OT: Raven's Blessings

[David Dalton]

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

I prayed to ALL (the someone that is all/everything) to activate
what it is capable of activating of what it likes of the four
components material. I then divined by perineum click
divination (which hasn’t been reliable for me) that the
activation had begun.

If that is true, then leading up to new moon (dark of moon),
which is in slightly less than a day away, and at new moon and
in the days after new moon there should be some
positive global changes. However I have gone through
many fake activation sequences before and chances
are that this is another one. But in this case, unlike
most of the past cases, I also divined that I shouldn’t
try to track the progress of the workings.

Since I associate new moon with Raven, I also associate
these supposed new-moon-centred workings with Bill
Reid’s (Haida) Raven and the First Men sculpture in the
Museum of Anthropology at The University of British
Columbia, near where I did my naked sun stare, thorn
hill climb,and blue rose vision on Sept. 5/6, 1991.
Again I associate Raven with new moon and the
clamshell (that is under Raven in the sculpture and
from which people are emerging) with the waxing
crescent after new moon (though the other half
of the clamshell could be the waning crescent,
noting that my sun stare took place during late
waning crescent).

But while I can’t track the workings by divination, if there
is no significant positive global news within the next
week I (and you) will have to assume that this is yet
another fake activation sequence. And perhaps then
my Salmon of Wisdom will have to be my giving up on
these four components once and for all, and focusing
on my writing, beginning with an overhaul of my
Salmon on the Thorns web page, to effect change.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

What a fucking moron.

[raven1]

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

[Smiler]

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

[David Dalton]

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn’t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn’t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

What does your current psychiatrist say?

You were insane then, and you're still insane.

Why are you so obsessed with wiping your lunacy in our faces?

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does your current psychiatrist say?
You were insane then, and you're still insane.
Why are you so obsessed with wiping your lunacy in our faces?

Nobody's perfect, Christopher. David has always been candid about his
unique perspective, and he is usually polite.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does your current psychiatrist say?
You were insane then, and you're still insane.
Why are you so obsessed with wiping your lunacy in our faces?

Nobody's perfect, Christopher. David has always been candid about his
unique perspective, and he is usually polite.

And that somehow excuses his mindless, unsolicited bullshit?

What does his current psychiatrist say?
He was insane then, and he's still insane.
Why is he so obsessed with spamming his lunacy in our faces?

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mike_Duffy
Nobody's perfect, Christopher. David has always been candid about his
unique perspective, and he is usually polite.

And that somehow excuses his mindless, unsolicited bullshit?

Being polite? Pretty much yes, in my reckoning.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does his current psychiatrist say?

I have never spoken to his doctors, but if you look into their details,
David's religious beliefs are not a danger to anyone, and no less crazy
than anything ever stated by other religious believers. In fact, during the
past few years they are more cogent and very often couched with expressions
of self-doubt. He has changed meds during the past year or two, and my
opinion is that the new ones are more effective.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He was insane then, and he's still insane.

If you look closely at what he says, David's world view is much closer to
average now than in the past. And has David clearly stated, his current
psychiatrist does not consider his beliefs any more insane than astrology
or superstition.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why is he so obsessed with spamming his lunacy in our faces?

He has not posted here very much during the past year or so whilst working
on his Ph.D. It is hardly what anyone should call spamming or obsession.

[j***@gmail.com]

Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:03:47 -0400, Mike_Duffy <***@bell.net>
wrote:
- hide quoted text -

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does your current psychiatrist say?
You were insane then, and you're still insane.
Why are you so obsessed with wiping your lunacy in our faces?

Nobody's perfect, Christopher. David has always been candid about his
unique perspective, and he is usually polite.

And that somehow excuses his mindless, unsolicited bullshit?

What does his current psychiatrist say?
He was insane then, and he's still insane.
Why is he so obsessed with spamming his lunacy in our faces
...........

Obsessed? YOU are obessive, Christopher.

[David Dalton]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does his current psychiatrist say?

My current psychiatrist thinks I am doing very well. My
sleep, energy, and mood are all fine, and he sees me
every six weeks whereas if he though I was doing
poorly he would want to see me more frequently. Also
he has made no adjustments in my medication since
2013 other than a reduction in the olanzapine from
10 mg nightly to 7.5 mg nightly about six months ago.
(I am also on 1250 mg divalproex sodium nightly.)

However i don’t discuss my religious beliefs with him
and he has not brought the subject up. But he knows
for example that I abstain from drinking 1--9 days
before full moon, since mid-July, 1997. Also at one
point I did offer him the URL to my Salmon on the
Thorns web page, saying it was autobiographical,
but he wasn’t interested; I guess he didn’t want to
do any extra reading outside of my appointments.

Also my Ph.D. in geophysics, which I resumed in
September 2015, has been going well. I and
coauthors have one paper published, one in
press, and one submitted, and I should be able to
compile four papers into a thesis after writing one
more paper. I expect to submit the thesis by the
end of 2017, defend it by March 2018, and be
granted the degree in May 2018. My supervisor
is pleased with my progress and has offered to
hire me as a postdoc after I finish, and has agreed
that I can take the summer of 2018 off and take
up the postdoc in September of 2018.

My religious/magickal beliefs are mostly on the
back burner and are not keeping me up all night
as they used to, and I haven’t been posting as
much as I used to, partly since many Usenet groups
are quite dead. Part of my reason for posting to
alt.atheism this time is that alt.atheism is a high
traffic group which has among its denizens both
atheists and a number of religious proselytizers.

Also i tend to be much less eccentric in my dealings
with other people offline than in my postings online,
and that is probably true of a lot of posters, though
many such do not use their real names online.

Given all that, I know Christopher that you are not
singling me out and that you heap derision on all
religious posters to alt.atheism . But note that my
claim to be similar to many past religious figures
may be evidence that mental illness lies at the
root of many religions.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does his current psychiatrist say?

My current psychiatrist thinks I am doing very well. My
sleep, energy, and mood are all fine, and he sees me
every six weeks whereas if he though I was doing
poorly he would want to see me more frequently. Also
he has made no adjustments in my medication since
2013 other than a reduction in the olanzapine from
10 mg nightly to 7.5 mg nightly about six months ago.
(I am also on 1250 mg divalproex sodium nightly.)
However i don’t discuss my religious beliefs with him
and he has not brought the subject up. But he knows
for example that I abstain from drinking 1--9 days
before full moon, since mid-July, 1997. Also at one
point I did offer him the URL to my Salmon on the
Thorns web page, saying it was autobiographical,
but he wasn’t interested; I guess he didn’t want to
do any extra reading outside of my appointments.

Perhaps you ought to behave towards him as you do here - that way he
might put you on more effective medication.

Post by David Dalton
Also my Ph.D. in geophysics, which I resumed in
September 2015, has been going well. I and
coauthors have one paper published, one in
press, and one submitted, and I should be able to
compile four papers into a thesis after writing one
more paper. I expect to submit the thesis by the
end of 2017, defend it by March 2018, and be
granted the degree in May 2018. My supervisor
is pleased with my progress and has offered to
hire me as a postdoc after I finish, and has agreed
that I can take the summer of 2018 off and take
up the postdoc in September of 2018.
My religious/magickal beliefs are mostly on the
back burner and are not keeping me up all night
as they used to, and I haven’t been posting as
much as I used to, partly since many Usenet groups
are quite dead. Part of my reason for posting to
alt.atheism this time is that alt.atheism is a high
traffic group which has among its denizens both
atheists and a number of religious proselytizers.

Which makes you just as off-topic as all the other religious loonies
who also spam the group with their bullshit.

The group was set up by atheists, for atheists to discuss our own
business.

Not for rude, stupid religious prosetylisers who haven't a hope in
hell(tm) of converting anybody because they live in a fantasy world
with no connection to reality - just as you do.

Besides which, the "truth" of somebody else's religionist hardly an
atheist issue - especially when there is no common ground because
their beliefs have no basis in reality

But they're going to tell us anyway, whether or not we're interested.

Post by David Dalton
Also i tend to be much less eccentric in my dealings
with other people offline than in my postings online,
and that is probably true of a lot of posters, though
many such do not use their real names online.

Try acting the way you do here, and see what happens.

Post by David Dalton
Given all that, I know Christopher that you are not
singling me out and that you heap derision on all
religious posters to alt.atheism .

Idiot.

Only those who deserve it - and that includes talking _at_ us as if
their beliefs were fact. After all, they know that in the real world,
it is merely one of hundreds of different religions,

And anybody who insists that nonsense like the Garden of Eden, Noah's
flood, virgin births and the rest of the twaddle is fact in the wider
world beyond their religion, deserves all the derision they get.

Regulars here know that The Lady In My Life since the mid-1990s is a
devout Catholic. But she isn't the kind that pushes their beliefs
where they are inappropriate.

She even understands what it means to an atheist to be one, and has
the commonsense and courtesy to respect that.

Because her father was raised Hindu but became an atheist in his
teens. When he fell in love, in a country and at a time when marriages
were arranged between families and love matches were almost unheard
of, he went through the motions of conversion to Catholicism. After
three decades of immersion in the religion and having raised a
Catholic family, he had a second, genuine baptism.

But this meant that he, his daughter and two sons actually understand
what an atheist is, and that it isn't what the typical theist insists
(another reason for well-deserved derision, especially when they have
been corrected). Eg I don't "believe there are no gods" - because I
wouldn't even give them a thought if rude, stupid theists kept them
where they belong.

Unlike the liars who come here claiming to be ex-atheists but show no
understanding of what it means to be one, or any of the obvious
atheist responses to typical theist "arguments".

One thing that shows just how stupid far too many theists are, is that
they cannot grasp the idea that, for people outside their religion,
it's just something somebody else believes - not just atheists but
also followers of other religions with different gods, so that Hindus
are going to see the Christian God/Jesus/etc in the same light as
Christians see the Hindu pantheon.

I first encountered this more than 60 years ago, when my class teacher
discovered that I wasn't a believer (my atheist parents never even
mentioned religion and gods). So she asked me the unbelievably stupid
"Who created all this, then?".

I'm sure you understand why it was stupid.

Post by David Dalton
But note that my
claim to be similar to many past religious figures
may be evidence that mental illness lies at the
root of many religions.

Actually, it's mostly childhood brainwashing going back before the
unfortunate infant has even learned to think. It warps their thought
processes, inducing mental illness. In computer terms, it's like
flashing a faulty BIOS.

[David Dalton]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by David Dalton

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does his current psychiatrist say?

My current psychiatrist thinks I am doing very well. My
sleep, energy, and mood are all fine, and he sees me
every six weeks whereas if he though I was doing
poorly he would want to see me more frequently. Also
he has made no adjustments in my medication since
2013 other than a reduction in the olanzapine from
10 mg nightly to 7.5 mg nightly about six months ago.
(I am also on 1250 mg divalproex sodium nightly.)
However i don’t discuss my religious beliefs with him
and he has not brought the subject up. But he knows
for example that I abstain from drinking 1--9 days
before full moon, since mid-July, 1997. Also at one
point I did offer him the URL to my Salmon on the
Thorns web page, saying it was autobiographical,
but he wasn’t interested; I guess he didn’t want to
do any extra reading outside of my appointments.

Perhaps you ought to behave towards him as you do here - that way he
might put you on more effective medication.

Medication is not going to affect my religious beliefs but
increased medication might have physical side effects
that would drastically shorten my lifespan; thus it is in
my interest to be on the minimum dosages that are
effective. Also I would expect that my psychiatrist
would treat my individual/eclectic pagan religion just
as he would treat a devout Christian, even though I
don’t have safety in numbers.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by David Dalton
Also my Ph.D. in geophysics, which I resumed in
September 2015, has been going well. I and
coauthors have one paper published, one in
press, and one submitted, and I should be able to
compile four papers into a thesis after writing one
more paper. I expect to submit the thesis by the
end of 2017, defend it by March 2018, and be
granted the degree in May 2018. My supervisor
is pleased with my progress and has offered to
hire me as a postdoc after I finish, and has agreed
that I can take the summer of 2018 off and take
up the postdoc in September of 2018.
My religious/magickal beliefs are mostly on the
back burner and are not keeping me up all night
as they used to, and I haven’t been posting as
much as I used to, partly since many Usenet groups
are quite dead. Part of my reason for posting to
alt.atheism this time is that alt.atheism is a high
traffic group which has among its denizens both
atheists and a number of religious proselytizers.

Which makes you just as off-topic as all the other religious loonies
who also spam the group with their bullshit.

However unlike them I am not trying to convert atheists to my
individual religion, and am not arguing for blind faith in any
“holy” book, and am not arguing against e.g. evolution or
geological history.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The group was set up by atheists, for atheists to discuss our own
business.

It is an unmoderated group, and you shouldn’t try to be a
self-appointed moderator. Also why don’t you start some
threads yourself more often, on atheism?

If you choose to follow up to this post you can have the
last word, and this will my last post to alt.atheism for a
while, though I am tempted to ramble about overlapping
consciousness wavelets, but will save that for a while.
However I will continue to scan the subject headers
in this group occasionally for signs of anything interesting
amongst the noise.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by David Dalton

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does his current psychiatrist say?

My current psychiatrist thinks I am doing very well. My
sleep, energy, and mood are all fine, and he sees me
every six weeks whereas if he though I was doing
poorly he would want to see me more frequently. Also
he has made no adjustments in my medication since
2013 other than a reduction in the olanzapine from
10 mg nightly to 7.5 mg nightly about six months ago.
(I am also on 1250 mg divalproex sodium nightly.)
However i don’t discuss my religious beliefs with him
and he has not brought the subject up. But he knows
for example that I abstain from drinking 1--9 days
before full moon, since mid-July, 1997. Also at one
point I did offer him the URL to my Salmon on the
Thorns web page, saying it was autobiographical,
but he wasn’t interested; I guess he didn’t want to
do any extra reading outside of my appointments.

Perhaps you ought to behave towards him as you do here - that way he
might put you on more effective medication.

Medication is not going to affect my religious beliefs but
increased medication might have physical side effects
that would drastically shorten my lifespan; thus it is in
my interest to be on the minimum dosages that are
effective. Also I would expect that my psychiatrist
would treat my individual/eclectic pagan religion just
as he would treat a devout Christian, even though I
don’t have safety in numbers.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by David Dalton
Also my Ph.D. in geophysics, which I resumed in
September 2015, has been going well. I and
coauthors have one paper published, one in
press, and one submitted, and I should be able to
compile four papers into a thesis after writing one
more paper. I expect to submit the thesis by the
end of 2017, defend it by March 2018, and be
granted the degree in May 2018. My supervisor
is pleased with my progress and has offered to
hire me as a postdoc after I finish, and has agreed
that I can take the summer of 2018 off and take
up the postdoc in September of 2018.
My religious/magickal beliefs are mostly on the
back burner and are not keeping me up all night
as they used to, and I haven’t been posting as
much as I used to, partly since many Usenet groups
are quite dead. Part of my reason for posting to
alt.atheism this time is that alt.atheism is a high
traffic group which has among its denizens both
atheists and a number of religious proselytizers.

Which makes you just as off-topic as all the other religious loonies
who also spam the group with their bullshit.

However unlike them I am not trying to convert atheists to my
individual religion, and am not arguing for blind faith in any
“holy” book, and am not arguing against e.g. evolution or
geological history.

But you _are_ wiping unsolicited nonsense in our faces.

Post by David Dalton

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The group was set up by atheists, for atheists to discuss our own
business.

It is an unmoderated group, and you shouldn’t try to be a
self-appointed moderator. Also why don’t you start some
threads yourself more often, on atheism?

Translation...

You just admitted you are a psychopath with no consideration for
others.

Do you understand why Usenet is divided into more than a hundred
thousand different newsgroups, each with its own topic?

Hint: it's so that people can subscribe to specific topics and don't
have to wade through all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

But you seem to imagine that your nonsensical bullshit is so important
it overrides that. As if you get to decide what is and what isn't an
issue for us.

Post by David Dalton
If you choose to follow up to this post you can have the
last word, and this will my last post to alt.atheism for a
while, though I am tempted to ramble about overlapping
consciousness wavelets, but will save that for a while.

Post it somewhere it is relevant and on topic, like alt.usenet.kooks.

Post by David Dalton
However I will continue to scan the subject headers
in this group occasionally for signs of anything interesting
amongst the noise.

Translation....

The rules of etiquette don't apply to you.

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by David Dalton
It is an unmoderated group, and you shouldn’t try to be a
self-appointed moderator.

+1

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you seem to imagine that your nonsensical bullshit is so important
it overrides that. As if you get to decide what is and what isn't an
issue for us.

'I' am one of 'us', and I always welcome seeing posts from David. But you
seem to imagine that your kneejerk vitriol is so important it overrides
that.

David's admission that he was insane in the clinical sense at the time when
he founded a religion should be enough to make his story mandatory reading
for all atheists as a refutation of religion in general. I cannot
understand why you don't get that.

And David is always polite, even when people such as yourself engage in
grade-school name-calling and emply a wide collection of perjorative terms.
(Loony, insane, crazy, etc.)

David is pretty much mentally normal on his current meds compared to the
past. How can we ever hope to create a compassionate environment for people
with mental issues if you want to permanently stigmatize them even after
they have turned their life around?

Are you perhaps jealous that at a relatively advanced age he is well on the
way to getting his Ph.D. in geophysics?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by David Dalton
It is an unmoderated group, and you shouldn’t try to be a
self-appointed moderator.

+1

One of the reasons Usenet has degenerated into a cess-pool is that far
too many people don't post where it is appropriate. And that's even
without the trolling sickos.

When it started, it was expected that people would follow Usenet
etiquette.

From the original alt.atheism FAQ archived at...

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/atheistf.htm

"I want to tell people about the virtues and benefits of my
religion."

Preaching is not appreciated.

Feel free to talk about your religion, but please do not write
postings that are on a "conversion" theme. Such postings do not
belong on alt.atheism and will be rejected from
alt.atheism.moderated (try the newsgroup talk.religion.misc).

You would doubtless not welcome postings from atheists to your
favourite newsgroup in an attempt to convert you; please do unto
others as you would have them do unto you!

Often theists make their basic claims about God in the form of
lengthy analogies or parables. Be aware that atheists have heard of
God and know the basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of
your parable is to tell atheists that God exists and brings
salvation, you may as well not post it, since it tells us nothing
we have not been told before.

He didn't post Christian spam, but it was still religious spam.

Also (from the same link)...

"Why have a newsgroup about atheism? Why do atheists organize in
groups? What is there to discuss?"

Many things are discussed in alt.atheism, including:
* Whether it is reasonable to pretend to be religious in order to
avoid upsetting one's family
* Prayer in schools
* Discrimination against atheists
* Sunday trading laws
* The Satanic Child Abuse myth
* Whether one should be an overt atheist or 'stay in the closet'
* How religious societies prey (sic) on new college students
* How to get rid of unwanted proselytizers
* Whether religion is a danger to society and/or the individual
* Why people become atheists

Of course, inevitably alt.atheism tends to attract evangelical
Christians looking for someone to convert. Most readers of the
newsgroup don't want to be preached to, although a few seem to
derive perverse pleasure from tearing apart particularly
ill-considered or uninformed postings.

I'll add things like relationships with theist spouses, secular
weddings and funerals, how to deal with creationism (not its
non-existant "merits")

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you seem to imagine that your nonsensical bullshit is so important
it overrides that. As if you get to decide what is and what isn't an
issue for us.

'I' am one of 'us', and I always welcome seeing posts from David. But you
seem to imagine that your kneejerk vitriol is so important it overrides
that.

Try talk.religion.misc.

And what "knee-jerk vitriol"?

Stupid theists who crash the group, reap what they sow,

Post by Mike_Duffy
David's admission that he was insane in the clinical sense at the time when
he founded a religion should be enough to make his story mandatory reading
for all atheists as a refutation of religion in general. I cannot
understand why you don't get that.

Perhaps because you can't think outside the box.

Post by Mike_Duffy
And David is always polite, even when people such as yourself engage in
grade-school name-calling and emply a wide collection of perjorative terms.
(Loony, insane, crazy, etc.)

You know perfectly well that they are only called those, when they are
- which is usually *after* they have been repeatedly corrected, when
they reap what they sow.

It _is_ both stupidity and rudeness when they talk at atheists (and
even members of other religions) as if their own religion were fact.

And most of the lies are the "reasons" they tell us why we don't share
their beliefs.

Post by Mike_Duffy
David is pretty much mentally normal on his current meds compared to the
past. How can we ever hope to create a compassionate environment for people
with mental issues if you want to permanently stigmatize them even after
they have turned their life around?

If he were, he wouldn't keep posting his unsolicited new age woo.

Post by Mike_Duffy
Are you perhaps jealous that at a relatively advanced age he is well on the
way to getting his Ph.D. in geophysics?

Idiot.

No more so than Peter Nyikos and his Phd in mathematics.

As long as he keeps the two separate because the domains and audience
are completely different. But Nyikos seems to imagine his PhD gives
him authority outside his field of expertise.

Ken Miller is a Professor of biology and molecular biolgy - and he
keeps his religion and his work completely separate. He only talks
religion with his fellow Catholics.

But given how Dalton pushes his wacky religious beliefs here, He might
not be able to do that.

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
From the original alt.atheism FAQ
[...] Feel free to talk about your religion,
but please do not write postings that are on
a "conversion" theme.

David has explicitely stated a few times that he NOT seeking converts.
Apparently, his epiphany was the result of a vision / hallucination, and he
does not expect others to have the same experience.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And what "knee-jerk vitriol"?

For instance, name-calling to anyone, atheist or not, who takes exception
to the content of your posts.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Idiot.

Good example.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
From the original alt.atheism FAQ
[...] Feel free to talk about your religion,
but please do not write postings that are on
a "conversion" theme.

Look at the whole quote, not just the bit you cherry-picked.

Missed this bit?

Be aware that atheists have heard of
God and know the basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of
your parable is to tell atheists that God exists and brings
salvation, you may as well not post it, since it tells us nothing
we have not been told before.

And what part of "it was religious spam" did you miss?

Post by Mike_Duffy
David has explicitely stated a few times that he NOT seeking converts.
Apparently, his epiphany was the result of a vision / hallucination, and he
does not expect others to have the same experience.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And what "knee-jerk vitriol"?

For instance, name-calling to anyone, atheist or not, who takes exception
to the content of your posts.

I don't.

Anybody who posts religious spam in the atheist group _is_ both stupid
and rude.

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Idiot.

Good example.

I just called you an idiot for being stupid.

You know perfectly well it's not for simple disagreement, but personal
lies used as ad hominems, repeated misrepresentation, etc.

Not to mention anybody who knows we are atheists but still posts
religious spam.

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Missed this bit?
Be aware that atheists have heard of
God and know the basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of
your parable is to tell atheists that God exists and brings
salvation, you may as well not post it, since it tells us nothing
we have not been told before.

None of his basic claims match those of most theists who post here. None of
David's beliefs have to do with 'salvation'. His beliefs are unique. Since
he has not posted in a while, his story may be new to new readers here.
Your 'cherry-picked' bit above does not apply.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Anybody who posts religious spam in the atheist group _is_ both stupid
and rude.

It is not spam because he is not seeking converts / donations / etc. In the
past years, his postings were at times tedious, but his work on his PhD has
cut his posts on those matters to a level reasonable for those (such as
myself) who posit that his story (having a religion experience in
conjunction with admission for psychiatric treatment) is in itself a sound
refutation of religion in general.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
I just called you an idiot for being stupid. You know perfectly well
it's not for simple disagreement, but personal lies used as ad hominems,

Calling someone an idiot is technically ad hominen, Christopher.

Telling someone to speak to his doctor about increasing his meds which have
turned him into a productive member of society is hateful and petty on your
part. David has it from his doctor that his religious beliefs are no more
harmful than superstitions & astrology. People who need psychoactive
medication in order to function properly are not helped at all to integrate
into society by those who seek to humiliate and denigrate them. I am sure
you would not publicly call an amputee a 'cripple'. Why do you want to call
a former mental patient currently on mind-altering medication a 'looney'?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Missed this bit?
Be aware that atheists have heard of
God and know the basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of
your parable is to tell atheists that God exists and brings
salvation, you may as well not post it, since it tells us nothing
we have not been told before.

None of his basic claims match those of most theists who post here. None of
David's beliefs have to do with 'salvation'. His beliefs are unique. Since
he has not posted in a while, his story may be new to new readers here.
Your 'cherry-picked' bit above does not apply.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Anybody who posts religious spam in the atheist group _is_ both stupid
and rude.

It is not spam because he is not seeking converts / donations / etc. In the
past years, his postings were at times tedious, but his work on his PhD has
cut his posts on those matters to a level reasonable for those (such as
myself) who posit that his story (having a religion experience in
conjunction with admission for psychiatric treatment) is in itself a sound
refutation of religion in general.

So it's only spam if he's trying to convert people, on your planet?

Most of us aren't bothered with refuting religion. It's part of the
human condition.

We do, however, refute the unsolicited nonsense which they can't keep
to themselves.

And the unsolicited nonsense is still spam - as well as being rude and
stupid when they know we are atheists.

Post by Mike_Duffy

Post by Christopher A. Lee
I just called you an idiot for being stupid. You know perfectly well
it's not for simple disagreement, but personal lies used as ad hominems,

Calling someone an idiot is technically ad hominen, Christopher.

Only when it's instead of the explanation which they have ignored for
the umpteenth time.

Post by Mike_Duffy
Telling someone to speak to his doctor about increasing his meds which have
turned him into a productive member of society is hateful and petty on your
part. David has it from his doctor that his religious beliefs are no more
harmful than superstitions & astrology. People who need psychoactive
medication in order to function properly are not helped at all to integrate
into society by those who seek to humiliate and denigrate them. I am sure
you would not publicly call an amputee a 'cripple'. Why do you want to call
a former mental patient currently on mind-altering medication a 'looney'?

Did you notice that he hasn't told his doctor what he gets up to,
here?

He simply reaps what he sows - in a place many of us joined a long
time ago to discuss atheist issues in a theoretically theism-free
zone.

[Mike_Duffy]

So it's only spam if he's trying to convert people [...]?

Although spamming is usually connected to solicitation of money, I'll grant
you that trying to persuade people to do something meets the generalized
definition of advertising (colloquially known as spamming). Thus if it is
to be considered spamming, there needs to be a specific goal other than
free exchange of information about his religious experience, as per the
section of the charter I cherry-picked for you in an earlier post. If there
is an ulterior motive, I don't see it. He's not selling anything, and he's
not looking for converts.

People who need psychoactive medication in order to
function properly are not helped at all to integrate
into society by those who seek to humiliate and denigrate them.
I am sure you would not publicly call an amputee a 'cripple'.
Why do you want to call a former mental patient currently
on mind-altering medication a 'looney'?

Did you notice that he hasn't told his doctor what he gets up to,
here?

No. I'm not clear what your point is though. His doctor considers his
beliefs harmless, on par with astrology. Presumably if he posts them here,
nobody will get too upset. At least not most of us.

But I did notice that you refrained from answering my solitary question. It
is included again above.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mike_Duffy

So it's only spam if he's trying to convert people [...]?

Although spamming is usually connected to solicitation of money, I'll grant
you that trying to persuade people to do something meets the generalized
definition of advertising (colloquially known as spamming). Thus if it is

Spam was around long before Usenet advertising. It's junk mail -
whatever the content.

Post by Mike_Duffy
to be considered spamming, there needs to be a specific goal other than
free exchange of information about his religious experience, as per the
section of the charter I cherry-picked for you in an earlier post. If there
is an ulterior motive, I don't see it. He's not selling anything, and he's
not looking for converts.

It's still just as much spam as the neverending Christian God-talk,
junk mail.

None of it is proselytising - if it were, they would try to convince
people instead of rudely and stupidly presuming it.

Especially when they bring it up in the first place, even though it is
off-topic and inappropriate.

It is just plain bad manners to talk religion unless you know enough
about your audience to know they don't mind. Especially when you treat
it as fact. where you know they aren't ging to share your belief.

Post by Mike_Duffy

People who need psychoactive medication in order to
function properly are not helped at all to integrate
into society by those who seek to humiliate and denigrate them.

Straw man, noted.

Why do you invent motives that aren't there?

Post by Mike_Duffy

I am sure you would not publicly call an amputee a 'cripple'.
Why do you want to call a former mental patient currently
on mind-altering medication a 'looney'?

Did you notice that he hasn't told his doctor what he gets up to,
here?

And did you notice that his doctor wasn't interested in his web site.

Post by Mike_Duffy
No. I'm not clear what your point is though. His doctor considers his
beliefs harmless, on par with astrology. Presumably if he posts them here,
nobody will get too upset. At least not most of us.

He hasn't been honest with his doctor. It is never wise to insist on
talking religion around people you know are atheists because the one
thing you _do_ know is that they won't already believe it.

Post by Mike_Duffy
But I did notice that you refrained from answering my solitary question. It
is included again above.

Your stupid, lying ad hominem "Are you perhaps jealous that at a
relatively advanced age he is well on the way to getting his Ph.D. in
geophysics?"?

Which was another example of your inventing motives that aren't there.

And your hypocritical accusation that I used an ad hominem when I
called you an idiot for it?

Idiot or liar, take your pick - both would have been appropriate
responses to both your question and your subsequent accusation.

Which, incidentally, is one of the reasons why so many theit trolls
get called liars and idiots.

But then you already know this, because it has been pointed out many
times.

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is just plain bad manners to talk religion unless you know enough
about your audience to know they don't mind.

Some of us don't mind. If it is an attempt to troll you personally, it
would seem to be remarkably effective.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And did you notice that his doctor wasn't interested in his web site.

His doctor considered it 'harmless', as I have already said at least twice.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mike_Duffy
No. I'm not clear what your point is though. His doctor considers his
beliefs harmless, on par with astrology. Presumably if he posts them here,
nobody will get too upset. At least not most of us.

He hasn't been honest with his doctor. It is never wise to insist on
talking religion around people you know are atheists because the one
thing you _do_ know is that they won't already believe it.

I'm an atheist. Quite frankly, I do not even understand David's pantheon
and what exactly is entailed by an 'activation sequence', let alone believe
in any of it. But I do find the whole framework fascinating as an
instantiation of a religion that has not been fostered by the more common
method of childhood indoctrination. For that reason alone I welcome his
descriptions. Plus, I have noticed certain changes in the way he describes
his beliefs, no doubt due to the new meds. It allows me to constantly
re-assess what I know regarding the mental illness collectively known as
'religion'.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mike_Duffy
But I did notice that you refrained from answering my solitary question. It
is included again above.

Your stupid, lying ad hominem "Are you perhaps jealous that at a
relatively advanced age he is well on the way to getting his Ph.D. in
geophysics?"?

Oh no! That was simply a possible explanation for your general level of
hostility, phrased as a question to make it easy for you to refute, which
you have already done as I expected.

The question which you have missed is:

I am sure you would not publicly call an amputee a 'cripple'.
Why do you want to call a former mental patient currently
on mind-altering medication a 'looney'?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Idiot or liar, take your pick - both would have been appropriate
responses to both your question and your subsequent accusation.

I'm not at all miffed by anything you might say about myself Christopher.
Pick one yourself. Just please try to be a bit more understanding of people
with mental disabilities. David is at least currently on effective
medication, but there are others who regularly post here who do not have
that benefit.

There is one who admits to a cranial injury, and there's one who appears to
have his brain arteries clogged with cholesterol after a lifetime of
gluttony, and there is one who has had his brain infected by pathogens due
to a chronic practice of drinking untreated water from an open sewer.

There are others who probably suffered child abuse, mind-damaging drugs, or
the horrors of life-gone-bad. Don't just assume they are all stupid.

[j***@gmail.com]

Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 02:32:58 -0230, David Dalton <***@nfld.com>
- show quoted text -
But you _are_ wiping unsolicited nonsense in our faces.

Post by David Dalton

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The group was set up by atheists, for atheists to discuss our own
business.

It is an unmoderated group, and you shouldn’t try to be a
self-appointed moderator. Also why don’t you start some
threads yourself more often, on atheism?

Translation...

You just admitted you are a psychopath with no consideration for
others.

Do you understand why Usenet is divided into more than a hundred
thousand different newsgroups, each with its own topic?

Hint: it's so that people can subscribe to specific topics and don't
have to wade through all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

But you seem to imagine that your nonsensical bullshit is so important
it overrides that. As if you get to decide what is and what isn't an
issue for us.

Post by David Dalton
If you choose to follow up to this post you can have the
last word, and this will my last post to alt.atheism for a
while, though I am tempted to ramble about overlapping
consciousness wavelets, but will save that for a while.

Post it somewhere it is relevant and on topic, like alt.usenet.kooks.

Post by David Dalton
However I will continue to scan the subject headers
in this group occasionally for signs of anything interesting
amongst the noise.

Translation....

The rules of etiquette don't apply to you
............

Christopher, maybe you should post to alt.endless.repetition. You are boring because you are predictable.

[j***@gmail.com]

It is an unmoderated group, and you shouldn’t try to be a
self-appointed moderator. Also why don’t you start some
threads yourself more often, on atheism?
..............

It's a good question.

[David Dalton]

I am reposting this since it never showed up on the
Eternal September newsserver though it did on
google groups, and another post I just made via
Eternal September showed up there fine so the
newsserver is not down.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
What does your current psychiatrist say?

My current psychiatrist thinks I am doing very well. My
sleep, energy, and mood are all fine, and he sees me
every six weeks whereas if he though I was doing
poorly he would want to see me more frequently. Also
he has made no adjustments in my medication since
2013 other than a reduction in the olanzapine from
10 mg nightly to 7.5 mg nightly about six months ago.
(I am also on 1250 mg divalproex sodium nightly.)

However i don’t discuss my religious beliefs with him
and he has not brought the subject up. But he knows
for example that I abstain from drinking 1--9 days
before full moon, since mid-July, 1997. Also at one
point I did offer him the URL to my Salmon on the
Thorns web page, saying it was autobiographical,
but he wasn’t interested; I guess he didn’t want to
do any extra reading outside of my appointments.

Also my Ph.D. in geophysics, which I resumed in
September 2015, has been going well. I and
coauthors have one paper published, one in
press, and one submitted, and I should be able to
compile four papers into a thesis after writing one
more paper. I expect to submit the thesis by the
end of 2017, defend it by March 2018, and be
granted the degree in May 2018. My supervisor
is pleased with my progress and has offered to
hire me as a postdoc after I finish, and has agreed
that I can take the summer of 2018 off and take
up the postdoc in September of 2018.

My religious/magickal beliefs are mostly on the
back burner and are not keeping me up all night
as they used to, and I haven’t been posting as
much as I used to, partly since many Usenet groups
are quite dead. Part of my reason for posting to
alt.atheism this time is that alt.atheism is a high
traffic group which has among its denizens both
atheists and a number of religious proselytizers.

Also i tend to be much less eccentric in my dealings
with other people offline than in my postings online,
and that is probably true of a lot of posters, though
many such do not use their real names online.

Given all that, I know Christopher that you are not
singling me out and that you heap derision on all
religious posters to alt.atheism . But note that my
claim to be similar to many past religious figures
may be evidence that mental illness lies at the
root of many religions.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
You were insane then, and you're still insane.

That is fine as long as you also consider the six billion
people in religions to be insane, which I expect you do.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why are you so obsessed with wiping your lunacy in our faces?

That statement makes it seem as though I have been
frequently posting to alt.atheism recently, which I certainly
have not; this is the first in a while.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn’t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

[%]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

it just is

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by %

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

it just is

Okay. You're making shit up again.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:50:06 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Do these liars really not understand the falsifiable conclusion?

You falsify it by coming up with the evidence that they bullshit about
but never provide.

Not by lying about those who simply want them to put up or shut up.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:50:06 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Do these liars really not understand the falsifiable conclusion?

Yes, you bloody coward, but the falsifiable conclusion is that you have not SEEN convincing evidence NOT that none exists. Is that really so hard for you to grasp??

Post by Christopher A. Lee
You falsify it by coming up with the evidence that they bullshit about
but never provide.

I falsify it by providing evidence that convinces you, you silly, pretentious git.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Not by lying about those who simply want them to put up or shut up.

Why are you so afraid of me that you can't tell me PERSONALLY to put up?

I've been on USENET for 20+ years and I've never seen such a pathetic coward as you are, CHRISTopher.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.

But as a mortal human being, the best you can claim is that you've considered all the arguments, claims, apologetics etc that you've seen and nothing has convinced you.

But this is too frightening for you, I expect, so you will go on claiming "no evidence for God exists" by, implicitly, pretending to be an omniscient God yourself.

Oh, the irony!

[j***@gmail.com]

Kurt Nicklas
- show quoted text -
Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.
..........

Okay, then no one can rule out anything. Charlie Chaplin might be a genie--you can't say he's not because you don't know everything.

Got it. This is a very old line of argument that is over-trod.

[yi]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Okay, then no one can rule out anything. Charlie Chaplin might be a genie--you can't say he's not because you don't know everything.
Got it. This is a very old line of argument that is over-trod.

Charlie Chaplin isn't a genie. I know this because I saw his house.

Buster Keaton is --- however --- a genie.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.

It does no such thing. Where do you come up with these incredibly silly ideas?

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.

It does no such thing. Where do you come up with these incredibly silly ideas?

From someone who, unlike you, can actually understand English and who has common sense.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.

It does no such thing. Where do you come up with these incredibly silly ideas?

From someone who, unlike you, can actually understand English and who has common sense.

So you're fantasizing.

Why don't you understand the very simple concept that, were actual and real evidence be shown for the existence of ANY god, that we would re-evaluate our position and believe. Not worship, of course, because your god is a psychopathic genocidal psychopathic monster, but believe it's real.

But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not believe.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.

It does no such thing. Where do you come up with these incredibly silly ideas?

From someone who, unlike you, can actually understand English and who has common sense.

So you're fantasizing.

Nonsense.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Why don't you understand the very simple concept that, were actual and real evidence be shown for the existence of ANY god, that we would re-evaluate our position and believe.

I've seen no convincing evidence that you are sufficiently rational and objective that you would cast aside a belief you've clearly held your whole life.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not worship, of course, because your god is a psychopathic genocidal psychopathic monster, but believe it's real.

Believe or don't believe, it's nevertheless irrational to claim no evidence exists for God.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not believe.

You're fooling yourself.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas
So you're fantasizing.

Nonsense.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Why don't you understand the very simple concept that, were actual and real evidence be shown for the existence of ANY god, that we would re-evaluate our position and believe.

I've seen no convincing evidence that you are sufficiently rational and objective that you would cast aside a belief you've clearly held your whole life.

What belief?

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not worship, of course, because your god is a psychopathic genocidal psychopathic monster, but believe it's real.

Believe or don't believe, it's nevertheless irrational to claim no evidence exists for God.

Then you can provide some evidence??????

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas
But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not believe.

You're fooling yourself.

No, I'm being sane and rational. Believing in anything for which there is no evidence is both insane and irrational.

[yi]

Post by Jeanne Douglas
But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not believe.

I saw her.

10 mytrlewood discs says you can't prove me wrong, given my answers are guaranteed to be 100% truthful to any direct question.

[j***@gmail.com]

eanne Douglas
- hide quoted text -

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation, every lecture, every sermon.

It does no such thing. Where do you come up with these incredibly silly ideas?

From someone who, unlike you, can actually understand English and who has common sense.

So you're fantasizing.

Why don't you understand the very simple concept that, were actual and real evidence be shown for the existence of ANY god, that we would re-evaluate our position and believe. Not worship, of course, because your god is a psychopathic genocidal psychopathic monster, but believe it's real.

But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not believe
..........

Great. Don't. Why go on about it?

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
eanne Douglas
Why don't you understand the very simple concept that, were actual and real=
evidence be shown for the existence of ANY god, that we would re-evaluate =
our position and believe. Not worship, of course, because your god is a psy=
chopathic genocidal psychopathic monster, but believe it's real.=20
But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not belie=
ve
..........
Great. Don't. Why go on about it?

Go on about what?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 19:29:46 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

=20

Post by Smiler

Post by raven1

I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components (a
collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Insanity.

=20
My former psychiatrist called it magical thinking and didn=E2=80=99t
think it was a big problem. (So he lumped it in with things
such as astrology.) That was back when I thought you
could use eyebrow analysis to do matchmaking.

Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

How is that "magical"?

Because it assumes omniscience.

Where does it do any such thing?

When it says, "There is no evidence for God".

And how is that omniscience?

Because the statement implies you've been everywhere, talked to
everyone, read every relevant book, every paper, heard every speculation,
every lecture, every sermon.

Once again, the liar pretends he doesn't understand the falsifiable
conclusion.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas
It does no such thing. Where do you come up with these incredibly silly ideas?

From someone who, unlike you, can actually understand English and who has common sense.

Again, the personal lie from the troll who pretends he doesn't
understand the methodology that even theists use for unsupported
claims about everything else apart from their religion.

Even though he has had it explained over and over again.

He seems to imagine the latter are exempt from the rules which apply
to everything else.

And that exemption applies to everybody .

Post by Jeanne Douglas
So you're fantasizing.
Why don't you understand the very simple concept that, were actual and real
evidence be shown for the existence of ANY god, that we would re-evaluate
our position and believe. Not worship, of course, because your god is a
psychopathic genocidal psychopathic monster, but believe it's real.

That's a different issue - but their brainwashing causes cognitive
dissonance which prevents their understanding this.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
But until that evidence is provided, the ONLY sane response is to not believe.

[Kevrob]

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

That is deplorable.

It should be:

"There is no CREDIBLE evidence for the existence of any ghod(z.)"

Curdles: one troll supporting another.

Kevin R

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Magical thinking is like when an atheist in A.A says,
"There is NO evidence for the existence of God!!!"

That is deplorable.
"There is no CREDIBLE evidence for the existence of any ghod(z.)"

Have it your way...it's still irrational, magical thinking.

Post by Kevrob
Curdles: one troll supporting another.

You don't believe I'm a troll. Admit it.

[David Dalton]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

[raven1]

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

[David Dalton]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I also posted the same woo to Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim,
Catholic, and Taoist groups though I am not now
associated with any of them either (I was raised
Catholic but it never stuck). And I also posted the
same woo to druid, shaman, magick, native, and
traditional witch groups. On the very slight chance
that it could work, I thought I would inform atheists
as well, though I expected flames in return.

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by David Dalton
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

Don't take too much time away from your 'day job', but I, for one, would be
interested in this. Like I have said in the past, sometimes good
information can be learned about a complex system (such as a human brain)
by studying an instantiation of one that is operating outside of the
conventional 'performance envelope'.

[raven1]

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

[Kevrob]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

Aren't there pagans who don't actually believe in ghodz, but use
ghod-language metaphorically as stand-ins for the forces of nature,
or for psychological states? That's a bit like having "Santa Claus"
visit the office Christmas party, where there are no believing
children in attendance. Nobody is expected to credit it as the
"real Father Christmas." See: Father Time, Mother Nture and Old Man Winter.

Now, as for me, as soon as you start anthropomorphizing such things
you are on the slippery slope to theism. I'm one of the sub-set of
atheists who thinks that any non-verifiable supernatural phenomenon,
such as astrology, is woo, buncombe or worse. So, unless David were
doing this as part of some controlled experiment, it would be of no
interest to me.

raven1, when Dave was praying, you didn't get a slight telepathic twinge?
{Didn't think so.}

Kevin R

[David Dalton]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

Thatâ??s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

The ones who actually believe in unevidenced deities most certainly are.

[Mike_Duffy]

Post by Jeanne Douglas
The ones who actually believe in unevidenced deities most certainly are.

David's path to enlightenment is very dissimilar to others. His is a
religion of one follower. He did not gain his beliefs via childhood
indocrination nor cultish persuasion. He is not seeking converts. He is
actually a founder of a completely distinct religion. He posts here because
he was atheist once, and I'm sure that at least one reason he posts here is
that I for one have told him I find his insights interesting bordering on
fascinating just because of this distinction.

He has compared his experiences with those of other religious founders.
Before you say 'megalomania', David has confirmed several times that he
was, at the time of his 'blue rose' epiphany, well within the throes of a
severe manic episode that ended up putting him into the hospital for a
while. (More for the doctors to figure out why he was climbing a hill of
thorny bushes completely naked than to recover from injuries suffered doing
such.)

[raven1]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.

On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

[j***@gmail.com]

raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.

On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.
..........

And you're the image of sanity.

[David Dalton]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

[aaa]

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

Where does this consciousness come from?

[Melzzzzz]

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

[aaa]

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

[Melzzzzz]

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

These morons don't know, so it must be a magical superbeing in which
they didn't previously believe.

After all, that's what they expect of us.

[Melzzzzz]

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

These morons don't know, so it must be a magical superbeing in which
they didn't previously believe.
After all, that's what they expect of us.

Problem with explanation : `God did it` is that it says `who` but don't `how`
;)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:30:31 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

These morons don't know, so it must be a magical superbeing in which
they didn't previously believe.
After all, that's what they expect of us.

Problem with explanation : `God did it` is that it says `who` but don't `how`
;)

That, as well - their nonsense is like "a dropped object doesn't fall
with an acceleration due to gravity, The Great Green Arkleseizure
makes it happen".

[aaa]

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

[Melzzzzz]

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:25:20 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

When scientists started investigating and understanding reality while
philosophers carried on making up baseless nonsense about it.

[aaa]

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

[Melzzzzz]

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

You lack basic knowledge about philosophy. Every science has phylosophy
behind it, I learned that in history of philosophy subject on
university.

[aaa]

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

You lack basic knowledge about philosophy. Every science has phylosophy
behind it, I learned that in history of philosophy subject on
university.

You are probably right. I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with thoughts.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with thoughts.

What about natural philosophy?

[Melzzzzz]

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with thoughts.

Philosophy made ground for science. Also philosophy emerged atheism.
Atheism and philosophy are not incompatible at all. There are/were
atheist philosophers.

[aaa]

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by aaa
Where does this consciousness come from?

From brain?

How can that be? by magic?

Magic until we know how consciousness emerges.

You never will since science can never explain philosophy.

Science emerged from philosophy.

No. Science is never a formal part of philosophy. Its focus has always
been fundamentally different from philosophy.

Science deals with facts. Philosophy deals with thoughts.

False. Science deals with the physical world. Philosophy deals with the
spiritual truth that determines the physical world. Science studies the
effect. Philosophy studies the cause.

[j***@gmail.com]

aaa
- hide quoted text -

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

Where does this consciousness come from?
.............

What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

[aaa]

Post by j***@gmail.com
aaa
- hide quoted text -

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

Where does this consciousness come from?
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source. Consciousness is an
energy that demonstrates life. Such energy is like a burning flame. It
must rely on its source to continue to exist.

[j***@gmail.com]

aaa
- show quoted text -

Post by j***@gmail.com
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source.
..........

That's the linear perspective. Now what about a cyclical viewpoint?--where does a circle begin?

[aaa]

aaa - show quoted text -

Post by j***@gmail.com
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source. ..........
That's the linear perspective. Now what about a cyclical
viewpoint?--where does a circle begin?

Circle or not, all physical existence begins from the mind. It's not
just linear. It's called cause and effect.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Post by aaa

aaa - show quoted text -

Post by j***@gmail.com
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source. ..........

Does God exist?

Post by aaa

That's the linear perspective. Now what about a cyclical
viewpoint?--where does a circle begin?

Circle or not, all physical existence begins from the mind. It's not
just linear. It's called cause and effect.

The brain can't effect anything.

[aaa]

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa

aaa - show quoted text -

Post by j***@gmail.com
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source. ..........

Does God exist?

God exists as the source and the cause of all spiritual and physical
existences.

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa

That's the linear perspective. Now what about a cyclical
viewpoint?--where does a circle begin?

Circle or not, all physical existence begins from the mind. It's not
just linear. It's called cause and effect.

The brain can't effect anything.

The spiritual is the cause of the physical.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Post by aaa

Post by j***@gmail.com
aaa
- hide quoted text -

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

Where does this consciousness come from?
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source.

Does God exist?

Post by aaa
Consciousness is an energy that demonstrates life. Such energy is like
a burning flame. It must rely on its source to continue to exist.

In mammals the source is our brain.

[aaa]

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa

Post by j***@gmail.com
aaa
- hide quoted text -

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

Where does this consciousness come from?
..............
What does it mean for consciousness to "come from" someplace?

Everything that exists needs to have a source.

Does God exist?

God, as the first cause, is the ultimate source of all things that exist.

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa
Consciousness is an energy that demonstrates life. Such energy is like
a burning flame. It must rely on its source to continue to exist.

In mammals the source is our brain.

That is just a make belief. Consciousness is non-physical. It does not
belong to the physical things.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Post by aaa

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa
Everything that exists needs to have a source.

Does God exist?

God, as the first cause, is the ultimate source of all things that exist.

If God exists God needs to have a source.
"Everything that exists needs to have a source."

Post by aaa

Post by Lucifer Morningstar

Post by aaa
Consciousness is an energy that demonstrates life. Such energy is like
a burning flame. It must rely on its source to continue to exist.

In mammals the source is our brain.

That is just a make belief.

Not at all.

Post by aaa
Consciousness is non-physical. It does not belong to the physical
things.

Consciousness requires a functioning brain.
When the brain ceases to function "you" cease to exist.

[raven1]

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

It was labelled OT for off-topic.

Yes, I know. BUT WHY POST WOO HERE??? To be a gigantic douche?

To reach representatives of a large proportion of the human
population, and because I was an atheist for many years
and consider atheism to be one of my root paths. If
I am successful, which I now think is unlikely, I would
try to explain how it happened scientifically, at least
in an arm waving fashion, perhaps in terms of nonlinear
chaos theory/catastrophe theory.

I see. You could have just replied "I'm nuts". It would be a lot more
concise, and convey the same amount of information.
.

That’s fine, as long as you consider the six billion people
that are in religions to also be nuts, which I expect you do.

No, I consider them to be wrong. And given the huge range of disparate
and contradictory beliefs between the various world religions, it's a
safe bet statistically that somewhere between most and all of them
are.
On the other hand, I consider people who come to an atheist newsgroup
to talk about performing "new age onset magickal workings" and
explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos theory/catastrophe
theory" to be nuts. HTH. You're welcome.

So you think that someone who believes in an old man on
a cloud who created the world in six days is less insane
than me, who believes in a conscious all/everything
and a conscious planet?

I don't think you're nuts for believing that. I think you're nuts for
coming to an atheist newsgroup to talk about performing "new age onset
magickal workings" and explaining them in terms of "nonlinear chaos
theory/catastrophe theory". Didn't I just say that directly above?
Seriously, that's a step away from preaching on a soapbox in the park,
dressed in sackcloth. It's decidedly abnormal and creepy, not to
mention unwelcome.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Sounds like one of St Else where's nyms.

[j***@gmail.com]

Cloud Hobbit
- hide quoted text -

Post by raven1

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

That's nice, but why would you post this woo to alt.atheism?

Sounds like one of St Else where's nyms
.......

Dalton's been around for a long time.

[John Locke]

Post by David Dalton
I am attempting again to get at least some of my four components
(a collection of new age onset magickal workings) activated.

...here...fixed that for you no charge:

"I am attempting again to get at least some of my four brain
cells activated."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Mike_Duffy]

[...] if there is no significant positive global news
within the next week I (and you) will have to assume
that this is yet another fake activation sequence.

Maybe you should delineate a specific event (i.e. cure for any disease
killing millions per year, proof of ETs, reunification of Korea, etc.).
Otherwise, how will you know if any good news in the global sense is just
wishful thinking on your part?

[...] focusingon my writing, beginning with an overhaul
of my Salmon on the Thorns web page

I advise you to concentrate attention on your Ph.D. thesis, unless you feel
the need for 'right brain' activity to give rest to your 'left brain'.

How is that coming along?

[David Dalton]

Post by Mike_Duffy

[...] if there is no significant positive global news
within the next week I (and you) will have to assume
that this is yet another fake activation sequence.

Maybe you should delineate a specific event (i.e. cure for any disease
killing millions per year, proof of ETs, reunification of Korea, etc.).
Otherwise, how will you know if any good news in the global sense is just
wishful thinking on your part?

There is still no sign of it working, and I am skeptical at this point,
though
I won't give up until druid new moon (six days after new moon).

Post by Mike_Duffy

[...] focusingon my writing, beginning with an overhaul
of my Salmon on the Thorns web page

I advise you to concentrate attention on your Ph.D. thesis, unless you feel
the need for 'right brain' activity to give rest to your 'left brain'.

Yeah, I do intend to spend most of my time on my Ph.D. but
might have a few hours here and there to edit that web page
(I also should update the CV that is on my home page soon).
Then in the summer after I am granted the Ph.D. I intend
to rest up a bit, travel a bit, and also may make some
time to convert the Salmon web page into a book.

Post by Mike_Duffy
How is that coming along?

Pretty good, I have one more paper to write and then I will
compile four papers into a thesis which I should submit by the
end of the year, then defend it by March and be granted
the degree next May.

[David Dalton]

Those (if any) reading this on alt.music.s-mclachlan should note
that there have been several replies just on alt.atheism .

Also a post of Raven’s Blessings on alt.philosophy.taoism
has spawned a long discussion some of which may be of
interest to atheists.

Also it is now a week since my original post so I will have
to assume that my new age onset magickal workings
have failed.

[raven1]

Post by David Dalton
Those (if any) reading this on alt.music.s-mclachlan should note
that there have been several replies just on alt.atheism .
Also a post of Raven’s Blessings on alt.philosophy.taoism
has spawned a long discussion some of which may be of
interest to atheists.

Or not.

Post by David Dalton
Also it is now a week since my original post so I will have
to assume that my new age onset magickal workings
have failed.

That's a pretty safe assumption, and will continue to be, going
forward. Care to hazard a guess as to why?

(Hint: think "Scooby Doo". It's always going to turn out to be the
caretaker under the mask at the end of the epsiode, because *there's
no such thing as ghosts*. Does that help at all?)

[yithump]

define me without pronouns

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by yithump
define me without pronouns

Why?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 23:11:39 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"

Post by yithump
define me without pronouns

Why?

First person singular pronoun, accusative, dative or ablative case.

[yi]

almost as if going out into the world and searching was a necessity.

over and out