Cosmological Kalamity
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html Home » Library »
Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker Daddy, if God made
everything, who made God? my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years
old.
View on infidels.org
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html
Preview by Yahoo
I do not know how the universe began.
I do not know what 'begins to exist' means in this context, can you fill in
some detail?
If this were science, all I would have to do is wait for your demonstration of
the truth of the argument, but as it seems no one knows, I doubt this would be
forthcoming. As Curtis pointed out, proving a negative is impossible. It is a
time waster. In science one simply ignores those who do not show up with
evidence for their claims and thus science ('to know' is the meaning of the
word) only works with people who actively produce results.
For all I know the Kalam argument might be accidentally true, but essentially
I just find it unconvincing. If god is un-caused, then god did not begin to
exist, and if god did not begin to exist, he cannot exist. The word everything
would seem to include what is called god, other wise, the first sentence
includes a false concept. We would have not 'everything that begins to exist
has a cause', and then we would have a number of possible things that were
un-caused. For example, Zeus, the king of the gods, a step higher in divinity
than the other gods, of which perhaps your god is one of those lesser ones.
I can say on the basis of experience, that the universe was re-created this
morning when I woke up. It was recreated again this morning and this evening
when I came out of meditation after a timeless spell (I am not saying what sort
of meditation was happening or not). I am un-caused, and therefore I must not
be beginning to exist, and therefore I am not the universe, but seeing the
universe seemed to emerge from what I am, I must be a creator of some sort. So
if this happens with me, what am I? I must be more than a human form and mind,
being able to contain all this.
Since in my own estimation, I seem to have created the universe, where does
that leave your argument? If the universe has a cause, how do you determine
what that cause is or is not? Simply stating that the universe has a cause does
not reveal the nature of the cause. It could be a quantum fluctuation in a
multi-verse continuum. With multi-verses, maybe some have gods, and some do
not. Maybe some are created by farts in a hyper-cosmic digestive system.
You have also not mentioned the argument that the universe has no cause.
Suppose we say, that in spite of all appearances, the universe has no cause at
all. It was a spontaneous event that had no priors; that would mean that all
the stuff in the universe ultimately had no cause either, the stuff within
would have prior events but ultimately could not be traced back to a primal
cause. Accidental existence. Perhaps we are all part of an unwanted pregnancy.
Curtis is actually much better at this kind of reasoning than I am. I think he
just wanted you to provide a positive example of the stipulation you made,
something he could work with. A philosopher needs an argument, and needs to be
able to state the other person's position accurately so they can look for a
weakness in definition
