tar

and hinting at Inow's motivation "to help people throw off the shackels".

Moontanman, Cross posting a bit. Sorry. It was meant to be creepy. The Bible has authority and slavery written through and through. I was pointing out this motivation of religion. To maintain the master slave relationship between the Mullah and the people. Regards, TAR2

So was his decision rational or not?

Inow, Or do you perhaps mean that people who believe in God are broken, like a wild horse is "broken" once a saddle and a rider can stay on his back. Could open up an other aspect of the "value" of religion to society. We can't have a bunch of wild horses running about. Who would carry the master, or pull the plow? Regards, TAR2

Mondays Assignment: Die, If somebody else knows something about reality that I don't, which is the case, most of the time, it does not mean that what I know is wrong, and what they know is right, or vice a versa. I was hinting at the old "blind men and the elephant" story. Suggesting that God or reality if you please, is the elephant, and we, religious people and scientists, stupid people and geniuses, gay and straight, republican and democrat, capitalist and communist, sick and well, humanist and moslem, broken and unbroken... are the blind men. All of us, with NO exceptions, for any "reason". Regards, TAR2 Just am listening to a news story how "The once troubled Darryl Strawberry has turned his life around, and is now batting for God." Seems he is now an ordained minister. This would be contrary to the idea that people that believe in God are broken. That society would consider him now less broken, now that he has faith.

Mondays Assignment: Die, While I agree with your direction here, there is an implication I draw that you may not have drawn. If you lack vital information about a thing, and you are a scientist, believing in the scientific method, you have faith that the "natural" explanation exists, and can be found, can be understood, that there IS a real explanation. And this belief in an unknown natural explanation requires a belief in a greater reality, that nature consists of, that you are part of, and cogniscient of. AND this complete, huge beyond belief, old beyond comprehension, consistent, wonderful thing that you are exploring and learning about, and wondering about MUST be the same one Religious people are looking at. Because there is but one of these realities that all us humans share. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Neither do I want to live under a Mullah. But there is a distinction I make between the baby and the bathwater, when it comes to religion. One of the insights I have had, is that one of our "jobs" on this planet is to "maintain" the valuable things that people before us have made effort to bring into this world. Moses' insight, that we should be responsible for our thoughts and actions in reference to the greater reality, that there is only one of, is one of those things. It can be done, without the need for a big powerful firery eyed daddy pulling all the strings. The idea is still sound. And I believe there to be an argument, that said idea, is not encoded into our genes entirely, but "learned" from Moses and Christ and Mohammed, and Buddah and Plato and Kant and Einstein and all the other great minds, that have "understood" something about the world, and about our relationship to it, and each other and shared their insights, with the rest of us. So things have morphed a bit, from the original versions. Insights have been added along the way. Literal has morphed to figurative, figurative to literal, but the "ideas" are woven deeply into our societies and laws and ways of existing with each other. Even when we concieve of the power and simplicity, consistency and universal nature and omnipotence of "physical laws"...it is not without an underlying resemblance to the ideas of Moses and the other founders of religions. I also tend to think that there is something valuable about holding a shared, learned, agreed upon ideal. It ALLOWS you to KNOW what another person is thinking. Several months ago, something happen, I forget even what it was, but some rather amazing coincidence type of thing, and my wife (who knows well, I am an atheist, and she a theist) and I, looked at each other and both said smiling, in the same breath, "must have been God". There are just some occurences that don't lend themselves well to any scientific explanation, that seem to call in the use of that word as a place holder, that anyone, theist or atheist would "get" the meaning of, with no "evidence" required. It is almost the apparent lack of any "other" explanation that calls for it. That "unknown" that happens from time to time on a level quite a bit larger than "the space between Moontanman's quarks". Regards, TAR2

Inow, I just saw a few moments of an idiot on TV waiving a Bible, and claiming if it was followed, it would bestow upon the believers "divine prosperity". This is the belief you are denouncing, and I am in TOTAL agreement, that people who believe this kind of nonsense are broken. And the people that use people's "faith" for their own gain, in this outrageous manner, even more so. They, who use "faith in God" in this manner are so stupid and evil and broken as to be beyond even my "benefit of the doubt", fence sitting notions of "what they might really be talking about." And yes, I do not wish to face the harsh reality of my own death, nor fully accept the departure from existance, of those I love and care about. I have constructed an understanding, that allows me to know my own consciousness as 100% real. Made in and by reality itself, and therefore as immutable as matter and energy are. That though I fear the void on the "other side" of death, and will no doubt panic quite strongly upon its imminate arrival...those that survive me, will still be alive, still existant, and still real. That there is "life after death", even if it is not to be my own. Not TAR2's, but still something, the same something that was real before my birth. And in this way, reality is mine, forever, as there is no way I can currently be, without fitting it, and no way it can rid itself of me, once I have become part of its being. Reality will remember me, because it has no way to forget what it has done. Whatever changes I have caused cannot be undone, whatever waves I have created, cannot cease. The photons from the match I lit and held to the stars, as a teenager, will not reach the other side of the Galaxy, for 100,000 years. There is no point at which the universe could consider me gone from it. This is what I believe to be true, I believe it to be constructed with facts and evidence. It will not prevent my dying, it will not make me wealthy, but it affirms my belonging to reality, for keeps. And in this thought, I take some comfort, and would not consider broken, anyone who would have a similar thought. Regards, TAR2

Inow, There is not just "one" place in my life, were I accept things as true, without evidence. There are many. I put thoughts in other people's heads, all the time. Sometimes I am way off base, sometimes I am in the ballpark. And there are plenty of evidential things, which seem a bit wonderful. Like how does a tiny spider "know" how to build an intricate, beautiful, purposeful web? Maybe I don't believe that simple chance is a very good explanation, and I look for something deeper, and more intricate, that gives to the universe a certain intellect, that I as a human am only a piece and product of, not indeed the final "knower" and only holder of knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the universe is much bigger, much more intricate, much more longed lived, then I am, or than the entire human race, with all its scientists and priests and wiseman, and technology and knowledge, put together. So you ask why one might give a pass, to someone that believes there is more to reality than is evident? The answer is rather simple and obvious to me. Because it is evident to any human that the universe contains more than they know, that they did not create themselves, or the ground they walk on, or the sky they live under, and that they will die, and the rest will still exist. Silly to think you can know what you can not know. But many people imagine this is possible. Are they broken to do such? Not sure it is possible to answer that question for someone else. It is a question you can only frame properly for yourself, about yourself. Or in the case of religion, build a commonly agreed upon, faith based answer. Or in the case of scientific method, build a commonly agreed upon, evidence based approach. While I am in agreement with you, that particular nonsensical gods, are imaginary, and that people who believe their dreams are actual real things, in our commonly experienced reality, are broken, I am not ready to concede that people that believe in God are broken. Not in the case that their idea of God, is referring to the "ultimate knower", whose characteristics are ultimately unknowable, but who any human, can and does, place his/her self in the shoes of, from time to time, in one way or another. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I too am "investigating" the nature of dreams and revelations. They are, after all, "real" to those that have them. And the "evidence" those of us, who have "revelations", or "comprehend" the revelations had by others, use is that reality is what the revelations are of, and there is no place other, for them to come from. We, you and me, however are approaching it from different directions. You believe it must be proof that God is supernatural. I believe it must be proof that God is real. In your guess, the similarities between the "findings" of religious scholars and monks and the wise men of the mountains, that can "see it through their legs" is evidence that there is this "other reality", that we have only an inkling of, and that we can fully experience this "other reality" by studying the methods of the learned, as to how to become "not human", and experience this Godly, supernatural thing. In my guess, all us humans already have access, full access, to reality. We already see it, through our eyes and through our legs, and through our telescopes and equations. BECAUSE we are human. Not that consciousness can not be raised. Not that awareness of ones connection to "the greater reality" can not be had. But in my take, it is the "greater reality" I am finding my associations with. I am not looking for any connections to, or portholes through which to view some "other reality". In my take, I must make an assumption, that if I see a pattern in reality that others do not see, and I cannot point to it, and show it to others, I must be "on my own". It must belong to that "supernatural" realm, which is not of the "greater reality", but in the realm of human ideals, and human imagination, and it need not fit actual reality. But never-the-less might have some partial analog in reality, and can be "investigated" on that level. That the "supernatural" is human in origin and can be found, as real, only by looking for its basis in reality, though the eyes and understanding of a "real" human. This take, unfortunately requires that I must always take a human view...that I can take no other kind of view than a human one. That I cannot contain something, that contains me. I cannot possibly "know" what God knows, not if God is considered to be reality itself. In your take, taking God's perspective is a possibility, if you know how to do it right. Which oddly enough seems to be also the claim of some scientists. I would argue that no human should attempt to hold an impossible "you have to reject your human view, to see reality as it really is" type of view, as anything other than a "supernatural" one. If any or all these takes are appropriate in any way, applying "brokeness" to another's view of reality, is probably broken in itself. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Not bullshit. It is evident to me that people can know the thoughts of other people. Not magically, but because the thoughts I have, are of the same real things, had with real human equipment as the thoughts had by another human with similar equipment and the same world from which to draw evidence. Language is a vehical we use to express our thoughts, and compare meanings. You can, and do, know what I am thinking, what arguments I make, what I am driving at, and where I am driving off the road. How else would you be able to agree or disagree with my words? Now, the dear that looked me in the eye, does not know English, does not know how an internal combustion engine works, and I can make these determinations of said deers thoughts. I can know what that deer is not thinking. However, the same way I can know another human's thoughts, being a human myself, I can know another mammal's thoughts, being a mammal myself. On some level, on that "fellow mammal" level, is the level I claim knowledge of that deer's thoughts. I do not believe it to be bullshit. I am not claiming anything imaginary. Real deer, real road, real fawn having just crossed. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, When dreams are described in the Bible, I am pretty sure, that they are dreams being described. Not "revelations" of the "true reality", but "revelations" of a more inner nature. That we have this inner world to "live in" and notice things about, and experience is evident. Tooth fairies and Gods, both belong to this inner world. The "understandings" arrived at, by oneself, need not "fit" reality. Even if they are "about" reality. In fact, like reaching nirvana, it is a purely subjective thing, even if you imagine you are applying it to the "real" world, and believe you have "lost" yourself, and found everything to be one, you, in reality, have done no such thing. Because you are still you, standing there on the mountaintop, "thinking" you are not you. Sort of obviously broken. A false ascertion to be sure. I am not in favor of such revelations as you describe as being important or real. That you would think certain people can see the "real" reality, while everybody else is just wallowing about in a virtual one. I do believe it is quite the other way around. Reality is the one that has the Earth populated with mortals. Virtual realities are those that imagine it is some other way. The "proof" of the status of revelations, as compared to evidence requiring beliefs, has been rather well made by the often mentioned fact, in this thread, that there are nearly as many "ideas" of God, as there are people on the planet. That means to me, that those ideas are of an inner and "dreamlike", imaginary nature, and are "true" only within the individual's mind, who is having the revelation. If the revelation should "really" be true, then everybody would have it, and there would be no question, but that it fit reality exactly. Every time, every where, and every time it is considered. ...such is not the case with white bearded, firery eyed images. They are dreams. I fear that your belief that certain people can actually see real reality and the rest of us should listen to them is probably broken. It does not "fit" reality. Regards, TAR2

knowl·edge   /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[nol-ij] Show IPA noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. 5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. She knew the road was dangerous, she knew her fawn was on the other side, she looked in my eyes, and knew she could go, so she went. If you take out the erudition and conversance from the above definitions, it still leaves the knowledge that the deer had of the situation, and the knowledge I had of the situation, and still leaves the fact that both the deer and I, had knowledge of the SAME situation. I am calling no supernatural powers in to play. Just the facts. And I knew some of what the deer knew, and the deer knew some of what I knew. We were both there, knowing the same things. ... Today, a package came from my cousin, unexpectedly. I asked, "what do you think is in it?". As my daughter and wife stood around the kitchen table, telling me, (with the letter opener in my hand) to "just open it". I told them that I had mentioned the way my cousins and aunt and I each had our own wooden goblet that we would use for our beverage at the dinner table, in an E-mail Birthday letter I had sent to my Aunt on her 80th birthday, depicting various found memories of the years I had spent with them on the farm in PA. I predicted that my cousin had found my Goblet and was sending it to me. I opened the package, moved the wadded newspaper and as my daughter read the enclosed card, revealed two wooden goblets. Mine and my cousin's, who suggested in the note that with a simple stoke we could change her initial scratched on the underside of the base, to that of my wife's, and have continued "fond memories". I would not suggest that I have any supernatural powers. But I knew the thoughts in the head of my cousin half way across the continent, and I knew what might be in a closed and wrapped box, based on my knowledge of reality, the possible existence of the goblet, the weight and size of the box etc. Yet you tell me, that can not be considered "knowing" the thoughts in someone else's head. Why the heck not? Regards, TAR2

Inow, I DO have knowledge of that deer, its thoughts, its experience. Absolutely, with as much certainty as I have of anything else I have experienced. I do not have to wait for a study on whether or not deer can make eye contact with a human, and exchange the knowledge that was exchanged during the event I experienced. It already happened. It already is true. It is already fact. I need not wait for you, or science to deem it possible. This is the distinction I am trying to make, between the knowledge of God that a religious person has, and the "false" aspects of the belief, that you concentrate on, in your arguments, as to condemn the whole operation as woo. As to figure that anyone who has a belief is broken. I have not, because of my experience with the deer decided to kill all deer hunters, and level all the houses and roads in her area, to make the place safer for her and her family. I have not become an animal rights activist. I have not even become a vegetarian. I have merely "taken it into consideration". And my theory is, that people have knowledge of the world, on their own, without requiring anybody elses permission, and they absolutely use this privately obtained and held knowledge, along with similiar knowledge obtained and shared by other humans, and take it all into consideration, when determining what to do next. Commonly held "beliefs" are not then all woo. The woo parts can be dismissed when identified as such. But the baby is still in there taking a bath. The dirty water can go down the drain, and fresh water take its place. And in the end, objectively speaking, Inow has no greater claim on reality and truth than does that deer. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Woo worship. I like to keep a little woo around, just to not blind myself to "connections" I have with other "Earthly" entities. While I agree in most part with your anti woo arguments, I don't think it is either possible or desirable to eliminate woo. I don't have a need to live a woofree existence. I have experiences from time to time, that are sort of "magical" and enjoyable, and not necessarily without basis in fact. Was driving my normal route to work a year or two ago, and a fawn crossed the road ahead of me, I slowed and looked toward the side of the road it had come from, for a follower, and the mother doe was there. I stopped, and she stopped, we made eye contact and she proceeded across the road. She "knew" by looking in my eyes, that I understood the situation, and was letting her go first. I don't recall ever "communicating" with a wild animal like that before, but it was sort of a magical thing, and I "understood" her as a mutual being, with much the same basic "rights" here, as I have. Her home, as much as it was mine, maybe even more hers. Something basic in common. A bit wooish. But not false and broken. Regards, TAR2 And I am not sure why you don't consider my knowledge of her, and her knowledge of me, knowledge.

Dekan, Almost as if we know somehow that we have common interests, greater than our selves. Ties in with "why people believe in God" in an underlying, deep meaning way. I am an Atheist myself. Believing that the specific, "personal" attributes that people assign to God, so to think that God is on "their" side, are selfish, untrue attributes to give to a universe so massive and eternal as it is. However, if one is to formulate a conception of God, that would be on the side of everything, then there would be no distinction between good and evil, and having a will at all, and making any "selfish" judgements would be somehow contrary to the nature of this "total" being. My personal conclusion thusly, is that as a human, I have through the emergence of life and evolution "separated" myself, from this "total" thing, as to have a "human" perspective on it, and can know it, because I am exactly NOT the total thing. And a certain pride and feeling of accomplishment can be felt toward life on Earth, and toward "being human" in particular. Good and evil can then be based on what is good for the continuance of life in general and human life in particular, and MY life to be even more specific. So at some level, any "religious", or "world" view has to be selfish. Just depends on where you draw the line between your self, and "the rest" of the universe. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, You asked me to expound upon what belief in God has to do with reality. I think my own understanding of reality is the only thing I can reference, with any authority, so I do that often, in the hopes that my take will not be foreign to another human. If I have a "blank" that I wish to fill, and another human has the same "blank", it is not inappropriate, in my estimation, to agree on "something" to fill it with. Villian has expressed that the bible gives us truth about our origins. Not my take exactly. It attempted to fill the blank, the best it could muster at the time, as the theory of evolution has for the past couple centuries. To many evolution is obvious fact, and the 4000 year Geneology from Adam to us, just doesn't add up. The Bible can't be telling the truth of our origins, not literally, so we have to take it as figurative, or rationalize it screwy some how, into "well what it really was saying...was this". But evolution theory demands that survival of the organism that fit reality the best is the only rule, and the "origin" of any particular organism at any particular time, had as its "cause" the accidental mutation of a protein string existant in a previously well fitted organism, that passed along its working form, along with a couple accidental mistakes, that reality would either work out to be a better fit, or not so and the fittest would pass their pattern on, and the not so fit would not. So if I take evolution to be fact, as it so appears to all who test it, to be, then I, as a human organism can be sure, that I absolutely fit reality, and that no part of me is "other than" reality. It is responsible for me, it created me, and I have nothing else but it, to be responsible to, in return. Anything I am capable of, by extension, reality must be capable of. Anything I experience must have some basis in reality, be connected to it in some fashion, be part of the "me" that fits it so well as to exist in it for 58 turns of the Earth around the Sun. And there are others like me, and there have been others before me, and will be others after I die. And other "forms" of life that have also accomplished this "fitting reality" thing. And non alive forms that "exist" that fit reality for a little while, hurricanes and volcanoes, and waterfalls, and planets and suns and stars and galaxies... So I can lay in field on a summer night, by myself, and gaze into the starry sky, and feel "not alone", and not separate from what I see. I contain it, and it contains me. I don't call it Jehovah, or Allah or some Indian name or the other names its been called, but I sure do believe in it. And it has everything to do with reality. It IS reality. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, Not so easy to throw out an entire book (Bible) because our ideas as a society of what is right and what is wrong have changed over time, as to negate the slavery and sexism denoted in the bible. It was not even twenty years ago that I was wondering what the big deal was, that the pronoun he should not be used to cover both males and females. It was a natural part of the language at that time, only challenged by "feminists". Even the term feminist had a deragatory smell to it. And "homosexuals" had a similiar negative conotation, that something was wrong with those people, that they were "broken" in some way. The question came up earlier, as to why people that believe in the Bible, get a "free pass". I think it is because its the Bible. Word of God or word of man, it makes no difference, it is the book that people swear to tell the truth while placing their hand upon it, so help them God. It is a "binding" document. It symbolizes our deepest possible connection to each other, and to the world we are a part of. Even if we never read it cover to cover. Certainly it fails to contain the absolute objective scientific truth. It is transparent in its mirroring of the morays and values of man, 2000 years ago, which in many cases, and in many ways, we have "outgrown" or learned are indeed not the ways we wish to be. It is not possible, in my estimation, for me to have the values I have, to make determinations of what is Good and what is Evil, with the "Word of God" not playing some role, as a "source" or foundation (as Villian would put it), on at least a subconscious level. It was a book highly valued and reverd and respected by my family, church, school, government, and society. The stories and characters in the book are engrained in me, as strongly as the fairy tales of Hans Christian Anderson or Grimms. The history of Western Civilization was guided by the book. Wars were fought, crusades were mounted, Cathedrals and universities built. Muslims, Christians, Jews, all guided by the truths found in THAT BOOK. Even the Koran is based on THAT BOOK. Even the word bible is used as a generic term referring to even a pamphlet whose principles and words, one goes by "that's my bible". You give people a free pass, who believe in it, because its the Bible. We protect the Koran in the same way. You can't burn a Koran or draw a comic of Mohammed, without strongly offending a billion people. Religions have a lot of "baggage" attached to them. Belief in God has some deep deep meaning to people. And the meaning is obviously not the meaning an Atheist would attach to the word God. I am personally at a loss to answer Villian's question about what foundation one builds upon, if they don't "believe in God". I might have my own ideas about what God is, or is not. And what is possible and impossible and what might lie somewhere inbetween, but my "total conception" of the universe, and reality, and life, and death, and what existed before me and after me, and other than me, includes a strange, magical ingredient, that has no scientific name, no way of explaining, no evidence to back it up. Just a "feeling" that I am in some way part of it all, in a way that existed before TAR and will exist after TAR, regardless of the fact that "there is no way that could be true". And this "gives me strength" and a basis upon which to build everything else I muse about, and make judgements about. Is this a false and broken thing I do? That I can believe that God is not literally true, as depicted in the Bible, but still build my house on rock? Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Jewels? Your proof of God really existing is that people who "see it" see it wearing the same jewels? Really now. You don't see a problem with that "proof"? Regards, TAR2

Inow, I voted for your 682 because I was schooled by you in the "hijack" thread, and it mirrors closely my thinking, and my attempts to search for the meaning behind language, and to understand my consciousness as an evolved thing, with plenty of "reasons" both nature and nurture wise, for being who I am, and by extension, to understand and explain the consciousnesses around me. Villian does not recognize that we absolutely accept the greater reality around us as responsible for us, more powerful than us, and that we indeed are a subset of it, have come from it, and will return to it. There is no other place to come from, to be in, and to dissolve into when we die. But I do think you were a little hard on Villian. He also has come to this same conclusion, and recognizes our subjective nature, in regards to the greater reality. He just thinks because we apparently do not parse it exactly as he does, that we do not see the situation for what it is. That we and he can hold this "objective" view of ourselves, is probably built into our nature, that is, our ability to concieve of and converse with unseen others, can easily be repurposed to converse with ourselves, about ourselves...to be objective about our own subjectivity. He does not understand, that he is not the only one to come to this conclusion. He thinks his way, is the only true way. Same with us, same with all worldviews, same with all religions...I would guess. But once this conclusion is reached, and we objectively view our subjectivity, and recognize that even our objectivity has to be subject to something...God is found and recognized. Nobody is wrong or broken to associate themselves with this "greater" thing. In comes the scientific method, to put the deamons and gods to rest. Imaginary friends are imaginary, until and unless you can point them out to somebody else. Imagined patterns are just that, until and unless you can show exactly what they are really made of, and caused by. Then they are facts, objects and subjects, we can all use together, to do this existence thing we are doing. Much better way to "worship" our creator, then to try and enforce our own imagined friends and patterns on the world. Especially if they, as in the case of many "GODS", don't actually "fit" reality. And my biggest problem with religious people is the fact that they think "this" is something other than real, that they must negate their humaness somehow to "really" exist. Come on now, really, what sense does that make. What evidence do we have of anything existing, that does not, or did not, actually exist? And how could my dead Mom make frogs appear in my basement? If she could do that, she might as well just write "hello son" on the wall, with ladybugs. Regards, TAR2

When my Mom (the believer in Christ) was dying of Cancer, I asked her to try and give me a sign, if she was able, of her presence, after her death. She said, "like what?" I replied "something I would know came from you, something mathematical." The gardens where my sister distributed her share of my Mom's ashes grew extraordinary flowers...but that was not anything that could not be dismissed as having other causes. My share of her ashes are in a small crystal bowl, with a crystal lid, on a shelf in my library in the basement where I spend a lot of my time. Many years passed, and a few things odd occurred, but nothing really strange. Then a summer or two ago there was a single leopard frog in my basement. I caught it, and put it outside. A week later a smaller leopard frog was hopping around, hiding under furniture and fixtures for a few days 'til I caught it, and put it out, then another, even smaller for a few days. I caught it, and put it out. I told my wife about how odd it was that three single frogs visited like that. Then a tiny little leopard frog hid from me for a day or two over by the wall where my mom's ashes sit. I finally caught it and showed my wife, and let it out. Then a few weeks later a smaller still frog, not a leopard, more like a tree frog, about a half inch long eluded me for a few days, peeping, but not showing itself, till I caught it, showed my wife and let it out. Then the clincher, I little tiny frog about a quarter inch long appeared in the storage room. I brought my wife down, to show her. She saw it, and it hopped into a crevice. I didn't try to catch it, I could never find it, but I would hear its peeps, usually 5 or 6 peeps in a row, and then nothing till a few hours later, or the next day. It finally settled over by a file cabinet in my library corner, on the other wall from where my Mom's ashes sit. I don't know how it survived, I guess a little bug here and there was all it required, but it's little string of peeps were heard from time to time, for months. My Mom was a mathematician. Always talking about ratios and dividing stuff and functions and comparisions and the like. Makes no sense that she could have made the string of ever reducing in size frogs appear in my basement. She is dead. But I have not seen or heard a frog in my basement, for quite a long time now. And don't remember but one or two having gotten in before the string of ever smaller frogs occurred. Does not prove anything. Can not be repeated. Obeyed all the laws of Physics. But makes me wonder. Regards, TAR2

Inow, If there is no empirical evidence for a supernatural being, that would make complete sense. A supernatural being would not be found empirically, for if it could be found, empirically, it would be true and real and evident. It is not going to remain hidden, and only "pop" up when somebody prays in the right direction, says OM enough, or intakes the proper mushrooms. So if you ask, how can somebody believe in something with no empirical evidence to back it up, there is only one place to look for this thing. In the human mind. And the fact that any human's envisionment of God, is exactly what is NOT containable in the human mind, but that which is "greater than" the human mind, leads me to believe that the knowledge of God, the knowing of God, the thought of God, is a conception of that "knower" which trumps not only your own intellect, but that of any human. You do not have to convince me that a God of this sort cannot wear a particular jewel, or write in a book, or "exist" in any imagined "real way". I am already convinced. If God is "real", then he cannot also be supernatural. I have already decided this, that is why I am an atheist. But the fact remains that people consider their imagined supernatural God, "actual". This can only be so, in my determination, if the things that the supernatural god stand for, are themselves real and actual and evident. And if taken in this light, asking a person who believes in God to show you his/her evidence, all they would need to do is ask you to open your eyes and look at it. So we know the world is not carried on the back of a turtle, or overseen by Zeus and his family. But Physics only finds what is already true, and points out what cannot work in reality. Physic itself is not a replacement for God in the human psyche. Just an avenue to get to know God better, and more precisely, and elimnate characteristics attributed to it, that cannot be true. The universe remains as huge and timeless and powerful as it always was to any human. With or without the Wizard of OZ pulling any levers. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, Well where do personality and genes come from? It seems the "evidence" of the greater world, and other people having lived in it and other people that will live in it, after we die, is clear and uncontested. How we each internalize the world, and which parts of it we consider "us" and which parts of it we consider "them" is probably a large factor in our personalities. And our genes are so reliant on the greater world, to have come about, and they "know how to do so much", that if we consider our genes part of "us", we are already including a large portion of the world, as "us". These facts are why I am not sure what people are talking about, when they say we have no evidence of God. We see it all the time and everywhere. Inside and out. Regards, TAR2 If we have developed standards by which to associate our own personality/genes, to the greater world, to develope community and work out our differences, and consider those rules real and constant, because they are envisioned and acted upon by others, all the time, the sources of this illusion are apparant and real.

Mooey, I like your most recent take, and would like to "fall in" with it. It is not a final answer we can come to. It is the continuous one that has any import at all. Any evidence that is not continual and re-apparent, is not likely to "pop up" again, out of nowhere. Regards, TAR2

Perhaps I am misreading Copperhead...heck, perhaps I am misreading everybody...but I "see" valid arguments which wind up conflicting from both pro and con voters. But there seems to me to be some constants, as in no matter what we are agreeing or disagreeing about, we do indeed have very similar DNA to each other and should not be ashamed to associate ourselves with each other, based on that fact alone. And, giving the fact that a random group of people taken 200, 2000, or 20,000 years ago would ALSO have, in their context, this same similar DNA, it would not be surprising if they, as we, find some very strong reasons to both associate with each other, and argue over very "minor" superficial, or fabricated differences. (Skin color, place of birth, favorite team, religion of choice, or whether the chicken came before the egg, or the egg before the chicken, or who has rights to water at the stream, and to pick the blueberries) In this context, this awareness of both our condition and our history, I would like to forward the argument, that we, here on this thread are not the first and only to consider this question. And our connection to, and reliance on the "greater" reality, was not lost to those of us that worshipped the Earth 10,000 years ago, or those of us here today that marvel at the particles thrown off in a super high energy collider incident. Using this argument, I would float the hypothesis, that some of what we have accomplished as "the human race" is based on workable answers that we have already formulated together, to work out our differences, BECAUSE of our commoness. And a recognition of this commoness is not incorrect, or illogical, or broken. Not even a little broken. It is absolutely real and genuine, consistant and evident. Regardless of how many personalities we assign to this greater reality. From 0 to 20,000,000,000 or even if we assign personality to every quark in the multiverse. there remains at least three, that are absolutely evident. Me, you, and the third person singular. Are we on this planet the only consciousness extant in the universe? Do we have any valid reasons to find that we have something in common with the universe itself? We sure have found it big enough, and old enough to dwarf our individual lives, and even the human race's total history. In any case we can have these questions. Any of us can have these questions, and I don't think its wrong to float "interim" answers. Whether sourced by a Mayan Priest, or Moses, or Hawkins, or Inow or Copperhead, any answer is not likely to be the final one. But the fact that we continually have known this "hard to put your finger on" other, personally, and as groups, tells me it is anything but broken, to believe in it. Regards, TAR2