BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 09:04 AM

Paul,

The problem here is that Josep is basing his arguments on some pretty "out there", but extremely useful, quantum physics.

To scrutinize his views I, for one, would have to do some reading in the areas he's referring to and they are pretty complex.

I am interested, but I don't have the time.

I don't accept that he has proved anything, but I gind his ideas thought provoking.

Joseps observations on tiime are not that far removed from some of the stuff thats coming out of astrophysicists mouths.

I'm not convinced he entirely understands it all though.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 06:19 AM

In modern England...

Poem 169 of 230: PERFIDA GENS - SUMMER 2001

On the estate:
    Abuse by day,
Banging at night -
    Sleep wars, I'd say.

Attempts on a car:
    Repaired by day,
Inflamed at night -
    Revenge, I'd say.

A gran's garden:
    Well-clipped by day,
Flame-scorched at night -
    Disgrace, I'd say.

Summing this up:
    As in Bede's day,
Manners are free -
    Faithless, I'd say.

(C) David Franks 2003
From http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com (e-scroll)
Or http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 05:46 AM


PROOF:
Assume eternity has an end:
a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero.

Oi vey.

josep, I suggest that you take a short course in elementary logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 04:23 AM

josep-apologies for not fully representing your views though that does not invalidate my post i trust.christians also pay tax and they dont think creation is bad science.as i pointed out before qualified scientists represent both sides of the debate.the presuppositions determine interpretation of the data.obviously christian fundamentalist would tend to be upfront on their worldview but occasionally even atheist scientists have admitted to embracing evolution because the alternative is unacepptable to them-not because its provable.details available at creation.com.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:40 AM

No need to explain it over and over - once will do. It's not a matter of me not accepting it - if that was the case I wouldn't be asking you to explain it. If you are right about this, I want to know, but I also want to be certain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:13 AM

///I follow that fine, thanks, but can you demonstrate it clearly with your original argument? Maybe it would help to put the whole thing in one post. ///

I've already demonstrated it. I can't do anymore than I already have except to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. I'm not here to tell you you have to accept this argument. If you don't, you don't. I can live with that. Offer a counterargument and I can do something with that but to keep explaining the same thing ten times over is pointless. If you don't buy it now, you won't buy it the 10th time I explain it. I'm not proselytizing so I would say let sleeping dogs lie and everybody's happy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Sep 10 - 12:05 AM

///Just assuming for a minute that reincarnation is as you say, where do all the 'new spirits' come from to account for population growth?///

If you're suggesting new spirits are being created all the time, where is the energy coming from since it can never be created or destroyed? So if a fixed amount of energy can accomodate all these new spirits, so can a fixed amount of consciousness. By what method, who knows? We don't have enough information to bother worrying about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 11:33 PM

Just assuming for a minute that reincarnation is as you say, where do all the 'new spirits' come from to account for population growth? I'd suggest Diageo, but it would be too flippant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 09:52 PM

I. My name is Josep, I am a nuclear physics graduate and I authored the argument that appears in this thread. (TRUE)

That 'truth' being a temporary act of faith on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 09:34 PM

The argument is the proof--which you have stated more than once you do not accept.

I don't think you would accept something that didn't make sense to you, would you? No, because you're not that stupid.

I. My name is Josep, I am a nuclear physics graduate and I authored the argument that appears in this thread. (TRUE)
II. If I am the author of the argument in this thread then my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate. (TRUE)
III. So, my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate if and only if I am the author of the argument in this thread.

III is true but it makes you pause a moment, doesn't it? That's how my argument is structured. It is logical but you have to read it carefully and make sure you understand it. Think it through.

I follow that fine, thanks, but can you demonstrate it clearly with your original argument? Maybe it would help to put the whole thing in one post.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

One last thing I forgot to mention:

If at the end of eternity, everything just happens all over again exactly as before couldn't that have already happened?

Yes. We have no way to know. All we can say is that the effects of eternity are always acting upon us.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:46 PM

///So take a leaf out of your own book and give us the proof you first promised.///

The argument is the proof--which you have stated more than once you do not accept. Which is fine. But the proof is stated and that's all I can do without a counterargument being offered. If you're looking for scientific evidence, I've provided a scant amount but this is a logical argument and I want to stick to logic and use science to back it up only if it makes my point easier to get across.

Logical proof is of a different nature than scientific proof. A logical proof has to hold in every facet but it sometimes throws people for a loop as it has with you. For instance:

I. My name is Josep, I am a nuclear physics graduate and I authored the argument that appears in this thread. (TRUE)
II. If I am the author of the argument in this thread then my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate. (TRUE)
III. So, my name is Josep and I am a nuclear physics graduate if and only if I am the author of the argument in this thread.

III is true but it makes you pause a moment, doesn't it? That's how my argument is structured. It is logical but you have to read it carefully and make sure you understand it. Think it through.

The only thing I have left to do is state the limitations of the argument and I may as well do that now.

The argument does not tell us if there is a god. Reincarnation could happen by some automatic mechanism.

Is there an end of time by this argument? Yes, but it is asymptotic. We get closer and closer to it but we will never reach it. Although consciousness is eternal, eternity has an end.

PROOF:
Assume eternity has an end:
a. But we know memory eventually becomes static and unchanging--the story becomes set, so to speak. And we know all sensations dwindle to zero eventually. Nothing changes for the rest of time and since time is characterized by change, time has ended.
b. But eternity has no end so there must be some memory modification and sensations not at zero.

Contradiction between a. and b. so the assumption that eternity has no end is in error because a. is undeniably true.

But since consciousness can never end, the end of eternity is purely mathematical and it is an asymptote our consciousness can never reach. So what must happen? We can't go on being reborn in new bodies because eternity ends but we can't stop existing because consciousness can never end.

What happens is that we simply go back and experience our various succession of lives all over again exactly as before. Analogous to a vinyl record on your old stereo. The songs are your different lives, the tone arm is your consciousness tracking through them and the spinning record is time. When tone arm reaches the end and then it returns to the beginning and plays the same sequence of songs over and over and over again.

Do we get off this merry-go-round of birth-death-rebirth? No. Hindus and Buddhists call it samsara and it is eternal. Once you're on the ride, you're always on the ride. You can never jump off.

Wheeeee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:22 PM

I've never understood why you just can't say, "Maybe the cat is dead and maybe it isn't, and I don't know which until I open the box - but whichever it turns out to be is how it was all along."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 08:05 PM

Thank you very much for your explanation Josep, but could you perhaps now explain how your original three premises lead to the conclusion that consciousness survives death?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM

Somebody asked how Schroedinger's Cat (which I will hereafter refer to as SC) proves there is Universal Consciousness.

Well, we know that the cat is in an opaque box containing a decaying radioactive substance that will trigger a hammer that will smash a jar of cyanide that will spill into the box and kill the cat. So we put the cat in the box and a few hours later we come back and prepare to open the box. What are the chances the cat is alive or dead? It's 50-50. However, the cat is a quantum object (just as all objects are quantum objects) meaning it is a wave function which is only collapsed by consciousness.

Since we do not know the state of the cat, by Quantum Theory, it is not 50-50 that it could be alive or dead but rather it is 50% alive and 50% dead in potentia. This is called a coherent superposition. It is transcendent and so cannot be perceived by us. What must happen is that consciousness must observe the cat which will collapse the wave function of the cat into a perceivable state of alive or dead or what we call an immanent position. The 50-50 state of the cat is called a dichotomy.

Suppose we put a geiger counter in the box? Now we look at the counter and if it registers a particle then we know the state of the cat. But here's the problem: the counter picks up the dichotomy. Before we look it it, it is in a state of both 50% tripped and 50% untripped in potentia. Ok, so we add a second counter after that to tell us the state of the first counter. Then the dichotomy is transferred to the next counter and so on.

The only thing that transforms the coherent superposition into immanence is consciousness. We have to open the box and look.

But suppose two people each have a camera in the box that they can look through and see the cat and let's say they cannot see or communicate with each other in any way. Both look through their respective camera viewers at exactly the same moment. Which one collapses the wave function and why didn't the other person get any say?

Neither person gets any say. This is called observer invariance. One observer is all observers and all observers are one observer. We all will see the same thing--the cat is either alive or dead. One observer won't see a live cat and the other sees a dead one. If the universe worked like that then when we approach a stoplight, you would see a green light, I would see a red, someone else would see a yellow and we'd all be right--and we'd all be dead. But we know the world doesn't work like this. Observer invariance sees to that.

But WHY don't we all see something different? WHY is there observer invariance? The only answer is because all consciousness is one or unitive as QM likes to say. SC proves that your consciousness and mine are not separate but identical. Then why are we all different? Because we are in separate bodies doing different things and experiencing in different ways i.e. we have separate egos. But what allows us to do that is consciousness and it is unitive, indivisible. To put it mystically--we are all illuminated from within by the same light source.

The ancient peoples knew this--you find it in Buddhism, Hinduism, Gnosticism. Heck, read the opening chapter of the gospel of John. It tells you what Jesus Christ actually is--not a creature of history but the light that illuminates us all. Paul said the same thing when he wrote that "Christ is risen in me." I'm not proselytizing but merely demonstrating that what modern Christianity teaches is NOT what was really meant by the people who wrote that stuff. They were WAAAAAY out there. They'd laugh in embarrassment to see what pap their writings and philosophy is used for nowadays.

Now for some real fun, puzzle out what would happen if we put a conscious human in the box. Yes, that was thought of and we know the answer and it changes nothing but see if you can puzzle it out.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM

there will nothing further for me to add to it.

If there was anything in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM

You must ALWAYS be able to offer a proof otherwise it's the same as saying, "Take my word for it, you're wrong."

So take a leaf out of your own book and give us the proof you first promised.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:09 PM

///1+1=3 is equivalent to 3 - (1+1)= 0 or 1=0

That's a counterargument.///

Precisely. Somebody gets it. No mathematician would tell me it doesn't add up. He would present a proof to show my equation is in error. You must ALWAYS be able to offer a proof otherwise it's the same as saying, "Take my word for it, you're wrong." I will take your word for it as soon as you offer a proof. And he would certainly say that he can't disprove my equation because it doesn't make sense. The above proof works to my satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM

///I interpreted that to indicate that he felt that his logic would leave no room for disagreement. Did I misread that, josep?///

Yes. I still have another post to go concerning the limitations of the argument after which it is concluded meaning I have no posts that mill bring in any new points. I'll still post to answer questions or defend the argument but there will nothing further for me to add to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM

To the best of my knowledge, religious charities are perfectly happy and able to collect money from anyone; they don't tend to ask what one believes in. It's rather sickening to think someone was actually small minded enough to even try to calculate what overall proportion is donated by atheists to charity.
...................
Joe - sorry to mess up your Sundays ;-)
...................
McGrath - "1+1=3 is equivalent to 3 - (1+1)= 0 or 1=0"
Dammit, you've proved I have to be reincarnated, you swine.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 03:36 PM

...and I would think that atheists make their charitable contributions through non-religious organizations that are not necessarily atheist. They don't make their donations in the name of atheism, like a religious person would do if contributing through a church.

I would hope that most religious charities for the poor use their money to help poor people, rather than indoctrinate them. Most of the anti-poverty charities of the "mainline" churches are very good about refraining from evangelization, but I don't trust the born-again charities to do that. I cringe when family members get taken in by their compelling advertising and make a contribution to a born-again charity.

For those who want to donate without religious or political connections, I would recommend The Hunger Project in the U.S. I'm sure there must be similar non-religious charities in the UK - I suppose Oxfam would be one.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 03:11 PM

" However at least in the United States, it is a pretty well established fact that Christians and other religious people give a lot more to charitable causes than Atheists do."

This is only because there are more Christians and religious people than atheists.
Someday this might change.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 03:01 PM

"Poem 154 of 230: GETTING TO KNOW GOD

God lets us go
    Our own way -
Until the Day;
    Now and then, though,
He has a Say
    In His own Way -
Prophets to Sow,
    Deserts to Pay.

(C) David Franks 2003"

Burma Shave!

We can let god go
    In our own way
Until the day
    That we have equal say-
It profits no one so
Desert the display!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:28 PM

"Thirty-all" is, in effect, "deuce" (from here).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:50 AM

Or... ♂ + ♀ = 3...and sometimes more than 3.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM

Well, it's all context, you see...1 + 1 only equals 3 for very large values of 1.



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:37 AM

If there is a god who sees all and knows all, he must be highly amused by now at the direction of all this.....including some very un-godly math.

Why I can even 'prove' that half of twelve is seven!



































XII..... then.... XII top half=VII

Cute, but not really relevant, I agree.

Point? Many strange claims are either tricks or special cases or just simply poor understanding of math, logic, language or facts.....or just emotional committment to the 'strange claim' that prevents some from even considering counter arguments to their pet theories.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 10:04 AM

OK, you give me one grand and I'll give you none back. Deal?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 09:38 AM

1+1=3 is equivalent to 3 - (1+1)= 0 or 1=0

That's a counterargument.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: s&r
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 06:26 AM

The eighth post of this one on mudcat....

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:52 AM

Poem 154 of 230: GETTING TO KNOW GOD

God lets us go
    Our own way -
Until the Day;
    Now and then, though,
He has a Say
    In His own Way -
Prophets to Sow,
    Deserts to Pay.

(C) David Franks 2003
From http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com (e-scroll)
Or http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:03 AM

In the same way (he said disingenuously), we should ask believers for evidence when they claim that God exists. If you attempt to engage the 1+1=3 man in sensible argument you have either already gone more than half way to letting him think he has a good point, or you are humouring him, or you are patronising him. None of these is a good solution. All you can usefully do is to ask for more clarity before you engage. Atheists should never answer the improper question "Do you believe in God?" for the same reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM

If someone states that 1+1=3, it is redundant to present a counter argument.

All that I would say is - "your argument doesn't add up" and ask you to go and check it.

If you kept insisting that 1+1=3 I would conclude that you weren't thinking your arguments through.

It would not be for me to start explaining what 1+1 does equal, as I might have my own point - I might be trying to explain that 2-1=1.

What 1+1 equals is your point, and it is for you to work out how to answer before you go round telling people it equals 3.


For Smokey to say "sorry mate, but your argument doesn't add up" is sufficient - if you provide a clearer explanation of your thinking, it is easier for people to either see why you are right, or where you have made a mistake.

So it your responsibility to you to clarify how your argument adds up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 02:10 AM

Smokey, it's a surprise to see that "proof by intimidation" exists in Mathematics. I thought that was one discipline where people could have a truly civil discussion and come to a friendly conclusion that would be accepted by all.

Now you're telling me that math can be every bit as contentious as religion. I had considered spending my Sundays peacefully doing math problems, but now you've pulled that carpet out from under me.

I'm crushed.    ;-)

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:52 PM

Ebbie:

AN interesting example, one out of thousands. Probably not one that would be easily trackable or verifiable. But interesting in that accepting his words as true to his actual perceptions is beyond some folks. Others put it in the "cannot be resolved one way or the other" box. Others come up with fancy explanations that will adhere to their previous models of a maore material sort. In the middle of it, here's this moment in which the boy says something extremely intriguing, innocent, and full of possible mystery.

Anyway, thanks for the story. He is not alone.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:44 PM

I was just looking for the mathematical 'proof' that 0=1 with a view to demonstrating that 1+1+0=3 (as you do) when I found this, which rather tickled me:

"Proof by intimidation is a term used mainly in mathematics to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding. The term is also used when the author is an authority in his field presenting his proof to people who respect a priori his insistence that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial or because he simply says so."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM

Aye Bill.. 'conclude' could be, at a push, interpreted as 'end'. In the context of Josep's general demeanour I think you were justified in your interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:32 PM

I'm afraid that was me mis-stating josep's remarks... I try not to do that, but didn't take enough time to look for the exact quote, which was:

" My next post or two will deal with the afterlife by showing that--

a. There can be no heaven or hell.
b. The only logical choice is reincarnation.
c. The limitations of the argument.

And that will conclude the argument."


I interpreted that to indicate that he felt that his logic would leave no room for disagreement. Did I misread that, josep?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:15 PM

will you PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth just to have something to argue with?? I said please.

That wasn't me, but you're a fine one to talk - that's exactly what you did with me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:01 PM

Josep, so far as I can see, your premises don't lead to your conclusion. The only explanation for this that I can see is that either your conclusion is wrong or your premises are wrong. By all means explain yourself to my satisfaction, and I'll be happy to admit that I was too stupid to understand your original explanation. I don't mind being proved wrong, as it means I've learned something, but until then my opinion is that you have largely been talking bollocks. I mean no personal offence by that, by the way, and I'm not particularly dismissing all the elements of your argument, but the overall conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:49 PM

Moreover, I never "end of discussion." I don't mind if you take issue with something I said but will you PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth just to have something to argue with?? I said please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM

You can't offer a counterargument that makes sense because my argument doesn't make sense??

No, I just can't offer a counter-argument. That's not unlike saying I don't have a counter-argument. I told you why I don't have one.

If you argue that 1+1=3, I'd probably say "cobblers", doubtless due to my bad breeding.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:32 PM

///Josep, it is not possible to produce a counter-argument to something that doesn't appear to make sense in the first place. You know that full well. ///

Hmm, let's analyze that one. You can't offer a counterargument that makes sense because my argument doesn't make sense?? So if I argue that 1+1 = 3, you can't offer a counterargument because mine doesn't make sense?

Just say you don't have a counterargument--it wears better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:10 PM

No, I don't think I'm cleverer than Darwin. But he lived over 100 years ago, folks! Over one hundred fucking years!! Meet me half way! Say, 1916?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:43 PM

Er.. I suspect our man thinks he's cleverer than Darwin...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:38 PM

is overrated

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM

"As for evolutionists coming out and debating, many have. The problem is, whether they are right or wrong, creationism isn't going away. So what is the point of debating it? I can't see creationists saying, "Oh! I see, you're right after all. Ok then, sorry, we're disbanding and we won't make another peep." Is that ever going to happen? No. All science can do is try to keep it out of public schools where I agree that it has no place. My tax dollars should not have to pay for it. Evolution is an empirical view or at least it is supposed to be. While I don't think evolutionists have the slightest idea how humankind got here, I agree with the basic mechanism of evolution. Nor do I place much emphasis on Darwin. I think Darwin is overrated. But he wasn't wrong. Or at least he had the right idea. But to be placing that much emphasis on a 19th century man while ignoring far more recent evidence that evolution works more with cooperation than with struggle is typical of skeptics."

I'm sorry, old chap, but you clearly have no idea at all what evolution is about. I suggest that you obtain a good tome that deals with it and have a really good read. I could suggest Origin Of Species for starters. It is written incredibly clearly and in simple language and will sort quite a few things out for you.

"I think Darwin was overrated." Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:31 PM

"I don't know if they realize that it's the 21st century."

It's always some century or other. But in principle that's no different from saying "I don't know if they realize that it's the 17th September." Relevant information for some purposes - eg when it comes to deciding whether some food has passed its eat-by date - but not necessarily too relevant in other contexts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

///I too have had a little boy, not quite two years old, tell me something startling.

First he said that he used to be a big man once. That, in itself, is nothing at all unusual- most kids think something of the sort.

But then he said he used to have an airplane. Well, this is Alaska- kids know all about airplanes.

Then he said, matter of factly, It crashed. I crashed it. And I died.

I said, Oh, that's too bad. What happened?

He said, It had a fire. And they couldn't get to me fast enough.

Now, I agree that he could have overheard such a conversation at home. However, he was playing with some blocks at the time and his demeanor was, well, different. ///

When I was a boy I was haunted by snatches of memories of medieval Europe. It happened whenever I heard medieval music or saw medieval art. The feeling of recognition was overwhelming and completely puzzled me. At 4, I'm hearing medieval music on TV and thinking, "I know what that is!! But how could I know, I've never heard this before." Even weirder, I had memories or impressions that I couldn't make sense of until I got older--namely, I was a monk and an unhappy, dissatisfied monk at that. Could mean nothing. But suppose I had memories and sensations back then that I didn't get to recall or re-live? A stimulus in a new life triggers them no differently than when you hear an old song from childhood that you haven't thought about in decades--thought you had utterly forgotten it. Those feelings are not as vivid now but I still have a penchant for medieval music and art. And I still have no desire to be a monk.

And this boy you speak of--those may have been his final memories and sensations and then he died before he could remember and re-live them so it must happen now because he was conscious when it happened. But who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

Mauvepink says: I wonder what the spiritual equivalent of homophobia is?

I think there's a salient point here. For a significant portion of humankind, "spirituality" consists of an organized expression of fear and disdain for other people. These people see it as their divine calling to condemn other people for this and that and the other thing. There's one woman in our bible study group who has that mindset, and I don't know how to deal with it - and I wonder when she's going to turn on me.

Still, I guess I have to say there's something to this "spirituality of fear," and I have to acknowledge it as legitimate. For many people, fear is their most common and deepest emotion - and so they see that as their "religion."

And I have no idea how to deal with that.

-Joe-