Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. Dr. Who keeps 'em mesmerized! Yup, it works for me! Always did actually. I met Tom Baker when he started as Dr Who. It was like meeting god, better than that to me as I would have said even then. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : you will have to explain that to us crass and crude Americans, I never heard of such doings as this - and it was legal at one time? Who changed the law and why wasn't it illegal to begin with? We've always done it MJ, until recently anyway, it's a way of housing the homeless or feeding yourself in critical times. But squatting empty buildings became really popular in the 1960's because of the housing crisis, I have no idea when the laws were agreed but there was a statement you put on the door of the house you let yourself into stating that it was now your home and there was basically nothing they could do about it, except go to court to have you removed, which generally took ages. To put it into perspective, my town has 30% of it's houses empty for 10 months of the year and yet there are homeless people sleeping rough everywhere. This sort of imbalance in wealth is very bad for society and the government doesn't give a damn, they actively make it worse in fact. So squatting was a good idea but it did attract a lot of the wrong types who ruined peoples houses. The way things are swinging politically it couldn't last. everyone tries to out fascist the other guy these days. The people I knew in squats were either paying off student debts or anarchist types living cheap and avoiding officialdom. We ran an environmental action group from our pub as well as having awesome parties and plotted the overthrow of Maggie Thatcher, but I went to travel the world before they built the barricades. It was good clean fun and no one got hurt or even disadvantaged much. But it's all been illegal since a few years ago, the verminous Tories won't let their rich friends be inconvenienced in any way so they stopped it. London belongs to oligarchs now, the rich have won the class war and there's no way to live except by paying vast rent to private landlords or buying a place if you're lucky. I don;t know why there hasn't been a revolution in the last few years, probably because everyone is kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. And there's no good role models. Russell Brand is the best they've got these days and he's a multi millionaire. But you'd never get away with it now with our easily abused anti - terror laws and government monitoring. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Sorry - I replied too fast. Re Still there?: No, we stayed at the squat for two years then we got a letter from the owner saying that he was returning from Africa, that he'd heard the place was occupied, and could we please vacate the premises shortly. We did exactly that - so he never lost out from us using his house and we left it in good order. Would all be illegal now of course but was still allowed then. And we thought at the time that we were just continuing the Levellers work . . . Excellent, a lot of my friends did squatting and they always looked after the places. We all ended up in a nice empty pub once and planned our anti-poll tax campaign from the saloon bar. Ah, happy days. Am currently squatting a bit of land and have divided it up between friends into allotments. Worked well for a few years but interest is waning and the place is getting overgrown, great sense of achievement when we started though. We were the new diggers. Shame it's all illegal now, kids these days don't know what they're missing!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst case of losing it so far. Enlightened? At this point he's barely human... I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is classed as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how someone with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived intellectually at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who disagrees must be deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second biscuit. I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been slighted. The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why I feel no emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about quantum tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? It's only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it or actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the abuse comes from. But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry. M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out. But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride as an indictment of your character. But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who is a fan of my work. As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized by it. So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community. I was just changing lives one classroom at a time today. Oh yeah: J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the rest of the world think about who just said this! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born again christians, often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. So, being emotionally immature, and
[FairfieldLife] Good news for John and Jim
Finally, they can try to actually get some payoff from their beliefs by trying to sell their imaginary friend on eBay. One guy sold his for $2750, so who knows...John might be able to sell his imaginary friend God for that much, so he can finally buy a brain. Jim might earn enough to buy a human being willing to go out into the middle of nowhere and talk to him so that he doesn't have to set up automated cameras to spy on his animal neighbors to have some company. :-) For Sale: Imaginary Friends For Sale: Imaginary Friends Does selling your imaginary friend count as human trafficking? We may never know. But if you're in the market for an imaginary friend, look no further than eBay. Th... View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst case of losing it so far. Enlightened? At this point he's barely human... I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is classed as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how someone with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived intellectually at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who disagrees must be deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second biscuit. I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been slighted. Exactly. They are OFFENDED that someone like myself or you has overcome the Fear Of God that society tried to imprint us with, and they haven't. They're still terrified that if they express doubt of any kind, their imaginary friend God will smite them. Can't risk that. And they're more than a little pissed of that God has *not* smitten us, so they have to try to make up for him being a slacker and try to smite us themselves. :-) The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why I feel no emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about quantum tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? It's only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it or actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the abuse comes from. I agree, especially in Jim's case. Let's face it...he is basically NOTHING without his story of being enlightened. Without that, he's just another guy who inherited a little money rather than earned it, quit his job, and moved out into the country, where now he's so lonely that the only people he ever gets to talk to are on the screen of his laptop. Or that exist in his imagination, like his imaginary friend God (or The Ghost Of Guru Dev). So naturally he *resents* that some of us live in cities where they have pubs and cafes full of real people, and at which we can sit and talk with these real people. I suspect that what he resents even more is that we can sit there and talk with these real people without having to invent made-up stories to impress them with. Jim feels that the only way he can get anyone to listen to him is to say, Hi, my name is Jim, and I am fully enlightened. We can just say, Hi, I'm Barry, or Hi, I'm Salyavin, or Hi, I'm Curtis, and that's ENOUGH. But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me. Me, I don't really give a shit. I think I realized at age 15 that if someone could present me with absolute, irrefutable proof that a God existed, it wouldn't change my life in the slightest. That is still true, because I got over the Fear Of God belief that they tried to imprint me with back during my two weeks of Sunday School attendance. Jim and John never did, so they can't make the leap to living without an imaginary friend who is watching them at every moment to make sure they don't fuck up and he has to send them to everlasting torment in Hell. Some friend. :-) From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry. M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out. But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride as an indictment of your character. But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my
Re: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Wow. 200 messages in this thread, just so far. Since it started with absolutely no comment from me, just the graphics pasted in below, I suspect that its...uh...popularity must have something to do with a few people being upset at my choice of Subject line. Dare I suggest that their reaction proves my statement rather than refutes it? :-) :-) :-) From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:12 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness
[FairfieldLife] A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for the heads-up, lurking reporter
Barry brings up the 'lurking reporters', just as Lenz brought up 'negative entities'. A boogeyman. How unimpressive. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : You don't read their stuff, but i figured it would make your day to learn that Jim and Ann (both who claim that they are not obsessed with you) have been bragging about having read A WHOLE BOOK about Rama (the same one you told us about) so that they can obsess on you even more while trying to demonize you. You were right, this place is a zoo. Hey there Mr Reporter Man. Here are a few tidbits to cogitate on. 1) bawee reads everyone's posts especially if he suspects they are about him. He keeps a running tally. 2) if anyone is talking about bawee it makes his day. Why do you think he comes across as such a disappointed whack job? Hint: because he is a disappointed whack job. 3) reading a book about Rama is not about bawee, it is about Rama. Saying that we are reading a book by an author (Mark Laxer) who used to be part of the inner circle of Lenz's cult and claiming anyone who reads it is obsessed by a bit player who once was part of that cult (bawee) is like saying anyone who reads Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History in Time is obsessed with his dry cleaner 4) bragging about reading a book. Maybe if I was in first grade and managed to finish it. 5) Demonize? bawee is nowhere near being in the category of demon, sorry. You have to be powerful and interesting and mysterious to be that. 6) If FFL is such a zoo why are you still hanging around? And if bawee is to be believed you've been here a while so how long has it taken to realize what is going on here, Mr Reporter? 7) you should be a little more discriminating in who you keep company with; there is guilt by association in this joint. Color me not surprised. I guess it gives them something to do other than whack off. :-) On 10/20/2014 2:47 AM, salyavin808 wrote: They must have some serious time on their hands. I thought the unified field would give Jim endless pleasure and an ego working beyond the mere concerns of us mortals so he didn't have to get caught up in our tawdry world. Instead it seems that he can't get enough of it! Non sequitur. I often used to wonder what Marshy meant when he lectured about how an enlightened mind could only obey the laws of nature. I guess we know now, arguing on the internet must be important work for the unified field It's the modern way I suppose, I just thought that having access to all that infinite wisdom might be a bit more impressive to behold. Non sequitur. But that's just my waking state consciousness struggling to understand something way beyond its meagre limits obviously. Obviously, since you don't seem to realize that it was Barry who first brought up the subject of Frederick Lenz, aka Rama and the levitation events in the first place. Not only does this fact indicate the limits of your waking state of consciousness. It's starting to look like you're suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance - Barry is the informant that wants to talk about cults and cult activities. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Could astrology be correct? The season in which you were born may affect your personality, scientists claim
It wasn't fun, but what else you gunna do?! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Could be - I am far more emotional than my wife is - She was born in January, and I was born in June. However her sister, born in July, is also quite emotional. Tiny sample size, though. Also, I was born 2 or 3 months premature of my due date (born black, then turned blue for awhile), so I don't know how that affects the astrology. Wow, you covered a lot of the spectrums for possible skin color in one lifetime including that of Krishna! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Babies born in the summer are much more likely to suffer from mood swings when they grow up, while those born in the winter are less likely to become irritable adults, scientists claim. http://shar.es/1mDt8U http://shar.es/1mDt8U
[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Funny, you accusing me of losing something, that you never had, in the first place. lol. You would not know the first thing about Enlightenment, especially after that spiritual criminal taught you and the rest of the chumps that only two people out of the hundreds that worshipped him, even had a *chance* for enlightenment, in this lifetime. Really took it to heart, didn't you? Have a nice day.:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst case of losing it so far. Enlightened? At this point he's barely human... From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry. M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out. But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride as an indictment of your character. But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who is a fan of my work. As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized by it. So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community. I was just changing lives one classroom at a time today. Oh yeah: J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the rest of the world think about who just said this! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born again christians, often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to show their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for their bad decisions. They profess atheism, and go all out against God, and enlightenment, and any sort of spiritual endeavor that they don't approve of. They see themselves failing by societies norms, and have now taken the position, that, You can't fire me, I quit! But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : The ignorant inquisitor.. 'It's not my experience so it does not exist!' Deltablues' technique is the old trick of the materialist's (orthodox) inquisitor, “Tell us, what exactly is your creed?” “Tell us in terms detailed such that we can understand and then the best of sophists of us will argue it out with you trying it point by point. Lot of people have been burned at the stake by uber-intellectualistic people like Deltablues is trying to be here on FFL. -Buck fleetwood_macncheese responding to Turqb: Bye, bye, Lenz, Jr. turquoiseb@... wrote : See what I mean? Curtis refuted John's idiotic
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
I have a lot of friends on here. No need to pretend otherwise. Perhaps you should be giving advice to the turd flinging chimp on here, whom you find so much in common with, both of you far less than raging successes in the world. Your attempt at sussing my motivation, is absurd. I don't play that same game that the chimp does, and am perfectly happy, to continue telling you what you don't want to hear, regardless of you believing me, about anything, even my enlightenment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry. M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out. But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride as an indictment of your character. But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who is a fan of my work. As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized by it. So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community. I was just changing lives one classroom at a time today. Oh yeah: J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the rest of the world think about who just said this! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born again christians, often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to show their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for their bad decisions. They profess atheism, and go all out against God, and enlightenment, and any sort of spiritual endeavor that they don't approve of. They see themselves failing by societies norms, and have now taken the position, that, You can't fire me, I quit! But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : The ignorant inquisitor.. 'It's not my experience so it does not exist!' Deltablues' technique is the old trick of the materialist's (orthodox) inquisitor, “Tell us, what exactly is your creed?” “Tell us in terms detailed such that we can understand and then the best of sophists of us will argue it out with you trying it point by point. Lot of people have been burned at the stake by uber-intellectualistic people like Deltablues is trying to be here on FFL. -Buck fleetwood_macncheese responding to Turqb: Bye, bye, Lenz, Jr. turquoiseb@... wrote : See what I mean? Curtis refuted John's idiotic argument point by point, and HE DIDN'T EVEN HEAR IT. The only thing he can do is repeat the same stupid thing he's already repeated -- and had refuted -- here on FFL dozens of time in the past. You really can't deal with anyone as dumb as this. I repeat my contention -- believing in astrology, God, and the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy
Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his series, 'Extras'? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew
[FairfieldLife] Re: Good news for John and Jim
Why do you spend so much time, ranting against those whose messages you don't read? I'll bet the lurking reporters have noted this inconsistency. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Finally, they can try to actually get some payoff from their beliefs by trying to sell their imaginary friend on eBay. One guy sold his for $2750, so who knows...John might be able to sell his imaginary friend God for that much, so he can finally buy a brain. Jim might earn enough to buy a human being willing to go out into the middle of nowhere and talk to him so that he doesn't have to set up automated cameras to spy on his animal neighbors to have some company. :-) For Sale: Imaginary Friends http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html For Sale: Imaginary Friends http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html Does selling your imaginary friend count as human trafficking? We may never know. But if you're in the market for an imaginary friend, look no further than eBay. Th... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] For Share
Ann, I hear Limbach is allergic to colloidal silver so I'm all set! On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:20 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English?
Baker has always been my favorite Dr. - My daughter LOVES Dr. Who, tho her favs have been David Tennant and Matt Smith. Didn't take her long to accept Peter Capaldi. I haven't seen any of Capaldi's episodes yet. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. Dr. Who keeps 'em mesmerized! Yup, it works for me! Always did actually. I met Tom Baker when he started as Dr Who. It was like meeting god, better than that to me as I would have said even then. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : you will have to explain that to us crass and crude Americans, I never heard of such doings as this - and it was legal at one time? Who changed the law and why wasn't it illegal to begin with? We've always done it MJ, until recently anyway, it's a way of housing the homeless or feeding yourself in critical times. But squatting empty buildings became really popular in the 1960's because of the housing crisis, I have no idea when the laws were agreed but there was a statement you put on the door of the house you let yourself into stating that it was now your home and there was basically nothing they could do about it, except go to court to have you removed, which generally took ages. To put it into perspective, my town has 30% of it's houses empty for 10 months of the year and yet there are homeless people sleeping rough everywhere. This sort of imbalance in wealth is very bad for society and the government doesn't give a damn, they actively make it worse in fact. So squatting was a good idea but it did attract a lot of the wrong types who ruined peoples houses. The way things are swinging politically it couldn't last. everyone tries to out fascist the other guy these days. The people I knew in squats were either paying off student debts or anarchist types living cheap and avoiding officialdom. We ran an environmental action group from our pub as well as having awesome parties and plotted the overthrow of Maggie Thatcher, but I went to travel the world before they built the barricades. It was good clean fun and no one got hurt or even disadvantaged much. But it's all been illegal since a few years ago, the verminous Tories won't let their rich friends be inconvenienced in any way so they stopped it. London belongs to oligarchs now, the rich have won the class war and there's no way to live except by paying vast rent to private landlords or buying a place if you're lucky. I don;t know why there hasn't been a revolution in the last few years, probably because everyone is kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. And there's no good role models. Russell Brand is the best they've got these days and he's a multi millionaire. But you'd never get away with it now with our easily abused anti - terror laws and government monitoring. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Sorry - I replied too fast. Re Still there?: No, we stayed at the squat for two years then we got a letter from the owner saying that he was returning from Africa, that he'd heard the place was occupied, and could we please vacate the premises shortly. We did exactly that - so he never lost out from us using his house and we left it in good order. Would all be illegal now of course but was still allowed then. And we thought at the time that we were just continuing the Levellers work . . . Excellent, a lot of my friends did squatting and they always looked after the places. We all ended up in a nice empty pub once and planned our anti-poll tax campaign from the saloon bar. Ah, happy days. Am currently squatting a bit of land and have divided it up between friends into allotments. Worked well for a few years but interest is waning and the place is getting overgrown, great sense of achievement when we started though. We were the new diggers. Shame it's all illegal now, kids these days don't know what they're missing!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/21/2014 3:23 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Wow. 200 messages in this thread, just so far. Since it started with absolutely no comment from me, just the graphics pasted in below, I suspect that its...uh...popularity must have something to do with a few people being upset at my choice of Subject line. Dare I suggest that their reaction proves my statement rather than refutes it? :-) :-) :-) Wow. 200 messages and no comments from Barry explaining why he believes in Buddhas, levitation and karma. It's one of the clearest cases of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen on social media. Go figure. / //Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another./ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Re: [FairfieldLife] A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
On 10/21/2014 3:38 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes /Some people will sink to just about any level in order to win a religious debate. This message of Barry's is just creepy! / And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Non sequitur. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Non sequitur. /It looks like Barry is deeper into the cognitive dissonance than I imagined - this guy has lost it - resorting to debating with anonymous chatters on social media.//Now it's the dead Mahesh Varma's fault that children get killed by violence every day. Go figure./ Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html image http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for the heads-up, lurking reporter
On 10/21/2014 4:29 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Barry brings up the 'lurking reporters', Barry is the lurking reporter planting messages in order to elicit information for his magazine or ramalila.net web site. He is obviously an informant - we just don't know who he is working for. Obviously the impostor Michael is working and reporting to TM-Free and John Knapp, but we don't know how much he is getting paid. just as Lenz brought up 'negative entities'. A boogeyman. How unimpressive. You probably didn't miss the connection between Lenz and Barry's belief in energy vampires - a belief straight out of the Lenz playbook. Go figure. /In 1989, Rama justified to the disciples his rising tuition. //I nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy, he said, and now you are going to have to pay for it./ /Take Me For A Ride / by Mark E. Laxer http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : You don't read their stuff, but i figured it would make your day to learn that Jim and Ann (both who claim that they are not obsessed with you) have been bragging about having read A WHOLE BOOK about Rama (the same one you told us about) so that they can obsess on you even more while trying to demonize you. You were right, this place is a zoo. Hey there Mr Reporter Man. Here are a few tidbits to cogitate on. 1) bawee reads everyone's posts especially if he suspects they are about him. He keeps a running tally. 2) if anyone is talking about bawee it makes his day. Why do you think he comes across as such a disappointed whack job? Hint: because he is a disappointed whack job. 3) reading a book about Rama is not about bawee, it is about Rama. Saying that we are reading a book by an author (Mark Laxer) who used to be part of the inner circle of Lenz's cult and claiming anyone who reads it is obsessed by a bit player who once was part of that cult (bawee) is like saying anyone who reads Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History in Time is obsessed with his dry cleaner 4) bragging about reading a book. Maybe if I was in first grade and managed to finish it. 5) Demonize? bawee is nowhere near being in the category of demon, sorry. You have to be powerful and interesting and mysterious to be that. 6) If FFL is such a zoo why are you still hanging around? And if bawee is to be believed you've been here a while so how long has it taken to realize what is going on here, Mr Reporter? 7) you should be a little more discriminating in who you keep company with; there is guilt by association in this joint. Color me not surprised. I guess it gives them something to do other than whack off. :-) On 10/20/2014 2:47 AM, salyavin808 wrote: They must have some serious time on their hands. I thought the unified field would give Jim endless pleasure and an ego working beyond the mere concerns of us mortals so he didn't have to get caught up in our tawdry world. Instead it seems that he can't get enough of it! Non sequitur. I often used to wonder what Marshy meant when he lectured about how an enlightened mind could only obey the laws of nature. I guess we know now, arguing on the internet must be important work for the unified field It's the modern way I suppose, I just thought that having access to all that infinite wisdom might be a bit more impressive to behold. Non sequitur. But that's just my waking state consciousness struggling to understand something way beyond its meagre limits obviously. /Obviously, since you don't seem to realize that it was Barry who first brought up the subject of Frederick Lenz, aka Rama and the levitation events in the first place. Not only does this fact indicate the limits of your waking state of consciousness. It's starting to look like you're suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance - Barry is the informant that wants to talk about cults and cult activities. Go figure./
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/21/2014 4:33 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Funny, you accusing me of losing something, that you never had, in the first place. lol. /This is not funny - a guy that has believed in Buddhas for a decade has apparently lost it - lost his faith in karma and reincarnation. It looks like a clear case of transference, and now it's all Jim's and John's fault. A clear case of transference. Barry must be experiencing some roughness - now he is tilting at windmills. Go figure./ You would not know the first thing about Enlightenment, especially after that spiritual criminal taught you and the rest of the chumps that only two people out of the hundreds that worshipped him, even had a *chance* for enlightenment, in this lifetime. Really took it to heart, didn't you? Have a nice day.:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst case of losing it so far. Enlightened? At this point he's barely human... *From:* curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry. M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out. But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride as an indictment of your character. But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who is a fan of my work. As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized by it. So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community. I was just changing lives one classroom at a time today. Oh yeah: J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the rest of the world think about who just said this! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born again christians, often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to show their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for their bad decisions. They profess atheism, and go all out against God, and enlightenment, and any sort of spiritual endeavor that they don't approve of. They see themselves failing by societies norms, and have now taken the position, that, You can't fire me, I quit! But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5@... wrote : The ignorant inquisitor.. 'It's not my experience so it does not exist!' Deltablues' technique is the old trick of the materialist's
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
On 10/21/2014 4:47 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death... /Following Barry's logic, it's all Jim's fault - because Jim realized he has been enlightened since birth. And, the dead Mahesh is to blame too - it's all their fault because they like to relax a few times a day and think nice thoughts and enjoy. // // //So. it does look like Barry still believes in cause and effect, but he seems to believe that there is also a mental reciprocity as well - *that thoughts can influence destiny and other people (ME). * Is Barry mixed up or what?/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html image http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An Old Index to FFL
On 10/21/2014 7:55 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: For Researching purposes, /The person levitating or flying through the air was a guy named Frederick Lenz, who also called himself Rama./ - TurquoiseB, 2007 http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife%40yahoogroups.com/msg95530.html Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=rama+lenzl=fairfieldlife/yahoogroups.com http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=rama+lenzl=fairfieldlife%40yahoogroups.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'? That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the existence of god. 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the beginning of existence of god. How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anything that is beyond the pale of proof is indeterminate as far as knowledge. There are two kinds of proof, one is observation coordinated between groups, which is the way science works, and law enforcement works. The other is personal private experience but this version of proof cannot be observed by others. The results of meditation fall into this category, it is a scaled down version of science but lacks shareability. The best you can do in this case is tell someone about your experiences and hope they are interested enough to try it out for themselves. But in real science, you share observations and ideas with other minds, and see if those other minds can replicate what you did. Metaphysics is the study of ideas that have no physical observations and therefore there are no shareable proofs as to the reality of metaphysical statements. Because there are no proofs, arguments like the Kalam argument have arisen in the attempt to convince people that certain ideas that have no proof, no evidence, no observable reality, could be true. These argument tend to have a serious logical flaw, and if they are true they are trivial tautologies (examples: a = a, a cat is a cat, all things are all things), that is, circular arguments which tend to be the basic religious argument for why we are here: 'God is God, so there, believe it or else!' To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why? If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature in general, and the great variability of possible human experiences. 'The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine -- cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to say, a falsehood.' 'No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of a miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and independent of, nature.' -- Robert Ingersoll, 1872 == ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Xeno, I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said. In the physical existence of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father. Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on earth? I'll give you my
Re: [FairfieldLife] For Share
On 10/21/2014 7:09 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Ann, I hear Limbach is allergic to colloidal silver so I'm all set! /A child is killed by violence every day in America and your risk of catching Ebola is far less than your risk of dying from the flu, which killed 53,667 Americans in 2010./ On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:20 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: alt
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
2005. Yes, another one of Barry's justifications, for having accomplished nothing - Something along the lines of, See what a cruel horrible can't make any progress everybody gets hurt, world it is?! waaah, no wonder I'm such a loser, who wouldn't be? Then he forces my success, to fit into his dark and twisted picture of the world, by saying I am crazy. Let's hear a big WTF, folks! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 10/21/2014 4:47 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death... Following Barry's logic, it's all Jim's fault - because Jim realized he has been enlightened since birth. And, the dead Mahesh is to blame too - it's all their fault because they like to relax a few times a day and think nice thoughts and enjoy. So. it does look like Barry still believes in cause and effect, but he seems to believe that there is also a mental reciprocity as well - that thoughts can influence destiny and other people (ME). Is Barry mixed up or what? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst case of losing it so far. Enlightened? At this point he's barely human... If you are the benchmark for the def of human then you are absolutely correct - Jim is a long way from that. (You set yourself up so badly every time - you would have made a terrible chess player.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst case of losing it so far. Enlightened? At this point he's barely human... I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is classed as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how someone with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived intellectually at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who disagrees must be deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second biscuit. I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been slighted. The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why I feel no emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about quantum tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? It's only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it or actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the abuse comes from. But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me. so, here you are making all sorts of reasonable statements and asking reasonable questions and all the time you are asking the one shmuck who is the one most guilty of every single one of the things you are questioning and commenting on? This is hilarious.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Wow. 200 messages in this thread, just so far. Since it started with absolutely no comment from me, just the graphics pasted in below, I suspect that its...uh...popularity must have something to do with a few people being upset at my choice of Subject line. Dare I suggest that their reaction proves my statement rather than refutes it? :-) :-) :-) See, mr reporter, bawee has done exclty as I said he would do. He does every time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for the heads-up, lurking reporter
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Barry brings up the 'lurking reporters', just as Lenz brought up 'negative entities'. A boogeyman. How unimpressive. They're his imaginary friends, Mac. Soon he'll be selling them on eBay...
[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death... I gave up by post #2 of his this morning, I mean, I just got up and I can't possibly allow myself to fall back to sleep so soon. (C'mon Mac, at least pretend you're a leeetle bit outraged. We don't want to disappoint bawee or the reporters. Please do your part here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
This is a lot of airy talk, though telling. My concern after having read it, is, I feel it was written by someone who takes less than complete responsibility for their life, and their personal thoughts and actions. Taking this line, of the strong possibility of random action, so seriously, as you do, would make it a very convenient excuse to use, whenever things have not gone according to your liking, in your life - The who knew?! excuse. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'? That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the existence of god. 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the beginning of existence of god. How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anything that is beyond the pale of proof is indeterminate as far as knowledge. There are two kinds of proof, one is observation coordinated between groups, which is the way science works, and law enforcement works. The other is personal private experience but this version of proof cannot be observed by others. The results of meditation fall into this category, it is a scaled down version of science but lacks shareability. The best you can do in this case is tell someone about your experiences and hope they are interested enough to try it out for themselves. But in real science, you share observations and ideas with other minds, and see if those other minds can replicate what you did. Metaphysics is the study of ideas that have no physical observations and therefore there are no shareable proofs as to the reality of metaphysical statements. Because there are no proofs, arguments like the Kalam argument have arisen in the attempt to convince people that certain ideas that have no proof, no evidence, no observable reality, could be true. These argument tend to have a serious logical flaw, and if they are true they are trivial tautologies (examples: a = a, a cat is a cat, all things are all things), that is, circular arguments which tend to be the basic religious argument for why we are here: 'God is God, so there, believe it or else!' To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why? If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature in general, and the great variability of possible human experiences. 'The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine -- cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to say, a falsehood.' 'No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of a miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his series, 'Extras'? No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew
[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence to the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death... I gave up by post #2 of his this morning, I mean, I just got up and I can't possibly allow myself to fall back to sleep so soon. (C'mon Mac, at least pretend you're a leeetle bit outraged. We don't want to disappoint bawee or the reporters. Please do your part here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Good news for John and Jim
On 10/21/2014 2:52 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Finally, they can try to actually get some payoff from their beliefs by trying to sell their imaginary friend on eBay. One guy sold his for $2750, so who knows...John might be able to sell his imaginary friend God for that much, so he can finally buy a brain. /So, I wonder how much Barry could get on eBay for his little Buddha statue, mandala wall hangings and brass incense burner? /
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
I know. let's ban violence towards children! On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:54 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence to the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death... I gave up by post #2 of his this morning, I mean, I just got up and I can't possibly allow myself to fall back to sleep so soon. (C'mon Mac, at least pretend you're a leeetle bit outraged. We don't want to disappoint bawee or the reporters. Please do your part here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush... Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this... View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy
Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from Extras where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends up as an embarrassment. View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Preview by Yahoo Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his series, 'Extras'? No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew
[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence to the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining. Yes, I must admit bawee is the funniest one here, on a sort of perverse and twisted level of 'funny', I admit. I have never, ever in my life associated with anyone remotely like him in offline life. I mean, how could one stand it? This person would be throwing out all these outrageous statements, all the while preening in the nearest mirror (BTW, there was an interesting account at the beginning of his little fluff piece 'Roadtrip Mind' about Lenz primping in the mirror in the bathroom after having shared a piss together) and meanwhile repeating himself over and over in the hopes and dreams of getting a rise out of his audience. How tiresome would that be day after day? Still, I do enjoy seeing, up to a point, what silly things come out of his mouth here at FFL but I genuinely do wish he's change it up once in a while.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy
This is good, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdEExtras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from Extras where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends up as an embarrassment. View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Preview by Yahoo Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his series, 'Extras'? No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Xeno, I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said. In the physical existence of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father. Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on earth? I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas. But I'm taking the KCA argument one at a time which starts with statement 1. Your statements are so astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic. Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. /Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. // // //Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change./ /Where is Robin when we need him?/ ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : 'Everything that exists has no cause' is not the equivalent of 'everything that begins to exist has no cause'. No beginning is stated or implied. I said nothing about 'begins'. I was talking about existence without time. The eternity of space and things but no time. Like a still photograph, frozen being. Have you ever heard the Zen koan 'show me your original face before your parents were born'? As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them. Presumably you have heard various statements on FFL about pure being, transcendental consciousness, and eternity, you know, beyond life and death. Even though such statements are a bit shy of the truth, they are representative of certain kinds of experiences people have when they practice meditation many times a day for long periods of time. One has experiences that subjectively are timeless. The idea of eternity comes from these kinds of experiences. But if the mind is not really clear about these sorts of experiences it interprets eternity as endless time. If we take a scientific perspective, there is no timelessness in observing the world, though we think we know that if you travel at the speed of light, there would be timelessness. However only photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, other particles and hence all other matter cannot be accelerated to the velocity of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy. You still have not really made any significant mention of the Kalam argument. I think Curtis is right that you do not grasp these things very well. Among statements about the world and life I have my favourites, but I do not regard them as true. I particularly do not regard the Kalam argument as true. Curtis already demolished your position and you have not responded to him. You are out of your league with Curtis, as I think I would be. Here is part of an argument by Dan Barker about the Kalam, what do you think? Of course, if you live outside of time, whatever that means, then you don't need a beginning in time. A transcendent being, living Theists regularly talk about a place beyond the universe, a transcendent realm where God exists outside of time. . . . the universe has a cause. This conclusion ought to stagger us, to fill us with awe, for it means that the universe was brought into existence by something which is greater than and beyond it. Of course, if you live outside of time, whatever that means, then you don't need a beginning in time. A transcendent being, living beyond nature, is conveniently exempt from the limitations of natural law, and all complaints that God himself must have had a cause or a designer (using the same natural reasoning that tries to call for his existence) can be dismissed by theists who insist that God is outside the loop, unaffected by natural causality, beyond time.
[FairfieldLife] Irony
Thanks to the LR (lurking reporter) who wrote to me to point out that Ann and Jim are currently obsessing non-stop about me -- writing post after post after post, having admitted to having read two books about Rama to fuel their obsession and give them research material for it. At the same time they're doing this, all while denying that they're obsessed with me, the LR happened to notice that they're giving me shit about being an atheist at the same time they are gushing about how much they love a guy who is...wait for it...one of the most famous atheists in the world of entertainment, Ricky Gervais: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX0Fk-701Q What they seem unaware of is that his hilarious movie about a society in which lying has never been invented was an extended metaphor for his feelings about religion; that is, that ALL religion is by definition lying.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
** I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been slighted. On 10/21/2014 3:09 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Exactly. They are OFFENDED that someone like myself or you has overcome the Fear Of God that society tried to imprint us with, and they haven't. They're still terrified that if they express doubt of any kind, their imaginary friend God will smite them. Can't risk that. And they're more than a little pissed of that God has *not* smitten us, so they have to try to make up for him being a slacker and try to smite us themselves. :-) /Straw man argument. 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, so he 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./
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes
What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence to the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining. On 10/21/2014 9:05 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, I must admit bawee is the funniest one here, on a sort of perverse and twisted level of 'funny', I admit. I have never, ever in my life associated with anyone remotely like him in offline life. I mean, how could one stand it? This person would be throwing out all these outrageous statements, all the while preening in the nearest mirror (BTW, there was an interesting account at the beginning of his little fluff piece 'Roadtrip Mind' about Lenz primping in the mirror in the bathroom after having shared a piss together) and meanwhile repeating himself over and over in the hopes and dreams of getting a rise out of his audience. How tiresome would that be day after day? Still, I do enjoy seeing, up to a point, what silly things come out of his mouth here at FFL but I genuinely do wish he's change it up once in a while. /It makes me wonder if Barry went through the est seminar training with Werner Erhard, or maybe Fred lenz taught him how to use these techniques. There is a sect of yogis in India whose practice is acting out in public by saying outrageous statements and doing things that are repulsive to normal people. The idea is to give your audience an opportunity to release tensions by shouting out offensive remarks back at the yogis - that's their way of burning up their karma of past lives - collecting insults which are in themselves vulgar. Go figure./
[FairfieldLife] Re: 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs
3. They meditate every day. Meditation is a wildly popular strategy for clearing the mind and focusing. Oprah Winfrey is so devoted to the practice of transcendental meditation (TM) that she has TM teachers instruct everyone in her company who wants to learn the art of meditation. She fits at least 20 minutes of meditation into every day and aims for two 20-minute sessions. In an article on her website http://www.oprah.com/health/Oprah-on-Stillness-and-Meditation-Oprah-Visits-Fairfield-Iowa#ixzz2XoJNWPAR, Winfrey cites many benefits from the practice, saying that the results have been awesome. Better sleep. Improved relationships with spouses, children, coworkers. Some people who once suffered migraines don't anymore. Greater productivity and creativity all around. Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, is getting in on the trend as well. He tweeted https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/326018361458835459: Trying to learn transcendental meditation. Everyone recommends, not that easy to get started, but said to improve everything! Read more: 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k If you want to get to the next level, try incorporating these strategies into your daily routine. View on www.businessinsider... http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k Preview by Yahoo fleetwood_macncheese wrote : I read this earlier, and was happy to see that they meditate. They need it, and we need them to have it! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10 If you want to get to the next level, try incorporating these strategies into your daily routine. View on www.businessinsider... http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Xeno, I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said. In the physical existence of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father. Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on earth? I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas. But I'm taking the KCA argument one at a time which starts with statement 1. Your statements are so astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic. Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change. Where is Robin when we need him? M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic because it requires someone to assume that God had a hand in writing an obviously human produced work of literature. That people entertain this notion today is beyond me, but it causes many problems in this world. I consider it a very dangerous wrong belief that someone has a book from God with details about our lives. (Like kill the infidels, or God gave us this land.) I am most sympathetic to the mystical experience claims for the existence for God having had enough experiences of my own to understand how compelling they are. I no longer believe that the actual existence of a God is the best explanation for these experiences, but I could certainly be wrong and might be proven wrong some day. But not today. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, Curtis. Thanks. The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me. From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Xeno, I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said. In the physical existence of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father. Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on earth? I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas. But I'm taking the KCA argument one at a time which starts with statement 1. Your statements are so astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic. Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change. Where is Robin when we need him? M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic because it requires someone to assume that God had a hand in writing an obviously human produced work of literature. That people entertain this notion today is beyond me, but it causes many problems in this world. I consider it a very dangerous wrong belief that someone has a book from God with details about our lives. (Like kill the infidels, or God gave us this
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/21/2014 8:27 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: You seem to be just trolling. /Now that's a thought-stopper!/ Do you practice TM? /Non sequitur.//TM has not been defined./ I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) /Non sequitur.//Spiritual has not been defined./ As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? /In Buddhist philosophy, karma is the theory of action and result based on the theory of interdependent co-arising or dependent origination which states: everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. / 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'? That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. /All change must have a beginning and an end. In order to have a beginning there must be a cause. This is simple Philosophy 101. There is nothing in the universe that exists without change. In order for anything to change there must be a cause agent.//Causality is the relation between an event and a second event in which the second event is a consequence of the first./ It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the existence of god. /Non sequitur./ SNIP To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why? /Obviously consciousness is prior to everything else in the cosmos. In fact, consciousness is all there is in the universe. The only certainty you have is that you are self-conscious that you exist. Time, space and physicality occur within consciousness, not the other way around. The present is the only real moment of experience./ An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality by Sam Harris http://nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/an-atheists-guide-to-spirituality If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature in general, and the great variability of possible human experiences. /In the Western philosophical tradition, discussion stretches back at least to Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary philosophy.// // //Non sequitur./ snip
[FairfieldLife] Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud
I always knew TurquoiseB was an inter-galactic dude: Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==100http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-sees-turquois e-tinted-plumes-in-large-magellanic-cloud 10/21/2014 12:00 PM EDT The brightly glowing plumes seen in this image are reminiscent of an underwater scene, with turquoise-tinted currents and nebulous strands reaching out into the surroundings. However, this is no ocean. This image actually shows part of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small nearby galaxy that orbits our galaxy, the Milky Way, and appears as a blurred blob in our skies. The NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope has peeked many times into this galaxy, releasing stunning images of the whirling clouds of gas and sparkling stars (opo9944a, heic1301, potw1408a). This image shows part of the Tarantula Nebula's outskirts. This famously beautiful nebula, located within the LMC, is a frequent target for Hubble (heic1206, heic1402). In most images of the LMC the color is completely different to that seen here. This is because, in this new image, a different set of filters was used. The customary R filter, which selects the red light, was replaced by a filter letting through the near-infrared light. In traditional images, the hydrogen gas appears pink because it shines most brightly in the red. Here however, other less prominent emission lines dominate in the blue and green filters. This data is part of the Archival Pure Parallel Project (APPP), a project that gathered together and processed over 1,000 images taken using Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, obtained in parallel with other Hubble instruments. Much of the data in the project could be used to study a wide range of astronomical topics, including gravitational lensing and cosmic shear, exploring distant star-forming galaxies, supplementing observations in other wavelength ranges with optical data, and examining star populations from stellar heavyweights all the way down to solar-mass stars. Image Credit: ESA/Hubble NASA: acknowledgement: Josh Barrington Text: European Space Agency http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==101http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNASA/bulletins /d73856?reqfrom=share This e-mail update was generated automatically based on your subscriptions. Some updates may belong to more than one category, resulting in duplicate notices. _ http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==102http://www.nasa.gov/ Questions? Contact Us http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==103http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html STAY CONNECTED: http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==104http://www.youtube.com/NASATelevision http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==105http://www.facebook.com/NASA http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP TIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1M SZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1ta XQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0Z UlkPSYmJg==106http://twitter.com/#!/nasa http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkP
Re: [FairfieldLife] Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud
I admit it. I left those plumes there when I created the universe. :-) From: 'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:14 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud I always knew TurquoiseB was an inter-galactic dude: Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud 10/21/2014 12:00 PM EDT The brightly glowing plumes seen in this image are reminiscent of an underwater scene, with turquoise-tinted currents and nebulous strands reaching out into the surroundings. However, this is no ocean. This image actually shows part of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small nearby galaxy that orbits our galaxy, the Milky Way, and appears as a blurred blob in our skies. The NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope has peeked many times into this galaxy, releasing stunning images of the whirling clouds of gas and sparkling stars (opo9944a, heic1301, potw1408a). This image shows part of the Tarantula Nebula's outskirts. This famously beautiful nebula, located within the LMC, is a frequent target for Hubble (heic1206, heic1402). In most images of the LMC the color is completely different to that seen here. This is because, in this new image, a different set of filters was used. The customary R filter, which selects the red light, was replaced by a filter letting through the near-infrared light. In traditional images, the hydrogen gas appears pink because it shines most brightly in the red. Here however, other less prominent emission lines dominate in the blue and green filters. This data is part of the Archival Pure Parallel Project (APPP), a project that gathered together and processed over 1,000 images taken using Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, obtained in parallel with other Hubble instruments. Much of the data in the project could be used to study a wide range of astronomical topics, including gravitational lensing and cosmic shear, exploring distant star-forming galaxies, supplementing observations in other wavelength ranges with optical data, and examining star populations from stellar heavyweights all the way down to solar-mass stars. Image Credit: ESA/Hubble NASA: acknowledgement: Josh Barrington Text: European Space Agency
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : This is good, too: Ricky Gervais talking about David Bowie - brilliant! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 Ricky Gervais talking about David Bowie - brilliant! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 Ricky Gervais talking about David Bowie - brilliant! View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 Preview by Yahoo This I could open, Brilliant. They guy is adorable in so many ways. Have you seen that movie that has that poster behind Ricky? I might have to check it out. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdEExtras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from Extras where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends up as an embarrassment. View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Preview by Yahoo Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his series, 'Extras'? No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : both of you far less than raging successes in the world. M: This often repeated idea is a key to understanding you Jim. I think it lies at the root of your need to present yourself in a ridiculously inflated way You are using your claims as a version of spiritual one upmanship that even spill over into the material world. It seems important to your fantasy that Barry and I are not enjoying as good or as successful a life as you are on any level. Have you ever reflected on why you feel such a need? You don't know me or have any idea of any measure of my success in the world. How could you? You don't know my income or how it fits into the standards for my profession, You don't know anything about how I am viewed by the community of my peers or institutions that hire me. You know nothing about what recognition I may have received in my field or how my life fits into the goals for my own success which is a huge aspect of the quality of life. And yet you feel confident that you have somehow beaten me in success in life. Without knowing a single relevant detail you feel confident making such a statement. What's up with that Jim? Do you see that is is all about you, and due to a lack of information, has nothing to do with me? Are you juxtaposing your life as the standard of a raging success? Is this another example of your odd lack of self awareness about yourself, an over inflation of something quite ordinary. When I worked in finance I used to meet guys like you at dreadful corporate mixers. Guys who had a desperate need to over-inflate their accomplishments. They would talk over others and always assume that their bragging about how wonderful they were was having an impressive effect on those around them. People would shake their heads and smilingly retreat from the barrage of I am better than you in this way and this way and this way always clueless about who they were talking to or what they had achieved in their own lives. It comes off as desperate and a little pathetic Jim. You don't need to run this game. You have plenty of talents and abilities to be proud of without having to be the guy who is actually states you are better than other people here. Maybe you are just one of us, living your own choices as we are living ours. Life is not a contest between us so the fantasy that you are winning Charlie Sheen style is just that: a fantasy. An unpleasant one. I have a lot of friends on here. No need to pretend otherwise. Perhaps you should be giving advice to the turd flinging chimp on here, whom you find so much in common with, both of you far less than raging successes in the world. Your attempt at sussing my motivation, is absurd. I don't play that same game that the chimp does, and am perfectly happy, to continue telling you what you don't want to hear, regardless of you believing me, about anything, even my enlightenment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry. M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get back at me for not going along with your I am enlightened and you are not routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out. But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride as an indictment of your character. But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who is a fan of my work. As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized by it. So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community. I was just changing lives one classroom at a time today. Oh yeah: J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane thinking. There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdEExtras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from Extras where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends up as an embarrassment. View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Preview by Yahoo Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. Dang, can't access it from Canada. I'll keep trying to find it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his series, 'Extras'? No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud
Rick, Check that prescription on your glasses.:-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, rick@... wrote : Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud I always knew TurquoiseB was an inter-galactic dude: Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==100http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-sees-turquoise-tinted-plumes-in-large-magellanic-cloud 10/21/2014 12:00 PM EDT The brightly glowing plumes seen in this image are reminiscent of an underwater scene, with turquoise-tinted currents and nebulous strands reaching out into the surroundings. However, this is no ocean. This image actually shows part of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small nearby galaxy that orbits our galaxy, the Milky Way, and appears as a blurred blob in our skies. The NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope has peeked many times into this galaxy, releasing stunning images of the whirling clouds of gas and sparkling stars (opo9944a, heic1301, potw1408a). This image shows part of the Tarantula Nebula's outskirts. This famously beautiful nebula, located within the LMC, is a frequent target for Hubble (heic1206, heic1402). In most images of the LMC the color is completely different to that seen here. This is because, in this new image, a different set of filters was used. The customary R filter, which selects the red light, was replaced by a filter letting through the near-infrared light. In traditional images, the hydrogen gas appears pink because it shines most brightly in the red. Here however, other less prominent emission lines dominate in the blue and green filters. This data is part of the Archival Pure Parallel Project (APPP), a project that gathered together and processed over 1,000 images taken using Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, obtained in parallel with other Hubble instruments. Much of the data in the project could be used to study a wide range of astronomical topics, including gravitational lensing and cosmic shear, exploring distant star-forming galaxies, supplementing observations in other wavelength ranges with optical data, and examining star populations from stellar heavyweights all the way down to solar-mass stars. Image Credit: ESA/Hubble NASA: acknowledgement: Josh Barrington Text: European Space Agency http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==101http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNASA/bulletins/d73856?reqfrom=share This e-mail update was generated automatically based on your subscriptions. Some updates may belong to more than one category, resulting in duplicate notices. http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==102http://www.nasa.gov/ Questions? Contact Us http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==103http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html STAY CONNECTED: http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==104http://www.youtube.com/NASATelevision http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=clickenid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==105http://www.facebook.com/NASA
[FairfieldLife] Re: Irony
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Thanks to the LR (lurking reporter) who wrote to me to point out that Ann and Jim are currently obsessing non-stop about me -- writing post after post after post, having admitted to having read two books about Rama to fuel their obsession and give them research material for it. At the same time they're doing this, all while denying that they're obsessed with me, the LR happened to notice that they're giving me shit about being an atheist at the same time they are gushing about how much they love a guy who is...wait for it...one of the most famous atheists in the world of entertainment, Ricky Gervais: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX0Fk-701Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX0Fk-701Q What they seem unaware of is that his hilarious movie about a society in which lying has never been invented was an extended metaphor for his feelings about religion; that is, that ALL religion is by definition lying. Ha, ha, ha. You are being particularly hilarious today, bawee, thank you. First, you have to invent a lurking reporter to admit you realize I have read the one book on Lenz (Mark's) and I had already glanced through your book two years ago when you directed me to it. I looked back at the opening chapter to see what years you had been involved with Rama and that is when I came across our pee story and whatever else was in that first chapter. So, no, I have not re read your little puff piece as tempting as it was (not) recently. Second, of course I know he's an atheist you doink, so what? I'm supposed to not think he's funny and brilliant and likable? You are a shallow one, aren't you? Third, I have never once given you shit about being an atheist because A) I've never given you shit about being an atheist and you will never find a place in any post where I have given you shit about being an atheist and B) how would you know I have been giving you shit about being an atheist if you aren't reading my posts? your lurking reporter is just another name for split personality and imaginary friend, bawee. Fourth, I despise religion, I embrace no religion and never will. Just like I will never follow another human being as some sort of sage. Fifth, it's a good day for you isn't it? All this attention gives you quite the boner. Enjoy!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, Curtis. Thanks. The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me. Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic arguments and was their champion. I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is kind of frighteningly familiar: Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14. View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Preview by Yahoo From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Xeno, I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said. In the physical existence of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father. Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on earth? I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas. But I'm taking the KCA argument one at a time which starts with statement 1. Your statements are so astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic. Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change. Where is Robin when we need him? M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, Curtis. Thanks. The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me. Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic arguments and was their champion. I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is kind of frighteningly familiar: Scientology Top Managers In Action Scientology Top Managers In Action Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14. View on www.youtube.comPreview by Yahoo Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of them. :-) I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything approaching sanity from him now. But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of success, and then move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing at the skunks on his property -- I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and you're NOT. So there! :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Could astrology be correct? The season in which you were born may affect your personality, scientists claim
The jyotish (sidereal) Cancer Sun transit is from July 16th to August 15th. And of course a Cancer ascendants occur throughout the year. On 10/20/2014 09:51 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I meant to show that those dates are in summer. But in jyotish, anyone can be a Cancer ascendant in any of the 12 months of the year, which depend on the actual time of birth. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Those are tropical dates not jyotish. On 10/20/2014 06:46 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: According to jyotish, people born in Cancer, from June 21 to July 22, tend to be sentimental and emotional due to Cancer being a watery zodiac, and the fourth house from the head of the Kalapurusha, Aries. These scientists should study the people who were born with the conjunction of the Moon with Rahu. They should determine what type of personalities are predominant with this conjunction. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : Babies born in the summer are much more likely to suffer from mood swings when they grow up, while those born in the winter are less likely to become irritable adults, scientists claim. http://shar.es/1mDt8U
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the discussion of how could we know? Here is the section you quite wisely focused on: Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about what is real. But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find out. The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle. Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus. Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate to your intention in your post? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best. On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the discussion of how could we know? Here is the section you quite wisely focused on: Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about what is real. But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find out. The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle. Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus. Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate to your intention in your post? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Gotta agree with you on this one, Share. I also have to say that if there is anyone on the planet I'd most like to see have a sit-down, on-the-record conversation with Sam Harris, it would be Curtis. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best. On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the discussion of how could we know? Here is the section you quite wisely focused on: Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about what is real. But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find out. The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle. Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus. Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate to your intention in your post? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/21/2014 10:42 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. /There are actually three questions running through this thread:// // / 1. /Is Barry mentally ill for believing in Buddhas, karma or reincarnation?/ 2. /Are there any proofs for the existence of Buddhas?/ 3. /Why does Barry believe in reincarnation and karma?/ the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) /The real question is why is Barry posting his beliefs in Buddhism and at the same time posting atheist messages directed at Hindus or Christians? This seems like a case of cognitive dissonance. Everyone on this list knows Barry has claimed a belief in Buddhas, karma and reincarnation. It's not complicated./ Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? /We had a very long discussion about this with Robin Carlsen about St. Thomas Aquinas defense of the existence of God using the proofs of Aristotle and Parmenides as to the existence of a prime mover. In this argument everything is based on change and the law of causality. For anything to move or change there must be a cause. There can be no change without movement or change and there must be cause for everything that happens. The purpose of Aristotle's argument, is that there is at least one eternal unmoved mover that must exist, in order to support everyday change. However, the idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, is nonsensical and cannot be applied according to Immanuel Kant who attempted to put an end to what he considered an era of futile and speculative theories of human experience, while resisting the skepticism of thinkers such as David Hume./ /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant/ We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. /Probably none of us has been up in space to see the curvature of the earth, yet we all believe the earth is spherical in shape. Very often we depend on verbal testimony for our justification for a belief - at other times we use inference, both are valid means of knowledge./ [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] /There are several arm-chair philosophers on this list//, Barry being not one of them: masked_zebra was apparently steeped in Christian and Islamic theology having been a monk for several years; emptybill was apparently a monk in the Eastern Christian church for several years; Curtis has a degree in philosophy from MUM;//and I took Philosophy 101 under Richard Braugham, Ph.D. at a local community college.//I also took Logic 101 and Ethics 101. Go figure./ I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. /The ultimate reality is pure consciousness - there is much justification for believing this. According to Ramana, the validity is not metaphysical but it is experiential. Consciousness is the prior condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance within it. Consciousness is prior to everything else that exists. Consciousness is all there is - the experience of I-am is the only real certainty./ An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. /Physical science cannot explain consciousness because there is nothing in the physical world to prove the existence of consciousness. Without consciousness there would be no material/physical world. There must be consciousness or else there would be no perception. Consciousness is prior to everything else. According to Parmenides, nothing comes from nothing./ For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world. /The thread posted by Barry is really a series of straw man statements, pasted by Barry to deny his cognitive dissonance. There are probably no
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-: Anyway, my questions are: 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a haetera! 2. what do we mean by knowing? Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception could be faulty. Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the truth of the song. But here's my really favorite question, 3. Back to your post: what is meant by worthwhile reality? Are there some realities that are not worthwhile? On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the discussion of how could we know? Here is the section you quite wisely focused on: Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about what is real. But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find out. The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle. Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus. Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate to your intention in your post? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. /Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. // // //Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change./ /Where is Robin when we need him?/ / /On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. /It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.//There are no chance events./ Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. /Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not.// My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.// // //Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it is much larger that the earth.// // //We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the validity of inference is to refuse to think or discuss. All thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations, and all denials, all proofs and disproofs are made possible by inference./ Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern people. /Maybe we should explain this to Barry since he seems only to be able to copy and paste cartoons./ They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
I enjoyed your response till you went its all about Barry on my ass Richard. I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity in gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the epistemological puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that the claim of consciousness as the ultimate reality was inferred from anything. I think someone taught you that this was true. I ain't necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from a self evident truth from experience. And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is what gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to only what logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw in as many non sequiturs into our conversation as you can come up with. I'll take something new and tangential over more of the same any day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change. Where is Robin when we need him? On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks. There are no chance events. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred. Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it is much larger that the earth. We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness I enjoyed your response till you went its all about Barry on my ass Richard. I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity in gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the epistemological puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that the claim of consciousness as the ultimate reality was inferred from anything. I think someone taught you that this was true. I ain't necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from a self evident truth from experience. And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is what gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to only what logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw in as many non sequiturs into our conversation as you can come up with. I'll take something new and tangential over more of the same any day. It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation - Herman Melville ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change. Where is Robin when we need him? On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.There are no chance events. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred. Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it is much larger that the earth. We infer
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-: Anyway, my questions are: 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a haetera! M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than it actually is. 2. what do we mean by knowing? Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception could be faulty. M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees. S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the truth of the song. M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are example from my songs: Abstract The river of missing you , it flows a long long way It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day And: Story: Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign, waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old And combining both: Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams, try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed, My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said. All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet. The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you had a relationship that was well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the seams? So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes in a direction you can't relate to personally. It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with what I have to work with. But here's my really favorite question, 3. Back to your post: what is meant by worthwhile reality? Are there some realities that are not worthwhile? M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: visual, linguistic and sensory-moter. We are forgetting how we evolved the brain we have through multi-sensory manipulatives and are making some really unwise decisions in education because of it. Now that I have clarified what I meant would you care to share (pun intended) your perspective? Thanks for the invitation to express! On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the discussion of how could we know? Here is the section you quite wisely focused on: Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Very, very nice. For somewhat obvious cafe- and waitress-related reasons, I liked your answer to question #2 the best, but all were wonderful. From: curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-: Anyway, my questions are: 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a haetera! M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than it actually is. 2. what do we mean by knowing? Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception could be faulty. M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees. S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the truth of the song. M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are example from my songs: Abstract The river of missing you , it flows a long long way It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day And: Story: Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign, waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old And combining both: Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams, try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed, My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said. All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet. The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you had a relationship that was well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the seams? So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes in a direction you can't relate to personally. It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with what I have to work with. But here's my really favorite question, 3. Back to your post: what is meant by worthwhile reality? Are there some realities that are not worthwhile? M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: visual, linguistic and sensory-moter. We are forgetting how we evolved the brain we have through multi-sensory manipulatives and are making some really unwise decisions in education because of it. Now that I have clarified what I meant would you care to share (pun intended) your perspective? Thanks for the invitation to express!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Xeno, You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated yesterday. Earlier, you said that everything that exists has no cause. Then you said that: As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them. Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and a father. From my understanding, your parents are the cause of your existence on earth. So, we have one specific example that proves your statement to be false. IOW, you are a physical entity that has a cause since your parents begot you. By your own testament you have proved your statement to be illogical. Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true? Because, like you, all human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth. We are all physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this world. There are many other examples in the physical world that show everything that begins to exist has a cause. But your parents are the clearest evidence that they caused you to exist. Do you agree or not? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'? That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the existence of god. 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the beginning of existence of god. How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anything that is beyond the pale of proof is indeterminate as far as knowledge. There are two kinds of proof, one is observation coordinated between groups, which is the way science works, and law enforcement works. The other is personal private experience but this version of proof cannot be observed by others. The results of meditation fall into this category, it is a scaled down version of science but lacks shareability. The best you can do in this case is tell someone about your experiences and hope they are interested enough to try it out for themselves. But in real science, you share observations and ideas with other minds, and see if those other minds can replicate what you did. Metaphysics is the study of ideas that have no physical observations and therefore there are no shareable proofs as to the reality of metaphysical statements. Because there are no proofs, arguments like the Kalam argument have arisen in the attempt to convince people that certain ideas that have no proof, no evidence, no observable reality, could be true. These argument tend to have a serious logical flaw, and if they are true they are trivial tautologies (examples: a = a, a cat is a cat, all things are all things), that is, circular arguments which tend to be the basic religious argument for why we are here: 'God is God, so there, believe it or else!' To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why? If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Very, very nice. For somewhat obvious cafe- and waitress-related reasons, I liked your answer to question #2 the best, but all were wonderful. That is from Hard Luck Shoes so you may already know that we never find out. My guess is number one because this character is not a personal responsibility oriented guy. After sitting too long he might blame the waitress for being rude and then stiff her, cluelessly wondering why he is greeted with a stink face when he comes back the next time! Or maybe you are right and despite giving her a big tip she still wont give him the time of day. He will predictably blame his hard luck shoes for things not turning out well, AGAIN. Thanks for reading. From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-: Anyway, my questions are: 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a haetera! M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than it actually is. 2. what do we mean by knowing? Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception could be faulty. M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees. S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the truth of the song. M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are example from my songs: Abstract The river of missing you , it flows a long long way It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day And: Story: Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign, waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old And combining both: Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams, try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed, My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said. All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet. The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you had a relationship that was well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the seams? So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes in a direction you can't relate to personally. It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with what I have to work with. But here's my really favorite question, 3. Back to your post: what is meant by worthwhile reality? Are there some realities that are not worthwhile? M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is undervaluing the
[FairfieldLife] TV series review: The Knick
I watched the first episode of Steven Soderberg's new TV series The Knick a few weeks ago, realized immediately its depth, and Put It The Fuck Away Until I Had Time To Binge Watch The Whole Series At Once. I have only in the last few days been able to binge watch the whole series. I think it's one of the best things on television. Soderberg did a kind of sideways shuffle into television with this series, coming as it does on the heels of his public announcement that he was done with making films, forever. Well, TV must not count as film, because he appears to have been Pretty Fuckin' Busy making this series. He wrote most of the scripts, directed all 10 episodes, and IMO basically created a weird kind of masterpiece that I suspect in the future will be favorably compared to Deadwood as being one of the best TV series ever created. OK, for you in countries in which you'll have to pay HBO prices to see this and who resent that, it's kinda worth it. Say it costs you ten bucks. Just being able to watch Soderberg's cinematography when recreating 1900s New York would be worth ten bucks. Besides, if you are familiar with his work, you've got Clive Owen. There are few more commanding faces of the modern screen. From King Arthur to Sin City to Inside Man to Children Of Men to Hemingway and Gellhorn, Clive has never been less than interesting. He's interesting here, too, as Dr. John W. Thackery, head of surgery at a great New York hospital. It's just that it's the Knickerbocker hospital, and at the turn of the century, so the medicine being practiced is not exactly what we would today consider state of the art. But is WAS so considered back then. And therein lies the magic of this series. Thackery is a visionary, a seeker of perfection within the realm of medicine, driven to create new surgical methods with which to better save lives. He's also a total cocaine and opium junkie, fuels he needs to keep up the furious pace of his live-fast-die-young-leave-a-lot-of-scientific-papers-behind-you lifestyle. The medicine of the times is all up onscreen, and at times it makes you want to avert your eyes. But you can't, because of the magic of Soderberg's cinematography. The plot dynamic of this series is very much character-based. Thackery, ego-driven, cocaine-driven, but brilliant, is forced to hire an equally talented surgeon pushed on him by the hospital's primary donors. He's black. This does not sit well with Dr. Thackery, or with anyone else in the hospital. This black doctor, played wonderfully by André Holland, walks into such a poisonous environment *anyway* and pulls it off. Don't look for flawless heroes in The Knick, any more than you would have looked for them in Deadwood. But if you're interested in getting to know some real CHARACTERS, this could be what you're looking for as your next binge-watch. Expect to see this series all over the nominations for Golden Globe and Emmy awards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08V4RHGuGqE
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Baker has always been my favorite Dr. - My daughter LOVES Dr. Who, tho her favs have been David Tennant and Matt Smith. Didn't take her long to accept Peter Capaldi. I haven't seen any of Capaldi's episodes yet. I didn't like Matt Smith, I thought he was too young and there was always too much running around frantically. I prefer the old BBC style of story telling but the Capaldi stories have been a real treat, I tune in every week, just like when I was a kid. Not that I ever grew up, I've still got a lot of the DVD's of the 70's series, they're my favourite nostalgic treat. Did you ever see Blakes 7? It was a more grown up BBC sci-fi series that Dr Who fans gravitated to when we hit puberty and the whovian storylines started looking a bit thin. Blakes 7, worth searching out if you've never had the pleasure. Blakes 7 (TV Series 1978–1981) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ Blakes 7 (TV Series 1978–1981) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ Created by Terry Nation. With Michael Keating, Paul Darrow, Peter Tuddenham, Jan Chappell. A group of convicts and outcasts fight a guerrilla war against the... View on www.imdb.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ Preview by Yahoo From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. Dr. Who keeps 'em mesmerized! Yup, it works for me! Always did actually. I met Tom Baker when he started as Dr Who. It was like meeting god, better than that to me as I would have said even then. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : you will have to explain that to us crass and crude Americans, I never heard of such doings as this - and it was legal at one time? Who changed the law and why wasn't it illegal to begin with? We've always done it MJ, until recently anyway, it's a way of housing the homeless or feeding yourself in critical times. But squatting empty buildings became really popular in the 1960's because of the housing crisis, I have no idea when the laws were agreed but there was a statement you put on the door of the house you let yourself into stating that it was now your home and there was basically nothing they could do about it, except go to court to have you removed, which generally took ages. To put it into perspective, my town has 30% of it's houses empty for 10 months of the year and yet there are homeless people sleeping rough everywhere. This sort of imbalance in wealth is very bad for society and the government doesn't give a damn, they actively make it worse in fact. So squatting was a good idea but it did attract a lot of the wrong types who ruined peoples houses. The way things are swinging politically it couldn't last. everyone tries to out fascist the other guy these days. The people I knew in squats were either paying off student debts or anarchist types living cheap and avoiding officialdom. We ran an environmental action group from our pub as well as having awesome parties and plotted the overthrow of Maggie Thatcher, but I went to travel the world before they built the barricades. It was good clean fun and no one got hurt or even disadvantaged much. But it's all been illegal since a few years ago, the verminous Tories won't let their rich friends be inconvenienced in any way so they stopped it. London belongs to oligarchs now, the rich have won the class war and there's no way to live except by paying vast rent to private landlords or buying a place if you're lucky. I don;t know why there hasn't been a revolution in the last few years, probably because everyone is kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. And there's no good role models. Russell Brand is the best they've got these days and he's a multi millionaire. But you'd never get away with it now with our easily abused anti - terror laws and government monitoring. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Sorry - I replied too fast. Re Still there?: No, we stayed at the squat for two years then we got a letter from the owner saying that he was returning from Africa, that he'd heard the place
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Richard, Your points are excellent. It's good that you reminded us of Aristotle's idea regarding the first cause and principle. But it appears that there are some people here who will disagree with you on this point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change. Where is Robin when we need him? On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks. There are no chance events. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred. Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it is much larger that the earth. We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the validity of inference is to refuse to think or discuss. All thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations, and all denials, all proofs and disproofs are made possible by inference. Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern people. Maybe we should explain this to Barry since he seems only to be able to copy and paste cartoons. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it for other reasons that
Re: [FairfieldLife] TV series review: The Knick
On 10/21/2014 11:46 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: I watched the first episode of Steven Soderberg's new TV series The Knick a few weeks ago, realized immediately its depth, and Put It The Fuck Away Until I Had Time To Binge Watch The Whole Series At Once. I have only in the last few days been able to binge watch the whole series. I think it's one of the best things on television. Soderberg did a kind of sideways shuffle into television with this series, coming as it does on the heels of his public announcement that he was done with making films, forever. Well, TV must not count as film, because he appears to have been Pretty Fuckin' Busy making this series. He wrote most of the scripts, directed all 10 episodes, and IMO basically created a weird kind of masterpiece that I suspect in the future will be favorably compared to Deadwood as being one of the best TV series ever created. OK, for you in countries in which you'll have to pay HBO prices to see this and who resent that, it's kinda worth it. Say it costs you ten bucks. Just being able to watch Soderberg's cinematography when recreating 1900s New York would be worth ten bucks. Oh it is far more than $10 or even $20. You have to have a cable or satellite subscription and you can just ask for HBO only. So you not only have to have the broadcast channels but usually one tier of the cable networks (FX, AMC, etc). So you can easily be paying $80 a month in programming before they will let you have HBO. If you are lucky or try to quit your provider they MAY offer HBO (or Showtime or Starz) for free for several months. Of course this is just a little fee finagling. Believe me, HBO still gets their bucks. And then there are the additional fees these comapanies charge like rentals for the DVR, etc. The thing is the WRONG PEOPLE run the telecoms. It's like they came straight off a carnival midway. And we wonder why people pirate shows? One solution is to find a friend or relative who has HBO and ask for their HBO GO app password. Lots of people do this and HBO knows this and currently doesn't care. In fact they are going to offer HBO next year via online service without the need for a cable or satellite subscription. I don't expect it will be that reasonably priced (has been hinted at $16 a month). There's some good stuff of TV and of course a lot of terrible stuff (which has always been the case). Some of us cable cutters don't really like to get strung along by series and have taken to mainly watching movies which require far less time investment. It's all bread and circuses anyway.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Trem23, Regarding Q1, you have to understand who started this thread in the first place. The person who started it is a self-proclaimed non-theist. You can ask him what this means. You may or may not get a consistent answer from him. Regarding Q2, MMY said that everything in the world is based in consciousness. We've been debating this point with some members here for some time. And, as you can gather, the debate is still on-going. You may be interested in hearing John Hagelin's explanation of the unified field, as shown in the link below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart of it was this sentence: ' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material.' especially the . . . and anything that interacts with the physical/material because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science. So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard and edgy the world is. So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, it's one's only chance. Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/21/2014 12:07 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-: According to Sam Harris consciousness is the only thing that cannot be an illusion. Anyway, my questions are: 1. how do we know that we know? /We know that we exist because we are self-conscious. Without consciousness there would be no perception or perceiver./ Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as a haetera! /Non sequitur. The fact of consciousness is dirt simple because everyone has it, otherwise they would be unconscious. Nobody that is conscious goes around saying they don't exist. Consciousness is the basic fact of life that cannot be doubted.- Sam harris/ 2. what do we mean by knowing? /Knowing is having knowledge structured in consciousness; intelligence. / Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception could be faulty. /If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the naive realist closely, we will find that at some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, he even more baffled./ Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the truth of the song. /For past experiences, to be compared, they must be remembered. But memory often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing us again? Past experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The materialist thinks he sees directly back into an existing past which in reality has ceased to exist!/ /This is called in philosophy an appeal to instruments and like the appeal to other senses, to past experiences, to repetition, and to other persons, is a confession of failure. For it is a confession that apparently obvious objects are NOT self-evident./ But here's my really favorite question, 3. Back to your post: what is meant by worthwhile reality? /It is worthwhile to be conscious because that way get to enjoy life and gain knowledge that will set us free. You should know the truth and the truth will set your free.//There in knowledge higher than absolute knowledge./ Are there some realities that are not worthwhile? /There is only one single reality - pure consciousness - duality is an illusion. / On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the discussion of how could we know? Here is the section you quite wisely focused on: Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about what is real. But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose stock in trade has been We have it all figured out already over Let's find out. The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle. Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fleetwood_macncheese@... wrote : This is a lot of airy talk, though telling. My concern after having read it, is, I feel it was written by someone who takes less than complete responsibility for their life, and their personal thoughts and actions. Taking this line, of the strong possibility of random action, so seriously, as you do, would make it a very convenient excuse to use, whenever things have not gone according to your liking, in your life - The who knew?! excuse. In this thread I have not mentioned random action, you have added that in (perhaps from other threads in which I mentioned it, as in quantum mechanics there is a certain percentage of randomness in particle events). As for responsibility, I live my life, I have thoughts but I do not normally have thoughts about my thoughts or thoughts of responsibility, though I have definite responsibilities and I do have to act to keep things from falling apart. I am not even sure what taking responsibility for my life means — you are enlightened, you must experience how automatically life runs on, and adding a conceptual layer trying to re-impose egoistic control over an autonomous process seems incredibly redundant and unnecessary. I unpacked a radiant heater last night, and it failed to work out of the box. I am going to take it back to the store where I bought it. Now, if I take responsibility for my life, should I do something different? I have taxes to pay this month and business personal property inventory forms to turn in this month. If I take responsibility for my life should I do something different than pay the taxes and turn in the inventory forms to the local city government? I have a client for which I do certain things, should I do something different than showing up on time and doing those things on those days I have contracted with the client in order to be taking more responsibility for my life? I also am working today. This particular post sat on my screen in the background for some 6 hours until I could finish off a couple of sentences because I was working on a publication. I am responding to you but I have no responsibility to do so. This thread, or rather this portion of this thread is about the beginning portion Kalam argument which is an airy argument about ultimate beginnings. What do you think of the argument? I do not think it solves the problem it intends to solve, it is a stand-in for facts not in evidence. It could also be an stand-in for facts in evidence but whose interpretation is open to question, e.g., cosmic microwave background radiation which is currently explained by big bang theories, multiverse theories but for which solid proof and a clear understanding of the known facts is really lacking. And finally why do you have 'concern' that it was written by someone with x, y, and z characteristics (x, y, and z are variables standing in for your comments)? We have concerns when something does not fit into our world view the way we would like, otherwise why would a concern arise? Everything went fine today, except for that heater. = ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'? That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the existence of god. 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the beginning of existence of god. How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special emissaries . Fred is known in the
[FairfieldLife] Crop Circles — Messages in the Fields
Crop Circles — Messages in the Fields http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Scfeature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Scfeature=youtu.be Crop Circles — Messages in the Fields http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Scfeature=youtu.be Thousands of extraordinary geometric patterns have appeared in crop fields in more than 50 countries throughout the world. The crops are not cut or broken, b... View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Scfeature=youtu.be Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: How Can You Help Fight the Spread of Ebola?
DAILY SNAPSHOT Tuesday, October 21, 2014 Featured How Can You Help Fight the Spread of Ebola? Right now, Americans across the country are helping in a variety of ways to help fight the global spread of Ebola. Whether it's signing up to be a medical volunteer, sharing your ideas to help combat the spread of Ebola, or donating money, there are a variety of options available to you. If you're looking for ways to help out, learn more here. President Barack Obama meets with doctors and healthcare professionals from Emory Hospital at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Ga., Sept. 16, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) Top Stories Meet the U.S. Military Team That's Poised to Help Respond to Ebola in the U.S. The Department of Defense (DOD), at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced this weekend that U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) is providing a 30-person medical support team to quickly, effectively, and safely respond in the event of additional Ebola cases in the United States. READ MORE A Small Business Owner's Perspective: A High Road on the Minimum Wage Paul Saginaw, the co-founding partner in the Zingerman's Community of Businesses, explains why he's a spokesman for a fair minimum wage. READ MORE Weekly Address: What You Need to Know About Ebola In this week's address, the President discussed what the United States is doing to respond to Ebola, both here at home and abroad, and the key facts Americans need to know. READ MORE Today's Schedule All times are Eastern Time (ET) 10:00 AM: The President and Vice President receive the Presidential Daily Briefing 11:55 AM: The President and Vice President meet with Secretary of the Treasury Lew 12:30 PM: The President and Vice President meet for lunch 12:30 PM: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest 2:00 PM: The Vice President delivers remarks at The Washington Post’s “America Answers” forum 4:30 PM: The President and Vice President meet with Secretary of Defense Hagel Facebook Twitter| More Ways to Engage Did Someone Forward This to You? Sign Up for Email Updates This email was sent to homeonthef...@iowatelecom.net Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Upcoming Arts Entertainment Events
Begin forwarded UPCOMING EVENTS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24 The Honey Dewdrops. Spare, original songs with a modern sensibility. 8 PM Cafe Paradiso SAT SUN OCTOBER 25 26 Atwood Corn Maze Saturday; 10 am - 6 pm Sunday 1-5 1639 Packwood Rd Closed if raining SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26 Critters of the Night Fall Hike 6:00 - 8:00 PM Jefferson County Park Nature Center TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28 SPOOKride starting at the Rose Garden in Chautauqua Park. 6:30 - 8:00 PM OCTOBER 31 - NOVEMBER 2 English Country Dance Weekend Morning Star Studio SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1 Truckstop Souvenir. Featuring Fairfield's onw Lauryn Shapter and Dennis James. 8-10 p.m. Cafe Paradiso TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4 Ben Gulley, Tenor 7:30 PM 2014-15 Fairfield Concert Association Series Sondheim Center Stay with Us Do you have guests coming in for the weekend? Whether you are looking for a hotel with a pool or a quaint Bed and Breakfast, Fairfield can help you and your guests feel right at home. Check out these places to stay... Stay with us Like us on Facebook An Evening with JOE DIFFIE Sat, Oct 25 | 7:30 PM Live at the Sondheim Sondheim Center Purchase tickets here Annual Fall Trail Drive-Through. Come over your lunch hour and enjoy this once-a-year opportunity to drive a section of the trails! The Jefferson County Conservation Board hosts this drive through, this year on a weekday. 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Choose Cedar View Trail to 223rd, and Cedar View Trailhead onto the Loop Trail through Whitham Woods Chris Medina Wed, Nov 05 | 7:30 PM From American Idol Sondheim Center Purchase tickets here Fairfield Farmers Market Every Saturday 8 - 1 Every Wed 3 -6 Howard Park Baked goods, fresh veggies, farm fresh brown eggs, jewelry, a little bit of everything! Events at the Orpheum Theater: Click the link for current events 121 W. Broadway Ave 641-209-5008 http://orpheumtheaterfairfield.com/ Stay up to date with all Art Walk events! Held the first Friday of every month, this fusion event includes art, food, music and a lot of fun. Share in all that the Fairfield community has to offer. For information of all upcoming Art Walk events, click here Winner of the Iowa Tourism Social Media Award! Fairfield Iowa... There's an APP for that! Now you can have Fairfield events and amenities in the palm of your hand! Simply download the Fairfield Iowa App onto your smartphone and you'll be able to find restaurants, buy tickets for events, call shops and services, load events onto your phone calendar and find your way around town. It's FREE! Download the Android version here Download the IPhone version here Stay in the know about upcoming events Bookmark TravelFairfield.com and refer to it often for upcoming arts entertainment in the Fairfield Area. Join the Fairfield Iowa Convention and Visitors Bureau Events and Performances Mailing List Forward email This email was sent to homeonthef...@iowatelecom.net by i...@travelfairfieldiowa.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Fairfield Iowa Convention Visitors Bureau | 200 N. Main St. | Fairfield | IA | 52556
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :No Xeno, You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated yesterday. Earlier, you said that everything that exists has no cause. Then you said that: As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them. Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and a father. =No, I said my body had a mother and a father, that's different. You need to read more carefully.= From my understanding, your parents are the cause of your existence on earth. =Your understanding and my understanding are different, I am consciousness and that includes the entire universe. To add a point, the physical universe is the equivalent of consciousness, they are not separate things. To say it another way the universe is pure being; that is all trivial because this is true for everyone whether they know it or not, whether they feel separate from the universe or not. If you studied Zen, you might call consciousness or awareness the unborn.= So, we have one specific example that proves your statement to be false. =Well that is not bad considering how many statement you have made that are out of whack. But you came to the conclusion by dropping out a critical word in my post, so you came to the wrong conclusion because you did not use the original phrase=. IOW, you are a physical entity that has a cause since your parents begot you. By your own testament you have proved your statement to be illogical. =I regard the entire universe as a physical entity, by my reckoning I am 13.5 billion years old or so, but really I am just blank awareness and the rest of the stuff just fills things out a bit. Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true? Because, like you, all human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth. We are all physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this world. =But your parents had grandparents, strictly speaking your parents had a prior cause by this reasoning, you could just as well say your grandparents were your cause because they caused the environment responsible for your birth. And guess what? You grandparents had parents too, so really, your grandparents were not really the cause of your birth. If we go back far enough, we could find a host of segmented worms that were the progenitors that led to you, and further back, bacteria. Where do you draw the line at causes? You are making your parents an arbitrary stopping point for causes.= There are many other examples in the physical world that show everything that begins to exist has a cause. But your parents are the clearest evidence that they caused you to exist. Do you agree or not? =Strictly speaking I do not know directly that the people I grew up with were my parents or relatives, as I do not remember those physical details that far back. I was told certain humans were my parents. No one every told me I was adopted for example, but some foster parents do not reveal to their adopted child they were not their birth parents. It is certainly psossible in the absence of DNA evidence, those people were not my parents. But as I pointed out, parents are simply an arbitrary marker in a long long line of causes. The formation of the Sun and Earth out of supernova remenants would be one event in the long line of causes.= ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'? That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because believers think of god as an uncaused
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Wed 22-Oct-14 00:15:04 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 10/18/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 10/25/14 00:00:00 511 messages as of (UTC) 10/21/14 23:51:55 84 fleetwood_macncheese 70 awoelflebater 61 'Richard J. Williams' punditster 42 TurquoiseBee turquoiseb 33 salyavin808 29 curtisdeltablues 26 Share Long sharelong60 25 steve.sundur 22 Bhairitu noozguru 20 jr_esq 19 Michael Jackson mjackson74 14 anartaxius 13 nablusoss1008 9 dhamiltony2k5 8 s3raphita 5 wgm4u 5 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569 4 emptybill 4 blue_bungalow_2 4 LEnglish5 3 inmadison 3 'Rick Archer' rick 2 punditster 2 Sharalyn Pliler homeonthefarm 2 Duveyoung 1 feste37 1 Dick Mays dickmays Posters: 27 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world. Boy oh boy do I like your posts. Yessiree, I surely do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, Curtis. Thanks. The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me. Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic arguments and was their champion. I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is kind of frighteningly familiar: Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14. View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Preview by Yahoo Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of them. :-) I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything approaching sanity from him now. But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of success, and then move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing at the skunks on his property -- I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and you're NOT. So there! :-) I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet seen anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis respond point by point to this post. What do you think about what bawee has said here Curtis? Maybe by the time I have read everything up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you have done this already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart of it was this sentence: ' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material.' especially the . . . and anything that interacts with the physical/material because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science. So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard and edgy the world is. So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, it's one's only chance. Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist). Stick around, whoever you are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve. You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here. And in my world. I can be friends with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I roll. I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do between yourselves is none of my business. Does that work for you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, Curtis. Thanks. The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me. Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic arguments and was their champion. I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is kind of frighteningly familiar: Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14. View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 Preview by Yahoo Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of them. :-) I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything approaching sanity from him now. But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of success, and then move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing at the skunks on his property -- I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and you're NOT. So there! :-) I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet seen anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis respond point by point to this post. What do you think about what bawee has said here Curtis? Maybe by the time I have read everything up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you have done this already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, inmadison@... wrote : Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart of it was this sentence: ' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material.' especially the . . . and anything that interacts with the physical/material because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science. So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard and edgy the world is. So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, it's one's only chance. Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist). Stick around, whoever you are. Shyayyaya!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
On 10/21/2014 1:57 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, Your points are excellent. It's good that you reminded us of Aristotle's idea regarding the first cause and principle. But it appears that there are some people here who will disagree with you on this point. /So far everyone seems to agree that we are conscious beings and that causality is the relation between an event and a second event in which the second event is a consequence of the first. The disagreement seems about the notion a first cause. Nobody seems to want to talk about Barry's beliefs in reincarnation and levitation, for which there is no physical evidence.//It looks like everyone is very interested in metaphysics, but not very interested in physics or logic. Go figure. / ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence. /Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. // // //Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: nothing comes from nothing. Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change./ /Where is Robin when we need him?/ / /On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate that's logical with that's true because the former requires another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful. The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from our natural experience. Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like Everything that comes to exist has a cause. are ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. /It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.//There are no chance events./ Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses. /Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not.// My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.// // //Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve. You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here. And in my world. I can be friends with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I roll. I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do between yourselves is none of my business. Does that work for you? Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress. Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure. Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or they simply create something they wished they were. I don't know and I don't care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers are a dime a dozen. So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. Maybe one day I'll get there too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
That's a nice piece Ann. I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of the real person behind people's online persona. I think you might be referring to Barry in some of what you say here. I've had a changing relationship with him. He thinks I've changed. I think he's changed. Honestly. I mean, really honestly. I don't care. I still like him, although I think he is disappointed in me, and I in him, to some extent. But who the hell cares! FFL offers a pleasant back and forth (at least enough of the time), and a chance to hear different perspectives. I like Curtis' input because he will ask you in a genuine way, to justify your position on things, and ask you to share your opinion. Lord knows he is repeatedly asked to defend his position on issues. And it is important, to at some point, say, fair enough, I guess we see things differently and then move on. That has been easier to do, these last four, five, or six months. (however long its been) (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve. You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here. And in my world. I can be friends with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I roll. I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do between yourselves is none of my business. Does that work for you? Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress. Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my efforts, I am sure. Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or they simply create something they wished they were. I don't know and I don't care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers are a dime a dozen. So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. Maybe one day I'll get there too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness. But it is associated with cultural trends, those behaviours that can program the mind, especially younger minds which are more flexible and which do not have reasoning well developed, like most of us on FFL. Ideas spread from mind to mind via various forms of communication and a mind that is not very selective in what it lets through may become infected with strange unworkable ideas that are nonetheless believed to be true. So if belief in god is some form of illness, it is a cultural one, spread through parents and relatives, friends, government, and dare I say, education. While the concept of a meme has never been proved to exist, the idea of a meme (an element of a culture or system of behaviour that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by non-genetic means, especially imitation) is a convenient way to summarise cultural transmission and transmission of ideas on a personal scale. If belief in god leads to irrational and abberant behaviour perhaps we could call that a memetic disorder or a memetic disease. As for the second question, that is related to the problem of non-physical physical interaction. There does not seem to be any way to explain this unless you accept that god is physical, or that the universe is not physical, and the latter seems pretty dumb. Religion mucks around with this problem as if it did not exist, which is why I find belief in god to be extraordinarily premature based on what we can feel confident about in this universe. Physical observation does not seem to be a resolution to the problem. One facet of human endeavour is subjective introspection. As far as knowledge of the physical world, no one involved with this kind of thing has ever discovered what we have discovered using science. A few really brilliant scientist like Einstein seem to have had a knack for that, but Einstein had plenty of physical data input before his discoveries. But introspective research does reveal something of how the mind works in a practical way, and it throws some light on the nutty problem of awareness which seems non physical, but which vanishes if the body in which the awareness seems to reside is destroyed, and yet there are experiences wherein one senses that if the body were destroyed some aspect of existence would continue, not personal or personal immortality, but some indefinable, irreducible value of abstract existence, because it is experienced (perhaps as a result these introspective techniques) that that value is what everything is. But because the experience is not shared, like scientific knowledge, we have no way to transmitting that experience to someone else. Also the experience is not hidden, it is simply the universe as it is seen every day and night, which includes body, mind, senses, and all that lies outside the body. This sort of realisation subjectively eliminates the problem because the physical / non-physical duality is seen to be the wrong question as both are seen to be the same thing. So saying a potato is physical but consciousness is not is, from this perspective, an idiotic question. But it certainly does not resolve the issue for scientific investigation because science has a dualistic approach to knowledge — observer and observed. This approach has proved very practical for living in the universe, but in regards to our awareness, from the scientific point of view it seems to be a function of the organisation of matter or does not seem to be there at all if we look for it directly, we always seem to have to approach it indirectly, except as we know it in ourselves where it does seem possible, from a purely subjective viewpoint, to dissolve the dividing line between observer and observed. Words are known by their context. God is a pretty loaded word culturally. One thing I try is, if you have a piece of literature, is to rewrite it substituting a word for god that does not have the cultural associations and hooks for the human psyche that have been programmed in. A place holder without the emotional associations. Often a piece of writing with this substitution will sound ridiculous when this is done, but not necessarily. Also there are cultural traditions in which the word god is not used for elemental being, such as Tao, or the Void as you find in some forms of Buddhism. I sometimes use the word 'Fred'. Or one could use a functional term like 'haberdasher'. Or perhaps a word with definite negative connotations would work better to counteract the cultural bias. If the passage, neutralised of emotional programming, still makes some kind of rational sense, maybe there is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Xeno, Thank you for your ideas. I believe we've exhausted this debate. There is no point to continue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote :No Xeno, You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated yesterday. Earlier, you said that everything that exists has no cause. Then you said that: As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them. Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and a father. =No, I said my body had a mother and a father, that's different. You need to read more carefully.= From my understanding, your parents are the cause of your existence on earth. =Your understanding and my understanding are different, I am consciousness and that includes the entire universe. To add a point, the physical universe is the equivalent of consciousness, they are not separate things. To say it another way the universe is pure being; that is all trivial because this is true for everyone whether they know it or not, whether they feel separate from the universe or not. If you studied Zen, you might call consciousness or awareness the unborn.= So, we have one specific example that proves your statement to be false. =Well that is not bad considering how many statement you have made that are out of whack. But you came to the conclusion by dropping out a critical word in my post, so you came to the wrong conclusion because you did not use the original phrase=. IOW, you are a physical entity that has a cause since your parents begot you. By your own testament you have proved your statement to be illogical. =I regard the entire universe as a physical entity, by my reckoning I am 13.5 billion years old or so, but really I am just blank awareness and the rest of the stuff just fills things out a bit. Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true? Because, like you, all human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth. We are all physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this world. =But your parents had grandparents, strictly speaking your parents had a prior cause by this reasoning, you could just as well say your grandparents were your cause because they caused the environment responsible for your birth. And guess what? You grandparents had parents too, so really, your grandparents were not really the cause of your birth. If we go back far enough, we could find a host of segmented worms that were the progenitors that led to you, and further back, bacteria. Where do you draw the line at causes? You are making your parents an arbitrary stopping point for causes.= There are many other examples in the physical world that show everything that begins to exist has a cause. But your parents are the clearest evidence that they caused you to exist. Do you agree or not? =Strictly speaking I do not know directly that the people I grew up with were my parents or relatives, as I do not remember those physical details that far back. I was told certain humans were my parents. No one every told me I was adopted for example, but some foster parents do not reveal to their adopted child they were not their birth parents. It is certainly psossible in the absence of DNA evidence, those people were not my parents. But as I pointed out, parents are simply an arbitrary marker in a long long line of causes. The formation of the Sun and Earth out of supernova remenants would be one event in the long line of causes.= ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone (except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause a. How has it been established that this is true? b. How is this statement
