h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<<"the spiritual explanation is the *only* possible one that fits [...] some neuroscientists have a theory."

So presumably you are saying you were wrong to say that the spiritual explanation is the *only* possible one?>>

You edited what I said to make it look as if I'd said somehting else. You do that a lot.

<>
See how it feels? But seriously, looking through the sceptics pages, which is what I was referring you to, is too much trouble;e? Yet you get bitter if I don't comment minutely on Herr Dawkins' verbal diarrhoea!
<< From the document you quoted: "my own conclusion is that experiments have provided no evidence at all that something leaves the body." If you're trying to suggest that OOBEs are real, why did you link to a document that says there is no evidence for them?>>

See my comments to Blicky. You're practising your usual selective quoting.

Vicky all these quotes jumbled together without proper spacing and references to who said what, and wwho you are replying to, are quite confusing.

Please could you present your posts in a bit more of a user friendly way?

<>
One more or less has. I would simply say that he was mistaken.

<>

IMO, the Muslim God *is* the same God - they simply believe that Islam is a later (and superior) revelation. Obviously, I believe that they are mistaken, and that a later revelation was never necessary. I'd say (and have said) the same to Mormons, who believe pretty much the same that theirs is a later and superior revelation.

<>

In short, no. I was demonstrating to Giford and Blicky, what they've done to me, editing quotes form me together, to make it seem as if I'd said something different from what I actually did say. Your request misses the point! But -what the heck, call me irrational. Wait - you already did! I guess that means the Christmas truce is over, and it's back to hating me? That's genuinely a pity...

What with that, and all the terribly unsubtle threats from TPTB, I am considering leaving this place to stew in it, as I have done before... It's maybe (second to a particular American site full of raving loony right-wingers) the unfriendliest, snidest, most unpleasant site on the "whole entire" (to use an Americanism) Interweb, which is really saying something!

Vicky

It's not you know. It's lovely really.

Vicky my request was meant purely practically, because I was confused by the lack of spacing, and who said what.

I wasn't calling you irrational or being nasty, (and you know that sometimes, yes I can be nasty, I've always admitted it, and held my hand up to it.)

You have to make your own decisions, but I was just being practical, and I agree it's been good that things generally have been less nasty on this thread.

<> It did used to be, in 2001-3, after I first joined and for a couple of years after... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=280257&skip=180&show=20 I was reminded of those days by a thread TRiG linked to, and I was reading posts (some of them mine) from 2003. Think about it, a thread about 'religion', where everybody was reasonable, no one called me (or anyone else) crazy, insane, irrational or a troll! What on earth happened! It makes me really sometimes... I used to recommend this place, now I advise people to stay away, or to be very, very careful - in case they are either (expected to) be doormats, or called insane, irrational trolls and have sites ridiculing them set up! (Massive over-reaction, that, I always thought, but that's why I'll never believe the person most involved with that is my only friend, no matter how many people try to "Gaslight" me by claiming that! Gaslight is a very old film, I saw it on TV when I was a child, you're probably too young to know of it, but it is genuinely creepy! Vicky

<>

Look back a dot, or maybe two, and you'll see your love-fest with the "Indonesian" sock-puppet... 'Nuff said.

If you really want to see me indulging in a *love fest,* I can assure you it wouldn't be in the slightest bit like that.

That was a bit of humourous banter, nothing more.

Vicky this is silly. I hope you know me well enough by now to know that with all my faults I don't intentionally wish to hurt people unless they have hurt me and/or I think they can handle it. I'm not perfect; who is?

I don't know why you have suddenly decided to be like this, only you can know.

I've got nothing else to say to you until you start being more reasonable with me again, as my desire is to be with you.

If we could try to dig our way out of another dellatroll inspired morass of personal whingeing and get back on topic, perhaps someone could answer the very reasonable question.

Let me phrase it in a way that I think expresses the concerns raised: If religious experience is one of personal "revelation", what makes one person's more valid than another? How does the recipient of the inspiration distinguish his experience as authentic and another's as "mistaken"?

The one thing I agre with in any of the last posts was the part where the poor victim said, "'nuff said."

Yes dear, it was "'nuff" a long time ago. Now do try to be good this year, okay?

The "Indonesian" sock puppet

'Catholic church under fire for promoting a hard line on 'immoral' teaching in schools '

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2233434,00.html

"Roman Catholic bishops are to appear in front of a powerful committee of MPs amid fears that they are pushing a fundamentalist brand of their religion in schools. Bishops have called on parents, teachers and priests to strengthen the role of religion in education. In one case the Bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O'Donoghue, instructed Catholic schools across much of north-west England to stop 'safe-sex' education and place crucifixes in all classrooms."

It's somewhat scary that this sort of thing still goes on. Maybe now that Tony Blair's gone there will be a crackdown on this faith led perpetuation and promotion of ignorance.

"Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the society, said: 'I do not think the state should be funding Catholic indoctrination.' He highlighted a poll released by the US group Catholics for a Free Choice showing that most Catholics across the world believed using condoms was pro-life because it prevented the spread of HIV and Aids."

<>

I thought I did (know that, I mean.) But things appear to have changed in my temporary absence.
<>

Reading the posts between when I was last here, and now. That, and the afore-mentioned unsubtle threats from TPTB. Obviously going into detail would constitute An Offence, but then, as I've recently discovered, there's very little that doesn't, when done by me. (Which is why my introduction is as it is...)

<>

OK, whatever you want!Your loss...

<>

This is a bit What this guy appears to be saying is, "Whatever you do, don't for goodness' sake, take it seriously! Or questions will have to be asked, and we'll stomp you as Godzilla would".

<<'The secular view on sex outside of marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and Aids, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information >>
Pointing out that an aggressively secular view isn't a neutral one, seems fairly reasonable to me!


<>

Also not unreasonable. Should the Dawkinsites ever set up a school, I've no doubt they'd want books by such people as McGrath and John Cornwell banned from their library!

You're arguing with yourself Vicky. Broken record, no point replying.

Please contribute something useful.

...or at the very least amusing.

<<
<>

Also not unreasonable. Should the Dawkinsites ever set up a school, I've no doubt they'd want books by such people as McGrath and John Cornwell banned from their library! >>


Are you seriously trying to present this as a reasoned argument?

A bishop calls for book banning and you suggest this is reasonable because in your speculative, completely unsupported, and probably mistaken opinion someone else might do something similar?

And you wonder why nobody takes your debating seriously?

**** *** * ****** *** *** ****** ***!

See, I moderated my own first response. Does that mean you're back to the silly 'Coventry' tactic? And this is such a *nice* place! Yeah, right, as the Tui billboards say.

I was trying to respond to the article you linked to. But if you'd rather be pithy, so be it. Why should I be bothered with trying to do what you want, and talk about what you wanted to talk about?

* ******* *** *** **** *el* *it*!

You don't want to talk about anything: you just want to make snide comments, misquote people, relate fantasies of the 'Dawkinsites' you've invented in your head and be generally obstructive and an unproductive hindrance to conversation.

And you wonder why you feel put upon? To quote Radiohead,

You do it to yourself, you do,
And that's what really hurts.

Except, of course, it doesn't hurt because you do it deliberately, for reasons I wouldn't even try to understand. You're a strange'n and no mistake.

<<******************See, I moderated my own first response>>

Good girl, Della!

Now, to the rest of your post. How can you suggest that we've sent you to Coventry when here you are engaging in your old tactics and we are showing you the courtesy of responding?

But congratulations on your attempts to moderate your vitriol; we're all very proud of you!

Now if you could learn these words and apply them from time to time : "I was wrong. I apologise."

Then you'd be rising to a level that would make some of us consider you with something other than exasperation and occasional derision.

Hope you can make that quantum leap!

Happy New Year!

<> Ghood ghrief! I was *trying* to talk about something *you* wanted to talk about. I read the article you linked to, I commented on it, and what do I get? Snidey comments typical of your way of relating. It's the last time I read and comment on an article you link to, when all you can do in response is make some sneering remark about talking to myself! That's the kind of thing that makes me advise anyone whatever their age, sex, ethnic origin or sexual orientation to stay away from h2g2, because it's a pit of stinking prejudice, loathing and hatred! Y'all have invented this "straw man" that's nothing like what I really am, do or think... and you react to that, not to what I say. Then you accuse me of liking this sh*t, and bringing it on myself. How far would that argument fly on this thread, which I am reading? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F63189?thread=2548501&skip=100&show=20 Try telling someone there that he brings the prejudices he sees everywhere on himself? Quote Radiohead at him, tell him he likes being denigrated and he's a strange 'un? (Note, I am not talking about any particular man in my comments - all people there evince a similar view.)