Zelda -:- Jims tactic illustrated -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 06:55:29 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- That's pathetic, Zelda -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:08:19 (GMT)

__ __ Zelda -:- dont go there jim! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:10:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- dont go there jim! -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 02:17:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Zelda -:- oh jim no not the textbook ending! -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:52:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- It's like talking to a premie -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:56:11 (GMT)

__ __ Sir Dave -:- Just for the receord -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:01:59 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- 'a fair assumption' -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:33:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- G, the more we talk, the less you impress -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:42:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- You're assuming -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:47:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Of COURSE I am, silly -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:53:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Of COURSE I am silly - well you said it Jim! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:06:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No problem -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:40:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Now he has said it (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:06:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- So you claim, why should I trust you at all? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:05:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's easy -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:15:27 (GMT)

__ __ Hal -:- I've experienced God Jim..... -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:28:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ SB -:- I've experienced God Jim..... -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:32:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Hal -:- You're absolutely right there SB.. -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:51:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hal and SB.. isn't it maybe agnosticism?(nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:44:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Hal and SB.. isn't it maybe agnosticism? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:01:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Agnosticism and Katie's sun dried tomato recipe. -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:05:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Agnosticism and Katie's sun dried tomato recipe. -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 14:51:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Hey Katie! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 13:01:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Hey Stonor! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:22:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry Hal, on two counts -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:50:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Hal -:- Sorry Jim, You're right of course... -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:03:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Is that fair, Hal? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:59:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Oh Jim -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 20:04:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Thanks, Hal, no problem (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:54:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- Twisting word, yet again! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:00:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And wrong, yet again! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:07:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Bullshit (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:27:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, what's with the profanity, G? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:29:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- verbal abuse -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:37:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- verbal abuse -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:44:31 (GMT)

__ G -:- another illustration -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:42:32 (GMT)

__ Sir Dave -:- Good point there Zelda -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 13:38:50 (GMT)

__ Shroomananda -:- Who created atheism? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:01:22 (GMT)

__ __ SB -:- Who created atheism? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:19:56 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- You're so fucking dumb! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:52:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Thank you, Jim! To me, being called dumb by -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:49:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- Messing with words -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:03:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Messing with words -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:14:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Yes, you are -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:42:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's absurd, G and you know it -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:45:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Look it up in the dictionary (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:49:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I did, you're wrong -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:04:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- without exact knowledge -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:24:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- 'without exact knowledge' -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:40:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't dissemble, G! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:32:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Funk and Wagnall's -:- Don't overgeneralize about your limited definition -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:41:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Fuck you, Mr. Anonymous Anonymous -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:46:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Spunky Funky -:- Not G, Mr Hehehe man -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:49:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Then WHO is 'Spunky' ? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:58:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Spunky Funky -:- Then WHO is 'Spunky' ? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:07:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- My guess is Spunky is SHP (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:05:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Not I -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:02:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Not I - LOL! ROFL! GG? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:19:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Spunky Funky -:- Not I - LOL! ROFL! GG? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:24:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Camp spirit -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:48:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- I like this one -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 21:41:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Spunky Funky -:- The current topic as I understood it. -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:05:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- The current topic as I understood it. -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 21:43:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Quite (nt) -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:28:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Not I - LOL! ROFL! GG? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:48:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- That wasn't me, and you're clearly wrong (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:48:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You're in denial (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:39:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Retreating to the 'nt's, are we? (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:47:25 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Nobody created atheism, it's God they created -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:33:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ SB -:- Nobody created atheism, it's God they created -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 22:25:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ cq -:- We created atheism, and God -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:32:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- Agnostics have more honesty than atheists (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:44:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Honestly G -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:22:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Nicely put JohnT -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:01:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- I think they're just more frightened (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:02:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ ham -:- You might be right Jerry but I'm an agnostic -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:37:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What ABOUT Santa? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:06:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- What ABOUT Santa? -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:16:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- What ABOUT Santa? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 22:39:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What ABOUT Santa? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:45:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Then why did you poat 'Quite' above to JohnT -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:14:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Then why did you poat 'Quite' above to JohnT -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:33:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Any theories about the typo 'poat'? (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:32:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Now that's a stupid question : ppppp (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:36:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- 'Agnosticism' -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 14:41:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- 'Agnosticism' -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:45:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:13:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- sun dried tomatoes (OT) -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:10:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:48:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:06:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:41:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- LOL!!! Sorry SB, I'll try to be more kind! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:09:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- To Hamzen, Stonor, SB: agnosticism and tomatoes -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 19:50:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- To Hamzen, Stonor, SB: agnosticism and tomatoes -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:11:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Hi SB -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:17:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- P.S. to Hamzen -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 19:52:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- About Jim -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:52:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- And hi to you too -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:58:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- to ham -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:26:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Not so, IMO -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:16:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Bullshit, Stonor -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:18:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Bullshit, Jim -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:56:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Stalemate, my ass! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:56:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- A 'stalemate' except for a few important details. -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:33:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're not serious, are you? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:28:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- You're not serious, are you? -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:55:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- 'Quite' - and a slippery slope -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:10:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- 'Quite' - and a slippery slope -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:26:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Excellent post! -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:20:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, I thought so too (nt) -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:20:20 (GMT)

__ __ shp -:- the atheist and the believer story, again -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:22:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ Elaine -:- the atheist and the believer story, again -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:56:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- the atheist and the believer story, again -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:16:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ shp -:- oh, hi, Jim...thank you for noticing I exist.... -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:16:29 (GMT)

__ __ hamzen -:- Who created god as a concept? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:23:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- Who created 'no duality' as a concept? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:48:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ ham -:- Who created 'no duality' as a concept? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:21:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- the magnet = God assumption is the same as -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 14:51:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- As usual you've COMPLETELY missed my point -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:06:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- way too complicated for a sunday morning -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 17:13:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Good one shp! -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 14:58:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Mmmm Stonor -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:09:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Good one shp! -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 15:43:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Yes, let's continue soon shp! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:35:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- PS shp! -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:53:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- sounds like a good plan, or -:- Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 18:34:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- sounds like a good plan, and/or -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 18:15:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- Good one shp! Is it? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:51:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- ***NEW AGE WORD ADVISORY!**** -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:23:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- As usual you're just playing with words -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:22:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- You are not copping to the thing you can't contain -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 17:28:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Are you completely fucking deaf shp? -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:26:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, Ham, you just aren't 'copping' enough! -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:25:58 (GMT)

__ __ Jethro -:- The story then continues that the -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:28:06 (GMT)

Jim -:- How far is this from Heaven's Gate? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:07:16 (GMT)

__ Jerry -:- How far is this from Heaven's Gate? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:27:16 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- I know we used to talk about it -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:56:24 (GMT)

__ ham -:- Jim why are you sounding surprized? -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:02:05 (GMT)

__ San Pedro -:- since we have all been re-incarnated -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 05:22:01 (GMT)

__ __ Hal -:- Oh no...! Not the psychotic premie....... -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:20:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ San Pedro -:- Oh no...! Not the sychotic premie....... -:- Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 02:58:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ sb -:- Oh no...! Not the sychotic premie....... -:- Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 13:39:21 (GMT)

Oliver -:- A reply to Joey's post below. -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:22:02 (GMT)

__ Joey -:- A reply to Oliver's post above. -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:59:08 (GMT)

Zelda -:- Golden Gabriel -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:05:06 (GMT)

__ SB -:- Golden Gabriel -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 11:35:58 (GMT)

__ __ Zelda -:- HI SB! -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:26:24 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- Shoving Atheism Down Throats..... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:21:38 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Not bad -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:31:48 (GMT)

__ Joey -:- Believe it or not Zelda... -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:19:13 (GMT)

__ __ Zelda -:- Believe it or not Zelda... -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:37:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joey -:- Zelda, thank you, I appreciate your response (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:38:23 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- Oh, give it up, Zelda -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:15:56 (GMT)

__ __ Zelda -:- Jim your asshole is showing NT -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:39:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Zelda, thank you, I appreciated your response (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:33:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ gErRy -:- What kind of reBUTTal is that, Zelda? (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:18:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Zelda -:- I IMAGINED it . NT -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:27:59 (GMT)

Discusting-Salam -:- How to walk away from gm with no regret -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:42:11 (GMT)

__ Jethro -:- A point -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:22:37 (GMT)

__ SB -:- ROFL! -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:56:36 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- Double ROFL! -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:09:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ sb -:- Double ROFL! -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:23:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ Selene -:- how are you doing Salam? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:16:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Salam -:- Been snowed under lately -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:26:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ SB -:- how are you doing Selene? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:24:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- How about barfing? -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:31:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Katie's cat can recognize garbage -:- Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 22:28:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Splashing is even better -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:58:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- Again: ROFL -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:17:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Hi SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:06:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ sb -:- Hi SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:19:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I had a wonderful time talking to you SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:26:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- Hi SB -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:44:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Hi Salam -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:22:49 (GMT)

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 06:55:29 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jims tactic illustrated Message:

Dave says: 'This place is becoming like an atheist's convention. I don't mind atheists but I don't like having atheism rammed down my throat just like I don't like any religion rammed down my throat. I'm an agnostic but I wouldn't use this forum to preach about it. To me, converted hard-core atheists are no different to all the other religious nuts that are around. So please, don't try to convert people here to your particular belief system or philosophy. It is not wanted or needed, except by perhaps a minority who agree with you and you could create your own atheist's forum for those. Keep your religion to yourself and don't try to ram it down people's throats. JIM IVERTS: What's wrong with that? *Do you think it IS an experience of God? Fine, then. Say so and argue the point if you wish*. #Personally, I think that's silly but if that's what you think, help yourself.# Zelda Says From above- Jims innocent question - (between the *'s) inverts/warps/changes the meaning of what Dave was saying. Dave made no indication about 'believing it is and experience of god'. This is Jims personal hobbyhorse and he gets it ready to ride through the thread. Then Jim (between the #'s)- invites him to GO AHEAD and argue the point - (Jims point) so he can too. So Dave better say so or he just is not admitting to what he said .RIGHT?????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:08:19 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: That's pathetic, Zelda Message:

Dave made no indication about 'believing it is and experience of god'. First, Zelda, you don't use quotes unless you're quoting. What's wrong? Don't they teach you anything in astrology school? But anyway, this is really pathetic, I'm afraid. Gabriel Golden (what an awkward name!) started the thread with a post wherein he made once specfic claim against the presence of God: In actuality, I DON'T KNOW who/what created me, if anyone/anything created me, and more importantly, I don't WANT to know! This is called the MYSTERY of life, and one of the things that makes it beautiful. The experience of Knowledge, while it may be profound, serene, or ecstatic, AIN'T God or Maharaji ... it may be beautiful and wonderful, but it is the MIND, the very thing Maharaji decries as a means to bring aspirants and premies further under his control, to cajole them into giving themselves away ... Dave then objected that atheism was somehow being 'rammed down [his] throat'. Well, I looked at GG's post and wondered, 'what is GG saying about God that Dave could possibly be objecting to?' I only saw one thing and that's the part emphasized above. Hence my question to Dave. Yes, my question assumed that that was what Dave was complaining about, the fact that GG was saying that the experience of K was not an experience of God. That was a fair assumption. In fact, I still have it. I still think that was what Dave was talking about and he's never said otherwise. It's you, Zelda, who, in your confusion, has misunderstood. Well, do you understand now? You should. It's fairly straightforward.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:10:27 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: dont go there jim! Message:

OK Jim - It is plain to see from Daves full post that he REALLY ''' Dave was complaining about, the fact that GG was saying that the experience of K was not an experience of God.'''- Just like you say. Here is the evidence. From Dave: 'On this forum there is a mixture of atheists, agnostics (don't knows) and believers. I had in mind Gabriel's first posts below where he was pretty dogmatic about the way it is. I'm tired of people who think they know the truth, trying to enlighten us. We each have our own particular set of beliefs and experiences and I don' think it's good form to try to persuade other people here to believe our own version of reality after the cult. The only truth here is about Maharaji. What he's done and what he's up to. Of course, premies won't agree with our version but some do after a while and the ones who disagree can be as vocal as they like in their rejection of our revelations about Maharaji. I wasn't talking about knowledge or meditation. Practically everyone who's ever tried it has had a different experience. Whether it made some people 'feel closer to God' or not is entirely a personal subjective experience and I don't think I can comment on someone elses experience of that. The only comment I can make with any certainty is that meditational experiences don't come from Maharaji, any more than the weather does.' SO YOUR explanation reqally clears it up? Hence my question to Dave. Yes, my question assumed that that was what Dave was complaining about, the fact that GG was saying that the experience of K was not an experience of God. That was a fair assumption. In fact, I still have it. I still think that was what Dave was talking about and he's never said otherwise. It's you, Zelda, who, in your confusion, has misunderstood.' Ya right Jim. noone has misunderstood including you and you arent fooling anybody. Admit that your assumption came from not only ignoring what Dave said, but twisting it to serve your purpose - which I suspect is to highlight ANY possible glimmer of an opportunity to argue against Maraji. When those opportunities are of your own invention you trip up and look silly and defensive in the end. The result is you storming around accusing and bullying until you deflect the focus from your blunder. transparent Jim Absolutely noone is buying it even you. If you scroll down this thread and just your comments in the subject boxs- you may see why your slip is showing. I just think you are burt out and need a foot massage or 100

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 02:17:00 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: dont go there jim! Message:

Zelda, You don't even know what we're talking about at this point. Really, it's kind of funny. What do you think this particular eensie weensie issue is? Do you know? Tell me, Zelda, because I've got a terrible feeling that you don't. And I'm sick of trying to explain anything to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:52:28 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: oh jim no not the textbook ending! Message:

you are right on cue. Only thing is this time you have not succeeded in confusing anyone because you left a wide trail. What is sad is that you are still trying to play the game.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:56:11 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: It's like talking to a premie Message:

Zelda, when you first accused me of lying or twisting Dave's words somehow I thought that you actually believed that. Now I can see that you're just blowing smoke, trying to discredit me somehow, probably because I ridiculed your astrological 'analysis' of Maharaji (something I'd do again in a second if it came up). But now it's apparent that you don't want to understand. A simple, simple explanation was completely lost on you. Any further effort would be wasted. All I can say is that if you watn to make me out to be aliar you're going to need something a lot stronger than this pathetic misrepresentation of yours. By the way, do you have any formal education? Just asking. Sometimes it helps to know who you're talking to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:01:59 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jim Subject: Just for the receord Message:

Jim wrote: 'Hence my question to Dave. Yes, my question assumed that that was what Dave was complaining about, the fact that GG was saying that the experience of K was not an experience of God' That's not what I was complaining about. I was complaining about Gabriel Golden's zeal to enlighten us about atheism which was actually started in a lower thread. I've not said that I think meditational experiences are an experience of God. I don't think they are. But, and it's a big but; if a person believes in God then they could attribute their meditational experiences to God, the same as they could attribute any experience to God - a nice sunset for instance, a pleasant ex-premie forum perchance... It's a matter of how one sees the world and what one's experiences are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:33:34 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: 'a fair assumption' Message:

So now YOU are justifying twisting of words by calling it a 'a fair assumption'. Any apology? As to your statement 'you don't use quotes unless you're quoting', you're being a twit. She was quoting, it just wasn't an exact quote. Besides, quotes are used for other purposes. Now I'm being a twit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:42:03 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: G, the more we talk, the less you impress Message:

What's the problem this time? There's nothing wrong with assuming somethging in a discussion, especially if you're right. I was just trying to explain to Zelda the context of my question to Dave. He was obvioulsy objecting to some part of GG's post, some part which he construed as GG's 'ramming atheism down [his] throat'. I only saw one part of G's post that fit the bill and questioned Dave accordingly. Now what? Don't you understand how conversations work either?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:47:44 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're assuming Message:

that you're accurate. It also shows that you apply different standards to yourself than to other people. Don't you understand how conversations work either? That's an example of another one of your insidious tactics.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:53:24 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: Of COURSE I am, silly Message:

Of COURSE, I'm assuming that I'm accurate. Just like you did when you assumed I was only thinking of your discussion with Jerry and not earlier ones. In your case, you were wrong. No big deal. I corrected you. You didn't know what I was talking about. In my case, I still think I'm right and David's never said otherwise. And, yes, G, I do wonder if you know how conversations work. You seem to be missing something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:06:56 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jim Subject: Of COURSE I am silly - well you said it Jim! Message:

Anyway, you wrote: 'I still think I'm right and David's never said otherwise' I have now. In my post above.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:40:28 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: No problem Message:

Fine then. You were referring to some other atheistic 'throat ramming' of GG's from another thread. I hadn't even read that post when I first replied to you. But there was nothing in your post -- the 'throat ramming' one -- to indicate that you weren't just replying to GG's last one. So I assumed you were. Big deal. In the normal course of things, you would have clarified that and we'd have carried on just fine. In fact, you had an opportunity to do just that when you did reply to me but you didn't. Only now have you explained that it was some other post you had in mind, even though you were responding to the one you did. Or maybe it was the combination. Was it? The problem is that G and Zelda have made some big stupid case out this, claiming that I'd twisted your words somehow. This is ridiculous.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:06:48 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Now he has said it (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:05:38 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: So you claim, why should I trust you at all? Message:

You've shown yourself to be quite dishonest.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:15:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: That's easy Message:

You can think of me as dishonest. Whatever. I think you're an uptight, pompous asshole. So what? The fact is you came at me in a conversation that was not in any way connected to your specific debate with Jerry. In fact, it was neither with nor about you at all. So when I commented about your trying to sue QM to prove the existence of God, there's every reason to think I was talking generally. My description of you was general. Why would my only examples be from one recent conversation? In any event, as soon as you challenged me on the association, I immediately said what I've said ever since which is that I wasn't just talking aboout that one conversation. That's some evidence that I was telling the truth about that. It sure beats me only now saying that I was thinking generally; you have to grant me that much at least. Beyond that, you can think what you want. I know what I was talking about. And you simply can't prove otherwise.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:28:26 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Jim Subject: I've experienced God Jim..... Message:

Not as a person but as an indescribable light and love inside me. Can't prove it to you but you can't tell me that I haven't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:32:46 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Hal Subject: I've experienced God Jim..... Message:

Hal, we may call it God's experience but we cannot prove that it's. I interpret those moments (I have felt it too) as something more I cannot explain, but to say that that for sure is God would be weird, no? Best regards, SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 09:51:53 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: SB Subject: You're absolutely right there SB.. Message:

I said that just to be controversial. However it could well be the closest to an experience of God that I'll get. I don't see God as a person but as an energy which some would term the power of nature or the life force. All these labels. Perhaps IT is a better word.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:44:18 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Hal Subject: Hal and SB.. isn't it maybe agnosticism?(nt) Message:

vvvvvvvvv

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:01:24 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Hal and SB.. isn't it maybe agnosticism? Message:

What do you mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:05:42 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: SB Subject: Agnosticism and Katie's sun dried tomato recipe. Message:

Check the Funk and Wagnall's below, and G give some computer dictionary links before that - that whole thread is about it. I don't understand why a well-educated man like Jim can't understand what it means. He just wastes my time, but it you're still not sure SB, let me know. And Katie's sun dried tomato recipe. I hope you don't mind Katie, I left all of it there. It's the nicest recipe I've ever read! (Is this recipe propagation? ;-): I have a good recipe for making 'sun-dried' tomatoes in the oven. It makes the house smell fantastic - you just cut them in half, put a basil leaf on each, put on a baking sheet greased liberally with olive oil, and dry them at 170 or 200 F until they are completely dry (usually 12-18 hours) I have used it for paste tomatoes and also the drying kind. I honestly don't think you can make real sun-dried tomatoes in the east - it is just too humid. When I lived in Missouri, I made tons of oven-dried tomatoes - I'd either freeze them as is, or pack them in olive oil and keep them in the refrigerator. The packing oil is great for cooking, too, and this recipe is a good way to use up tomatoes. I'll post my 'Sarah McGlaughlin (sp?) sun-dried tomato pecan pesto' recipe when I get a chance. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 14:51:25 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Agnosticism and Katie's sun dried tomato recipe. Message:

Thanks Stonor, I'll try that. Is it worth reading the whole thing bellow? I honestly didn't read the whole thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 13:01:25 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Katie Subject: Hey Katie! Message:

I just took a few pictures of a monorch butterfly that was on my white cosmos! Tell Brian I'll send one to him when I finally finish and develop this roll of film!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 20:22:27 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Hey Stonor! Message:

Looking forward to seeing them. Do you have any pics of your garden as well? (I know most gardens - including mine - are not all that photogenic.) I wrote to you, SB, and Hamzen below. Glad the tomatoes worked, although see my comment on recipe-exchanging (snicker!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:50:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Hal Subject: Sorry Hal, on two counts Message:

1) That's not what we're talking about here. This thread, so far at least, has been about whether or not I twisted Dave's words in my earlier reply to him. It's a 'procedural' discussion, rather than 'substantive', if you will. 2) All the same, in terms of what you've written, I beg to differ. I could indeed say you haven't experienced God in spite of your own testimonial. For example, what if I thought your own mind had fooled you. Wouldn't I be able to say that? You know, maybe I'd be right, maybe not. But why couldn't I say that? And would it be rude or improper even for me to say or even think it? Not to me. After all, don't premies tell us all the time that they've 'experienced' Maharaji's Grace? And don't we tell them that, sorry, with all due respect, premie ji, you're an idiot if you think that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:03:49 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sorry Jim, You're right of course... Message:

SILLY ME. No seriously I know I can't label it as anything for sure. Those experiences were just experiences which were profound for me and I wouldn't claim that they prove the existence of what people's concept of God is. They do prove to me that some incredible states of heightened awareness exist. It's labelling those states which causes problems. I'm willing to say that they are brainstates induced by certain circumstances being present but I'm also open to look at the possibility that there is a direct connection inside the brain to ' the source ' , creative energy whatever. I don't like to call it God actually but for some strange reason I did in that post , just to see what would come back at me. Hey Jim you were pretty soft on me in that response , I was waiting for at least some insults and expletives ! Best wishes , and a great weekend, Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:59:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Hal Subject: Is that fair, Hal? Message:

Hey Jim you were pretty soft on me in that response , I was waiting for at least some insults and expletives ! Come on, Hal, that's really unfair and you know it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 20:04:46 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oh Jim Message:

I would hope to be always fair with you. I must say for the record that you have never been abusive or insulting to me in anyway personally. In fact your input has always been valuable. Thanks. I LIKE JIM EVERYONE !!! Seriously Jim I was only joking when I said that I expected expletives and insults Take care Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:54:07 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Hal Subject: Thanks, Hal, no problem (nt) Message:

gggggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:00:58 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Twisting word, yet again! Message:

When Hal wrote 'tell' as in '...you can't tell me that I haven't.', it's clear that he meant 'to inform positively' or 'prove'. He didn't mean 'say'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:07:30 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: And wrong, yet again! Message:

You don't know for a fact what Hal meant. He could have meant it either way. He could have meant that it isn't possible to prove him wrong or he could have meant it's not my place to tell him what I think about his claim. In the context of the discussion, i.e. the question of 'ramming atheism' down peoples' throats, it's only reasonable to assume he meant the latter. You know what? You've sure been wrong a lot recently!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:27:43 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Bullshit (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:29:56 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: Hey, what's with the profanity, G? Message:

Knock off the verbal abuse, will you? No, G, it's not 'bulls**t' (please!). It's true and you can't deal with it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:37:16 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: verbal abuse Message:

When I said bullshit, I was characterizing your writing as an attempt to mislead or deceive by talking nonsense. I was not insulting you but was addressing your behaviour, so it doesn't qualify as verbal abuse. Your calling people stupid does. As to profanity, it's a matter of degree, you do it excessively.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:44:31 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: verbal abuse Message:

Well I say you're wrong and I also note that you simply failed to argue your point, merely spouting that most disturbing profanity at me instead. May I now, at this juncture, tell you to please fuck off?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:42:32 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Zelda Subject: another illustration Message:

Here is another example of Jim changing the meaning of words: What am I 'into' that 'goes far beyond not believing in the God in the Bible'? You mean I'm also not into all the foo foo attempts to salvage some good old religion in the face of science? Instead of addressing this honestly, he warped my words beyond recognition. Now, after this magic transformation, there is a statement of his disguised as a 'question' about whether I meant his statement. Talk about 'messing with the language'. Sheeesh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 13:38:50 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Good point there Zelda Message:

I guess you'd call it putting words into my mouth. I did wonder at why Jim had written that at the time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:01:22 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Who created atheism? Message:

I'd like to make a couple of comments if you don't mind, Zelda. Agnostics make more sense to me than an atheist. Agnostics say that maybe there is a God or maybe there isn't. Atheists say there is no God. That doesn't make sense to me. Can one look at a lamp or a glass or a table and say that nothing created it? Can one look at this creation and say that nothing created it? Is it really just a random permutation of molecules? Even if you subscribe to the theory of evolution and you devolve the creation back until the very first hydrogen atom, what created it? One moment it didn't exist and then poof there it is? It makes more sense logically that something created it, doesn't it? A saint approached an atheist and asked him if he believed in God. The atheist said, 'No, I don't believe in God.' The saint replied, 'How can you not believe in something that doesn't exist? If it didn't exist you couldn't not believe in it.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:19:56 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Who created atheism? Message:

It doesn't make sense to you that we cannot say 100% sure that God exist? But we cannot, correct? Even that many want to believe that a GOD created all that cannot be proven. Jim is trying to help you think objectively. Maybe if you stop being so stubborn you can learn something about how your brain processes information. Knowing how to think IS the best you can give yourself. It doesn't make sense? It does to me. To speak otherwise, to say 100% sure that there is a God falls in the category of arrogance, stupidity and naivete. If you find comfort believing, even then you must be realistic and accept that you like what you feel and you don't know what it is. To me, they are just happy, good wishing thoughts that I get from all I've learned in my culture. We grew swallowing the concept that there is a God and how do you erase the thought, the belief, if you continue feeding it? You feel especial and proud Shroom and we felt the same way, until we found out that we were functioning only from faith, belief and that is not a fair reason to dedicate your life 100% to such a practice. Investigation CAN be interesting. Investigation about what? God? You can try... You. Life starts with you and it will end with you. Get to know yourself. K drives people mad and it makes them irrational, to the point that a premie can assure even what cannot be proven. Is that reality or just a belief system? The late to me. How can bad reasoning be the product of the TRUTH? Impossible! Good luck!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:52:04 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: You're so fucking dumb! Message:

Think about what you're saying! You write: Agnostics make more sense to me than an atheist. Agnostics say that maybe there is a God or maybe there isn't. Atheists say there is no God. That doesn't make sense to me. Can one look at a lamp or a glass or a table and say that nothing created it? Can one look at this creation and say that nothing created it? How does that make agnostics more sensible than atheists? They're both challenging the existence of God and, by your argument, they're both failing to reasonably deal with the evidence? If one's wrong, the other is. So, again, how could agnostics make more sense? You are consistently stupid here. Maybe in real life no one notices. I don't know. Maybe you've got a life, maybe you don't. But here, at least, you are always saying dumb shit. Again and again and again. Look, Shroom, what the guru did to you! And this, here, is also so foolish: A saint approached an atheist and asked him if he believed in God. The atheist said, 'No, I don't believe in God.' The saint replied, 'How can you not believe in something that doesn't exist? If it didn't exist you couldn't not believe in it.' What you're leaving out is the atheist's next line which was: 'Just because something has a name doesn't mean that it's a real entity. You could ask me if I believe in Santa Claus, too, smarty-pants and I'd give you the same answer. I know the concept. I can talk about it (or him). But that doesn't mean I think he's a real entity. You're an idiot, saint. You don't happen to know Shroom by chance, do you?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:49:15 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thank you, Jim! To me, being called dumb by Message:

you is quite a compliment! God bless you. Er, uh, well just bless you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:03:56 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Messing with words Message:

How does that make agnostics more sensible than atheists? They're both challenging the existence of God ... You're messing with the word agnostic. Being an agnostic does not mean that one 'challeges' the existence of God. Challenge is not at all a proper word to use in this context.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:14:00 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: Messing with words Message:

So we're into the major 'quibble' now, are we, G? Agonstics don't 'challege' the existence of God? And I'm messing with words to say they do? Too much. Too fucking much.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:42:00 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yes, you are Message:

I wasn't quibbling, this is a major point. Many agnostics believe in God. You are confused as to what agnostic means. Btw, you used quotes when you weren't quoting, I didn't write 'quibble', I didn't say anything that even implied that I was quibbling. What Zelda wrote was simply a paraphrase, what you wrote was a total fabrication. Tsk tsk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:45:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: That's absurd, G and you know it Message:

Many agnostics believe in God. Bullshit. Agnostics, by definition do not believe in God. They are, at best, undecided which, I suggest, is a mutually exclusive state of mind to one of belief. You are confused as to what agnostic means. It pains me so to suggest that, indeed, my learned friend, you are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:49:17 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Look it up in the dictionary (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:04:14 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: I did, you're wrong Message:

Here's Webster's online: 'Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g- Function: noun Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW Date: 1869 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god - ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-'si-z&m/ noun'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:24:22 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: without exact knowledge Message:

From www.dictionary.com, which gives multiple meanings for agnostic agnostic \Ag*nos'tic\, a. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? knowing, ? to know.] Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism. agnostic adj : uncertain of all claims to knowledge The word comes from a-gnosis, without-knowledge. It deals with the certainty of exact knowledge. There are theists who call themselves agnostics. They are correct in their usage of the word in doing so. When someone says they are an agnostic, you cannot assume they mean your interpretation of one particular definition.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:40:49 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: G Subject: 'without exact knowledge' Message:

is so broad it's useless. Of what do we have exact knowledge apart from math (and mine's not that good!)? Here's Collins: agnostic n. 1. a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible. Cf. atheist, theist. 2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty. ~adj. 3. of or relating to agnostics. [C19: coined 1869 by T. H. Huxley ...]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:32:24 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: Don't dissemble, G! Message:

What the hell you doing, boy? You claimed that some agnostics believe in God and accused me of not knowing what the word meant. You told me to look it up, I did and you're wrong. Nothing in your definition above supports your view. You're starting to look bad now, G, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:41:56 (GMT) From: Funk and Wagnall's Email: None To: Jim Subject: Don't overgeneralize about your limited definition Message:

Agnosticism: The theory that first truths, substance, cause, the human soul, and a First Cuse, can neither be proved nor disproved and must remain unknown or unknowable; nescience. The theory that God is unknown or unknowable: distinguished from atheism. Atheists and m clearly disagree with agnostics.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:46:33 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Funk and Wagnall's Subject: Fuck you, Mr. Anonymous Anonymous Message:

The point in dispute is whether or not some agnostics believe in God. You can see that that's a clear contradiction in terms. G, on the other hand, accused me of not knowing what the word meant. Are you he?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:49:10 (GMT) From: Spunky Funky Email: None To: Jim Subject: Not G, Mr Hehehe man Message:

I'm not into onanism, but you seem to be into mental masturbation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:58:25 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Spunky Funky Subject: Then WHO is 'Spunky' ? Message:

I'm not into onanism ... Are you sure? most animals are. Particularly apes and hominids. Anyway spunk is British taboo slang for semen. Thought you should be told.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:07:16 (GMT) From: Spunky Funky Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Then WHO is 'Spunky' ? Message:

Well aware of the slang. (taboo?) To me 'into' suggests a rather particular enjoyment of something. I prefer sex with a partner.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:05:42 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: JohnT Subject: My guess is Spunky is SHP (nt) Message:

just a guess

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:02:26 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Not I Message:

I am into onanism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:19:54 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: G Subject: Not I - LOL! ROFL! GG? Message:

... and funk is informal British for 1. a state of nervousness, fear or depression 2. a coward 3. to flinch from (responsibility, etc) through fear ... So, we are looking for a semen covered coward who is NOT into masturbation. Ahh, the wonderful power of words!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:24:57 (GMT) From: Spunky Funky Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Not I - LOL! ROFL! GG? Message:

spunky: spirited, courageous funky: offbeat, especially in a campy or earthy way Quit splittin words. Get back to to the subject: agnostics are not DISbelievers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:48:42 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Spunky Funky Subject: Camp spirit Message:

Of course, I am aware of the other meanings of funky and spunky - I was just having a laugh. I'm serious in my 'Honestly' post to G, also in this thread. Thanks for the elucidations, though. My own take on the words (!) under discussion is thiest: believes there is a God or God but does not believe in your God or Gods. agnostic: believes there may or may not be a God. It's so hard to tell really. Perhaps he's shy, or in hiding. atheist: believes there isn't a God. Makes it easier to think for oneself, you know. me: doesn't believe it matters a toss. God can look after himself (if there is such a thing). But to get serious, just for a moment. God botherers have an unpleasant habit of organising against other people. Check this. Now, when did non-believers organise as non-believers against other groups in society?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 21:41:17 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: JohnT Subject: I like this one Message:

This quote comes from the link you gave and it talks about how can you tell if God is real. It cracked me up! 'Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.' Romans 1:19-20. The evidence of God is seen in the things that are made. He is seen in nature, in the universe. Those of you who refuse to believe in God (as if it is some sort of weakness to admit that humans aren't the supreme form of intelligence) are reduced to believing that the universe happened at random. How arrogant and blind atheists must be to rather believe this than in God!' How arrogant to don't believe in God, but is not arrogant to ASSURE that it does exist. LOL Thanks for the laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:05:43 (GMT) From: Spunky Funky Email: None To: JohnT Subject: The current topic as I understood it. Message:

The topic which began the present discussion was, as I understood it, Jim's abusive and manipulative tactics to win his arguments. His simplistic and biased interpretation of 'agnostic' is yet another example of this, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 21:43:35 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Spunky Funky Subject: The current topic as I understood it. Message:

Do I have to call you that? You know what it means to me (sigh). By The topic which began the present discussion was, as I understood it, Jim's abusive and manipulative tactics to win his arguments. His simplistic and biased interpretation of 'agnostic' is yet another example of this, IMO. D'you mean, Jim's How does that make agnostics more sensible than atheists? They're both challenging the existence of God ... The thing is, a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible (which is my dictionary's definition of an agnostic) really is challenging the existence of God. Agnostics allow you 'God' who does nothing and about which nothing can ever be known. But that is not what people mean by 'God' - let's not twist words or distort meanings, eh? Like, Jesus died for that. I don't think so. Churches base their moral authority on a knowledge of God - the truth, if you like, of their belief system. Agnostics say, you can't possibly know that God exists, let alone how THAT reckons we should conduct our lives. Agnostics challenge the existence of God, alright.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:28:10 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Quite (nt) Message:

ahh well

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:48:40 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Spunky Funky Subject: Not I - LOL! ROFL! GG? Message:

'agnostics are not DISbelievers.' True. They're not beleivers either. They're: 'a' meaning 'without' 'gnostic' meaning 'knowing'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:48:35 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: That wasn't me, and you're clearly wrong (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:39:21 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're in denial (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:47:25 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: Retreating to the 'nt's, are we? (nt) Message:

ddddd

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:33:48 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Nobody created atheism, it's God they created Message:

Agnostics make more sense to me than an atheist. Atheists have more balls than agnostics. Atheists jump in the deep end of the pool to sink or swim. Agnostics just get their little toesies wet, afraid that there really might be a God, so they don't want to let go of the concept, entirely. It's not easy becoming an atheist. Faith in God is a wonderful security blanket, but dropping that faith can give you a wonderful sensation of freedom, like you've been liberated from something that's opressed your mind all your life. I imagine it's something like a junkie kicking heroin. It's really the next step for a premie after he's dumped Maharaji. It takes the same amount of courage, but the rewards are equivalent. Like Jimi Hendrix said, just before he ripped into Hear My Train A Comin', 'It's about freedom, baby'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 22:25:14 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Nobody created atheism, it's God they created Message:

I don't think it's about having balls but about logic. Did you say that agnostics have faith in God? An agnostic doesn't necesarily have faith in God, correct? And is not about fearing that there is a God that an agnostic says that it cannot be proved if exists or not, again, to me is logic, not fear. You cannot prove one way or another that there is or not a God, as Creator of everything. My belief goes beyond the theory of evolution which I accept; humans could have evolved and that evolution could have been part of God's creation anyway. Maybe exists, maybe not. I cannot say 100% for sure that doesn't exist and I cannot say 100% that does exist. I do know that Lard's K is bullshit, though. That is a start. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:32:54 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jerry Subject: We created atheism, and God Message:

Jerry, if you care to, have a look at the research of a young lady called Acharya S into the origins of belief at http://www.truthbeknown.com/ Bon appetit!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 16:44:20 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Agnostics have more honesty than atheists (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:22:24 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: G Subject: Honestly G Message:

Honestly G, when you reactivated here I thought you were a premie, the way you came boiling in snarling at Jim, accusing him of being a Randroid and all. I really did. Oliver made a similar mistake about Joey and for a similar reason - the ANGER directed at another ex-premie. That you are a theist and Jim an atheist is of little interest to me. I'm here to trash m and hasten the demise of his sordid and evil little empire. I am an iconoclast, you see. I hate Mr Rawat for what he is - a human idol who feeds like a psychic vampire on the minds and monies of his hapless marks. Now, from where I'm sitting, Jim looks like a courageous and clear thinking person. Almost alone, his true identity is widely known. His incisive thinking is legendary - and yours too, I am delighted to add, in a different style. But I honestly do not understand how your preoccupation with atheism and your campaign against Jim have to do with anything apart from yourself. And as I know nothing of you, apart from your letters, I am at a loss to understand the nature or purpose of your game. Does Jim have too much respect here by your lights? Is it, as the girls say, 'a willie thing'? What? He makes me laugh and he consistently hits the target. I'm sorry to say this G, but from where I'm sitting, if you get hit it's because you put yourself in the way. You claim that agnostics are more honest than atheists. How very interesting that premies make a similar claim, only substituting m for g. You can't know m's not really god, can you? It's more honest to admit that than to claim it's definately not true, isn't it? So... from where I'm sitting it looks to me that you are doing a human shield act for m, while backing it up with a personally motivated campaign against one brave man. I wonder if you can understand how it is you have given that impression? And do you think it matters?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 19:01:52 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Nicely put JohnT Message:

I am an iconoclast, you see. I hate Mr Rawat for what he is - a human idol who feeds like a psychic vampire on the minds and monies of his hapless marks. That is the point, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 18:02:59 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: I think they're just more frightened (nt) Message:

fsf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 04:37:08 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Jerry Subject: You might be right Jerry but I'm an agnostic Message:

logically because it's impossible to prove either way, but emotionally with the atheists, hmmmm, either way it's pretty irrelevant to me, but I can't see how atheism is anything but some form of belief system, whereas agnosticism seems the only logical position.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:06:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: ham Subject: What ABOUT Santa? Message:

Ham, All our lives (at least the first part) we heard about this incredible being, Santa Claus. Now are you willing to go out on a limb and say he doesn't exist or will you take the more reasonable, balanced view that he may or may not, know one knows for sure? To say that Santa doesn't exist is really no different in kind than saying he does. They're both belief systems. I find it so funny when the pro-Santa and anti-Santa forces square off. They can't see that they're just the inverted images of each other. Neither one knows for sure. That's gotta be the bottom line.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 19:16:08 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: What ABOUT Santa? Message:

Jim, that was truly profound. (Yes, really) That idea of yours (that's there's really no difference between saying that Santa - or God for that matter - exists, and saying that he doesn't exist) I would like to share with another Forum (www.atheists.com), quoting your post in full. OK with you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 22:39:16 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: What ABOUT Santa? Message:

All our lives (at least the first part) we heard about this incredible being, Santa Claus. Now are you willing to go out on a limb and say he doesn't exist or will you take the more reasonable, balanced view that he may or may not, know one knows for sure? This is indeed a pertinent point Mr Heller, and I must say that I have no proof one way or the other but that in all probability he doesn't, but then what do I know!!! Ha ha ha, you crack me up some times, wish you were over here and we could go out for a drink occasionally, just know it would be a riot. To say that Santa doesn't exist is really no different in kind than saying he does. They're both belief systems. I find it so funny when the pro-Santa and anti-Santa forces square off. They can't see that they're just the inverted images of each other. Neither one knows for sure. That's gotta be the bottom line. Interesting though isn't it, this whole god subtext running through our society even here in good old secular britain. Have you read anything on any evolutionary advantages to belief systems? Apart from living longer through healthier living, the gap was 18 months the last stuff I read up on, but the fact that your life might be incredibly boring way before that 18 months is always left out of the discussion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:45:47 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: ham Subject: What ABOUT Santa? Message:

Ham, It'd be fun to meet you too. Too bad you missed the X-Flies gig last night, if I say so myself. It was good. Really good. But yeah, I've read a bit of that kind of ev / psych speculation. Seems it's pretty hard to isolate belief itself when doing these studies. Mind you, who can deny that Flanders in the happiest character on the Simpsons?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:14:39 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: ham Subject: Then why did you poat 'Quite' above to JohnT Message:

You don't agree with Jim or John T in that part of the thread from what i can read.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:33:42 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Then why did you poat 'Quite' above to JohnT Message:

What he was saying was that agnostics DO challenge the church theist position re god because they say it's impossible to prove, and quite right too. This is all Jim was saying as well, so where's the beef? Do sometimes feel that some people don't like Jim as a person, but can't find logical grounds for attacking him, so jump into attack mode from illogical stances. This thread for me smells of this big-time. Atheism to me is illogical, but understandable as an emotional reaction, especially after gm.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:32:32 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: ham Subject: Any theories about the typo 'poat'? (nt) Message:

jjjjjjjj

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:36:39 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: ham Subject: Now that's a stupid question : ppppp (nt) Message:

Moments of distraction

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 14:41:21 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: all Subject: 'Agnosticism' Message:

To say that I can't know god is not to say that I don't necessarily believe something. I might not know a witness, but I can choose to believe them in a court of law, for example. JohnT illustrates some of the fuzzy thinking: if one allows only an unknowable 'God' who makes no difference to anything - well, heck, why bother? Just because I cannot know God, does not mean that I cannot believe in 'Whatever-It-Is'. Call it the Tao, if you like, and I think some of you have. JohnT assumes that because an agnostic says s/he can't know God, that s/he concludes God 'makes no difference to anything.' Only absence or non-existence of something will have no 'effect'. He is projecting atheism onto agnosticism. The agnostic position is that even if there is such a thing as 'God' that 'God thing' is completely unknowable and undetectable by any means . Unknowable does not mean undetectable, and this is obviously a key point. Now, to do proper conceptual analysis, as you probably know from your systems theory readings, we really do need an OED. But I think everybody has to come to their own conclusions after doing their own reading, experiencing etc. Theism, agnosticism, and atheism are just general terms to help us describe what we experience, think about, know and believe. They are not three distinct entities. As Hegel says, 'The truth is the whole.' Have you read any Wittgenstein? I've got to get cooking the harvest. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:45:50 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Stonor Subject: 'Agnosticism' Message:

To say that I can't know god is not to say that I don't necessarily believe something. I might not know a witness, but I can choose to believe them in a court of law, for example. You can believe anything you want, after all the nazis believed the thousand year reich had started, and premies believe gm is the incarnation of god, and man city followers believe they'll win the league this year, but to argue the case requires the use of logic, and as we see with the premies here logic & the concept of god just don't mix. Re the witness, but unless you're a judge in a fascist state more than just you has to believe it, which is why jim always goes on about neutral observers etc etc Obviously anyones free to believe whatever, but to state it's a fact around god requires just a little more proof, otherwise we're back in the dark ages, and medieval concepts like guru is greter than god! JohnT illustrates some of the fuzzy thinking: if one allows only an unknowable 'God' who makes no difference to anything - well, heck, why bother? Just because I cannot know God, does not mean that I cannot believe in 'Whatever-It-Is'. Call it the Tao, if you like, Calling it the tao is not the same as god, and that IS sloppy new age thinking, sorry stonor but for someone as precise with language as you, I'm surprized, would you say the same about zen realities, buddhist nirvana, shamanic shape shifting, me experiencing bliss at a rave, at a football match, where do you draw the line? and I think some of you have. JohnT assumes that because an agnostic says s/he can't know God, that s/he concludes God 'makes no difference to anything.' Only absence or non-existence of something will have no 'effect'. He is projecting atheism onto agnosticism. I thought he was just being practical by mentioning occams razor, a pretty useful tool really. All the religious people I know equate agnosticism with atheism, don't know any atheists who equate agnosticism with religion, either they think it's perople covering their arses for after the big d, or they are seen as pedants, but never allied to religious belief. The agnostic position is that even if there is such a thing as 'God' that 'God thing' is completely unknowable and undetectable by any means . Unknowable does not mean undetectable, and this is obviously a key point. Now, to do proper conceptual analysis, as you probably know from your systems theory readings, we really do need an OED. But I think everybody has to come to their own conclusions after doing their own reading, experiencing etc. Theism, agnosticism, and atheism are just general terms to help us describe what we experience, think about, know and believe. They are not three distinct entities. As Hegel says, 'The truth is the whole.' Have you read any Wittgenstein? I have read Witt but found him unknowable and his message undetectable beyond the buddhist/taoist flavours!! Of course when we get to that point all language seems pretty pointless, but that doesn't stop believers spewing it out. Personally I'd rather leave the whole discussion and join the atheists, but while religious beleivers like followers of mr small prick continue to spew it out, well a stand is required. I've got to get cooking the harvest. So what yer cookin', gonna send some over, since it's bound to be organic, and I'm assuming veggie, love to get my hands on some of your cookin!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:13:14 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: ham Subject: 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes Message:

I never stated any 'fact' around God, hamzen. Please deal with the points I raised. I'm not interested in people's equations based on your opinion or their ignorance. Look in a good dictionary hamzen. Try to get your hands on an OED to support your case. Your 'argument' is an incoherent, irrelevant, rant, IMHO of course! :-))). We aren't talking about religionists or atheists, or Nazis or m for that matter either. We are talking about agnostics. Please stay on the topic. Katie's oven sun-dried tomato recipe worked great despite the cold and rain; the whole beet borscht with red beans is almost finished, and it's eggplant mushroom zucchini lentil pate tomorrow. I'll also be preparing and freezing zucchinis for a pie, and I have to grate zucchini for zucchini cake. Hmmmm, my collection of purple green pole beans should be processed too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:10:58 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: Stonor Subject: sun dried tomatoes (OT) Message:

Can I freeze shreeded zuchinni? Can you dried tomatoes in the oven??? What tempt? For how long? I tried once and they came out awful; I think I left them in the oven too long. Thanks. lazy to look it up myself. If you want to answer I'll appreciate. Hey, now i'm hungry. Have fun!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 03:48:47 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Stonor Subject: 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes Message:

Stonor responded: I never stated any 'fact' around God, hamzen. God is a meaningless concept, so proof is required, otherwise we're back into beliefs, and we can argue about beliefs til the cows come home, but belief in court is not the same thing because it will be based upon evidence, ie facts, and a collection of facts. That was why I mentioned facts. Please deal with the points I raised. I'm not interested in people's equations based on your opinion or their ignorance. Look in a good dictionary hamzen. Try to get your hands on an OED to support your case. Your 'argument' is an incoherent, irrelevant, rant, IMHO of course! :-))). Well I've just re-read your post, re-read mine, and it doesn't feel like a rant to me, and as far as I can see it was directly related to your post, so looks like we're up a blind alley here. As for a dictionary, well I'm more interested in popular usage & understanding of language, not dictionary definitions, unless it's around words not used before or not in popular usage. I have had a lot of discussions about atheism/agnosticism over the years, and agnosticism for eveyone I've talked to was belief neutral, so g's position is hardly the popular view. I'll go with the popular view. I can think of loads of words used in everyday language that have moved on from dictionary definitions, which by definition are dated. First people, then dictionaries, not the other way round thanks. And anyway there isn’t even agreement between those of you using dictionaries on this wun! We aren't talking about religionists or atheists, or Nazis or m for that matter either. We are talking about agnostics. Please stay on the topic. For you that may be off topic, for me, and remember the purpose of this site, definitely not off topic, right on topic The borscht one sounds good, but absolutely hate anything aubergine family!! Looks like we've hit one of those days stonor, ahhh well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:06:51 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: ham Subject: 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes Message:

Speak for yourself, hamzen. I don't have a clue who you are talking to, but I sure as hell hope you're not talking to me. If you have something to say about word usage, back it up with a bit of documentation or shut it up. Sleep well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:41:27 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: Stonor Subject: 'Agnosticism' and sun dried tomatoes Message:

That was mean

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:09:10 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: sb Subject: LOL!!! Sorry SB, I'll try to be more kind! Message:

I didn't use ANY expletives! C'mon SB, it wasn't THAT mean! Did you read what he's been writing to me?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 19:50:16 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Stonor, Hamzen, SB Subject: To Hamzen, Stonor, SB: agnosticism and tomatoes Message:

Hi y'all - I was trying to find a place to interject my opinion on both agnosticism and sun-dried tomatoes in this thread. First to Hamzen - My dictionary says that 'agnostic' is of or relating to the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. I think this is a good definition except for the 'b' word (belief). When I referred to 'deistic agnostics' I was talking about people who might have the opinion 'I think or feel that god probably exists but I don't know'. Atheistic agnostics would have the opinion that 'I think or feel that god does NOT exist, but I don't know.' I didn't realize the concept of deistic or atheistic agnostics was unfamiliar to so many people. Half the time when I say I am an agnostic, people ask me whether I am on the deistic or atheistic side of agnosticism. Or something similar. (Of course, where I live now, I just say 'I'm not a Christian', and that is all they want to know - snicker.) To Stonor and SB - You might be interested in what I wrote to Hamzen. Stonor, it is fine that you put the tomato recipe on here, but honest to god, Jim is ALWAYS giving me a hard time for 'exchanging recipes' with other women here - and now I really HAVE :)!! SB, that recipe works really well. I would just leave them in overnight, and maybe for part of the next morning. Make sure to refrigerate them (in olive oil) or freeze them when you preserve them - that way you don't have to dry them out until they are rock hard. Olive oil keeps them soft too - and of course the oil then becomes great to cook with! You don't have to have basil - and I put salt and pepper on them while they are drying, too. One final note - Hamzen, you said you didn't like any members of the aubergine (eggplant) family - does that mean tomatoes and peppers too? What DO you eat, boy??!! Love to all - Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:11:46 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Katie Subject: To Hamzen, Stonor, SB: agnosticism and tomatoes Message:

Thanks for pointing the difference since I never herd that term before, atheistic agnostics. Why did you get bothered by the word belief? That is what all ends up being when it comes to having faith on something or somebody. I'm sure I'm missing something. I don't know much about the subject, I really don't. Thanks. I like the idea of putting the tomatoes in oil and your explanation. I'll try it and tell you what happened. :) Jim must have a cook or something...He doesn't care about proved recipes. LOL. I found the cutest rubber kittie, not too tall, and he has a funny face, but what is even funnier is that he has a rat on his hand. The rat is rawat! You'll like him. It belongs in your collection. Few months and you'll get it. LOL.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 22:17:46 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: SB Subject: Hi SB Message:

That kitty sounds great - especially with the RATwat. I'll have to keep it away from Henry, though (snicker!) I didn't like the word belief because one of the things that I think about agnosticism is that you don't really BELIEVE anything - it's uncertain. But I guess even that is a belief. Thanks for your e-mail by the way. I have had so many work e-mails to write and answer that I haven't done well on answering my personal ones. But I am glad things are better! The tomatoes really are good - and of course it is MUCH cheaper to make your own. Love, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 19:52:14 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Hamzen Subject: P.S. to Hamzen Message:

P.S. Hamzen, I did indeed read your whole message (it went inactive), and I'm flattered but somewhat embarassed. I guess that's what you have to expect from a mostly 'nice' girl :). Thanks for the compliment! Love, Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:52:05 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: ham Subject: About Jim Message:

I agree with you. Many attack Jim in such a way that makes me feel angry sometimes. Jim is Jim, a person who shows everytime where he stands and because he can take arguments to infinitum some people dislike him. That is his personality. Is not fair to criticize him so hard as some do around here. In my opinion. Some make fun of him so bad, and the guy patiently answer the crap that people throw his way. I like Jim. His bluntness doesn't matter to me. The truth I find in his arguments has helped me clarify many points that assisted me to exit the cult. Maybe I'm biassed, but beside his insults, not a big deal to me, my mouth can get dirty too, he is always for logic and I appreciate that. Hi hammy! ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:58:07 (GMT) From: ham Email: ham@hamzen.freeserve.co.uk To: SB Subject: And hi to you too Message:

Couldn't agree more, mind you I'm not too worried about Jim being able to look after himself, even though I think he's a lot more sensitive than either, he lets on or others realize, such is the price you pay for challenging sloppy thinking!! SB just going to send you an e-mail, and have I put your address in my contacts list, yeah you guessed, and now I'm gonna have to plough through my e-mails since robyn's hardly around at the moment, do you fancy e-mailing at the above address? Think we're overdue a music chat among other stuff, yeah I know slow off the mark, bit of a challenging summer for me at the moment!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:26:20 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: ham Subject: to ham Message:

I'm not worry either and I agree in that he does well following what comes his way, is just that he gets them from many sometimes. Oh well... I just emailed u. SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:16:02 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: ham Subject: Not so, IMO Message:

It was a disagreement on definition, ham, and IMO Jim lost hands down. Agnostics equally challenge the atheists at the other end of the 'absolutes'. A definition cannot be re-interpreted as part of a defense for an argument - that's twisting facts and derailing the discussion. Check it out again, just for me, ham. What annoys me about it as well, is the petty and needlessly aggressive tone of the whole thing. Still can't find a point to that. Can you enlighten me? Or should I ask Jim? ;-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:18:08 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Bullshit, Stonor Message:

First, you're wrong about the debate over the meaning of 'agnostic'. I won, fair and square. Let's say, for argument's sake, that you're right, that asgnostics challenge both believers and atheists. (I don't agree at all with that sentiment but that's beside this point). As you recall, I'd said: How does that make agnostics more sensible than atheists? They're both challenging the existence of God ... to which G complained in his inimitably pompous tone: 're messing with the word agnostic. Being an agnostic does not mean that one 'challeges' the existence of God. Challenge is not at all a proper word to use in this context. Even if, as you say (and again, which I say is rubbish), agnostics 'equally' challenge both ends of the spectrum, that doesn't at all mean they don't challenge the existence of God. Whether they also, for argument's sake, challenge the non-existence of God is completely immaterial. And you're a teacher?? Amazing!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:56:53 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: Bullshit, Jim Message:

Stalemate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:56:34 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Stalemate, my ass! Message:

Stonor, You're simply wrong here. You don't have a leg to stand on. And you think we're in a stalemate?? How's that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 00:33:36 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: A 'stalemate' except for a few important details. Message:

Your definition of 'agnostics' is not supported by the dictionary. You, JohnT, and maybe ham (although he seems to be getting the idea now) are twisting in the breeze, Jim. Do you remember how for a while I had to refer to 'whatever-it-is' or you and Gerry would jump all over me for that alone. As you once mentioned, if there is a God, it wouldn't be in the 'usual' sense of the word, or something along those lines. It was quite a while ago and I know I posted you about it. Do you remember, Jim? G and Katie mention other possibilities wrt agnosticism below. And by the way, Jim, my 'cult radar' is pretty good. I've never joined one, nor been 'initiated', nor a member of anything even remotely like one. I certainly don't need your tiresome caricature of 'deprogrammer' pestering me. So stop throwing away your time-is-money on me, OK? It's better spent on hardcore devotees of m, if it should exist in any context here at all, IMO. It's not worth my time to continue talking with you. I think I'll move to another 'table', bully bullshit; excuse me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:28:42 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: You're not serious, are you? Message:

Your definition of 'agnostics' is not supported by the dictionary. It sure is. You're wrong, I'm right and that's about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:55:05 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're not serious, are you? Message:

Stonor won Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:10:38 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: ham Subject: 'Quite' - and a slippery slope Message:

Thanks ham, Although, on the face of it, agnosticism seems more logical than atheism, I'm not so sure. What about the principle of economy or Occam's razer? For if one allows only an unknowable 'God' who makes no difference to anything - well, heck, why bother? As my dictionary(!) puts it In explaining something assumptions must not be needlessly multiplied. The agnostic position is that even if there is such a thing as 'God' that 'God thing' is completely unknowable and undetectable by any means. Then the principle of economy urges that such an aetiolated and inessential entity has no useful or logical role to play in thinking about the world. Accordingly 'God' should be discarded for all practical purposes, along with gnomes and fairies at the bottom of the garden. ham: Do sometimes feel that some people don't like Jim as a person, but can't find logical grounds for attacking him, so jump into attack mode from illogical stances. This thread for me smells of this big-time. That's my feeling too, hal - except that a lot of people seem to like Jim as a person but to dislike his ruthless and impatient style of discourse. He could change that. But I do sympathise with Jim too, I think. Just wishy-washy, me! Anyway, to the relief of some ;-) I'm out of here for a while. Look after each other.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:26:21 (GMT) From: ham Email: ham@hamzen.freeserve.co.uk To: JohnT Subject: 'Quite' - and a slippery slope Message:

Hi John T, What about the principle of economy or Occam's razer? For if one allows only an unknowable 'God' who makes no difference to anything - well, heck, why bother? As my dictionary(!) puts it In explaining something assumptions must not be needlessly multiplied. Day to day living & in scientific research could not agree more, for all practical purposes Occams Razor definitely gives a better & more reliable shave than any religious Wilkinson/Gillette! Just being philosophically pedantic, personally find the whole concept an irrelevance, but then I am hamzen, and if I could never get to grips with the god concept through all those years of indoctrination with mr little willy, well I guess there's no hope for me eh, definitely gonna rot in hell with all the vegetables, but then I read the news today, so not sure we're not already there. Been good having you around, hope you're back soon. Whereabouts in the uk are ya? Or if you fancy e-mailing, see above ham

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 13:20:01 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Excellent post! Message:

Thank you, JohnT, for elucidating the logical reasons for opting for atheism over agnosticism. Really very astute and to the point. I coudn't have said it better. Good show!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:20:20 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Yes, I thought so too (nt) Message:

ggggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:22:46 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: the atheist and the believer story, again Message:

Hey Shroom, I awoke this beuatiful day, turned on my puter, answered some e-mail and clicked onto this site to see wassup, and I was greeted by the most recent thread above this one about being a nice day for a 'mind-fuck'. Well, at least it's truthful about what happens here alot, to premies and ex-premies alike. Just as global prejudice is boiling down to 'green', money being the pivotal factor over race, religion and the old outworn biases of the past, I believe that we have the 'asshole factor' to deal with here. The asshole factor is this: the line of demarkation between those of us who come here is not simply 'are you an ex or not?' It is becoming intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that some premies and ex-premies can and do communicate with each other and are cordial and civil to each other without watering down their respective messages. Meanwhile, there are the assholes who must verbally terrorize, demean, degrade, condescend, bully, etc etc to feel good about themselves. May this delineation grow and continue for the ultimate goal of true communication and people being able to hear each other across all the differences. Amen. So there are these two friends sitting on a hill looking a a clear night sky full of stars, one a believer in God and one an atheist. The believer says something referring to the Creator and how beautiful the creation is. The atheist responds by saying there is no such thing as a Creator, and that all the stars were just chemical reactions and just happened. Next day, the believer had gone to the hobby store and bought a model mobile of the solar system, including the sun and all the planets. Carefully and with much love he painted, glued and assembled each planet and moon and strung them in their place around the sun. Then he hung the mobile in his livingroom. When his atheist friend came over to visit later that day he saw the mobile, admired it greatly for its handiwork and asked his believer friend who made it. His friend said, 'Nobody made it, it just showed up like the stars we looked at last night in the sky.' The atheist friend said that was impossible, and his believer friend just smiled.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:56:17 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: shp Subject: the atheist and the believer story, again Message:

That was a sweet story. Thank you,shp. Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:16:36 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: the atheist and the believer story, again Message:

Your story reveals how little you understand about evolution.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:16:29 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: oh, hi, Jim...thank you for noticing I exist.... Message:

I mean, really, for you to even turn your totally focussed and laser-like mind to even the the quadrant of the 360 degrees I exist within your sphere of power and influence is such a thrill and grace for me I may wet my pants or puke. Thank you for once again reminding me that you are the only person who knows anything on this website and that we all must bend the mental knee to you or feel your wrath, premie or ex-premie, no matter. I am so sorry to have disturbed the ethers in your universe. How silly and arrogant of me to even approach your presence. Just knowing that you are near, I should remain mute, receptive and totally attentive to any sound that emits from your form. + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - But seriously, Jim, you are so full of yourself that you can't even see the forest for the trees. And your stale bait about my not understanding evolution is falling off your rusty hook, revealing a very lame and weak opposing argument to my story. Why don't you go have a Dewar's or something and think about it before you flap you mouth some more and yet embarrass yourself even more. You are the laughingstock and the clown and the misanthrope you accuse me and others of being. Congratulations, it's YOU! But people can change and that includes you. As St. Francis used to say, 'Love the sinner and hate the sin.' I knew you'd love the reference to another deluded devotee of another cosmic con man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:23:07 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Who created god as a concept? Message:

Your argument applies just as well the other way, if a magnet can create an experience of god then no-one who thinks they're experiencing god can be certain they're not experiencing mind illusions. Re you're comment re agnosticism, I'm with you on that one except for one small point, to apply logic to the period before the big bang makes no sense to me at all, logic = language = opposing definitions = standard experience of duality = space & time, since there was no space & time or duality before the bang as we conceive it all anyone can say is that we just don't know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 15:48:05 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: hamzen Subject: Who created 'no duality' as a concept? Message:

It is open to question that the experience triggered by the magnet was God. However, I wouldn't say it was a mind illusion, unless by that you mean it wasn't necessarily God or coming from God. It would be more accurate to say that explanations may be false. Besides it being triggered by a brain state, the experience is largely unexplained. How the magnet induced experience relates to other experiences is not certain. Regarding Shroom's comment about 'the very first hydrogen atom', physicists say that hydrogen atoms were created well after the Big Bang. The current theory stated in layman's terms at Mysteries of Deep Space is described below. It does say that the universe as we know it was created during the Big Bang. Duality does not need to be the 'standard experience of duality'. I don't agree that logic cannot be applied to the 'period before' the Big Bang. Physicists, e.g. Stephen Hawking, have applied logic to this 'period'. But I do agree that we don't know. I question the notion that complexity can come from 'no duality' and the very notion of 'no duality'. Very complex things can be generated by an iterative process from a simple initial condition. But the iterative process has to be able to occur and then occur. The simple initial condition has to be there, and simple is far different than 'no duality'. 10<-35 seconds: The universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the universe will ever hold. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the universe is an infinitely dense, hot fireball. The prevailing theory describes a peculiar form of energy that can suddenly push out the fabric of space. On a rare occasion, a runaway process called 'Inflation' can cause a vast expansion of space filled with this energy. The inflationary expansion is stopped only when this energy is transformed into matter and energy as we know it. 10-6 seconds: After inflation, one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe continues to expand but not nearly so quickly. As it expands, it becomes less dense and cools. The most basic forces in nature become distinct: first gravity, then the strong force, which holds nuclei of atoms together, followed by the weak and electromagnetic forces. By the first second, the universe is made up of fundamental particles and energy: quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and less familiar types. These particles smash together to form protons and neutrons. 3 seconds: Protons and neutrons come together to form the nuclei of simple elements: hydrogen, helium and lithium. It will take another 300,000 years for electrons to be captured into orbits around these nuclei to form stable atoms.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 05:21:00 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: G Subject: Who created 'no duality' as a concept? Message:

G responded: It is open to question that the experience triggered by the magnet was God. However, I wouldn't say it was a mind illusion, unless by that you mean it wasn't necessarily God or coming from God. It would be more accurate to say that explanations may be false. Besides it being triggered by a brain state, the experience is largely unexplained. How the magnet induced experience relates to other experiences is not certain. I know you're not into probabilities, but really g you've got to have suspicions that the experience is magnet rather than god related, if not why not say that about any state that it's god related possibly, & if you do then where do we go from here, everything becomes meaningless. I also know from my own experiences of heavily distorted space time experiences that it's easy to project, but that the experiences became more real, grounded, and part of my being when I suspected that my interpretations were affecting my experiences, whereas when I treated them 'as is', a lot of passages cleared and freed up. Anyone who has regularly experienced psychedelics realizes this clearly, the other way leads to insanity pretty damn quickly. '. I don't agree that logic cannot be applied to the 'period before' the Big Bang. Physicists, e.g. Stephen Hawking, have applied logic to this 'period'. But I do agree that we don't know. What I was referring to was that before the big bang if you posit that as the god/universe crossover point you are, by definition of god, beyond logic, as usual, and I haven't read Hawkins so I'm out of touch there. But if logic is being used in this territory, then god gets relegated even further back etc etc I question the notion that complexity can come from 'no duality' and the very notion of 'no duality'. Very complex things can be generated by an iterative process from a simple initial condition. But the iterative process has to be able to occur and then occur. The simple initial condition has to be there, and simple is far different than 'no duality'. As I'd understood it the point of creation had an imbalance however miniscule, and without it no creation, so no argument there, but theists are always arguing that god was in the process somewhere, and the definition of god is beyond duality, back into the same territory as above. Nice to see you getting closer to a systems approach, not just in the quote directly above, but noticed the links on one of your links the other day was getting very warm to, Capras last book the 'Web of Life' might be worth checking out. PS I don't see how an agnostic can believe in god, all the def's I've seen make it plain that it's about the impossibility of knowing one way or the other, which seems pretty logical to me, and why I class myself as an agnostic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 14:51:13 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: ham Subject: the magnet = God assumption is the same as Message:

doing onesself with a battery-powered vibratory apparatus and calling it true love. Have a beautiful day!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:06:40 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: shp Subject: As usual you've COMPLETELY missed my point Message:

COMPLETELY Lets try again shp eh, but don't expect me to waste much time on your brainlessness, since we know language and logic are completely alien concepts for you. Even atheists had an experience of a divine presence, now you might see that as superficial, but then that just shows your superficiality. I experience that love you're talking about on a regular basis, but it's generated by my brain, why doesx the thought of that frighten you so much and somehow lessen it for you? Nothing of course to do with your emotional investment in concepts by any chance eh? If god is behind everything as you believe then it's all his grace surely. I might also add that if the vibrator is used with real feeling then of course it can be imbued with real love, a very male response from you there shp, and that I hadn't got down in my catalogue of your sins, ahh well that's new age cult stinking thinking for you, why should I be surprized.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 17:13:02 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: hamzen Subject: way too complicated for a sunday morning Message:

hi ham you way overshot my comments. perhaps it is you who needs to be more simple, not me who needs to be more complex, or maybe some of both.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 14:58:07 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: shp Subject: Good one shp! Message:

Do you believe that that meditation experiences = God? I'd really like to know - this might be our key difference in opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:09:30 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Mmmm Stonor Message:

Hope your wanking is more pleasurable for you than shp's!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 15:43:10 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Good one shp! Message:

Stonor responded: Do you believe that that meditation experiences = God? I'd really like to know - this might be our key difference in opinion. shp replies: So you are asking me if I think that meditation experiences equal God... When I have those blissful timeless experiences during meditation, I feel like the meditation techniques have been a channel through which I have arrived at a place inside where I may experience this ongoing vibrational frequency of real happiness and peacefulness. The meditation techniques seem to be ways for a human being to attune their vehicle to something that is always present. If God is the ultimate matrix in which everything else exists, then the meditation is the way that one becomes consciously aware of that reality, enabling the practitioner to enjoy all the feelings and experiences that accompany being in such a state. These feelings and experiences have been recorded down through history different ways, but with certain common threads. Did you ever see those big books where you have to just gaze at a picture and let your normal everyday focus go a bit, and then this whole other incredible panoramic image appears within the original image that you did not see before? Kinda like that. So Stonor, does this answer your question? Shall we continue? shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:35:07 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: shp Subject: Yes, let's continue soon shp! Message:

As you may have noticed, I'ved been dealing with a couple of the rowdier patrons (and cooking). I should be able to get back to this later today. Sorry for the delay. Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 12:53:47 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Stonor Subject: PS shp! Message:

But let's agree to start a new thread, and to ignore all rude intruders. I'll copy your post and paste it with my response, OK? What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 18:34:05 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Stonor Subject: sounds like a good plan, or Message:

if that doesn't work, we can e-mail if the mutual interest continues.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 18:15:12 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: shp Subject: sounds like a good plan, and/or Message:

There are two other conversations at two other forums that you could also join.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 23:51:40 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: shp Subject: Good one shp! Is it? Message:

It puts some colors, it really doesn't answer anything. Sorry to rain on your parade. :0

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:23:36 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: ***NEW AGE WORD ADVISORY!**** Message:

If God is the ultimate matrix in which everything else exists, Good one, shp!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 16:22:10 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: shp Subject: As usual you're just playing with words Message:

When I have those blissful timeless experiences during meditation, I feel like the meditation techniques have been a channel through which I have arrived at a place inside where I may experience this ongoing vibrational frequency of real happiness and peacefulness. The meditation techniques seem to be ways for a human being to attune their vehicle to something that is always present. Of course it's always present because you are always present when you experience it, bio-feedback techniques that release dmt ecstacy, mescalin etc are quite standArd. By the way the timeless feeling isn't timeless but just high level magnification, as anyone who has experienced without the concept package you're carrying around knows clearly. I too have those experiences through losts of different trigger routes, what's the big deal, it's a wonderful evolutionary by product for dealing with stress of living I reckon. If God is the ultimate matrix then why not just call it the connective matrix experienced in the brain, without all the baggage that goes with 'god'? That definition is meaningless shp. Do you think only meditators experience this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 17:28:32 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: hamzen Subject: You are not copping to the thing you can't contain Message:

in your brain. You are assuming - taking for granted - the existence of a brain that can sense all the things you say it can, and you work from there. Like teeing off halfway down the fairway. Like the atheist and the believer story. I, on the other hand, acknowledge that a very high intelligence exists which CREATED such a brain and endowed it with the power to evolve and experience...not to mention the magnificent container, the human body, in which it is housed. And if it did not actually 'create' as described in the scriptures, then at the very least it allowed for and set up circumstances in the universe for such a thing to happen in the first place, and provided all the raw materials for same. Yes, you can get off many ways. But haven't you ever wanted to know how to get off in such a way that has been described over the milleniae in holy terms? The way that made artists with third eye sight paint gold circles around the heads of those who were plugged into the cleanest highest energy source availble from within? Do you know what OEM means? it stands for 'original equipment manufacturer'. In industry, people want to know who the OEM is because of so much inferior private label stuff going on. So what I am saying is that I want to have (and it feels genuine when I do K) the OEM experience of human life knowing its source. Not via intellectual knowledge, but via transcendental experience which we have all sought in our lives and some still do. Bye for now. Later perhap we can continue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 18:26:36 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: shp Subject: Are you completely fucking deaf shp? Message:

Why the fuck do you think I was a premie for one, you arroghant sod. Secondly those experiences that you classify as 'transcendental' are crucial to me, like fucking daily, so don't give me that crap. Thirdly I have proof for the existence of those brain states as a natural by-product, and accept those experiences in their isness, while you have to carry all that religious baggage around with you to sustain your concepts and justification. Earlier it was just the god matrix, now you know, but then so did the atheist who had the magnet god experiences, and so does anyone on higher psychedelics/psychotropics who comes in with baggage. You aren't ackowledging god, you're granting a concept that makes sense of your experience because you're too scared to have it without baggage because of the emotional exposure in a hostile environment. And since you're now awake what about answering my previous post properly and not superficially. And yet again, why are you here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 19:25:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: hamzen Subject: No, Ham, you just aren't 'copping' enough! Message:

You got to cop to the cool things God can do outside your brain as well as in, Ham. Hey man, open up or something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 08:28:06 (GMT) From: Jethro Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: The story then continues that the Message:

..........athiest said to the saint 'When did you stop beating your wife?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:07:16 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: How far is this from Heaven's Gate? Message:

In a thread below, O says some absolutely ridiculous things about Maharaji's claims to be God. Stuff like this: There are subtle nuances in the quotes.For example he never says he IS God.He speaks about Guru Maharaji in the third person always.He said 'God is here.' Was he really refering to himself?He said 'Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.'Is the Supremest Lord in person (ie:the highest manifestation) the 'self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light',or a man like you and I who walks the earth? But really Jim only someone who knows God,who experiences God beyond belief or concept could really talk about the meaning of these concepts. And wasn't that what Maharaji's job is: To teach people the true meaning of those ideas.Did you learn them?When Maharaji says he never said he was God,I think he knew what he was talking about. There's more but this is enough to show that this poor fellow's brain is mush. I particularly like the part I emphasized. But enough of that. There's absolutely no talking to this poor soul about this. He's in a world of his own and, I'm afraid, quite unreachable. But what Is worth noting is this further bit of cult mind-rot: the practice of asking if the world at large would ever agree with your position is a standard tactic in a deprogrammers bag of tricks.It's meant to appeal to our heard instinct and nulify ideas outside of the norm. Assuming for a moment that O, who does appear to be only slightly educated, means 'herd' I think we're onto something frightful. All of humanity's wrong, only the cult leader knows. Yet even the cult leader's words can't be depended on too greatly because only the cult leader has the wisdom to understand them! Stay away from any wide-spread human norms. They're only there to trick you and drag you back into the darkness. The same darkness that enshrouds the rest of humanity. Now tell me, is this kind of isolationism not scary? All O has is a feeling. He can't trust anyone but Maharaji but even with him that the only trust possible is only a level where words don't work properly. Nothing does. Only a feeling. This truly is the road to madness. And no, I'm not kidding.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:27:16 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: How far is this from Heaven's Gate? Message:

Yeah, O would do it. If Maharaji gave him the word, he'd do it. I think Mel would do it, too. Of course, I'm talking about committing suicide for the greater glory of it all, if M so requested it. I don't know if Shroom would do it. CD might come to his senses. I think Mili would probably just skulk away like the weasel he is. Elaine? Nah. Who else? What other numbskull has given himself that much to the fraud of the universe that he'd take his own life if the fraud requested it? How many of you exes would have done it, back in the daze? Do you think you would have come to your senses, or do you think you'd have done it? Personally, I think I would have snapped out of it. But the premies who visit this website? I don't know. But a very important question has to be asked. Realistically, would M ever ask his devotees to do such a thing? I don't think so. I think he's getting what he wants, just from all the donations that keep him living in luxury. Maybe if the funds dried up, he'd command his devotees to do a hari-kari (the ungrateful bastards), but as long as the money keeps rolling in, hey, those fuckers had better not take their lives!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 17:56:24 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jerry Subject: I know we used to talk about it Message:

I distinctly remember getting ready to meditate after arti a few times back in early 74, when Peter Martineau, John Bufton, maybe Kieth Cameron too, were all up in our room in the ashram on W. 13th Ave. in Vancouver where we waxed blissfully about the prospect of stopping a bullet meant for Him. Ah, those were the days, eh? Something to live for! Even die for! Yes, those were the days....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:02:05 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim why are you sounding surprized? Message:

That's just the standard lila position which nigh every old timer follows to the letter in their belief structures, even he subscribes to this when he said it doesn't matter whether he said he was god or not. Same old same old.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 05:22:01 (GMT) From: San Pedro Email: None To: Jim Subject: since we have all been re-incarnated Message:

I waz wundering ???? We're any of you guys there @ the crusifiction ? Any of you ROmans ? Just a wonder...just a thought.. contact me @ reallystudip.com

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 09:20:11 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: San Pedro Subject: Oh no...! Not the psychotic premie....... Message:

crap about Jesus being persecuted in the same way as exes are persecuting Mahaha. Oh Jesus help us and save us frome these lame brained culties!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 02:58:34 (GMT) From: San Pedro Email: None To: Hal Subject: Oh no...! Not the sychotic premie....... Message:

yeah he'll help ya. 2 bad he's sittin' @ the right hand o'god and obviously doesn't give a shyte

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 22, 2000 at 13:39:21 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: San Pedro Subject: Oh no...! Not the sychotic premie....... Message:

Well, if Lard cared he really would mine. If he was a good teacher, that is, but he is NOT!! Evil, he's. And u? You are a good advertisement of his...LOL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:22:02 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Joey Subject: A reply to Joey's post below. Message:

Hi again Joey, For my own reasons, I had chosen not too add anything more to that thread below, and hope you don't mind me replying to your post by starting a new thread. Your post read as follows:- First off, I doubt your brain is as 'paranoid and addled,' as you've just suggested. I've read some of your posts and I've never come across anything that would give that impression. I really believe that this forum is a place for exes to be themselves and to be able to speak the truth, first and foremost. Like yourself, I see many instances when premies come along and take almost sadistic pleasure in their picky-uny little headfucking games. IMO, such was the case with Elaine's little stunt with SB. When something like that happens, we have a right to be angry and to express that anger. Now you may feel differently about it, but IMO, NOT expressing that anger and repressing it is actually unhealthy. So when it happens that someone like SB has a legitimate cause for anger, wants to expess it, but is told that that is actually inappropriate... then I see the original headfuck in the situation being compounded. THAT, IMO, is abusive. IMO, for SB to be told, that by raising the issue she was aggravating the problem, smacked of the cult's blame the victim mentality. THAT IMO, is also abusive. For someone who's just been the target of some premie's stupid little headgame,to be told that she should hold back her anger in an effort to make this place more likeable for premies as Stonor suggested, was contemptible. I don't care what our Q rating is for premies. We're not here to sell them toothpaste or automobiles. As I said, I see the forum as a place where exes can be ourselves and speak the truth. And I believe that we really don't need to be told how to be ourselves. I feel that Stonor has been full of plenty judgemental, suffocating comments in an effort to stifle the expression of exes on this forum and the way we interact with each other. I really don't appreciate it. I'm sorry that you only saw the abusiveness in my response and not in the circumstances to which I was responding to. And while it may be true that two wrongs don't make a right and that I have some lessons to learn of my own, I hope this post will at least somewhat explain the higly aggressive nature of my intervention here last evening. Take care Oliver, Joey Hi Joey, First let me say Joey, what a pleasure it was to receive a message that had been thought about, and given appropriate consideration before being posted on the forum. Too many posts on this and other forums seem to be written on the wing, so too speak, and chaos can then often ensue. Anger is a difficult subject to discuss on F5. I guess a vast majority of ex's have good reason to feel anger regarding their ensnarement in the cult that is M, especially those who were there for a long time, or were mistreated while they were involved, or both. I can relate to that in my own particular story. As I see it, we have three different kinds of anger operating on this forum. The first is the anger between one ex and another, the second is that between an ex and a premie and the third is the anger of an ex's anger towards M. IMO, the only anger that is appropriate on F5 is the latter, because I have found in my short time here that the first two are totally unproductive for both myself and the aims of the forum. I hasten to add that this is how I feel, and I realise that I am only a voice in the wilderness on this subject, and can't expect anyone else to agree. So let's look at these three kinds of anger separately. I cannot see any reason for an ex to flame another. None whatsoever. We are all here for similar reasons, and IMO should only display sympathy, love and concern for our fellow ex's who have all been led astray by the cult. I'm not for a moment suggesting that we shouldn't be able to disagree with each others views on whatever subject, but when it comes too flaming matches and arguments, count me out. Life is too short. Next we come too the anger displayed between ex's and 'lurking premies' such as Elaine, Shroom etc., and other question marks like the late raina, and the prolific Stonor who you have mentioned. My feelings on these posters are that flaming them is just a complete waste of time, and here's where my paranoia might be showing, as this is just what they may be trying to attract in order to give them some ammunition to fire back. Of course they invariably come back with the same old cult bullshit so what's the point anyway. So my tactic is to ignore them because I see them as a complete waste of space. The only posters I respect who do reply to these lurkers are those who can bring them down with humour and irony, but never anger. Lastly, so far as M is concerned, I reckon it's open slather:) I have avoided going back over the subject of the thread in which we met as I thought it had been done to death yesterday. However I have wondered how Elaine would have coped if the offended party had flamed him/her severely in Spanish. Now that would have been amusing. Your right Joey, two wrongs don't make a right but a couple of attempts to communicate make a fair enough. I hope that this post makes some sense and that we can do it again. Take it easy matey, Oliver.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:59:08 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Oliver Subject: A reply to Oliver's post above. Message:

Hi Oliver, I'll try to be brief. it's been a long day for me. In the final analysis, regardless of who I'm exchanging posts with here on forum, I hope to be ME. I hope to be truthful. There are plenty of situations on forum that tend to evoke anger for myself. Should I express it or just let it go? Again, the answer for myself which would apply to whomever I'm exchanging posts with, is to choose that course of action or expression that is most conducive to being truthful to myself and to those around me. As you said, 'life's too short' and sometimes I feel that with all that time I've lost in the cult, I really don't have time for anything else. Thanks for replying to my post, all the best, Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:05:06 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: None Subject: Golden Gabriel Message:

Hello Just wanted to say that I did not think you were shoving atheism down our throats. But I agreed with Dave in that we have plenty of people that do here. It is a sensitive subject and a votex is created any time anyone mentions god or belief or experince of god. Here- Belief in god is marginalized and at best we are given permission to discuss it.-and most often it is twisted as below. So it was not you - there was more to the reaction you got than meets the eye. Atheists dont bother me except when they take issue with people who think otherwise -uninvited. You did not do that you just said where you were coming from Who I dont like is people who belong to religions whether eastern or most christians. And the cult behavior of atheists on the forum. Zelda

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 11:35:58 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Golden Gabriel Message:

And the cult behavior of atheists on the forum. What do you mean with that? Is not a complete sentence, is it? Or were there two errors, the period should be a comma and And should read and? And how is it a cult? Hi! SB

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 20:26:24 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: SB Subject: HI SB! Message:

Hi SB! I meant I dont like the cult behaviour of atheists on the forum. I find that the people who hold atheists views seem to circle a thread that has anything to do with god, higher power ect. Most of them are pretty reasonable, but they make sure that the thread is interrupted by diverting the discuussion FROM the topic into theirs - which is whether god exists bla bla bla. What I just said sounds like I think they do it by design, but thats not what I mean. I think Jim does that by design though. Jim ususallly chimes in and there is not hope of continuing because it is for sure derailed then into squabbles and put downs and which in the end insure that people who may want to talk about such stuff are silenced. Seems sort of cultish to me. As in cannot they cannot allow free discussion. The threads need to have a chairperson!! who can keep the subject on tract and if the group agrees a 'new view' is introduced . Zelda the organization freak ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:21:38 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Shoving Atheism Down Throats..... Message:

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. Atheism is still considered kind of strange or suspect, at least in the USA. For example, can you imagine Al Gore being nominated for President if he was a professed atheist? No way. If you watched him last night he was talking about god almost as much as George Dubya did a couple of weeks ago over in that Fundamentalist Christian Organization that passes for the Republican Party. Since an atheist has so much to push against (the entire religious heritage of the society), and isn't validated by the culture, and since being an atheist for most people is not based on a tradition or a faith, there can be a kind of argumentative element to it, or it can be perceived that way. An atheist usually comes to being an atheist through the rational decision that there isn't any proof for god or reason to believe in god, and that perhaps belief in god hasn't been too good for humans or the world anyway. They are pushing against faith, emotion and tradition, and so they are defensive. Remember Madeline Murray O'Hare? She was 'preachy' about being an atheist and was one of the most hated people in the country back in the 60s. What really gets me is when the Christian Right in this country complains that they are persecuted because they are Christians and are being attacked by atheists, and other, 'secular humanists.' I think many of them actually believe that kind of nonsense. They see the failure to support their world views as an attack. I think many people of faith view atheists the same way. Their questioning of religion, asking for proof, etc., is seen as dogmatic and an attack. But I think that viewpoint has as much to do with the nature of belief in god as it does the atheist argument. So, I believe that any argument that atheists are pushing their view on the forum is not due to the atheism or the degree someone identifies as an atheist, but just that you don't like the way certain people argue, and those people also happen to be atheists. I also think that people who feel particularly burned by a fraudulent spiritual leader, might move to questioning spiritual beliefs a little more quickly than somebody else. They have a motivation for doing so that others don't have and might adopt more strongly. I think many people who say they believe in god, are, in fact, atheists and would admit that if they really thought about it. And many others are, but don't say so, because it isn't really socially acceptable in lots of environments to do that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:31:48 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Not bad Message:

That's pretty good, Joe. You've raised a few points I hadn't thought of before but I have to agree. A lot of it is all about cultural set-points.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:19:13 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Believe it or not Zelda... Message:

... I agreed with just about everything you had to say in this post and also with what you had to express in the one in the thread below (__ Zelda -:- Preaching to the Orchestra -:- Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:20:04 ) But I am curious about this statement. Who I dont like is people who belong to religions whether eastern or most christians. What if someone belongs to a religion as a way of maintaining or even deepening his/her belief in God and for the social aspect of being in the company of like-minded people? And what if some Christian reverend, a Jewish rabbi or an eastern yoga teacher of some sort, can help a premie with deep feelings for God maintain that belief and leave the cult at the same time? Do you see any harm there? I'm genuinely interested in your response.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:37:21 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Joey Subject: Believe it or not Zelda... Message:

Hi Joey My 'Who I dont like is people who belong to religions whether eastern or most christians' has more to do with the fact that I am pretty conservative with sharing my experience and thoughts on this subject. Mostly I find if a person takes the trouble to tell me their religious or non religious views without me asking them -I ususally dont like the person because they have a point to make about it all. I kind of categorize them as somehow insecure and needing validation and trying to get it by being a zealot.. Your 'What if someone belongs to a religion as a way of maintaining or even deepening his/her belief in God and for the social aspect of being in the company of like-minded people?' I cant argue with. And your 'And what if some Christian reverend, a Jewish rabbi or an eastern yoga teacher of some sort, can help a premie with deep feelings for God maintain that belief and leave the cult at the same time? Do you see any harm there?'' -Is what I was talking about somewhere in here- that premies sometime need help with their deep feelings for God and someone who also has those feelings can help them leave the cult. Although it is a diversion - one point I was making was that the atheistic 'cult' mode here can be marginalizing premies. I dont see harm in it but you may have guessed I am pretty leary of organized religion. However a premie leaving the cult I think would have a very developed radar against getting sucked in to another religion. I think it is a shame if an ex develops into an atheist on the rebound from the cult. Cheers Zelda When I think about it, my joining the cult had more to do with my quest for god than it did Marhahah.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:38:23 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Zelda, thank you, I appreciate your response (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 21:15:56 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Oh, give it up, Zelda Message:

The 'cult behaviour of atheists'? Go ahead, and explain yourself without sounding like a complete dunderhead. This I'd like to see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:39:16 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim your asshole is showing NT Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:33:06 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Zelda Subject: Zelda, thank you, I appreciated your response (nt) Message:

hhhhhh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:18:11 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Zelda Subject: What kind of reBUTTal is that, Zelda? (nt) Message:

no text

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 02:27:59 (GMT) From: Zelda Email: None To: gErRy Subject: I IMAGINED it . NT Message:

NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:42:11 (GMT) From: Discusting-Salam Email: None To: Everyone Subject: How to walk away from gm with no regret Message:

Well folks at last I found it. There are two ways to do it. First: The long way. This method is quit involved and is not guaranteed to work. It compares to going to collage. These are the step, 1- read all Shrooms' and premies post. 2- Read all exes posts.(ps:do not read my posts or Jim, sb, gerry, Seline,Sir David,Jethro,G and others ,because they are biased against gm) 3- If you're still not convinced then read the EV/DLM papers 4- read the rest of the ex-premies site. 5- Surf the net. Use altavista advanced search to find links between gm and cults. 6- if you have ex-premies freinds ask them. 7- hopfully you will find an answer in 1 year. The short way: this method is guarented to deliver reseult from the first day. It works as an anti-programming agent to your fear for leaving gm, so 1- get a picture of gm. The ones on this site are sufficent 2- write something on the picture e.g. piss on you gm. 3- laminate the picture 4- punch a hole in the picture 5- get a cord or something and tie it throughthe hole This is the important part, you should put you money were your mouth is, so 6- take the picture to the toilet and tie it to the toilet seat. 7- put the picture inside the toilet. 8- use your pissing device and aim at the picture. Try it for a week. If after a week you are still alive, that will tell you that gm is not god and he has no power on you. By the end of the week you should have deprogrammed yourself out of the cult. (p.s. you may also try sitting on the toilet bowl and do the other bussiness).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:22:37 (GMT) From: Jethro Email: None To: Discusting-Salam Subject: A point Message:

'Read all exes posts.(ps:do not read my posts or Jim, sb, gerry, Seline,Sir David,Jethro,G and others ,because they are biased against gm)' Quite apart from my gripes against prempal, I am disgusted by his acts such as his protecting paedophiiles, really messing with peoples lives and material theft. I am equally 'biased' against the so-called sai-baba and really have no respect or time for anyone who condones these people. There are many people who have left m, but have not left the mindset. They usually say they have 'moved on' and won't criticise m(eg 'Keith'). They are same as premies, if not worse.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 16:56:36 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: FUNNY Salam Subject: ROFL! Message:

ROFL! I didn't even had to do that...He is naturally repulsive looking now that I don't love him anymore. One of his pictures did get a spit once...LOL

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:09:38 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: SB Subject: Double ROFL! Message:

Hello sb. I asked you before if you recieved the Spanish translation for the Brisbane Courier newspaper, you posted it in the Spanish forum, if not e-mail me. How is life treating you? lots of love from downunder Salam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:23:06 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: Salam Subject: Double ROFL! Message:

I got it but I haven't post it yet. It seems incomplete; it ends in an incomplete sentence. Is that all you got? I'm working on finishing the translation of Mishler's Interview. I had misplaced the floopy disc and found it. I think there is a big need for it on the spanish Forum. Nevertheless, whatever you get in spanish it's welcome! That site is practically dead. It needs new info. Sorry for not answering. I have pleanty of mail that I need to repply to. How is your scanning going? A big hug, S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:16:24 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Salam Subject: how are you doing Salam? Message:

Glad you said we could sit down to piss on his picture. Not sure all of us have good aiming devices :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:26:08 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Selene Subject: Been snowed under lately Message:

what with depression and the like. I think I need a dose of my injection very soon. Somnetimes cyber space is too much for me, once in can not get out, that is why I have not been around lately. Dieting, hehe. I miss Shroom bit. About the aiming device, it is ok if you do not have it. Take the picture to the shower and do it.!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:24:47 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Selene Subject: how are you doing Selene? Message:

It will be a splash darling; it will work! ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:31:53 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: SB Subject: How about barfing? Message:

I can lend everyone my cat who automatically throws up when he sees a picture of Maharaji. SB and JM can testify to his prowess - they had to help clean it up :). Glad you're OK, SB - Love from Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 22:28:16 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Katie Subject: Katie's cat can recognize garbage Message:

That was funny Katie!! Is true: Your cat did burf on Lard's picture. LOL :0

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 17:58:12 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: SB Subject: Splashing is even better Message:

Can not find the link to the newspaper article to see what is missing, can you put it up(not that, the link!!).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 18:17:37 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: Salam Subject: Again: ROFL Message:

I will send it to you by email. :0

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:06:12 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: sb Subject: Hi SB Message:

Great too see you up here having a joke. As I think I might have said somewhere else, *Laughter is the Best Medicine.* This thread has been a great way to start my early day. Love from downunder.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:19:44 (GMT) From: sb Email: None To: Oliver Subject: Hi SB Message:

Thanks O. Well, to think that I was on the floor crying would be a wrong statement. No. I don't allow myself to get down by crappy people but find enjoyment reminding them of who they are, more, when somebody 'tries' to hurt me in any way. Ask Selene if I don't know how to laugh...We talked by phone for over an hour few days a go. Laughter is ALWAYS great and welcome here. It's easy sometimes here to use wrongly our imagination; I'm more fun than what I care to show. To me is all seriously understood: I come to this forum because I do not like maharaji. If I get to make friends fine, but that is the main reason. I want to see his 'kingdom' fall down and the place to see it when it happens will be here. My mother and schools tried to teach me manners but they haven't succedded yet. LOL Take care, S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 22:26:21 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: sb Subject: I had a wonderful time talking to you SB Message:

your laugh is great, contagious too! and I certainly needed to lighten up. love, Selene

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 19:44:43 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Oliver Subject: Hi SB Message:

Strange,I was just thinking of you olie. Who is the early bird then.?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 20:22:49 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Salam Subject: Hi Salam Message:

Hi Salam, I had an encounter with a wonderful bottle of Taylors Cab sav last night, and woke early with a raging thirst, and certain bodily functions demanding attention. So after all that and a pot of tea, I decided my Saturday had begun, and here I am lurking with your thread, which has given me a chuckle. Thanks. I hope you were joking about maybe needing an injection to combat a low mood, but wish you well if you weren't. Keep laughing mate, life's too short for frowns. Hooroo:), Oliver.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index