This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by biorays

Go to: Stockholm syndrome?

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by biorays

Life used to be tough You now sit atop a pyramid that raises you higher than many. Those around you bring along whatever it takes to raise you still higher. If all you need to do is display subservience to a fictional non-existent person to get this kind of adulation, why bother contemplating an alternative, especially when many of your fans see you as a potential pharaoh who might just put in a good word as they pass through those holes in the sky we now know are stars.

Life is sweet - why throw out the cookies?

Deliverance from delusions, when you are truly deluded, is a long and painful alternative choice, so usually is avoided whilst day to day routines continue to work their imaginary placebos around your reality.

It worked for thousands of years of human history. Why bother changing it in your own lifetime. Just easy along for the ride and let someone or other pick up the tab for the exponentially high debt of 'belief'.

Something along those lines is around about where it's at. Obviously all people have 'good' thoughts going on along the way - but the need to be 'high' on belief is an unnecessary and ultimately damaging parasite on human consciousness.

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:13:46 UTC | #616516

Go to: Christopher Hitchens: In Confidence

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by biorays

Like an absent father, unaware of his role, he will and already has panged the distress of his own disappearance from the very distant but uniquely and treasured accessible position he holds in their lives. But you will not, as you indeed were used to doing, waste too much time on this, since it is he who taught you not to. This is his power. This is his place. This is his legacy (the modest legend within his own lifetime) – the absenthood of serfdom to the superstitiously numinous and the breaking of the hymen of ones own reality. The situation is an accidental revelation in many respects. Jet plane mechanics of the mind and emotions, born of the techno communications era affording a substitute parentage and party-less kindredship that is able to pivot out a role exceeding many of the only real and accessible ones to some of us.

Where was this man when I was growing up - any man for that matter?

And here you are, permitted this small uneasy window of reality, amidst the eternity that preceded and awaits the afterwards of your lifetime, less wondering why and richly more confused than ever as to the numinosity of this knowledge you now hold about it all, but beautifully alleviated of that perverted, oft painful sometimes anaesthetized, trauma the world all too readily gifts and imposes upon you to somehow be all the more “good for you not to know any better” through its theisms, flawed expectations and historical precedents. Thank goodness he came home, for a time at least!

This is what “The Man” , from some distance, has come to mean to me, amongst others. It is a peculiar position?

I could go on, and on…..

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:30:28 UTC | #616405

Go to: Bible stories for children - would you do it?

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by biorays

I'd be inclined to contextualise the story as 'made up by people of long ago' just like other fairy stories and say how some , in later generations got fooled into thinking it were true. This way I could rest assured, to some extent, and for the future benefit of the mind of the listener, that I wasn't simply playing host to theisms many levers of dissonance.

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:32:17 UTC | #615909

Go to: Teresa A. Sullivan’s inauguration as eighth President of University of Virginia

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by biorays

Comment 4 by Michael Gray :

We wish the Inaugural Planning Committee had considered these issues.

Oh, I'm sure that they did consider these issues, even if only to purposefully flout them with glee. .....sliding down the very slippery slope of superstition:- liberally lubricated with elite-enforced indoctrination & isolation via schools and the goggle-box.

My thoughts exactly. Publicly humiliate resounding examples of non-theism by softly-softly inclusions and absorptions. Just another of theisms 'enterprise or enforcement' tactics.

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:12:05 UTC | #615373

Go to: Happy birthday, Christopher Hitchens

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by biorays

I first came across Christopher after ordering RDs collection of 'The Four Horsemen' DVDs. In the company of giant intellects he had something very 'stylishly wise' about him. You could never get the subliminal power of this from simpIy listening to or reading about him. I failed to twig what it was initially, that could be so convincingly rational about 'style'. I suspect he blended himself like a fine distillation into something that sieved out all of those things born of bullshit and gradually converged upon his own unique blend of the rationally numinous in a world oft so absent of it amongst humans. How ironic, I say, that a man so absent theism, oozes all of its aquirable transcendental aspirational qualities and parcels them to within a single lifetime - frees them of serfdom to millennia of commercial and political enterprises, shirking their attempts to enslave and extrapolate them into some afterlife mythological pain impostor and then shows the rest of us how its done. This man is real - the imagination is not left to chance!

Is there an art gallery in existence that conveys such a concept?

The Hitch, to me, is a walking art gallery usurping the inherited dogma of multiple histories! You could not capture this personification of liberation from consciousness slavery, except in the life lived of such a man walking, living, breathing and communicating it outwardly.

May happiness return to you time and again Christopher.

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:51:28 UTC | #615005

Go to: Lynn Margulis disses evolution and embarrasses herself and the field

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by biorays

It always antagonises my curiosity that whenever people attempt to use science to 'pseudo-prove' there is a divine source, they hardly ever then suggest which of the mythological characters they are backing and why and moreover how it is that their character is the one under proof - as if this character provided them its own inspired proof so they could go prove that their myth is the real myth - which of course they all are ultimately? Placebos of the mind at war with placebos of the mind PLUS their emotional equivalents which don't necessarily need any sense to be talked about - you see if they imagine something then obviously its non-fiction!

Amazing how many people go to the reference section of their minds never realising it is stocked full of fiction!

Happy Birthday Hitch. Clarity is much less less veiled after your lifes decipherings!

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:49:33 UTC | #614908

Go to: Walking the Line Between Good and Evil: The Common Thread of Heroes and Villains

biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by biorays

I pulled this excerpt from the article just to highlight a point I often feel inescapable whenever I give my time to taking seriously the claimed science of pyscho-writers.

Read the list and see if you can substitute any professions (especially ones involving finance) for the title sociopath.

"Sociopath:

  • Low impulse control

  • High novelty-seeking needs (desire to experience new things, high need for arousal)

  • Shows no remorse for their actions (lack of conscience, no experienced guilt)

  • Inability or unwillingness to see past own needs in order to understand how another feels (lack of exhibited empathy)

  • Detached emotionally from situations, personal relationships

  • Willing to break rules, defy authority

  • Always acts in the interest of himself, in whatever fashion ultimately serves him best (selfish, self-protective)

  • Extremely fragile or unstable ego, or self-identity

  • Extreme emotional sensitivity"

  • It does not take long to realise how there is an often impenetrable language barrier to explaining anything about 'stereotypical' personalities - let alone disorderly ones. I can easily foresee how a wealthy personality disorder might gain enough popularity to set up their own country, or religion, whilst a poor one ends up in the local clinic. Historically this is very provable. Double standards abound throughout the 'classes' of society.

    Hence, for me, psychology is a necessary pseudo science, seeking to understand and explain that which needs far more concise explanation, but which, it seems, cannot fail to fall into the trap it seeks to eliminate - becoming stereotypical about things it seeks to reduce the bigotry and bias respecting.

    It's why I often want to take it very seriously but find I default to missing the mark. I perceive many of Its manoeuvres from theory to reality as a bridge too far! In fact I often consider the 'psychology expert', and especially underlings thereof, to be employing a high degree of circular hypothesis akin to that which religious thinkers employ in support of their 'feelings' about others behaviours/thoughts/attitudes.

    I'd have hoped for a far more science specific approach but maybe there isn't one and that's the problem that perpetuates the irony of attempting to. Some things just avoid scientific analysis - and often deliberately so!

    Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:19:46 UTC | #613456

    Go to: Do atheists need their own bible?

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by biorays

    'Do atheists need their own bible?'

    I consider Graylings perspective, from his position of having a plethora of knowledge and awareness respecting historical alternatives, about human tendencies to resort to mythological psychological placebos (aka religions claims on the unknowable), must be worthy of greater kudos from many angles. Whether it is granted, time, and the reasonable education of the masses, will tell, but on no account would I speculate that its value lies purely in its successful and lasting distribution since, as we know, people are far more easily indoctrinated from youth with fears of fictions which carry imaginary afterlife escapes from the pains they threaten as a way of disabling the reality consciousness for the lifetime of their host.

    I look forward to reading Graylings well-reasoned 'sermon' as soon as it arrives and would commend its intent in spite of not yet having read a word of it! In such things I place my faith and await its verification. Perhaps, if such works had become more widespread much sooner, we would have less of the 'life derailments' religion ensures? Ways of ensuring that are much less about any book than those in positions powerful enough to procure them and the procuring thereof all the more viral if it perpetuates a gossip of fears and euphoria respecting unknowable fiction. In this respect Grayling is onto a less orgasmic distraction of the minds emotions, of that I have no doubt.

    It seems we are in the spheres of something other than mere reason whenever we attempt to evaluate such attempts at alternatives as ambitious as Graylings and for this I harbor hope since the alternatives are religions poison of future generations minds under the cover of a mass deception as if it were a kindness.

    Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:50:09 UTC | #613363

    Go to: Do atheists need their own bible?

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by biorays

    '....according to Melvyn Bragg, author of The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible 1611-2011.

    "When you're talking about the King James Bible, you're talking about one of the greatest works in English literature, perhaps world literature," he says. '

    Which to some extent, in my opinion, is reflective of the historical dominance of placebo psychologies over rational psychologies. We even have rational thinkers lauding mythological literature as worthy of greatness for its ability to oppress and suppress humans in large numbers to an extent that it renders them awe-stricken.

    The Bible fills me with no awe whatsoever.

    It is a historical artifact that has evolved multipurpose political prowess and fictional placebo values for partakers of its nonsense so that as a cumulative work, I place it on par with other enslaving works of literature that aim to deceive and constrict the human into a self-blame/blame-others fiasco of cyclical delusions they find inescapable and so pay homage to by default. In this respect I find it awe-less and by a far greater extent than any awe it may beckon in relation to its literary aspirations.

    Religion, as we have known it, is the poison whose cumulative good is, by far, transcended by the holistic sufferings and harmful speculations it subjugates humans with and enslaves their lives towards without letup.

    I find it an irony indeed that the great delusions of 'scripture' infuse some with a respect for that which ought to have been disposed of! And that those of us who think this way can be considered unworthy of having any literary appreciation. Maybe it is perceived as part of an enlightenment awakening of humanity from a less literate era? But at what price - the lives of the many who suffered its mutations? I consider there could have been better progress, but then too, as in the world today, this rarely fuels investment for its own sake - for that we still need the slaves who plant the seeds for tomorrows profit margins. I wonder if the replacement scripture of tomorrow is being written, at present, on the stock markets of today? There always seems to be a polluting, by profiteering, of anything altruistically intended. Possibly this is the shadow some still perceive when they contemplate some small parts of this overrated work of speculative fiction? Or maybe it is the wager it proclaims as a hand played against that of papal dominance? But this wager deceives so many lives in its gameplay that I fail to be even slightly impressed by it!

    Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:07:18 UTC | #613303

    Go to: Godless in Tumourville: Christopher Hitchens interview

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by biorays

    'I felt sorry for him,’ Hitchens says now. 'He seemed like an innocent of some sort, bodyguarded by.... opinions. Pessimistic, unlucky, badly treated ...... He said to my mother once that she was the only luck he’d ever had. He was trying to stop her leaving. And it did make her pause for a bit.’

    To see a potential role model live as if bereaved of their aspirations and ambitions - dreams even - reminds my emotions of the mental anguish, say, a religious person is constrained by due the parameters their dogma imposes, deceiving them till they are beholden to a negation of that which all their being might wish and desire to live for.

    Maybe this is what Christopher alludes to in part:

    'With religion, try as I may, I can’t think myself into the viewpoint of the faithful.'

    Which I must say is a cumulatively oppressed position due an alliance of speculative falsehoods and de facto absence of alternatives, the restrictions of which set the mind into an adaptation of fictional alternatives it then considers existential, but which nevertheless the body is generally more than a little 'disagreeable' of - but there isn't the field in which to run, or at least not one even slightly accessible into which to escape. The emotions, and mind, now beaten, default to their cage all too readily - an enforced microcosm of the life into which they were potentially born!

    And it is the escaping from this trench of thoughts and emotions that I long lived blindly, days (I lie! Years, but who would believe me?) perplexed and defeated, as to how my mind got there and, much more vividly, the darkness upon the pathway out of it, so that in spite of my growing diet of reason forging me a crutch upon which to lean, took Christophers maverick maulings of anything born of speculation to register my emotions alongside my intellect, finally. It was late for me, but as he suggests, a gross kindness that he was all to unaware of.

    So when Susan Sontag suggests him,

    'a sovereign figure in the small world of those who tilled the field of ideas’,

    she beautifully, almost poetically, beholds his position in respect of those delivered, by his form and discourse, from that consciousness that would have had it readily circumcised.

    For me Hitchens not only took the lid of religion and poured it out for all to see, but has also showed us what it is to not have it at all and how much better this would be. No psychologist could come close to this. No parent or friend could rise to such a wall of opposition in the head and in the heart. But for me, Hitchens simply cast it aside in more ways than I can fathom. An artisan - a messiah of reason - what else could pose such a role - it is become more, much more, than the man that he is - unquestionable!

    And when he remarks,

    'the newspapers would come out and they wouldn’t be there to read them.'

    I say, and how - since when has a newspaper been lived out in the lives of those during and after ones passing in ways unpublished and unwritten, but so much the better for having accessed their own lives through the reason of someone, chancing upon a star, who rose above all of them claimed in the East, to be delivering us from dogma and oppression?

    Of death:

    He pauses. 'It is a disagreeable thought.’

    But then that is the seed of poison that led so many of us into the mire of dogma which you so articulately deciphered, sir!

    What more good could you have yourself do? I doubt if you could have managed it had you not lived the life you have?

    More people than you will ever know, probably imagine, have already said yes - to that which carries beyond ones own experiences - and so it will go that their hearts beat on in like manner. In this respect you transcend your own form - of that you are a master! I thank you and thank you again and in behalf of those you will never meet, nor I, for the doctrine you inspired in a style so unique that people do truly feel awe in witness of it and moreover are liberated by it in ways which will change lives for who can say how long?

    May you live long!

    Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:57:10 UTC | #607389

    Go to: CBS 60 Minutes - Christopher Hitchens

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by biorays

    Comment 19 by Sarmatae :

    I hate 60 minutes. That aside. At the 12:35 mark the interviewer asks in relation to Hitchens placing his faith in science and medicine, not in god"

    " Is there something that could change your mind, in your weakened state?"

    Now... Now I need Christ. Why this particular moment?" "Because now you are at your weakest...". That's! why this struck some sort of flashback for me. Those words. "Now you are at your weakest"..........

    I've oft wondered over the decades what exactly he meant by weakest. ........... But I wonder, he might have some subjective reasoning that puts his actions in the best possible light for his own benefit but what is the objective difference? It's still the same logistically.

    ............... That's the impression I got from that one question in this interview. If perhaps Hitchens were to switch his piety from science and medicine to god perhaps god will help. Or in reality since Hitchins doesn't believe in god then at least he may resort to grasping at straws. I mean, does anyone else find that pulling this type of psychological blackmail on a person who is suffering fundamentally sick? ........ That's sick, really sick and insulting. But par for the course for the theistic mindset.

    In my experience I can only suggest a few motives for religions condescending attitudes when faced with sincere and crystal clear reason. It is a range of 'self-image' emotional warfares they wish to wage and win on their own terms. They already pay homage to a fictitious comic book hero who is going to address and redress all of their woes and pains and who also, in their imagination, supports their every thought and feeling in respect of the increasing amounts of time they employ their mind beseeching. They identify with it more than they do themselves. In many it becomes the replacement for who they are but on a grander scale which befits the level of insult they feel when it is challenged or attempted to be made redundant. There are some who identify almost entirely with the virtuous elements of such a character and so feel endless pain when it becomes insulted - almost to the point of themselves being reduced to death and betrayal. But also I have, I very strongly suspect, seen very evil emotions smirked on the faces of the presumptuous - as if they somehow feel they have greater parity with goodness - in spite of their inability to read the hearts of the victims of their dismissive attentions. They are truly without understanding. They are wallowing in the mire of their own narcissism. They are exercising cruelty of thought and considering it virtuous. Their own inflated self image is become part and parcel of who their god is in their own mind.

    In this respect, at either extreme and across the whole range of 'self-image or alter-ego' gods it is the over-magnification of their own wishes and woes, their own desires and judgements that their own mind has been educated to role play as and as such cannot be easily communicated with, since when can a fiction ever be challenged on rational terms. To begin to debate it is to enter the imaginary world of theatre and deluded minds in some sincere attempt to get them to see from the other side of the 'looking glass'. And if theirs is an aloof self image one risks being spoken down to, but if a self sacrificing self image causing them incredible angst.

    There seems little to admire and lots to despise about the effects on the human of religious indoctrination!

    Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:56:44 UTC | #606083

    Go to: God and Disaster

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 219 by biorays

    Comment 214 by Guadeloupe :

    Problem with these kind of texts and opinions is that the writer assumes a god that has certain properties. That is a theological opinion. The other problem in this text seems to be that the writer also assumes that the god (with the properties he has assumed) would create a world where there are no risks and everyone would never die because of the nature. And maybe also that all us would be so loving and peaceful that there will be no wars or violence.

    Peoples 'assumption of god' is always an 'emotional logical fallacy'. It always includes a set of mental rules that are unsustainable and can be shown to contradict themselves. This is the individuals emotional slavery to ill-logic. This is the individuals self-doubt. This is the individuals hatreds and wishes - their vengeance and their dreams! Hence it lives in them as a fiction they are emotionally bound to defend and even to hate any who highlight its nonsense or point out its flaws. They are likely to despise the teacher of reality and love the friend of make-believe for it affords them a way out of the trauma of the mind and the often tragedy of life.

    This is the sad paradox of us humans who very often are trained and brainwashed to deceive themselves that they are seekers of truth when they are seekers of cravings of emotional succour.

    It is a sadness that Hitchens well describes when he suggests,

    "You can point it out to them but they will not thank you for it!"

    Which is why I feel indebted to him for having done so and for doing it so well - I truly do!

    Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:32:49 UTC | #605984

    Go to: Earth's daily woes prompt 'off the planet' theories

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by biorays

    Comment 1 by david2 :

    The desire to see suffering as punishment is very widespread, and many of those who have, apparently, abandoned religion apply the same moralized thinking nevertheless. All is innocence, but the love of finger-pointing is too great to leave behind.

    Religions desire for 'presumptuous judgement' is born out of humans subjective moralities and is so deeply entrenched in many humans minds that many fail to loosen it even if they consider themselves to have left behind belief in religious myths. In this respect it demonstrates our emotions still deceive the mind whilst the mind considers it knows what it is doing.

    Let us not forget that religions, and all that is in them, are born from human desires and emotions and so it is to be expected that some congruence remains is spite of as well as within them.

    Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:46:55 UTC | #605580

    Go to: Free to teach creationism?

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by biorays

    The "Passport of 'free for all' fictional moralities, fears and eutopias" is mental illness sewn upon the hypothesis of creationism being taken as fact. This is why it is dangerous to permit this assumption and more especially so when interwoven with education, which poses upon an expectation, particularly to its students, that it must be taken seriously and form a superior benevolent authority, delivering rationality and intellectual rigour worth the individuals undivided attention. In order for it to fulfill this role I suggest it essential that education is bound over to teaching morality as free of 'unknowable speculations' and as such making it clear that historical guesstimates at 'unknowable speculations' are exactly that - made by humans and from nowhere else!

    Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:23:30 UTC | #605474

    Go to: God and Disaster

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 195 by biorays

    Comment 192 by catfacemeow :

    As a member of a church situated in Christchurch, very close to the cordoned city center, I did honestly find this article mildly offensive......

    ..... Either way, Christianity is more than worth it, and I have no qualms about dedicating my life to it. A heck of a lot better than dedicating my life to hatred towards a specific group of people.

    God Bless

    The 'mild offense' is highly likely due your goodwill being attached to an imaginary character whom you emotionally have accepted as real irrespective of all the intellectual evidence suggesting this character cannot possibly be an existential one. It really could only ever be fictitious - which is why the emotions play out lifelong support of it. It is absent rational analysis just in order for the very idea of it to be preserved!

    Hatred is often a very unpleasant energy and also usually born of emotional anxiety and irrational mindsets posing as if reasonable - granted.

    Love is usually specifically altruistic and empathetic though it too can be irreversibly polluted with hateful angers and vengefulness. In fact love has various definitions of mind-emotion combinations dependent upon each person. This is the difficulty with language when it addresses complex human thoughts and feelings attached to decades of life experience and taught behaviours.

    If it's goodwill you are in support of then I understand your motivations entirely. However we all have been born to an accidental inherited psychology of previous generations and often one it might take us a lifetime to loosen the irrational bondage to. Look at the thousands of attempted god-fictions of our ancestors - you perhaps consider mythological. If you do this from a neutral position it will not take you long to see that your god is just one more of the same. The ONLY reason your ancestors believed in their god was because of their emotions being overly attached to an inherited fiction!

    The suggestion ones life is predominantly beholden to a fictitious consciousness is admittedly 'offensive', but nevertheless more than highly likely true where religious 'characters' are concerned. There is far less that can be stated as fact about any such characters than most humans permit themselves to pretend to know. This is the poison of dogma and indoctrination that posits lies as fact down successive generations then judges humans by its imaginings. We have a right to be deeply offended by such evaluations of our mindset when confronted with emotionally inherited make-believe no matter how it magnifies itself as based upon altruisms of human existence. It does this to conceal its fake origins.

    I see your concerns that to erase 'god', for you, feels like you erase all that you have come to know as 'goodness'. How can fact compete with a fiction? Fiction is far more emotionally extreme. Just look at a childs fear of the dark when in reality there is nothing to fear! In this respect your emotions are probably over-magnified in respect to the character you have come to consider real. How to compensate that with truth and reason is painful and extremely time consuming, not to mention complicated and confusing.

    I also see your concerns that the secular world displays lots of evidence that seems alien to altruisms. Money and markets are barren to feelings and often search only for imaginary number increases on some computer databases which indirectly govern others lives in very ruthless and tragic ways. This is probably the 'reality' you despise and oppose when you see it present to you as an alternative to your fictional 'love'. I can wholly see why many get distracted by such alternatives but to me, to let ones emotions become consumed by what my mind knows to be false (old books claims about god )is like pretending to love capitalism because it provides us some benefits - when in effect its unconcerned with each individuals plight and much more preoccupied with looking at general trends and the profit margins of the powerful. Though this might seem a crude summary it's much closer to the truth than to consider someone out there really is watching everyones every move and rewarding them in kind!

    Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:33:16 UTC | #603866

    Go to: God and Disaster

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 191 by biorays

    Comment 173 by GFB :

    You do not understand the Holy Bible.Nowhere does it say that the earth was created 6000 years ago.If you read it and understand it you will see it was RECREATED because He just destroyed it.He is about to destroy it and you again.

    Take a look at this and see if you think there could be any truth in it.

    And for your quotes - if you scroll down whenever you post you will see an example of how your entry will appear. Experimenting with gaps [RETURN] after each > might help you!

    Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:42:30 UTC | #603665

    Go to: God and Disaster

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by biorays

    "This is a perennial puzzle."

    I think we all inherit emotional irrationality - coupled to the diversity of our biological desires and naivety that informs this complex dependent on our age and educatedness. The range of thought inspired feelings that arise when an aged grandparent passes away are significantly different than those coupled to untimely death - and especially more when that death directly removes ones sustenance and 'role-model' for life in the future to come.

    Irrationality is historically, inherently interlinked with despair and as such promotes a tendency. in the emotions, for a pleading to beseech the chaos of pure chance that delivered the tragedy to somehow redress the balance - as occurs in others lives.

    The very altruism in humans that desires equality and fairness has the potential to inhibit and dismiss rationality wherever extremes appear. And as we know, farming the masses, managing profitable margins via capitalisms 'market share' mechanics sees to it that irrationality is preserved wherever a dollar is to be had from selling 'feel goods' or similar feng shui psychologies.

    Religion is an old product in this respect and has evolved its own strata throughout histories periods of enlightenment and education to help itself preserve the irrational and raw emotions of countless generations. It is this we see before us, amidst the more rational and more educated composite of mind-emotion reactions we see as more healthy and supportable in the long term and for the benefit of future generations. Emotional solidarity in this respect is really in its infancy and the old ways all too easily are resurrected from their ancestral, inherited graveyards of consciousness identity.

    Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:28:10 UTC | #602275

    Go to: Coping with Death

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by biorays

    The loss of a most profound imaginary friend as ones own mind and emotions has been able to intellectually be deceived into attempting the lifelong job of fathoming is indeed the ultimate form of deceptively misleading, passed-on, self delusion. And when one realises how close one has become to being just another link in this multigenerational delusional chain, one can start to forgive oneself the naivety of 'hook line and sinker belief'. Ones own parents and grandparents were often misled into what oneself has fallen foul of. We are unpicking the knots of generations within our own emotions and mind-links to it all - unscrambling the inaccuracies of our culture and heritage and hopes and love of those closest to our lifes best intentions and goodwill.

    But the greatest problem lies in how to replace previous religious play-written fictions of ones own existence with a more realistic and still happy, though potentially much less enslaved and horrific, one when all of ones feelings seem still rooted or else wrenched in an imaginary past. Ones identity, now distorted, begins to feel a foolish spending of ones life - and to consider ultimate death lies in wait, as closer reality than the delusion that "Father Christmas awaits upon the chimney stack of ones own deathbed" makes life FEEL all the less MAGICAL and FEARSOME than the FAIRIES and TROLLS of ones fictional hopes and aspirations, compared to the seemingly less exciting limitations of ones own reality.

    But here you are - minus all the fears and horror show imaginings of religions perversions - but without its ambitious and almost unreachably concocted ideologies about a potential eutopia.

    Reality is soothing - eventually but then comes the bit about only catching the end of the show - like, 'If only I'd known earlier, how different it all would have been. And how my memories and nostalgia would have been all the more worth telling!" - This is what religion does to the human! This is how it ensnares their soul almost beyond the individuals own capabilities of recovery.

    My advice - Like a slave out of chains, just keep swimming for the shore! No matter how old you happen to be - you were born to be free! The pain is deep and the time lingers long there, but eventual release is real and the fears will disappear - forever and without reply! Trust in yourself and relax. We're all in this together. You are not alone. We all have the same reality as far as arriving and departing. There is nothing whatsoever to worry about!

    Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:04:02 UTC | #599190

    Go to: Coping with Death

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by biorays

    I think the 'aspirations after death' of previous generations are what has posited fictitious caricatures of this very emotion and scriptwritten it into our history and inheritance as if it were an all embracing celestial persona.

    This is the real and present danger of the emotion you share - whenever you permit hypothesis on an emotional basis to become as if it were factual. Given that all humans are prone to speculation, and especially emotional responses, it is not difficult to see how this is too few steps away from the historic dogma and indoctrination we see history littered with - the thousands of gods of oppression, punishment and delusions that many generations lived whole lives following as if it were more substantial than fact, causing fears and desires to usurp rationality and reason. We are reminded of this feature today being more prevalent than at any time in our history. It is a very sobering thought to consider we are doing exactly, but more so, what all the myths of our ancestors have passed down to us!

    Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:31:23 UTC | #599092

    Go to: Posters banned from railway stations published here

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by biorays

    Comment 87 by Billy Sands :

    Never did like the use of "for god's sake" - or the colours. I can also imagine fundies coming out with some crap like "see, atheists secretly know there is a god"......

    Funny how fundies use intellectual presumption to validate their delusions - but very predictable since their brains are hard wired to such circuitry anyhow. Occasionally I say "F*** me!" but never once has anyone responded in kind as if somehow it had literal intent - and that includes fundies which tells me they only use this angle when it suits!

    Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:09:25 UTC | #599024

    Go to: Posters banned from railway stations published here

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by biorays

    I've seen a 'Religious Trailer' poster recently - advertising to a choc-a-block 3 lane motorway traffic,

    "The wages of sin is death and a character from a 2000 year old Jewish play is the only redemption" (My 'enlightened' paraphrasing)

    Obviously the large trailer, farmers field poster worded this with dogmatic license.

    Are there any motorway resident non-theist farmers willing to offer 'trailer advertising' for the promotion of free-thought I wonder?

    Sat, 05 Mar 2011 11:17:05 UTC | #598951

    Go to: Catholic teaching in Scotland

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by biorays

    Myths and legends ought only to be taught as such unless the school insists on it being delivered as truth under the ultimate punishment of an after-death eternal torment - or in the mean time being discriminated against on the grounds that you do not believe in any such hell-hole and must therefore be of the very nasty type of human likely to enjoy life much more than we are able or may contemplate.

    Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:39:42 UTC | #596920

    Go to: Defending Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists from the Irrational Theist

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by biorays

    He seems to be arguing that placebo consciousness is not always violent and not always fueling more ill intent than alternative states of mind. But essentially his position is one of distraction - deferring the argument about religious consciousness being a placebo state of mind and one which conceals magnified evil (hell fire et al) in order to deter its followers from doubting its authenticity and get them to risk life if necessary in fending off any more rational opposers.

    His argument in effect is creating a placebo 'flurry' about a placebos value.

    Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:31:52 UTC | #596919

    Go to: Further reflections on discrimination

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 170 by biorays

    Religions are the original organisations of institutionalised discrimination:

    Do as we say or you go to hell!

    Propose their dogma in any rational meeting and it would be discarded as promoting hatred and de facto discrimination.

    How can there be a rational none-discriminatory response to such allowances as religion insists upon without it not being labelled anti-religious?

    This is the trouble with religious inheritance. It makes your 'family ideals' identify with mythological fictions and then rejects as discriminatory and evil any opposing facts or rational views.

    Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:26:02 UTC | #596213

    Go to: The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 145 by biorays

    I found myself feeling surprised at Anthony Hopkins choice to play a role that suggests,

    "Not to believe in a devil doesn't mean it can't get to you.."

    Such concepts, I feel, can torment young minds into that perpetual corner of consciousness pseudo logic that keeps telling itself it can never get away from evil huntsmen. What crude poison!

    I think it thespian effluent to portray such fictional dross as plausible reality.

    Am I missing something, or is there an underlying 'religious analogy' of intellectual value that I am failing to spot Hopkins selection? Or does this reflect his positioning on theism?

    Strikes me as bizarre!

    Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:17:00 UTC | #595652

    Go to: Richard Dawkins goes to Heaven

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by biorays

    I found myself contemplating recently, the often excruciatingly subordinate position of all emotions in which tragedy and death of loved ones occurs. It answers many of us humans wrestlings with reality when we consider how, in past much less educated times, it would be only natural for the confused and pained minds to search and explain the emptiness in terms of 'life beyond death' -as a kindness to ones own emotional pain. And moreso a perceived kindness to loved ones who seemed all the less able to tolerate their own grief and angst. In effect a placebo of fiction to address the real and present emotional losses and pains of living a reality which 'feels' all the more empty and unequal than previous or than other humans appear to enjoy.

    It's the despair of such emotions that tend to wish for alleviation of pain - in whatever way can be concocted for the benefit of oneself but more especially others one may love.

    This is what has posited thousands of theories (or religious fictions) upon humanity from previous generations without ever considering the 'mind/emotion pollution' they pose to subsequent generations.

    Like a 'human oil slick' they have leached through the centuries to enslave unsuspecting newborn generations to their complex mutating and evolving religio-political environments. The result is likened to the paradox of oil dependency. How can we live without something we would do better to survive without? And how can those who profit from it not tend to attack and oppress those seeking an alternative to that which is so obviously unnecessarily damaging, if it were not for the co-dependency it has established and magnified?

    So to see Richard being subdued by a fiction respecting the 'slick' of religiosity which identifies itself as a kindness placebo to placate and assists the raw emotions of bereaved and pained peoples is only to be expected. If it were only for the fact that it were a reactionary despair we could all the more display understanding and acknowledgement, but since we know of its 'other side' and how this creates a deceptive and much greater viral tragedy all of its own, we must insist on resisting what may otherwise seem kindly and sensitive to those of us experiencing injustice and trauma because in the longer term this is all the more necessary for us to do exactly that and display a trueness of love and care for our kind that can help increase kindredship of all peoples of the world in how they process thoughts and feelings in like manner to each other. The antithesis of our multi-religious past and a new dawn, underdeveloped and in its infancy for our feelings and thoughts to collectively embrace, in ways which supply all the answers to our collective and ever growing, ever human, despair.

    I see the OP fiction is exactly this - an expected but collective infantile response to the teething troubles of a new era = irreligious education in which humans become free of permitting statements of fact about things which are most obviously a fiction of our emotional despairs.

    Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:10:04 UTC | #595158

    Go to: Make anti-Catholicism as unacceptable as drink driving, says Peter Kearney

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by biorays

    Is this another way of saying,

    "Make Hell-Fire compulsory!"?

    I say send in the Fire Brigade!

    Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:21:32 UTC | #594035

    Go to: How to change a church school's admissions policy

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by biorays

    God is historically and essentially a placebo invisible, imaginary political dictator created by the powerful for the ultimate sakes of the powerful. As such those in power have resorted to 'God delusions' as a control to subservience, of the masses, down the generations.

    It is no surprise that education will be subdued to heavily include a 'religious virus' so that religions latent 'forces for control' can always be called upon for whenever the ruling class needs employ them.

    Power means religion is a de facto military tactic well proven historically and always likely to be preserved for the potential of its usefulness in this regard.

    People are just pawns in its grasp.

    The godless god sellers are always amongst us!

    Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:57:42 UTC | #593483

    Go to: Religion: the ultimate tyranny

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 115 by biorays

    A major mess religion causes is in its collective 'moralities'.

    Imagine yourself to be indoctrinated from young but then doubting your local faith-heads explanations about why life is as it is amidst the developing self - on into adulthood. One could readily understand a person considering whether 'other ideologies' have the "real answer" as compared to their own seemingly unnatural one. Such positions of confusion can be very messy in the life of any individual.

    I posit that the religious collective of 'moralities' (provided due respect by multiculturalism) is a REAL and PRESENT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM poison in the natural stages of development of the human. It is a tyranny to the development of healthy state of mind.

    Just compare and consider ALL the religious sanctioned 'ways of life' and then go convince yourself each are morally acceptable minus the relevant 'God'. You will be hard pressed not to call some criminal and seriously perverse. This is the context of next generations 'religious education'!

    Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:55:18 UTC | #592894

    Go to: Religion: Faith in science

    biorays's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by biorays

    Comment 25 by Andrew B. :

    Comment 19 by katt33 :

    I can see why militant and narrowly focused on semantics atheists and others might be offended or scared of the word faith in front of anything and why it might worry them, as there are those who will deceive and not be honest about their belief in a deity while pursuing science at the same time, which they should be if they are. Personally,I don't understand why the word faith is such a problem and why one can't simply choose not to attach a religious significance as I have done. When I say I have faith that science can explain the development of the universe, that is what I mean. I believe in the ability of science to explain how it all came about, developed, and even how deviations happen. The who it can't tell me and the why, not fully. That is okay, as that is not the job of science, that is left to philosophy and spirituality, not man made or constructed religion please as I have not much like for man made religion.

    I think a better word for faith (as you use it) is trust. Trust is actually built on something. We have trust-building exercises, or we ask whether or not someone is trustworthy, and these are built on actual, easily understood experiences and evidence.

    The problem is, one definition of faith is "belief without evidence" and another definition is synonymous with trust. "Have a little faith in me" could also be said "Trust me." In his debate with Richard, John Lennox tried to trip him up by asking "do you have faith in your wife?" to which Richard quickly answered "yes..." before realizing that Lennox was being duplicitous; he used one definition of faith (trust) while Richard had made it clear he was using another (belief without evidence).

    So, let's make that distinction between trust as belief with evidence and faith as belief without, and call out those who knowingly use a different definition and try to pass it off as though it were the only one.

    I strongly suspect the difficulty most people have is in what constitutes 'evidence'?

    And too their 'capability' of dealing with 'new evidence' as well as sorting out the 'current and relevant' evidence from 'historically defunct' evidence. How to move on from arcane ways of thinking has become a science all of its own.

    For example, thousands of 'gods' have been used by humans down the ages to prop up all sorts of atrocious standards and ways of life and 'class' to enslave people to. Does this stop them making up new gods- not at all. Current gods are much newer than say ones of past mythologies but the ones that 'survive' are those which have attached to the more literate ancestors of ours. They survive because records of them were kept and as such more transferable across time and ironically thus claiming to be 'original'.

    But does a believer utilise this evidence to inform themselves? Well no due their closed mind to what constitutes present evidence PLUS their incapability to accept present evidence. (this last point becomes even of greater relevance than the evidence itself) Past generations may be excused for so massively getting their pseudo science wrong due the lack of alternative enlightening science they had access to. Todays people - one would hope for more!

    In this respect a 'faithhead' is rendering themselves incapable of employing certain mind concepts and even a clear view of the 'critical' evidence. In this case that there can be (as far as real science is concerned) no god of their own 'suspicion'. However to them this character must exist because their mind sees it as existing and so they congregate with other similarly mutated thinkers about this especially 'script written god guess'. Can they change? - well absolutely yes! -as many examples amongst us prove. But to do so will usually take critical mind/emotion reformations. This is the painful mindset of the 'faithful' follower of a delusion - sometimes and often used to pass on the suffering to non-believers in their brand of woo! It is this which 'blinds' their comprehension to the real state of reality. Their 'suspicions' are perverted by past less educated ways of thinking, tribal group style 'follow my leader' and reluctances to liberate their minds away from fears about fears. A failure to employ intellectual honesty to the situation before them.

    In this respect faith (and what is seen as evidence) is a liar and a corrupter of truth. Faith in this context is the opposite to the concept that has traditionally been attributed to it as altruistic and rooted in goodness. History has changed its 'aura'. Education has seriously dimmed its light except inasmuch as it might become transferable to one persons view of another!

    Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:08:35 UTC | #592854