BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones

Subject: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 07:53 PM

Well here comes one of the prime "cult" fringe groups vying for centrstage for 21st century theatre. I mentioned them earlier as one of the "listed" contributors to the so-called "libertarian" march organization. Well now they've cxome out off their alien-directed labs and announced they have indeed created the first human clone and , in no small part , as their "right" as a "religious sect" to commercialize cloning to help fund their greater purpose of promtoing human cloning in order to fulfill the fiat of their cult leader ,one Rael formerly known as French journalist Claude Vorilhon.

Dare I continue the steroetype by saying "Leave it to the French"
to come up with the last word in *designer* cults whom believe it is the destiny of man to be cloned and that it falls to Rael and his followers to be the "chosen" Prometeans of this latest twist to the New World Order.

This beats the Hale-Bop Comet cult which only left behind the most macabre Nike advert ever conceived after committing mass suicide.
You'll have to just do a search on the Raelians and make up your own minds , but this group just hit the publicity lottery "big time".

Welcome to the 21st century.
Beam me up. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:04 PM

You can clone the body...but you can't clone the soul. They may have overlooked that, methinks!

It's just like...you can manufacture identical cars...but you can't manufacture their human drivers, each one of whom is unique, and in a quite unpredictable manner.

Now let's say you clone the body of Marylin Monroe...and it is then entered and given sentient life by the soul of Catspaw49 or R. Crumb or Richard Nixon? What happens then? Do we really want to know? :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Stewart
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:18 PM

From "What's New - by Robert Parks" http://www.aps.org/WN/
"HUMAN CLONING: RAELIANS ANNOUNCE THE BIRTH OF BABY "EVE." Do you recall the controversy stirred up by physicist Richard Seed, PhD Harvard '53, when he announced his intention to clone the first human? We haven't heard anything from Seed lately, but today the scientific director of Clonaid says her company has created the first human clone. Clonaid was founded by Raelians, a religious group that believes extraterrestrials created humans. There are no details on how the supposed cloning of Eve was achieved, but physicist Michael Guillen, PhD Cornell, has been selected by Clonaid to verify the claim. Guillen has just the credentials Clonaid needs. In 1997 as the science correspondent for ABC Good Morning America, Guillen did a three- part series, "Fringe or Frontier." Of precognition he concluded "these guys are not flakes"; on astrology, "I think we're just going to have to suspend judgement"; on psychokinesis, "you have to take it seriously". Indeed, Guillen covered everything from James Patterson's cold fusion cell to Kirlian photographs of the human aura with the same credulity. A PhD in physics, after all, is not an inoculation against foolishness. We called ABC, but were told emphatically that their relationship with Guillen ended nearly a year ago."

Very Skeptical, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:25 PM

Interesting you should say that, Little Hawk. Given that a soul is the entity (as believed by me) which has a body, rather than having the emphasis other way 'round, how does a clone enter into that belief system? Could it be that the body 'acquires' a soul with its first physical breath? Surely it wouldn't mean that a cloned body would not have all the attributes of other human beings? Including the soul?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:26 PM

Scientists are not yet convinced the child is actually a "clone" of her mother (that is, completely matching in DNA to the one parent).

I dunno why such a "designer cult" should be French, though -- Hubbard, James Jones, the Appleby guy and numerous other cult leaders have been US born and corn-bred!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: MAG
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 08:50 PM

Those Hale-Bop people were supposed to be real intelligent -- they just didn't have the common sense of a gnat. I'll suspend judgement on whether they've done it, and just worry myself sick over who may control this. Nightmarish scenarios ensue.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 09:08 PM

The silly season now extends right round the year, it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:08 PM

(quote)
"I dunno why such a "designer cult" should be French, though -- "

I dunno either , but there it is.
I'm also just playing on the predominant impression of the French predelection for contrarianess as such a point of pride especially attributable to them.

Then again they produced Rene'Descartes and the cult of Cartesian science that provided the foundation for Science as an aethestic *religion* unto itself from which the fashionable "enlightenment" arose ; an elightenment that led to le Revolution and unleashed "the Terror" .
Then again the French are not unacquainted with the cult of power for power's sake under Napoleon which the Terror successfully prepared the way for.
Lest we also forget the father of science fiction : Jules Verne.

Yeah , I never suggested that there be any reason that the Raelian cult "should" be French , but after this off-the-cuff list pedigree lineage whom here is at all surprised .


(quote)
"Hubbard, James Jones, the Appleby guy and numerous other cult leaders have been US born and corn-bred!"

Oh no doubt. I'll match y'all with other U.S. Grade A certified cult flakes ( David Koresh comes to mind ) , but I'm sorry the Raelians are just who they are and that can't be changed now.
Rael even dresses as if he's out of central casting from a canceled Star Trek episode while giving his impression of some
California version of Captain Nemo.

This is a pure ,dyed-in-the-wool ,French cult leader at the forefront of perhaps "the" most chillingly contraversial issue at the dawn of the 21st century ; *commercial" human cloning for profit. Can a French version Ridley Scott's TYRELL Corporation
be far behind.

" Where have you gone Eric VonDonnikan...
our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
woo , woo , woo "

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,boweaver
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:14 PM

-
I can see the T-Shirts now:

"I ain't no ordinary screwed-up human.

"I was cloned."

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:16 PM

what's a 'soul'?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:30 PM

Mr. Happy, the part of you that loves. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: TIA
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:38 PM

Don't worry, they're full of crap. You heard it here. Take it to the bank. What they're talking about is not truly "cloning" anyhow, so their ignorance is on display.

Saw the leader interviewed, and he said the purpose was immortality -- i.e. clone yourself, then "transfer the data from your mind into the clone". Now THAT'S the tricky part. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

Scary part is that someday, someone will actually do it, so perhaps it's good if these kooks spur us to work out all the ethical issues now.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:18 AM

Well, you'd have to prove that the nervous system was where data was retained. I doubt it in light of the number of details an individual can potemntialy recall and the completeness of memory records which seem to be available. I am skeptical of even a hologramic system storing that much information in the number of binary sites in the brain. Even the whole body. But I think someone ought to do a more precise estimate. One problem is, there is no full developed model for mapping nerves or brain to memory data. 'S far as I know the best we have so far is a rough map of where some kinds of activity seem to show up as active areas. The whole process is so poorly understood I'd be shy of asserting any physical model with any confidence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:07 AM

If a person is cloned and the X or Y chromosome is altered so the clone becomes the opposite sex of the original person and that person then has sex with his or her clone: Is it masterbation or incest?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 04:17 AM

Don, that's a real puzzlement. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 07:06 AM

It's funny you know, but when I see the word "cult" used in this context,I always think it's a spelling mistake.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: MAG
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 09:57 AM

Science fic has explored these themes quite thoroughly, including the ethics of producing a human as a spare parts bank or entire body.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: allanwill
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:17 AM

Mr Happy

"what's a 'soul'?" - the opening at the end of the alimentary canal.

All Aboard! All Aboard! For a cruise down The Alimentary Canal!


Chorus:
Come take a cruise
' just takes a day.
The Alimentary Canal,
it'll whisk us away.


The canal will amaze you
as it changes in size.
We'll see many organs
along the ride.


The first stop's the mouth
where saliva and teeth
chew and prepare us
for the things we will see.


Chorus


We'll travel the esophagus
to a big spot.
They call this the stomach.
It holds quite a lot.


Then on to the intestines,
first small and then large.
They'll expand as we pass
and make room for our barge.


Chorus


Some special juices
will make our trip smooth.
We'll slither along
and slowly move.


And for this cruise
what do we pay?
Our blood takes our nutrients
by the end of the day.


Chorus

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:35 AM

This subject seems to affect me a bit differently than it does others....it brings up a chain of thoughts that it is impossible to do justice to in a short post, but here are some brief parts of it.

It is certainly 'possible' to clone a person, though I seriously doubt that this group has really done that.......but....if they have, of if anyone does, the person will have just as much 'soul' as any of us...exactly none.

We are a complex organism--complex enough that we are capable of reflecting on our own existence and postulating about causation, and every possible theory has been advanced by someone or some group. Having a 'soul' which supercedes the body and lives beyond it is certainly a pretty and entertaining idea, but it is no more than that. What we 'are' is created BY us, and beauty, love, happiness, art, joy etc., are real enough without recourse to artificial constructs.

The universe does not care what we are or what we do...only WE care, and with all our complex nature, we are not clever enough as a group yet to see what our place is, and what it will take to keep ourselves functioning until the laws of physics eventually end all this.

Cloning is foolish--not because it is "against God's law" or "tampering with the soul"..etc, but because we are not smart enough to use the ability sanely and fairly. IF we are ever able to treat humans born naturally with dignity, and control their numbers, then possibly cloning could serve some function, but right now it is 90% just a parlor trick that we try to do because we might be able to do it. The other 10% is understandable, but misguided.

I am sorry for childless couples who want kids, but there are other alternatives, and in the future, if we want to survive as a species with any hope of a decent life, many more people will have to limit or forego having children. I do not expect that those who think differently will cease trying to clone people, but they are just adding unnecessary problems to a world that can't cope with the scientific abilities they already have.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: allanwill
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:43 AM

Sorry, forgot to put this acknowledgement in my previous post.

Many thanks to Sara Jordan for permission to publish these lyrics.
© Sara Jordan Publishing. All rights reserved.
This song is performed on "Healthy Habits,"
Available from Sara-Jordan.com

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 10:57 AM

BillD;

One healthy out-of-body experience can cure that, mate! The role of soul is as much a part of the mix as the role of energy itself, I suspect. Not for me to tell ya what to think or anything, but I'd be shy of throwing out babies with bathwaters as they say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:20 AM

well, Amos....I suspect that when I leave my body, it will be because I am NOT healthy...*big grin*.....(and I am not telling anyone what to think, either...not that it would do any good anyway.)

as to.... "The role of soul is as much a part of the mix as the role of energy itself, I suspect."........I can see 'energy' on a meter..(I get a bill each month for one type, and I watch other types manefested in various ways every day)...but in the 50 years I have been seriously looking, I have not seen anything ....repeat, with emphasis, **ANYTHING**....that could not be explained some other way besides referring to a soul. (Yeah, yeah, I have been told that I unfortunately didn't get 'wired' properly...*even bigger grin*)....but I have never seen a ghost, a flying saucer, an aura, or heard 'voices' or "felt a spirit move over me"... I HAVE experienced many emotions and seen things I couldn't see the immediate causes of, but it simply never occurred to me to attribute them to the supernatural.   

*shrug*....You can guess how many times in 6 years here I have NOT bothered to post my bemused sceptical viewpoint....

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:26 AM

oh, BTW..."babies and bathwater" as a metaphor in this case escapes me. I can SEE babies.

Occam's Razor is a bit easier for me to relate to.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:30 AM

Interesting thread!

One thing is certain - "soul" is something that resists all the efforts of the mind to prove or disprove it. The great thinkers - like Socrates and Plato - have been trying for millenium and it hasn't worked yet. It just produces endless, brain-twisting arguments that imo are a total waste of time.

Similiarly, "soul" is not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically. Every time a scientist comes close, the 'evidence' is discredited by attitudes like Very Skeptical S. in Seattle, above - "A PhD in physics, after all, is not an inoculation against foolishness".

Well, Galileo and Christopher Columbus were considered pretty foolish, crazy - even 'heretical' - in their day too.

So I can only rely on personal experience. And for what it's worth, my experiences have 'proven' - but only to me of course - that Dr. Wayne Dyer is exactly right when he says "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience".

If people really want to know the truth, they need only let go of all pre-judgements, keep their minds open and find a personal 'method of investigation' that WORKS, for them. It comes from the heart, not the mind, though - because there is a big difference between 'knowledge' (the 'mind-stuff') and wisdom (the 'heart-stuff' gained through experience AND knowledge). And I suspect that will be true for 'clones' as well!

Thanks for the chance to share my thoughts - daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:01 PM

For an updated list of news articles on the Raelian clone topic:
http://www.factnet.org/LatestCultNews.htm?FACTNet

The Raelian cult actually has its headquarters in Canada. You can read more about them here:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/raelians/raelians26.html
------------
QUOTE IN PART:
In the small farming community of Valcourt (northeast of Montreal) the group has established UFOland as their
headquarters and embassy to the world. The building itself is part office complex and part museum. For two weeks every summer Raelians gather
there for meetings and meditation.

In 1998 Vorilhon announced to his followers that the alien creators of Earth would soon return to Earth and it was necessary to expedite preparations
for this second coming. One of the essential first steps was the recruitment of a number of young women members into the Order of the Angels to
serve as hostesses and sexual mates for the arriving progenitors of humans. Within this order was a select group who agreed only to sleep with the
aliens and their prophets, including of course Vorilhon. Vorilhon, however, emphasizes that the angels are under no pressure to sleep with him,
since the Raelians teach sexual freedom and not coercion.

The movement thrives on media attention and Vorilhon deliberately seeks it out, especially on sex issues. For example, to protest a 1992 decision in
Quebec barring condom machines at certain Quebec high schools, the Raelians passed out condoms to students from a van adorned with large
spaceships. The group also bought billboard space in Toronto to welcome extraterrestrial visitors. Vorilhon also makes pronouncements about some
world-shaking events which will take place but which only true Raelians will know of. Like others who make such statements, those which have
become known are sufficiently vague to meet almost any chance occurrence. ..... "
------------------

More information can be found on this page:
http://www.rickross.com/groups/raelians.html

Claude Vorilhon, the cult leader and founder, uses the classic techniques of control exhibited by totalistic cults. He recruits using psychological manipulation and undue influence, the ideology is made more important than personal human rights, with sexual partners being recruited for his use by convincing them that their compliance is part of the sect's belief system.

The Raelians are only one of many, many cults using psychological coersion, undue influence, and other unethical tactics to recruit and retain members. Our freedom of belief in the US is one of our greatest strengths and also our Achilles heel, because anyone can start a religion based on anything. People who are vulnerable to persuasion and influence can be led into groups like this and used for the leader's purposes. It happens every day, to intelligent, talented people. With the right "hook", someone can easily be led step by step into a cult, if what the cult is offering is an "answer" to the person's particular dilemma or search at that time in their life. Cult thinking is akin to the fundamentalist fanaticism that is behind terrorism.

The current administration is completely naive about the problem of cults. The Washington Times, owned by the Moonies, is deliberately using its influence to gain more power in the US for Sun Myung Moon. The Bush family has been used many times as a front for the Moonies. Other cults are less public but just as insidious in draining away the financial resources, talent, time, and labor of their recruits.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Mr Red
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:04 PM

Cue new cliche.....

Like mother like daughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:10 PM

Thanks, Alice, for a well balanced report. You are the resident expert on cult related things here, and your research is always impeccable. I also appreciate the "matter of fact" way you always present it. This gives it a great deal of credibility.

Obviously you, or someone you love, had an experience with a cult. Whatever the case, you have come out the other side in a very positive way, and as a very effective voice. Congratulations.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:32 PM

"If people really want to know the truth, they need only let go of all pre-judgements, keep their minds open"

"'proven' - but only to me of course "

" find a personal 'method of investigation' that WORKS, for them"

*sigh*...as long as subjectivity is accepted as a valid basis for 'truth', there can be 6 Billion 'truths' operating simultaneously, many of which are totally contradictory.

I consider my mind to BE open...I have read the Bible, Edgar Cayce, The Upanishads, Ohaspé, The Urantia Book(well, parts of it...I wonder who has read it all!), Hegel, Kant, Schroëdenger, and countless other philosopher & theologians, innumerable science fiction stories which I'd LOVE to believe.....and 1000s of posts by well-meaning Mudcatters, and I see Christians at odds with each other, pagans who believe in witchcraft at odd with Christians, rationalists at odds with ALL of them...etc.

I KNOW the feelings refered to as 'heart-stuff', and I respond to them, but I have no way of knowing that they are not just 'mind-stuff' that I can't understand..(and indeed, much recent evidence suggests that a lot of what we 'are' IS pre-programmed by chemistry and neurological wiring!)...could I be wrong? Perhaps....to me, an open mind means being always open to new proofs, but to me, also, 'proof' means something that is NOT different for person to person.

I KNOW, of course, that one person's life and subjective relationship to the universe is not the same as others, but there is big difference between saying that I operate more comfortably with certain 'models', and saying that my models are 'true'! "Truth" should be a word reserved for facts that are replicable and demonstrable, not a Sophistic way of making YOUR belief system seem more solid than other's.

(why is this important?...because there are folks out there killing each other every day because they don't get my point! "Gott ist mit uns" is simply a more extreme example, taken to excessive conclusions.)

well...I shan't keep this up indefinately, as it serves to convince no one, probably. It is mostly a way of helping myself condense and explicate what I think. And, perhaps, a germ of an idea may get passed on.....stranger things have happened. And who knows....maybe **I** will have an experience that changes my mind...*sly grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:45 PM

Hi, Mick, in 1992 I began looking for information on how people start destructive cults and why people join them. I knew a family that was in an apocalyptic cult. The cult had moved from California to Montana - the three year old girl in the family was raped by one of the cult members. It was a motivation for me to find out how to inform people so they would not put themselves and their children in the hands of unscrupulous groups and leaders.

By the way, one of the methods cult recruiters use is to keep telling people to keep an open mind. The subtle or not so subtle pressure is to accept everything they are told, or they will be labeled "intolerant" or "close minded". People will go to great lengths to be accepted as open minded, to the point of not thinking reasonably, rationalizing information that is inconsistent, adapting to the group think in order to not make waves, conforming to new behavior and ideas in order to not appear prejudiced.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:49 PM

"The subtle or not so subtle pressure is to accept everything they are told, or they will be labeled "intolerant" or "close minded"."

Amen...well...you know what I mean...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 12:53 PM

Bill, you probably won't convince anyone. Just wanted to say that I agree with you all the way.

I'm sure that you've probably read Carl Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World'?

I've given a copy of that book to a few people. Didn't change any minds though. A shame.

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:27 PM

No one with this organization, according to everything I have thus far read, has any experience with the science of fertility. So, there are PhD's in the field who say that we are not ready to clone a human being, but these cultists have managed it?

As for the soul of a clone...

Clones are no different than identical twins genetically. They are different people with the same gene sequences. Environment and experience can make for totally different people, regardless of what genes you start with. The only real issue here is whether or not the people who are cloned will have the same sort of medical problems that animal clones have presented. For me, that is the only ethical question...that, and whether or not the eejits in government will allow slavery and worse by interperting the laws to say that clones are not truly human, and therefor don't have any rights.

Additionally, what this cult is looking to do is engineer ("create") life, as they believe we have been engineered by aliens. Cloning is no more a creative thing than taking the Mona Lisa off the wall and photocopying it. They seem to believe that Aliens are the source of life, and that evolution and creationism are useless theories that their "knowledge" refutes.

My only question then is this: How did the Aliens come to be? Sooner or later, any sentient creature will need to take another step back and realize that they have been focusing on the egg, but forgot to ask who laid it, and what egg did that chicken come from, and who laid *it*? Their religious theories are shot through with holes, as is their science.

And, considering all of this, the juries out (for me, at least) until the Mother and Daughter are tested by a completely unbiased medical team.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:41 PM

The only real issue here is whether or not the people who are cloned will have the same sort of medical problems that animal clones have presented.

And if they have, what is the culpability in law of those carrying out the work? Are we talking murder, grevious bodily harm or merely a breach of some regulation incurring a fine well within the resources of a group who - if this is genuine - obviously have a lot a cash at their disposal?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 01:45 PM

People who accept everything they are told for the sake of appearing 'open-minded' are in for some unpleasant surprises and some very hard knocks, to be sure. That's not what I meant by being 'open-minded'. I meant being flexible enough to investigate different ideas and methods, without getting too attached to any of them! I've had some experiences with cult-like groups and charismatic 'guru-types' myself, and I'm grateful that I still have an interest in spiritual matters at all after those experiences! The most important thing I've learned is to TRUST MYSELF. And to guard the trust I give to others MOST carefully!

If I told you about my personal 'spiritual experiences', most likely they would mean NOTHING to you - because they are specifically tailored to/designed by MY OWN PERSONAL HISTORY, EXPERIENCES and NEEDS, which are not the same as anyone elses! As yours are for you.

So it's probably wisest to say nothing at all. I should have known better - pardon me.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 02:05 PM

PS - When I studied the Bible at university, the first thing the professor did was distinguish between 'fact' and 'truth'. She said that while all 'facts' are necessarily 'truth', not all 'truths' are 'facts'.
Therefore, while much of what is in the Bible is NOT 'fact' (ie. we can't prove it scientifically), that doesn't mean that it's not 'truth'.

Now, there's an exercise in 'open-mindedness'!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 02:07 PM

And how would one prove 'truth?'

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 02:45 PM

The only way I know of is to experience it directly, to reflect on that experience and then test it by applying it to my own life in practical ways. If it IS valid, then it WILL 'work'! Then I KNOW it must be 'truth'.

I don't know of any way to 'prove' it to someone else, though. I've found that even trying to do so is counter-productive because it just leads to arguments, ridicule and disbelief.

And probably thread-drift too...

daylia

PS if something must be physically demonstrable and REPLICABLE in order to be 'truth', does that mean that 'truth' itself must be 'cloned' in order to be proven????

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ed.
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 04:09 PM

*day-liah*,

I don't think that your message is 'thread drift' at all. It addresses the very hub of the issue.

I am of the view that, in order for something to be 'true' it does need to be physically demonstrable and REPLICABLE.

I'm quite sure that individuals have had astonishing, even unbelievable experiences. However, when it's only the word of one individual, then it's completely useless, as we have no way of deciding if they 'made it up' were mislead or whatever.

Science differs from religion in one profound way. Science wants to be proved wrong. It is always a 'best guess' and is happy to admit error when some further experiment shows something that doesn't fit with the current theory.

Religion (or any belief system) is fundamentally different, in that the basic world view is fixed, and any new discovery is moulded into the belief system as it alrealy stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 04:43 PM

well....ummm....problem...'validity' is a technical term. It means something necessarily follows from an argument...

"If you write a good song, everyone will like it....I wrote a good song, therefore everyone will soon be singing it"

..but the VALIDITY of an argument...that is, it's internal logic, has nothing to do with the 'truth' of the conclusion, as most of would agree, looking at the song example. The trouble is, IF the premises are incorrect, you can make almost anything follow. I might be quite mistaken that I wrote a good song, and VERY mistaken that being good guarantess success...but it can still be a 'valid' argument, if constructed correctly. On the other hand, the conclusion can be true, but have an INVALID argument leading to it. So it requires a lot of care to even discuss some things.

Look at this one...

A-"God is, by definition, an absolutely perfect being"
B-"An absolutely perfect being must have existence as one of it's attributes"
C-Therefore, God exists.

your mind 'should' tell you there is something wrong with that, but it is not easy to explain why to some people, though there are entire book written trying to do so! The problem is, even if God does exist, the argument is not sufficient to prove it.

What is happening when we post messages about 'truth' or 'validity'...etc..is that we may be using the words differently, and the very common phrase "true for ME" may satisfy some and cause others to wince.

*trying to think of an example that might illustrate this*
.....hmmm...If I say that wall is green, and you say it's gray, there may be no doubt YOU see gray, but...you may be colorblind. If I say that 27 readings with carefully calibrated instruments all show that wall reflects light in the 847-849 milli-angstrom range, then we 'should' agree to accept it, and all that remains is to decide what name to give that general range of colors.

So, applying a test in one's "practical experience" to see if it 'works' may be useful, and it may not. If a man who is red-green colorblind always stops his car correctly at the traffic light, he has applied a test, but he STILL may not know what color he is stopping at! And if he tries to choose a tie by trying to match the shade he thinks he saw at the traffic light, his friends may get a good laugh.

(gee...it sure is not easy to do this when I have not gone thru the details recently....the only thing I am trying to do is explain why **I** choose not to accept certain things that I have NEVER seen evidence of...and IF I 'see' something, to want some external verification/measurment/test of it.) It might be fun to read thru a few things like this page and see if any of it makes sense.

If my cousin Emmy says she sees ghosts, and no one else can see them, it is probable that Emmy IS having some kind of experience that is 'real' to her, but it is NOT certain that there was indeed a 'ghost' there. Some events are simply generated internally, from memories, fantasies, stress, injuries, hunger, brain tumors, or just plain 'wishes'.

Or....Emmy may be the only one who is 'open' enough to see ghosts!..but,please forgive me if I suspect otherwise, 'cause I can't see 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 06:05 PM

Cloning of humans is inevitable. How the clones will be handled (cell research-gene splicing route or allowing the copies to grow to maturity) will not be decided for a generation or two.

We need someone to write a clone version of "I'm My-My Own Grandpa-grandpa."

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 06:35 PM

Bill and Ed, I just lost the post it took me half an hour to write in response to both of your most thoughtful and interesting posts above. AARRGGGHHH - will you believe me if I can't demonstrate or replicate it for you???? :-) Shoulda CLONED the darn thing ... gotta go eat ... get back to this later.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 06:47 PM

Bill D - The things you don't believe in are not supernatural. They're just unfamiliar to you (in terms of direct experience, I mean). Nothing is supernatural. If you wish to believe you don't have a "soul", well, I can't see that that will cause any more problems than if I wish to believe that you do have a soul. In either case, you will go on being exactly who and what you are, regardless of your belief or mine, and so will I.

Soul = consciousness = awareness = life. Shoot a person in the heart and his soul leaves his body. The body is still there, but it is devoid of consciousness, awareness, and life...because the soul has separated from it. The soul has not been shot, and is perfectly all right, but the body is no longer useful to it, or workable for it, so the body is abandoned and becomes lifeless. You are that soul, and it is that very soul which has the consciousness and the freedom of will to believe anything it wants, even that it is only a body or a mind tied irrevocably to a mortal and limited body. This is what is termed in most religions "the fall", that when souls descended into pyhsicality they became lost in that physicality and forgot that they were anything BUT physical beings.

And...you leave your body when you dream...although you are still connected to it to some extent, as is evidenced by the fact that your dreams trigger physiological responses in the body, just like they do in your dog's body.

The things you experience in dreams are experienced in the astral worlds, which are nonphysical realms of existence. They are not real physically, but they are real astrally. They are forms of energy you cannot see with the five senses, but you can see them with another sense entirely, and you DO!!! Every night. That other sense is centered in the area of your "third eye", between the eyebrows.

And no, I can't prove it. The only things I can prove are things which, frankly, don't interest me a whole lot because they are so dull and utterly obvious and prosaic that I can hardly be bothered with them anymore. You don't read "Dick and Jane" books when you're in college.

Bill, you don't realize it, but your beliefs are based on FAITH... rock solid faith that your five physical senses are the only available gates through which to observe reality. This is like having faith that everything you learned in Grades 1 to 3 comprises the sum total of All Knowledge in the Universe.

You are a rationalist's equivalent of the born-again Christian, Bill. The simplicity of your faith is seamless and like a rock.

And your mind will never deliver you out of that rock, because your mind is limited. In fact, it is the product of the very belief IN limitation that brought you into being. Your soul is not. "Bill D" is just a temporary, mortal adventure that your immortal soul is having, and will presently be done with.

And I expect we shall continue having these debates from time to time, because people defend their postion of faith most zealously, whatever it may be! :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 09:29 PM

daylia...aww yep! I DO know that frustration of having a post 'get away'....the smart folks tell me to compose in a word processor, but I never think I'm gonna mess up...maybe later...I read your comments with interest, as you obviously HAVE though about all this a lot....better luck next time.


Little Hawk,,,,tsk...nope...my beliefs are NOT based on faith... I am NOT "rock solid" certain that my five senses are the "only available gates".....but neither do I see any reason to 'open' myself, for the reason mentioned above by Alice.

We, Little Hawk, are doing what I referred to in my last post, that is, we are using words like 'real' differently. Like Ed, I have a pretty narrow definition of 'real' and 'true'...comes from 120-130 hours of Philosophy, I guess...I must be a Philosopher...I made a total of $2000 doing it as a graduate teaching asst.!

In your post, you make, as if they are not disputed, several statements that simply don't track for me, about "third eyes" and "astral planes" and such. I have no idea if you believe in Tarot, or Ouija boards or Astrology...or elves....but there are plenty of folks who take ALL of those things quite seriously....and others who sort of give it lips service without admitting belief, like some Christians.

I really do TRY to be 'open' to possibilities, but if this means I have to become 'suggestable' and try to see things I truly do not see, why then it seems silly to me.

(and if you think YOU have problems getting me to accept the 'higher reality' of things, you should see the frustrated Jehovah's Witnesses leaving my door...they are simply not trained to counter viewpoints like mine, and they ask me to read MORE tracts and quote more scripture at me using circular logic. When I try to explian that I do not accept the rock-bottom, basic premise of their system, they resort to just stating "it IS", and we have to quit talking.)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 11:25 PM

So...anyone who does not believe in the existence of the "soul" is functioning on the psychological/emotional equivalent of a third grade level? Please pass the Kool-Aid and Tonka Toys.

I have witnessed "ghostly" activities and experienced ESP events. Some I have recounted in other threads. Some I prefer to keep to myself. None proves the existence of a soul. All point to a knowledge/science which we have yet to uncover. Even "near death experiences" can be attributed to the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain.

As to Eve. The articles I have read on cloning all mention a high rate of "defects", both physical and mental, which appear over time in cloned animals. That alone makes me skeptical of the recent claim of the birth of a human clone. Until a reputable scientific organization tests the baby and concurs that she has been cloned, we have little more than a media sideshow.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Haruo
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 12:19 AM

Is the earth "true"? Sure, it's demonstrable, but replicable??? I have my doubts. But then I don't subscribe to that notion of what's "true".

TIA wrote «Saw the leader interviewed, and he said the purpose was immortality -- i.e. clone yourself, then "transfer the data from your mind into the clone". Now THAT'S the tricky part. Nuts, nuts, nuts.» Tricky indeed; it's called parenting, or childrearing. ;-)

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's Advocate
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 01:47 AM

Bill D and Ed,

One of the problems is that far more than we admit of what we call "scientific truth" is actually taken on faith by the vast majority of people. Here's a pair of questions I ask my students

1) how many of you have looked through an electron microscope and seen atoms?

(usually three or four hands go up)

2) how did you know what you were seeing?

(answer: this scientist-guy told us.)

The existence of atoms is taken on faith (that is, on someone else's authority) by almost everyone who believes in it. This is precisely the same way that the belief in God is instilled in most people. So what's the difference? A science-supporter would say "well, if I went to school to get a Phd. in Physics, and got a job at a lab, I COULD look into an electron microscope, and then I would have the background to know what I was seeing." But a theologian would counter: if you gave yourself over to prayer for six years, you would come to know equally surely that you were communing with God.

Bill D , you say you can measure energy, and you pay for it monthly. But you really pay whatever the power company tells you to pay. You do not independently confirm how much energy you have used. Even if you did, you would do so by using equipment pre-made, and could not confirm its accuracy, or even that it was measuring anything. Add to this the fact that the concept of "energy" as a catchall that includes motion, heat, elecricity, light, height above a gravitation source, chemical explosive potential, is a human-made concept, not a physical reality. We use it because it is convenient, not because a certain amount of light "equals" a certain height above the suface of the earth (gravitational potential energy). You can convert one to another, but you can also convert matter to energy and we don't generally consider them to be the same thing. Thus, the way "objective" science categorizes the world is by convention, not the necessities of reality, and most of the world accepts it on faith without having any direct experiences that confirm what science tells us.

On the other hand, many people do have experiences that intuitively suggest the existence of the supernatural. They feel encompassed by an all-loving light, or are attacked in bed by dark figures that press them down. These experiences, it has been shown (principally by David Hufford, a Medical School professor at Penn State) are cross-cultural, so people have them whether or not their culture has a system of supernatural beliefs to support them.

So what do we expect people to do when they are accustomed to accepting on faith most of the knowledge that is supposedly "scientific" but then have a direct experience that suggests a communion with God? The problem with authors like Sagan is: they ask you to discount the authority of others when it tells you (for example) that ghosts exist. They ask you to discount your own experience when it tells you that ghosts exist. They ask you to accept the authority of others when it tells you that atoms exist. And they ask you to accept your own experience when it tells you that atoms exist. In other words, they have a complete double standard when it comes to evidence.

I understand that this is because the scientific method demands certain things of evidence, in particular that it be reproduceable. But unfortunately the scientific method is arrogant. It assumes that Humans are the most powerful beings in the universe, and that if we wish to "prove" the existence of any other beings, they have no choice but to be found. Most people, however, believe that supernatural beings are more powerful than we are, and can avoid being found if they wish to. So any "experiment" involving the supernatural is doomed to fail and results will never be reproduceable. Science will never accept them, because it cannot. Science, as a creative endeavor of mankind, is limited by the conventions we have set so that it cannot accept the existence of beings who can evade capture. Does this mean that the supernatural does not exist? No. Science could not accept the existence of giant squid until fairly recently, because humankind did not have the power to find them. Science considered the Giant Squid a supernatural legend. But fishermen have kept axes in their boats for generations because they KNEW the giant squid existed.

Sagan, by the way, willfully distorts case studies from other peoples' work to make them look ridiculous. Then half his work of claiming there is no evidence for the supernatural is done. I don't have my books handy, but I love to compare the passage in The Demon Haunted World where Sagan cites David Hufford (you can find it in the index) with Hufford's own case study from The Terror that Comes in the Night. From word one, Sagan distorts and misreports every particular, in order to make the person being studied look like a crazy person.

Anyway, my point is this: the absence of scientific evidence for the soul is an artifact of human creativity, not physical reality. Humans decided what counted as scientific, and in recent years have steered that definition until it cannot accept the existence of beings without bodies. This does not even suggest that those beings can't exist, it simply means that people who require scientific proof wouldn't even believe in ghosts if they saw one.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 10:46 AM

Ed...

Evolution is still called a "theory" for that very reason. It is not something replicable in the lab. Science is the practice of recreating cause and effect.

So too for Paleontology. It involves theory, but no fact.

How can you recreate time...the past...in a lab? You can't, so both of these "sciences" relies on guesswork from clues.

In essence, as I see it, they are both closer to religion than science, as they rely more on theory than on provable scientific methodology.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Dec 02 - 10:57 AM

Hmmm, I'm sure I studied Newton's Theory of Gravity at school, and its predictions were certainly repeatable. The word 'theory' as used in science isn't quite the same as the normal English definition.

Devil's Advocate's problem is a widespread one. At school in the UK, I used to argue we had no evidence Australia existed, because no-one in my class had been there.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 09:35 AM

Re the existence of 'soul' - from Webster's Deluxe Dictionary:

SOUL: 1. the immatierial essence, animating principle, or
          actuating cause of an individual life
       2. the spiritual principle embodied in human beings,
          all rational and spiritual beings, and the universe ...

There's more to this definition, but I feel the first two entries are most relevant to this discussion.

My point is perhaps very obvious - that while the methods of the physical sciences are wonderful tools for exploring the PHYSICAL universe, they are ill-suited for investigating spiritual matters which are, by definition, IMMATERIAL ie) non-physical, therefore operating under a totally different set of 'laws'.

And while philosophy and the methods of logic are excellent tools for exploring and developing mental abilities, they are also ill-suited for explorations of spiritual matters. It is the nature and purpose of the mind to debate, to analyse, to fragment and dissect, to categorize and generalize, to criticize, and to produce endless opposing alternatives (as any insomniac knows very well!) in an attempt to draw useful conclusions about whatever one is focussed on.

I've heard it said that the mind is a excellent tool, but a very poor master - again, as any insomniac knows only too well! Spiritual matters, operating under different 'laws', transcend the mental. That's why philosophers, inspite of all their expertise and brilliance, have always been frustrated in their attempts to prove or disprove the existence of 'soul' or of 'God'. It simply takes more than the mind to do that!

There also appears to be great confusion between what is 'psychic' and what is 'spiritual'. In my understanding, phenomena like ghosts, UFO's, ESP, the occult 'sciences' etc. belong to the psychic (ie. emotional/intuitive) realms of experience. Again, what is spiritual - although linked to these as well as to the physical/mental - goes beyond what is merely psychic. There are plenty of talented psychics out there who are anything BUT spiritual - believe me, I've met my share!

Organized religions DO affirm the existence of 'soul', but imo are so (necessarily) focussed on socio/political/economic agendas that they often do more to distract their followers fron what is truly spiritual than to help them discover it for themselves. After all, if everyone knew they could 'commune with the divine' on their own, the world religions would soon be out of business. What is spiritual is NOT synonymous with what is 'religious'! Religions are social institutions.

So, how does one go about discovering the truth about 'soul'? Again, the only way I know of is to directly experience oneself AS SOUL, to reflect on those experiences and to apply what one discovers to one's own life in practical ways. If the experiences are valid - and by 'valid' I mean NOT the product of imagination, indigestion, suggestion or whatever - then they WILL 'work' in practical, healthful and BENEFICIAL ways in one's daily life. Guaranteed!!

There's plenty of different ways/methods out there today to help one develop awareness of one's own spiritual nature. If you really desire to know the truth, check them out and find one that suits your temperament and your needs. But a word of caution here, if I may paraphrase Ted Andrews from 'Psychic Protection' - the first, last and ongoing test/challenge for any spiritual 'seeker' is to hone the ability of DISCRIMINATION. By that I mean the ability to distinguish

1. False spiritual 'Teachers' and true ones
2. Truths, half-truths and plain old lies
3. Spiritual experiences and flights of fancy etc.

Not an easy task! It's a life-long process (according to some belief systems, a process that takes many, many lifetimes to achieve). And it's not for everyone, either. Physical life has so many exciting and important and wondrous areas to explore without even touching on the 'spiritual' - imo that's why we're here!

Just don't expect that your 'spiritual experiences' will be demonstrable or replicable. How could anyone replicate a 'near-death experience', for example? More importantly, why would anyone WANT to? You gotta be dying to have one! 'Astonishing' experiences usually seem to require that the physical body be weakened somehow.
That's why people fast and go on 'vision quests' etc. to have 'revelations'. Not something I'd choose to subject myself to every day!

Fortunately, most 'spiritual experiences' happen in very simple, healthy and 'mundane' ways. We only need learn how to recognize them in our daily lives.

These are the conclusions I've drawn from my own experiences and studies to date. I certainly don't consider myself to be any kind of 'expert' on the subject! So again, thanks for the chance to express my opinions!

Blessings to you all - clones included! :-)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:07 AM

Daylia has the rights of the matter -- we have a very strong legacy of hanging our acceptance on repeatability of test situations, but the repeatability of psychological or spiritual states is not the same at all as the repeatability of physical ones.

In such matters the simplest and most reliable way to prove the truth is to be it.

This debate raises an interesting question. If the metaphysics implied by LH and daylia and others is true, then each of us is a spiritual being operating a body, with the dramatic difference that some of us perceive this and others do not. The explanations that could account for this are several, and I suppose they fall in tot wo large classes: (a) variations on the proposition that there is a mechanism (cumulative trauma or cultivated unawareness or whatever) which varies from individual to individual and occlude awareness of own nature; or (b) Spiritual perceptions are projections of desire, and those who don't have them are simply not projecting wishful thinking.

One of the reasons that this area gets so wrapped around the axle is that actually both things are true -- there are mechanisms which reduce self-awareness, AND projection is a powerful self-convincer. So the truth of an individual person's case is probably a mix of those things and sorting out which is which is certainly a valid path of therapy.

Personally, I find that the creation of conviction, to a very large degree, brings about experience. Including the experience of "not experiencing" some things. As to how such convictions get created... that's another thread, perhaps. But there are clearly a number of phenomena -- chiefly, understanding itself -- for which no mechanistic description can offer a sufficient model.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:09 AM

*deep sigh*....I used to have a professor of philosophy, Dr. Gerald Paske, by name.....who was the best I have ever known at looking at arguments such as "Devil's Advocate" puts forth above and showing explicitly where they break down and fall into logical error. I wish I could succinctly do half as well.

In many of the claims and arguments I take issue with, the problem is that there are simply fallacies of logic employed. One of these is equivocation. (Or see here more fallacies). "Devil's Advocate" does this in his critique of the 'scientific method'. The scientific method is NOT arrogant. The scientific method does NOT "...assume that Humans are the most powerful beings in the universe"...the scientific method does not "do" anything...it is merely a tool for examining data and hypotheses and trying to get closer to truth. Properly used, it NEVER makes absolute claims about reality, but only tries to approach it.

The point is, I am not claiming that I can prove all claims for 'estoteric' experiences false, but merely that most people make more claims for their 'truth' than is reasonable. It often resembles throwing the dart, then drawing the bulleye around it....that is, finding a comfortable explanation for what is already believed. "I'm sure saw a figure that looked like my deceased Aunt Clara, therefore......" If I saw such an apparition, I would like to think I'd look VERY carefully at whether it was 'real', or an internal projection of my own mind...(a waking dream, perhaps...I have dreamed some very strange things. Have been seeing my parents in my dreams a lot recently...*smile*)

I wish I had more time to type a detailed analysis of why giant squid and palentology are quite different issues than ghosts and souls, but let me suggest that for some of us, they should all be subjected to the same rigors of proof, and for for some us they get special dispensation BECAUSE they can't be tested the same way. We HAVE specimens of giant squid and dinosaur bones....we do NOT have any ghosts or souls in bottles, nor any photos of them, nor any reasonable explication of what a ghost of soul might be. Some of us just see the usual explanations as rhetorical constructs which depend on language and metaphor to help make sense of experiences which confuse or upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:28 AM

and while I was typing, Amos posted:
"the repeatability of psychological or spiritual states is not the same at all as the repeatability of physical ones. "

This is quite true on the face of it...but it assumes the premise that there IS a 'spiritual' state....and that a spiritual state is different from a psychological state.

as to:

Re the existence of 'soul' - from Webster's Deluxe Dictionary:

SOUL: 1. the immatierial essence, animating principle, or
         actuating cause of an individual life
      2. the spiritual principle embodied in human beings,
         all rational and spiritual beings, and the universe .

....yes, that's what I understand 'soul' to mean, we just differ in thinking that a definition means there is a reality to that which is defined.

We have 'definitions' of Unicorns and werewolves and elves (and Hobbits), but all that means is that there are generally agreed on images, concepts and attitudes about them.....and some people still LITERALLLY believe in werewolves and such....the images are so powerful that it is easy to succumb to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:42 AM

Bill - I have the nature and inclinations of a philosopher too, and have likewise frustrated many Jehovah's witnesses on my doorstep (with a certain amount of glee, I can assure you).

But I'll tell you what's wrong with philosophers. They are in the grip of the tiny little insecure yet proud human mind...and the human mind is a very limited tool. There is an omnipresent Spirit beyond it that the mind is a mere extension or byproduct of...and a servant unto. The mind denies that, because it's AFRAID of the implications, and it's afraid of its impending death. Terrified, in fact.

But I am NOT going to consume any more of my time trying to convince you of that. Be happy in what you are. I'm happy in what I am.

I Am That I Am. I am Love. I am Existence itself. I am Eternity. I am you. I am what is not you. I am merely masquerading for a time as Little Hawk. I don't mind if you neither understand nor believe some of the things I say. It's not a problem. I don't need to convince you of anything. You are exactly what you choose to be, and you have the right to be, same as Little Hawk does.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: MMario
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:53 AM

*gasp* There are no werewolves?

BTW - ever seen any of the articles in which the werewolf legends are attributed to hydrophobia?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 11:15 AM

Consciousness creates all reality. It is the fact that I am conscious which has allowed me to say that...and it is the fact that you are conscious which is allowing you to read it right now...and agree or disagree with the basic premise.

"Soul" is that consciousness, and your soul creates your reality.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 11:52 AM

Bill, you mentioned dreaming, so at the risk of appearing flaky/crazy/deluded I'll share this experience here. (BTW it was mostly my lifelong experiences with vivid, 'astonishing' dreams that motivated me to explore spiritual matters. Not even my studies of psychology could explain satisfactorily to me such questions as - HOW THE H*** COULD I HAVE KNOWN THAT!!)

A couple years ago I woke up from a particularly vivid dream. In the dream I was sitting on the floor in my studio (I teach music privately at home). I was dismayed to see that the carpet was covered with muddy boot-prints and littered with piles of paperwork strewn about all over. In front of me on the floor was a large black wooden club. Although I couldn't see anyone else there was loud angry shouting all around me - don't remember the words. Now I was getting angry - who are these people and what are they doing making such a huge mess in my workplace?!? And my anger woke me up.

I couldn't make sense of the dream at all until I sat down to watch the 6:00 news that night. Lo and behold, the very worst riot in the history of Ontario had happened that very afternoon at Queen's Park (the seat of the provincial gov't in Toronto). Thousands of people had violently protested the changes to the social welfare laws just implemented by the Davis gov't, and the angry clashes with the police and riot squads had been ongoing all day.

Now although I was aware of the unpopular changes made by the Davis gov't it hadn't been on my mind much at all. I don't watch the news or read the paper every day either, only occasionally. So why did I have the dream? Was it just a coincidence? Don't think so! Does it make me some sort of prophet or 'mystic'? I doubt that VERY much! Was it a message from 'God' that I should go down there on some sort of 'holy mission' and try to straighten things out myself? That's ridiculous!

No, the only reason I could see is that at the time, adn for a few years before that, I had been actively engaged in studying dreaming, in my own nature as a dreamer, in discovering my 'spiritual' abilities. I still am! Learning to trust my dreams as a source of truth, learning that there is a part of me - call it 'soul' if you like - that is NOT bound by the laws of the physical universe and that is aware of MUCH more than my physical self is capable of knowing. My dream was a tool for self-discovery. And that's all!

Of course, I can't prove to you that any of this is true, and I sure can't demonstrate or replicate it for anyone else! But it IS the truth!!!

Now, if YOU chose to seriously reflect on the meaning of YOUR own dreams ... ok, ok I'll stop now!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:06 PM

A sceptic would ask how often a day goes by without something similar on the news. That's Bill D's point about working out what the target is after throwing the dart.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:18 PM

Skepticism is a VERY USEFUL AND NECESSARY attribute for any spiritual 'seeker'! Without it we'd all be vulnerable to the David Koreshes of the world ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ed.
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:34 PM

Daylia, I'm curious to know why you discount coincidence so quickly?

I'll quote something from this page:
"you might say that the odds of something happening are a million to one. Such odds might strike you as being so large as to rule out chance or coincidence. However, with over 6 billion people on earth, a million to one shot will occur frequently. Say the odds are a million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50), there should be about 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant. The number is actually likely to be larger, since we tend to dream about things that legitimately concern or worry us, and the data of dreams is usually vague or ambiguous, allowing a wide range of events to count as fulfilling our dreams."

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:43 PM

"Paleontology- theory- no fact"
As a paleontologist for a major oil company with world-wide operations, my colleagues and I were employed to put the fossil organisms preserfved in ancient sediments in order, both as to stratigraphic position (age) and ecological setting. These studies contribute to the location of sediments likely to contain oil and gas deposits.
The results are reproducible- from well-to-well and from region to region, hence are more than "theory" as defined in a previous posting. Evolution is the basis for much of the work.
Environment must be taken into account, e. g., life in the Arctic of today is much different from that of the southeastern states, but during the Paleocene era of about 60 million years age, major plant groups in the Arctic of North America show ancestral similarities to those of the present day American southeast, suggesting similar climates. The Paleocene floras of the southeast during Paleocene time were much more tropical than they are now.
It is possible to correlate fossils of that age on a world-wide basis, especially through the use of marine fossils. Thousands of paleontologists, and their work of the past 150 years, has provided us with a picture of life as it has evolved over the past one billion years.
A theory in the scientific sense is one that relates observed facts to each other and provides a basis for applications. It is not speculation.
Bach to the subject:
Clones will be more on the order of identical twins. They may be similar but that doesn't mean that they will do identical things. One might end up as a musician, while the other might do something useful, become a lawyer, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:45 PM

You should never have your mind so open that your brain falls out. Breath of fresh air from Bill D, Ed and others.
But it doesn't mater how much, those of us who think reason has some value in human affairs sigh rather resignedly; there is no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.

All the best for the New Year everyone.

Klatoo Borada Nicto

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 01:35 PM

***sigh*** ok I just checked the floor - no slimy gobs of grey matter - guess my brain is still in there - and my mind is remaining open ...

Very interesting link, Ed! Thank you! I hope this thread doens't die too quickly so I can go over it a few more times.

But to answer your question about why I dismissed coincidence so quickly - it's because I've had SO MANY similiar experiences ALL of my life that it's become just foolish for me to write them all off as some kind of coincidence! And I don't think presenting more of them here as some kind of 'evidence' is going to convince anyone - they are NOT 'evidence' in the conventional sense! I don't have any desire to convince anyone of anything anyway! People are more convinced by reasons they have discovered themselves than by anything they are told by someone else. I shared that story only because a few people above seemed genuinely interested in my point of view.

But to quote Ted Andrews from his book 'Psychic Protection' again (a little volume that I've found most helpful - although certainly not the 'last word' in these matters by any means) - in my explorations:

"If something happens once or twice, you are still in the realm of coincidence. When it starts happening more than that, something else is at work".

I'm still in the process of discovering what that "something else" might be regarding my dreams and other experiences. And keeping active tabs on the state of my brain is one of my TOP priorities, believe me!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From:
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 01:35 PM

The comment about incest reminded me of this old song:

Clone Song, The (Home On the Range)
W: Randall Garrett & Isaac Asimov
M: Traditional cowboy song
©1982 Randall Garrett and Isaac Asimov

1.
Oh, give me a clone of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown, then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex


CHORUS:   Clone, clone of my own
          With its Y-chromosome changed to X
          And when i'm alone with my own little clone
          We will both think of nothing but sex

2.
Oh, give me a clone, is my sorrowful moan
A clone that is wholly my own
And if she's an X of the feminie sex
Oh, what fun we will have when we're prone    (CHORUS)

3.
My heart's not of stone, as I've frequently shown
When alone with my dear little X
And after we've dined, I'm sure we will find
Better incest than Oedipus Rex    (CHORUS)

4.
Why should such sex vex, or disturb or perplex
Or induce a disparaging tone
After all, don't you see, since we're both of us me
When we're making love, I'm alone.    (CHORUS)

5.
After my sands have run, she will still have her fun
For I'll clone myself twice 'ere I die.
And this time without fail, they'll be both of them male
And they'll each ravish her by and by.    (CHORUS)

RESOURCES:

_________.    Clone Song (WS) Photocopy.

Internet.   Clone Song, The.   URL: http://members.tripod.com/~bardic_circle/aclone.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 02:46 PM

ah, daylia...my dreams are pretty easy to interpret these days....full of frustration, struggle and tension due to 'life'...I have no doubt that my unconcious is throwing all sorts of images and memories into a vain attempt to sort out the complexities I feel while awake. I 'think' I have only once in my life had an intense dream about something I felt like checking on, but it was not about 'news', and I never did discover if there was any truth to it....It could very easily have been just random firing of neurons....but though I still wonder, I ascribe NO weight to it.

(It is interesting to have a couple of well phrased statements of support for what I was trying to say...at least my point was not lost!)

and to Little Hawk and others who 'see' things differently...yes, we will just have to continue being what we are. We can all be decent, happy, caring people no matter how we feel about the nature of existence, and I'd hope, able to have discussions like this in a mostly congenial manner. This is a most interesting and refreshing thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 03:06 PM

Bill it IS a most interesting and refreshing thread! And thank you for the links re philosophy above - I read them with MUCH interest. My oldest son just graduated from the University of Toronto with an Honours degree in Philosophy, and I intend to go over them with him when he comes to visit tonight. It's been years since I've studied Philosophy - I majored in Psych and Soc - and I need his expertise to help understand the terms again...

"We can all be decent, happy, caring people no matter how we feel about the nature of existence..." Hear hear!!!! :-)

Just can't help asking though - do you think there's really any such thing as "random firing of the neurons?" Gads I love pondering stuff like that ....

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 03:33 PM

well, my 1/3 finished masters thesis in philosophy many years ago was to have been on "Free Will and whether it really exists" and was to have argued that ONLY a system like that of A.N. Whitehead in "Process & Reality" could provide any explanation of how "free will" might work.

I used to argue in favor of free will against a friend who claimed that everything was just laws of nature expressing themselves in complex ways. Durn thing is, some of the newest data in genetics and such make me wonder if he might have been closer to the truth than I like to think!

So...'random firing of neurons'?...perhaps...and perhaps randomness is only our inability to SEE the patterns and causes...*shrug*....the thing is, we all 'feel' like we are free, and like we can make a concious choice about what to believe and accept. I'd like to think that is true, but the fact is, that is one VERY hard item to test & prove, and there are so many bits of evidence on both sides that it may never be settled.

What we end up with in practical applications of such issues is U.S. Supreme Court decisions which implicitly favor one belief system over another, according to just who is on the court that day! What a system huh? "Abortion is murder" ..."No it isn't, it is just choice"....wow, lets VOTE about the truth!

Can you see how a sceptic such as I MUST feel about such an issue? The answer is easy, for me, but the explanation takes hours....and I am sleepy...........

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 04:04 PM

Me too Bill - gotta give those neurons a break now! Thanks for trying to clarify that - and free will or not I'm choosing to GET OFF THIS COMPUTER before my eyes burn out ... gonna put on some Mozart and lie back ... I've heard he's good for the soul (whatever that might or might not be!!)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 09:30 PM

yup...he is...so are several other....

I don't know why I'm still here, except that I am trying to stay awake until I can sleep 8 hrs without waking up at 5AM....(catching up from last night's 4 hrs..)

And I too, use 'soul' in that sense...*smile*,,,it is a perfectly good metaphor/model for one's 'internal churnin's'...now, I think I shall retire to some good 'soul music' myself...perhaps Jean Redpath...

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's A
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:53 AM

Ha! Now we've gotten on to the McGuffin of whether something is a theory or a fact. That's a fallacious dichotomy, and one that creationists use to claim that Evolution should not be taught without creationism also being taught. The grand ideas of science will always remain theories, not because they're wrong, but because it's always possible to explain observations in more than one way. So Evolution IS a theory, and at the moment the only coherent one that makes any sense of the evidence. Newtonian descriptions of motion, on the other hand, are part of a theory that has been superseded by the theory of relativity. Newtonian laws are still useful, because unless you're moving close to the speed of light they produce the same results as Einsteinian and Lorentzian laws. But most Physicists agree that Newtonian explanations are no longer the best ones we have.

Q, you're precisely right, Paleontologists can make predictions about new digs that can either prove true or false. The final explanation of what it all means, however, will remain a theory, in the non-stigmatized sense of "the best explanation we have at the moment."

BillD, you accuse me of equivocation, and I will agree with you so far as the wording of my critique of scientism goes. Obviously a method canot be arrogant, but the people who apply it promiscuously can. In other words, the Scientific Method is not an arrogant approach to take when you are examining insects, electrons, compounds or fluid dynamics. However, it is arrogant to apply the scientific method to certain things, principally those things that are or may be more intelligent and capable than we are.   THAT's why I said it was arrogant; the presumption being made in applying it to, for example, the Soul, is that a Soul may not wish us to study him/her and may be able to avoid it. If he/she can, then using the Scientific Method to claim, as Bill D did in his original post, that souls do not exist, is arrogant. Doing so is making the tacit assumption that the only reason scientists can't find something is because it's not there, which is based on the potentially false premise that anything that is there can be found by scientists. Those were the flaws I saw in YOUR logic in your original post.

By the way, you engaged in the same sort of cryptic metaphor I did when you said that the "Laws of Physics would end all this." Just as I personified the Scientific Method, you personified our explanations of the universe's development. The laws of physics won't do anything, only bodies and forces will.

So in the end, Bill D...maybe I worded my original critique poorly because I was trying to avoid the impoliteness of saying that YOU were being arrogant. But I shouldn't have, because you are obviously not being personally arrogant, just arrogant on behalf of our common species. seriously, I think the only non-arrogant way to approach questions of powers greater than ours is to say "Until I get evidence, I don't know if we have souls," which is only subtly different from Bill D's "Until I get evidence, I will say we have NO souls."   

Here's another thought: in science, it is standard to posit the existence of things that explain some of our observations, even if we have never seen those things. Many types of particles, such as positrons and neutrinos, were first posited as theoretical explanations of observations, then found in the real world. While they're in the "posited but not found" stages, they're often taught to high school and college students as though they almost certainly exist. But modern science will never posit the existence of souls or demons no matter how well they explain (for example) the cross-cultural occurrence of Mara attacks or out of body experiences. Scientists will for the most part continue to argue (in public) that demons and souls don't exist, or that they have no scientific basis. This is not because the demon is any less likely than the positron, It's because of the ideology of scientific people and especially institutions, which easily accept some forms of speculation but frown upon others.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's A again
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:59 AM

Oops! When I wrote above:

"the presumption being made in applying it to, for example, the Soul, is that a Soul may not wish us to study him/her and may be able to avoid it"

I meant

"it is presumptuous to apply it to, for example, the Soul, because a Soul may not wish us to study him/her and may be able to avoid it."

Sorry to be confusing...

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 07:57 AM

Re "SOUL: the immaterial essence, animating principle or actuating cause of an individual life."

Bill D said "yes, that's what I understand soul to mean, we just differ in thinking that a definition means there is reality to that which is defined." And DMcG said "That's Bill D's point about working out what the target is after throwing the dart".

Hmmm - I'm wondering what is so difficut to understand/accept about the definition. Is it the very notion that anything 'immaterial' exists at all? Let's see - the alternative would be something like
'Only that which is physical exists' or 'That which is immaterial cannot exist'.

I agree with Devil's Advocate - that IS arrogant! ie - if it takes a different form than 'I' do (at least the part of 'me' that I'm conscious of in my waking reality), if it lies beyond the perceptive range of my physical senses and I cannot force it to comply with my rules of logic and reason then *bg* it doesn't exist! What a limited view of the Universe!

Or do you disagree that there is an 'animating cause' or 'actuating principle' of individual life? Let's see - the alternative is "There is no animating cause of individual life" or "Life has no animating source, or actuating principle". Why would any thinking person entertain such an absurd notion? Just because YOU cannot explain/demonstrate/control it, it cannot exist? Arrogance borders on the moronic now! Especially since the evidence that it DOES exist is all around and inside you every day of your life! You are alive, and you are aware that you are alive, aren't you?

I'm GRATEFUL we can't explain or demonstrate or replicate or bottle or control or dissect or buy and sell 'soul'! Look at the horrific mess we've made of the planet we live on only because we've learned, with our primitive limited logic and science and technology, how to bend it to our will? Certainly we won't get into first grade until we're out of nursery school - for our own good!! I trust that the processes of life will bring us what we really need.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 09:00 AM

I just re-read my message above and want to apologize for the statement "Arrogance borders on the moronic now!" The word 'moronic' is insulting and inflammatory and has no useful purpose in this discussion, and I'm sorry I used it. That's what I get for posting messages BEFORE I do my morning meditations! I'm off to do them now, feeling a little 'moronic' ... :-( ....

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 10:57 AM

no offense taken...*smile*...but I am frustrated. I had just take 15-20 minutes to compose a post when it became MY turn to lose the the whole thing! Maybe them spirits were reading over my shoulder and decided to censor my sceptical ramblings!

Anyway, I'll out wit 'em yet....later.....*grin*...need to recompose my thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 11:36 AM

DA
The Universe does not dissemble.
People do.
When you ask a question of the Nature it always gives truth. Wither what you construe from the answer is relevant or not is much more problematic.
The tricky bit is asking pertinent questions.
I think your view of the way science works is inaccurate.
1 The idea that studying sciences and mathematics involves learning lots of facts and ideas which you must take at face value without evidence is nonsense. Science and mathematics a practical skills that you must learn by doing. Obviously building a practical accelerator isn't a practical possibility for most people so you have to take the word of the participants that results from experiments that have been repeated are correct. The point is that your results must be testable and repeatable.
When I studied for A levels in Chemistry, Physics and Biology I actually did practical experiments to test the postulates of science.
I wonder how many people that studied A level Sociology actually did any practical experiments, rather than site other peoples results in essays.
a joke
Physicist goes to the funding department of his university and asks for £1Billion (10 to the power 9) to build a high energy particle accelerator.
Funding Manager says- You Physicists are so expensive. Why can't you be like the Mathematicians? All they need is pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets. Better still be like the Philosophers, all they need is pencils and paper.
A bit hard on the Philosophers but you get my drift.
IF IT AIN'T TESTABLE ITS USELESS.
2 The idea that all scientists do is construct experiments, analyse the results and come up with theories is inaccurate. In fact the process usually goes the other way around the scientist uses all the resources of the human mind, intuition, dreams, visual reasoning, mental model building, and play to come up with a "theory" about a certain problem that the Scientist thinks is a TRUE description of what is going on. He then constructs an experiment that will prove the theory correct, but more importantly disprove it if it is wrong.

Now if the Mudcat Mystics would adopt some rigorous process by which there postulates can be tested by everyone not inside there heads, may be reasonable people might find something of interest in there.

I am not saying that insights gained in altered states of consciousness cannot be true, merely that if they are not testable they are useless.
All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 11:38 AM

DA
The Universe does not dissemble.
People do.
When you ask a question of the Nature it always gives truth. Wither what you construe from the answer is relevant or not is much more problematic.
The tricky bit is asking pertinent questions.
I think your view of the way science works is inaccurate.
1 The idea that studying sciences and mathematics involves learning lots of facts and ideas which you must take at face value without evidence is nonsense. Science and mathematics a practical skills that you must learn by doing. Obviously building a practical accelerator isn't a practical possibility for most people so you have to take the word of the participants that results from experiments that have been repeated are correct. The point is that your results must be testable and repeatable.
When I studied for A levels in Chemistry, Physics and Biology I actually did practical experiments to test the postulates of science.
I wonder how many people that studied A level Sociology actually did any practical experiments, rather than site other peoples results in essays.
a joke
Physicist goes to the funding department of his university and asks for £1Billion (10 to the power 9) to build a high energy particle accelerator.
Funding Manager says- You Physicists are so expensive. Why can't you be like the Mathematicians? All they need is pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets. Better still be like the Philosophers, all they need is pencils and paper.
A bit hard on the Philosophers but you get my drift.
IF IT AIN'T TESTABLE ITS USELESS.
2 The idea that all scientists do is construct experiments, analyse the results and come up with theories is inaccurate. In fact the process usually goes the other way around the scientist uses all the resources of the human mind, intuition, dreams, visual reasoning, mental model building, and play to come up with a "theory" about a certain problem that the Scientist thinks is a TRUE description of what is going on. He then constructs an experiment that will prove the theory correct, but more importantly disprove it if it is wrong.

Now if the Mudcat Mystics would adopt some rigorous process by which there postulates can be tested by everyone not inside there heads, may be reasonable people might find something of interest in there.

I am not saying that insights gained in altered states of consciousness cannot be true, merely that if they are not testable they are useless.
All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 12:50 PM

Pied Piper you ever had one? I suspect not!! If you haven't, then what are you basing your conclusions on?   Seems to me you need at least a LITTLE first-hand practical experience in order to draw any USEFUL conclusions about it at all! Is that not the first rule of "science"?

You can't teach what you don't know. So you'd best not preach it either.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's A
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:14 PM

PP,

I notice your statement that "the universe does not dissemble, only people do" draws a dividing line between people and the Universe. Remember, we are the universe, or part of it. And i would further argue that many other things besides people dissemble. Angler fish have lures resembling small fish which bring in larger fish for them to eat. My cat pretends I have not fed her so that my wife will feed her again. In other words, all consciousness, at whatever level, is capable of dissembling, including souls, Demons and God, if indeed they exist.

actually I agree with everything else you've said, with some reservations. I notice, for example, thay you say:

"The idea that studying sciences and mathematics involves learning lots of facts and ideas which you must take at face value without evidence is nonsense. "

but follow it up immediately with:

"Obviously building a practical accelerator isn't a practical possibility for most people so you have to take the word of the participants that results from experiments that have been repeated are correct."

In other words, your only real evidence is the word of someone else.

Please understand, I don't mean to be anti-science! I was NOT saying that scientists are unjustified in taking someone's word that repeated experiments have yielded results. My point was that, to the majority of people, including scientists, the process by which we come to believe that atoms exist is the same process by which we come to believe that souls exist: a combination of personal experiences that we feel intuitively support those hypotheses (if we're lucky), and the word of people with intellectual authority.

This hasn't been a bad thing for the human race; after all, one of our big advantages over most other species is language, and it acts as an advantage precisely because we can communicate our observations to others so that they don't have to make all those observations themselves. Science, like all other areas of advanced human endeavor, needs to build on what has gone before. So "taking people's word for it" is a big part of science as it is in other areas of life. That's not a knock on science. But it challenges the notion that "scientific knowledge" is somehow different from other kinds of knowledge.

My biggest point about science hinges on your capitalized credo: "IF IT AIN'T TESTABLE ITS USELESS." I would disagree with that in some cases. Things may be useless for certain purposes. But they can be life savers in others. The obvious relevant example, given the foregoing: I cannot test whether God or souls exist, but this is not a useless proposition.

This is where the arrogance of people comes in. Why is it useless? If it really IS useless, why do the vast majority of people make it part of their lives to explore this idea? If it is scientifically useless, moreover, why do so many scientists, including for example Einstein, claim that their involvement with the scientific exploration of the nature of the universe makes them MORE convinced that God and souls exist?

Hmmm....maybe I shold have called myself "God's Advocate" :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:17 PM

For you scientific types - can they tell just from Eve's DNA if she's a clone, or do they have to compare alleged mother and alleged child to see if they are identical twins?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 02:54 PM

Alice, I was interested to read what you said about the Washington Times being owned by the Moonies. Do you have links to any good sources of information about that? I'd love to see them if you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 02:57 PM

Mrrzy

The DNA would need to be compared

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Haruo
Date: 01 Jan 03 - 08:25 PM

The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies, but that's not necessarily to say that it ain't a good rag. The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Eddyites, and it's generally highly regarded.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 07:47 AM

Cloning is certainly going to be a medical reality in a few years; there will be tragedies, as there were with the first heart transplants, but people want their own babies, so cloning will find a market.

I don't know about souls; it doesn't matter a lot to me. But the idea of an information dump from my brain into what would effectively be my daughter/twin is kind of revolting - does she really need all that distress? And the idea that she'd then be 'me' - well, it's not too logical, is it?

The really creepy science going on at the moment, to my mind, is that which grows foetuses so that the stem cells can be used to mend disease in existing people. It just seems so sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 09:01 AM

Happy New Year DA/GA
I don't think that scientific knowledge is different from other forms of knowledge. I think science is just a more organised method based on the way human beings have always acquired knowledge. What we all did as Babies is very similar to the way science works. Babies are the best most dedicated scientists (perhaps Empiricists is more appropriate) around; they are completely, single-mindedly obsessed with the acquisition of knowledge by observation and experiment on the physical and social worlds.
They come into the world with some basic assumptions (given them by terrestrial Evolutions 4 billion year experiment), Consciousness, and proceed over a period of 4 years or so to build themselves into well functioning little people with a good control of there bodies and a profound understanding of the way the world works. If that was not enough they also learn vast amounts of cultural and social information such as gender roles.
There is even some evidence that the visual system use hypothesis and experiment to analyse what we see.      
Testability means just that. If I say I've got invisible Pink Fairies at the bottom of my garden that nobody except me can see; that is a useless piece of information to any one else because it cannot (even in principle) be tested.
I can't see that my belief that the speed of light is approximately 300000000 m/s is the same as someone else's belief in God (whatever that means).
All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Stewart
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 06:46 PM

The latest from Robert Parks (What's New - http://www.aps.org/WN)

"STOP CLONING AROUND: CLONAID HAS STARTED BACKPEDALING. Last week we reported that the company, founded by Raelians, picked gullible physicist Michael Guillen to oversee verification of the cloning of baby Eve (WN 27 Dec 02). He says he's not being paid to do this, but it is generally believed that he is working on a book or film deal. But it now seems that the parents (parent?) of Eve are resisting such a test. We are, of course, shocked, but apparently a Florida lawyer has filed a suit claiming that Eve is being abused or exploited and asking the court to take custody. Meanwhile, the vice president of Clonaid will explain the new cloning technology and discuss investment opportunities at the Broward County Convention Center on 11 Jan 03 www.money- expo.com . The workshop is free, but you're gonna need $99 to reserve a seat. Clonaid is a commercial company, and it's not embarrassed about its goals: it expects to make a lot of money. Immortality, after all, should be an easy sell. "

Even more skeptical, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:24 PM

Here is an excellent web site on the Moonies and their long list of front groups. Steve Hassan is a former Moonie who has been writing and lecturing for many years about the phenomenon of cult influence. I can vouch for his credibility. His book titled "Combatting Cult Mind Control" was one of the first books I read on the subject about ten years ago. It is very clear and easy to understand from Hassan's perspective of a person who has been through the experience of recruitment, total involvement, and then returning to the freedom of his non-cult self.
http://www.freedomofmind.com/groups/moonies/moonies.htm

James Randi, another good source of info on fraud and deception, was interviewed tonight on NPR news regarding the verification of baby Eve's cloning. Being a magician, he knows the ways people use to create fraud. http://www.randi.org/

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:36 PM

Here is the January 3 NPR story by Joe Palca on verifying Eve as a clone and interview with James Randi on what would be necessary to have DNA sample results verified.

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20030103.atc.clone.ram

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:47 PM

An quote from an article at the link I gave previously regarding the Washington Times, owned my the Moonies (who also purchased United Press International).

"On Tuesday, May 21st 2002, controversial religious figurehead, alleged cult leader and
                                    self-proclaimed Messiah Sun Myung Moon, is to sponsoring a banquet celebrating the newspaper's
                                    20th anniversary. A substantial list of host Senators, Representatives and other politicians think they
                                    are supporting just a conservative newspaper, but are unwittingly endorsing the Moon agenda. Mr.
                                    Moon has used the newspaper along with U.P.I. to develop his power base for his ambitions–to
                                    establish an "automatic theocracy" in which he runs the world. Despite a politically conservative
                                    pro-family slant, the Times has also been the paper of choice for several Christian groups who are
                                    apparently unaware of Moon's true theology.

                                    "The public thinks that the Moonies have gone away. They haven't. They have been quite busy in
                                    recent years, focusing their recruitment efforts to politicians, business people and even Christian
                                    clergy," says Steven Hassan, former Moonie, author, licensed counselor and mind control expert.
                                    "They are still deceptive and quite dangerous," Hassan says, "Back in 1974-1976, Moon talked
                                    about setting up a global infrastructure so that when the world economy faltered, we would be there
                                    to feed people and give them jobs."

                                    Moon's stated ambitions include the establishment of a one-world government run as an automatic
                                    theocracy by Moon and his leaders. "Bush's faith-based initiative seems to be ideal to help them in
                                    their quest for a one world theocratic government," Hassan says, "I am sure President Bush is not
                                    aware that Moon has repeatedly said that America (and democracy) is Satanic." Moon's vision of the
                                    Kingdom of Heaven on Earth includes the absorption of all the world religions into Unificationism as
                                    well as the abolishment of all languages except Korean. Core Moonie members do a ritual pledge
                                    service every Sunday morning, bowing before an altar with Moon's picture on it and promising to
                                    fight for the Fatherland (Korea)..."

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:48 PM

Sorry for the typos in my previous message... typing too fast. Should by "A quote" and "owned by".