religion

May 18, 2003

Tom

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I think what Peter may be

saying is that experiences are different. You have experienced the Taj

Mahal - Peter hasn't. Peter has experienced things that you appear not to

have. This conversation would seem logically to mean that people have

different experiences that other people do not share.

I personally feel no need to prove anything to you, but if you want proof

the best thing to do is find that proof for yourself. It would also follow

that if you wish for proof that something does not exist then set out to

find proof that it doesn't.

Jo

> Au contraire, Peter, I do have confidence in my own beliefs, but I do also

> have an open mind, believe it or not. When I was young I was force-fed all

> sorts of crap like unbaptised babies can't go to heaven because of

original

> sin, animals are not worthy of concern because they don't have souls, etc.

> etc. (I could go on and on). I was never taught to analyse or question my

> beliefs, but I do so now, and continue to do so. Re. the India reference,

> well, anybody can hop on a boat or plane and go there any time. Where's

the

> nearest Astral Travel Agency with flights to the Spirit World?

> Unfortunately, for many people, belief in some sort of afterlife, somehow

> makes up for their crappy life or the crappy lives of others - you know,

> don't worry about injustice now, it'll be all right when we get to heaven.

> Frankly, Peter, I'm always amazed that people like you can be so sure of

the

> " Spirit World " or the afterlife, or whatever, when no-one can go there,

> no-one can point to it (unlike the Taj Mahal), and everyone has such

wildly

> differing beliefs anyway. Who's right Peter? The Muslims, the Buddhists,

the

> Pagans, the Jews.... They're all 100% sure of their beliefs, but none of

> them can " prove " their right, can they? Whereas I can take anyone to the

> nearest abattoir or factory farm and show them cruelty, and if they still

> choose to disbelieve, I'll give them a poke with an electric cattle prod.

> When anyone gets a taste of what real suffering and pain is, they never

> doubt it for a second. As for pychics, I believe the magician/sceptic

James

> Randy's offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic

abilities

> still stands. If psychics were really not con-artists, then at least one

of

> them would gladly take up the offer, if only to disprove Mr Randy's

> skepticism. But the real danger of bizzare beliefs is demonstrated with

such

> dangerous cults as that Japanese one that used Sarin gas against people,

and

> the " Heaven's Gate " loonies who thought that by killing themselves they

> would catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. As I've said, I don't mind how

> bizzare yours, or anyone else's beliefs are, but if they promote cruelty

or

> anti-intellectualism, I will not support it.

>

> Tom

>

> -

> " Peter " <Snowbow

>

> Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:04 AM

> Re: Religion

>

> > Hi Tom

> >

> > > I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and

> when

> > I

> > > was a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to

mass

> > > every Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to mass

> > every

> > > day for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person:

> probably

> > > why I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk it,

> > > whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose if

> you

> > > believe in " spirits " yes, but frankly, where's the evidence?

> >

> > All evidence is personal experience - PG Wodehouse once commented that

he

> > didn't believe India existed because he'd never personally seen it, and

> all

> > evidence of its existence was simply anecdotal. So, you prove to me that

> > India exists, and I'll prove to you that spirits exist.

> >

> > If I really wanted to waste my time I could dig up millions of examples

of

> > people meeting spirits. I could tell you all about my personal

experiences

> > with non-phyiscal realities and beings. I could point you in the

direction

> > of several thousand mediums and healers who daily use aspects of non

> > physical reality in their work. I could point you in the direction of

> > psychics who have been employed by our own governments and military as

> > remote viewers for gathering (very accurate) details of enemy

> installations

> > and weaponry.

> >

> > But, frankly, if you're not going to believe in the existance of India,

it

> > isn't going to benefit either of us if I waste my time trying to

convince

> > you that it exists.

> >

> > Personally, I really don't care what you believe. It seems a shame that

> you

> > have so little confidence in your own beliefs that you use the standard

> > " fear response " tactic of attempting to bully others into agreeing with

by

> > insulting and belittling people who differ.

> >

> > BB

> > Peter

> >

> > ---

> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> >

> > To send an email to -

> >

May 18, 2003

While I agree with almost all of what you said, I don't believe the Jews

play such mind games. Judaism is the only religion I know of that not only

doesn't try to recruit, but actively discourages converts. I was never told

that people who believed differently would go to hell; Jews do not believe

in hell. I don't remember hearing hateful messages against other religions

either. So I think it's unfair to suggest that Jews are 100% sure of their

beliefs. Actually, based on what I've read, agnosticism is very Jewish.

The word " Israel " means " struggles with God " (or an angel).

Danielle

" You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin

----Original Message Follows----

" Vegecentric " <vegecentric

Re: Religion

Fri, 16 May 2003 19:21:09 -0700

Au contraire, Peter, I do have confidence in my own beliefs, but I do also

have an open mind, believe it or not. When I was young I was force-fed all

sorts of crap like unbaptised babies can't go to heaven because of original

sin, animals are not worthy of concern because they don't have souls, etc.

etc. (I could go on and on). I was never taught to analyse or question my

beliefs, but I do so now, and continue to do so. Re. the India reference,

well, anybody can hop on a boat or plane and go there any time. Where's the

nearest Astral Travel Agency with flights to the Spirit World?

Unfortunately, for many people, belief in some sort of afterlife, somehow

makes up for their crappy life or the crappy lives of others - you know,

don't worry about injustice now, it'll be all right when we get to heaven.

Frankly, Peter, I'm always amazed that people like you can be so sure of the

" Spirit World " or the afterlife, or whatever, when no-one can go there,

no-one can point to it (unlike the Taj Mahal), and everyone has such wildly

differing beliefs anyway. Who's right Peter? The Muslims, the Buddhists, the

Pagans, the Jews.... They're all 100% sure of their beliefs, but none of

them can " prove " their right, can they? Whereas I can take anyone to the

nearest abattoir or factory farm and show them cruelty, and if they still

choose to disbelieve, I'll give them a poke with an electric cattle prod.

When anyone gets a taste of what real suffering and pain is, they never

doubt it for a second. As for pychics, I believe the magician/sceptic James

Randy's offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities

still stands. If psychics were really not con-artists, then at least one of

them would gladly take up the offer, if only to disprove Mr Randy's

skepticism. But the real danger of bizzare beliefs is demonstrated with such

dangerous cults as that Japanese one that used Sarin gas against people, and

the " Heaven's Gate " loonies who thought that by killing themselves they

would catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. As I've said, I don't mind how

bizzare yours, or anyone else's beliefs are, but if they promote cruelty or

anti-intellectualism, I will not support it.

Tom

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:04 AM

Re: Religion

> Hi Tom

>

> > I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and

when

> I

> > was a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to mass

> > every Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to mass

> every

> > day for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person:

probably

> > why I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk it,

> > whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose if

you

> > believe in " spirits " yes, but frankly, where's the evidence?

>

> All evidence is personal experience - PG Wodehouse once commented that he

> didn't believe India existed because he'd never personally seen it, and

all

> evidence of its existence was simply anecdotal. So, you prove to me that

> India exists, and I'll prove to you that spirits exist.

>

> If I really wanted to waste my time I could dig up millions of examples

of

> people meeting spirits. I could tell you all about my personal

experiences

> with non-phyiscal realities and beings. I could point you in the

direction

> of several thousand mediums and healers who daily use aspects of non

> physical reality in their work. I could point you in the direction of

> psychics who have been employed by our own governments and military as

> remote viewers for gathering (very accurate) details of enemy

installations

> and weaponry.

>

> But, frankly, if you're not going to believe in the existance of India,

it

> isn't going to benefit either of us if I waste my time trying to convince

> you that it exists.

>

> Personally, I really don't care what you believe. It seems a shame that

you

> have so little confidence in your own beliefs that you use the standard

> " fear response " tactic of attempting to bully others into agreeing with

by

> insulting and belittling people who differ.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

> To send an email to -

>

May 18, 2003

Hi Danielle

> The word " Israel " means " struggles with God " (or an angel).

It's definitely with God. the word is made up as Isra-El. I have no idea

what Isra means (from what you say, it must be " struggle " ), but El is the

Sumerian word for " Lord " , and is the name of one of the two gods in the

Bible (the other being Yahweh).

BB

Peter

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Hi,

> And yet, science continues to deny out of body experiences, telepathy,

> bumble bees, etc. etc.

It doesn't deny the concept as a theory. But in the case of telepathy and

psychic

phenonema, those who profess abilities and are willing to be tested

scientifically consistently fail to perform in scientifically-observed

experiments. And in the case of bumble bees, um, I'm not sure scientists

ever denied their existence...

John

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

Friday, May 16, 2003 4:09 PM

Re: Religion

> Hi Fraggle

>

> > not necessarily...

> > yer ignoring the whole realm of theorem and hypothesis...

> > yes, sceince needs proof, but that doesn't rule out what science looks

for

> > look at black holes..they were theorized long before anyone found one...

> > dark matter..same thing

> > science is suppose to start with a theory..then you use experiments to

see

> if its true er not...er if it is something else entirely

>

> And yet, science continues to deny out of body experiences, telepathy,

> bumble bees, etc. etc.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

> To send an email to -

>

May 19, 2003

In a message dated 5/19/03 4:54:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, vegecentric writes:

I'm not overly concerned with the intricate differences between Sunni Muslims or Shiites, but can you show me one organised terrorist Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. group that dedicates itself to killing and maiming people not of it's faith (infidels), or issues "fatwahs" (read death warrants) on them for perceived insults, such as in Salman Rushdie's case?

Tom

well..i could mention all the crusades and inquisitions in x-tian history..

but..if ya want more in the NOW...try all the hodge podge of extremist right wing paramilitary white power groups in the US, who espouse God as the one and only, and kill gays, jews, and anyone who doesn't believe in wot they believe in

intolerance and hate have no boundary when it comes to religion..people are people and will use wotever means they can/want to further their agendas...

May 19, 2003

Hi Tom

> I'm not overly concerned with the intricate differences between Sunni Muslims or Shiites, but can you show me one organised

> terrorist Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. group that dedicates itself to killing and maiming people not of it's faith (infidels), or issues

> "fatwahs" (read death warrants) on them for perceived insults, such as in Salman Rushdie's case?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Try the IRA, Ku Klux Klan, Opus Dei, P2, Mossad. There's plenty in every major religion (although I admit that you may have me stumped on Hindu).

As for Salman Rushdie and fatwahs.... a "fatwah" is the Islamic term for "a religious order" - exactly the same as a Papal Bull in Christianity (and there have been a good few of them that have demanded the deaths of individuals and groups). Salman Rushdie was not condemned to death for "perceived insults", but for renouncing and denouncing Islam, and for portraying the Satanic Verses as a valid part of Islamic religion - thereby horrifically denigrating Islamic religion (the Satanic Verses are not recognised as a part of the Koran, and there is considerable debate on whether they were a part of the original teachings of Mohammed). Is it right that he should be condemned for this? Not in my opinion, but blasphemy against Christianity is still a crime in the UK.

BB

Peter

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Hi Tom

> Don't you think that if someone

> comes up with a rather dubious proposition, that has no way of being

> verified either by sight, touch, smell, or hearing, or by reliable

> eye-witness, that the onus is on them to prove their proposition, as

> scientists often try to do?

Wouldn't you say that the onus is on those who believe that everything in

existence can be sensed with sight, touch, smell or hearing. That is a very

narrow view of the universe. As a matter of interest - how do you explain

radio waves - these can not be sensed by any of the criteria you use, but

they clearly exist despite our inability to perceive them except with the

help of a special receiver?

> I mean, if I swore I saw pink elephants flying

> in the sky, wouldn't you expect some sort of proof of it, rather than take

> my word for it? Despite being a skeptic, I do have an open mind, and if

> someone introduced me to Mr Jesus or God or whatever, I could be

persuaded,

> but until that happens, the onus is not on me to prove something that's

> supernatural.

That is not having an open mind - it is simply not being a complete moron.

Anyone who denied the existence of a person after meeting them would have to

be particularly stupid. Having an open mind is about conceiving of

possibilities outside of your usual daily experience.

BB

Peter

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Hi Tom

> He is a magician, and is

> offended when people like Uri Geller pretend to bend spoons etc. by " mind

> power " , without stating it's a magic trick (no con there).

For what reason do you doubt Uri Geller? Simply because you haven't mastered

the same ability? I have never met Uri Geller, so have no idea whether what

he does is genuine or a trick - but I don't dismiss what he does simply

because I want to make myself famous by insulting others, as James Randy

seems to base his career on.

> When he came out

> to Oz many years ago one of our tonight show hosts (a Doris Stokes fan)

> almost punched him out (pretty funny) for saying " medium " Doris Stokes was

a

> fraudster. Some people just will not see the truth, because they prefer

> their own reality. Fair enough, I suppose, but there are many people who

> make a very handsome living predicting the future or talking to dead

> relatives etc. One of our " psychics " , Athena Starwoman, lives in Trump

> Towers in NY and is mega-rich. Do I think she genuinely believes her

> schtick?

There are many " fraudulent " mediums - I have met several. I have never heard

of Athena Starwoman, so can't comment. Doris Stokes I know of through her

writings (never met her), so have to base my opinion on that - she seems

genuine to me. However, as it is hard to tell whether someone is genuine

unless you actually meet them, I do not feel qualified to comment on her

either. I do know several mediums who clearly are genuine - when they " do a

reading " , they will often get something which seems very bizarre to them,

but they will say it any way - the genuine ones also do not just give up

when the person they are doing a reading for does not recognise what they

are talking about - and more often than not, the person will contact them a

few days later saying that what was said was absolutely correct.

> As for " proof " , I don't want to get bogged down in sophistry, but if it is

> so hard for some of you to prove physical things like countries and

> buildings exist, then I don't see how you can hope to " prove " your reasons

> for veganism to any non-believer (most people). I mean factory farms?

> Experimentation? Animal exploitation? Prove it!

I have no issue with whether or not India exists - I am just pointing out

that you can not prove it's existence. You still haven't met that challenge,

nor have you made any effort to answer any of the questions I have posed

throughout this conversation. In fact, it's becoming quite noticable that

although I am responding to every point you make, you are conveniently

removing any questions which you don't like the look of, and side-stepping

any issues you don't want to deal with. That, of course, is your right - but

I see little point in continuing a conversation where the aim is nothing

more than to be beligerent. I prefer a proper philosophical debate which

helps to expand my own (and others) views of the world we live in.

BB

Peter

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Hi John

> It doesn't deny the concept as a theory. But in the case of telepathy and

> psychic phenonema, those who profess abilities and are willing to be

tested

> scientifically consistently fail to perform in scientifically-observed

> experiments.

Ummm - because the scientists are sceptical, and thereby influence the

results with their own minds. That's the problem with every " scientific "

study that's ever been carried out - they haven't been truly scientific. The

basis of science is to remove all outside influence from the field of your

subject so you can see how it behaves without those influences. Problem is,

when talking about how minds interact, the observer is one of those minds,

and automatically affects the results just by being there!

Personally, I have had one experience of telepathy - it was under extreme

conditions, but (as Jo will tell you) highly effective. Due to the nature of

the extreme conditions, I doubt I could repeat it " on demand " .

> And in the case of bumble bees, um, I'm not sure scientists

> ever denied their existence...

According to all the laws of aerodynamics they can't fly.

BB

Peter

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Tom

> Don't you think that if someone

> comes up with a rather dubious proposition, that has no way of being

> verified either by sight, touch, smell, or hearing, or by reliable

> eye-witness, that the onus is on them to prove their proposition, as

> scientists often try to do?

Are you suggesting that Peter and I are not reliable?

It is obvious that you have never experienced anything that lots of other

people have. I don't think that what I experience is dubious. I am baffled

and rather sad that you have never experienced anything other than the

obvious. Just because your experience is lacking does not put the onus of

me or anyone else to try to prove anything. I do not ask scientists to

prove anything. I read their theories and then decide what I think about

them, which is more important than believing what I am told to.

>I mean, if I swore I saw pink elephants flying

> in the sky, wouldn't you expect some sort of proof of it, rather than take

> my word for it?

If you said that I would probably think 'I have never seen a pink elephant

flying, I wonder exactly what it was that he saw'. I wouldn't ask for proof

because that would be silly, and exactly what could you put before me to

prove that you had seen something I had not? I might conclude that you had

either seen pink elephants flying and I missed them, or that you saw

something else that you mistook for pink elephants flying, or that your mind

was making you think you had seen pink elephants flying. I might consider

that you were lying to gain attention, if it seemed likely. Simply, I would

most likely take your word for it that you thought you had seen pink

elephants. It matters not to me whether you actually saw them or not.

>Despite being a skeptic, I do have an open mind, and if

> someone introduced me to Mr Jesus or God or whatever, I could be

persuaded,

> but until that happens, the onus is not on me to prove something that's

> supernatural.

The onus is just as much on you to disprove the supernatural as it is for

anyone else to prove it, if you insist on discussing it. When I say I have

an open mind I mean that any theory may or may not be right. That way my

mind is open. Incidentally, if there is a god and you were introduced to

him, why would you believe that it was a god?

Jo

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Tom

>James Randy,

> agree with him or not, is not a con-artist. He is a magician, and is

> offended when people like Uri Geller pretend to bend spoons etc. by " mind

> power " , without stating it's a magic trick (no con there).

I have never heard of Randy, but Uri Geller, twat though he may be, does

bend spoons. We can all bend spoons - don't you do it?

> When he came out

> to Oz many years ago one of our tonight show hosts (a Doris Stokes fan)

> almost punched him out (pretty funny) for saying " medium " Doris Stokes was

a

> fraudster. Some people just will not see the truth, because they prefer

> their own reality.

This is where you are closed minded. You say people prefer their own

reality - and will not see the truth. Truth is personal - my truth is not

your truth and your truth is not mine. If your experience is different to

mine then it is different. It doesn't make yours right and mine wrong, or a

load of rubbish. It would be extremely conceited of you to think that way.

>Fair enough, I suppose, but there are many people who

> make a very handsome living predicting the future or talking to dead

> relatives etc. One of our " psychics " , Athena Starwoman, lives in Trump

> Towers in NY and is mega-rich. Do I think she genuinely believes her

> schtick? Not for a second.

There are frauds in all walks of life. There are frauds in the insurance

business. It does not mean that insurance does not exist!

>That's not to say many people obviously sincerely

> believe in fortune telling etc etc., but when people are making big bucks

> (why did L. Ron Hubbard devise Scientology? He wasn't exactly a classic

> sci-fi writer but could see religion was a money-spinner) I have to be

> skeptical.

The psychics and mediums I know are not rich. In fact, they are mostly

worse off than me. Sometimes I wonder why they don't get an office or shop

job to subsidise their income. Usually they try to help people.

>

> As for " proof " , I don't want to get bogged down in sophistry, but if it is

> so hard for some of you to prove physical things like countries and

> buildings exist, then I don't see how you can hope to " prove " your reasons

> for veganism to any non-believer (most people). I mean factory farms?

> Experimentation? Animal exploitation? Prove it!

I don't hope to prove anything. I cannot understand why this is your only

line of argument.

Jo

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 19, 2003

Tom

> But in the case of telepathy and

> psychic

> phenonema, those who profess abilities and are willing to be tested

> scientifically consistently fail to perform in scientifically-observed

> experiments.

I think the mistake is to believe someone is psychic or telepathic all of

the time. My experiences of telepathy are random, and cannot actually be

turned on. It is something that just happens when you least expect it. I

fail to see how you consider that because it does not happen in a laboratory

environment it proves it does not happen. Have you never had a telepathic

experience?

Bumble bees - scientists have said that with their body-weight and the size

of their wings they should not be able to fly.

Jo

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

May 20, 2003

Penn & Teller have a show on " Showtime " called " Bullshit! " in which they

debunk stuff like alien abductions, psychics, stuff to help your sex life,

etc. It's quite humorous.

Danielle

" You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake " --Jeanette Rankin

----Original Message Follows----

" Vegecentric " <vegecentric

Re: Religion

Mon, 19 May 2003 22:13:00 -0700

Hi Peter,

Just remember people, this is NOTHING PERSONAL!! so here goes.. James Randy,

agree with him or not, is not a con-artist. He is a magician, and is

offended when people like Uri Geller pretend to bend spoons etc. by " mind

power " , without stating it's a magic trick (no con there). When he came out

to Oz many years ago one of our tonight show hosts (a Doris Stokes fan)

almost punched him out (pretty funny) for saying " medium " Doris Stokes was a

fraudster. Some people just will not see the truth, because they prefer

their own reality. Fair enough, I suppose, but there are many people who

make a very handsome living predicting the future or talking to dead

relatives etc. One of our " psychics " , Athena Starwoman, lives in Trump

Towers in NY and is mega-rich. Do I think she genuinely believes her

schtick? Not for a second. That's not to say many people obviously sincerely

believe in fortune telling etc etc., but when people are making big bucks

(why did L. Ron Hubbard devise Scientology? He wasn't exactly a classic

sci-fi writer but could see religion was a money-spinner) I have to be

skeptical.

As for " proof " , I don't want to get bogged down in sophistry, but if it is

so hard for some of you to prove physical things like countries and

buildings exist, then I don't see how you can hope to " prove " your reasons

for veganism to any non-believer (most people). I mean factory farms?

Experimentation? Animal exploitation? Prove it!

Tom

-

" Peter " <Snowbow

Sunday, May 18, 2003 2:21 AM

Re: Religion

> Hi Tom

>

> > Re. the India reference,

> > well, anybody can hop on a boat or plane and go there any time. Where's

> the

> > nearest Astral Travel Agency with flights to the Spirit World?

>

> You don't need a " travel centre " - you just learn to do so through

> meditation. Far easier. Besides, I've never been on a plane or a boat, so

> prove to me that they exist.

>

> > Unfortunately, for many people, belief in some sort of afterlife,

somehow

> > makes up for their crappy life or the crappy lives of others - you

know,

> > don't worry about injustice now, it'll be all right when we get to

heaven.

>

> I agree that this can often be a factor.

>

> > Frankly, Peter, I'm always amazed that people like you can be so sure

of

> the

> > " Spirit World " or the afterlife, or whatever, when no-one can go there,

>

> I go there regularly - it's called Shamanic Journeying. I've never been

to

> India, though.

>

> > no-one can point to it (unlike the Taj Mahal), and everyone has such

> wildly

> > differing beliefs anyway. Who's right Peter? The Muslims, the

Buddhists,

> the

> > Pagans, the Jews.... They're all 100% sure of their beliefs, but none

of

> > them can " prove " their right, can they?

>

> As I said earlier - prove to me that India exists. As for who is right -

> perhaps all are. There used to be an advert on UK TV for a newspaper

which

> showed three shots - the first was what looked like a ruffian running

away

> from a police car, the second, from the police car, showed him running

> toward a man with a brief case, and grabbing hold of the brief case. The

> third, from above, showed the man with the brief case was about to get

> squashed by a falling block of concrete, and the " ruffian " was actually

> pulling him out of the way. The " punch line " of the advert was about how

our

> angle of view affects our perception. If this is the case in " physical

> world " realities, how much more so when it comes to things which the

> physical mind is trained to supress?

>

> > Whereas I can take anyone to the

> > nearest abattoir or factory farm and show them cruelty, and if they

still

> > choose to disbelieve, I'll give them a poke with an electric cattle

prod.

> > When anyone gets a taste of what real suffering and pain is, they never

> > doubt it for a second.

>

> We aren't talking about denying the existence of the physical world - we

are

> talking about whether that is *all* there is.

>

> > As for pychics, I believe the magician/sceptic James

> > Randy's offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic

> abilities

> > still stands.

>

> Of course it does - you can't prove scientifically something which is

> outside of the concepts of the scientific holy scriptures. Also, the fact

> that Randy is so sceptical affects the results of any experiment with

which

> he is connected anyway. He once managed to " prove " that telepathy was a

myth

> by running an experiment using 5 cards and having someone in another room

> saying which one he was looking at. On the laws of statistics the results

> should be around the 20% accuracy mark. Randy managed to push that down

to

> 3% accuracy because his own scepticism affected the results.

>

> > If psychics were really not con-artists, then at least one of

> > them would gladly take up the offer, if only to disprove Mr Randy's

> > skepticism.

>

> As someone once said, there are none so blind as them that will not see.

> Scientific " results " are always open to interpretation - Randy will

always

> interpret them to prove that he is right. He is not a scientist, but a

> con-artist. If psychics are all con-artists, then why do our governments

> employ so many of them to remote-view enemy installations? Why do most of

> the major world businesses employ astrologers and psychics to help with

> their business plans?

>

> > But the real danger of bizzare beliefs is demonstrated with such

> > dangerous cults as that Japanese one that used Sarin gas against

people,

> and

> > the " Heaven's Gate " loonies who thought that by killing themselves they

> > would catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. As I've said, I don't mind

how

> > bizzare yours, or anyone else's beliefs are, but if they promote

cruelty

> or

> > anti-intellectualism, I will not support it.

>

> Maybe they were right. And if the only people they kill is themselves,

what

> is the problem?

>

> Of course, what you have to remember is that most of these " cults " are

the

> result of government brainwashing (virtually every major cult in the US

who

> have beliefs that they need to kill themselves or others are the result

of

> MK Ultra - either intentionally, or a side effect).

>

> What makes you so sure that your " physical world is all there is " belief

is

> correct? Prove it.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

>

> To send an email to -

>

May 20, 2003

Hi Jo,

I have never been to the Taj Mahal (unfortunately), but if you or I went

there, would you still believe it is " real " ? Don't you think that if someone

comes up with a rather dubious proposition, that has no way of being

verified either by sight, touch, smell, or hearing, or by reliable

eye-witness, that the onus is on them to prove their proposition, as

scientists often try to do? I mean, if I swore I saw pink elephants flying

in the sky, wouldn't you expect some sort of proof of it, rather than take

my word for it? Despite being a skeptic, I do have an open mind, and if

someone introduced me to Mr Jesus or God or whatever, I could be persuaded,

but until that happens, the onus is not on me to prove something that's

supernatural.

Tom

-

" Heartwork " <Heartwork

Sunday, May 18, 2003 4:48 AM

Re: Religion

> Tom

>

> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I think what Peter may be

> saying is that experiences are different. You have experienced the Taj

> Mahal - Peter hasn't. Peter has experienced things that you appear not to

> have. This conversation would seem logically to mean that people have

> different experiences that other people do not share.

>

> I personally feel no need to prove anything to you, but if you want proof

> the best thing to do is find that proof for yourself. It would also

follow

> that if you wish for proof that something does not exist then set out to

> find proof that it doesn't.

>

> Jo

>

> > Au contraire, Peter, I do have confidence in my own beliefs, but I do

also

> > have an open mind, believe it or not. When I was young I was force-fed

all

> > sorts of crap like unbaptised babies can't go to heaven because of

> original

> > sin, animals are not worthy of concern because they don't have souls,

etc.

> > etc. (I could go on and on). I was never taught to analyse or question

my

> > beliefs, but I do so now, and continue to do so. Re. the India

reference,

> > well, anybody can hop on a boat or plane and go there any time. Where's

> the

> > nearest Astral Travel Agency with flights to the Spirit World?

> > Unfortunately, for many people, belief in some sort of afterlife,

somehow

> > makes up for their crappy life or the crappy lives of others - you know,

> > don't worry about injustice now, it'll be all right when we get to

heaven.

> > Frankly, Peter, I'm always amazed that people like you can be so sure of

> the

> > " Spirit World " or the afterlife, or whatever, when no-one can go there,

> > no-one can point to it (unlike the Taj Mahal), and everyone has such

> wildly

> > differing beliefs anyway. Who's right Peter? The Muslims, the Buddhists,

> the

> > Pagans, the Jews.... They're all 100% sure of their beliefs, but none of

> > them can " prove " their right, can they? Whereas I can take anyone to the

> > nearest abattoir or factory farm and show them cruelty, and if they

still

> > choose to disbelieve, I'll give them a poke with an electric cattle

prod.

> > When anyone gets a taste of what real suffering and pain is, they never

> > doubt it for a second. As for pychics, I believe the magician/sceptic

> James

> > Randy's offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove their psychic

> abilities

> > still stands. If psychics were really not con-artists, then at least one

> of

> > them would gladly take up the offer, if only to disprove Mr Randy's

> > skepticism. But the real danger of bizzare beliefs is demonstrated with

> such

> > dangerous cults as that Japanese one that used Sarin gas against people,

> and

> > the " Heaven's Gate " loonies who thought that by killing themselves they

> > would catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. As I've said, I don't mind

how

> > bizzare yours, or anyone else's beliefs are, but if they promote cruelty

> or

> > anti-intellectualism, I will not support it.

> >

> > Tom

> >

> > -

> > " Peter " <Snowbow

> >

> > Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:04 AM

> > Re: Religion

> >

> > > Hi Tom

> > >

> > > > I was force-fed a lot of Catholic baloney from a very young age, and

> > when

> > > I

> > > > was a Catholic, I was the real deal. I was an altar boy, I went to

> mass

> > > > every Sunday, I gave up sugar and lollies for lent, even going to

mass

> > > every

> > > > day for that period, once. I'm a bit of an all-or-nothing person:

> > probably

> > > > why I'm vegan. I don't like to just talk the talk, I have to walk

it,

> > > > whatever the down-side. But as for being born spiritual, I suppose

if

> > you

> > > > believe in " spirits " yes, but frankly, where's the evidence?

> > >

> > > All evidence is personal experience - PG Wodehouse once commented that

> he

> > > didn't believe India existed because he'd never personally seen it,

and

> > all

> > > evidence of its existence was simply anecdotal. So, you prove to me

that

> > > India exists, and I'll prove to you that spirits exist.

> > >

> > > If I really wanted to waste my time I could dig up millions of

examples

> of

> > > people meeting spirits. I could tell you all about my personal

> experiences

> > > with non-phyiscal realities and beings. I could point you in the

> direction

> > > of several thousand mediums and healers who daily use aspects of non

> > > physical reality in their work. I could point you in the direction of

> > > psychics who have been employed by our own governments and military as

> > > remote viewers for gathering (very accurate) details of enemy

> > installations

> > > and weaponry.

> > >

> > > But, frankly, if you're not going to believe in the existance of

India,

> it

> > > isn't going to benefit either of us if I waste my time trying to

> convince

> > > you that it exists.

> > >

> > > Personally, I really don't care what you believe. It seems a shame

that

> > you

> > > have so little confidence in your own beliefs that you use the

standard

> > > " fear response " tactic of attempting to bully others into agreeing

with

> by

> > > insulting and belittling people who differ.

> > >

> > > BB

> > > Peter

> > >

> > > ---

> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> > > Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03

> > >

> > > To send an email to -

> > >

May 20, 2003

Hi Peter,

I'm not overly concerned with the intricate differences between Sunni Muslims or Shiites, but can you show me one organised terrorist Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc. group that dedicates itself to killing and maiming people not of it's faith (infidels), or issues "fatwahs" (read death warrants) on them for perceived insults, such as in Salman Rushdie's case?

Tom

-

Peter

Sunday, May 18, 2003 2:35 AM

Re: religion

Hi Tom

> As for Islam, I do find it a particularly aggressive form of religion, and the treatment of women, as an example, seems not be an

> aberration, rather the rule.

Which branch of Islam are you talking about? I agree that in general Shiah Islam is agressive and very oppressive of women - but Shiites only account for a very small (but very vocal) minority of Islam. As for the vast majority if Muslims: Sunnah Islam is far more progressive and in keeping with the original teachings of Mohammed. Other branches also vary.

I would point out that I know relatively little about Islam, and don't generally comment on what I know little about - but I figured "hey, if people who know less about it comment, why shouldn't I" :-)

BB

Peter

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release 13/05/03To send an email to -

May 20, 2003