BS: The Delusion delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 11:36 PM

It's not a fact, Ed, it's an assertion that Steve is making. As assertions go, it doesn't seem to be based on anything except the author's wishful thinking...or a desire that things should be, and therefore are, just the way he already thinks they should be and are.

There have been any number of incidents throughout history where people swore that God (as they understood the term) had appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, given them extra insight, broadened their mind, etc...thousands and thousands of such incidents. Maybe hundreds of thousands. I can't say I've had one, but I know many other people have.

But Steve asks if anyone has demonstrated it? ;-D Well, how could they in such a way as to meet Steve's requirements? Look, the entire French Army in the 1400s felt that Joan of Arc had powerfully demonstrated the assistance of God in helping them to inflict a series of catastrophic defeats on an English Army that hadn't lost a major battle to the French in the previous 50 years! To that French Army the role of God in their victories was absolutely certain. To the English, it was seen as the work of Satan. ;-D

Whether you think something is a demonstration of God's help or not is entirely dependent on your own subjective viewpoint of the event. There is NO demonstration that will serve to convince a sceptic who doesn't want to be convinced. They'll just come up with some other explanation for it....like the English did. They'll come up with whatever explanation makes them happy. The English explanation was that Joan was a witch in league with Satan. They couldn't possibly countenance the notion that an illiterate 17-year-old French peasant girl could lead an army against them without supernatural help of some kind...and achieve such victories. Neither could the French, but the French saw her actions as divinely inspired.

So they each gave it the subjective interpretation that suited their viewpoint of themselves as "the good guys".

There IS no demonstration possible which will convince a sceptic who is set on not being convinced, because he will give the demonstration a different interpretation, that's all. That's what people do. They already believe "thus and so" about life... and they then interpret whatever happens on the basis of their established beliefs and preferences. They are as predictable as trained dogs. They salivate when the bell rings, and growl when they hear the buzzer. Demonstrations are useless for minds that are already made up...unless they are demonstrations of something dead obvious...because it is wholly physical. Like a machine. There's a lot in life that isn't wholly physical, but which lies in the areas we could term "moral", "psychological", "emotional", "conceptual", "idealistic", etc.....and those aspect of life cannot BE demonstrated conclusively to a reductionist mind that will only pay attention to physical evidence, because they are not physical at all...they are workings in consciousness.

Spirituality is about the governance and working of consciousness...for good or for ill. You do not address the workings of consciousness through examining physical evidence, you address them through comprehension, observation, communication, listening, feeling, and perceiving. Consciousness can only be dealt with BY consciousness, not by a camera, a microscope, or a set of calipers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 04:02 AM

A simple to understand thought on 'reincarnation' as seen from Sanity-Land:

Well I can see, that if you're going to split hairs, over side issues, then everyone will just be stuck, after posting their preconceived notion.

So, let's establish a couple of premises, that can be agreed upon, by all.(Steve excluded, unless he thinks that 'contention' is a meaningful exercise, other than enjoying the process).....

All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded, 'wink')...therefore, just as there is a collective life, on this ball, spinning in space, trying to survive, there is a collective 'intelligence'.

If this 'intelligence' existed before any given generation, then it has been self generating, just as 'life' itself has, before we personally jumped on the train....

If you 'tapped' into this 'collective, ongoing, intelligence', that is connected to the life process, as a whole, then very possibly, and probably, one could 'remember' another manifestation, from another time, when that intelligence, manifested itself, and in doing so, could have retained collected sensory data....

..not that YOU were another 'person' before....but you tapped into that data, via the ONE ongoing intelligence....of which is a part of you....as well as the prior. ITS ALL ONE!

...Even 'Time' itself, is subject to the dimensional manifestation of the observer.

Now, that wasn't too much of a stretch, was it?


....easy now Steve, nobody 'deluded' any of that, with the dreaded 'God-monster'......nonetheless, it IS bigger, than the moment of observation.......


GfS

Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 04:45 AM

Sorry Hawk I disagree on this one I see Joan of Arc as being like a latter day suicide bomber who was prepared to take a life during the fight if she had to or else she would not be shown carrying a sword or wearing armour she would have ridden with the army unarmed. I hate the way the English burned her too but technically she was doing it for the Dauphim and God but the difference was she didn't go around killing innocent civilians in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:41 AM

Ed T (25 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM), I understand you consider your previous questions answered. (In a thread like this it would have been quite ok if you had criticized my statements.)

Physics and technology are quite a different subject from religion, but they give rise to delusive hopes as well. Many things ("in Heaven and Earth") are possible, some are worth researching. However, if you asked me about our most reasonable hopes, I would recommend living the rest of ones present life with the best possible countenance. If after our deaths we find out that our gods don't exist at all, they will forgive us.

The rich whiners who publicly advocate cryonics seem to fall short of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:49 AM

Thank you for the measured response.

Is it possible to demonstrate that you've had a prayer answered? Well, let's get one thing out of the way first. The fact that thousands of people down the ages have claimed that God answered a prayer, worked a miracle, etc., is not evidence. Whether the sheer mass of such claims has any persuasive power is up to you, but it doesn't persuade me on its own, not one jot. I come back to my hackneyed old example: thousands of people claim to have been cured by going to Lourdes. Not one of these people has produced incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence is possible: has anyone ever grown a new leg by going to Lourdes? In this day and age it would be a simple enough matter to get independent corroboration for such an event. Why, we could even watch it live on the telly. It sounds like naked cynicism, innit, but the obstinate fact is that every claim ever made for a miracle cure is, conveniently, one which requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the part of the recipient of the claim. Whether it's cures at Lourdes, little girls having visions on hillsides, or stories of miracles in the Bible, every single time this suspension of disbelief is required. Christianity has even made a virtue of this (cunningly I suggest) by inserting the apocryphal tale of doubting Thomas into the gospels; it's such a strong message that the gospel writers even have the risen Jesus himself pronouncing that it's holy to believe without evidence. The tale jars badly because it runs counter to everything that Jesus did in his ministry, doing what revolutionaries do, questioning conventional wisdoms at every turn, making the right to ask awkward questions a virtue. Potential cases of miracle cures or prayers answered, such as the new leg, which could indeed provide evidence, are avoided at every turn. You never get one of those, ever. Those of this ilk in the gospels that could have been in this category are now safely buried in history. There was no committee of independent sceptics taking notes and producing minority reports for any of Jesus' miracles. One more thing. If you have a God (at least, nodding in Hawk's direction, a Christian version of God) then he must be a God who can be petitioned and who must at least be available to modify at least some things for us on request. Otherwise there would be no point to his existence, and certainly no point to Christianity. The miracles and the answered prayers are just part of the whole package.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: andrew e
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 05:58 AM

From "A Couse In Miracles".

IS REINCARNATION SO?

In the ultimate sense, reincarnation is impossible. There is no past or future, and the idea of birth into a body has no meaning either once or many times. Reincarnation cannot, then, be true in any real sense. Our only question should be, "Is the concept helpful?" And that depends, of course, on what it is used for. If it is used to strengthen the recognition of the eternal nature of life, it is helpful indeed. Is any other question about it really useful in lighting up the way? Like many other beliefs, it can be bitterly misused. At least, such misuse offers preoccupation and perhaps pride in the past. At worst, it induces inertia in the present. In between, many kinds of folly are possible.

       Reincarnation would not, under any circumstances, be the problem to be dealt with now. If it were responsible for some of the difficulties the individual faces now, his task would still be only to escape from them now. If he is laying the groundwork for a future life, he can still work out his salvation only now. To some, there may be comfort in the concept, and if it heartens them its value is self-evident. It is certain, however, that the way to salvation can be found by those who believe in reincarnation and by those who do not. The idea cannot, therefore, be regarded as essential to the curriculum. There is always some risk in seeing the present in terms of the past. There is always some good in any thought which strengthens the idea that life and the body are not the same.

       For our purposes, it would not be helpful to take any definite stand on reincarnation. A teacher of God should be as helpful to those who believe in it as to those who do not. If a definite stand were required of him, it would merely limit his usefulness, as well as his own decision making. Our course is not concerned with any concept that is not acceptable to anyone, regardless of his formal beliefs. His ego will be enough for him to cope with, and it is not the part of wisdom to add sectarian controversies to his burdens. Nor would there be an advantage in his premature acceptance of the course merely because it advocates a long-held belief of his own.

       It cannot be too strongly emphasized that this course aims at a complete reversal of thought. When this is finally accomplished, issues such as the validity of reincarnation become meaningless. Until then, they are likely to be merely controversial. The teacher of God is, therefore, wise to step away from all such questions, for he has much to teach and learn apart from them. He should both learn and teach that theoretical issues but waste time, draining it away from its appointed purpose. If there are aspects to any concept or belief that will be helpful, he will be told about it. He will also be told how to use it. What more need he know?

       Does this mean that the teacher of God should not believe in reincarnation himself, or discuss it with others who do? The answer is, certainly not! If he does believe in reincarnation, it would be a mistake for him to renounce the belief unless his internal Teacher so advised. And this is most unlikely. He might be advised that he is misusing the belief in some way that is detrimental to his pupil's advance or his own. Reinterpretation would then be recommended, because it is necessary. All that must be recognized, however, is that birth was not the beginning, and death is not the end. Yet even this much is not required of the beginner. He need merely accept the idea that what he knows is not necessarily all there is to learn. His journey has begun.
       The emphasis of this course always remains the same; - it is at this moment that complete salvation is offered you, and it is at this moment that you can accept it. This is still your one responsibility. Atonement might be equated with total escape from the past and total lack of interest in the future. Heaven is here. There is nowhere else. Heaven is now. There is no other time. No teaching that does not lead to this is of concern to God's teachers. All beliefs will point to this if properly interpreted. In this sense, it can be said that their truth lies in their usefulness. All beliefs that lead to progress should be honored. This is the sole criterion this course requires. No more than this is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 06:08 AM

All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded, 'wink')...therefore, just as there is a collective life, on this ball, spinning in space, trying to survive, there is a collective 'intelligence'.

If this 'intelligence' existed before any given generation, then it has been self generating, just as 'life' itself has, before we personally jumped on the train....

If you 'tapped' into this 'collective, ongoing, intelligence', that is connected to the life process, as a whole, then very possibly, and probably, one could 'remember' another manifestation, from another time, when that intelligence, manifested itself, and in doing so, could have retained collected sensory data....

..not that YOU were another 'person' before....but you tapped into that data, via the ONE ongoing intelligence....of which is a part of you....as well as the prior. ITS ALL ONE!

...Even 'Time' itself, is subject to the dimensional manifestation of the observer.

Now, that wasn't too much of a stretch, was it?

It was almost perfectly ridiculous, actually. You plough on hopefully through your improbable whimsy as though your consciousness and collective intelligence for all life is a given. Tell me what consciousness or intelligence was possessed by those very first coacervate droplets that made the transition from non-life to life. Where's the consciousness and intelligence in cyanobacteria living on a rock-face? Your proposition is charmingly higher-animal-centric (there's probably a word for that). You unwittingly produce an insoluble paradox by suggesting on the one hand that life/intelligence in one big collective, then you propose that it's some kind of train that we jump on. In that, you cheerfully skate over everything we know about evolution. You may well have something, but the baby has gone down the drain. To cap it all, you conclude with an indecipherable final sentence about time.

Incidentally, I'd be more inclined to avoid contention if you were more inclined to avoid snide little asides.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 06:09 AM

Sorry, I intended the italics to start at the beginning of that post.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 06:13 AM

is one big collective

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 09:56 AM

If science creates an intelligent machine from synthetic material that we define as intelligenent as a human..should one consider this "manufactured thing" to be the same as what evolotution produced? Should they be given the same rights and considerations as evolved life, such as humans? In the current situation, should an intelligent computers be considered life? If not, why not? (In this question, for discussion purposes, let's omit any consideration for any Gods).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:03 AM

Grishka
"If after our deaths we find out that our gods don't exist at all, they will forgive us".

I have been trying to avoid religion and God related discussion in my posts, because my observation that firm positions on it seems to cloud discussion and lead to dead end (and sometrime frustrated) directions.

While your statement above seems reasonable to me,I suspect a similar statement in the other direction like "we could have a lot to lose, so why not make a small investment while alive", also seems reasonable to me. It's a personal choice, is all I can conclude on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:04 AM

OK, on that one I will bite Ed. I'd think if we truly did create a computer that thought for itself and had a free will, I would consider it a life form.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:18 AM

Well we'll have to wait and see. Life has never been defined as a phenomenon requiring a certain level of intelligence (in fact, I don't even think intelligence has ever been satisfactorily defined). As an old-fashioned biology teacher, I'm inclined to stick, at least for the time being, until someone comes up with a better list, to the criteria of life that the musty old school books parrot out. Movement in part or whole under own steam, nutrition, respiration, irritability/sensitivity to stimuli, excretion, growth, and - a toughie for the machines I fear - reproduction. Unkindly, many a biologist has also inserted an eighth: possession of controlling nucleic acids. Now that is rather a high bar. As for whether it's equivalent to what evolution achieved, I don't much sign of natural selection going on in the manufacture of machines. You'll need another word.

And I didn't mention God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:25 AM

I think intelligence and personality and free will probably exists in all animal life forms Steve. To use cats I've known past and present as an example, even if each was identical in appearance, I'd know which was which. They would all have what I would call "catty traits" but they are none the less individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:02 AM

Reproduction may not be such "a toughie" for machines...especially if one see beyond the way humans do it. A machinge making another machine (even another version) is likely not that far off from reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

And the DNA? Reproduction in living things has a particular and fairly narrow meaning and context. It isn't like doing photocopies.

I think intelligence and personality and free will probably exists in all animal life forms Steve.

Well I can't argue that my cat doesn't possess all three. But my cat is a higher animal. I'm looking at the black mould growing on my window frame. Can't see much sign of personality or intelligence there. As for its free will, I suppose its spores blow helplessly around and just had to grow in the first suitable place they landed. Don't see much free will being exercised there. As I said to Mr Sanity, it's all too easy to get higher-animal-centric about these things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:55 AM

I must admit I'd have difficulty in relating what I said to amoeba... So yes maybe just higher animals?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:22 PM

Ed T, when I wrote "If after our deaths we find out that our gods don't exist at all, they will forgive us", this was meant as an aperçu. Our errors are forgiven already.

Those who think in terms of return-on-investment in afterlife, notably Blaise Pascal, have quite a different idea of spirituality than my own one. In my opinion, trading with God, for Karma, indulgence, or whatever, is not a dignified way of dealing with the foundations of our existence. Many theologists (more or less secretly) agree to that, but believers often insist on business and want their priests for pimps.

Similar considerations apply to prayers, blessings, etc. about earthly matters such as Lincolnshire gritters (see that thread).

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:27 PM

Guest Jon.....says.....I'd think if we truly did create a computer that thought for itself and had a free will, I would consider it a life form......... I am asking if the 'Creator' would be the computers God?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

You have gone above my head there, Georgiansilver.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 12:55 PM

It's a question that has intrigued theologians, not to mention sci-fi writers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM

Theologians are rather easily intrigued, unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 01:38 PM

That genuine theologians are easily intrigued is not something I would see as a misfortune. We are taught to blindly accept and from my POV that is probably my own way out but to question is part of human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

Grishka

I can see if you view "a belief in a God" in the distorted (IMO)way you describe....trading with a God for a return-on-investment in afterlife....dealing with (religious) pimps (on earth)... it's no wonder you choose another route.

I am not be a person to disrespect you for this "personal choice". I suspect you would also respect others who did not see it in the same odd terms (IMO) you post, and made a different "personal choice".

I am curious, just how have you managed to tap into the "secret" minds" of theologists? Are those the living, or the departed? (or, was that another an aperçu)?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 04:33 PM

Steve: "Incidentally, I'd be more inclined to avoid contention if you were more inclined to avoid snide little asides."

"So, let's establish a couple of premises, that can be agreed upon, by all.(Steve excluded, unless he thinks that 'contention' is a meaningful exercise, other than enjoying the process)....."

Steve: "It was almost perfectly ridiculous, actually. You plough on hopefully through your improbable whimsy as though your consciousness and collective intelligence for all life is a given."

I'm sorry, yours excluded, but I had it covered, when I posted (snidely or accurately) ...

GfS:"...All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded,"


I wish in your anxieties to 'snipe out', that you wouldn't be so 'slow'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 08:36 PM

I wish your posts actually made sense. Now of course that could be construed as snide, but at least it's an accurate observation. That last one is all over the place. Sort of post I might make after about ten pints of bitter. Of course, you do have the option of responding to points in my posts, but hey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:46 PM

Does nag, nag, nag, take the place of widening your scope? I only gave you a premise..that makes perfect sense. I'm not 'picking' on you. You just take it that way, and get defensive and ASSUME people assimilate like you....so you get contentious, and think everyone is on the 'attack'. Chill!

You could have said, "Hey cool, Thanks..something to consider.."....then consider it....After you lay aside......your delusion!

Wishing you well, anyways,

GfS


(The Living Thread....)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:09 AM

I've never had ten pints of bitter. Thank "God". (Don't take that religiously, Steve! It's a cultural expression to me, nothing more.) ;-) If I ever did have ten pints of bitter, it would probably kill me. Anyway, I can't stand the stuff, so it ain't gonna happen.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:28 AM

Hey Hawk!...Hope you had a great and thankful Thanksgiving!...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:43 AM

I did, GfS...but ours (Canadian Thanksgiving) is in October. What we did have tonight was an Orillia Folk Society concert at the local hall. It was quite good, and we turned a slight profit after paying the performers. (All we really aim for is to more or less break even...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: 3refs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:03 AM

"to question is part of human nature"

It's natural for humans to ask "the big questions(little ones too, I guess)". As has been stated! My questions are, when did this start, what caused it and are humans the only life form capable of questioning?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:24 AM

I'd feel sure cat's and dogs do have their own reasoning in their own ways but to question in the way humans do over how and why it all started, etc. is something I doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: 3refs
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:54 AM

What about chimps and dolphins!

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 04:18 AM

I've not a clue 3refs...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 05:09 AM

Ed T (26 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM), I was writing about some believers, not all of them. Joe O. would call them superstitious.

I am curious, just how have you managed to tap into the "secret" minds of theologists?

They keep their minds secret only towards their "superstitious" believers, who may otherwise be disappointed and join a fundamentalist sect. In books and four-eye talks many things sound differently than from the pulpit, although theology has learned to avoid downright self-contradictions. I am not accusing anyone of hypocracy, just pointing out that the conflict also exists inside each of the mainstream denominations, possibly even inside individuals. Of course, I am not an expert and do not know all the details of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:35 AM

You can pick on me all you like, Mr Sanity. I care not a jot. My asking you to articulate yourself clearly does not constitute "defensive." If I actually knew what you were on about I could argue with you. Here it goes again:

Steve: "Incidentally, I'd be more inclined to avoid contention if you were more inclined to avoid snide little asides."

"So, let's establish a couple of premises, that can be agreed upon, by all.(Steve excluded, unless he thinks that 'contention' is a meaningful exercise, other than enjoying the process)....."

Steve: "It was almost perfectly ridiculous, actually. You plough on hopefully through your improbable whimsy as though your consciousness and collective intelligence for all life is a given."

I'm sorry, yours excluded, but I had it covered, when I posted (snidely or accurately) ...

GfS:"...All living things have 'life' in them, fair enough? Collectively, all life on the planet, is 'life on the planet' as a whole...OK, (not too much a stretch). In this life, there is a consciousness, shared mutually by the forms of life, inhabiting the planet(Steve excluded,"


I wish in your anxieties to 'snipe out', that you wouldn't be so 'slow'!

You think that's clear? Ha ha. It's just an incoherent mess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

It is pretty hard to determine what various people are talking about here, Steve, because too many people are talking at once. Too many cooks always spoil the soup. I think that the only real solution would be for some of us to resort to PMs and talk to each other directly one on one instead of in a thread....because in a thread people constantly get distracted and diverted by something someone said that was a reaction to something someone else said that was a reaction to something yet another person said that was a reaction to something the first person said to yet another person who reacted to....AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (runs screaming from the room)

With that in mind, I may presently PM you so I can figure out what you are actually talking about, and so you can figure out what I am actually talking about. It might be a worthwhile start toward some kind of real communication. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:55 PM

Steve Shaw: "You think that's clear? Ha ha. It's just an incoherent mess."

It's perfectly clear.

...even 'more clear', should you elect to tap into that collective 'intelligence' that you seem to deny exists..

Wink,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:47 PM

Well, your post is there for the perusal of all, Sanity. I wonder if anyone else thinks it's "perfectly clear." Tell you what. Let's not bother asking 'em. I mean, for example, what's this?

I'm sorry, yours excluded, but I had it covered, when I posted (snidely or accurately) ...

...and this?

I wish in your anxieties to 'snipe out', that you wouldn't be so 'slow'!

It certainly isn't English in the usual sense of the word, is it? Either think about what you want to say and type it clearly or let's not bother to engage.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 02:57 AM

Steve Shaw: "It certainly isn't English in the usual sense of the word, is it? Either think about what you want to say and type it clearly or let's not bother to engage."

Huh?
You don't get that??

Besides, you answered MY post.

Are you over 25?..Maybe you just don't understand what was (and still is)common terminology. ..or.. re-read the exchange again..maybe you might 'get it'.

GfS

P.S....or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:30 AM

Well over 25, thanks. I did just about decipher your improbable whimsy, true enough, but little you've said since has yielded to my considerable attempts at mental processing. Perhaps, if you concentrated on the matter to hand instead of peppering your comments with the sarcastic little asides you appear to be unable to resist, clarity would prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM

If clarity ever succeeds in prevailing on this forum, I will leave my entire estate to the Jehovah's Witnesses... ;-D

(that's a joke)

Also, may God strike me down with a thunderbolt if I have failed to make myself totally clear!

(and that's another)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 01:55 PM

Well Hawk, he did re-read it(apparently), and is coming along...as per aforementioned, I reckoned he was a 'little slow'...but that's OK, as long as he gets in safe!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:06 PM

I must admit that I have difficulty in understanding some of GfS's pronouncements. Maybe it's apparent habit of falling asleep mid-sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM

Please redirect your enquiries and comments to the official "clarity" thread which I have just launched...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 06:47 PM

Well Hawk, he did re-read it(apparently), and is coming along...as per aforementioned, I reckoned he was a 'little slow'...but that's OK, as long as he gets in safe!

In the words of the mighty Ronnie Reagan, there you go again.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 01:42 AM

Dave McKenzie: "I must admit that I have difficulty in understanding some of GfS's pronouncements. Maybe it's apparent habit of falling asleep mid-sentence."

Try getting more sleep, then.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:24 AM

My apologies. That should have read: "Maybe it's his apparent habit of falling asleep mid-sentence."

And not spelling names correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: KirstenE
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 01:04 PM

I can understand where richard Dawkins is coming from, as I, like him, used to be an anti-theist. I then became less angry about the whole thing and just became a plain down to earth, non judgmental atheist (although I prefered the term 'Humanist' at the time). I moved on to become an agnostic, and I have now been a 'Theist' for the past 14 years.
"Seek and ye shall find"
"Judge ye not, as ye shall be judged".

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

We don't call religionists "anti-atheists." It's amusing that believers have adopted the converse terminology for atheists. Very amusing, and says much about the insecurity of those who indulge in such silliness.