Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be proven, by 
physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of the equation of life, 
life then makes less sense, and becomes less enjoyable. An example would be the 
love between a child, and its mother or father, or love between friends.  

 What makes you think that is non-physical?
 

 The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and chemicals, 
but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged anyone else. 
 

 Astoundingly, scientists do get the occasional hug. How the brain generates 
subjective experience is the mystery not that it is a subjective metal 
experience that wouldn't be there without our brains and all their chemicals 
and electricity.
 

 My perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual physical 
manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a starting point. 
 

 I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a strictly 
material life, a function of lower consciousness. 
 

 True, but he had some yagya's to sell you. And I don;t consider him much of an 
authority anyway simply because he pitched a non-sensical cosmology with no 
evidence to support it, and a lot of what he claimed is testable but seems to 
have failed. And a lot of it was wishful thinking and appeals to ancient 
authority. I give him top marks for optimism though.
 

 Odd that those with a scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and integrate 
non-scientific emotional responses into their lives, and yet be quite imperious 
on accepting such responses, as they consider them non-scientific. What a mess 
waking state is.
 

 I don;t know how I make it through the day to be honest...
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?






 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I c

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 Something to point out, about Curtis, Ann -- Rather than an expression of his 
social flexibility and capacity to entertain multiple points of view, Curtis 
enjoys Barry's anti-social nature, and exploits it fully. This way, he enjoys 
the vicarious pleasure of watching Barry insult and abuse others endlessly, and 
at the same time, tries to ensure by his uber reasonableness, and kumbaya 
attitude, that none of the stink gets on him, personally.
 Curtis is Barry's puppet-master.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

There are many non-physical phenomena that on one hand, cannot be proven, by 
physical means. On the other hand, if we take them out of the equation of life, 
life then makes less sense, and becomes less enjoyable. An example would be the 
love between a child, and its mother or father, or love between friends.  

 The scientist would conclude that it is species preservation and chemicals, 
but that doesn't jibe with anyone who has ever hugged anyone else. My 
perspective tends to be the other way 'round, seeing the eventual physical 
manifestations of all of this world, as an end result, vs. a starting point. 
 

 I recall Maharishi was rather dismissive, of the coarse nature of a strictly 
material life, a function of lower consciousness. Odd that those with a 
scientific bias, allow themselves to feel and integrate non-scientific 
emotional responses into their lives, and yet be quite imperious on accepting 
such responses, as they consider them non-scientific. What a mess waking state 
is.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?






 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anythin

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Xeno, 

 Thank you for your ideas.  I believe we've exhausted this debate.  There is no 
point to continue.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :No

 Xeno, 

 You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated 
yesterday.  Earlier, you said that "everything that exists has no cause".  Then 
you said that:
 

 "As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that 
gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body 
were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The 
protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I 
certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old 
or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them."
 

 Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and 
a father. =No, I said my body had a mother and a father, that's different. You 
need to read more carefully.=  From my understanding, your parents are the 
cause of your existence on earth. =Your understanding and my understanding are 
different, I am consciousness and that includes the entire universe. To add a 
point, the physical universe is the equivalent of consciousness, they are not 
separate things. To say it another way the universe is pure being; that is all 
trivial because this is true for everyone whether they know it or not, whether 
they feel separate from the universe or not. If you studied Zen, you might call 
consciousness or awareness the unborn.= So, we have one specific example that 
proves your statement to be false. =Well that is not bad considering how many 
statement you have made that are out of whack. But you came to the conclusion 
by dropping out a critical word in my post, so you came to the wrong conclusion 
because you did not use the original phrase=. IOW, you are a physical entity 
that has a cause since your parents begot you. By your own testament you have 
proved your statement to be illogical. =I regard the entire universe as a 
physical entity, by my reckoning I am 13.5 billion years old or so, but really 
I am just blank awareness and the rest of the stuff just fills things out a bit.
 

 Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true?   Because, like you, all 
human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth.  We are all 
physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this 
world. =But your parents had grandparents, strictly speaking your parents had a 
prior cause by this reasoning, you could just as well say your grandparents 
were your cause because they caused the environment responsible for your birth. 
And guess what? You grandparents had parents too, so really, your grandparents 
were not really the cause of your birth. If we go back far enough, we could 
find a host of segmented worms that were the progenitors that led to you, and 
further back, bacteria. Where do you draw the line at causes? You are making 
your parents an arbitrary stopping point for causes.=
 

 There are many other examples in the physical world that show "everything that 
begins to exist has a cause".  But your parents are the clearest evidence that 
they caused you to exist.  Do you agree or not? =Strictly speaking I do not 
know directly that the people I grew up with were my parents or relatives, as I 
do not remember those physical details that far back. I was told certain humans 
were my parents. No one every told me I was adopted for example, but some 
foster parents do not reveal to their adopted child they were not their birth 
parents. It is certainly psossible in the absence of DNA evidence, those people 
were not my parents. But as I pointed out, parents are simply an arbitrary 
marker in a long long line of causes. The formation of the Sun and Earth out of 
supernova remenants would be one event in the long line of causes.=
 

 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

 

 a. How has it been established that this is true?
 b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists h

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

As to the first question, mental illness perhaps results from atypical wiring 
and growth of the brain, causes not necessarily known. Mental illness is not 
considered a contagious disease. So contrary to the title Barry gave to this 
thread, the hook if you will, belief in god is not a mental illness. But it is 
associated with cultural trends, those behaviours that can program the mind, 
especially younger minds which are more flexible and which do not have 
reasoning well developed, like most of us on FFL. Ideas spread from mind to 
mind via various forms of communication and a mind that is not very selective 
in what it lets through may become infected with strange unworkable ideas that 
are nonetheless believed to be true. So if belief in god is some form of 
illness, it is a cultural one, spread through parents and relatives, friends, 
government, and dare I say, education. While the concept of a meme has never 
been proved to exist, the idea of a meme (an element of a culture or system of 
behaviour that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by 
non-genetic means, especially imitation) is a convenient way to summarise 
cultural transmission and transmission of ideas on a personal scale. If belief 
in god leads to irrational and abberant behaviour perhaps we could call that a 
memetic disorder or a memetic disease. 

 As for the second question, that is related to the problem of non-physical 
physical interaction. There does not seem to be any way to explain this unless 
you accept that god is physical, or that the universe is not physical, and the 
latter seems pretty dumb. Religion mucks around with this problem as if it did 
not exist, which is why I find belief in god to be extraordinarily premature 
based on what we can feel confident about in this universe. Physical 
observation does not seem to be a resolution to the problem. One facet of human 
endeavour is subjective introspection. As far as knowledge of the physical 
world, no one involved with this kind of thing has ever discovered what we have 
discovered using science. A few really brilliant scientist like Einstein seem 
to have had a knack for that, but Einstein had plenty of physical data input 
before his discoveries. 
 

 But introspective research does reveal something of how the mind works in a 
practical way, and it throws some light on the nutty problem of awareness which 
seems non physical, but which vanishes if the body in which the awareness seems 
to reside is destroyed, and yet there are experiences wherein one senses that 
if the body were destroyed some aspect of existence would continue, not 
personal or personal immortality, but some indefinable, irreducible value of 
abstract existence, because it is experienced (perhaps as a result these 
introspective techniques) that that value is what everything is. 
 

 But because the experience is not shared, like scientific knowledge, we have 
no way to transmitting that experience to someone else. Also the experience is 
not hidden, it is simply the universe as it is seen every day and night, which 
includes body, mind, senses, and all that lies outside the body. This sort of 
realisation subjectively eliminates the problem because the physical / 
non-physical duality is seen to be the wrong question as both are seen to be 
the same thing. So saying a potato is physical but consciousness is not is, 
from this perspective, an idiotic question. But it certainly does not resolve 
the issue for scientific investigation because science has a dualistic approach 
to knowledge — observer and observed. This approach has proved very practical 
for living in the universe, but in regards to our awareness, from the 
scientific point of view it seems to be a function of the organisation of 
matter or does not seem to be there at all if we look for it directly, we 
always seem to have to approach it indirectly, except as we know it in 
ourselves where it does seem possible, from a purely subjective viewpoint, to 
dissolve the dividing line between observer and observed.
 

 Words are known by their context. God is a pretty loaded word culturally. One 
thing I try is, if you have a piece of literature, is to rewrite it 
substituting a word for god that does not have the cultural associations and 
hooks for the human psyche that have been programmed in. A place holder without 
the emotional associations. Often a piece of writing with this substitution 
will sound ridiculous when this is done, but not necessarily. Also there are 
cultural traditions in which the word god is not used for elemental being, such 
as Tao, or the Void as you find in some forms of Buddhism. I sometimes use the 
word 'Fred'. Or one could use a functional term like 'haberdasher'. Or perhaps 
a word with definite negative connotations would work better to counteract the 
cultural bias. If the passage, neutralised of emotional programming, still 
makes some kind of rational sense, maybe there is so

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

That's a nice piece Ann. 

 I feel as though I have a pretty good idea of the "real" person behind 
people's online persona.
 

 I think you might be referring to Barry in some of what you say here.
 

 I've had a changing relationship with him.
 

 He thinks I've changed. I think he's changed.  
 

 Honestly.  I mean, really honestly.  I don't care.
 

 I still like him, although I think he is disappointed in me, and I in him, to 
some extent.
 

 But who the hell cares!
 

 FFL offers a pleasant back and forth (at least enough of the time), and a 
chance to hear different perspectives.
 

 I like Curtis' input because he will ask you in a genuine way, to justify your 
position on things, and ask you to share your opinion.
 

 Lord knows he is repeatedly asked to defend his position on issues.
 

 And it is important, to at some point, say, "fair enough, I guess we see 
things differently" and then move on.
 

 That has been easier to do, these last four, five, or six months. (however 
long its been)   (-:
 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I 
think we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed 
me recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?
 

 Ahhh, now I get to talk to you friend to friend. Curtis, you know I support 
you 100% in what I see as your diligent and love-inspired passionate pursuit of 
your art, your music. No one can ever take that away from you. As an artist you 
are rarified, you are special because artists have to wade through tough, 
weed-choked waters. There is little money in it and there is the need to keep 
moving on and progressing even when things seem to have become comfortable and 
even profitable in their way. But real artists are never at rest, so it can be 
grueling and bone-racking. But, I digress.
 

 Of course I can appreciate/like someone who likes or believes in something I 
either dislike or don't ascribe to. bawee commented on my applauding Gervais as 
if I didn't realize he was an athiest. C'mon, really? Of course I can 
appreciate someone who may believe very different things than I do - especially 
when it comes to something as silly as religion or lack of it. But let's not 
talk about bawee, I have my hands full just smacking him into line day after 
day - it is an exhausting pursuit but someone has to do it so I sacrifice 
myself on the wheel of necessity. There will be some reward in heaven for my 
efforts, I am sure.
 

 Curtis, this old internet world is a funny one. Before FFL I never 
participated in any forums and so I had to figure stuff out. One thing is that 
while I am a straight shooter (whatever anyone sees of me here is exactly how I 
am in the flesh) I don't believe this holds true for some others here. For some 
reason forums are an opportunity to become another part of who they are, or 
they simply create something they wished  they were. I don't know and I don't 
care. We all operate from where we feel comfortable or even from where we can 
push ourselves as a sort of exercise in pressing personal limits. But whatever 
it is, some simply cross the bounds of decency (and I use that word in the old 
fashioned sense, decency being what is civil, sensitive and truthful). They 
commit a kind of trespass on the sensibilities of those who are effected by 
such things. They act like a sort of emotional jack hammer. It's simply not 
what I seek out in life where so much is beautiful and delicate and can enter 
your life as the subtlest whisper of revelation and even promise. Jack hammers 
are a dime a dozen.
 

 So, you must be a man of deep capacity to be able to hold within your 
appreciation myself and someone as different as I am in the form of bawee. 
Maybe one day I'll get there too.
 

 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 1:57 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Richard,


Your points are excellent.  It's good that you reminded us of 
Aristotle's idea regarding the first cause and principle.  But it 
appears that there are some people here who will disagree with you on 
this point.

>
/So far everyone seems to agree that we are conscious beings and that 
causality is the relation between an event and a second event in which 
the second event is a consequence of the first. The disagreement seems 
about the notion a first cause.


Nobody seems to want to talk about Barry's beliefs in reincarnation and 
levitation, for which there is no physical evidence.//It looks like 
everyone is very interested in metaphysics, but not very interested in 
physics or logic. Go figure. /

>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.

>
/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that
for every event there is a cause. The question is if
everything that happens has a cause, is there a first cause?
This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. //
//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an
end would have to have a first cause or principle. His
argument for before and after must have an antecedent state
following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing."

Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it
would require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to
support change./

/Where is Robin when we need him?/


/>
/On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@...
 [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>



M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded
assertions either, he was fond of making them himself. If he
did he would have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions
instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life we
conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the
former requires another outside verification for its
veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical syllogisms. In
our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against
them. They were blind to their own presumptive statements
that had not been proven, and then were overfond of the
logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole history
of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions.

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack
of exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and
astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond the range of our
senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to
speculate about. It takes physicists years of deep study and
advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from
our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims
like "Everything that comes to exist has a cause." are
ridiculous as an unchallenged first principle. 


>
/It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a
reason for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they
don't just happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost
everyone assumes causation because it is so logical to the human
experience: human excrement always flows downstream; gravity
sucks.//There are no chance events./
>


Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about
quantum events we have learned that such universals are
unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how their
world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual
asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the
range of our senses.


>
/Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of
consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness,
or not.//

My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that
we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept
that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas,
not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be
inferred.//
//
//Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the
earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart 
of it was this sentence:  ' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material.'

especially the   . . . "and anything that interacts with the physical/material"

because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems 
foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the 
physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science.

So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the 
nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is 
no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is 
some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard 
and edgy the world is.

So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, 
it's one's only chance.   Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent 
shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up 
or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to 
ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist).
 

 Stick around, whoever you are.

Shyayyaya!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I may not respond point by point Ann. You and I have our clear channel. I think 
we get each other. I am more of a one one one poster here. Steve nailed me 
recently. He said I respond to everyone in sympathetic response to how they 
respond to me. That was a typical insightful naildown from my brother Steve.

You and I do not agree with our perspectives on Barry. But you have separated 
your view of him from my friendliness toward him. I can't tell you how much I 
appreciate that Ann. You are a friend here.  And in my world. I can be friends 
with you AND Barry and appreciate you both for different reasons. That is how I 
roll.  I think you roll that way too. Robin was unable to allow me to be 
connected to people who were hostile toward him and still be friendly with him. 
You seem able to go beyond this. I like you, and I like Barry. What you do 
between yourselves is none of my business. 

Does that work for you?



 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.
 

 The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or 
John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4
 
 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me 
can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose 
Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of 
them.  :-)

I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and 
depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew 
their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. 

Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone 
dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking 
this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no 
surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on 
a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything 
approaching sanity from him now. 

But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the 
money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of "success," and then 
move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human 
contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He 
probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing 
at the skunks on his property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and 
you're NOT. So there!"  :-)
 

 I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet seen 
anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis respond point by 
point to this post. What do you think about what bawee has said here Curtis? 
Maybe by the time I have read everything up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you 
have done this already.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart 
of it was this sentence:  ' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material.'

especially the   . . . "and anything that interacts with the physical/material"

because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems 
foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the 
physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science.

So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the 
nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is 
no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is 
some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard 
and edgy the world is.

So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, 
it's one's only chance.   Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent 
shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up 
or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to 
ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist).
 

 Stick around, whoever you are.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.
 

 The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or 
John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4
 
 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.


 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me 
can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose 
Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of 
them.  :-)

I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and 
depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew 
their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. 

Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone 
dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking 
this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no 
surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on 
a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything 
approaching sanity from him now. 

But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the 
money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of "success," and then 
move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human 
contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He 
probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing 
at the skunks on his property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and 
you're NOT. So there!"  :-)
 

 I am reading these posts today in chronological order so I haven't yet seen 
anyone's response to this. I would be curious to see Curtis respond point by 
point to this post. What do you think about what bawee has said here Curtis? 
Maybe by the time I have read everything up to 7:49 pm my time I will see you 
have done this already.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
 

 Boy oh boy do I like your posts. Yessiree, I surely do.
 

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Wed 22-Oct-14 00:15:04 UTC

[FFL PostCount ffl.postco...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 10/18/14 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 10/25/14 00:00:00
511 messages as of (UTC) 10/21/14 23:51:55

 84 fleetwood_macncheese
 70 awoelflebater
 61 'Richard J. Williams' punditster
 42 TurquoiseBee turquoiseb
 33 salyavin808 
 29 curtisdeltablues
 26 Share Long sharelong60
 25 steve.sundur
 22 Bhairitu noozguru
 20 jr_esq
 19 Michael Jackson mjackson74
 14 anartaxius
 13 nablusoss1008 
  9 dhamiltony2k5
  8 s3raphita
  5 wgm4u 
  5 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569
  4 emptybill
  4 blue_bungalow_2
  4 LEnglish5
  3 inmadison
  3 'Rick Archer' rick
  2 punditster
  2 Sharalyn Pliler homeonthefarm
  2 Duveyoung 
  1 feste37 
  1 Dick Mays dickmays
Posters: 27
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :No

 Xeno, 

 You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated 
yesterday.  Earlier, you said that "everything that exists has no cause".  Then 
you said that:
 

 "As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that 
gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body 
were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The 
protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I 
certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old 
or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them."
 

 Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and 
a father. =No, I said my body had a mother and a father, that's different. You 
need to read more carefully.=  From my understanding, your parents are the 
cause of your existence on earth. =Your understanding and my understanding are 
different, I am consciousness and that includes the entire universe. To add a 
point, the physical universe is the equivalent of consciousness, they are not 
separate things. To say it another way the universe is pure being; that is all 
trivial because this is true for everyone whether they know it or not, whether 
they feel separate from the universe or not. If you studied Zen, you might call 
consciousness or awareness the unborn.= So, we have one specific example that 
proves your statement to be false. =Well that is not bad considering how many 
statement you have made that are out of whack. But you came to the conclusion 
by dropping out a critical word in my post, so you came to the wrong conclusion 
because you did not use the original phrase=. IOW, you are a physical entity 
that has a cause since your parents begot you. By your own testament you have 
proved your statement to be illogical. =I regard the entire universe as a 
physical entity, by my reckoning I am 13.5 billion years old or so, but really 
I am just blank awareness and the rest of the stuff just fills things out a bit.
 

 Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true?   Because, like you, all 
human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth.  We are all 
physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this 
world. =But your parents had grandparents, strictly speaking your parents had a 
prior cause by this reasoning, you could just as well say your grandparents 
were your cause because they caused the environment responsible for your birth. 
And guess what? You grandparents had parents too, so really, your grandparents 
were not really the cause of your birth. If we go back far enough, we could 
find a host of segmented worms that were the progenitors that led to you, and 
further back, bacteria. Where do you draw the line at causes? You are making 
your parents an arbitrary stopping point for causes.=
 

 There are many other examples in the physical world that show "everything that 
begins to exist has a cause".  But your parents are the clearest evidence that 
they caused you to exist.  Do you agree or not? =Strictly speaking I do not 
know directly that the people I grew up with were my parents or relatives, as I 
do not remember those physical details that far back. I was told certain humans 
were my parents. No one every told me I was adopted for example, but some 
foster parents do not reveal to their adopted child they were not their birth 
parents. It is certainly psossible in the absence of DNA evidence, those people 
were not my parents. But as I pointed out, parents are simply an arbitrary 
marker in a long long line of causes. The formation of the Sun and Earth out of 
supernova remenants would be one event in the long line of causes.=
 

 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

 

 a. How has it been established that this is true?
 b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'?
 

 That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because 
believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes othe

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Upcoming Arts & Entertainment Events

[Sharalyn Pliler homeonthef...@iowatelecom.net [FairfieldLife]]

Begin forwarded
> 
> 
> 
>  UPCOMING EVENTS
> 
> FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24 
> The Honey Dewdrops. Spare, original songs with a modern sensibility. 
> 8 PM Cafe Paradiso   
> 
> SAT & SUN
> OCTOBER 25 & 26
> Atwood Corn Maze 
> Saturday; 10 am - 6 pm 
> Sunday 1-5  
> 1639 Packwood Rd 
> Closed if raining
> 
> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26
> Critters of the Night Fall Hike
> 6:00 - 8:00 PM
> Jefferson County Park Nature Center
> 
> TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28
> SPOOKride 
> starting at the Rose Garden in Chautauqua Park.
> 6:30 - 8:00 PM
> 
> OCTOBER 31 - NOVEMBER 2
> English Country Dance Weekend
> Morning Star Studio
> 
> SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1
> Truckstop Souvenir. Featuring Fairfield's onw Lauryn Shapter and Dennis 
> James. 8-10 p.m. Cafe Paradiso
> 
> TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4
> Ben Gulley, Tenor
> 7:30 PM
> 2014-15 Fairfield Concert Association Series Sondheim Center  
> Stay with Us
>  
>  Do you have guests coming in for the weekend?
> Whether you are looking for a hotel with a pool or a  quaint Bed and 
> Breakfast,   Fairfield can help you and your guests feel right at home.
> Check out these places to stay...
> Stay with us
> 
> Like us on Facebook
>  
>  
> 
> An Evening with JOE DIFFIE
> Sat, Oct 25 | 7:30 PM
> Live at the Sondheim
> Sondheim Center 
> 
> Purchase tickets here
> 
> Annual Fall Trail Drive-Through. 
> Come over your lunch hour and enjoy this once-a-year opportunity to drive a 
> section of the trails! The Jefferson County Conservation Board hosts this 
> drive through, this year on a weekday. 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Choose Cedar 
> View Trail to 223rd, and Cedar View Trailhead onto the Loop Trail through 
> Whitham Woods
> 
> Chris Medina
> Wed, Nov 05 | 7:30 PM
> From American Idol 
> Sondheim Center
> 
> Purchase tickets here 
>  
>   
> Fairfield Farmers Market
> Every Saturday 8 - 1
> Every Wed 3 -6
> Howard Park
> Baked goods, fresh veggies, farm fresh brown eggs, jewelry, a little bit of 
> everything!
>  
> Events at the Orpheum Theater: Click the link for current events
> 121 W. Broadway Ave
> 641-209-5008
> http://orpheumtheaterfairfield.com/
> 
> Stay up to date with all Art Walk events! 
> Held the first Friday of every month, this fusion event includes art, food, 
> music and a lot of fun.  Share in all that the Fairfield community has to 
> offer.
> For information of all upcoming Art Walk events, click here 
>
> Winner of the Iowa Tourism Social Media Award!
> Fairfield Iowa... There's an APP for that!
> Now you can have Fairfield events and amenities in the palm of your hand!  
> Simply download the Fairfield Iowa App onto your smartphone and you'll be 
> able to find restaurants, buy tickets for events, call shops and services, 
> load events onto your phone calendar and find your way around town. It's FREE!
> 
> Download the Android version here
> 
> Download the IPhone version here
> Stay in the know about upcoming events
> Bookmark TravelFairfield.com and refer to it often for upcoming arts & 
> entertainment in the Fairfield Area. 
> 
> Join the Fairfield Iowa Convention and Visitors Bureau 
> Events and Performances Mailing List
>   
> Forward email
> 
> 
> 
> This email was sent to homeonthef...@iowatelecom.net by 
> i...@travelfairfieldiowa.com |  
> Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy 
> Policy.
> 
> 
> Fairfield Iowa Convention & Visitors Bureau | 200 N. Main St. | Fairfield | 
> IA | 52556
> 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: How Can You Help Fight the Spread of Ebola?

[Sharalyn Pliler homeonthef...@iowatelecom.net [FairfieldLife]]

> 
>  
>  
>   
>  
> DAILY SNAPSHOT
> Tuesday, October 21, 2014
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>   Featured
> How Can You Help Fight the Spread of Ebola?
> 
> Right now, Americans across the country are helping in a variety of ways to 
> help fight the global spread of Ebola.
> 
> Whether it's signing up to be a medical volunteer, sharing your ideas to help 
> combat the spread of Ebola, or donating money, there are a variety of options 
> available to you.
> 
> If you're looking for ways to help out, learn more here.
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama meets with doctors and healthcare professionals from 
> Emory Hospital at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, 
> Ga., Sept. 16, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
> 
> 
>  
>  
>   Top Stories 
> Meet the U.S. Military Team That's Poised to Help Respond to Ebola in the U.S.
> 
> The Department of Defense (DOD), at the request of the Department of Health 
> and Human Services (HHS), announced this weekend that U.S. Northern Command 
> (USNORTHCOM) is providing a 30-person medical support team to quickly, 
> effectively, and safely respond in the event of additional Ebola cases in the 
> United States.
> 
> READ MORE
> 
> A Small Business Owner's Perspective: "A High Road on the Minimum Wage"
> 
> Paul Saginaw, the co-founding partner in the Zingerman's Community of 
> Businesses, explains why he's a spokesman for a fair minimum wage.
> 
> READ MORE
> 
> Weekly Address: What You Need to Know About Ebola
> 
> In this week's address, the President discussed what the United States is 
> doing to respond to Ebola, both here at home and abroad, and the key facts 
> Americans need to know.
> 
> READ MORE
> 
> 
>  
>  
>   Today's Schedule
> All times are Eastern Time (ET)
> 
> 10:00 AM: The President and Vice President receive the Presidential Daily 
> Briefing
> 
> 11:55 AM: The President and Vice President meet with Secretary of the 
> Treasury Lew
> 
> 12:30 PM: The President and Vice President meet for lunch
> 
> 12:30 PM: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest
> 
> 2:00 PM: The Vice President delivers remarks at The Washington Post’s 
> “America Answers” forum
> 
> 4:30 PM: The President and Vice President meet with Secretary of Defense Hagel
> 
> 
>  
>  Facebook Twitter|   More Ways to Engage
> 
> Did Someone Forward This to You? Sign Up for Email Updates
> 
> This email was sent to homeonthef...@iowatelecom.net
> 
> Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
> Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
> 
> The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 
> 202-456-
> 
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Crop Circles — Messages in the Fields

[nablusoss1008]

Crop Circles — Messages in the Fields 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Sc&feature=youtu.be

 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Sc&feature=youtu.be 
 
 Crop Circles — Messages in the Fields 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Sc&feature=youtu.be Thousands of 
extraordinary geometric patterns have appeared in crop fields in more than 50 
countries throughout the world. The crops are not cut or broken, b...
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-odAVYR6Sc&feature=youtu.be 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This is a lot of airy talk, though telling. My concern after having read it, 
is, I feel it was written by someone who takes less than complete 
responsibility for their life, and their personal thoughts and actions. Taking 
this line, of the strong possibility of random action, so seriously, as you do, 
would make it a very convenient excuse to use, whenever things have not gone 
according to your liking, in your life - The "who knew?!" excuse.

 

In this thread I have not mentioned random action, you have added that in 
(perhaps from other threads in which I mentioned it, as in quantum mechanics 
there is a certain percentage of randomness in particle events). As for 
responsibility, I live my life, I have thoughts but I do not normally have 
thoughts about my thoughts or thoughts of responsibility, though I have 
definite responsibilities and I do have to act to keep things from falling 
apart. I am not even sure what taking responsibility for my life means — you 
are enlightened, you must experience how automatically life runs on, and adding 
a conceptual layer trying to re-impose egoistic control over an autonomous 
process seems incredibly redundant and unnecessary.  

 I unpacked a radiant heater last night, and it failed to work out of the box. 
I am going to take it back to the store where I bought it. Now, if I take 
responsibility for my life, should I do something different? I have taxes to 
pay this month and business personal property inventory forms to turn in this 
month. If I take responsibility for my life should I do something different 
than pay the taxes and turn in the inventory forms to the local city 
government? I have a client for which I do certain things, should I do 
something different than showing up on time and doing those things on those 
days I have contracted with the client in order to be taking more 
responsibility for my life? I also am working today. This particular post sat 
on my screen in the background for some 6 hours until I could finish off a 
couple of sentences because I was working on a publication. I am responding to 
you but I have no responsibility to do so. 

 This thread, or rather this portion of this thread is about the beginning 
portion Kalam argument which is an airy argument about ultimate beginnings. 
What do you think of the argument? I do not think it solves the problem it 
intends to solve, it is a stand-in for facts not in evidence. It could also be 
an stand-in for facts in evidence but whose interpretation is open to question, 
e.g., cosmic microwave background radiation which is currently explained by big 
bang theories, multiverse theories but for which solid proof and a clear 
understanding of the known facts is really lacking. And finally why do you have 
'concern' that it was written by someone with x, y, and z characteristics (x, 
y, and z are variables standing in for your comments)? We have concerns when 
something does not fit into our world view the way we would like, otherwise why 
would a concern arise? Everything went fine today, except for that heater.
 

 

 =  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

 

 a. How has it been established that this is true?
 b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'?
 

 That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because 
believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 
'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed 
attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the 
uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the 
statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the 
beginning of the existence of god.
 

 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the 
beginning of existence of god.

 

 How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the 
source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special 
emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anyth

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 12:07 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is 
a little more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam 
Harris (-:

>
According to Sam Harris consciousness is the only thing that cannot be 
an illusion.

>

Anyway, my questions are:
1. how do we know that we know?

>
/We know that we exist because we are self-conscious. Without 
consciousness there would be no perception or perceiver./

>
Which is kind of abstract and probably just me reliving a past life as 
a haetera!

>
/Non sequitur. The fact of consciousness is dirt simple because everyone 
has it, otherwise they would be unconscious. Nobody that is conscious 
goes around saying they don't exist. "Consciousness is the basic fact of 
life that cannot be doubted."- Sam harris/

>

2. what do we mean by knowing?

>
/Knowing is having knowledge structured in consciousness; intelligence. /
>
Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, 
perception could be faulty.

>
/If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear 
contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for 
corroboration. When they contradict, which sense shall we accept as 
reliable? If we observe the naive realist closely, we will find that at 
some times he relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on his 
ears. When different senses corroborate an error, he even more baffled./

>
Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about 
first love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the 
"truth" of the song.

>
/For past experiences, to be compared, they must be remembered. But 
memory often fails us. What assurance do we have that it is not failing 
us again? Past experiences may have been erroneous consistently. The 
materialist thinks he sees directly back into an existing past which in 
reality has ceased to exist!/


/This is called in philosophy an appeal to instruments and like the 
appeal to other senses, to past experiences, to repetition, and to other 
persons, is a confession of failure. For it is a confession that 
apparently obvious objects are NOT self-evident./

>

But here's my really favorite question,
3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?

>
/It is worthwhile to be conscious because that way get to enjoy life and 
gain knowledge that will set us free. You should know the truth and the 
truth will set your free.//There in knowledge higher than absolute 
knowledge./

>

Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

>
/There is only one single reality - pure consciousness - duality is an 
illusion. /

>



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:



M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly 
thought provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not 
sure philosophy is the right discipline to answer your question from, 
except to enhance the discussion of "how could we know?"


Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."


M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent 
of knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our 
sense-bound intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, 
even though technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know 
all or in some cases very much about this level of reality should give 
us all some humility about what is real.


But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical 
realm through internal experience have not made their case 
convincingly to me. We have a lot of mystery to explore and I am 
dubious that anyone has cleared it up from a mystical tradition. I am 
putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to push back into the 
mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished by 
religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions 
whose stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" 
over "Let's find out."


The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? 
I wish people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying 
these questions before they announce their assumptions. We need to 
address how we could be confident of such knowledge knowing how 
fallible and prone to self delusions humans are with all of our 
cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in the intellectual 
mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.


Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts 
and humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We 
don't h

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart 
of it was this sentence:  ' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material.'

especially the   . . . "and anything that interacts with the physical/material"

because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems 
foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the 
physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science.

So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the 
nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is 
no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is 
some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard 
and edgy the world is.

So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, 
it's one's only chance.   Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent 
shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up 
or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to 
ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist).

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Trem23, 

 Regarding Q1, you have to understand who started this thread in the first 
place.  The person who started it is a self-proclaimed "non-theist".  You can 
ask him what this means.  You may or may not get a consistent answer from him.
 

 Regarding Q2, MMY said that everything in the world is based in consciousness. 
 We've been debating this point with some members here for some time.  And, as 
you can gather, the debate is still on-going.
 

 You may be interested in hearing John Hagelin's explanation of the unified 
field, as shown in the link below:
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM

 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] TV series review: The Knick

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 11:46 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
I watched the first episode of Steven Soderberg's new TV series "The 
Knick" a few weeks ago, realized immediately its depth, and Put It The 
Fuck Away Until I Had Time To Binge Watch The Whole Series At Once. I 
have only in the last few days been able to binge watch the whole 
series. I think it's one of the best things on television.


Soderberg did a kind of sideways shuffle into television with this 
series, coming as it does on the heels of his public announcement that 
he was done with making films, forever. Well, TV must not count as 
film, because he appears to have been Pretty Fuckin' Busy making this 
series. He wrote most of the scripts, directed all 10 episodes, and 
IMO basically created a weird kind of masterpiece that I suspect in 
the future will be favorably compared to "Deadwood" as being one of 
the best TV series ever created.


OK, for you in countries in which you'll have to pay HBO prices to see 
this and who resent that, it's kinda worth it. Say it costs you ten 
bucks. Just being able to watch Soderberg's cinematography when 
recreating 1900s New York would be worth ten bucks.


Oh it is far more than $10 or even $20.  You have to have a cable or 
satellite subscription and you can just ask for HBO only.  So you not 
only have to have the broadcast channels but usually one tier of the 
cable networks (FX, AMC, etc).  So you can easily be paying $80 a month 
in programming before they will let you have HBO.  If you are lucky or 
try to quit your provider they MAY offer HBO (or Showtime or Starz) for 
free for several months.  Of course this is just a little fee finagling. 
Believe me, HBO still gets their bucks.  And then there are the 
additional fees these comapanies charge like rentals for the DVR, etc.


The thing is the WRONG PEOPLE run the telecoms.  It's like they came 
straight off a carnival midway.  And we wonder why people pirate shows?


One solution is to find a friend or relative who has HBO and ask for 
their HBO GO app password.  Lots of people do this and HBO knows this 
and currently doesn't care.  In fact they are going to offer HBO next 
year via online service without the need for a cable or satellite 
subscription.  I don't expect it will be that reasonably priced (has 
been hinted at $16 a month).


There's some good stuff of TV and of course a lot of terrible stuff 
(which has always been the case).  Some of us cable cutters don't really 
like to get strung along by series and have taken to mainly watching 
movies which require far less time investment.  It's all "bread and 
circuses" anyway.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Richard, 

 Your points are excellent.  It's good that you reminded us of Aristotle's idea 
regarding the first cause and principle.  But it appears that there are some 
people here who will disagree with you on this point.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

   
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?
 


 >
 On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 
 M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.
 
 The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
 
 The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.
 
 Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. 




 >
 It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for 
things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no 
reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so 
logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; 
gravity sucks. There are no chance events.
 >
 Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our 
natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned 
that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how 
their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked 
by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses.
 




 >
 Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. 
There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. 
 
 My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer 
that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a 
valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, 
cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.
 
 Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being 
flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving 
around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it 
is much larger that the earth.
 
 We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a 
combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of 
consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the 
validity of inference is to refuse to think or discuss. All thoughts, all 
discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations, and all denials, all proofs and 
disproofs are made possible by inference.
 >
 
 Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
people. 




 >
 Maybe we should explain this to Barry since he seems only to be able to copy 
and paste cartoons.
 >
 They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought out. If 
they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these arguments are 
not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it for other 
reasons that 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English?

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Baker has always been my favorite Dr. - My daughter LOVES Dr. Who, tho her 
favs have been David Tennant and Matt Smith. Didn't take her long to accept 
Peter Capaldi. I haven't seen any of Capaldi's episodes yet. 

 

 I didn't like Matt Smith, I thought he was too young and there was always too 
much running around frantically. I prefer the old BBC style of story telling 
but the Capaldi stories have been a real treat, I tune in every week, just like 
when I was a kid. 
 

 Not that I ever grew up, I've still got a lot of the DVD's of the 70's series, 
they're my favourite nostalgic treat. Did you ever see Blakes 7? It was a more 
grown up BBC sci-fi series that Dr Who fans gravitated to when we hit puberty 
and the whovian storylines started looking a bit thin. 
 

 Blakes 7, worth searching out if you've never had the pleasure.
 

 

 Blakes 7 (TV Series 1978–1981) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ 
 
 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ 
 
 Blakes 7 (TV Series 1978–1981) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ Created by 
Terry Nation. With Michael Keating, Paul Darrow, Peter Tuddenham, Jan Chappell. 
A group of convicts and outcasts fight a guerrilla war against the...
 
 
 
 View on www.imdb.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076987/ 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing 
in English?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. 

 

 Dr. Who keeps 'em mesmerized!

 

 Yup, it works for me! 
 

 Always did actually. I met Tom Baker when he started as Dr Who. It was like 
meeting god, better than that to me as I would have said even then.
 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:26 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing 
in English?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 you will have to explain that to us crass and crude Americans, I never heard 
of such doings as this - and it was legal at one time? Who changed the law and 
why wasn't it illegal to begin with?

 

 We've always done it MJ, until recently anyway, it's a way of housing the 
homeless or feeding yourself in critical times. 
 

 But squatting empty buildings became really popular in the 1960's because of 
the housing crisis, I have no idea when the laws were agreed but there was a 
statement you put on the door of the house you let yourself into stating that 
it was now your home and there was basically nothing they could do about it, 
except go to court to have you removed, which generally took ages. 
 

 To put it into perspective, my town has 30% of it's houses empty for 10 months 
of the year and yet there are homeless people sleeping rough everywhere. This 
sort of imbalance in wealth is very bad for society and the government doesn't 
give a damn, they actively make it worse in fact. So squatting was a good idea 
but it did attract a lot of the wrong types who ruined peoples houses. The way 
things are swinging politically it couldn't last. everyone tries to out fascist 
the other guy these days.
 

 The people I knew in squats were either paying off student debts or anarchist 
types living cheap and avoiding officialdom. We ran an environmental action 
group from our pub as well as having awesome parties and plotted the overthrow 
of Maggie Thatcher, but I went to travel the world before they built the 
barricades. It was good clean fun and no one got hurt or even disadvantaged 
much.
 

 But it's all been illegal since a few years ago, the verminous Tories won't 
let their rich friends be inconvenienced in any way so they stopped it. London 
belongs to oligarchs now, the rich have won the class war and there's no way to 
live except by paying vast rent to private landlords or buying a place if 
you're lucky. I don;t know why there hasn't been a revolution in the last few 
years, probably because everyone is kept passive by low wages and good quality 
TV. And there's no good role models. Russell Brand is the best they've got 
these days and he's a multi millionaire. But you'd never get away with it now 
with our easily abused anti - terror laws and government monitoring.
 

 

 

 

 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:24 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in 
English?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 


 Sorry - I replied too fast. Re "Still there?": No, we stayed at the squat for 
two years then we got a letter from the owner saying that he was returning from 
Africa, that he'd heard the place was occupied, and could we please vacate the 
premises shortly. We did exactly that - so he never lost out from us using his 
h

[FairfieldLife] TV series review: The Knick

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I watched the first episode of Steven Soderberg's new TV series "The Knick" a 
few weeks ago, realized immediately its depth, and Put It The Fuck Away Until I 
Had Time To Binge Watch The Whole Series At Once. I have only in the last few 
days been able to binge watch the whole series. I think it's one of the best 
things on television. 

Soderberg did a kind of sideways shuffle into television with this series, 
coming as it does on the heels of his public announcement that he was done with 
making films, forever. Well, TV must not count as film, because he appears to 
have been Pretty Fuckin' Busy making this series. He wrote most of the scripts, 
directed all 10 episodes, and IMO basically created a weird kind of masterpiece 
that I suspect in the future will be favorably compared to "Deadwood" as being 
one of the best TV series ever created. 

OK, for you in countries in which you'll have to pay HBO prices to see this and 
who resent that, it's kinda worth it. Say it costs you ten bucks. Just being 
able to watch Soderberg's cinematography when recreating 1900s New York would 
be worth ten bucks. 

Besides, if you are familiar with his work, you've got Clive Owen. There are 
few more commanding faces of the modern screen. From "King Arthur" to "Sin 
City" to "Inside Man" to "Children Of Men" to "Hemingway and Gellhorn," Clive 
has never been less than interesting. He's interesting here, too, as Dr. John 
W. Thackery, head of surgery at a great New York hospital. It's just that it's 
the Knickerbocker hospital, and at the turn of the century, so the medicine 
being practiced is not exactly what we would today consider "state of the art."

But is WAS so considered back then. And therein lies the magic of this series. 
Thackery is a visionary, a seeker of perfection within the realm of medicine, 
driven to create new surgical methods with which to better save lives. He's 
also a total cocaine and opium junkie, fuels he needs to keep up the furious 
pace of his live-fast-die-young-leave-a-lot-of-scientific-papers-behind-you 
lifestyle. 

The "medicine of the times" is all up onscreen, and at times it makes you want 
to avert your eyes. But you can't, because of the magic of Soderberg's 
cinematography. 

The plot dynamic of this series is very much character-based. Thackery, 
ego-driven, cocaine-driven, but brilliant, is forced to hire an equally 
talented surgeon pushed on him by the hospital's primary donors. He's black. 
This does not sit well with Dr. Thackery, or with anyone else in the hospital. 
This black doctor, played wonderfully by André Holland, walks into such a 
poisonous environment *anyway* and pulls it off. 

Don't look for flawless heroes in "The Knick," any more than you would have 
looked for them in "Deadwood." But if you're interested in getting to know some 
real CHARACTERS, this could be what you're looking for as your next 
binge-watch. Expect to see this series all over the nominations for Golden 
Globe and Emmy awards. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08V4RHGuGqE

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Very, very nice. For somewhat obvious cafe- and waitress-related reasons, I 
liked your answer to question #2 the best, but all were wonderful. 

That is from "Hard Luck Shoes" so you may already know that we never find out. 
My guess is number one because this character is not a personal responsibility 
oriented guy. After sitting too long he might blame the waitress for being rude 
and then stiff her, cluelessly wondering why he is greeted with a stink face 
when he comes back the next time! Or maybe you are right and despite giving her 
a big tip she still wont give him the time of day. He will predictably blame 
his "hard luck shoes" for things not turning out  well, AGAIN.

Thanks for reading.


 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
 
 Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:

 

 Anyway, my questions are: 

 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a haetera!

M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we 
share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than 
it actually is.


 

 2. what do we mean by knowing?
 Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the 
system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context 
dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things 
or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees.


 S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.

M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics 
from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated 
out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to 
them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the 
story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the 
story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are 
example from my songs:

Abstract
The river of missing you , it flows a long long way
It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day

And:

Story:
Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign,
waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time
She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold
Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old

And combining both:
Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams,
try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams
She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed,
My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said.


All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically 
or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or 
someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I 
have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers 
the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The 
second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you 
wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an 
inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet.

The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being 
able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the 
wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you 
had a relationship that was "well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the 
seams?" So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes 
in a direction you can't relate to personally.

It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to 
fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with 
what I have to work with.

 

 But here's my really favorite question, 

 3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
 Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe 
there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I 
also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts 
badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is 
undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Xeno, 

 You are changing your tune today which is clearly not what you stated 
yesterday.  Earlier, you said that "everything that exists has no cause".  Then 
you said that:
 

 "As far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body that 
gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components of the body 
were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions of years ago. The 
protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 billion years old. I 
certainly feel that old sometimes. So every aspect of my sense of 'self' is old 
or timeless, older than my parents as you appear to imaging them."
 

 Now, you're qualifying your statement by saying that you do have a mother and 
a father.  From my understanding, your parents are the cause of your existence 
on earth.  So, we have one specific example that proves your statement to be 
false.  IOW, you are a physical entity that has a cause since your parents 
begot you. By your own testament you have proved your statement to be illogical.
 

 Why do I believe that the KCA statement 1 to be true?   Because, like you, all 
human beings have a cause for their existence here on earth.  We are all 
physically begotten by our parents, who are the cause of our birth here in this 
world.
 

 There are many other examples in the physical world that show "everything that 
begins to exist has a cause".  But your parents are the clearest evidence that 
they caused you to exist.  Do you agree or not?
 

 

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

 

 a. How has it been established that this is true?
 b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'?
 

 That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because 
believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 
'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed 
attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the 
uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the 
statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the 
beginning of the existence of god.
 

 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the 
beginning of existence of god.

 

 How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the 
source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special 
emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anything 
that is beyond the pale of proof is indeterminate as far as knowledge. There 
are two kinds of proof, one is observation coordinated between groups, which is 
the way science works, and law enforcement works. The other is personal private 
experience but this version of proof cannot be observed by others. The results 
of meditation fall into this category, it is a scaled down version of science 
but lacks shareability. The best you can do in this case is tell someone about 
your experiences and hope they are interested enough to try it out for 
themselves. But in real science, you share observations and ideas with other 
minds, and see if those other minds can replicate what you did.
 

 Metaphysics is the study of ideas that have no physical observations and 
therefore there are no shareable proofs as to the reality of metaphysical 
statements. Because there are no proofs, arguments like the Kalam argument have 
arisen in the attempt to convince people that certain ideas that have no proof, 
no evidence, no observable reality, could be true. These argument tend to have 
a serious logical flaw, and if they are true they are trivial tautologies 
(examples: a = a, a cat is a cat, all things are all things), that is, circular 
arguments which tend to be the basic religious argument for why we are here: 
'God is God, so there, believe it or else!'
 

 To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to 
suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why?
 

 If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of 
the nature of human imagination, and human nature in gener

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Very, very nice. For somewhat obvious cafe- and waitress-related reasons, I 
liked your answer to question #2 the best, but all were wonderful. 




 From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:


Anyway, my questions are: 

1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a
haetera!

M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we 
share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than 
it actually is.



2. what do we mean by knowing?
Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the 
system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context 
dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things 
or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees.


S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we
recognize the "truth" of the song.

M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics 
from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated 
out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to 
them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the 
story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the 
story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are 
example from my songs:

Abstract
The river of missing you , it flows a long long way
It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day

And:

Story:
Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign,
waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time
She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold
Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old

And combining both:
Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams,
try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams
She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed,
My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said.


All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically 
or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or 
someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I 
have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers 
the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The 
second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you 
wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an 
inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet.

The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being 
able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the 
wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you 
had a relationship that was "well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the 
seams?" So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes 
in a direction you can't relate to personally.

It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to 
fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with 
what I have to work with.


But here's my really favorite question, 

3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe 
there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I 
also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts 
badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is 
undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: visual, 
linguistic and sensory-moter. We are forgetting how we evolved the brain we 
have through multi-sensory manipulatives and are making some really unwise 
decisions in education because of it.

Now that I have clarified what I meant would you care to share (pun intended) 
your perspective? Thanks for the invitation to express!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:

 

 Anyway, my questions are: 

 1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a haetera!

M: We all run a system for this consciously or unconsciously. Whatever it is we 
share a common human tendency to believe that our system is a better one than 
it actually is.


 

 2. what do we mean by knowing?
 Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

M: This is too abstract if we remove it from the context. Epistemology or the 
system to evaluate how we can be confident about our knowledge is context 
dependent. Good thinking skills are different when dealing with material things 
or more abstract things but they can exist in each area in more or less degrees.


 S: Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first 
love, and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.

M: I think for many arts we do this and deduce the authenticity of the lyrics 
from matching it to our experience. That is why so many lyrics are formulated 
out of a the hypnosis language or poetry playbook so more people can relate to 
them. Some lyrics are purposely individual so that you take a ride into the 
story. It can still feel true or false to us but we give more leeway to the 
story lyrics. It has to be consistent for the created character. Here are 
example from my songs:

Abstract
The river of missing you , it flows a long long way
It starts the day you left me, wont end till judgement day

And:

Story:
Eating hash browns in a diner under a broken neon sign,
waitress tries to turn my table, but I just take my time
She wont refill my coffee so my cup is gett'n cold
Catch my reflection in the window, I sure am looking old

And combining both:
Well worn at he edges, kinda torn at the seams,
try'n to find our way together, where did we lose our dreams
She left her head shape in her pillow, blankets falling off the bed,
My mind can't stop repeating the last words that she said.


All three are my attempts to either express feelings I have had authentically 
or characters that are genuine enough that you might recognize yourself or 
someone you know in the story. You add the details from your own life and if I 
have succeeded you say: I know that guy, or I AM that person. The first offers 
the least conflicting details so filling in the details is all on you. The 
second is probably not you, but if I have made the character compelling you 
wonder what comes next. Is he going to stiff her on the tip or give her an 
inappropriately big one? What kind of guy is this, we don't know yet.

The third is a dance between you filling in your own details in parts and being 
able to be separate from it all to see another person's life as a fly on the 
wall. Some of the words might connect with your personal experience. Have you 
had a relationship that was "well worn at the edges, kind of torn at the 
seams?" So you might buy into the story on a more personal level until it goes 
in a direction you can't relate to personally.

It is all a work in progress, songwriting is very hard given our exposure to 
fabulous songwriters who are geniuses at this. I am going as far as I can with 
what I have to work with.

 

 But here's my really favorite question, 

 3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
 Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?

M: I was using that as an evaluation of what we pay attention to. I believe 
there is a LOT of reality that is not worth focusing on and that is up to us. I 
also believe that society is judging the value of the humanities and the arts 
badly these days and not paying attention to some worthwhile realities. It is 
undervaluing the importance of how human's communicate through stories: visual, 
linguistic and sensory-moter. We are forgetting how we evolved the brain we 
have through multi-sensory manipulatives and are making some really unwise 
decisions in education because of it.

Now that I have clarified what I meant would you care to share (pun intended) 
your perspective? Thanks for the invitation to express!

 


 On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 
 

   M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interact

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
I enjoyed your response till you went "its all about Barry" on my ass Richard.

I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity in 
gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the epistemological 
puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that the claim of consciousness 
as the ultimate reality was inferred from anything. I think someone taught you 
that this was true. I ain't necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from 
a self evident truth from experience.

And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is what 
gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to only what 
logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw in as many non 
sequiturs into  our conversation as you can come up with. I'll take something 
new and tangential over more of the same any day. 



"It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation"  
- Herman Melville


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


 
>>

Everyone in the forum is invited to
participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations
regarding his
physical existence.
>
>>>Everyone
on this forum
seems to believe in causation - that for every
event there is a
cause. The question is if everything that
happens has a cause,
is there a first cause? This is probably one of
the first essay
assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a
community college. 
>>>
>>>Everyone knows that Aristotle defines
change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a
beginning and an end
would have to have a first cause or principle.
His argument for
before and after must have an antecedent state
following
Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from
nothing." 
>>>
>>>Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a
beginning it would
require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in
order to support
change.
>>>
>>>Where
is Robin when we
need him?

>On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>M: Robin didn't understand the problems with
unfounded assertions either, he was fond of making
them himself. If he did he would have seen through
Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so
enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate
"that's logical" with "that's true" because the
former requires another outside verification for its
veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical
syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the
trouble to be so careful.
>>>
>>>The classical philosophers have two things working
against them. They were blind to their own
presumptive statements that had not been proven, and
then were overfond of the logical conclusions they
derived from them. The whole history of philosophy
was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
>>>
>>>The second problem they had in such discussions is
their lack of exposure to the non intuitive wold
physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far
beyond the range of our senses. A world where the
rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and
that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about.
It takes physicists years of deep study and advanced
math to meaningfully deal with concepts so far from
our natural experience.
>>>
>>>Now that we know about this level of matter,
universal claims like "Everything that comes to
exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an
unchallenged first principle. 
>
>It's only normal for
average people to assume that there is a reason for things to
happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen
for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes
causation because it is so logical to the human experience:
human excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.There are no chance 
events.
>>
>
>Turns out quantum events
don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our
natural senses. But even without knowing about
quantum events we have learned that such universals
are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident
about how their world was. We have been humbled by
getting our intellectual asses kicked by the growth
of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our
senses.
>>>
>
>Beyond the range of our
senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. There is no
consciousness other than consciousness, or not.
>
>My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is
that we infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we
accept that inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts
and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they
can only be inferred.
>
>Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive
the earth as being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the
earth as static but it is moving around the sun. We perceive the
disc of the sun and think it is small, yet 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I enjoyed your response till you went "its all about Barry" on my ass Richard.

I am not on board with your use of the term inference and its validity in 
gaining knowledge on its own. It is one of the pieces of the epistemological 
puzzle and fraught with issues. Nor do I accept that the claim of consciousness 
as the ultimate reality was inferred from anything. I think someone taught you 
that this was true. I ain't necessarily so IMO. It is certainly a long way from 
a self evident truth from experience.

And what is wrong with non sequitur outside a formal argument? That is what 
gives juice to our interactions. Trying to restrict everything to only what 
logically follows is a buzz kill man. I hope you will throw in as many non 
sequiturs into  our conversation as you can come up with. I'll take something 
new and tangential over more of the same any day. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

   
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?
 


 >
 On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltablues@... mailto:curtisdeltablues@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
 >
 
 M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.
 
 The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
 
 The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.
 
 Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. 




 >
 It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason for 
things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just happen for no 
reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes causation because it is so 
logical to the human experience: human excrement always flows downstream; 
gravity sucks. There are no chance events.
 >
 Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so obvious to our 
natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we have learned 
that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more confident about how 
their world was. We have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked 
by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses.
 




 >
 Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of consciousness. 
There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not. 
 
 My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we infer 
that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that inference is a 
valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, 
cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.
 
 Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as being 
flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving 
around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think it is small, yet it 
is much larger that the earth.
 
 We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by a 
combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of 
consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To refuse the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.

>
/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for
every event there is a cause. The question is if everything that
happens has a cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one
of the first essay assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a
community college. //
//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first
concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would
have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for before
and after must have an antecedent state following Parmenides
statement: "nothing comes from nothing."

Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would
require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change./

/Where is Robin when we need him?/


/>
/On 10/21/2014 9:56 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>



M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions
either, he was fond of making them himself. If he did he would
have seen through Aquinas' stated presumptions instead of being so
enamored with them. In our daily life we conflate "that's logical"
with "that's true" because the former requires another outside
verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in logical
syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so
careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against them.
They were blind to their own presumptive statements that had not
been proven, and then were overfond of the logical conclusions
they derived from them. The whole history of philosophy was spent
cleaning up many of their confusions.

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of
exposure to the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics
has revealed far beyond the range of our senses. A world where the
rules for macro objects are sometimes ignored and that we are very
poorly prepared to speculate about. It takes physicists years of
deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal with concepts so
far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like
"Everything that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an
unchallenged first principle. 


>
/It's only normal for average people to assume that there is a reason 
for things to happen - events seem to follow causes; they don't just 
happen for no reason, by luck or fortune. Almost everyone assumes 
causation because it is so logical to the human experience: human 
excrement always flows downstream; gravity sucks.//There are no chance 
events./

>


Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about
quantum events we have learned that such universals are unwise.
The Greeks were much more confident about how their world was. We
have been humbled by getting our intellectual asses kicked by the
growth of scientific knowledge beyond the range of our senses.


>
/Beyond the range of our senses is the transcendental field of 
consciousness. There is no consciousness other than consciousness, or not.//


My position, and the position of most transcendentalists, is that we 
infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and we accept that 
inference is a valid means of knowledge. Thoughts and ideas, not being 
material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred.//

//
//Mere perception is often found to be untrue. We perceive the earth as 
being flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but 
it is moving around the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun and think 
it is small, yet it is much larger that the earth.//

//
//We infer that consciousness is the ultimate reality and not caused by 
a combination of material properties. We further infer the validity of 
consciousness because we ARE conscious and we are self-conscious. To 
refuse the validity of inference is to refuse to think or discuss. All 
thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations, and all 
denials, all proofs and disproofs are made possible by inference./

>



Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous
for modern people. 


>
/Maybe we should explain this to Barry since he seems only to be able to 
copy and paste cartoons./

>


They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully
thought out. If they are probed from the perspective of their
epistemology, these arguments are not really why they believe in
their idea of God. They believe it for other reasons that they
believe they can shield with the pretense of rationality. They
want their real reasons for belief to be beyond

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Curtis, I just had a lunch of veggies and salmon so maybe my brain is a little 
more up to respond. Maybe! Definitely not as good as Sam Harris (-:


Anyway, my questions are: 

1. how do we know that we know? Which is kind of abstract and probably just me 
reliving a past life as a haetera!


2. what do we mean by knowing?
Ok, we see a tree fall so we think we know that it fell. Of course, perception 
could be faulty.

Or, to go into the arts as you suggested, we listen to a song about first love, 
and from our own memories of that, we recognize the "truth" of the song.

But here's my really favorite question, 

3. Back to your post: what is meant by "worthwhile reality"?
Are there some realities that are not worthwhile?



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?








---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 10:42 AM, inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a 
belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.



>
/There are actually three questions running through this thread://
//
/

1. /Is Barry mentally ill for believing in Buddhas, karma or
   reincarnation?/
2. /Are there any proofs for the existence of Buddhas?/
3. /Why does Barry believe in reincarnation and karma?/

>


the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of 
mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to 
what a mental illness is, but the question  is believing in the 
efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun  : )



>
/The real question is why is Barry posting his beliefs in Buddhism and 
at the same time posting atheist messages directed at Hindus or 
Christians? This seems like a case of cognitive dissonance. Everyone on 
this list knows Barry has claimed a belief in Buddhas, karma and 
reincarnation. It's not complicated./



Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence 
of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm 
suggesting:   is a belief in God justifiable?



>
/We had a very long discussion about this with Robin Carlsen about St. 
Thomas Aquinas defense of the existence of God using the proofs of 
Aristotle and Parmenides as to the existence of a prime mover. In this 
argument everything is based on change and the law of causality.


For anything to move or change there must be a cause. There can be no 
change without movement or change and there must be cause for everything 
that happens. The purpose of Aristotle's argument, is that there is at 
least one eternal unmoved mover that must exist, in order to support 
everyday change.


However, the idea of first and only cause, something that does not 
itself need a cause, is nonsensical and cannot be applied according to 
Immanuel Kant who "attempted to put an end to what he considered an era 
of futile and speculative theories of human experience, while resisting 
the skepticism of thinkers such as David Hume."/


/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant/
>


We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no 
proof, but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may 
believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof.



>
/Probably none of us has been up in space to see the curvature of the 
earth, yet we all believe the earth is spherical in shape. Very often we 
depend on verbal testimony for our justification for a belief - at other 
times we use inference, both are valid means of knowledge./

>


[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher]


>
/There are several arm-chair philosophers on this list//, Barry being 
not one of them: masked_zebra was apparently steeped in Christian and 
Islamic theology having been a monk for several years; emptybill was 
apparently a monk in the Eastern Christian church for several years; 
Curtis has a degree in philosophy from MUM;//and I took Philosophy 101 
under Richard Braugham, Ph.D. at a local community college.//I also took 
Logic 101 and Ethics 101. Go figure./

>


I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the 
existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material 
justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include 
anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with 
the physical/material.



>
/The ultimate reality is pure consciousness - there is much 
justification for believing this. According to Ramana, the validity is 
not metaphysical but it is experiential. Consciousness is the prior 
condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance 
within it. Consciousness is prior to everything else that exists. 
Consciousness is all there is - the experience of "I-am" is the only 
real certainty./

>


An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would 
believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all 
observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the 
physical/material world itself.



>
/Physical science cannot explain consciousness because there is nothing 
in the physical world to prove the existence of consciousness. Without 
consciousness there would be no material/physical world. There must be 
consciousness or else there would be no perception. Consciousness is 
prior to everything else. According to Parmenides, "nothing comes from 
nothing"./

>


For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to 
having  read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the 
need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and 
the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.


/The thread posted by Barry is really a series of straw man statements, 
pasted by Barry to deny his cognitive dissonance. There

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Gotta agree with you on this one, Share. 


I also have to say that if there is anyone on the planet I'd most like to see 
have a sit-down, on-the-record conversation with Sam Harris, it would be 
Curtis. 




 From: "Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


  
Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much
 more amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions 
whose stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's 
find out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality
 beyond the hard physical. But IMO the better we are prepared to evaluate 
claims the quicker we will sort out the fascinating and true from the 
fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?








---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the
 notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as 
to what a mental illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of 
trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression
 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything 
that interacts with the physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish w

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Fresh air blowing through the Funny Farm Lounge from DC area and Madison. 
Thanks guys for this example of FFL at its best.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:18 AM, "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
 


  
M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

"Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 
'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or 
anything that interacts with the physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?








---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

M: I hope you don't mind me weighing in,this was a particularly thought 
provoking post. I too am an amateur philosopher. But I am not sure philosophy 
is the right discipline to answer your question from, except to enhance the 
discussion of "how could we know?"

Here is the section you quite wisely focused on:

 "Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material."

M: It seems to me that in a sense this ship has sailed with the advent of 
knowledge about a level of matter that is so squirrely to our sense-bound 
intuitions that it does not resemble matter as we know it, even though 
technically it IS matter from physics. That we do not know all or in some cases 
very much about this level of reality should give us all some humility about 
what is real.

But for me those who confidently claim to know about a non physical realm 
through internal experience have not made their case convincingly to me. We 
have a lot of mystery to explore and I am dubious that anyone has cleared it up 
from a mystical tradition. I am putting my bet on neuroscience and physics to 
push back into the mystery in a more satisfying way than has been accomplished 
by religious and mystical traditions. The deeper reality may be much more 
amazing than has been speculated about or assumed in those traditions whose 
stock in trade has been "We have it all figured out already" over "Let's find 
out."

The question could be: how could we know about something non physical? I wish 
people proposing these ideas would spend more time studying these questions 
before they announce their assumptions. We need to address how we could be 
confident of such knowledge knowing how fallible and prone to self delusions 
humans are with all of our cognitive blind spots. I rarely see this aspect in 
the intellectual mix of confident assertions from the subjective angle.

Then of course you have the whole areas of human knowledge in the arts and 
humanities which is plenty non physical reality enough for me. We don't have to 
swing between the polarities of material reductionism and mystical claims to 
see that there is a lot of worthwhile reality beyond the hard physical. But IMO 
the better we are prepared to evaluate claims the quicker we will sort out the 
fascinating and true from the fascinating but bogus.

Thanks for opening up a new chapter on the discussion. Does any of this relate 
to your intention in your post?





 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Could astrology be correct? The season in which you were born may affect your personality, scientists claim

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

The jyotish (sidereal) Cancer Sun transit is from July 16th to August 
15th.  And of course a Cancer ascendants occur throughout the year.


On 10/20/2014 09:51 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


I meant to show that those dates are in summer.  But in jyotish, 
anyone can be a Cancer ascendant in any of the 12 months of the year, 
which depend on the actual time of birth.




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Those are tropical dates not jyotish.

On 10/20/2014 06:46 PM, jr_esq@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

According to jyotish, people born in Cancer, from June 21 to July 22, 
tend to be sentimental and emotional due to Cancer being a watery 
zodiac, and the fourth house from the head of the Kalapurusha, Aries.



These scientists should study the people who were born with the 
conjunction of the Moon with Rahu.  They should determine what type 
of personalities are predominant with this conjunction.





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
,  
 wrote :


Babies born in the summer are much more likely to suffer from mood
swings when they grow up, while those born in the winter are less likely
to become irritable adults, scientists claim.

http://shar.es/1mDt8U

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 


--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.

The very IDEA that someone could consider
Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action
 
   Scientology Top Managers In Action  
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.  
View on www.youtube.comPreview by Yahoo
 Yeah, I've seen $cientologists like this in action, and for the life of me 
can't tell any difference between them and Richard, Ann, Jimbo, and She Whose 
Holy Work They Are Continuing In Her Absence. Uber-cultists, the whole lot of 
them.  :-)

I admit to causing part of it by withdrawing my attention from them, and 
depriving them of what they really want -- a captive audience at whom to spew 
their shit. They're reacting as expected, like junkies deprived of their fix. 

Ann is predictable because this seems to be what she *always* does when someone 
dumps her -- she's just substituted me as the object of her revenge-stalking 
this time instead of Robin. Richard's the same troll he's always been, so no 
surprise there. There has really never *been* a time during his tenure on 
a.m.t. and FFL in which he was sane, so IMO it's kinda silly to expect anything 
approaching sanity from him now. 

But Jimbo is really the strangest of the lot lately. He's managed to take the 
money he inherited, turn that in his mind into some kind of "success," and then 
move out into the country, effectively cutting himself off from all human 
contact and causing him to make more and more and more of his lunatic rants. He 
probably gets up in the middle of the night and goes out to yell the same thing 
at the skunks on his property -- "I'm BETTER than you are! I'm enlightened, and 
you're NOT. So there!"  :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[inmadi...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread:  1) is a belief in 
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.

the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental 
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental 
illness is, but the question  is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down 
economics a mental illness could be fun  : )

Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God 
since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting:   is a 
belief in God justifiable?

We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, 
but yet that belief is justifiable.  For example, we may believe someone lied 
to us, even though we have no proof.

[BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd 
question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the 
physical/material justified?  When I use the expression 'physical/material' I 
include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the 
physical/material.

An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe 
that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable 
phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world 
itself.

For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having  
read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the 
nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment 
appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.
 

 The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or 
John R rational astounds me.  

Thanks bro but I think Richard was being a bit facetious. He was pretty clear 
about the Robin routine himself. Robin was associated with these idiotic 
arguments and was their champion. 

I have been having fun lately writing here again since I am at home many days 
making lesson plans. With all the odd dynamics, I do think the place is vastly 
improved by a lack of a certain poster. It seems a bit less contentious. I 
guess that may not be true for you since there is a committee that is still 
championing the cause. I think you will relate to this video very well. It is 
kind of frighteningly familiar:

Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 
 Scientology Top Managers In Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
Three of Scientology's top management personnel ambushing a former member of 
scientology at Los Angeles International Airport on 10/19/14.
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 



 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

   
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Xeno,
 

 I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical existence 
of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father.  
Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? 
 Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on 
earth?
 

 I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But I'm taking the KCA 
argument one at a time which starts with statement 1.  Your statements are so 
astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic.
 
 
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?

M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we 
have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the 
range of our senses.

Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
people. They trot 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Irony

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Thanks to the LR (lurking reporter) who wrote to me to point out that Ann and 
Jim are currently obsessing non-stop about me -- writing post after post after 
post, having admitted to having read two books about Rama to fuel their 
obsession and give them "research material" for it. 

 

 At the same time they're doing this, all while denying that they're obsessed 
with me, the LR happened to notice that they're giving me shit about being an 
atheist at the same time they are gushing about how much they love a guy who 
is...wait for it...one of the most famous atheists in the world of 
entertainment, Ricky Gervais: 

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX0Fk-701Q 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX0Fk-701Q

 

 What they seem unaware of is that his hilarious movie about a society in which 
lying has never been invented was an extended metaphor for his feelings about 
religion; that is, that ALL religion is by definition lying. 

 

 Ha, ha, ha. You are being particularly hilarious today, bawee, thank you.
 

 First, you have to invent a lurking reporter to admit you realize I have read 
the one book on Lenz (Mark's) and I had already glanced through your "book" two 
years ago when you directed me to it. I looked back at the opening chapter to 
see what years you had been involved with Rama and that is when I came across 
our pee story and whatever else was in that first chapter. So, no, I have not 
re read your little puff piece as tempting as it was (not) recently.
 

 Second, of course I know he's an atheist you doink, so what? I'm supposed to 
not think he's funny and brilliant and likable? You are a shallow one, aren't 
you?
 

 Third, I have never once given you shit about being an atheist because A) I've 
never given you shit about being an atheist and you will never find a place in 
any post where I have given you shit about being an atheist and B) how would 
you know I have been giving you shit about being an atheist if you aren't 
reading my posts? your lurking reporter is just another name for split 
personality and imaginary friend, bawee.
 

 Fourth, I despise religion, I embrace no religion and never will. Just like I 
will never "follow" another human being as some sort of sage.
 

 Fifth, it's a good day for you isn't it? All this attention gives you quite 
the boner. Enjoy!
 

 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Rick, Check that prescription on your glasses.:-)
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud  
 I always knew TurquoiseB was an inter-galactic dude: 
 Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&100&&&http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-sees-turquoise-tinted-plumes-in-large-magellanic-cloud

 10/21/2014 12:00 PM EDT

 The brightly glowing plumes seen in this image are reminiscent of an 
underwater scene, with turquoise-tinted currents and nebulous strands reaching 
out into the surroundings. However, this is no ocean. This image actually shows 
part of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small nearby galaxy that orbits our 
galaxy, the Milky Way, and appears as a blurred blob in our skies. The 
NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope has peeked many times 
into this galaxy, releasing stunning images of the whirling clouds of gas and 
sparkling stars (opo9944a, heic1301, potw1408a). This image shows part of the 
Tarantula Nebula's outskirts. This famously beautiful nebula, located within 
the LMC, is a frequent target for Hubble (heic1206, heic1402).  In most images 
of the LMC the color is completely different to that seen here. This is 
because, in this new image, a different set of filters was used. The customary 
R filter, which selects the red light, was replaced by a filter letting through 
the near-infrared light. In traditional images, the hydrogen gas appears pink 
because it shines most brightly in the red. Here however, other less prominent 
emission lines dominate in the blue and green filters. This data is part of the 
Archival Pure Parallel Project (APPP), a project that gathered together and 
processed over 1,000 images taken using Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, 
obtained in parallel with other Hubble instruments. Much of the data in the 
project could be used to study a wide range of astronomical topics, including 
gravitational lensing and cosmic shear, exploring distant star-forming 
galaxies, supplementing observations in other wavelength ranges with optical 
data, and examining star populations from stellar heavyweights all the way down 
to solar-mass stars. Image Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA: acknowledgement: Josh 
Barrington Text: European Space Agency


  
 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&101&&&http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNASA/bulletins/d73856?reqfrom=share
 This e-mail update was generated automatically based on your subscriptions. 
Some updates may belong to more than one category, resulting in duplicate 
notices.
  
 
 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&102&&&http://www.nasa.gov/
 Questions? Contact Us 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&103&&&http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
  
 STAY CONNECTED:
 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&104&&&http://www.youtube.com/NASATelevision
 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaWF0ZUlkPSYmJg==&&&105&&&http://www.facebook.com/NASA
 
http://links.govdelivery.com:80/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTQxMDIxLjM3MjY1NzUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE0MTAyMS4zNzI2NTc1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2OTc1ODUwJmVtYWlsaWQ9cmlja0BzZWFyY2hzdW1taXQuY29tJnVzZXJpZD1yaWNrQHNlYXJjaHN1bW1pdC5jb20mZmw9JmV4dHJhPU11bHRpdmFyaW

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdEExtras David Bowie 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
 
 Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from 
"Extras" where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends 
up as an embarrassment.


 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 Enjoy! cringingly brilliant.
 

 Dang, can't access it from Canada. I'll keep trying to find it. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his 
series, 'Extras'? 
 

 No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various 
excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many 
levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and 
feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or 
there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes 
across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is 
pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the 
boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :
"both of you far less than raging successes in the world."

M: This often repeated idea is a key to understanding you Jim. I think it lies 
at the root of your need to present yourself in a ridiculously inflated way You 
are using your claims as a version of spiritual one upmanship that even spill 
over into the material world. It seems important to your fantasy that Barry and 
I are not enjoying as good or as successful a life as you are on any level. 
Have you ever reflected on why you feel such a need?

You don't know me or have any idea of any measure of my success in the world. 
How could you? You don't know my income or how it fits into the standards for 
my profession, You don't know anything about how I am viewed by the community 
of my peers or institutions that hire me. You know nothing about what 
recognition I may have received in my field or how my life fits into the goals 
for my own success which is a huge aspect of the quality of life.

And yet you feel confident that you have somehow beaten me in "success" in 
life. Without knowing a single relevant detail you feel confident making such a 
statement. What's up with that Jim? Do you see that is is all about you, and 
due to a lack of information, has nothing to do with me?

Are you juxtaposing your life as the standard of a "raging success?" Is this 
another example of your odd lack of self awareness about yourself, an over 
inflation of something quite ordinary.

When I worked in finance I used to meet guys like you at dreadful corporate 
mixers. Guys who had a desperate need to over-inflate their accomplishments. 
They would talk over others and always assume that their bragging about how 
wonderful they were was having an impressive effect on those around them.

People would shake their heads and smilingly retreat from the barrage of "I am 
better than you in this way and this way and this way" always clueless about 
who they were talking to or what they had achieved in their own lives. 

It comes off as desperate and a little pathetic Jim. You don't need to run this 
game. You have plenty of talents and abilities to be proud of without having to 
be the guy who is actually states you are better than other people here. Maybe 
you are just one of us, living your own choices as we are living ours. Life is 
not a contest between us so the fantasy that you are winning Charlie Sheen 
style is just that: a fantasy. An unpleasant one.
 



 I have a lot of friends on here. No need to pretend otherwise. Perhaps you 
should be giving advice to the turd flinging chimp on here, whom you find so 
much in common with, both of you far less than raging successes in the world.  

 Your attempt at sussing my motivation, is absurd. I don't play that same game 
that the chimp does, and am perfectly happy, to continue telling you what you 
don't want to hear, regardless of you believing me, about anything, even my 
enlightenment. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened and you are not" 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in 
one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated 
teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who 
is a fan of my work. 

As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to 
disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system 
in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized 
by it.

So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you 
want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts 
of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community.  I was 
just changing lives one classroom at a time today.

Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.

There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact 
coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the "rest 
of the world" think about who just said this!


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This is good, too: 

 Ricky Gervais talking about David Bowie - brilliant! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 
 
 Ricky Gervais talking about David Bowie - brilliant! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 Ricky Gervais talking about David 
Bowie - brilliant!
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 


 

 This I could open, Brilliant. They guy is adorable in so many ways. Have you 
seen that movie that has that poster behind Ricky? I might have to check it out.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdEExtras David Bowie 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
 
 Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from 
"Extras" where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends 
up as an embarrassment.


 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his 
series, 'Extras'? 
 

 No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various 
excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many 
levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and 
feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or 
there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes 
across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is 
pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the 
boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

Re: [FairfieldLife] Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I admit it. I left those plumes there when I created the universe.  :-) 




 From: "'Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife  
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large 
Magellanic Cloud
 
  
 
I always knew TurquoiseB was an inter-galactic dude: 
Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud 
10/21/2014 12:00 PM EDT 
The brightly glowing plumes seen in this image are reminiscent of an underwater 
scene, with turquoise-tinted currents and nebulous strands reaching out into 
the surroundings. However, this is no ocean. This image actually shows part of 
the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small nearby galaxy that orbits our galaxy, 
the Milky Way, and appears as a blurred blob in our skies. The NASA/European 
Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope has peeked many times into this 
galaxy, releasing stunning images of the whirling clouds of gas and sparkling 
stars (opo9944a, heic1301, potw1408a). This image shows part of the Tarantula 
Nebula's outskirts. This famously beautiful nebula, located within the LMC, is 
a frequent target for Hubble (heic1206, heic1402).  In most images of the LMC 
the color is completely different to that seen here. This is because, in this 
new image, a different set of filters was used. The customary R filter, which 
selects the red light, was
 replaced by a filter letting through the near-infrared light. In traditional 
images, the hydrogen gas appears pink because it shines most brightly in the 
red. Here however, other less prominent emission lines dominate in the blue and 
green filters. This data is part of the Archival Pure Parallel Project (APPP), 
a project that gathered together and processed over 1,000 images taken using 
Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 2, obtained in parallel with other Hubble 
instruments. Much of the data in the project could be used to study a wide 
range of astronomical topics, including gravitational lensing and cosmic shear, 
exploring distant star-forming galaxies, supplementing observations in other 
wavelength ranges with optical data, and examining star populations from 
stellar heavyweights all the way down to solar-mass stars. Image Credit: 
ESA/Hubble & NASA: acknowledgement: Josh Barrington Text: European Space Agency

[FairfieldLife] Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud

['Rick Archer' r...@searchsummit.com [FairfieldLife]]

 


I always knew TurquoiseB was an inter-galactic dude: 


Hubble Sees Turquoise-Tinted Plumes in Large Magellanic Cloud
 


10/21/2014 12:00 PM EDT


The brightly glowing plumes seen in this image are reminiscent of an
underwater scene, with turquoise-tinted currents and nebulous strands
reaching out into the surroundings. However, this is no ocean. This image
actually shows part of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small nearby
galaxy that orbits our galaxy, the Milky Way, and appears as a blurred blob
in our skies. The NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope
has peeked many times into this galaxy, releasing stunning images of the
whirling clouds of gas and sparkling stars (opo9944a, heic1301, potw1408a).
This image shows part of the Tarantula Nebula's outskirts. This famously
beautiful nebula, located within the LMC, is a frequent target for Hubble
(heic1206, heic1402).  In most images of the LMC the color is completely
different to that seen here. This is because, in this new image, a different
set of filters was used. The customary R filter, which selects the red
light, was replaced by a filter letting through the near-infrared light. In
traditional images, the hydrogen gas appears pink because it shines most
brightly in the red. Here however, other less prominent emission lines
dominate in the blue and green filters. This data is part of the Archival
Pure Parallel Project (APPP), a project that gathered together and processed
over 1,000 images taken using Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera 2,
obtained in parallel with other Hubble instruments. Much of the data in the
project could be used to study a wide range of astronomical topics,
including gravitational lensing and cosmic shear, exploring distant
star-forming galaxies, supplementing observations in other wavelength ranges
with optical data, and examining star populations from stellar heavyweights
all the way down to solar-mass stars. Image Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA:
acknowledgement: Josh Barrington Text: European Space Agency

 

 
 

This e-mail update was generated automatically based on your subscriptions.
Some updates may belong to more than one category, resulting in duplicate
notices.

 

  _  


 
 

Questions? Contact Us
 

 


STAY CONNECTED:


 
 

 
 

 
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 8:27 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


You seem to be just trolling.


>
/Now that's a thought-stopper!/
>


Do you practice TM?


>
/Non sequitur.//"TM" has not been defined./
>


I was  talking about things that spiritual practices advertise they 
can bring into one's awareness. These things are private, you cannot 
prove you have these kinds of experiences. My body has a mother and 
father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my existence 
does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of 
universe fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that 
there must be one individual in any given universe for which truth is 
a non entity)



>
/Non sequitur.//"Spiritual" has not been defined./
>
As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is 
indeterminate that it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is 
true?

>
/In Buddhist philosophy, karma is the theory of action and result based 
on the theory of interdependent co-arising or dependent origination 
which states:  everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and 
conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. /

>


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

a. How has it been established that this is true?
b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a 
cause'?


That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, 
because believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes 
other things to 'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is 
beyond me.

>
/All change must have a beginning and an end. In order to have a 
beginning there must be a cause. This is simple Philosophy 101. There is 
nothing in the universe that exists without change. In order for 
anything to change there must be a cause agent.//Causality is the 
relation between an event and a second event in which the second event 
is a consequence of the first./

>
It is a failed attempt to get around the problem of infinite 
regression of causes so the uncaused cause idea seems more 
respectable, which it is not. However in the statement below, we have 
Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the beginning of the 
existence of god.

>
/Non sequitur./ 
>
To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no 
reason to suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently 
think it is true. Why?

>
/Obviously consciousness is prior to everything else in the cosmos. In 
fact, consciousness is all there is in the universe. The only certainty 
you have is that you are self-conscious that you exist. Time, space and 
physicality occur within consciousness, not the other way around. The 
present is the only real moment of experience./


An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality
by Sam Harris
http://nautil.us/issue/16/nothingness/an-atheists-guide-to-spirituality
>


If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly 
unaware of the nature of human imagination, and human nature in 
general, and the great variability of possible human experiences.

>
/In the Western philosophical tradition, discussion stretches back at 
least to Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary 
philosophy.//

//
//Non sequitur./ 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It's such a delight to read something written by someone who can still think, 
Curtis. Thanks.

The very IDEA that someone could consider Robin Carlsen or Jim Flanegin or John 
R rational astounds me.  




 From: "curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 

  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

 
>>Xeno,
>>
>>
>>I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In
the physical existence of human beings here on earth,
everyone has to have a mother and a father.  Were you not
created by your father's sperm that impregnated your
mother's egg?  Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9
months before you were born here on earth?
>>
>>
>>I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But
I'm taking the KCA argument one at a time which starts
with statement 1.  Your
statements are so astonishing that we need more
clarification about your thoughts and logic.
>>
>>
>>Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this
discussion to ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his
physical existence.
>
>Everyone on this forum
seems to believe in causation - that for every event there is a
cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause,
is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay
assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
>
>Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by
first concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end
would have to have a first cause or principle. His argument for
before and after must have an antecedent state following
Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
>
>Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would
require a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support
change.
>
>Where is Robin when we
need him?
>
>M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
>was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
>stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
>we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
>another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
>logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
>careful.
>
>The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
>blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
>were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
>history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 
>
>The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
>the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
>the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
>sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
>takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
>with concepts so far from our natural experience.
>
>Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
>that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
>principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
>obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events 
>we have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
>confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
>intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the 
>range of our senses.
>
>Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
>people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought 
>out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these 
>arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe 
>it for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of 
>rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I 
>guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built 
>for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He 
>thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed 
>because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. 
>
>I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic because it requires 
>someone to assume that God had a hand in writing an obviously human produced 
>work of literature. That people entertain this notion today is beyond me, but 
>it causes many problems in this world. I consider it a very dangerous wrong 
>belief that someone has a book from God with details about our lives. (Like 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Xeno,
 

 I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical existence 
of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father.  
Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? 
 Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on 
earth?
 

 I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But I'm taking the KCA 
argument one at a time which starts with statement 1.  Your statements are so 
astonishing that we need more clarification about your thoughts and logic.
 
 
 Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to ask Xeno 
about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

 >
 Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every event 
there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a cause, is 
there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay assignments in any 
Philosophy 101 class at a community college. 
 
 Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first concluding 
that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to have a first 
cause or principle. His argument for before and after must have an antecedent 
state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes from nothing." 
 
 Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require a 
first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change.
 
 Where is Robin when we need him?

M: Robin didn't understand the problems with unfounded assertions either, he 
was fond of making them himself. If he did he would have seen through Aquinas' 
stated presumptions instead of being so enamored with them. In our daily life 
we conflate "that's logical" with "that's true" because the former requires 
another outside verification for its veracity. Garbage in, garbage out in 
logical syllogisms. In our daily life we rarely take the trouble to be so 
careful.

The classical philosophers have two things working against them. They were 
blind to their own presumptive statements that had not been proven, and then 
were overfond of the logical conclusions they derived from them. The whole 
history of philosophy was spent cleaning up many of their confusions. 

The second problem they had in such discussions is their lack of exposure to 
the non intuitive wold physics and astro-geo-physics has revealed far beyond 
the range of our senses. A world where the rules for macro objects are 
sometimes ignored and that we are very poorly prepared to speculate about. It 
takes physicists years of deep study and advanced math to meaningfully deal 
with concepts so far from our natural experience.

Now that we know about this level of matter, universal claims like "Everything 
that comes to exist has a cause." are ridiculous as an unchallenged first 
principle. Turns out quantum events don't follow this rule that seems so 
obvious to our natural senses. But even without knowing about quantum events we 
have learned that such universals are unwise. The Greeks were much more 
confident about how their world was. We have been humbled by getting our 
intellectual asses kicked by the growth of scientific knowledge beyond the 
range of our senses.

Resorting to religious arguments using syllogisms are disingenuous for modern 
people. They trot these out to make their beliefs seem more carefully thought 
out. If they are probed from the perspective of their epistemology, these 
arguments are not really why they believe in their idea of God. They believe it 
for other reasons that they believe they can shield with the pretense of 
rationality. They want their real reasons for belief to be beyond scrutiny. I 
guarantee you that this argument is not even on he belief web John has built 
for himself so he can believe in God. It isn't even a branch on that tree.He 
thought it would be a useful stick to poke at non believers and it failed 
because he doesn't understand it himself, it just sounded authoritative. 

I think all the God beliefs base on scripture are idiotic because it requires 
someone to assume that God had a hand in writing an obviously human produced 
work of literature. That people entertain this notion today is beyond me, but 
it causes many problems in this world. I consider it a very dangerous wrong 
belief that someone has a book from God with details about our lives. (Like 
kill the infidels, or God gave us this land.)

I am most sympathetic to the mystical experience claims for the existence for 
God having had enough experiences of my own to understand how compelling they 
are. I no longer believe that the actual existence of a God is the best 
explanation for these experiences, but I could certainly be wrong and might be 
proven wrong some day.

But not today.






 >
 

 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLi

[FairfieldLife] Re: 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

3. They meditate every day. Meditation is a wildly popular strategy for 
clearing the mind and focusing. Oprah Winfrey is so devoted to the practice of 
transcendental meditation (TM) that she has TM teachers instruct everyone in 
her company who wants to learn the art of meditation. She fits at least 20 
minutes of meditation into every day and aims for two 20-minute sessions.
 In an article on her website 
http://www.oprah.com/health/Oprah-on-Stillness-and-Meditation-Oprah-Visits-Fairfield-Iowa#ixzz2XoJNWPAR,
 Winfrey cites many benefits from the practice, saying that "the results have 
been awesome. Better sleep. Improved relationships with spouses, children, 
coworkers. Some people who once suffered migraines don't anymore. Greater 
productivity and creativity all around."
 Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, is getting in on the trend as well. He 
tweeted https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/326018361458835459: "Trying to 
learn transcendental meditation. Everyone recommends, not that easy to get 
started, but said to improve everything!"


Read more: 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs 
http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k 
 
 http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k 
 
 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs 
http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k 
If you want to get to the next level, try incorporating these strategies into 
your daily routine.
 
 
 
 View on www.businessinsider... 
http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10#ixzz3Gn8AXw4k 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 fleetwood_macncheese wrote : 
 I read this earlier, and was happy to see that they meditate. They need it, 
and we need them to have it!
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs 
http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10
 
 
 http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10
 
 6 Daily Habits Of The World's Most Successful CEOs 
http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10 If you want to 
get to the next level, try incorporating these strategies into your daily 
routine.


 
 View on www.businessinsider... 
http://www.businessinsider.com/habits-of-successful-ceos-2014-10
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous 
intelligence to the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining.

>
On 10/21/2014 9:05 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
Yes, I must admit bawee is the funniest one here, on a sort of 
perverse and twisted level of 'funny', I admit. I have never, ever in 
my life associated with anyone remotely like him in offline life. I 
mean, how could one stand it? This person would be throwing out all 
these outrageous statements, all the while preening in the nearest 
mirror (BTW, there was an interesting account at the beginning of his 
little fluff piece 'Roadtrip Mind' about Lenz primping in the mirror 
in the bathroom after having shared a piss together) and meanwhile 
repeating himself over and over in the hopes and dreams of getting a 
rise out of his audience. How tiresome would that be day after day? 
Still, I do enjoy seeing, up to a point, what silly things come out of 
his mouth here at FFL but I genuinely do wish he's change it up once 
in a while.

>
/It makes me wonder if Barry went through the est seminar training with 
Werner Erhard, or maybe Fred lenz taught him how to use these techniques.


There is a sect of yogis in India whose practice is acting out in public 
by saying outrageous statements and doing things that are repulsive to 
normal people. The idea is to give your audience an opportunity to 
release tensions by shouting out offensive remarks back at the yogis - 
that's their way of burning up their karma of past lives - collecting 
insults which are in themselves vulgar. Go figure./

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

**


I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other 
spiritual/religious types don't realise their beliefs are emotional 
rather than logical and insult any contrarians in an accordingly 
similar way to how they feel they've been slighted.

>
On 10/21/2014 3:09 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

>
Exactly. They are OFFENDED that someone like myself or you has 
overcome the Fear Of God that society tried to imprint us with, and 
they haven't. They're still terrified that if they express doubt of 
any kind, their imaginary friend God will smite them. Can't risk that. 
And they're more than a little pissed of that God has *not* smitten 
us, so they have to try to make up for him being a slacker and try to 
smite us themselves.  :-)

>
/Straw man argument. For those unfamiliar with the term, a straw man is 
a common type of argument that someone brings out to intentionally 
misrepresent the original topic of the argument. //

//
//It's like when two people are debating something and one guy is losing 
the argument big time, so he tries to change the subject. The logic of 
this is that if the debater can't win an argument on his or her own 
merits they then try to shift the topic of the argument. It's a very 
common tactic used by anonymous informants on the internet./

[FairfieldLife] Irony

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Thanks to the LR (lurking reporter) who wrote to me to point out that Ann and 
Jim are currently obsessing non-stop about me -- writing post after post after 
post, having admitted to having read two books about Rama to fuel their 
obsession and give them "research material" for it. 


At the same time they're doing this, all while denying that they're obsessed 
with me, the LR happened to notice that they're giving me shit about being an 
atheist at the same time they are gushing about how much they love a guy who 
is...wait for it...one of the most famous atheists in the world of 
entertainment, Ricky Gervais: 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX0Fk-701Q


What they seem unaware of is that his hilarious movie about a society in which 
lying has never been invented was an extended metaphor for his feelings about 
religion; that is, that ALL religion is by definition lying. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/20/2014 11:43 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Xeno,


I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical 
existence of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother 
and a father.  Were you not created by your father's sperm that 
impregnated your mother's egg?  Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 
months before you were born here on earth?


I'll give you my thoughts about Barker's ideas.  But I'm taking the 
KCA argument one at a time which starts with statement 1.  Your 
statements are so astonishing that we need more clarification about 
your thoughts and logic.


Everyone in the forum is invited to participate in this discussion to 
ask Xeno about his revelations regarding his physical existence.

>
/Everyone on this forum seems to believe in causation - that for every 
event there is a cause. The question is if everything that happens has a 
cause, is there a first cause? This is probably one of the first essay 
assignments in any Philosophy 101 class at a community college. //

//
//Everyone knows that Aristotle defines change and motion by first 
concluding that everything that has a beginning and an end would have to 
have a first cause or principle. His argument for before and after must 
have an antecedent state following Parmenides statement: "nothing comes 
from nothing."


Aristotle concluded that if the cosmos had a beginning it would require 
a first cause, an unmoved mover, in order to support change./


/Where is Robin when we need him?/
>





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

'Everything that exists has no cause' is not the equivalent of 
'everything that begins to exist has no cause'. No beginning is stated 
or implied. I said nothing about 'begins'. I was talking about 
existence without time. The eternity of space and things but no time. 
Like a still photograph, frozen being. Have you ever heard the Zen 
koan 'show me your original face before your parents were born'? As 
far as my experience is concerned, I have always existed. The body 
that gives me eyes seems to have had prior causes. The raw components 
of the body were fashioned in the hearts of collapsing starts billions 
of years ago. The protons in my body, if science is correct, are 13.5 
billion years old. I certainly feel that old sometimes. So every 
aspect of my sense of 'self' is old or timeless, older than my parents 
as you appear to imaging them.


Presumably you have heard various statements on FFL about pure being, 
transcendental consciousness, and eternity, you know, beyond life and 
death. Even though such statements are a bit shy of the truth, they 
are representative of certain kinds of experiences people have when 
they practice meditation many times a day for long periods of time. 
One has experiences that subjectively are timeless.


The idea of eternity comes from these kinds of experiences. But if the 
mind is not really clear about these sorts of experiences it 
interprets eternity as endless time. If we take a scientific 
perspective, there is no timelessness in observing the world, though 
we think we know that if you travel at the speed of light, there would 
be timelessness. However only photons travel at the speed of light in 
a vacuum, other particles and hence all other matter cannot be 
accelerated to the velocity of light because it would take an infinite 
amount of energy.


You still have not really made any significant mention of the Kalam 
argument. I think Curtis is right that you do not grasp these things 
very well. Among statements about the world and life I have my 
favourites, but I do not regard them as true. I particularly do not 
regard the Kalam argument as true.


Curtis already demolished your position and you have not responded to 
him. You are out of your league with Curtis, as I think I would be. 
Here is part of an argument by Dan Barker about the Kalam, what do you 
think?


Of course, if you live "outside of time," whatever that means,
then you don't need a beginning in time. A transcendent being,
living Theists regularly talk about a place "beyond" the
universe, a transcendent realm where God exists "outside of time."

". . . the universe has a cause. This conclusion ought to
stagger us, to fill us with awe, for it means that the
universe was brought into existence by something which is
greater than and beyond it."

Of course, if you live "outside of time," whatever that means,
then you don't need a beginning in time. A transcendent being,
living "beyond" nature, is conveniently exempt from the
limitations of natural law, and all complaints that God
himself must have had a cause or a designer (using the same
natural reasoning that tries to call for his existence) can be
dismissed by theists who insist that God is outside the loop,
unaffected by natural causality, beyond time.

   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This is good, too: 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYeIqneQKA0

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdEExtras David Bowie 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
 
 Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from 
"Extras" where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends 
up as an embarrassment.


 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his 
series, 'Extras'? 
 

 No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various 
excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many 
levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and 
feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or 
there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes 
across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is 
pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the 
boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence 
to the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining.
 

 Yes, I must admit bawee is the funniest one here, on a sort of perverse and 
twisted level of 'funny', I admit. I have never, ever in my life associated 
with anyone remotely like him in offline life. I mean, how could one stand it? 
This person would be throwing out all these outrageous statements, all the 
while preening in the nearest mirror (BTW, there was an interesting account at 
the beginning of his little fluff piece 'Roadtrip Mind' about Lenz primping in 
the mirror in the bathroom after having shared a piss together) and meanwhile 
repeating himself over and over in the hopes and dreams of getting a rise out 
of his audience. How tiresome would that be day after day? Still, I do enjoy 
seeing, up to a point, what silly things come out of his mouth here at FFL but 
I genuinely do wish he's change it up once in a while.
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 
 Extras David Bowie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE Segment from 
"Extras" where a random encounter with a music legend in an exclusive pub ends 
up as an embarrassment.
 
 
 
 View on www.youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
 

 Enjoy! cringingly brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his 
series, 'Extras'? 
 

 No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various 
excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many 
levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and 
feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or 
there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes 
across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is 
pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the 
boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I know. let's ban violence towards children! 


On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:54 AM, "fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:
  


  
What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence to 
the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :






---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I 
see your new tactic is to bore us all to death...

I gave up by post #2 of his this morning, I mean, I just got up and I can't 
possibly allow myself to fall back to sleep so soon. (C'mon Mac, at least 
pretend you're a leeetle bit outraged. We don't want to disappoint bawee or the 
reporters. Please do your part here.)



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a 
case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of 
peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its 
long-term practitioners and turns them into mush...

Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes
Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK 
said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, 
published this...  
View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo  
 
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Good news for John and Jim

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 2:52 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Finally, they can try to actually get some payoff from their beliefs 
by trying to sell their imaginary friend on eBay. One guy sold his for 
$2750, so who knows...John might be able to sell his imaginary friend 
God for that much, so he can finally buy a brain.

>
/So, I wonder how much Barry could get on eBay for his little Buddha 
statue, mandala wall hangings and brass incense burner? /

[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

What I find funniest is how Barry always compares his cretinous intelligence to 
the rest of us, in a boastful way - very entertaining.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I 
see your new tactic is to bore us all to death...
 

 I gave up by post #2 of his this morning, I mean, I just got up and I can't 
possibly allow myself to fall back to sleep so soon. (C'mon Mac, at least 
pretend you're a leeetle bit outraged. We don't want to disappoint bawee or the 
reporters. Please do your part here.)
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make 
a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era 
of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of 
its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush...
 

 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 

  
  
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
  
  
  
  
  
 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK 
said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, 
published this...


 
 View on www.huffingtonpost... 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his 
series, 'Extras'? 
 

 No I haven't because I watch so little TV. But I have stumbled on various 
excerpts of him and have sought out others because he is brilliant on many 
levels. But, what is so wonderful is that he appears to be a really kind and 
feeling and generous soul who, despite disagreeing about a subject here or 
there and having discussions and interviews about those things, he never comes 
across as belittling or bitter or angry. Plus, he is a master comic and is 
pretty physically adorable - kind eyes and lovely demeanor. He checks all the 
boxes for someone I'd like to know in 'real' life.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

This is a lot of airy talk, though telling. My concern after having read it, 
is, I feel it was written by someone who takes less than complete 
responsibility for their life, and their personal thoughts and actions. Taking 
this line, of the strong possibility of random action, so seriously, as you do, 
would make it a very convenient excuse to use, whenever things have not gone 
according to your liking, in your life - The "who knew?!" excuse.  
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

 

 a. How has it been established that this is true?
 b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'?
 

 That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because 
believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 
'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed 
attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the 
uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the 
statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the 
beginning of the existence of god.
 

 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the 
beginning of existence of god.

 

 How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the 
source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special 
emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anything 
that is beyond the pale of proof is indeterminate as far as knowledge. There 
are two kinds of proof, one is observation coordinated between groups, which is 
the way science works, and law enforcement works. The other is personal private 
experience but this version of proof cannot be observed by others. The results 
of meditation fall into this category, it is a scaled down version of science 
but lacks shareability. The best you can do in this case is tell someone about 
your experiences and hope they are interested enough to try it out for 
themselves. But in real science, you share observations and ideas with other 
minds, and see if those other minds can replicate what you did.
 

 Metaphysics is the study of ideas that have no physical observations and 
therefore there are no shareable proofs as to the reality of metaphysical 
statements. Because there are no proofs, arguments like the Kalam argument have 
arisen in the attempt to convince people that certain ideas that have no proof, 
no evidence, no observable reality, could be true. These argument tend to have 
a serious logical flaw, and if they are true they are trivial tautologies 
(examples: a = a, a cat is a cat, all things are all things), that is, circular 
arguments which tend to be the basic religious argument for why we are here: 
'God is God, so there, believe it or else!'
 

 To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to 
suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why?
 

 If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of 
the nature of human imagination, and human nature in general, and the great 
variability of possible human experiences.
 

 

 'The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine -- cure with a 
word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was 
necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, 
that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The 
credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the 
beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for 
its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to 
say, a falsehood.'

 


 'No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth 
by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of a miracle. Nothing but falsehood 
ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and 
no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, 
there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and 
independen

[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I 
see your new tactic is to bore us all to death...
 

 I gave up by post #2 of his this morning, I mean, I just got up and I can't 
possibly allow myself to fall back to sleep so soon. (C'mon Mac, at least 
pretend you're a leeetle bit outraged. We don't want to disappoint bawee or the 
reporters. Please do your part here.)
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make 
a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era 
of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of 
its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush...
 

 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 

  
  
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
  
  
  
  
  
 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK 
said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, 
published this...


 
 View on www.huffingtonpost... 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for the heads-up, lurking reporter

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Barry brings up the 'lurking reporters', just as Lenz brought up 'negative 
entities'. A boogeyman. How unimpressive.
 

 They're his imaginary friends, Mac. Soon he'll be selling them on eBay...
 

 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Wow. 200 messages in this thread, just so far. Since it started with 
absolutely no comment from me, just the graphics pasted in below, I suspect 
that its...uh...popularity must have something to do with a few people being 
upset at my choice of Subject line. Dare I suggest that their reaction proves 
my statement rather than refutes it?  :-) :-) :-)

 

 See, mr reporter, bawee has done exclty as I said he would do. He does 
every time. 
 

 
 



 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 

 

 Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...
 

 I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is 
classed as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how 
someone with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived 
intellectually at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who 
disagrees must be deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. 
 

 But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most 
puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt 
whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be 
a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. 
Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second 
biscuit.
 

 I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious 
types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult 
any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been 
slighted. The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why 
I feel no emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about 
quantum tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? 
It's only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it 
or actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the 
abuse comes from.
 

 But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find 
him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary 
possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me.
 

 so, here you are making all sorts of reasonable statements and asking 
reasonable questions and all the time you are asking the one shmuck who is the 
one most guilty of every single one of the things you are questioning and 
commenting on? This is hilarious.
 
 
  


 


 




















 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 

 

 Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...
 

 If you are the benchmark for the def of "human" then you are absolutely 
correct - Jim is a long way from that. (You set yourself up so badly every time 
- you would have made a terrible chess player.)
 

 
 
  






 
  


 


 




















 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

2005. Yes, another one of Barry's justifications, for having accomplished 
nothing - Something along the lines of, "See what a cruel horrible can't make 
any progress everybody gets hurt, world it is?! waaah, no wonder I'm such a 
loser, who wouldn't be?" Then he forces my success, to fit into his dark 
and twisted picture of the world, by saying I am crazy. Let's hear a big WTF, 
folks! 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 On 10/21/2014 4:47 AM, fleetwood_macncheese@... 
mailto:fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. 
I see your new tactic is to bore us all to death...


 >
 Following Barry's logic, it's all Jim's fault - because Jim realized he has 
been enlightened since birth. And, the dead Mahesh is to blame too - it's all 
their fault because they like to relax a few times a day and think nice 
thoughts and enjoy. 
 
 So. it does look like Barry still believes in cause and effect, but he seems 
to believe that there is also a mental reciprocity as well - that thoughts can 
influence destiny and other people (ME). 
 
 Is Barry mixed up or what?
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote :
 
 And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make 
a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era 
of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of 
its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush...
 
 
 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes
 

  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes Every five minutes, a 
child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK said. A majority of 
these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, published this...


 
 View on www.huffingtonpost...
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 







 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] For Share

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 7:09 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

Ann, I hear Limbach is allergic to colloidal silver so I'm all set!

>
/A child is killed by violence every day in America and your risk of 
catching Ebola is far less than your risk of dying from the flu, which 
killed 53,667 Americans in 2010./

>



On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:20 PM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com 
[FairfieldLife]"  wrote:



alt

[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

You seem to be just trolling. Do you practice TM? I was  talking about things 
that spiritual practices advertise they can bring into one's awareness. These 
things are private, you cannot prove you have these kinds of experiences. My 
body has a mother and father, my awareness does not, the essential value of my 
existence does not. That really is not important since it is true for everyone 
(except Barry, every rule has an exception. In the handbook of universe 
fabrication it states on line 203,409,000 subheading B that there must be one 
individual in any given universe for which truth is a non entity) 

 As for statement 1 of the Kalam argument, I would say it is indeterminate that 
it is true or not. What is the evidence that it is true?
 

 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

 

 a. How has it been established that this is true?
 b. How is this statement different from 'everything that exists has a cause'?
 

 That word, 'begins' is the setup to introduce a concept like god, because 
believers think of god as an uncaused intelligence that causes other things to 
'begin to exist' although how that is accomplished is beyond me. It is a failed 
attempt to get around the problem of infinite regression of causes so the 
uncaused cause idea seems more respectable, which it is not. However in the 
statement below, we have Fred, an uncaused cause who was the cause of the 
beginning of the existence of god.
 

 1. Fred, who never began (i.e., Fred is eternal), was the cause of the 
beginning of existence of god.

 

 How do you prove it is not true? (By the way the Epistles of Fred are the 
source of this knowledge, which was revealed to mankind via His special 
emissaries . Fred is known in the spiritual trade as the Godmaker.) Anything 
that is beyond the pale of proof is indeterminate as far as knowledge. There 
are two kinds of proof, one is observation coordinated between groups, which is 
the way science works, and law enforcement works. The other is personal private 
experience but this version of proof cannot be observed by others. The results 
of meditation fall into this category, it is a scaled down version of science 
but lacks shareability. The best you can do in this case is tell someone about 
your experiences and hope they are interested enough to try it out for 
themselves. But in real science, you share observations and ideas with other 
minds, and see if those other minds can replicate what you did.
 

 Metaphysics is the study of ideas that have no physical observations and 
therefore there are no shareable proofs as to the reality of metaphysical 
statements. Because there are no proofs, arguments like the Kalam argument have 
arisen in the attempt to convince people that certain ideas that have no proof, 
no evidence, no observable reality, could be true. These argument tend to have 
a serious logical flaw, and if they are true they are trivial tautologies 
(examples: a = a, a cat is a cat, all things are all things), that is, circular 
arguments which tend to be the basic religious argument for why we are here: 
'God is God, so there, believe it or else!'
 

 To return to the first statement in the Kalam argument, I have no reason to 
suppose that that first statement is true. You apparently think it is true. Why?
 

 If you are flabbergasted at what I said previously, you are clearly unaware of 
the nature of human imagination, and human nature in general, and the great 
variability of possible human experiences.
 

 

 'The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine -- cure with a 
word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was 
necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, 
that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The 
credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the 
beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for 
its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to 
say, a falsehood.'

 


 'No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth 
by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of a miracle. Nothing but falsehood 
ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and 
no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, 
there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and 
independent of, nature.'

 


 -- Robert Ingersoll, 1872

 ==

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Xeno, 

 I'm flabbergasted at the statements you just said.  In the physical existence 
of human beings here on earth, everyone has to have a mother and a father.  
Were you not created by your father's sperm that impregnated your mother's egg? 
 Didn't she carry you in her womb for 9 months before you were born here on 
earth?
 

 I'll give you my thoughts about B

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: An Old Index to FFL

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 7:55 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

For Researching purposes,

>
/"The person levitating or flying through the air was a guy named 
Frederick Lenz, who also called himself Rama."/ - TurquoiseB, 2007


http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife%40yahoogroups.com/msg95530.html

Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=rama+lenz&l=fairfieldlife/yahoogroups.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 4:47 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Wow, Barry, how 
incendiaryyawnz. I see 
your new tactic is to bore us all to death...



>
/Following Barry's logic, it's all Jim's fault - because Jim realized he 
has been enlightened since birth. And, the dead Mahesh is to blame too - 
it's all their fault because they like to relax a few times a day and 
think nice thoughts and enjoy. //

//
//So. it does look like Barry still believes in cause and effect, but he 
seems to believe that there is also a mental reciprocity as well - *that 
thoughts can influence destiny and other people (ME). *


Is Barry mixed up or what?/
>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying 
to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an 
unprecedented era of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM 
fucks with the minds of its long-term practitioners and turns them 
into mush...


Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 




image 







Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
 

Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by 
Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. 
The report, published this...


View on www.huffingtonpost... 



Preview by Yahoo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 4:33 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Funny, you accusing me of losing something, that you never had, in the 
first place. lol.



>
/This is not funny - a guy that has believed in "Buddhas" for a decade 
has apparently lost it - lost his faith  in karma and reincarnation. It 
looks like a clear case of transference, and now it's all Jim's and 
John's fault. A clear case of transference. Barry must be experiencing 
some roughness - now he is tilting at windmills. Go figure./

>


You would not know the first thing about Enlightenment, especially 
after that spiritual criminal "taught" you and the rest of the chumps 
that only two people out of the hundreds that worshipped him, even had 
a *chance* for enlightenment, in this lifetime.


Really took it to heart, didn't you? Have a nice day.:-)


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the 
worst case of losing it so far.


Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...


*From:* "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental 
illness



--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your 
response hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.


M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in 
that case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit 
is to get back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened 
and you are not" routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to 
lash out.


But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of 
it ride as an indictment of your character.


But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a 
leader in the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 
19 Principals in one of my school county districts about the need to 
bring arts integrated teaching in their schools, at the invitation of 
the regional arts director who is a fan of my work.


As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong 
sorry to disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the 
educational system in my area with my own choice of music from within 
the system, and recognized by it.


So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field 
if you want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit 
the actual facts of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized 
in my community. I was just changing lives one classroom at a time today.


Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the 
world, as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is 
clearly not sane thinking.


There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to 
start. If fact coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. 
I'll just let the "rest of the world" think about who just said this!





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme 
views, in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, 
in the world they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the 
most vociferous born again "christians", often found proselytizing, 
while working minimum wage jobs.


These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, 
from upper middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, 
and each with a college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between 
them. I am not necessarily talking about material possessions, but 
things like strength of character, foresight, humility, social 
intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that which they set out 
to do. All of this, is lacking in them.


So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to 
show their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for 
their bad decisions. They profess atheism, and go all out against God, 
and enlightenment, and any sort of spiritual endeavor that they don't 
approve of. They see themselves failing by societies norms, and have 
now taken the position, that, "You can't fire me, I quit!"


But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, 
as represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is 
clearly not sane thinking.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

The ignorant inquisitor.. 'It's not my experience so it does not exist!'
Deltablues' technique is the old trick of the materialist's (orthodox) 
inquisitor, “Tell us, what exactly is your creed?” “Tell us in terms 
detailed such that we can understand a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for the heads-up, lurking reporter

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 4:29 AM, fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:


Barry brings up the 'lurking reporters',


>
Barry is the lurking reporter planting messages in order to elicit 
information for his magazine or  web site. He is obviously 
an informant - we just don't know who he is working for. Obviously the 
impostor Michael is working and reporting to TM-Free and John Knapp, but 
we don't know how much he is getting paid.

>


just as Lenz brought up 'negative entities'. A boogeyman. How 
unimpressive.



>
 You probably didn't miss the connection between Lenz and Barry's 
belief in "energy vampires" - a belief straight out of the Lenz 
playbook. Go figure.


/In 1989, Rama justified to the disciples his rising tuition. //"I 
nearly killed myself by accepting your Negative Occult Energy," he said, 
"and now you are going to have to pay for it."/


/Take Me For A Ride /
by Mark E. Laxer
http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/14.epil-3
>



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :




You don't read their stuff, but i figured it would make your
day to learn that Jim and Ann (both who claim that they are
not obsessed with you) have been bragging about having read A
WHOLE BOOK about Rama (the same one you told us about) so
that they can obsess on you even more while trying to
demonize you. You were right, this place is a zoo.

Hey there Mr "Reporter Man". Here are a few tidbits to
cogitate on.
1) bawee reads everyone's posts especially if he suspects
they are about him. He keeps a running tally.
2) if anyone is talking about bawee it makes his day. Why do
you think he comes across as such a disappointed whack job?
Hint: because he is a disappointed whack job.
3) reading a book about Rama is not about bawee, it is about
Rama. Saying that we are reading a book by an author (Mark
Laxer) who used to be part of the inner circle of Lenz's cult
and claiming anyone who reads it is obsessed by a bit player
who once was part of that cult (bawee) is like saying anyone
who reads Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History in Time" is
obsessed with his dry cleaner
4) "bragging" about reading a book. Maybe if I was in first
grade and managed to finish it.
5) "Demonize"? bawee is nowhere near being in the category of
"demon", sorry. You have to be powerful and interesting and
mysterious to be that.
6) If FFL is such a zoo why are you still hanging around? And
if bawee is to be believed you've been here a while so how
long has it taken to realize what is going on here, Mr Reporter?
7) you should be a little more discriminating in who you keep
company with; there is guilt by association in this joint.

Color me not surprised. I guess it gives them something to do
other than whack off.  :-)

>
On 10/20/2014 2:47 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
>

They must have some serious time on their hands. I thought
the "unified field" would give Jim endless pleasure and an
ego working beyond the mere concerns of us mortals so he
didn't have to get caught up in our tawdry world. Instead it
seems that he can't get enough of it!

>
Non sequitur.
>

I often used to wonder what Marshy meant when he lectured
about how an enlightened mind could only obey the laws of
nature. I guess we know now, arguing on the internet must be
important work for the "unified field" It's the modern way I
suppose, I just thought that having access to all that
infinite wisdom might be a bit more impressive to behold.

>
Non sequitur.
>

But that's just my waking state consciousness struggling to
understand something way beyond its meagre limits obviously.

>
/Obviously, since you don't seem to realize that it was Barry
who first brought up the subject of Frederick Lenz, aka Rama
and the levitation events in the first place. Not only does
this fact indicate the limits of your waking state of
consciousness. It's starting to look like you're suffering
from a form of cognitive dissonance - Barry is the informant
that wants to talk about cults and cult activities. Go figure./

Re: [FairfieldLife] A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 3:38 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:

A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

>
/Some people will sink to just about any level in order to win a 
religious debate. This message of Barry's is just creepy!

>
/
And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying 
to make a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an 
unprecedented era of peace in the world.

>
Non sequitur.
>
Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its long-term 
practitioners and turns them into mush...

>
Non sequitur.

/It looks like Barry is deeper into the cognitive dissonance than I 
imagined - this guy has lost it - resorting to debating with anonymous 
chatters on social media.//Now it's the dead Mahesh Varma's fault that 
children get killed by violence every day. Go figure./

>


Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 




image 







Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
 

Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by 
Unicef UK said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. 
The report, published this...


View on www.huffingtonpost... 



Preview by Yahoo

Re: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness

['Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

On 10/21/2014 3:23 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
Wow. 200 messages in this thread, just so far. Since it started with 
absolutely no comment from me, just the graphics pasted in below, I 
suspect that its...uh...popularity must have something to do with a 
few people being upset at my choice of Subject line. Dare I suggest 
that their reaction proves my statement rather than refutes it?  :-) 
:-) :-)

>
Wow. 200 messages and no comments from Barry explaining why he believes 
in Buddhas, levitation and karma. It's one of the clearest cases of 
cognitive dissonance I've ever seen on social media. Go figure.

/
//"Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, 
standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or 
other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the 
practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one 
criticizes another."/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in English?

[Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Baker has always been my favorite Dr. - My daughter LOVES Dr. Who, tho her favs 
have been David Tennant and Matt Smith. Didn't take her long to accept Peter 
Capaldi. I haven't seen any of Capaldi's episodes yet. 




 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in 
English?
 


  




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :



kept passive by low wages and good quality TV. 


Dr.
Who keeps 'em mesmerized!


Yup, it works for me! 

Always did actually. I met Tom Baker when he started as Dr Who. It was like 
meeting god, better than that to me as I would have said even then.



 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people
sound American when they sing in English?



 




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


you will have to explain that to us crass and crude Americans, I never heard of 
such doings as this - and it was legal at one time? Who changed the law and why 
wasn't it illegal to begin with?


We've always done it MJ, until recently anyway, it's a way of housing the 
homeless or feeding yourself in critical times. 

But squatting empty buildings became really popular in the 1960's because of 
the housing crisis, I have no idea when the laws were agreed but there was a 
statement you put on the door of the house you let yourself into stating that 
it was now your home and there was basically nothing they could do about it, 
except go to court to
have you removed, which generally took ages. 

To put it into perspective, my town has 30% of it's houses empty for 10 months 
of the year and yet there are homeless people sleeping rough everywhere. This 
sort of imbalance in wealth is very bad for society and the government doesn't 
give a damn, they actively make it worse in fact. So squatting was a good idea 
but it did attract a lot of the wrong types who ruined peoples houses. The way 
things are swinging politically it couldn't last. everyone tries to out fascist 
the other guy these days.

The people I knew in squats were either paying off student debts or anarchist 
types living cheap and avoiding officialdom. We ran an environmental action 
group from our pub as well as having awesome parties and plotted the overthrow 
of Maggie Thatcher, but I went to travel the world before they built the 
barricades. It was good clean fun and no one got hurt or even disadvantaged 
much.

But it's all been illegal since a few years ago, the verminous Tories won't let 
their rich friends be inconvenienced in any way so they stopped it. London 
belongs to oligarchs now, the rich have won the class war and there's no way to 
live except by paying vast rent to private landlords or buying a place if 
you're lucky. I don;t know why there hasn't been a revolution in the last few 
years, probably because everyone is kept passive by low wages and good quality 
TV. And there's no good role models. Russell Brand is the best they've got 
these days and he's a multi millionaire. But you'd never get away with it now 
with our easily abused anti - terror laws and government monitoring.






 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:24 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why do people sound American when they sing in 
English?



 




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :




Sorry - I replied too fast. Re "Still there?": No, we stayed at the squat for 
two years then we got a letter
from the owner saying that he was returning from Africa, that he'd heard the 
place was occupied, and could we please vacate the premises shortly. We did 
exactly that - so he never lost out from us using his house and we left it in 
good order. Would all be illegal now of course but was still allowed then. And 
we thought at the time that we were just continuing the Levellers work  . . . 

Excellent, a lot of my friends did squatting and they always looked after the 
places. We all ended up in a nice empty pub once and planned our anti-poll tax 
campaign from the saloon bar. Ah, happy days.

Am currently squatting a bit of land and have divided it up between friends 
into allotments. Worked well for a few years but interest is waning and the 
place is getting overgrown, great sense of achievement when we started though. 
We were the new diggers. 

Shame it's all illegal now, kids these days don't know
what they're missing!

Re: [FairfieldLife] For Share

[Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Ann, I hear Limbach is allergic to colloidal silver so I'm all set!



On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:20 PM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
 wrote:
 


  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Good news for John and Jim

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Why do you spend so much time, ranting against those whose messages you don't 
read? I'll bet the lurking reporters have noted this inconsistency.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Finally, they can try to actually get some payoff from their beliefs by trying 
to sell their imaginary friend on eBay. One guy sold his for $2750, so who 
knows...John might be able to sell his imaginary friend God for that much, so 
he can finally buy a brain. Jim might earn enough to buy  a human being willing 
to go out into the middle of nowhere and talk to him so that he doesn't have to 
set up automated cameras to spy on his animal neighbors to have some company. 
:-)
 

 For Sale: Imaginary Friends 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html
 

  
  
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html
  
  
  
  
  
 For Sale: Imaginary Friends 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html 
Does selling your imaginary friend count as human trafficking? We may never 
know. But if you're in the market for an imaginary friend, look no further than 
eBay. Th...


 
 View on www.huffingtonpost... 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/imaginary-friends-ebay_n_6015942.html
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Love This Guy

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Excellent - As usual, had me laughing almost uncontrollably. Have you seen his 
series, 'Extras'? 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I have a lot of friends on here. No need to pretend otherwise. Perhaps you 
should be giving advice to the turd flinging chimp on here, whom you find so 
much in common with, both of you far less than raging successes in the world.  

 Your attempt at sussing my motivation, is absurd. I don't play that same game 
that the chimp does, and am perfectly happy, to continue telling you what you 
don't want to hear, regardless of you believing me, about anything, even my 
enlightenment. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened and you are not" 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in 
one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated 
teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who 
is a fan of my work. 

As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to 
disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system 
in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized 
by it.

So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you 
want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts 
of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community.  I was 
just changing lives one classroom at a time today.

Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.

There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact 
coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the "rest 
of the world" think about who just said this!


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, 
in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world 
they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born 
again "christians", often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. 
 

 These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper 
middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a 
college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily 
talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, 
foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that 
which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. 
 

 So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to show 
their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for their bad 
decisions. They profess atheism, and go all out against God, and enlightenment, 
and any sort of spiritual endeavor that they don't approve of. They see 
themselves failing by societies norms, and have now taken the position, that, 
"You can't fire me, I quit!"
 

 But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The ignorant inquisitor.. 'It's not my experience so it does not exist!'
 Deltablues' technique is the old trick of the materialist's (orthodox) 
inquisitor, “Tell us, what exactly is your creed?” “Tell us in terms detailed 
such that we can understand and then the best of sophists of us will argue it 
out with you trying it point by point. Lot of people have been burned at the 
stake by uber-intellectualistic people like Deltablues is trying to be here on 
FFL.
 -Buck
 

 fleetwood_macncheese responding to Turqb:
 
 Bye, bye, Lenz, Jr.
 

 turquoiseb@...> wrote : 
 See what I mean? Curtis refuted John's idiotic argument point by point, and HE 
DIDN'T EVEN HEAR IT. The only thing he can do is repeat the same stupid thing 
he's already repeated -- and had refuted -- here on FFL dozens of time in the 
past. 

 

 You really can't deal with anyone as dumb as this. I repeat my contention -- 
believing in astrology, God, and the Maharishi Effect really IS like winning 
the Trifecta of Idiocy. How does a mind *become* this weak?  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Funny, you accusing me of losing something, that you never had, in the first 
place. lol. 

 You would not know the first thing about Enlightenment, especially after that 
spiritual criminal "taught" you and the rest of the chumps that only two people 
out of the hundreds that worshipped him, even had a *chance* for enlightenment, 
in this lifetime. 
 

 Really took it to heart, didn't you? Have a nice day.:-)
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 

 

 Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...
 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened and you are not" 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in 
one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated 
teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who 
is a fan of my work. 

As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to 
disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system 
in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized 
by it.

So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you 
want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts 
of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community.  I was 
just changing lives one classroom at a time today.

Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.

There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact 
coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the "rest 
of the world" think about who just said this!


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, 
in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world 
they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born 
again "christians", often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. 
 

 These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper 
middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a 
college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily 
talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, 
foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that 
which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. 
 

 So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to show 
their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for their bad 
decisions. They profess atheism, and go all out against God, and enlightenment, 
and any sort of spiritual endeavor that they don't approve of. They see 
themselves failing by societies norms, and have now taken the position, that, 
"You can't fire me, I quit!"
 

 But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The ignorant inquisitor.. 'It's not my experience so it does not exist!'
 Deltablues' technique is the old trick of the materialist's (orthodox) 
inquisitor, “Tell us, what exactly is your creed?” “Tell us in terms detailed 
such that we can understand and then the best of sophists of us will argue it 
out with you trying it point by point. Lot of people have been burned at the 
stake by uber-intellectualistic people like Deltablues is trying to be here on 
FFL.
 -Buck
 

 fleetwood_macncheese responding to Turqb:
 
 Bye, bye, Lenz, Jr.
 

 turquoiseb@...> wrote : 
 See what I mean? Curtis refuted John's idiotic argument point by point, and HE 
DIDN'T EVEN HEAR IT. The only thing he can do is repeat the same stupid thing 
he's alrea

[FairfieldLife] Re: A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Wow, Barry, how incendiaryyawnz. I 
see your new tactic is to bore us all to death...
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make 
a case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era 
of peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of 
its long-term practitioners and turns them into mush...
 

 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 

  
  
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
  
  
  
  
  
 Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK 
said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, 
published this...


 
 View on www.huffingtonpost... 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/children-violence-unicef-report_n_6019170.html
 Preview by Yahoo
 
  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Could astrology be correct? The season in which you were born may affect your personality, scientists claim

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It wasn't fun, but what else you gunna do?! 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Could be - I am far more emotional than my wife is - She was born in January, 
and I was born in June. However her sister, born in July, is also quite 
emotional. Tiny sample size, though. Also, I was born 2 or 3 months premature 
of my due date (born black, then turned blue for awhile), so I don't know how 
that affects the astrology.
 

 Wow, you covered a lot of the spectrums for possible skin color in one 
lifetime including that of Krishna!
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Babies born in the summer are much more likely to suffer from mood 
 swings when they grow up, while those born in the winter are less likely 
 to become irritable adults, scientists claim.
 
 http://shar.es/1mDt8U http://shar.es/1mDt8U

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Thanks for the heads-up, lurking reporter

[fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Barry brings up the 'lurking reporters', just as Lenz brought up 'negative 
entities'. A boogeyman. How unimpressive.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 

   
 You don't read their stuff, but i figured it would make your day to learn that 
Jim and Ann (both who claim that they are not obsessed with you) have been 
bragging about having read A WHOLE BOOK about Rama (the same one you told us 
about) so that they can obsess on you even more while trying to demonize you. 
You were right, this place is a zoo.
 

 Hey there Mr "Reporter Man". Here are a few tidbits to cogitate on. 
 1) bawee reads everyone's posts especially if he suspects they are about him. 
He keeps a running tally.
 2) if anyone is talking about bawee it makes his day. Why do you think he 
comes across as such a disappointed whack job? Hint: because he is a 
disappointed whack job.
 3) reading a book about Rama is not about bawee, it is about Rama. Saying that 
we are reading a book by an author (Mark Laxer) who used to be part of the 
inner circle of Lenz's cult and claiming anyone who reads it is obsessed by a 
bit player who once was part of that cult (bawee) is like saying anyone who 
reads Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History in Time" is obsessed with his dry 
cleaner
 4) "bragging" about reading a book. Maybe if I was in first grade and managed 
to finish it.
 5) "Demonize"? bawee is nowhere near being in the category of "demon", sorry. 
You have to be powerful and interesting and mysterious to be that.
 6) If FFL is such a zoo why are you still hanging around? And if bawee is to 
be believed you've been here a while so how long has it taken to realize what 
is going on here, Mr Reporter? 
 7) you should be a little more discriminating in who you keep company with; 
there is guilt by association in this joint. 
 

 Color me not surprised. I guess it gives them something to do other than whack 
off.  :-)




 >
 On 10/20/2014 2:47 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
 >
 They must have some serious time on their hands. I thought the "unified field" 
would give Jim endless pleasure and an ego working beyond the mere concerns of 
us mortals so he didn't have to get caught up in our tawdry world. Instead it 
seems that he can't get enough of it!






 >
 Non sequitur.
 >
 I often used to wonder what Marshy meant when he lectured about how an 
enlightened mind could only obey the laws of nature. I guess we know now, 
arguing on the internet must be important work for the "unified field" It's the 
modern way I suppose, I just thought that having access to all that infinite 
wisdom might be a bit more impressive to behold. 
 






 >
 Non sequitur.
 >
 But that's just my waking state consciousness struggling to understand 
something way beyond its meagre limits obviously.







 >
 Obviously, since you don't seem to realize that it was Barry who first brought 
up the subject of Frederick Lenz, aka Rama and the levitation events in the 
first place. Not only does this fact indicate the limits of your waking state 
of consciousness. It's starting to look like you're suffering from a form of 
cognitive dissonance - Barry is the informant that wants to talk about cults 
and cult activities. Go figure.
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] A child is killed on this planet every five minutes

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

And just think...only a few days ago TM TBs on this forum were trying to make a 
case for the imaginary Maharishi Effect having created an unprecedented era of 
peace in the world. Yet another example of how TM fucks with the minds of its 
long-term practitioners and turns them into mush...

Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes

  
 
Unicef UK: A Child Is Killed By Violence Every 5 Minutes
Every five minutes, a child is killed by violence, a new report by Unicef UK 
said. A majority of these deaths occur outside of war zones. The report, 
published this...  
View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Wow. 200 messages in this thread, just so far. Since it started with absolutely 
no comment from me, just the graphics pasted in below, I suspect that 
its...uh...popularity must have something to do with a few people being upset 
at my choice of Subject line. Dare I suggest that their reaction proves my 
statement rather than refutes it?  :-) :-) :-)




 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:12 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 





  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

From: salyavin808 



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 


Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...

I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is classed 
as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how someone 
with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived intellectually 
at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who disagrees must be 
deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. 

But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most 
puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt 
whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be 
a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. 
Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second 
biscuit.

I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious types 
don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult any 
contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been 
slighted. 

Exactly. They are OFFENDED that someone like myself or you has overcome the 
Fear Of God that society tried to imprint us with, and they haven't. They're 
still terrified that if they express doubt of any kind, their imaginary friend 
God will smite them. Can't risk that. And they're more than a little pissed of 
that God has *not* smitten us, so they have to try to make up for him being a 
slacker and try to smite us themselves.  :-)

The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why I feel no 
emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about quantum 
tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? It's 
only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it or 
actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the abuse 
comes from.

I agree, especially in Jim's case. Let's face it...he is basically NOTHING 
without his story of "being enlightened." Without that, he's just another guy 
who inherited a little money rather than earned it, quit his job, and moved out 
into the country, where now he's so lonely that the only people he ever gets to 
talk to are on the screen of his laptop. Or that exist in his imagination, like 
his imaginary friend God (or The Ghost Of Guru Dev). 

So naturally he *resents* that some of us live in cities where they have pubs 
and cafes full of real people, and at which we can sit and talk with these real 
people. 

I suspect that what he resents even more is that we can sit there and talk with 
these real people without having to invent made-up stories to impress them 
with. 

Jim feels that the only way he can get anyone to listen to him is to say, "Hi, 
my name is Jim, and I am fully enlightened." We can just say, "Hi, I'm Barry," 
or "Hi, I'm Salyavin," or "Hi, I'm Curtis," and that's ENOUGH. 


But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find 
him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary 
possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me.

Me, I don't really give a shit. I think I realized at age 15 that if someone 
could present me with absolute, irrefutable proof that a God existed, it 
wouldn't change my life in the slightest. 

That is still true, because I got over the Fear Of God belief that they tried 
to imprint me with back during my two weeks of Sunday School attendance. Jim 
and John never did, so they can't make the leap to living without an "imaginary 
friend" who is watching them at every moment to make sure they don't fuck up 
and he has to send them to everlasting torment in Hell. Some "friend."  :-)




 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness



--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened and you are not" 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.



---In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Princ

[FairfieldLife] Good news for John and Jim

[TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Finally, they can try to actually get some payoff from their beliefs by trying 
to sell their imaginary friend on eBay. One guy sold his for $2750, so who 
knows...John might be able to sell his imaginary friend God for that much, so 
he can finally buy a brain. Jim might earn enough to buy  a human being willing 
to go out into the middle of nowhere and talk to him so that he doesn't have to 
set up automated cameras to spy on his animal neighbors to have some company. 
:-)

For Sale: Imaginary Friends

  
 
For Sale: Imaginary Friends
Does selling your imaginary friend count as human trafficking? We may never 
know. But if you're in the market for an imaginary friend, look no further than 
eBay. Th...  
View on www.huffingtonpost... Preview by Yahoo  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness

[salyavin808]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Jim has lost it before and will lose it again, but this is by far the worst 
case of losing it so far. 

 

 Enlightened? At this point he's barely human...
 

 I'm interested in why anyone who risks a dissenting voice round here is 
classed as emotionally immature as well as intellectually lazy. I can see how 
someone with entrenched beliefs might assume that they must have arrived 
intellectually at what they think is true, and that therefore anyone who 
disagrees must be deficient not to have arrived at the same conclusion. 
 

 But to think that makes them some sort of emotional cripple as well is most 
puzzling, I can only assume it's a catch all insult that's designed to hurt 
whoever might be on the receiving end, and sort of a way of saying you must be 
a TOTAL loser and not just an intellectual one for daring to disagree with me. 
Like a toddler saying I HATE YOU FOREVER because you won't give them a second 
biscuit.
 

 I think the reason this happens is that Jim and other spiritual/religious 
types don't realise their beliefs are emotional rather than logical and insult 
any contrarians in an accordingly similar way to how they feel they've been 
slighted. The two modes of being don't seem to mix very well, this must be why 
I feel no emotional pain whatsoever when someone disagrees with me about 
quantum tunnelling being a likely cause of creation, and why the hell would I? 
It's only an abstract idea that may or may not be true, if I was hung up on it 
or actually defined by it then it might be different. That's maybe where the 
abuse comes from.
 

 But Jim is right, we should be looking for the creator, and if we don't find 
him or it turns out to be merely a flux in relativistic quantum boundary 
possibilities then so be it. The urge to know is there in me.
 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
 
 
   

 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 I certainly wouldn't have expected you to agree, Curtis, but your response 
hasn't changed my assessment of your motives. Sorry.

M: I didn't realize that this was a discussion of motives. OK, Well in that 
case I think your motive for making up a bunch of derogatory shit is to get 
back at me for not going along with your "I am enlightened and you are not" 
routine. I think that gets you angry and you have to lash out.

But don't worry Jim,there is always Nabbie. He believes EVERYTHING.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 This was a particularly nasty trollish comment Jim. I will let most of it ride 
as an indictment of your character. 

But I will correct this: I am not an outsider in my community. I am a leader in 
the arts in education movement and just last week addressed 19 Principals in 
one of my school county districts about the need to bring arts integrated 
teaching in their schools, at the invitation of the regional arts director who 
is a fan of my work. 

As far as making a living in the arts is concerned you got it wrong sorry to 
disappoint, I am very much an insider working to improve the educational system 
in my area with my own choice of music from within the system, and recognized 
by it.

So you can fantasize about me not being successful in my chosen field if you 
want to grind out your own ill will. But it just doesn't fit the actual facts 
of the work I am doing or how it is being recognized in my community.  I was 
just changing lives one classroom at a time today.

Oh yeah:

J: But, the argument that only they are right, and the rest of the world, as 
represented by the other members of this forum, is wrong, is clearly not sane 
thinking.

There are so many funny things about this I hardly know where to start. If fact 
coming from you the irony is too perfect to comment on. I'll just let the "rest 
of the world" think about who just said this!


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Yes, they are both a piece of work. I think both of them take extreme views, 
in social settings, because both of them feel to be outsiders, in the world 
they inhabit. Their position reminds me of that of the most vociferous born 
again "christians", often found proselytizing, while working minimum wage jobs. 
 

 These are not successful people, Barry and Curtis. Both are white, from upper 
middle class backgrounds, privileged as American citizens, and each with a 
college degree. Yet, not a hill of beans, between them. I am not necessarily 
talking about material possessions, but things like strength of character, 
foresight, humility, social intelligence, and a simple ability to achieve that 
which they set out to do. All of this, is lacking in them. 
 

 So, being emotionally immature, and intellectually lazy, they begin to show 
their discontent with society, that it hasn't rewarded them for the