Now, I began paper-shorting the DOW at 14021.95 and pulling at 12517.94 and then waiting for the inevitable burst upward to catch the retail crowd who will think "15,000!" and crush them as it crashes downward, with newly expedited short positions, toward 8,500-10,000 between fall and spring perhaps one might recapture the profit opportunities of the late 1990's and the of fall 1987, perhaps we can equal or surpass our 1987 and 1998-1999 profits. We saw signs both times which many market experts missed. I see them again now and have watched them since last fall, now I am playing them in-and-out, short and long. Why did my cousin and I see things the "experts" missed? How did we? What did we see? Things which when we told our "expert" friends, professional traders, they laughed at and lost jillions, we frowned and made more than they lost. They called what we saw, "no ‘evidence’ of anything but a prayer and a fantasy...' some fantasy, some prayer. Small signs other missed, which took as synchronistic, just as I saw the victory of the USA Olympic hockey team and a few other portents, as a sign of a Reagan massacre in the 1980 elections while everyone else said, "it is too close to call..." I made paper gentlemen's side bets of more than a year's salary, at 10-1 odds, which on paper looked like financial suicide, with nothing "evidential" to go on but my vision of synchronistic events. I won going away. Even a few days before the election the "experts" were saying, " ...too close to call..." some of our paper bets included margins of electoral votes and we swept those, yet in the town in which I represented as campaign chair, a mayor and 6 alderman we reversed a 7-1 Republican sitting aldermanic advantage and elected a mayor besides, while all around us experts of the democratic party were losing to underdog Republicans. How did that happen with "no evidence" in my rookie year as a campaign chair/consultant?
Jung saw in the phenomenon symbolism of psychic import to the person's to which they occurred ( Synchronicity). Many of them were portents and prophecies of some great accuracy. (See Jung's small book, Synchronicity for complete details) So concerned was he over the strange nature of what he called Synchronicity, that after discussing it with Einstein he asked for a clarification. Einstein's two answers to Jung's question was not inconsistent with his answer to Bohr concerning the nature of the Quantum, "God does not shoot dice with the universe...." To Jung he said at different times when asked by Jung, "It is God's way of staying anonymous," And, "It is just God's way of letting us know we are not alone."
Einstein, Gödel, and other "geniuses," (their genius, was a form of prophetic vision) saw the universe as a creation of The Divine Intellect, which was the Father of Mathematics and Physics, the master Mathematician, Professor, Engineer, Architect, Builder, of all that is, The God Head, whose every move was based on His establishment and use of the Laws of Physics, at least as far as the rare Enlightened, mind could ascertain.
In my own studies of Anthropology, encouraged at first by my growing agnosticism and short lived atheism, (Which atheism, upon reflection, I saw as a form of anti-intellectualism, given the laws of science and nature as well as the enlightenment given as a gift to a trusted few) I connected to the very odd and occasional infallibly accurate predictions I made, and used them in making intellectual wagers with friends and rivals, upon opinions, which were, by the odds impossible ones, unpopular and some not even occurring to others, specific details, and I never lost. I did not profit from the wagers, never accepting any money unless it was to be sent directly to a charity by the loser. I can list some of my more noted and publicized "prophecies" like my novel Lost Seasons, written in 1996-1998 as a novelette, and when rewritten as a novel re-copyrighted in 2003, which tracked some of my newsletter predictions from 1994-2004. Since many of them were written online, dates verified, read and commented upon, they are incontrovertible proofs of accuracy. My publicized views of the Elizabeth Smart incidents, down to the last detail, the Shooters in Washington, the Tsunami, having written about it two weeks before it occurred and prediction the number of fatalities, the Fallwell death, the Duke Un athletes innocence, the fate of their prosecutor and that of Paris Hilton's prosecutor and a bit later her judge, are a few of so many more it would take more than a 100 page diary of prophecies we have kept here at my office, including the deaths of otherwise healthy people, the healing of some of them and much, much more to tell even the most well known.
If one has knowledge of, and the ability to read and write in Archaic languages of Aramaic, Hebrew, Coptic, Greek and Latin, one can see through the carefully nurtured currently available translations of the New Testament (NT), then wide variety of choices for each word or phrase, give nuance, shade and color to a predetermined final manuscript. However, the true Gestalt is that over 5400 versions of the NT are now in custody of various officials and institutions. The earliest are from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, and are copies of copies of copies, of copies of what originals, we know for sure, not. Stories within the four gospels approved by ancient bishops have been supplemented by new discoveries in 1945 (Nag Hammadi, more than 50 manuscripts of Lost Gospels) and 1947 (Dead Sea Scrolls). The Nag Hammadi, Lost Gospels show a somewhat different Jesus and a much different relationship between him and Mary Magdalene. They also appear to confirm the existence of the "Q" gospel as evidenced by the Gospel Of Thomas. That a creator exists seems a no-brainer for most scientists who have no rancor toward Him, as some deny His existence and then blame the non-existent God for the world's trouble's including the Holocaust. Whether or not Jesus shared Godhood, when one is able to read all the archaic languages, is open to question and interpretation-that he was at the least, a great prophet is not. What is also open to question is whether or not Jesus-Rabbi Yeshua, was a Christian, or a Messianic Jew and who really was the first Christian and the answer to that question begins and ends with what the real name of the religion we now have should have been called instead of Christianity, Paulianity.
Careful translations of the manuscripts with the native, archaic languages intact, reveals that when both Jesus and Paul spoke of the Chosen Ones, they were speaking of intellectuals with grace, those God had gifted with great minds and souls, to lead the people who were not so gifted. Men so Enlightened by God and gifted with an intellect of vast proportions, are the Chosen Ones, the prophets, those with both the humility to learn and the mind to absorb and deduct and see the future as clearly as the present, (and many cannot see, even as it unfolds before what is truly happening in the present). A good example of that are the present congress, administration, and those who support them and even many who do not. The Chosen Ones of God, if one carefully studies the words of Jesus and Paul, are far more often than not, the most Intelligent ones. Jesus and Paul were taking about the best and the brightest. It, is, however, good to keep in mind that emotion trumps intellect more often than not, so intellect alone is not the answer. A person in which high intellect mixed with empathy and selflessness, is more likely to be a Chosen One, then one who is less inclined or gifted in all of those areas.
Prophecy and The Cosmos My theories concerning the nature of knowing the past, present and future of some matters, are at once complex and nonetheless, quite simple. They are much in the manner of the Elegant, simple unifying force, Einstein sought in vain most of his life, but which now seems more feasible than ever.
The Creator, Master Designer, and all of the above titles, in some still mysterious way, created the universe according to a master plan, which I, like Einstein, believe tied to an elegantly simple unifying principal OF Astro-Physics.
In Primary school, and then again in high school, I wrote a paper, not more than a page and one-half, which presumptuously, predicted that soon scientists would discover a new particle/wave/packet-(quanta) which never moved below the speed of light. I called it variously, the vehiculum/transportatus/transmitto (Latin for carry/transport/convey, because keeping in mind at the time and still today, I thought about Plato's theory of a stream of consciousness running through the universe which contains all knowledge, and those gifted to interpret/locate/translate, through means called Infused Contemplation, or Bestowed Enlightenment, can appropriate the knowledge on this cosmic conveyance belt. Together with that, I wondered what the physical properties of prayer were and how and by what means prayers are carried to God. Did it now known as the Tachyon, have anything to do with the conveyance belt, which Plato described? Recently scientists have initiated a Turbo Charge to light packets enabling them to exceed light-speed (see, Scientists Break The Speed of Light), http://www.itnews.com.au/News/47047,scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.aspx
Not so many years later when I began to study physics with increased fervor and in deep earnest, I discovered the entity called the Tachyon, which never travels below the speed of light, is capable of traveling back and forth in time. It certainly had a familiar ring to it. At the same time, I began to study the quantum, which sounded to me in synchronicity with Plato's Band of all knowledge traveling through the universe, and the ability of those few gifted ones, able to tap into it, along with the Hebrew belief that each generation God appoints 36 "unknown" prophets. Moreover, I began to formulate a theory of the functionality and vehicle for prayer delivery of prayer. If indeed, I mused, God did create the universe, as Einstein and others believed, and created and used Mathematics and His Laws of Physics in the effort, than I believed his vehicle would be very similar to what we now know as the internet-I now call it the Outernet in my new novel, presently in editing: THE UNIVERSAL TRAVELERS AND WHY THEY WOULDN'T STAY HOME AND WASH THEIR DISHES I also recall that Gödel said that God Created a universe in which time was a sort of mirage, and that it did not exist. This idea is similar to revelations of many religions. Gödel elucidated on his theory/analysis which called into question whether or not time, rather than merely being relative, could be said to exist at all. He figured that Einstein's equations, could describe a universe that was rotating rather than or in addition to expanding. In that case, any relationship between space and time might become confused, mathematically. "the existence of an objective lapse of time, means that reality consists of an infinity of layers of 'now' which came into existence successively. But, if simultaneity is something relative , each observer has his own set of 'nows' and none of those various layers can claim the prerogative of representing the objective lapse of time."
Therefore, Gödel said, that, in a space vehicle, round trip, traveling in a sufficiently wide curve, it would be possible to travel into any region of time, past. Present and future and back again. However, he said that would be absurd because then we could go visit and speak with younger versions of ourselves, or worse older versions come to visit younger us, (which prompted me to muse over 'ghosts' visions, premonitions, prophecies etc.). Boston U. Professor Palle Yourgrau in his book on the relationship between Einstein and Gödel, World Without Time, said that, Gödel made a "...powerful argument that if time travel is possible, time itself is not." (Some of the above utilizes material from Walter Isaacson's, Einstein, His Life and Universe and other sources.)
Thus, my theory of prayer and myself (or you and yourself) using the Laws of Physics to go and come into the presence of God and He into mine (or yours). The Internet gave me the opportunity on air when a noted commentator, 'humorist' made sport of the idea of a "Guy in the sky," fielding billions of prayers and sorting them out is ridiculous and impossible. My reply, was, "like the Internet and email, is impossible, you mean, for both do exactly that, using the laws of physics..." He was flummoxed. I mentioned it to a friend a physicist and he said to me, "Between your logic and my discovering that the motivating/engine propelling the Quantum is not within the physical universe, as you predicted, has caused me to review my agnosticism, and I thank you for that... I think!" Meaning of course that when he comes out of the closet about now being a believer, it might be to his disadvantage in his scientific community, which appears to favor atheism. However, the result was that the engine outside the universe business, had converted many non-believers to at least searchers.
And So, What of; Bush, Ashcroft, Comey, Gonzales, Time/Space, The Nature and Efficacy of Prayer, God, Jesus And Astrophysics? God, the God that appears to evade Organized religions, with their closed minded, ungodlike dogma, appears to be the Master of Irony in many things, and the irony which causes halt to some whose judgments were, because of their empathy and insight, shown not to be infallible, came no less powerful and unlikely by human judgment, in the case of John David Ashcroft, in the case of rejecting the Wiretapping Surveillance program, even though under great duress in several areas. He, despite his Fundamentalist religious orthodoxy, was far more a man than the entirety of the Democratic and Republican Congress and Administration. His belief, though we may find it odd and unintellectual posed no problem to his underlying conscience and strength of character. He simply said NO! to corruption of our Constitution, a thing the Congress and the administration could not restrain themselves away from their addictions to do, themselves. My prayers have been tied to my painting which can be viewed above and in greater size and detail at http://www.bagnoloart.com Once there, along top of homepage go to the button marked EXPERIMENTAL, click it, when reaching the page, scroll down four rows, on left see WELCOME TO VIRTUAL HADES. Click on the image to enlarge it.
That there is a Creator, to me, after my studies and Ford Foundation recipiency leading to a dual Masters Degree, one segment of which was in Cultural Anthropology (adding to a BA in Physical Anthro) is a foregone, scientific conclusion. The laws of science, the very nature of the Big Bang, so reflective of the Hindu model, Lavoisier and the Law of Conservation of Mass, Energy can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed-The First Law of Thermo Dynamics. I will add that neither can life and that it is not just Jesus who returns, God or no God, it is all of us and to kill another human being is an action in contempt of God, nature, matter and the gift of life and such actions bring down upon us all who allow it, a curse, worse than death. The Prophet Jesus once said, "Be not afraid of those who merely kill the body, but of those whose kill both body and soul... ." We are matter, the same matter, according to Carl Sagan, as the stars and the cosmos. His words, though he claimed (falsely, I submit) to be an atheist, he was prophetically correct-we are matter and we neither can be created nor destroyed, our essense lives on past the death of the body. Whether or not there is a the sort of Heaven and Hell Organized Religions seem to hang their hopes upon, I cannot say, but I can say we are not destroyed when our husk deteriorates, but those who stand in contempt of congress, the courts, the laws, the tenets of humanity, as expressed in the Commandments and other attempts to seek out and identify moral behavioral truths, one thing seems certain, those who love to do evil things, will pay, one way or another, and not just here on this level of life. Good Night and God Bless
Professor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ, reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8. Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate Research Assistant position in college. He holds a triple bachelor's degree in Painting and Drawing, Anthropology, Architectural Design Advertising. MA's in Cultural Anthro, Painting and more. After being tenured he taught; architecture, anthropology, Theology, advertising, painting and drawing, entrepreneuring and Creative Profit Making. He produced a star-studded Music festival, had a radio talk show in Chicago, and cable TV show. Now, retired from Teaching, he paints, writes, and pursues other ventures.
The above bio harvested from the comments of Deans, colleagues, students, clients and collector's.
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem-the most important of all human problems."
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist
Spinoza was esentially an atheist, agnostic, pantheist, deist -- he believed in a 'something' -- an order of some sort in the universe, but nothing like a personal god as referred to in the Bible. Whether you can say either Einstein or Spinoza beleived in God depends very heavily on how you define 'God'.
As for IQ, do not mistake IQ for intelligence -- they are much different. Intelligence itself is very difficult to define, and there are many definitions -- and as a predicter of any sort of success that's very problematic. Obviously there are many people of extremely high intellignece (whatever that may be) who never succeed to any degree simply because they were born as peasants in a repressive society, or must contend with other poor circumstances. Some also never think about 'intellectual' things, for various reasons -- or never communicate their thoughts.
There is also the problem of anyone creating an intelligence test unless they are at least as intelligent, and *in the same way*, as those he would wish to test. There are worlds of intellectual capabilities which IQ tests never even touch on. The super-genius flying saucer people would be too bored with an IQ test to even take one.
As for any conclusions a highly intelligent person may come to, one can generally find some other highly intelligent person who disagrees completely. (Asimov, Sagan, Russell, Dawkins, Volatire, Shaw, Edison, Darwin, and Feynman were all atheists or agnostic to a significant extent.) In any case, an 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy.
As for prophesy and tachyons (or quantum consciousness) Stuart Hameroff has some interestng ideas, but also much opposition from the scientific community -- and he is speaking about 'backwards time' for only very short periods (long enough to account to gamma synchrony 40Hz.)
All I can conclude from my own prognositicative dreams and such is that 'there is something strange which seems to occur' at times -- but beyond that I must let it simply be classified what my Irish ancestors might call 'second sight' or 'fey' -- and remain unexplained, with no conclusions whatever. We should resist the urge to wrest meaning from assumed anomolous experience, as is the brain's tendency to do. Ambiguity is not a bad thing, after all, even it is often a tad uncomfortable.
And no, I'm afraid science is in no position to say anything at all about god. That would be a gross category error, and a scientist is hardly especially qualified to speak about theological philosphy. Neither do I recommend buying some particular kitchen gadget because a gifted actor or athlete endorses it.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 12:04:36 AM
In his comments to Horgan, Dawkins. claims to be an atheist yet blames the "non-existent" God for the Holcaust. You can't have it both ways. He is no more an atheist than is the late pope John, he is just pissed at God. Einstein who bristled when called an atheist, adamently endorsed his belief and though he siad often he did not beleive in a personjal God, he none-the-less prayed and endorsed Jung's theories about God's intervention in the lives of poatients who exclaimed synchronistic events. I suggest you read the Bio- by Isaacson: Einstein. It, since I met and spoke with him at length as a "Boy-Wonder," in 1949, my childhood after writing my now prophetic paper on Vietnam and world events and the coming destruction of the environment, is one of several I have read.
The reality is that I don't give a hoot what anyone does or does not believe, I am smarter than your atheist friends listed above and therefore I am my own sole authority on the existence or non-existence of God. Woody Allen says his exwife gave him rational why he did not exist, but I think I have seen him less often as I have heard from the alleged non existent God. Dogma and Organized religions to me, are not of God, and I doubt that he gives a rats-ass about a good many things priests, ministers, Mullahs and rabbi's think or think he says or thinks. I also believe that God does not care if a man is an atheist, as long as he is sincere in his reasoning. As far as Jesus is concerned, when one can read and write the Archaic languages one has call for doubts. Jesus was a Liberal Jew, Paul was the "Christian" I fought side-by-side with 2 atheists, one died an atheist, the other asked me to pray for his soul-I did, prayed for both of them.
This appeared online sometime back: Whether it is BS or true I do not know. It is a long URL so it has to be patched together. The URL is long and it seems to not fit and when I try to break it up it makes a mess but it is on the Atlanta Facons site.
"It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.
He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade.
Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvelous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room.
He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.
"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered - "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"
Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.
He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."
Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"
"What shall I speak about?" I asked.
"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."
How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day."
Hope you have a good day
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1265 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 11:33:51 AM
is most certainly an atheist. You can see videos on the web, and read his writings (and his latest book The God Delusion). You have seen the quotes from Einstein.
You decide for yourself what you believe? That's fine -- then stop trying to justify what you believe by citing others. My point in bringing other up was to say that for the people who believe in god there are also those who do not, and there is no logical justification for turning to others for your own beliefs in a matter where it is ONLY belief which matters, and no evidence: none of those people are authorities as far as theology goes, and even among theologians there is great disagreement. As Siddhartha Guatama, the Buddha, said, follow your own light (and he himself appears to have been atheistic in most senses). In general, there is a positive correlation with IQ and educational level and atheism -- but even that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. If I'm an atheist with a few IQ points higher than you should that mean that you should uncritically defer to my judgement about god -- or anything else? Of course not! All it means is that having a modicum of intelligence does not preclude the opposing position -- and this should not be compared to the situation of a very smart person vs one with intelligence within average ranges where the 'weight' of such opinion should count for more (while even then introducing no certainty). Even the brightest people can do absurdly stupid things. Have you never poured milk in the sugar bowl, put the coffee pot in the refrigerator, went back to the computer, reached for a drink, and wondered why your coffee cup was empty?
Notice also that IQ tests generally put one through a series of very common and simple tasks and rate someone on how quickly they can do them -- testing neither depth nor breadth nor other such qualities of thought. The worst of then rely on someone having general knowledge, large vocabulary, knowledge and experience in pattern matching and math, and other things which test not intelligence as some abstract quality, but experience and education: one can study for an intelligence test and improves one's score dramatically. What, then, is this "intelligence" which is being evaluated? It is like trying to decide the amount of gold in a mine by assaying the samples o the surface or drilling one core -- it's hardly reliably representative of whatever the abstraction named 'intelligence' is. Here we have a situation where one is being tested with largely silly question, for a limited subset of an undefined set of qualities and capabilities, with the assumption that being able to answer questions more rapidly is significant (which depends on how awake or focused one is -- perhaps if they eventually did find a cup with coffee in it, and other considerations of one's mental state at the time) -- and all of this with a test both designed and scored by people who most likely do not have much of the qualities supposedly being probed.
As for believing in god, that's something highly dependent on experience and other conditions too -- including culture, education, social circles and support systems, mental stability and degrees of neuroses, or what drugs one happens to have taken, or even if one's brain is under the influence of magnetic fields. And this, all about a word, "god", which is rarely defined and which conception is rarely shared by those who consider it -- or certainly not communicated. This is as much beyond the context of logic and rationality upon which most discussions rest as trees are above (or below) the soil of the forest in which they grow. It is a conception which from the start ignores the very ground of rationality and evidence. Far more so than for intelligence, it like trying to fathom what the ecology of an ocean is by analyzing in Kansas a small bottle of water taken from some very large body of water in unknown location: in such circumstance it is impossible to conclude whether either actually exists or not, much less it's true nature if it does.
Personally, I am far more likely to give some credit to the idea that some non-physical realty exists (a "spirit world' or non-physical aspect of totality) than "god", but that is mere speculation and may be no more than an artifact of the brain, which evolved by the circumstances of physical existence. I can no more expect to experience god than to see radio waves or electrons, or for my body to walk as if it were aware of space-time relativity and event horizons. For all the stories I might hear, devise, and tell myself or others, they remain mere stories, with less basis than stories I might contemplate than those about electron probability clouds or bits of matter popping into existence due to quantum uncertainty.
They are tales composed by freezing a bit of a sea of profound ignorance. Even my intelligence is no more than a small house within a universe which even in its 'known' extent is beyond imagining in anything but the roughest of terms. One might as well try to describe the geology of a planet in some distant galaxy as try to say something definitive about god.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 1:15:41 PM
Is a reply to those who are trying to get me to agree with their beliefs. They can believe what they want. I don't telll them what to write when they write a column, but the lamest thing is when I write 2500 words about an issue and one mention of God brings a long BS diatribe, which ignores the main trust of the article. Well, that indicates self-discontent.
My Feelings? I don't care what a person believes as long as it is not pressed upon me, or argued when I don't care. As long as they are not urging mayhem or laws about what to and not to beleive, they are fine with me.
The mail I get indicates that VERY a large segment of those who read my stuff are believers as am I and they like what I write and do not go about as some do, nitpicking at silly stuff. You don't believe, fine, I don't care one way or the other. I reject Proselytizing and will continue doiing as I always do, write what I know. You are welcome to read it, but I really don't care what you believe. I write to my demographic, because they think as I do. Honestly, I have taught more than 20,000 students and most are intensely loyal, so much so that they tried to get me to run some are believers, some are not but they loved my classes, so popular were they that there was a constant waiting list to get in them.
Half my best friends have never indicated beloiuef or disbelief and it only pops up in conversation when oth. Three of my closest friends are agnostic, they ask me about the predictions because it blows them away that they are always so accurate. they too say as do you.... there is something out there because no one can be that acciurate by accident especailly when what you say is so unpopular and unthinkable at times. They are right as one professor who read my blogs said, "I started reaiding your predictions to prove you wrong, now some 75 or more later and not one error, I am convinced something is going on that I do not comprehend, (especially when you made predictions about news items about which you know little and they prove to be things no one else spoke of and you turn out to be right. I am an agnostic, but you have me wondering, becauset no one can be that good at guessing. So instead of a muckraker, I am a follower."
So there you have it.
You may buy into Dawkins BS, but for someone who does not beleive hge seems awfully discontented and is always writing lamely toantagonize believers. He is a beleiver, that is why he is so angry with everyone. In his field disbelief is a religion. he may fool you but he does not fool me. If he did disbelieve he would not waste his time calling believers names and trying to convert them I am trying to convert NO ONE! I write to my colleagues and fellow believers and religion is not the only thing about which I write.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1265 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 4:48:07 PM
I was thinking along similar lines long before I had any idea of what he said. But I do think he authentic when he says is an atheist -- I'm as good as anyone when it comes to trying to psychoanalyze people I don't know from a distance. :-D He does seem to be concerned about the damage done by religion -- and considering the reality I don't see his refutations of it as a bad thing.
As far as predictions, assuming they do exist outside of probability, then they are unexplained -- a mystery -- and I am content to leave them as that without trying to extrapolate anything from what is an unknown to begin with. As for belief, I have reached the conclusion that it is intellectually and philosophically invalid except as consciously applied to marshal and focus energy, as in 'positive affirmations' or a working of chaos magick (which I first learned about from a book by Austin Spare -- who you might want to look into as his artwork is rather good also).
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 5:47:57 PM
He's dead now. Google in the images section too and you can quickly find some examples of his work. You can also find references for him in hits found by 'chaos magick' which he largely started up.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 7:07:26 PM
I saw them Blue and also a few books on his work. I may order one. I have an enormous collection of art books. I love to paint and view the works of great figure artists.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1265 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 11:21:58 PM
