BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase — after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species — in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" — bigger, faster or stronger — or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6].

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

(Wikipedia)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 06:32 PM

Natural selection has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest individual" or race, or species. It is all about traits within a species (species show variation due to sexual reproduction) that confer some advantage making it more likely that the traits are passed on. Hence the references to differential reproduction. Darwin did not disapprove of the term "survival of the fittest", even though it wasn't coined by him, but he was acutely aware of the potential for its misinterpretation and was at pains to point out that the concept referred to differential survival within a species and not between species (or races).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 10 - 05:56 PM

thanks gents.
presumably this has a bearing on nazi et al[miss]interpretation of darwin?.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 10:10 AM

Merry midwinter, y'all! Solstice is just around the corner... for all of us, whether we believe in it or not!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 11:10 AM

Confusing Darwinism with eugenics is a serious mistake, yes. Eugenics rhetoric fueled the stupidity of the Nazis' race policies and the parochial insanity in the United States along similar lines.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 11:52 AM

One should not forget Alfred Wallace:

Alfred Russel Wallace

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:15 PM

I am happy that this thread is growing longer. Although no one's mind is going to be changed, a discussion of this is productive because it leads people to think about the issue
and question their basic emotional values.

My observation is that people are wedded not to logical reasoning but emotional reactions determined by their upbringing, as they are molded by their parents and environment, clay statues unable to move, and yet full of vituperative opinions.

Much of the discussion of "faith" is about emotional feelings and conditioning while moving beyond faith will open new vistas of how we as humans get along with each other.
Religions, as politics, tend to solidify lines-in-the-sand opinions that require a defensive posture.

Through Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Baha'i, Sidha Yoga, and all other manifestations of the organized branches of religion, I have been a weary traveler and have found peace and rest by rejecting all of them.   I am sympathetic to those still on a religious path, there are so many thorns and brambles to scar you, so much dogma to weigh you down, and hope that you can lift the burden on your minds, free yourself from the prison of sanctimonious pronouncements and arrive at a place of freedom where your mind is clear and at the same time open to a morality and social conscience that doesn't require icons and places of worship.

I won't try to disabuse anyone that wants to believe anything that doesn't harm others.
As a strong proponent of the Separation of Church and State, the right to discover, explore, survey and question is an inalienable right of every American citizen, also, the right to reject and resist polemical indoctrination on the part of the "faithful" of any branch of religion.

So I submit to you as your inalienable right if you choose, "keep the unfaith".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:38 PM

"I am sympathetic to those still on a religious path..."

"I won't try to disabuse anyone that wants to believe anything that doesn't harm others".


Those do not seem to jive.

The first does not seem very respectful, nor would encourage respectful dialogue, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 02:46 PM

What is disrespectful about sympathizing with those on a religious path?

It seems the second is entirely consistent with such sympathy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 02:51 PM

If you are saying (in other words) "I know my position better (superior), you simple Fuck" in a conversation...which some here have come very close to saying (without actually saying it)..of course, it is disrespectful and will not likely stimulate discussion. More likely, it will cause folks to leave or be more firm in their position...possibly counter to what some want, but not everyone.

And, I sympathise with those who think that way...:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 03:16 PM

in the spirit of inclusiveness likewise mrzzy and seasons greetings to all.

though not offended by stringsingers post;i do suspect that if i wrote similarly from a christian perpective,i would likely be attacked as being patronising-
and yet he is somewhat correct ;as to be uncertain about the fate of others who may not be believers is not easy.or to do the right thing when you want to do the wrong,and dare i suggest an unbeliever might rationalize.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 03:45 PM

Patronising, what a great word to describe why so many good thinking Mudcat people have left this discussion thread!

It seems to have been mostly left to a few people who share similar thinking. And, a few innocents offererd up as fodder.

"How dare you believe! Where is your evidence, you moron!" And, laughably some call that fruitful discussion. What a pity. It could be so much more.

Oh,well:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 03:58 PM

Well, Ed, it is hard to have such a discussion when the rules of evidence are so variable. A moment of intuitive insight is not acceptable as evidence, even when the subject is the nature of intuitive insights, for example. And there is something deeply ironic about individuals making statements about their understanding that there is no such thing as understanding, and doing so with full intention to get you to understand that they know intention does not exist.

Hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 04:17 PM

Amos, Well, I guess it is not a discussion then....exactly my point.....what's the point then?

Could one say "Once a duck, always half the same"? (to quote a wise saying from another much longer thread).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 05:22 PM

I don't get the logic here. I am quite respectful of many whom with which I disagree.
I didn't say that I pity those on a religious path nor did I say that I thought I was better then they. Respect is given by those who honor a view that opposes their own.
I believe I did that. I stand by my statements.





"I am sympathetic to those still on a religious path..."

"I won't try to disabuse anyone that wants to believe anything that doesn't harm others".


Those do not seem to jive.

The first does not seem very respectful, nor would encourage respectful dialogue, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 05:27 PM

"And, laughably some call that fruitful discussion. What a pity. It could be so much more. "

The ball is in your court to make this a fruitful discussion. I would welcome that.
Picking up your marbles and going home accomplishes nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 06:00 PM

"The ball is in your court to make this a fruitful discussion. I would welcome that.
Picking up your marbles and going home accomplishes nothing."

Precisely, that is the attitude that drove people away.
The ball is not in any one participants court in a meaningful discussion....one where there is a real interest in a view you do not hold.

This one time interesting discussion has been turned into a Kangeroo court (by a few like thinking mudcatters) using a scientific validity test on individual beliefs. Even the wisest scientists were wise enough not to go dawn that road. Where did you think that would lead?

Additionally, a fruitless discussion results from folks who browbeat others away, leaving it to two or three people with the same opinions. So, why bring it back...let it die, like other fruitless threads? As I noted, it is merely pointless.

The marbles are yours. You persist, while others have left. take them home, if it makes you folks feel superior. While it likely made some agressive posters feel surperior nbeings, with superior opinions, what did it prove? Nothing to most.

Welcoming discussion differs from setting the stage for meaningful discussion, where folks (regardless of their opinion) feel "welcome" to express their views and inner feelings and beliefs without being belittled and taunted.

Sorry to have singled you out...but, you seemed to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Dec 10 - 09:14 AM

sorry amos i did,nt understand your post,so hopefully its not a point i was supposed to get.

stringsinger-i accept you intended no disrepect,though it does come across as ed describes.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: bobad
Date: 19 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM

Ricky Gervais tells us why he is an atheist:http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 12:39 AM

While musing about The Law of Fives, and how our prejudices influence our Perceived Peality, Banjo Patterson poem came to mind...

QUOTE
Around me where I sit the wary wombat goes
A beast of little wit
But what he knows, he knows.
The very same remark applies to me also
I don't give out a spark
But what I know, I know.
UNQUOTE

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM

with ref to link.science is not a person that comes to conclusions.it presents the data and people interpret.and even those who are on the same bias often vary.

sounds a sensible quote,foolestroupe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 05:26 PM

Science doesn't even present data, if you want to be pedantic, people do that too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM

Ahhhh.....Sh...............

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 10 - 07:48 PM

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 12:47 PM

Of course, some of us will disagree with some of those 10 things... most of which have already been thrashed out here.

Last night watching the lunar eclipse I was filled with delight that I live in an age where we know, from our own investigations, that these things will happen and why they are happening, so I didn't have to use superstitious dread to fill the void left by WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MOON??? as I would otherwise have been stuck with...

Aah, the joys of secular knowledge! Absolutely *fulfilling* and exhilarating! Love that right temporal hemisphere kicking in!

Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!

We really do have to get rid of myth as an explanation for anything real, before it kills us all, now *that* I can get behind.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 01:32 PM

myrrzy-point taken re;people present facts.ricky g,s personalizing science may be just a turn of phrase,but maybe deliberate to make believers look unscientific/deniers of "facts"

foolestroupe-i was pretty much on board on every point,though i might want to clarify some points.generally good article;i thought.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:03 PM

For those of you who adamantly think you know Professor Dawkins, here is something
I think you should read.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1100842/Why-I-celebrate-Christmas-worlds-famous-atheist.html

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:07 PM

However, I personally like Jingle Bells and Rudolf along with the other beautiful more traditional carols. I like Mel Torme's "The Christmas Song" and "Let it Snow", "Silver Bells",
"Winter Wonderland" and I see this holiday as nice.

I still honor "Peace on Earth and good will to men (and women".

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 04:36 PM

Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!

We really do have to get rid of myth as an explanation for anything real, before it kills us all, now *that* I can get behind.

Do I detect an orgasm..maybe a multiuple...a science one, of course:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:06 PM

Christmas for me is a nice tradition and not a religious holiday. It extends beyond those narrow parameters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:09 PM

It isn't religiousesque, Ed. That's just a delusion. People were having a good and merry solstice time without the help of religion millennia before the bloody Victorians got hold of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 05:39 PM

Sorry Steve, I can't take credit for the first part. I failed to add cthe quotqtion marks. The first, that your comment relates to was Mrrzy, one of your athiest, (aka, anti delusion) kin. Read down a bit...."caught'ya on that one."   LOL

"Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!

We really do have to get rid of myth as an explanation for anything real, before it kills us all, now *that* I can get behind".

Do I detect an orgasm..maybe a multiuple...a science one, of course:)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 07:41 PM

Well Mrrzy was being scathing but you appeared to be embracing the concept. Pouncing on it, sort of thing. Don't come Mr Innocent with me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 08:31 PM

A third goating of Steve"O. Oh my!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 10 - 11:49 PM

Don't look now, 'wannabe folk heavies'....

..another 'deluded'(?) reference........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 11:45 AM

I would like to rewire this statement.

"Love knowing how religiousesque ecstasy is wired in the human brain!"


The human brain is hardwired to cling to dogma, memes and religious edicts, but also has the capacity to overcome this affliction. It well may be that dogma can actually alter the human
brain and cause reactions that are inherently conditioned by training which explains why so many cling to their ideas regardless of the logic they engender.

This is how people vote, pray, and organize. It often has nothing to do with reason or
scientific investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 12:05 PM

Guest from Sanity,

I love Pete Seeger and his songs are brilliantly conceived but in regard to Ecclesiastes,
I find that passage to be prosaic and not terribly informative suggesting a false equivalency between war and peace. I think it was written to appease the gods of war who permeate religious doctrine, the so-called "just war" idea. I have misgivings about Turn Turn although I may have the distinction as being the first person to record it with Pete on Columbia Records for John Hammond prior to Byrds and Judy Collins. The melody and chords of the song are of course wonderful.

I don't consider the bible to be great poetry or especially insightful about the human condition. The King James Version was a slapped-together meanderings of former scribes and an appeasement to the warring religious factions of the time. I'll take Shakespeare over it any time.

Pete has espoused the bible recently and I must say I am disappointed in his endorsement.
But Pete remains a great man, a great performer, an underrated musician and profound influence on folk music. Even though I don't agree with his new-found religious ideas, I am still a folkie acolyte.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 05:29 PM

sorry;that was me yesterday.

not sure why you should think we should find dawkins enjoying xmas surprising,stringsinger;especially when presenting himself in the media.
as to dogma clung to illogically-the 5,s could figure any way you want,seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 06:11 PM

Stringsinger: "....Pete has espoused the bible recently and I must say I am disappointed in his endorsement....."

Do you think, at his age, he may have seen something, about what was residing in that little engine of his all, along?...and certain things make sense to him, after MANY thoughts and experiences, in his lifetime, and through his filter?

Maybe to himself, it makes the most sense. Makes sense to me....

ASK.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 09:50 AM

ASK.

OK. Why do you believe in God? Can you square those beliefs with any logic or facts?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 11:08 AM

John P:

Beliefs in ANY structure beyond the space-time-matter contimuum are not subject to logic, and do not involve facts in the normal sense. Why even pose the question? It's like challenging the physics of a ROad Runner cartoon--wrong universe of discourse.

Spiritual phenomenology is not common ground, and therefore cannot be wrestled into an evidentiary framework the way common space-time events can be.

This is not a reflection on their worth or merit or even their validity for the universe of discourse concerned. But that universe of discourse can only be accessed one individual at a time. Well, not at a time in the usual sense, but you may get what I mean anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 12:09 PM

Spiritual phenomenology isn't really the issue. I have no problem accepting widely experienced phenomena as evidence. I still like it to make sense, however. My question is about the conclusions that are drawn based on the phenomenological evidence. How do you get from a spiritual experience to a virgin birth and a being that, at will, alters the basic laws of nature that (s)he supposedly set up in the first place? Perhaps there are other conclusions that could be reached that would explain the phenomena without resorting to conscious beings that are outside the space/time continuum and/or belief in events that clearly can't happen?

I understand that lots of people believe in gods and don't feel any need for proof. To that, I say, "Fine, just don't try to force your beliefs on me." My questions are for those who claim that their belief is rational. Being irrational can be a good thing -- I do a fair bit of it myself. But if someone tells me that something that looks irrational is, in fact, rational, I want the chain of logic laid out.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 12:36 AM

John P: "ASK. OK. Why do you believe in God? Can you square those beliefs with any logic or facts?"

Well, as NOT to confuse anyone, 'believing in God' does NOT mean subscribing to a religion.

Believing in God is hardly a choice, to those who have had an experience, in which 'God', makes itself plain and obvious...and yet, still, NOT as portrayed within the confines of a denominational slant. Its bigger!....and unless you've experienced that experience, or one that comes to you, in whatever form it takes, I'd just be another person, giving a 'rap' that another may not understand. Seeger seems to have had 'something' that made a connection for him. It's rather personal...but, "The children of light will be, permitted to look through each others eyes"-- Paul 'Biff' Rose (another one, and friend of mine, from the past).

But 'prove it'?...I've given a lot on that, but then you'd have to go back into some earlier posts, in which the 'adamantly argumentative' get into absurdity trying to discredit(read: 'preposterous excuses'), of justifying their particular boneheaded stubbornness....and I don't want to open the post up with a 'battle of wits with unarmed people'.

So, all I can say is 'ASK'. Sincerely ask, If you get no answer, blow it off.....but if you keep getting little answers, and keep ignoring it..well..that is your own stupidity. Just ask!..Its up to you to 'plug in' not up to me to talk you into anything. If I can talk you into something, then somebody can talk you out of it! So, ask for real, and pay attention. If you get answers, as to 'God' revealing something to you....hey, pay attention. The rest is between you and 'God'.
Maybe you might want to ask Pete, and find out how it came down to him...you ain't going to believe me!

Happy Looking!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 08:08 AM

GfS,
Are you talking about experiencing the oneness of the universe, and being aware of the power that animates it? Or are you talking about worshiping a conscious being that chooses to be involved in our lives, had a human son with a virgin mother, and generally conforms to the mythologies of various religions? My question is how anyone gets from the first to the second.

I consider myself a deeply spiritual person, and that means that I have had deeply spiritual experiences. It is a capacity that humans have, and it has been documented extensively in most cultures and can be taught to most people. But the most important thing is that it is a deeply moving, often life-changing experience that brings the perception of greater awareness, of being plugged in to the whole cosmos in some way. If that is how you are defining belief in god, then we are in agreement and just need to work out the terminology.

But if you want to say that it is rational to believe in three-in-one, Satan, rose from the dead, god wrote the Bible (or said anything at all), then we have source of serious disagreement.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Brian May
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 10:34 AM

Wow, this thread took some reading.

However, I'm left with the opinion I started with.

I've absolutely no problem with a 'God' in all his/her guises.

I have BIG problems when people 'interprete' God and practise religion based on their beliefs rather than anyone else's.

Whenever I hear the word 'religion' I know that intolerance will follow hot on its heels (one way or another).

Religion in all its flavours has a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 02:37 PM

I'll go a step further. Religion is the cause of most wars. History will bear this out.

The notion of a god is so amorphous that it can't be rationally discussed. Everyone seems to have a different meaning for it.

GfS, I have known Pete for a long time and he is consistent. He has probably had his religious notions for some time. Wisdom, of course, varies because there is no rule that establishes age or experience as an index to it.

"Spirituality" is one of those buzz-words that mean different things to everyone, also.
To me, it is redolent of ghosts and misty clouded thinking.

But I maintain there are some myths worth preserving such as the concept of "Peace on Earth, and Goodwill" to humans and animals which is often attributed to Christianity but I believe it predates this religion and is hard-wired into our DNA. This may be a trait that can be cultivated to ensure our survival as a species.

One way to achieve this is to eschew notions of spirits and gods and focus on what makes a decent society work and return to the noble idea of Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Brian May
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 04:34 PM

I think the 'religion' and the 'cause of all wars' is that religion is used as a tool to further the power and money aims of those in control.

It also appears to be areligious (if that's a word). You see it in extreme Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. It does not seem to appear to my knowledge in Buddhism.

I watched the wonderful Riverdance recently and the reply to 'how did Irish dance evolve with only legs moving - the reply was the Catholic priests dictated that the dancers were not to appear to be enjoying themselves! Power again. RC priests presumably were at work in Spain where Flamenco was practised with all its flamboyancy. I know - different priests.

It is convenient, in the pursuit, of these two aims, to spout 'God DEMANDS that we act to redress whatever slight we care to highlight'. Normally they are called moral entrepreneurs.

Just examine the latest outrages done in the name of religion (doesn't much matter which one) and assess for yourself it it's not some platform to achieve, power/control and money (as much as that is publicly eschewed in a lot of religions).

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Dec 10 - 07:28 PM

Nope Politics, the re-allocation of limited resources is the cause of all wars.

Religion is is sometimes an excuse or a rallying point but war is always motivated by greed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Dec 10 - 05:35 AM

Both religion and politics are the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race, to control masses of people!

That being said, it does not mean there is 'no God', or people can't find a way to live civilly with each other. There are the 'manipulators', the profiteering controllers, who establish 'qualifications' and 'regulations' as not to let people free from his grip!

When we speak of 'God', aren't we referring to 'Light', 'Love' to be the origin of life...and what all things are made of?..or the marriage of the two??? If its 'Love', isn't love conscious? Could there just be a link to that love, and light, that links us together...and it IS conscious??...and we can tap into it?...and be in consistency with its attributes?

I think it's possible..not only do I think its possible, I think its a form of 'death', not be at peace with that..or separated from it...not only that, just plain stupid!..and self absorbed. You think you are an island, detached from every energy, seen or unseen, in this dimension???
Think about it!
...and if it is a conscious energy, communicate with it...manifest it, and don't limit your access to it, with block-headed opinions. Maybe listen to what 'IT' has to communicate to you!

I'm sure Pete, in his deepest private moments has his 'communications', and possibly sees some consistencies with things in the Bible. I wouldn't take it as a 'disappointment'...by the way, Dylan is sayin' the same thing, now..Biff Rose, for years! Sting, another, all of 'Celtic Woman'..along with others. It hasn't hurt their artistic abilities..in fact, just the opposite! Doesn't 'God' have creative attributes???..How much are they creating??? How much are you?? how much does it touch people? How deep? Don't you think if you could tap into the 'Big Consciousness', you'd find anything, common among mankind?..then speak it it??..deeper??

I certainly wouldn't let someone elses spiritual tap, threaten YOUR view of them...maybe you're the one who doesn't get it....but hold onto your closed off trip.
Just a thought.

Then again, if there is a conscious energy, Love,and Light and you wanted to 'get acquainted' with it, why should it,(Love)refuse an honest request, from a sincere heart????

Ask...and watch. Maybe we're not all wrong. Maybe its cool! No where in the Bible, does it say that we're 'going to heaven', which is a popular distortion, by the 'manipulators'.....BUT, it DOES say, that heaven is coming to us!!...(and they even bullshit you about what that is, too!)

Find out yourself.
Once you do, you'll know..and know why.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Brian May
Date: 25 Dec 10 - 06:05 AM

GfS

Well said - that'll do for me. For the first time in years, I received an email to me, my wife and one daughter from the 'other' daughter.

The email contained fun, humour, care and love - that was heaven for me.

Have fun all and appreciate those close to you if you can, it's SOo easy to concentrate on what niggles you when we have so much that doesn't.

God knows, if I can do it, then there's hope for us all . . .