I think the answer to that question is not yet fully known, but we can get some hints from trends we can see in an increasingly secularized parts of the world.
Some will point to the atheism of some totalitarian regimes as evidence, or say they observe an increase in violence, immorality, blah, blah, blah; I often find serious flaws in those lines of arguments. Secularism does seem to promote humanism and pluralism, in my opinion.

But I'm curious about some other elements of our modernizing life. When religion stops being the ground on which one walks, is there an impulse to find some functional replacement? Specifically, do we look for new myths (I mean that in a non-pejorative sense)? New rituals? New community? I see some hints here and there that this might be the case. Without religion, are we at risk of being more lonely? More at-loose-ends with the biggest life events (e.g., death)? More at sea in looking for pungent metaphors by which we might poetically express our most deeply held values? I don't know, but I have some suspicions.

I do distinguish between better and worse religious traditions, having lived inside some of each. Some traditions fear critical thinking while others encourage it. Some promote an odd combination of arrogance and self-loathing, while others teach ways of humility which don't compromise positive self-regard. It may be my biases talking, but I think poor religious education is more a problem than religion per se. Does the rise in secularism hurt religious education?

Popular culture phenomena, especially in fantasy and some Science Fiction, look to me like the secular world remains hungry for epic myths-- Avengers, Game of Thrones, etc. Is this a kind of religion substitute? Does poor religious education make one more vulnerable to scams like Scientology? I do wonder.

Religious practice in America is alive and well. It’s called “sports”. They are as varied as classic religions. Gyms, yoga, Pilates, dance, martial arts, and of course soccer, basketball, baseball, etc. They’re a way to relate to your body and to other people, which is what religion did. The spiritual impulse always finds an outlet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 06:25PM by babyloncansuckit.

Yes, of course! We just have to trade in our religious myths for scientific or philosophical myths. (I mean that in a non-pejorative sense) Here are a few that are already beginning to take root:

1. There are multiple universes (quantum mechanics);

2. That all human cognition can be explained by neuroscience;

3. That there is no such thing as free will;

4. That there is no such thing as mental causation;

5. That telepathy is per se impossible;

6. That NDE's can be explained solely by appeal to the brain;

7. That there is no such thing as time (temporal order);

8. That religious faith is per se irrational;

9. That there *is* such a thing as *the* scientific method;

10. That only science can reveal truths about the world;

11. That science (or evolution) can explain morality;

12. That there are multiple universes (cosmology);

13. That evolution can explain everything biological;

14. That AI can in principle duplicate human beings;

15. That all of the above can be inferred by critical thinking.

16. That any one or all of the above are not myths.

Now, once this all takes a firm root, and we see the result, we may long for the "good ole days" of religion. Then, at least, all we will have to worry about is stamping out excesses, and we can stop worrying so much about whether any if it is really "true." As much as I love science and scientific "truth," --and I am obsessed with both -- I *do* worry when science so badly misses the mark that it becomes the scientism of the new generation.

Hahahahahahahaha......!!!!

Okay, I’m on an island just off the BC coast; just finished up tasting wine and dropping a thousand on the goodly grapes; now waiting for the hippies to make me a goddamn pizza; and all this after a morning running on a surprisingly arduous trail —what i’m Trying to say is I’m looped, hooped good and happy——. However:

Damn it, Bemis, you are hilarious! If it wasn’t for the sacred cows on this site, everyone would know it.

Good stuff, as always. Thank you.

Human

Thanks, Human:

Okay, it's morning now. So, get up, take two aspirins, have a cup of coffee, and get on with the day! After all, another evening awaits you, and there are plenty more of the good grapes out there! :)

Live to party another day, is that the idea? Ugh...

Today will be coffee and more coffee and reading and little else if it can be helped.

Maybe i’ll Go through all the articles I have bookmarked about AI and the brain...but probably not. I’ll always be a lapsed something or another.

Cheers Henry!

But it’s a tiny generation because very few people are thinking about the ideas you list.

They/we are busy living (attempting to disprove number 10 without establishing the meaning of truth).

I think you’ve taken on a fictional enemy. Fear not.

But it’s a tiny generation because very few people are thinking about the ideas you list.

COMMENT: True, but the people who *are* thinking about such things are teaching the next generation. Cultural changes are subtle, as we see over and over again, sometimes for the better, but not necessarily so.
_____________________________________

I think you’ve taken on a fictional enemy. Fear not.

COMMENT: Well, I would not say, of course, that science is the "enemy." And my concern has not yet reached "fear."

That said, if I had a teenaged child entering college for the first time with a naïve and susceptible mind, I would be very concerned about her taking Philosophy 101 from Dan Dennett or Patricia Churchland; or Psychology 101 from Daniel Wegner. Or for that matter, a general science course from Laurence Krauss or Sean Carroll, or an Evolutionary Biology class from Richard Dawkins. It is not that such people (and these are just well-known examples) are not smart, or even brilliant; or that I question their credentials. It is just that their views are highly distorted, and in some cases actually false (IMHO). Their popular writings are offered as a representation of objective "science," "reason," and "truth." while in reality they seek to advance their own favored scientific theory and/or materialist philosophy; often without much interest, thought, or understanding of alternative points of view, or, most importantly, the affect of their views on human values.

As just one example, if an AI scientist, or neuroscientist, talks long enough, and compelling enough, about how humans are just biological machines, while offering perfunctory and utterly lame attempts to salvage human free will and morality, sooner or later the students will adopt the former, and see through the latter.

" their views are highly distorted, and in some cases actually false ." ... give us some examples.

"3. That there is no such thing as free will;"

I don't believe such a thing exists because I think of myself and others as creatures with will just nothing like we think of in freedom. We can't operate with much autonomy and the only freedom I can us having would be free expression of willfulness. Our consciousness might not be an agent with much freedom of self interpretation and all of what we decide to do with ourselves might not be in conscious control. It probably isn't.

"7. That there is no such thing as time (temporal order);"

I think of time as a convenient human construction to define our perception of events sequentially. Our possibly intrinsic penchant for narrating our experiences and our desires for greater assurance in tracking events isn't the best evidence for proving time as we record it is a true reflection of objective reality.

Look at Scandinavia.

In Sweden, about 75% of the population consider themselves to be non-religious, with only about 8% regularly attending church services. So Sweden serves as a good example of a largely non-religious country in the western world. The Czech Republic is fairly similar.

I live in a secular society called France. Religion is considered a private matter and, as such, has no role in the law or the doings of the State. It works. It's not totalitarian. It's actually rather nice.

Tom in Paris

Fascinating question really, the effects are - we are living it.

It's like the idea we are actually still in "the Big Bang" -- it is still ongoing - we are just at the leading edge of one curly-cue on one end of it; it continues yet (where is SchrödingersCat)

Nietzsche foretold this phenomenon in 1882 - that's what "The Parable of the Madman" is about. He predicted the cataclysms of the coming century with two world wars and millions of millions dead as competing "-isms" fought to replace the "God is dead . . . and we have killed him."

And it continues today

He was much more a prophet than anything Mormonism has produced.

I think you and he are right. A secular society has to tolerate religion in the free exchange of ideas or it really isn't secular but something politically equivalent to religious control.

The Parable of the Madman

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

"I have come too early, my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

This "end" is near! Repent people of the earth for killing God and replacing effigies of human enlightenments in its place!

"Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard."

Lightning and thunder have arrived. They are called The Internet.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lightning and thunder have arrived. They are
> called The Internet.
====================================
Love it!! +1

Yet it is actually a fascinating point re: internet, and caused some thought.

Seems though jolly ol' Nietzsche was perhaps reflecting on what he saw as coming still.

The Age of Enlightenment "killed" a god who lay dying - and without that gravity, earth is flung free from it's star, journeying to an as yet unknown place. "- isms" (capitalism, communism, fascism) - all struggling for dominance -- to replace that dead god who we killed -- would cause the bloodbath that was the last century. He saw the war was one of Ideas: the deaths, but an unfortunate side-effect.

In 1882, Nietzsche stood in that idyllic calm before the storm: after the enlightenment started, but before the cataclysm that would result.

And it continues.
The internet is a "God's eye view" into a world where this continuing struggle may be witnessed online - in real time.

Dr.No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The internet is a "God's eye view" into a world
> where this continuing struggle may be witnessed
> online - in real time.

Love it!! +1

When I was there, I was surprised to learn that non-church going taxpayers financially support a dominant religion.

What happens when a society becomes a full blown theocracy ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What happens when a society becomes a full blown
> theocracy ?
===============================

Inquisitions

(Historically)

Some other "ism" will dominate. Humans have to have something to herd about.

We don't like not having answers so we would find another way to make them up. I got a grin from Henry's list.

We don't like not having answers so we would find another way to make them up. I got a grin from Henry's list.

COMMENT: Well, the list was sort of tongue-in-cheek, and I imagine Human's laughter and your grin came from entirely different perspectives.

Humans of all stripes no doubt long for answers to life's puzzles. What was intended by my list was to show that the religious are not the only ones capable of making stuff up. Science is also very good at that. As a biologist, all you have to do is survey all of the wildly speculative adaptionist "just-so-stories" offered to explain essentially all of biology and psychology (not to mention sociology and everything else). And when some well-established phenomena cannot be explained at all, science is perfectly capable of "making up" that it doesn't exist, or that it is just an illusion!

Finally, I offered 16 proposed scientific myths, and so far there have been no challenges to a single one. I take silence as acquiescence; grins notwithstanding.

It's not acquiescence, Henry, it's fatigue. Most of your assertions are absurd mischaracterizations over which few want to waste time and energy.

Response? Okay, done quickly and without a lot of thought.

16 is just stupid. You characterize things as myths and then say it is a myth not to accept your conclusion. What does one say to that?

15 is likewise fatuous. No one thinks all of the above can only be understood logically: it is entirely possible that logic cannot get us to the answers of some questions. That does not mean, however, that illogic is a preferable epistemology.

9 is simply false.

1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12,13,and 14 are not "myth" or statements of fact. They are hypotheses to be tested empirically.

7 is silly because it is both true and false, just like relativity and quantum mechanics, systems that apply in extreme situations and hence are real but irrelevant in virtually all cases. There may not be fixed time if one can move faster than the speed of light, but no one can do that so it doesn't matter. If you want to deny that, go ahead. But you'd better put away your laptop since it works on the same principles you are calling "myths."

8 is nonsensical because religion explicitly embraces irrationality as a tool for reaching truth. You can endorse it as an effective way of discovering reality, but you can't claim the mantle of rationality for a system that relies disproportionately on irrationality or supra-rationality.

Have at it, Henry, but you'll find few people who want to follow you into a list of arbitrary assertions that you pulled out of your hat.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not acquiescence, Henry, it's fatigue. Most
> of your assertions are absurd mischaracterizations
> over which few want to waste time and energy.


Lot’s Wife, with respect, this is gratuitous and perhaps lacks self-awareness (if not actual projection). You post more than anyone else, and some have complained about being fatigued by the fact.

But I am glad that you decided to waste time and energy (by your own reckoning) by responding to Henry. His tongue and cheek is more pregnant with thought, by my reckoning, than most posters/posts. That is true of you, too, and I thank you for it.

Human, I like Henry. I do think this list is arbitrarily composed and hence difficult to address. So I said that. Sometimes silence means people don't have an answer, sometimes that they can't be bothered to formulate one. so I said that.

I have no problem with your calling my post gratuitous. I don't think I lack self-awareness, but it doesn't bother me that others may think that of me.

I have nothing but goodwill for Henry or for you even if I can sometimes be forceful in expressing my opinions.

It's not acquiescence, Henry, it's fatigue. Most of your assertions are absurd mischaracterizations over which few want to waste time and energy.

COMMENT: "Fatigue?" I rarely post here. Yet, you post daily and often at great length challenging everything you do not agree with long diatribes. But now with me its fatigue. Sorry, I am not buying it.
__________________________________

Response? Okay, done quickly and without a lot of thought.

COMMENT: Obviously!
___________________________________

First, let's get clear about what a "myth" is in the context of my comments. For my purposes, a "myth" is a belief within some community that is widely believed to be true within that community without sufficient evidence to support such a belief. That is essentially what I have in mind. It is not the only definition, obviously.

So, here is my response to you:

"16 is just stupid. You characterize things as myths and then say it is a myth not to accept your conclusion. What does one say to that?"

COMMENT: Everything on the list meets my definition of myth. 16 is a catch-all offered mostly as a joke. However circular (which I, of course admit) it would not be surprising for someone (like you) to claim that my assertions themselves taken together as a postulate were in some sense mythical. But, again, this was obviously a "catch-all" joke, which was not intended to stand on its own.
________________________________________

15 is likewise fatuous. No one thinks all of the above can only be understood logically: it is entirely possible that logic cannot get us to the answers of some questions. That does not mean, however, that illogic is a preferable epistemology.

COMMENT: Those who believe in these scientific "myths" most often *do* appeal to critical thinking as a justification, ala when Richard Dawkins insists that religious faith is per se irrational (#8)
_____________________________________

9 is simply false.

COMMENT: Nice argument. But in fact there is no such thing as "*the* scientific method. Here is how Paul Feyerabend put it in his book Beyond Method:

"A scientist who is interested in maximal empirical content, and who wants to understand as many aspects of his theory as possible, will adopt a pluralistic methodology, he will compare theories with other theories rather than with 'experience,' 'data,' or 'facts,' and he will try to improve rather than discard the views that appear to lose in the competition. For the alternatives, which he needs to keep the context going, may be taken from the past as well. As a matter of fact, they may be taken from wherever one is able to find them - from ancient myths and modern prejudices; from the lucubrations of experts and from the fantasies of cranks. The whole history of a subject is utilized in the attempt to improve its most recent and most 'advanced' stage. The separation between the history of a science, its philosophy and the science itself dissolves into thin air and so does the separation between science and non-science."

In sort, there is no sacrosanct "scientific method" despite the fact that scientist like to think they are doing something special. There is, of course, experimentation. But that, of itself is not a unique scientific method, since we all do that. As physicist David Deutsch has said, science is about "explanation" more than experimentation.
_________________________________________

1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12,13,and 14 are not "myth" or statements of fact. They are hypotheses to be tested empirically.

COMMENT: I cannot respond to this. These items are "taken as facts" by many scientists, even though NOT established empirically.
_________________________________________

7 is silly because it is both true and false, just like relativity and quantum mechanics, systems that apply in extreme situations and hence are real but irrelevant in virtually all cases. There may not be fixed time if one can move faster than the speed of light, but no one can do that so it doesn't matter. If you want to deny that, go ahead. But you'd better put away your laptop since it works on the same principles you are calling "myths."

COMMENT: Scientists accept Einstein's theory of relativity which is notoriously mathematically associated with a "block universe." A block universe does not have "temporal order," i.e. a lived past present and future. So, at least this part of the theory is a "myth" science insists upon because it is quite obvious (at least it seems) that there *is* such a thing as temporal order. THat is why the universe is expanding 'in time." (See physicist Lee Smolin, Reinventing Time.)

So, what you are saying is "silly," apparently reflects your own ignorance about science.

__________________________________________

8 is nonsensical because religion explicitly embraces irrationality as a tool for reaching truth. You can endorse it as an effective way of discovering reality, but you can't claim the mantle of rationality for a system that relies disproportionately on irrationality or supra-rationality.

COMMENT: Again, this is just false. There are thousands of theologians out there that earnestly strive to present religion in rational terms. Moreover, religious experiences and their interpretations are seen as personal, empiricl, and rational, not irrational. Irrationality is rarely seen as a virtue in mainstream religion. Rationality also encompasses effective decision-procedures in the face of lack of knowledge, which for some may well justify religious faith.
_____________________________________

Have at it, Henry, but you'll find few people who want to follow you into a list of arbitrary assertions that you pulled out of your hat.

COMMENT: Why don't you focus on one signal item on the list and engage me in an extended debate on a separate thread, instead of throwing a bunch of ill-conceived mud at the wall hoping something will stick.

Henry, you may not post often, but when you do, it leads immediately to an infinite series of rebuttal COMMENTs, an infinite series that does not appear to ever converge (calculus humor).

Hence the fatigue. Hie was pretty good at rebutting your assertions. I simply don't have the energy or the writing ability for it.

I do have an interesting rebuttal to your assertion that Gödel's Theorem "proves" that computers cannot possibly achieve what human intelligence can because computers are axiomatic systems, and Gödel proved there are parts of reality forever closed to them that humans can explore.

I am running my thoughts past a philosopher first for vetting, I shall return and report in due course.

Henry, you may not post often, but when you do, it leads immediately to an infinite series of rebuttal COMMENTs, an infinite series that does not appear to ever converge (calculus humor).

COMMENT: I realize I am difficult to respond to, and particularly that it takes a lot of time and effort, not to mention background knowledge. I also realize that the Board is not a forum to definitively resolve complex issues. As such, nobody "wins" an argument here, including me.

Also, there are plenty of subjects on the Board that I know little or nothing about, and that others here *do* know a lot about. I don't post on those subjects, but I often read them thinking maybe I can learn something. That is what the Board is all about in my view; exchanging ideas for better or worse.
______________________________________________

Hence the fatigue. Hie was pretty good at rebutting your assertions. I simply don't have the energy or the writing ability for it.

COMMENT: Yes, Hie was a worthy opponent of mine, and I miss his participation. I suspect that many people appreciated and learned from our exchanges, even when at times they became a bit heated.
_______________________________________________

I do have an interesting rebuttal to your assertion that Gödel's Theorem "proves" that computers cannot possibly achieve what human intelligence can because computers are axiomatic systems, and Gödel proved there are parts of reality forever closed to them that humans can explore.

COMMENT: O.K. I assume you are talking about number 14 above. The argument from Godel's theorem offered by Roger Penrose is in my view somewhat compelling, but not definitive. I have read arguments against this view and I think they have some merit. But this is not really my point on AI; just so you know and can discuss this with your friend accordingly. Godel's theorum is about mathematical systems, not human cognition. My point is that there are aspects of human cognition that are by their very nature non-computational; i.e. not susceptible to duplication through digital computer algorithms, or a neural network, however complex. This position arises from the failures of AI itself; particularly the "frame problem" and the limitations of the capacity of neural networks to represent complex concepts and bring them together for neural processing.
_______________________________________

I am running my thoughts past a philosopher first for vetting, I shall return and report in due course.

COMMENT: I will look forward to it.

Okay, I failed to see the joke. Apologies for that.

More generally, the problem I have with this sort of list is that while some, or a lot of, scientists hold one of your positions, most do not. So they are a series of assertions that I neither share nor believe many others share. It follows that asking us (egocentrically, me) to defend things we don't believe can be annoying.

But I acknowledge that that is just my view, others may and do disagree, and I've already demonstrated my failure to understand some elements of your post (the humor). So leave the soup and bread outside my attic door and Lot's Wife will be happy.

Carry on!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2019 02:08PM by Lot's Wife.

Okay, I failed to see the joke. Apologies for that.

COMMENT: Well, as I said, it was all "sort of" tongue in cheek. The softer point is that these are things that many scientists and certainly philosophers, often the most visible, subscribe to, which are really unsupportable from a scientific, philosophical, and/or intuitive standpoint. So, we should be a little reticent to jump all over religion for its lack of scientific rigor.
_________________________________

More generally, the problem I have with this sort of list is that while some, or a lot of, scientists hold one of your positions, most do not.

COMMENT: Agree, most probably do not. But then, most scientists probably do not think much about these things. And, each "myth" really has to be dealt with separately when considering just how far they are entrenched in scientific or philosophical thinking; and to what extent they might be right or wrong.
___________________________________

So they are a series of assertions that I neither share nor believe many others share. It follows that asking us (egocentrically, me) to defend things we don't believe can be annoying.

COMMENT: That's fine. I guess I was hoping that there would be one or two that people would want to dispute; i.e. claim that they were truisms, and not "myths." For example, 6, 8, 11, and 14, are pretty topical right now, and all of these, I think, would be affirmed by most scientists who had thought much about them.
_____________________________________

But I acknowledge that that is just my view, others may and do disagree, and I've already demonstrated my failure to understand some elements of your post (the humor). So leave the soup and bread outside my attic door and Lot's Wife will be happy.

COMMENT: O.K. My style in general is to get right to the meat and potatoes (or soup and bread), so this post was a bit unusual for me. But getting to the attic should not be a problem. We'll see.
_______________________________________

Carry on!

COMMENT: You as well! Thanks for your input.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>
> COMMENT: That's fine. I guess I was hoping that
> there would be one or two that people would want
> to dispute; i.e. claim that they were truisms, and
> not "myths." For example, 6, 8, 11, and 14, are
> pretty topical right now, and all of these, I
> think, would be affirmed by most scientists who
> had thought much about them.
> _____________________________________
>
I will express my opinion that some things are 'truisms' because I have 'experienced' them. I don't really care whether there is any 'science' behind something that someone else claims to 'experience' I only care to 'experience' something that few other people do.

I do not 'agree' with many things you noted, however, I believe I have experienced multiple universes in dreams and telepathy in current and past times.

In multiple universe dreams I am normally basically similar (Mormon since birth and career) however, after that alternative decisions were apparently made. What was cool was I experienced transportation in one universe that was like a bus or cab that took off into the air and traveled on unseen routes in the air ---- very fast. Of course, I had no idea of the technology it was more about my 'situation' in that universe. Seems like a 'spiritual' thing so the 'soul' can experience alternative decisions which I witnessed (church, career, family, etc.).

As far as telepathy, I was training in remote viewing and I was given an instruction to read the person's mind that was doing a lot of talking ---- I got a lot of concepts of Kings 'I have a Dream' speech. I also tried to 'influence by putting a thought' in my 'wife's mind' when she was at church. I did my procedure to try to make contact and immediately got a bad headache and said to myself some other time and got out. I immediately felt better. When my wife came home I asked how she felt --- she said she needed to take something and sit down as she had a 'terrible headache'. So I believe the contact was there and I knew what she was thinking, but I wasn't able to try to put 'thoughts' into her mind at that time because it was hurting me to be in her mind.

Unfortunately, I cannot argue anything on these subjects I have no idea what scientists or scholars have 'opined' on these issues. Most of the 'experiences' I try are based on utube videos of people telling of their experiences. If my 'intuition' says it is worth a try I try ---- I don't always succeed but normally experience/learn something.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2019 08:27PM by spiritist.

Please explain and support your blanket statement.

The world already has that in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and growing in other parts of Europe.

Of course, Europe, especially Northern Europe, is such a terrible place, so best to exclude it from our thought processes and keep fucking religion running our tribes, societies and nations.

Nietzsche was a member of the unemployed philosophers guild.

It has never happened. But I would be happy to find out.

HH =)