Marlene:JOETTE- He must have gotten the hint, lol! - 3:04:22 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- Huh? Do you mean people rejecting guys like Phelps? If no one paid any attention to him he wouldn't be a problem. - 3:05:53 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

DavidJK:My messageboard is www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb598444. It's called "DavidJK's little den of Atheism." Please feel free to visit. - 5:04:05 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

DavidJK's little den of Atheism:: - 5:34:19 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Well, I'm afraid this page is dying. We've been in decline since the changeover and our daily hit count is now below 50, and sometimes as low as 24. Keep in mind that 5 to 10 of these are mine. We used to be in the mid 400's. I guess I'll leave the page up until the last gasp. - 13:37:37 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: As I contemplate the "lack of fuel" this site now undergoes, the prospect of your post is troubling. I am sure its linked to the utter emptiness and simple lack of a godthing. As an atheist I am not surprised. True it is that neither advocate of the issue is there a god, can know that their point of view is so. To me that is nonethelesss, a nonissue. The issue that can keep this site afloat, alive and well, is the prospect of what are the norms that make ones brief existence a better happier thing. The other day with an offspring I was visiting the University Main library and we were browsing thru the books of and near those of Freud, his fancy. While browsing I ran into and checked out a book titled,"Psychoanalysis and Religion". In its first chapter accounts of Freud and Jung among others were appear and of Freud a John Dewey who has written of the supernatural dogmas of religion as weakening and sapping of man's religious attitude and that the identication of such with the creeds and cults of religion must be dissolved, 'JD' said; Men have never fully used the powers they possess to advance the good in life, because they have waited upon some power external to themselves and to nature to do the work they are responsible for doing. So perhaps, no, something "can be done" to keep this thing this site going, I think its good and fun to see. - 15:14:54 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..just lacking a little nutrition:GRANT- Although it's slow right now, it normally picks up again in the fall. Also it seems to really get moving when a major religious issue arises in the media. There are also many other atheist sites out there now. Four years ago this was popular as there was only two other ones. - 15:45:40 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:maybe if we all post naked pictures of ourselves people will stay around (hahahahahaha). Happy Canada Day Marlene! (it's also Tax Relief Day, and I know your 3% tax cut starts today, while our big 2% tax cut starts today) - 19:08:50 on 1 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- John Dewey is a favorite of mine. He said "Ready-made rules available at a moment's notice for settling any kind of moral difficulty have been the chief object of the ambition of moralists. In the much less complicated and less changing matters of bodily health such pretentions are known as quackery." "Moral principles that exalt themselves by degrading human nature are in effect committing suicide." And best of all: "Men have never fully used the powers they possess to advance the good in life, because they have waited upon some power external to themselves and to nature to do the work they are responsible for doing." - 12:18:35 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Grant (getting excited):JOETTE-- I'm relying on you for the first nekkid picture! :-) - 12:20:03 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Grant :MARLENE-- On the bright side I guess we can say whatever we like... nobody is listening. - 12:22:56 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :GRANT <<> it will take some time because of the spammer and the new URL. - 13:20:03 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:A couple of months ago, there was some discussion about a case here in Canada where a 13 year old refused any medical treatment for bone cancer. His parents were relying on Jesus and alternative treatment in Mexico to cure their son, and they appealed the court's decision that they had to allow their son the treatment necessary. Now, the issue in the court case was whether a 13 year old has the capacity to make an informed choice (which, I believe, the court ruled properly on, and ordered the treatment, but by the time the boy reported to hospital the cancer was untreatable). So, a month ago, the boy and his parents returned from Mexico, announced to the country that through alternative treatments, and by the power of prayer, their son was completely cured of cancer. He died last night. - 16:14:17 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Probably it was shortly after beginning the vocal and written forms of resistance to religion, that I toss in the query, where is the godthing, that to effectively serve notice that we deal in people. No actual god, outside the letters of that word as a hypothesis, is around. All that the godthing proponents gotta do is present "it" for consideration. As a hypothesis I can see how for the simple minded and neurotic an orientation of somekind for one's inner being as it is in the all of the outside, could help them. The problem is that they have been hoodwinked bamboozled(by leaders?)into holding that "everybody" has to have the same orientation for any kind of existence. For that to happen the star trek line "resistance is futile for you will be assimulated" would have to be a matter of fact. This seems to mean that someone figgers the human critter is just a herd animal. Humans, are they all or are just some so comforted? - 16:26:12 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:O'PRAYER: at reading the entry o'the dead kid I immediately asked some here if they hold that prayer works. I didn't ask for qualifications or anything else requiring thought, just a bald question. They here all say prayer works. If the past is any indication for future expectation I'm sure they'd all do the turtle thing or anger thing if pressed on taking a real look at that behavior. - 16:38:29 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:Okay guys, if you scroll to the bottom of the page at this site, you can request a prayer. How about we all send one in and sees what happens? Hmm...should I pray for lottery winnings, or a new nose, or what? Decisions, decisions. - 18:39:09 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I'm fairly certain that you'd agree, after some reflection o'stuff you've read, these religious types are really just fodder for the more ambitious(used loosely) and certainly the agressive type people. One of the things or points that I think I regularly encounter said by the thinker/writer folks of the religious, seem to convey that the religious adherents are a group of people who'd opt for a quick n'dirty at the drop of a hat on any concern. The easiest way to deflect any attachment relativity of them being responsible readily becomes available when those ambitious agressive types relieve them of such troubling prospects by giving them an ideal 'not connected' with real life real people. Here, we've all heard about some fantastic life after death. That prospect merely allows the religious adherent fodder types to sacrifice any and all here and now, they just have to yield control of their lives. Sound like fun? - 21:47:57 on 2 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Joette;gee, I prayed to win the powerball and didn't get one number.That's the first and last time for that mindless crap.Praying is a lazy persons way out of hard work. - 2:19:47 on 3 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:YIKES GRANT- I hear your had an earthquake over there! Hope everything was okay with your abode. - 12:09:52 on 3 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:Well there you go DOUG, nothing fails like prayer. Also though, nothing fails like planning in games of chance. I spent at least a minute on picking my Super7 numbers but none of those came in either. - 12:15:02 on 3 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- It's sad to hear that Tyrone died. It's also upsetting to hear that the parents felt alternative medicine would cure him. The reality is though, would have modern medicine cured him? Chemo may have prolonged his life as well as the amuptation but odds are the cancer would have spread anyway. I've only known one person with this type of rapidly spreading cancer to survive and that was when chemo and radiation were given in much larger amounts than they are given these days. My objection was to the state trying to force conventional treatment on the boy. I understand, objective of his parents' wishes and beliefs, that he didn't want the treatment. I think he had the right to choose and if he chose not to prolong his life, then it could only be his choice to make. His parents IMO are idiots but I think my respect does lie with Tyrone's choice. - 12:25:20 on 3 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene;and I play the other lottery games TOO.Just last week I won $100, the first winning in 2 years so at least I got my money back.And no divine intervention either.I heard that a 21 year old woman won the 78 million dollars, wow.She's set for life, I only hope she can handle the change in lifestyle. - 16:41:44 on 3 Jul 99 GMT

Joette2:44:50 on 4 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I don't mean to sound uncaring when I say that chemo should be a choice for anyone. I can't even imagine the pain and suffering you've had to go through with a child who needs constant medical care. But I too have seen and suffered watching loved ones go through chemo and still die. Their lives may have been prolonged for months at most. Chemo is powerful poisons. Not only do they suffer from the cancer but also from extreme poisioning. The few months they prolong their lives are hell. I truly believe for terminal cancer patients that pain killers should me made more readily available so they can at least enjoy their last days. - 14:05:19 on 4 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - there have been great strides made in chemotherapy, and the side effects have been greatly alleviated. Why, they even use one now that doesn't cause the loss of hair, and there is no a potent anti-nausea drug they use so that one doesn't feel lousy afterwards. It isn't like it used to be. However, the point I want to make is that a person as young as Tyrell Dueck really doesn't have the capacity to make an informed choice, and the courts decided he was just going by his father's will, not his own. In this matter, I agree. His father is a very domineering and opinionated sort, and what choice would a child have but to listen to his parent over what he has been made to perceive as "evil" doctors? - 16:50:40 on 4 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I guess I would be kind of "middle of the road" in this case. I would think the child then should be informed by medical professionals and someone of the clergy that isn't so fundie as his parents. Also it would likely be an idea to go to a children's hospital and talk with the kids that are now going through treatment and maybe some of who survived the cancer. Then, I believe a 13 year old could make an "informed" choice. I still don't think the state should involve itself unless, of course, the child is too young to understand what's going on. I don't believe courts should be making choices for people's lives. That goes for euthanasia and the death penalty as well. - 17:38:02 on 4 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:So you Americans going to have a huge wing-ding tomorrow? Happy 4th!!!! - 3:22:56 on 5 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:I'll go along with part of what you say about the children, but they can keep the death penalty - 5:14:44 on 5 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:RICKY-- You have what is to me the annoying habit of announcing your opinions without any support or justification. For me this is merely a constant unneccessary reminder that some people seek or require no pedigree for their beliefs which traces them back through the generations eventually to reality. Of course you are fully within your rights to entertain any mongrel beliefs you like, and there is certainly no legal or moral requirement to examine or question the nature or mechanics of such belief or in fact reality itself, but I'd like it if you were aware that you wouldn't appear so ignorant of the questions and issues involved in the nature of religious beliefs and their lack if, well... you weren't. - 13:57:50 on 5 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- How about the euthanasia issue? - 0:08:49 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: Tho'not much of a stars n'stripes kinda guy, I still took in the 7\4 fireworks o'the evening. The evening was clear, as in no fog! Down along a bay shore, the fireworks at five city sites were visible. The most distant was to the north and usually was only a high flying explosion. It was a nice comfortable eve, fireworks sure leave a lot of smoke. - 14:27:13 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:O'7\4: Inna'couple o'the local newspapers n'more nationally is a comic strip titled,"Boondocks". An article appeared in a weekend run about its author/artist. The article says the response to it is distresseful to an assorted group of folk and enjoyed by, it seemed to be saying, a fewer number. The piece on the forth has the main character a young black with an afro talkin'to another character about the 4th. The other character says no one told him it was the 4th. The black character says no one told the millions o'blacks 200 years ago. It seems that some from both sides o'the color/racial fence want to declare peace and go on and some others say its good. Have any o'you seen this piece in your favorite daily newspaper? - 15:01:12 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- No I haven't but then again I rarely read the comics. I was watching 20/20 last night though and I couldn't believe how nuts people are when it comes to them wanting government control of this and that. I'm a person for a lot less government than is already here and these idiots seem to what more. It had to do with colors people paint their residences. Although I personally wouldn't want an orange and pink house, if my neighbors do, it's their land, their money, their house and their business, not mine. I understand some of these people down in the good ole US of A want to make laws about painting one's house a color that only the government will approve of. You wouldn't believe how that little article pissed me off! Did none of these people read 1984 and if so, don't they at least respect freedom for others if they don't want it for themselves? Bad enough they need "big daddy god", now they need the color police. Good thing I live in the bush! - 18:17:42 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: may i extend a recommendation to those who have not read Erich Fromm's "Psychoanalysis and Religion" that by any means available, pick it up and read it. Its not a lengthy read only 113 pages but it seems to offer some interesting, for me anyhows, points of view of religion. It also has some other books of reference that I'll pickup and read. The psychological views of religion would be a new and for the most part, a different vista for me. About the only thing I found and thought to be a tongue in cheek account, was the author 'allowed' that humanity was or is religious. (also wrote that humans are herd creatures) Perhaps from a sociological aspect that may be so, still I didn't read it nor could I determine it somehow present and, it does not seem that the author includes in the points and matters generally contemplated, the fact that the human organism is born atheistic. Only in myths of the ancients is a human born theistic. Religion is just a manmade contrivance that serves certain specific ends and the material wealth of even fewer "special people". The book while it seems to turn towards certain specific aspects of sociology it doesn't really look at or hint of this very human relevant and economical matter of fact. - 18:19:31 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: colors of residences? That is incredible, or ought we say incredulous? I guess those types really do want to escape from freedom. I'd lost my interests in the newspaper cartoons back when G.Trudeau had problems with his bit, "Doonesbury". Recall how the news carriers were gonna dump that piece because it was frowned on by some, wow! I thought, these people don't know what freedom of the press means to them and their well being. - 19:59:48 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:Grant, Is that a fact, just your op. I thought this page gave people the priv. to express their op. The way I feel about the death penilty has nothing to do with religion or my faith in the least. Mater of fact, most religions feel the death penilty is wrong. Maybe, I'm wrong too. But that's the way I feel about the issue. If a man kills a person out of hate, or because he got mad, no I don't feel he should have to repay with his life. But when a man goes out and kills women, children, and others just for fun, just because he feels like it, over and over again, that man deserves to die, and don't need to take 10 years getting around to it either! - 22:26:46 on 6 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:RICKY-- Yes, it's just my opinion. I don't mind you stating your beliefs, and you are certainly free to do so here. Pretty much anything goes here other than interfering with the actual functioning of the site. I just wish you would justify them a little. In my opinion it is pointless to merely state what your views are to an audience that you know is in opposition to many or most of them without backing them up or at least explaining why you think they are valid. Also, in my opinion, it's painfully boring. - 1:55:28 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- But isn't that a sort of revenge? - 3:18:19 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :RICKY/MARLENE <<>Some people deserve to die for their actions. For example: There was a man in dallas that was going around raping women, then srangleing them for fun. He was doing this to elderly woman of ages around 65-75, and to a 17 yr old, after he had killed her boyfriend in a park. This man deserves to die. I can not think of a single argument or reason for a man of this nature being allowed to live. What benefit is a man like this to society. Can you rehab someone that is that screwed up. We also have a man that is taking 2-5 yr olds, sexually molesting them, then slitting their throat and dumping them in a river/creek. What argument can be given that says that this man deserves the right to breath. - 15:15:42 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:STEVEN--Who says anyone exists for the benefit of anyone else? - 15:41:42 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:STEVEN--Who says anyone exists for the benefit of anyone else? - 15:41:45 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..likely the first one to die in a war zone, lol!:STEVEN- My argument is this...do I have a right to take away someone else's life? I agree that people such as these should be kept away from society indefinately/permanently. If they are locked away they are no longer a threat. The only situation in which I would kill would be if I had to to protect myself from someone who was going to kill me. If there were some other safe way to protect myself then I wouldn't use that degree of force. - 19:58:30 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :PETER <<> No one. I firmly believe that if you take it upon yourself to take an innocents life, your life is forfeit. Hell if the state doesnt kill the bastard, then I will. If any person every touched my child or wife, they would die, period. MARLENE <<>> I refuse to accept that my tax money is supporting a rapeist/murderer. That my, and others, tax money is being spent to feed, cloth, and put a roof over their head is disgusting. Each prison inmate in texas cost $70,000 or more a year. 80% of this money is used to keep drug offenders in jail, and the rest is spent to keep the real criminals in jail. It is of my opionion that if a person is convicted of being a murderer, and given the death penalty, we should spend the $.70 it takes for one bullet, march the bastard outside on the steps of the courthouse, then put the $.70 bullet through the bastards brain. If you have ever seen the devastation of a family of a murder victem, you may think twice about your feelings on the death penalty. - 20:42:14 on 7 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:Some interesting posts at this site (sorry DavidJK, I know you hate Roger) - 1:15:34 on 8 Jul 99 GMT

DavidJK:Joette, I don't hate Roger. I've seen what Christians have done to other atheist message boards, and I didn't want it to happen to mine. If Roger wants to have a theological debate board, that's fine by me. - 13:14:11 on 8 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Well, his absence on Godless Zone is a turn for the better. :-) - 13:23:16 on 8 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: As some o'you have noticed I've mentioned that I'm involved with youth via the game of baseball. Among the many memorable moments and on going actions I think that I am in pursuit of, its to make them good people. With this idea in mind I try to select of the young folk those who seem to me to have something. The details of this I'm sure are another story. Well this is a tale of a young fella I first met when he was 8 is now 17 who just spent ten mos.in a scientology camp of some kind. This site was located in Arizona miles away from other towns, and many more miles from any major large city. It was a place to which, it sounded like, other scientologist send their offspring when that offspring is a problem. Sometimes kids like the one who told me his story also end up there probably, he suspected, due some newspaper advertisement that some parent somehow thinks that that place would be good for their offspring. The accounts were of a regimented daily work program and of course indoctrination[they probably call it education] to the ways of the scientology thing. Any and all resistance was dealt with by isolation and what sounded like an attempt at brain washing. He said 3 to 5 camp leaders would sit and talk nonstop to him for what seemed like hours and hours. Beatings were administered on an as needed basis, he showed me I saw "teeth marks" on his side inflicted by a camp leader when he resisted their interests. He said many sent there just go insane, girls mutilate themselves and slash wrists, guys run away and are caught because the nearby small towns report to that camp of any runnaways. The young fella was finally kicked out of that camp because they grew to afraid of him as his fighting skills grew keen and he got stronger. I told that I now have a new respect for him, he resisted their efforts to break his will, he wouldn't allow them to punk him, and he fully handled their efforts to beat him physically. Of course I had to toss in the qualifier that was given if his inner self was not a scietologist. Is it not, what a group of people will do to another person as done to this young fellow, a terrible thing? - 14:59:25 on 8 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - I am curious as to what his parents intend to do about his mistreatment....do you know any more of that part of the story? If the parents don't stand up and do something about this, it will continue from here to eternity. - 15:59:52 on 8 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:M'SELLE JO'; it sounds as tho'of the things precluded when the kid was allowed to be taken there, was the waiving of certain actions. The mother and family group the kid thinks were all involved in that action. The mother now says she fears him, that is utterly stupid. I suspect they she will not hesitate some other bullshit deed. I am beginning to suspect the mother and that bunch o'people ain't got to much'twixt the ears. I've always found the young fella easy to understand and to talk to. And he is not a criminal nor does he appear to have any such inclinations. - 16:55:11 on 8 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:Steven, I agree with you. If someone killed my child, I won't say I would kill him, but I would have a hard time not to do something if the law failed in doing their job. - 4:01:53 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:"Revenge is mine, sayeth the lord" - 14:06:50 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Peter.....:STEVEN--So why did you mention that since this person was of no benefit to anyone as an argument for him deserving the death penalty? - 14:31:03 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :JOETTE <<> If destroying a murderer is not the correct way to deal with such people, then what is? Did Hitler deserve to die, did Himmler, did Stalin, did Jeffry Daumer (sp), did 'The son of sam', etc. etc.? Some people are beyond help, so what is the answer. Do we, as citizens, pay for these people to have a comfortable life in prison? Do we release them back into society? All I hear from you and Marlene is that the death penalty is what a christian would want. It seems you are against the death penalty strictly because the christians right believes in it. Not one person here has offered a viable solution as to what should be done with a mass murderer, a child molester, or other 'evil' people. Do we allow these people to prey on our society just because we have a moral problem with taking the life of a murderer? Please, please, respond with somthing other than some vague quotes from an ugly mythology. - 14:31:04 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:STEVEN--How about this: as soon as a person can read and write, he sign a release form saying that he agrees to pay with his own life, if he deliberately takes the life of another. This way every person will know 'the score' and what the consequences will be for such an action, if he so choses to carry it out. - 14:38:06 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:STEVEN - the fact than a Christian thinks the death penalty is okay is of no consequence to myself. Marlene and I are entirely seperate human beings, so please don't generalize our opinions on the death penalty as being the same. I don't like the death penalty because I don't think anyone has the right to take another human life, period. When I hear about a crime committed, it disturbs me, as it does you. However, I tend to look at the entire circumstance, not just the evil deed that has been committed. Unlike yourself, I do not believe that people go around killing, raping and such "for fun". Sure, some people have compulsions to do these things, and yes, they garner some satisfaction from their actions. I gain satisfaction from watching a great movie, a good baseball game, from reading a good book, and from incredible sex. I am what is considered "normal". However, I recognize that not everyone on this planet is "normal", that they have very serious psychological problems, that they are mentally ill, and are not always capable of controlling their actions. Your example of Jeffrey Dahmer is an example of this type of person. Was he born like this? Did someone create a monster through their actions which influenced him egregiously? Maybe. No one knows for sure what makes a sociopath that way, although there are many studies being performed, and many opinions being rendered. So no, I don't think a person like this deserves to die. I personally don't think it's a black and white issue, as you seem to. Should he be accountable for his actions? Yes, if it is proven in a court of law that he is aware that his actions are contrary to the good of society. And he should be punished as per the law of the society of which he is a member. I don't have to agree with it, but I have to accept that the death penalty is alive and well and living, especially, in Texas. I would also appreciate it very much if you, and anyone else that thinks being in prison is a cake-walk, put yourself in a position to really find out what goes on behind prison walls. This generalization that it is like a holiday camp is ridiculous. Talk to prisoners, read some books, watch some documentaries. And yes, I think my tax dollars are well spent keeping criminals off the streets. I would rather see them alive, and punished, then dead. - 16:02:33 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :PETER <<>> that is a good suggestion. Lets say around 13 or so. - 17:24:13 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:No Marlene, not revenge at all. It is justice. If a person breaks the law, he should be prepaired to pay the price justice offers. - 21:11:10 on 9 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:HEY! Everyone! I'll answer tomorrow afternoon. I've been putting in TOOO many hours at work this week but I do have the afternoon off tomorrow. Nothing like a disagreement to keep this page hot, lol! - 4:01:47 on 10 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--howdy, y'all--:G.K. Chesterton is credited with having said, "Children want justice; adults want mercy." If that quotation is true, I wonder why it is so. - 19:23:40 on 10 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- What happened to our meeting??? I thought you were pissed at me over some issue we were discussing (can't really remember what it was??) How was your tour de Canada? - 19:31:10 on 10 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN and RICKY- Firstly although I do agree most of the time with what Joette has to say we do disagree on some issues as you've noticed. I suppose I'm more of the ACLU type. On the issue of the death penalty...I think it's not my right (ACLU again) to take someone else's life. The only time I would consider this is to if someone else was trying to take mine. As I said before, even then I would not resort to that type of force unless there was no other option. I think it is uncivilized/inhumane/uncultured to do otherwise. It has nothing to do with religion but I do believe the idea of today's "justice" does come from our religious backround. Maybe that is really what's wrong with the justice system. Although I don't like the idea of someone who can not be allowed near the public because of their antisocial behavior being supported by my tax dollar, I also don't feel I have the right to kill them either. I choose then to pay the tax. Jail here isn't too bad at all. I personally have a relative spending a year's vacation there and he's doing alright. He has a pool table, TV, library etc.. All the comforts of home away from home, just not his freedom. Along with that I would like to see him actually put in an 8 hour day of doing some type of work, like the rest of us. What ever the pay would be could go to earn his keep. I think the US has an idea with the work detail. - 19:47:05 on 10 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:Prison is a great place to reform someone who has made a mistake. Even for those who have the habit of making the same mistakes over and over. But there is a line one can cross. When one chooses to take another life for the fun of it, over and over, they give up their priviledge to life itself, far as I'm concerned. there is a line to cross. That's when death is the only alternative. It's the only thing to keep them from doing it again, even in prison. This is an issue that Christians differ in just like non-c. Some believe in the death penilty and some don't. I know more Christians that disagree with it than not. - 3:00:19 on 11 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- Your absolutely right! It doesn't seem to matter what one's belief system is or even non-belief like me, everyone has a different opinion on this issue. I do tend to agree with you also that the christians are more likely to support the death penalty. I also agree that prison does present an opportunity for the offender to change and hopefully not re-offend but that isn't the purpose of jail. It's to keep the offender away from the rest of society. To protect society. - 3:11:14 on 11 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Joette: The problem with life inprisonment is that it isn't.Political winds change and let them out on some pretext or other.As an example they are letting out a serial baby killer in pennsylvania, so they can study her.What!You've got to be out of your minds(the state of Pennsylvania)They should make all these idiots just as responsible for her actions.My only concern with the death penalty is the innocent people who are convicted on partial evidence.The people who knew this, mainly the prosecuters should have to serve some jail time for withholding evidence that would exonerate these individuals.One case that comes to mind is the Randal Adams case where the police and DA knew he wasn't involved and just wanted a body as a sacrifice.Now those government people should have to serve prison time if there is any justice in this world.I mean they didn't even lose their jobs, if I did something like that at my job I'd never work again. - 16:39:22 on 11 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:One of the problems with being really hard with inmates is that one day your going to have let them out.And this being really harsh is making alot of mean peolpe who are going to let it out on the public(us).This has been a concern of Penial administrators for years now.So unless we want to keep them in for life we had better think twice about some of the conditions that we mandate.POW's are a case study in that they haven'd commited crimes but are punished and psychologically tortured.Most of these people have a tremendously hard time adjusting back into society. - 16:47:31 on 11 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--:MARLENE: I do recall a discussion a couple of months back in which we disagreed about the degree of certainty with which one can raise a "good" child these days, but I never took offense. Fact is, I never found out where you lived. As for the trip, it was long, lonesome, exhilarating, humbling, tiring, informative--and the right thing to do, all things considered. Thanks for asking. - 19:43:38 on 11 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- That's a relief! I thought you were pissed at me! If you recall coming through Manitoba, I live on the west end of the Sandilands Provincial Forest, about an hour east of Winnipeg a little east yet of a town named Richer. Too bad I missed you. - 8:00:07 on 12 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I don't think we should be really hard on prisoners, I just think it would be more productive of them and likely better for them to work for 8 hours a day. The relative who is in jail now, plays pool all day, at the taxpayers' expense. He a strong and capable guy, he should be working! - 8:03:11 on 12 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--thumbing the atlas---:MARLENE: Found Richer; shucks, I stayed in Portage going west and Neepawa (on the Yellowhead) going east. Well, there's always next time (!?). - 15:21:57 on 12 Jul 99 GMT

Joette (just a joke dammit!):On the sixth day, God turned to his angel and said "Today I am going to create a land called Canada. It will be a land of outstanding natural beauty - it shall have tall majestic mountains full of mountain goats and eagles, and beautiful sparkly lakes bountiful with carp and trout. There shall be forests full of elk and moose, high cliffs overlooking sandy beaches with an abundance of sea life, and rivers stocked with salmon." God continued "I shall make the land rich in oil to make the inhabitants prosper, I shall call these inhabitants Canadians, and they shall be known as the most friendly people on earth." "But Lord", asked the angel, "don't you think you are being too generous to these Canadians?" "Not really", God replied, "Just wait and see the neighbours I am going to give them." - 19:33:45 on 12 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Joette: Poor Denmark, what have you Canadians got against them. - 21:56:20 on 12 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- LOL! And DOUG- Even louder LOL! - 0:17:37 on 13 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:Not much happening, miss me? - 21:48:49 on 13 Jul 99 GMT

Where did everyone go? - 3:10:24 on 14 Jul 99 GMT

dmoz.org atheist chat and message boards:: - 12:06:08 on 15 Jul 99 GMT

Atheist Network: atheist chat and message boards: - 12:09:59 on 15 Jul 99 GMT

Are you guys shutting down? - 13:34:42 on 15 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Well, the hit rate is so low that basically the site is just wasting electrons, but no, I'll leave it running for a bit. Maybe it will pick up. - 1:07:50 on 16 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..how about???:GRANT- Again, it's summer. Most people are on holidays, lying in the sun etc.etc. Please wait until at least the end of September. We wouldn't want to miss out on discussing all the millennium crap that will be coming this fall! Years ago, there were only four of us on here all summer then it picked up, then it slowed down, then it picked up....It goes like that. Also it would help to find a subject for discussion then discuss the hell out of it. Something like...NDE's. There was a whole series on this on the Learning Channel and was hosted by and produced by a believer in NDE's. Very bias to say the least. Non-believers were atheists, skeptics and any others who had no sense of "self". Or how about another subject. One subject could last for weeks and besides we always learn something too. This is an area where all people who post here can add their opinions. Name a subject and let's discuss. Talking about the weather is going nowhere. - 3:28:38 on 16 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:I'm with you, Marlene. I think I'll put up some fairly brief famous writings this weekend. Maybe we can talk about them for a while. There's some good stuff out there. I have a particular little Voltaire thing in mind. Maybe we can convince Papasam that philosophy isn't so bad, if he happens by. - 12:14:02 on 16 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:I've been thinking about joining a branch of the Canadian Humanists Association...anyone here ever belong to a humanist group? I've always spouted anti-collective jargon, but I've found that nobody listens to just one small person...opinions please... - 14:13:27 on 16 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Joette; I had a bad experiance with a Humanist group.They or most had a attitude of urban superiority about them.I come from the rural suburbs.Some of them had the gaul to question why I came into the city;wasn't there anything to entertain you out in the burbs.I didn't even know these people and they weren't joking either.Because I owned my own home they considered me some kind of sell out.I guess they only support the bad guys by paying large rents in the urban areas.I like to call these people "geographical bigots".Maybe they were some kind of marxist jerks that dominated this local Humanist org.I hope that kind of attitude isn't wide spread. - 23:23:22 on 16 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:DOUG - thanks for that...I am a bit leery about joining any sort of group, as there always seems to be some clique that runs the show, and the rest are mere peons...I do know that the Humanist Assoc. in Canada has done some very good things (at least in my opinion), but I have never been much of a "social animal". They do tout it as an alternative to religion, which shows they believe that we all need some sort of group-like thinking, which I object to. I'll probably not join, just been thinking about it. I really appreciate your response. - 23:53:46 on 16 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Joette:Oh I forgot to mention that they asked for 10% just like a church.This really turned me off from the local Humanists orgs.Maybe when I have time I'll go to the American Atheists meetings around my area.Maybe they're a better group that can accept diversity. - 1:32:35 on 17 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Over the years there have been people post here from humanist organizations. I agree with you that they do many good things but I also agree with Doug that most have had a marxist agenda besides. But DOUG, I'd also be leary of American Atheists. I think each and every group out there has an agenda and sometimes these agendas can be good but along with the agenda comes the dogma. - 13:13:46 on 17 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- I've been looking at humanism lately because I edit a couple of humanist categories for Netscape's Open Directory Project. I've come across a group I was unaware of, called "Ethical Culture" or "The American Ethical Union." Evidently the organization has existed since 1889 or something. Anyone familiar with this group? I'd be interested on your take on this. --- Incidently, I too have had a desire to become part of some group, and have looked a little bit at Humanism and even Uniterian Universalists, but have a problem I guess with accepting wholesale any particular world view over my present ever evolving but non-structured one, if that makes any sense. - 17:09:41 on 17 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:AA does have some draw backs.One thing I noticed was that every "atheist" has to call ones self and atheist.Now in my neck of the woods nobody is going to take pot shots at your house with a shot gun, like in some areas of the USA.So I think AA isn't being responsible to individuals who are scared for their safety.Other atheist groups in my area consist of a counseling meeting( oh boy, the disfunctional atheist syndrome)where the head honcho most likely will make you feel guilty of being anti-religious.You know the type;well why does it bother you that other people believe. That one is O_U_T of the question for me. - 18:36:24 on 17 Jul 99 GMT

Grant (just wondering... ignore if you wish.):DOUG-- You are not "out" to anyone? - 1:44:54 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I think that one's thoughts and decisions are always evolving and the problem with some organizations is that they stay the way they were founded. Christianity for instance stopped evolving years ago. God stopped evolving years ago actually. Strict structure is also a dead end, no? A little structure everyone needs but not so it limits free thought. DOUG- I don't know if anyone could force me to say I'm anything. If I was in such a group, I'd feel trapped and I don't like feeling trapped. Also I suppose what I really hate about many groups is that "in the beginning" their intentions are normally always good but somewhere down the line money seems to become a bigger issue than the original intention. I found this in Scouts and a few other groups I joined. There was only one group that I joined where money was not an issue and that was a support group. - 3:40:16 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I've been checking out that site you left. I rather like this :"A respect for the dignity and worth of every human being and a capacity to enter into decent and just and loving relations with other human beings is not dependent upon a faith in God. There is no reliable evidence or scientific study which reveals that those who hold to supernaturalism necessarily lead better lives than those who would call themselves agnostics or atheists. Goodness is not dependent upon theology. Crime and delinquency, dishonesty and cruelty in human relations, destructive behavior in the family and the community are found among human beings in all groups. So also justice and compassion and love are found among the traditional believers and nonbelievers, the religious and the nonreligious. The essential element which may make the difference in the life and relations of an individual may be a faith in the human rather than a faith in God. - 12:54:34 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- PS: Although I don't really care for the word "faith". I would rather say that most of humanity is capable of living ethically. I say most because some truly can't. This I suppose is where the lack of "fee will" comes in. - 12:58:16 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:Another PS: "free" not"fee". - 12:58:56 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:GRANT - I liked that part so much too that I copied and pasted it onto Roger's site in response to a question he asked me... - 16:27:12 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I agree regarding thought evolving. When we make "final" judgments about the nature of things we tend to stop trying to better understand. It’s a shame that young religionists are encouraged to make such final judgments before they can appreciate many of the finer points. This accounts for much in the way of simplistic beliefs, IMO. --- I also agree about the American Ethical Union website. I have the same resistance to faith and I have a distaste for ritual, which certainly hasn’t diminished since reading Huizinga’s ‘Homo Ludens’ at a certain jaywilson’s suggestion. (That is to say I think ritual is OK in general, I just don’t like it myself. I think it's pretend.) But I do like the overall tone of the site. My guess is that it’s quasi-religious, though, none the less. Maybe I’m wrong. - 17:02:31 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Roger's site? - 17:05:58 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- Whadaya'll think of the bold new look of the index page? :-) That poem, by the way, is not bad, eh? - 17:07:28 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- You can't mean Roger H from Godless Zone!!??? What the hell are you doing there???!!! :-) - 17:17:55 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:GRANT - yes, that Roger...I am quite amused by the discussion on his page (URL) - 17:24:23 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:GRANT - I just read your Voltaire piece...I wish I was the old Indian woman. - 17:31:11 on 18 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- I am the old woman, err... the honky male equivalent. - 1:48:47 on 19 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--honky if you love Jesus--:GRANT: Nice work on the site. Pardon me if I expand upon Voltaire's musings: happiness is not our natural disposition, nor is it to be sought--but cherished in the moment of its occurrence, and recalled in its absence. Happiness sneaks up on one, just like true love. I figure there are two states of being--alive and dead. Happiness was invented and perpetuated *as a goal* by gloomy people, who are neither alive nor dead. The _pursuit_ of happiness is so much bullshit, and I do wish it had never been mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, although it was carefully left out of the Constitution. The best case I can find for intellect is its ability to recognize and capture--via language, of which there are so many variations--those moments of happiness, and my own goal is to become inteligent enough not to pursue them. They come of their own accord. At the moment, I am happy. - 15:31:01 on 19 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:jaywilson - is being dead a state of "being"? It isn't a description I would attach to any inanimate object. - 21:59:57 on 19 Jul 99 GMT

Joette....enough already!:While I am as sympathetic as the next person, is anyone as sick of the news coverage of John-John's plane crash? The guy has done nothing to further the good of society, has led a rather normal, working man kind of life, so what's the big deal? I understand that many years ago he was part of a very tragic event, but this is getting ridiculous... - 22:03:32 on 19 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:Money, political power, and the Kennedy name, Guess thats what it takes. I know if it had been me or you, the world would have never known. This news was all I could get on TV saturday. Bit too much! - 22:38:13 on 19 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE and RICKY- I turned on the TV tonight in the hope of catching a movie at 8:00 but so far all I see is this Kennedy stuff. Too bad and all that rot but sheesh! like Ricky says, people die everyday! - 0:49:19 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Great stuff on the "Writings" part of the page! I'm still going to see what's on at 8:00 but I think Jaywilson has started a good discussion. Back in 2hrs! - 0:51:23 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Happiness can be a whole lot of things to a whole lot of different people. On the whole though, happiness means comfort for most humans. Comfort that there is food, shelter and safety. Comfort that one isn't oppressed by others and has the feedom to live one's life as one wants. Comfort of family that one can count on which means a spouse, mother, father, children...I think it's when we are without any of these comforts that we long for happiness or...if we take all these comforts for granted when we have them and try to seek comfort in the things that really don't provide any comfort. - 3:12:57 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

If it had been you or me, no body would have ever heard about little old us! - 3:28:02 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Grant (It just aint natural!):MARLENE--- JAYWILSON--- I really like the Voltaire thing. That doesn’t stop me though, as one of that naturalist persuasion in the sense that I think all thought, memory, and emotion reside completely and exclusively in the cells of the brain, from seeing Voltaire’s assumption that we are in the driver’s seat, and so can motor on over to happiness, as questionable. It can’t be assumed that the old woman is happy as a result of her relative simpleness or that the Brahmin’s unhappiness is a result of his doubts regarding the impossibility of certainties and such. In my view this isn’t the case. I can have the same doubts as the Brahmin about any certainty of understanding but still feel remarkably happy, and fortunate and awestruck. Anyway, jaywilson, I think we’re probably at the same depot but may have arrived on different trains. - 4:32:25 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..a healthy brain is a happy brain:GRANT- Emotion does reside and is caused by cells in the brain. I, at one time, suffered a clinical depression. The only thing that helped me through that was the meds that helped my brain produce the chemicals it couldn't do on it's own at the time. Now my brain is in production mode again, I'm again "happy". Strange though that during the depression, I didn't feel happy but I didn't feel totally unhappy either. I just didn't feel like anything and that included chores or fun things. - 4:41:53 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Grant (who's late and out of time):MARLENE-- Lots of problems with the concept of a soul. That danged science can be a real spoilsport! - 13:48:17 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- I'm trying to get some content up on this site. I'm talking with someone who has a new atheist site about merging it with MMMMM. If anyone would like to contribute some content to the site please fire it on in. See your name up in lights (or at least pixels.) - 13:52:14 on 20 Jul 99 GMT

Grant :What do you suppose has become of Doug, Peter, Papasam, Adam, Carl, Steven, Melissa, Bill... Maybe the new guy will liven up the joint. His name is Josh. We're working on getting his stuff up and running. The plan is to present ideas here on the site, rather than answers or ideologies. (The discussion board will see no changes.) Don't expect to agree with everything you see here. Hmmm... you probably already don't. :-) - 4:22:42 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Grant: no just summer time."THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT*** Is the hottest and most disturbing documentary film of the year based on fact? The Blair Witch Project blurs the boundary between reality and the fantastic, but also capitalizes on a growing -- and disturbing -- public credulity." Anybody heard of this? - 4:42:23 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- "a growing -- and disturbing -- public credulity." Aint that the truth. Yeah, it's just a movie. It was filmed to look like amatuer home video. Actors improvising and actually shooting some of the footage with home-type video cameras as part of their part. Sounds kind of interesting to me. I hadn't heard anything about boundaries getting blurred. - 4:59:47 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--believe half of what you see and a quarter of what you hear--:ALL: A "growing public credulity"? The majority of us is, has been, and probably always will be, ignorant as a box of rocks. However, thanks to technology, we now can meet many of those ignoramuses, and tear our self-righteous hair out in response. Ain't modern life grand? - 14:26:59 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- A growing public credulity? There has been some speculation that there may be a gene that determines how credulous a person may be. Maybe my gene pool just isn't the strong one. Maybe the credulous are going to be the next biggest thing in natural selection. Imagine all the world living as one. Yuck! - 16:37:00 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Maybe Papasam is still on Ron's old site, is it still up? He seems to enjoy arguing with the believers rather than discussing why they believe what they believe. As far as this new thing your proposing goes...I still don't understand what you mean but I'm sure I'll find out soon, lol! - 16:40:14 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I haven't heard of it myself, is there somewhere on the web that I can read about it? - 16:41:22 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Melissa:I saw the "Blair Witch Project" movie. Unfortunately, when I saw it I was aware that it was just a movie, whereas before I had thought it was real documentary footage. It would have been a scarier movie if I'd not found out in the newspaper review that it was just a work of fiction. It was still pretty scary, and I had to sporadically cover my eyes toward the end -- very good movie, I'd see it again in a heart beat. - 19:08:45 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Melissa:PS -- Grant: I really like this new site. Great Job! - 19:09:34 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Melissa:jaywilson: I believe you can make your own happiness or you can just wait for it to cross your path by chance . . . whatever makes you happy. - 19:11:29 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:All: This is the movie review; pretty good one at that.It's seems on the surface that the whole family can go see it.Now nothing is said about an urban legend starting to grow around a fictional movie.Now here is the AA sites review **http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/blair1.htm**They certainly have a point about the growing urban legend around this movie. - 20:19:46 on 21 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- The old site is still up. I hadn't looked in for a while but it's still getting spammed like no tomorrow. Spamming a dead discussion board, or any board really for what, 8 or 9 continuous months? ..reminds me of those guys you used to hear about who wrote the ten commandments on a grain of rice and did other such stuff. It's remarkable in a way, but who the hell cares? - 2:00:16 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:MELISSA-- It's a pleasant surprise that you are still checking in. Thanks for the kind word. - 2:02:53 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- The guy must be related to "Angie Baby"! Was Papa still there? - 3:11:53 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Yes! Good to hear from you again! I agree, Grant has done a great job! - 3:13:32 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Anselm:I haven't been here since all of you moved. I finally check in and already there is talk of its demise??? Hang in there, Grant. I like the new site. And I love the archive capabilities. - 5:34:58 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Hello ANSELM. It was disheartening watching the hit rate steadily decline from the 450's down to as low as the 20's but I've decided to go play on the rest of the site, let the discussion board go where it goes and not worry about it. BTW, the hit rate now is up to around 110 daily. - 12:28:18 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Grant Wading through the drivel...:MARLENE-- There seem to be occasional posts by Papasam on the old board expressing lack of enthusiasm for the spam. :-) - 12:32:06 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :GRANT <<>> I wonder if papasam has this URL? - 13:39:17 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:STEVEN-- I've posted it over there numerous times. I think I'll go invite him over. - 13:45:49 on 22 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I've mailed Papasam and he said that he was going to stay at the old site for a while to bug the xtians but hopefully he's had a change of heart. Hi ANSLEM! - 3:13:23 on 23 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--gullible's travels--:MARLENE: Sometimes I wonder if religion--or at least the more successful ones--gain converts by showing off Man's infirmities as traits to be cultivated. The meek inheriting the earth? I don't think so. Turn the other cheek? Oh, sure, sometimes, but only to gain an advantage while you deliver the other fist. The world living as one? One big old mess, perhaps. And faith seems to be gullibility given a positive spin. Not that we can't stand to be humble, peaceful, and tolerant--but I don't need some heaven-sent snake oil salesman hawking his self-help manual; these traits _make sense_, nothing more. And back to my old saw, happiness: just like reproductive 'rights' these days, once folks think they have a right to be happy, the world becomes just another Needle Park, everyone walking over each other for his fix. Of course, I could be wrong. - 12:03:28 on 23 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: just got back from baseball travels now about to begin a tournament adventure. Looks like things have changed! Its good to see that you ain't afraid to make changes GRANT. As far as I can tell from what I've read, change is important for the survival of anything. - 14:42:40 on 23 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ANY01: awhile back I was booted from a religious chat site. For two weeks I've been driven to and from and livin'on baseball fields no computer connections whatsoever after eatin and plannin'baseball hype and stuff, it was to bed. I got back into the chat world this ante meridian, check out things and except for the changes here not much elsewhere has changed. I now wonder if Jaywilson's perspective is a right view? I don't see many or any, as a matter of fact, religious types on atheist chat cites and o'course they seem to "boot" from theist chatsites anybody who won't agree with or allow their point of view unchecked, so that ignoramus factor does it want to be fixed? Also, does the atheist faction fix itself in its period of existence? The atheist faction, according to reports of the mainstream media, is just a minority concern. But, lets not disregard that the mainstream media people/owners just want the "money" that now is in anyone elses pocket this they want in their pocket. I think this means these people\owners will practice that old adage of foolish people and their money being easily separated. My point, perhaps this I-net thing and the "control" of others so easily exercised on the I-net, just polarises all into like mind camps. So instead of a global mindset coming into an existence, perhaps some find becoming like cavemen a much easier thing to do? - 19:12:37 on 23 Jul 99 GMT

vbfhjjegd - 21:04:27 on 23 Jul 99 GMT

PapaSam:All. Hi. This is PapaSam. Unfortunately, I am a computer illiterate and have no idea how to post on to this site. I reached it by clicking on from the old MMIM. Eventually, I'll either figure it out or get an amanuensis. Who's this guy URL? - 0:02:43 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Grant -URL is a computerized amanuensis :-) ::Greetings PAPASAM. I haven't a clue how the webTV thing works but however you tell it, http://man-made.net gets you to the index page. You don't even need the www. - 1:51:40 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Carl; wasn't this just what Alvin toffler said in the third wave(future shock). That people will band together according to beliefs and interests.He did miss predicting the internet though. - 2:21:15 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..maybe I'm on this one because it's so damn hot here:CARL- Becareful what you wish for. A global mindset on humane issues would be great but it could very well go the other way and have a global mindset on some type of mythical religion. Then one could have the global mindset police checking up on everyone so their minds are set to global. Yikes! Could be the end of free thought! Look how nudity has become the global no-no. Although some countries are more lax on their rules for being nude in a public place, why in hell should nudity be a no-no in the first place? - 15:15:32 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:HEY PAPASAM- Hope your here to stay! - 15:16:45 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Greetings to everyone. Hi Grant. I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of being labeled as mind police. But what do people think of the idea that common sense should dictate morality? I mean, how could anyone expect to have friends if they lie, cheat, steal from, and kill them? It makes sense to me. However, I wouldn't necessarily say the world's population is ready to take 100% responsibility for their thoughts and actions, what with this god nonsense in the way. How would one convince the world to be sensible? - 17:15:26 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Grant -Hi JOSH :ALL-- Meet Josh. He has agreed to put his content on this site. A couple of his pages are up (see index page) and more are to come. I've read his stuff and I think it's very good. I'm pretty happy about his happening to come along. Our arrangement is that he is free to put anything he wishes on the site, as am I. There isn't really a joint "man-made" philosophy or anything. I'm hoping that eventually others will submit content as well. My goal, as I mentioned before is that the site present ideas and various points of view rather than conclusions or ideologies. Like the religionists we don't have the answers. Unlike them, we realize it. :-) - 20:33:08 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- My view on morality is equality based, in that I can see no objective basis for claiming rights for myself which are not due rights for all others. There is no rational justification for privelege over others. I like Kant's test of morality which is something like: Would it be good if everyone did it? If not, it is not good for me to do it. Kind of general, but you get the idea. This is where I have the most problems with religion-based morals, which often don't pertain to dealings with outsiders. Even the ten commandments, if looked at in their biblical context, are only intended to cover dealings with insiders (other xtians) and were not intended to apply to all people. - 20:43:49 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Rob:JOSH: Nice to meet you... wrt morals and common sense, I find a couple of issues jump at me- Firstly, we have the problem that common sense is not always common. Secondly, we have the problem that common sense is not always sensical. It is (IMHO) an individually nurtured rule of thumb -variying between individuals and far from infallible. That's not to say I think morals should be disassociated from common sense, but rather instead of being founded upon them they should be concomitant. If morals need be defined, then I would personally define them upon two grounds: Human nature, and that which we wish morality to acheive (be it universal happiness or whatever -not neccesarily easy to define). Humans don't always behave sensibly and I would prefer a morality to incorporate that. - 22:00:17 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Howdy Rob, Haven't seen ya'll 'round these parts lately. - 22:13:18 on 24 Jul 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene! because the bugs will bite us on the naughty bits. I never really thought about the universal rule before. Is the incest taboo universal,I recall that in pagan Hawaii the kings married their sisters or something like that. - 4:42:49 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- No the incest rule isn't universal. Look at the monarchy of England for example many years ago. Although incest doesn't always produce strong individuals, IMO government or religion or anything or anyone should not be allowed to prohibit adults marrying or cohabiting with whomever they choose. In towns like the one I work in a religious group of people settled it. In order to populate and survive they did marry close relatives. Also up until only the last 30 years the Hutterite colonies did the same thing. I don't know the actual genetic reason but many of their children turned out to be handicapped. In areas like I live in (which is mainly populated with French speaking Canadians) Ist cousins married often. In fact one of my best friends is one of their children. Out of the 11 children they had, none are handicapped. People seem to view incest like they view homosexuality. Both are shot down in the bible yet (we all know how contradictory the bible is) both are reported in the bible as being acts and traits of some of the biblical heros. - 14:06:20 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:HI JOSH- Welcome! How would one convince the world to be sensible? What's sensible? I would imagine at least stealing and murder are no-no's in most if not all universal societies, at least for the common people. But what if that country goes to war or if that country decides it wants someone else's resources, or if that country wants control over what the said country has for resources? Actual close human relationships are not involved when it comes to a "country's " benefit. Yes, there is international law but who enforces it? The country to has the power to control the country that benefits it most? What is the very best control factor to convince the common people that what is going on is right? Not a president or prime minister or king as none are infallible but something bigger than us humans, god. What humanity has to be convinced of first is that only we a responsible for what we do and that includes empowering other humans who may not have the best social skills. - 14:23:04 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Hey! I can't access the "index" because it says I need a password???????? - 14:38:33 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I used both Netscape and IE. - 14:42:49 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Oops! Try it now, Marlene, and let me know. - 15:22:11 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Thanks, Grant, for the kind words. I like your reference to Kant, which sounds better than the 'Do unto others...' - instead of trying to please others, we can focus on how we should individually act in the world. In other words, realizing individual responsibility over a common good would prove more effective. Instead of worrying about others and what they do, a look-in-the-mirror kind of thing. - 16:19:07 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Hi Rob and Marlene. Nice to meet both of you, too. I guess we all sometimes fall into the 'There has to be an answer' kind of argument. I admit it. But how could happiness be flexible enough to always be able suit-up on the side of good? I don't think happiness is the only answer. Common good seems to come up alot... sort of like you can't save everyone, but what's better for the long run would prove more successful for the individual. People get hurt and people die, but if we believe in this evolution thing, aren't we all in this together for a greater goal? Better and stronger, efficient and reliable? Once we all adopt this similar philosophy into action, and hurdle the superstitious obstacles, wouldn't we have the most freedom? - 16:42:03 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Once the individual proves responsible and realiable, and the example is set, common good should follow. - 16:44:43 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Cody:I just wanted to let you all know that Fox is airing a show Wednesday where science tests God's miracles. - 18:43:01 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

www.fox.com/signs/index.htm:CODY-- Thanks for the pointer. Sounds interesting. I just found this site... --Grant - 19:43:27 on 25 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Thanks, it works now! I think the content is great! - 5:03:57 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:CODY- Welcome too! Thanks for the tip. I work Wednesday evening but I might beable to catch it on another station when I get home. Who's doing the testing, do you know? Randi would likely do a fine job, lol! - 5:07:50 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I watch the Sci-Fi channel quite a bit. Last night there was a movie called _The Cube_. I suspect it was a Canadian film as it's content was more philosphical than elaborate but it brings to mind, is humanity "smart" enough or even "strong" enough to give up supernatural thinking? Notice that many give up the conventional god and call themselves atheists but then wander off into some new age type of belief. Is it a trait we can't shake except for we few unconventional people who can't seem to fit into that sheep clothing. There are very few of us. - 5:19:35 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Steven :CODY <<>> exactly which miracles are they testing, and who indicated that they were miracles, and if these are miracles who says they are 'his'. - 13:16:58 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: was the aquisition of JOSH a first round draft choice? - 15:09:51 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- You got it! :-) - 15:17:07 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: immediate impact, eh? I guess the global term must have an openness about it that suggests, Orwell stuff? or a new-world order kinda o'thing? Actually, my thoughts were as projections in the wake o'the decline and shelving o'the terms civilisation and probably consciousness, MARLENE. I for one can not see nor accept o'the term civilisation the loftinesses supposedly now conveyed by it. I suppose the partys who use the term 'global', do so because of its unknowable futuresqueness, so hey! I jist tossed in some projections. - 16:57:16 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:..first round draft choice? haha - 17:40:32 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: hello, like the stuff and the new look to accomodate it. - 17:47:00 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Anybody in the mood for a Catholic oddity? - 18:15:40 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ODDITYs: wow! one's philosophical fideism has got to be so overwhelmingly blinding to one's mind and thought processes first, in order for that pontifical point o'view to work, I here can't begin to imagine it. In order for that kind of compliance to happen or work on anyone, that one would have to absolutely accept that there is a three-headed godthing creator somewhere. Are such humans alive, somewhere? - 18:39:49 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- If you ever get board enough you could read this. It's a Vatican statement on sex and sexuality. One thing I like about the Catholics is that they are willing to clearly and openly (all things being relative, of course) state their beliefs and position. - 19:10:51 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Oops... that should be "bored." Silly me! - 19:15:09 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ODD01: but then on the other hand, I can see why jp2 would allow the publishing of sucha'statement. The catholic types must cling to the thought that a creator 'makes' the human life a special thing. So, he/catholics have to say that the dictum has a starting point, they choose to argue this at the point of the union. The problem for any form o'theism still concerns a true telling of, where is the godthing? - 20:00:20 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Yes these folks really go out of their way to spell out as best as possible, anyhowz & anywayz, and tell why human life is so special. (is this an unknown?) Then these catholic folk go on by saying who or what has told "them" this special bit of news. Then, cuz they have assumed that now they've something special, well they- as xtians, are special too! Its a wunnerful thing, I bet, when you think and accept your very own thoughts that you are special and best of all, when you die you get to be godlike. When I read religious propaganda, it seems like a constant hammering of certain only specific words, that after awhile one must start to think, "yea, thats right!" In that catholic piece I saw the regular insertions of who and what kind of people complied with the dictum, and o'course an unyielding and tirelessly redundent reference to a godthing. Eventually, a weaker mind would say,"yea, thats right'. Then, just make the check payable to _____, what a joke. - 21:20:36 on 26 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..holding her head:GRANT- I would expect that the RC's would gladly take that nice young woman in as a nun or could she become a bride of christ seeing as she's still married in RC eyes to this jerky husband? - 0:28:11 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Hi Carl. I wasn't sure how to take your first comment. Thanks for the compliments, Enjoy. - 0:41:26 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- It doesn't seem to trouble the Catholics much, I've noticed, to have rules that absolutely nobody follows. :-) I've read that sexual and reproductive practices among Catholics are virtually the same statistically as those of the general population. A strange but interesting situation. - 1:15:51 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- At one time the catholics were the general population. Now we have even stranger situations like women being "second" to men as in the Promise Keepers along with all their other strange ideas. I haven't heard much from them lately, anyone else? - 3:12:43 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Melissa:Didn't N.O.W. get together with Lilleth Fair and have them (Promise Keepers) blown to bits and bits and itsy bitsy pieces? I thought I heard that, could be wrong. - 6:39:14 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Melissa:JOSH: What are your opinions of drug use (or abuse), prostitution, and gambling? Are they in the best interest of the "common good"? Should they be legalized (if you're from the USA or some other nation where these activities are relatively illegal)? - 7:11:56 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Melissa:"The master's a bastard, but don't tell the Sunday slave." --Nick Cave - 7:19:19 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I'm kind of stuck in the woods here, what is N.O.W and who is Lilleth Fair? I tried searching the net but came up with nothing. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. - 14:53:06 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

National Organization for Women:: - 15:16:05 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Melissa-- History seems to show that prohibition never works. There are laws against murder and stealing, but people still do these. When people are deprived of things that make them curious or deviant, it only forces them to be more curious and more deviant. The U.S. has already given Mexico billions of dollars to fight this supposed drug war, but the money went right into their pockets. Many European countries encourage children to drink alcohol with their meals, and the kids don't consider it a 'right of passage' ritual to share with their friends... and we know people find ways to get drugs, there is prostitution and people gamble. So maybe just like abortion, which was made legal for safety reasons, maybe our 'common good' would prove the same with these. I think after the immediate shock and chaos, people would be forced to realize a greater responsibility for themselves and each other. If we couldn't handle it, what does that say about us? And if we did succeed, what would be out of our reach then? Definitely some things to think about. - 15:31:08 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- Lilith Fair, (I believe was named after Adam's second wife in the Bible), is a rock music festival of women musicians which raises money for women's rights and issues. They usually have some great headliners like Sarah McLachlan, and I think they're touring this summer. - 15:37:15 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:ANY00: Once upon a time back when, I made a half-hearted effort to read a book by TH RIPOT. This person composed a book titled,"The Evolution of General Ideas"I didn't finish reading it back then, so I checked it out again. It was in the library of the school of psychology here. What pushed me to pickup the book again was GRANT's catholic site. They the religious types mean to convey something and o'course I don't accept that they want to specifically speak of an actual godthing, however, I am now inclined to think they exemplify at least the attempts of what the religious critters seek to utter. That the religious types, this includes catholics, opt but to 'reconvey accounts' of what was once seen in outdated and false to facts telling, has a significance that in my opinion is not understood by most of them and not fully appreciated, perhaps not fully comprehended by those who opt not to communicate as a religious type [as in atheists]. In a nut shell, the religious types seemingly seek to preclude all that anyone experiences, in one's existence, into the setting of the fallacy that the all is an "either or". To further compound this problem, the religious types do so by ushering forward things said of things seen once long ago by beings of long ago. The religious say its their story too via connecting words. To me this is the nature of the simple dishonesty of the religious adherent, its just that they do not seek or want to communicate forthrightly. - 16:14:48 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA and JOSH- Thankyou! Now that I think of it I have heard of NOW but not of Lilith Fair. I agree with you Josh that human nature, especially in the lambs who have not yet joined the flock, is to be curious enough to step over any lines that have been drawn by the flock. - 17:12:44 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: of abortion, my general opinion is in line with your point that it was made legal for safety reasons. I now draw attention to abortion in order to ask if you know of any cases of irresponsible coital acts? I figger this is the kind of action GRANT's catholic thing site means to curtail that is if such action is possible. I think the response is fuel to the query, is the human beast-like or angel-like? But, I see no problems with reproduction; wanted or unwanted. Of the NOW organisation it seems now today, to be coated with teflon. - 18:45:10 on 27 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Don't all organizations end up with a teflon coating? This is why I wouldn't be in any hurry to join a humanist organization. How long would it be before their initial objective is abandoned for profit? - 3:42:39 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- You're a funny guy! "irresponsible coital acts"? Shit, that would be most coital acts wouldn't it? I mean considering the frequency of such acts for we older "responsible" types as compared to the frequencies of the young walking-boner types and all.(I wouldn't presume to speak for young ladies.) "..no problems with reproduction; wanted or unwanted"? I think there may be a few societal subtleties you have missed. :-) Seriously, my view of Catholics and other religious types is that they are not less intelligent than their unreligious counterparts. Observation does not bear it out. I don't approach anywhere close to full understanding of what it is that results in such differences in people's ideologies and beliefs, though I have my own theories, but I think it's unrealistic to deny integrity or sincerity of belief to Catholics and others. People are people, and sincerity and integrity are not tied to particular religious beliefs or their lack, from what I can tell. I think it's simplistic to deny any favorable attributes at all to one's philosophical opposition. It is detrimental to ones own cause to fail to be objective. The Catholic leadership and theologians are no strangers to reason and ethics, They just happen to be wrong, IMO. I like you Carl. I'm glad you are here and I like to read your posts, but I think I'm going to start calling you on the unwarranted and unfair assaults on the bad guys. - 4:11:35 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- I can't say it better than Grant. - 6:11:14 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: It was a struggle just to come up with that description of irresponsibility of the issue seemingly placed before or under the public microscope. That matter as a problem, if such it is, really throws me. For as you lightly point out, "that would", or could be most such acts. I add "could" because like the consensual act is a decision or choice that one makes, so too must those who decry that reproduction is a problem to be controlled. They, the decriers, can only have choosen to see and declare it so. Is an honest ratiocination involved or was some sense of fair ethics ever consulted by these decrier types? Perhaps the communication of these reproductive matters could be redirected along kinder and thoughtfully favorable terms? Say GRANT, twice now when I attempted to login to this site I find myself looking at some advertisement thing and can't get by it into the manmade site. This ante meridian I got in by using the URL data in the address bar. Is this something the server[?] does periodically? Oh! All contrars to my attempts at anykind of communication on anything are now and will be fully welcomed and much appreciated. - 15:54:22 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT, CARL and JOSH- Call me an idiot, but what in hell are you guys talking about? - 16:54:39 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: making babys, and the fuss and stuff about that happening. I just read a reference to some legislation now before the legal types in Montreal. Sounds like they there are gonna go medieval again by 'arresting' dogs for urinating on private property. I have been seriously considering a move to Canada because of the mindlessness that seems to be sweeping the land to your south side. But wow! Arresting urinating dogs, is sanity a was thing? - 17:39:44 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..dogs can piss in my yard if they want, I like dogs:CARL- Here's another newsflash about Canada. If your prepared to make about 2/3 of the money you make there, prepared to pay half of that in income tax, prepared to pay $2.50 for gasoline in a car that will cost you almost twice as much as it will cost you in the USA, if you smoke, pay $7 a pack for smokes, if you drink pay $15 for a pint of cheap liquor, $4 for a gallon of milk, $8 for a pound of cheese and if you decide to go back to the US for a visit, loose about half of your Canadian dollar to exchange, then you'd love it here. After all we got HEALTHCARE!, that is you want to stand in line for a year for a catscan. Meanwhile you can only hope you don't croak or your condition progress to swiftly. Oh and don't mention your an atheist, you'll be labeled a redneck American type (ironic huh?). - 18:04:31 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: How does one exist at those prices? $4/gal.of milk does it get any better to just have the cow? Twice a much for gas, are horses a better way to go? Haha! I once thot o'relocating in Mexico, until an EAP student reported that a bigmac there costs about $4! Well, well, well! Do you folks have militia types up there? - 18:37:00 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:Marlene - let's be fair...you choose to live in the boondocks, wherein it costs a lot more to transport the goods that you require for your personal consumption. Where I live, milk costs $2.89 for 4 litres, cheese costs $4.99 a pound (can't argue about the booze), cigarettes are $3.50 a pack (with tax included), and everyone I know socially or professionally knows that I am atheist, and I have never been labelled a redneck. Maybe you are dissatisfied with the way your province and country is operating, but don't forget to mention that we also have an average life span 3 years longer than the U.S., and far longer compared to most other countries, our crime rate, per capita, is much lower in most countries, and a myriad of other reasons why the UN keeps telling the world that Canada is the number one country in the world to live in. You know that I have a great deal of concern about the way the healthcare system is failing, but given the alternatives, for those of us that can't afford private health care, it's still damn good. Not to mention the fact that Canada beat the U.S. at their own game of baseball at the PanAm games makes me proud as hell to be Canadian. - 19:20:47 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:I guess I need to appreciate the $1.08 for gas and the $1.89 for a gallon of milk. Guess no matter where you are, you can find those who aren't as lucky or should I say as blessed as what we are. Grass just seems greener on the other side until you get over the fence. - 20:06:58 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY: $1.08!!!! $1.89!!!!! - 20:15:30 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Steven:RICKY <<>> Even cheaper here. $.99 for milk, $.98 per gallon of gas - 20:38:40 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Rob (United Nations?):Well, I guess I can't refrain from dangling my little Union Jack into the flag waving pit... who needs cheap milk when you have good, cheap beer ;) But really, I doubt most of the things that make a place good to live in can be expressed on a table of statistics or a shopping list. Sure -I could probably live to 103 years old for just $10 a week, sealed in a bubble and eating only cabbage and rice (maybe not -cabbages and bubbles don't mix ;) But my point is we don't have UN statistics on senses of humour, friendliness and the like -all of which must be at least as important as GDP per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates (IMHO). I know there is plenty wrong with my country, but there must be plenty right with it too for me to live there happily in spite of it's faults. - 21:24:16 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:ROB - if literacy counts, then you should know that there is no apostrophe in "its" the way you used it! hahahahahahaha - 23:12:37 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Canada Schmanada. haha. - 23:47:29 on 28 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:Josh reveals a death wish! :-) - 1:43:41 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I don't know what the deal is with the advertisement thing. It hasn't happened to me. Any time anything untoward like that happens, please jot down the URL that shows and let me know. - 1:47:13 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:Grant - au contraire mon ami. Me thinks YOU are subconsciously revealing a death wish. May the fleas of a thousand moose and beavers infest your armpits! LOL! - 2:30:28 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:ROFL! - 2:48:58 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Canada isn't just Ontario. We in the west don't enjoy the cheaper taxes, milk prices and cig prices you do. BTW, how much is a gallon of gas? Actually I wouldn't call Winnipeg the boondocks of Manitoba, I do my grocery shopping there. And I'm not really a flag waving Canadian and I doubt the "UN" lives here. - 3:35:14 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- A big mac which isn't so big anymore costs $3.89 here with tax. We also have combined tax on almost everything of 14%. When you go to the store to buy a pair of jeans, how much tax do you pay? - 3:41:02 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:--So, stigmata... physical or psychological? (In reference to that show on Fox 'Signs from God'). The Bolivian woman seemed to have blood in all the right places, and according to other documented cases, she had it during the same time of day. When I spoke to a friend of mine, he blew it off saying psychologists have documented mental examinations of people voluntarily secreting blood at various points on their bodies. What do people think? I encourage everyone to find out as much as they can about this phenomenon. Let's see what we can gather. - 4:17:35 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Rob (Oh Canada):JO: Don't be silly, literacy doesn't count -numeracy counts (and physics matters). Besides, grammar is a part of literacy too (hint, hint ;) - 6:10:38 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--literacy is what you read into it--:CANUCKS: C'mon down, stake out some space, pitch a tent, squat awhile, fill up the gas tank, pound down some burgers, swill some cheap beer, roll some smokes, and buy some guns, for crying out loud. - 13:34:42 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:--Canada is simply the best country, so fuckyuzall. - 14:37:24 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

PETER---:--ROB-->>--Yes, we sadly have a shamelessly innumerate federal government, media, and business sector who repeatedl refers to the first day of the year 2000 as the 'new millenium' --or as our Prime Minister refers to in his innimitible slobber as 'Da Twennny-Firz centurEE' ..which I will REFUSE to recogize- as one of the numerate minority, as it sadly would seem. But then again how many other nations will make this blunder? I have yet to see any of them coming forth and declaring something like 'We as the citizens of ( such and such )correctly, and numerately will only recognize Jan 1, 2001 as the actual start of the 21t century and the new millenium'-- and I doubt if I ever will. My usual assessment of society still holds: Most people are stupid - 14:53:42 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:PETER; Now you've completed the panoply with a set of extremes, now there is only the choosing, right? - 14:56:43 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:CARL..Is there such a thing a 'Panapoly Money' that Americans can refer to in that usual smug, pompous chortle they are famous for, when they see Canadian money? - 16:09:36 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:PETER - does this mean I have to find someone else to ring in the new millenium with this year? hee hee - 16:14:42 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: I watched and lissened to it, just the golbe or the national inquirer outta'newsprint and on the air instead. If "most people are stupid" then that crapola just means that if not here now then the dark ages II are just around the corner. I did tho'get a kick outta'the natural disaster segment. What a play on the primitive even animal mind set. For the religious there is the always primitive people mentality of quilt by association. Atop that mental process the program opted to heap "images" of anterior experiences as if these were "devinely" prophesied. From a restricted biblical point o'view, if "most people are stupid", you can bet cold cash someone figgers that ol'south american gal is the genuine article. You know, I once watched a tv program with D.Copperfield, and I saw him pass rite thru'the very composition of the great wall of china. - 16:17:43 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - my point was that you have made a decision to live in an area with higher prices. And no, Ontario isn't Canada, but before you start castigating this province, keep in mind that we have 30% of the population here, but we pay 50% of the entire taxes of the country. And when comparing the cost of living between the 2 countries, you must also take into account the size of the population (economics means that the more people consuming the product, the lower the price is, to keep competition alive), and you also have to look at the wages being paid, before and after the dollar conversion. Our prices may seem higher at the point of sale, but there are a whole lot of other factors to take into account, such as what the "buying power" of each dollar is. Wages below the border are traditionally lower than above the border, and the buying power for each dollar on both sides of the border is equal. - 16:20:09 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:JOSH--Let us all see this phenomena be performed under controlled scientific conditions, without the usual rhetoric and excuses spewed by defenders of the validity of such occurrences when these 'documented cases' fail miserably when exposed to even a hint of critical examination. - 16:22:58 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Joette (God save the Queen, now that William is driving):ROB - my grammar died before I was born, thank you very much! - 16:26:15 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:PETER: what on earth do you mean, smug and chortle? - 16:32:34 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Rob (To MM or not to MM):PETER: Well I don't really regard people as stupid for merely failing to comply with a convention (be it lingual, calendrical or the like) -there seem to be a lot better reasons to regard them as stupid. Anyhow, they might just be waiting until after Jan 1st before getting anal -that way they get two big celebrations out of it... That said, it's pretty stupid that we need the 2000th anniversary of the alleged birth of old Jeesy Creesy as an excuse for a good party. - 17:11:46 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Rob (Yes- he has to be careful 'ER in doors):JO: It didn't die, it's just in a comma ;) - 17:25:54 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:--Carl: I'm glad to see that your 'most people are stupid' theory is generalized enough to fit into all categories of events. But yes, the animal mindset (or primitive brain) acts out of association when threatened, so people do tend to resort to whatever is most convenient for them to find the comfort and understanding they need. It's a misery loves company sort of thing, I guess. Most of them are scared as Hell (pun intended). - 18:43:31 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Peter- hey I agree, but the problem here is responsibility, or lack there of. Should we, as citizens of the world allow events to go unexamined? Should people be allowed to accept things out of convenience and/or blind faith? I believe one of the major world problems is a definite discouragement in being able to realize and accept 100% responsibility for each individual's own thoughts and actions due to theism and traditional excuses. And because of this, people have lost touch with the 'bigger picture' - that it's just us here, alone on this desolate rock. (As I get of my pedestal...) I don't believe we, as rational citizens, do enough to stop this nonsense. - 18:56:02 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: Of the quote "most people are stupid" that was snagged outta PETER's post of 14:53:42 29 JUl'99. Do you see it, its the final set of words of that post. - 19:06:41 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I've been trying to scan the net for more on stigmata. I'm working on it. - 20:20:00 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Rob (The holey ghost?):MARLENE: You want information on stigmata? Well why don't you try getting your palm red ;) - 20:53:31 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: We've seen and read many varied favorable accounts of what this PC gadget could do for the human creature, yes? I think, I enjoy thinking and see it practical to interact who and whatever I am with whoever on this PC. Seems innocent enough, yes? But what about groups of people that contrive and devise matters and issues that might come between those of us that mean but to draw from the unknown the unintelligible as best we can to increase what we know, hence expand our intelligence, what about them? WJC proposes that the gov't somehow monitor things, specifically at first money related concerns and probably health, and now it looks as tho'his group of people mean to throw more fuel onto this 'monitoring' thing by saying that foreign types out of Israel are snooping into the USA military data banks, so that is also another reason to monitor this PC thing. So then, WJC's people in his watch have increased police numbers and powers, seek to round up the guns now in the private sector, increased the number of prisons in the USA and now they want to monitor the private talk of the citisens? Hmmm? Some folks really mean to have control, yes? The only option is pick instead of a power-mongerer, come election time, is perhaps a "leader" type individual. Of the control feature, remember A.Hitler and J.Stalin, did these guys and their cohorts not gather-up all guns and remember the gulags? the concentration camps? Perhaps the issue isn't so much history repeating itself as it is possible that history can geomerically improve or worsen things? Too bad that as an agnostic/atheist opiates and other drug like stuff, are not an option. - 20:59:17 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:sorry Carl, I misunderstood. - 21:14:49 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene (and my read palm will go well with that mother T handbag:ROB- HA! HA! JOSH- Since I haven't found too much to dispute this "condition" on the net I'll have to make my own comments on stigmata. I missed the show but from what I understand this bleeding occurs without any wounds to bleed from. Maybe blood capules? It doesn't take much to fill a little container with one's own blood then squish it in one's palm or slap it on one's forehead. I think I will leave a mail for the amazing Randi to see what his comments are on the subject. - 21:36:29 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: heck, i shoulda'come on home with the power mongerers example mentioning R.Nixon, T.Roosevelt and one I see of that ilk JFK. - 21:51:27 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN02: of the Atlanta shooting, was the guy religious? - 22:50:27 on 29 Jul 99 GMT

Ricky:Josh, that's just your belief. I'm not alone. Not alone at all. Boy, there's a world out there you know nothing about. Even I don't understand it all, but believe me buddy, it's there, just as sure as Hell, it's there. "Hello Marlene" First time I ever had someone say you're stupid if you believe in God. - 2:54:04 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Ricky- You're in the wrong discussion room to try and support god and/or hell. And since when is the majority correct? The god theory is very romantic and idealistic, but it's not a good enough excuse just because we don't have better answers yet. (C: Check out my pages and I'd be glad to discuss this with you. - 3:23:22 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene..Hello:RICKY- Did someone say you were "stupid" because you believed in god? If so, I don't agree although I do think that you haven't looked into the god theory well enough. For instance Ricky, would you buy a vehicle without checking it out throughly? - 4:01:15 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- ANY-- Did you happen to see the July/August issue of 'Skeptical Inquirer?' I think it's a particulary good issue. It's a Science and Religion special issue. Stephen Jay Gould takes some heat, though, from Richard Dawkins and others about what he calls his Jewish agnosticism. Personally I think that Gould is an extremely valuable spokesman for science and for evolution. His views of evolution and biology are probably the clearest and least influenced by bias that I've seen. What do you think of his being agnostic rather than atheist. Is it bad? I should probably say that while I don't generally hold religious beliefs against a person, I consider agnosticism to be in the same category as religious beliefs, if that makes sense. It is religious beliefs + doubts. - 5:47:56 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- There is a long and colorful history of such frauds and hoaxes. :-) It's one of the odder facets of human behavior. :-) :-) - 13:37:19 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:QUESTION - even though we joke about praying, does anyone here every fall into "praying mode" during tough times? Does anyone make bargains with "god" during a crisis? - 14:00:24 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I think some agnostics are fence sitters. On one hand they they have thought about the theory of god and realize that evidence doesn't support it but..."what if they are wrong and what if the heavy hand of god comes down on them for it and they don't make heaven?". Others may want answers so badly that they say "if it isn't this then it's got to be that". Like you, I think agnostics are still believers, not strong believers but believers nevertheless. - 14:16:55 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- BTW, I didn't pick up that issue yet. It wasn't in at the time but I did pick up Vol.7 No.1 of _Skeptic_. Some good stuff in there too. I'll likely pick SI up this weekend. - 14:20:02 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- As a child I was was taught to pray and I admit when I was small to praying to god (because I understood him to be the power that be) to bring back my dead nanna. But then again at the time, I remember also asking the fairy godmother who helped out Cinderella. But as I grew older, of course one realizes god is no different that the fairy godmother, just a myth. No I don't pray in times of crisis and believe me, I've had my share and see at least a few more in the future. I noticed the mayor of Atlanta yesterday encouraging prayer for all those who were killed and wounded . Nothing, IMO, help the dead. - 14:26:52 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Agnosticism if upon review, in accordance w\T.Huxely- who thunk up the word, he did so for a particular event and occassion. The account I read says that as he spliced it together, it did not have any religious significance, nor was it supposed to have such a connection. The event at which he devised and used the word was a scientific gathering and the word was to express a general problem of the science minded person. The religious adherents obviously have since then, brought or redirected its significance to bear upon "themselves", turning it into a dagger. I have to think here that they do so because of the primitive science-like book of their particular favor, genesis. To use that book makes one or allows one to see a past thought process that is false to fact. As I understand the word agnosticism its concern is the unintelligible the unknown, etc. These ideas dare we say, they simply disturb and distress the theistic? - 14:58:21 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:--OPEN--I find the main problem amongst atheism/agnosticism is the definition of these terms. It would seem that those who label themselves with these terms often do so via by not so rational means, but resort ultimatlely to social convention and emotion --much like the religious. Often the agnostic does not want to adopt what he woukd perceive as the stigma associated with atheism, and the atheist often does not want to be associated with the wisy-washy position generally associated with agnosticism. I have MY particlar definitions of an atheist and an agnostic--however, I have investigated in philosophical reference books, and I STILL discover discrepancies as to what the true definitions are. In the end, I just think it would be Ok to let someone call himself what he wants, and let him define his position in more detail on an individual basis. - 15:51:50 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

PETER:--JOETTE---I think the 'praying for comfort' element will always exist with any person who was brought up with religious practices. Psychologists have often suggested this to be nothing more than a cognitive exercise to be addressing some kind of 'super parent'( who is associated with having limitless power ) when our parents appear to be helpless in being able to conquer certain obstacles in everyday life. - 15:59:34 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:- ALL--The Agnostic doesn't get away with wishy-washy beliefs so easily. It's not the third alternative people tend to think it is. As George H. Smith describes in 'The Case Against God', agnosticism is only a variation between theism or atheism. The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. To the religious agnostic, they state that god is, but due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural, they cannot state what god is. The agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind AND the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well... it tends to get a little esoteric with terms, but I think it's better to be specific about things. - 17:57:19 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

JOSH:JOETTE - - 18:00:06 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

JOSH:- ooops. JOETTE: In speaking of prayer, it was mentioned before in this room (I don't remember by whom) that people are duely burdened with beliefs on either side, so while the atheist will abandon all god theories, they might resort to some other new age philosophy... for example, 'The Celestine Prophecy' which is similar to the way I've heard prayer described: We are all made of energy. We learn how to receive and give energy in different ways from the day we are born. So when we encounter sickness or disease in our lives, we naturally share our energy with others, and we all know that our loved ones are so, because they are there when we need them. So what prayer can be defined as is a transfer of energy from those who have a healthy amount, to those who are in need of it. Just like plants which seem to grow better when their human friends speak to them, humans need the same kind of honest attention. (C: - 18:10:09 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: Isn't that the 'hands on' thing of the reorganised church o'latter day saints? - 18:43:32 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- HA! HA! JOSH- People need people, we're social animals. To have someone there during times of grieving over the not so nice circumstances of life is a natural human need. Other animals also grieve but they are smart enough not to pray, lol! This atheist sees no evidence of a supernatural realm at all. - 19:37:31 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE; Do you mean to say that the human critter is also has herd instincts? - 20:18:26 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE; Do you mean to say that the human critter also has its own kinda'herd instincts? - 20:18:57 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yep! Isn't it obvious,lol! I think it's generally accepted that we are a social creature. - 20:24:59 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

PapaSam:All. Agnosticism is a term which can only be defined by an individual as it applies to him/her self. On the other hand, as far as I am concerned, an atheist is one who does not accept the idea of gods, devils, ghosts, or any type of supernatural phenomena. - 20:58:12 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: In regard to that aspect o'humans, I've read some early thinker\writer accounts that simply say, the human is a herd animal. The religious types want to take that possible herd thing of humanity out of the world known to the human critter, they mean to, however, redirect it toward a world that is after death with an invisible and unknowable godthing. Via the religious adherents prospects of either a hell with a lake o'fire and brimstone or a godthing's love and a heaven, instead, they must minimise the human interests anyway they- religious adherents, can. I prefer neither, humans are not angellike nor beastlike. - 21:13:47 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I agree! IMO atheism can't be anything else. If people say they are atheist but still accept the supernatural then I would imagine that would make them agnostic. - 21:28:52 on 30 Jul 99 GMT

jaywilson--bringing home the Bacon--:MARLENE and PAPASAM--I agree with the two of you, but watch out for slippery terms like _supernatural_. Depending on one's frame of reference, yesterday's science is either today's myth or somebody's religion, but either way, science exists to explain--in terms of nature--what was once supernatural to otherwise rational people. Quantum theory seemed supernatural to Einstein, who believed in a god who did not play dice with the universe--even though quantum theory was derived from Einstein's own math. And then, to echo an earlier point, how does Stephen Jay Gould's cherished religious/ethnic heritage affect his objectivity? Just asking. - 0:35:12 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene and All: I don't think the description I provided for prayer describes anything super-natural. We are energy. Our daily interactions require energy. Quantum mechanics shows us that the Universe is basically undefined until we put our thoughts and actions to use, and that at its basic levels, it (the Universe) is malleable to our intentions. If we are to pass on the god theories, why do we deny ourselves of the powers we see and experience? Does lack of a god cancel any chance for spirituality? Maybe the pretenses that surround prayer scare us away, but what if we think of prayer like a meditation (a concentration of energy)... We know how good it feels when people care about us, and we know how good it feels when we care for others. What's the difference when we take some time and care for ourselves? - 0:42:30 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:-- Atheism only means a lack of belief in a Supreme Being, or beings. It doesn't deny that there are forces at work which we don't yet comprehend or want answers for. - 0:47:36 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- I am not aware of that practice by the LDS, but if it is anything like what I speak of, once science can define it, it loses all mystical value. Science can give the LDS a better reason for why it works. - 0:51:02 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- And this energy...where does it go when we die. What kind of conversion does it undergo? - 2:10:09 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- That's what you describe an atheist as but if it makes you feel better "I'm an atheist who also is a skeptic who also will not accept extra ordinary claims unless they are backed with substantial evidence." - 2:14:04 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- I think it's Dawkins who holds some beliefs but no matter, most of the time he is all science. I don't really know if his objectivity is encumbered by his beliefs. I haven't read the article in SI yet. - 2:17:29 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- when we die our energy gets transfered to the other living creatures of this planet, i.e. worms, plants, trees. We don't just disappear. There's nothing extraordinary about the fact that we get energy from food (other life on this planet), that we need energy to live, and that we produce energy (carbon dioxide, etc.) And it has nothing to do with atheism. - 3:34:53 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Grant -getting in the spirit(..uality)-:JOSH-- Are you implying that our energy is in the form of some cohesive unit rather than in the form of a jumble of ,I don't know, calories and such in individual cells or molecules or something, (Please pardon the fancy biology jargon)which just go their own way like any other organic matter? How do you define "spirituality"? Is it a general sense of wonder, or something more tangible? - 5:56:28 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Grant -nothing sinister I guess-:CARL-- Thanks for mentioning this site's irratic behavior. Seems the hosting service is having a few growing pains, as is all of the web, it seems. If the add you see is for hoster.com, that's my hosting service's index page which is a default whenever the server on which or little electronic universe resides takes a powder. - 6:11:17 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Okay we agree on how the energy is converted but I get the feeling from your posts that you believe that is everyone prays for good things, like health and happiness then this prayer creates energy and this energy will create health and happiness. - 14:48:14 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:- Hey Grant. Energy is cohesive and it's anamorphic. We can look at a body in motion and admire its energy, and we can pull out our microscopes and examine cells and molecules. There is no one way to use energy, or to find it, or to share it. You know how you feel when you've just eaten a great meal, satisfied... and then we know how we feel when he engage in an argument and the other person forces us to surrender in defeat, we feel weak and drained. I'd hate to resort to George Lucas' idea of The Force to say it any clearer, but the Universe is very powerful. The spirituality part comes from a greater awareness of our surroundings, who we are, and what we've accomplished (back to our beginning ancestors). David Darling wrote in his book, _Equations of Eternity_, 'We are roughly 18 billion years old... You are very much a child of the cosmos.' I think it's cool to be able to look up at the stars and call them my cousins. (c: - 15:58:13 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene-- Well, I think we all know that general thoughts and prayers (concentrated thoughts) alone don't solve things and they don't conspire to act for us, but that doesn't mean they don't inspire and motivate us. And we don't create the energy, the sun initiates that... but we can gather it up in the ways we know how, for our individual and collective needs. As we mature from infants to adults, we spend everyday of our lives trying to figure out the best ways to use our resources. We make of this world what we want it to be, and in that way we largely define our own health and happiness. - 16:14:09 on 31 Jul 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I heartily disagree with your assertion that "we make of this world what we want it to be, and in that way we largely define our own health and happiness". Do you believe that those who suffer from depression do so because they want to? Or, as a personal example, my world wouldn't include such thing as genocide, and no matter how much I speak out against those that embark on such endeavours, I am powerless to stop it. So, does this mean that because my world does include this, that it is my fault? Afterall, my world does not just extend to the walls of my home, or my workplace. I tend to think of humanity as a whole. I lose sleep over what happens in other parts of the planet. I find your own statement rather myopic. - 20:08:23 on 31 Jul 99 GMT