The second annual God Debate features atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris and Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig as they debate the topic: “Is Good From God?” The debate was sponsored in large part by the Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters: The Henkels Lecturer Series, The Center for Philosophy of Religion and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts.
This one is interesting too, the Cardinal ends up making no sense, and Dawkins gets pissed. A few comedic moments as well.
July 23rd 1973, that was the day I achieved contact with an extraterrestrial from Sirius or started hallucinating that i was depending on which way you want to look at it. I varied between both theories over the years.
Around 1973 I became convinced for awhile that I was receiving messages from outer space, but then a psychic reader told me I was actually channeling an ancient chinese philosopher, and another psychic reader told me I was channeling a medieval irish bard. at that time I started reading neurology and I decided it was just my right brain talking to my left brain. Then I went to ireland and found out it was a 6 foot tall white rabbit they call it the puka and the irish know all about it. So it depends on who I’m talking to which of these metaphors I use to explain where these weird patterns come from that jump out of the books and grab the readers and change their lives, its not me its a 6 foot tall rabbit.
“Robert Anton Wilson (born Robert Edward Wilson, January 18, 1932 — January 11, 2007), the American author of 33 influential books, became, at various times, a novelist, philosopher, psychologist, essayist, editor, playwright, futurist, polymath, civil libertarian and self-described agnostic mystic. Recognized as an Episkopos, Pope, and a Saint of Discordianism by Discordians who care to label him as such, Wilson helped publicize the group/religion/melee through his writings, interviews, and strolls.
Wilson described his work as an “attempt to break down conditioned associations, to look at the world in a new way, with many models recognized as models or maps, and no one model elevated to the truth.” His goal being “to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone but agnosticism about everything.”
This is a passage from the chapter entitled “The Turning of the Age,” in the book Sacred Economics written by Charles Eisenstein. The book explores the history of the financial system and the many stories that humanity is living out today that are leading to the rapid destruction of the earth, and the mass commodification of culture, nature, society… and everything really. It is definitely worth a read, and you can read it online at www.realitysandwich.com .
‘Two key developments mark the transition from childhood to adulthood, whether on the individual or the species level. The first is that we fall in love, and this love relationship is different from that of the child to the mother. In childhood, the primary aspect of the love relationship is that of receiving. I am happy to give all I can to my children, and I want them to receive it without restraint. It is right for a child to do what is necessary to grow, both physically and mentally. A good parent provides the resources for this growth, as our MotherEarth has done for us.
So far, we humans have been children in relationship to earth. We began in the womb of hunter-gatherer existence, in which we made no distinction between human and nature, but were enwombed within it. An infant does not have a strong self-other distinction, but takes time to form an identity and an ego and to learn that the world is not an extension of the self. So it has been for humanity collectively. Whereas the hunter-gatherer had no concept of a separate “nature” distinct from “human,” the agriculturist, whose livelihood depended on the objectification and manipulation of nature, came to think of nature as a separate category. In the childhood of agricultural civilization, humanity developed a separate identity and grew large. We had our adolescent growth spurt with industry, and on the mental plane entered through Cartesian science the extreme of separation, the fully developed ego and hyperrationality of the young teenager who, like humanity in the Age of Science, completes the stage of cognitive development known as “formal operations,” consisting of the manipulation of abstractions. But as the extreme of yang contains the birth of yin, so does the extreme of separation contain the seed of what comes next: reunion.
In adolescence, we fall in love, and our world of perfect reason and perfect selfishness falls apart as the self expands to include the beloved within its bounds. A new kind of love relationship emerges: not just one of receiving, but of giving too, and of cocreating. Fully individuated from the Other, we can fall in love with it and experience a reunion greater than the original union, for it contains within it the entire journey of separation.’
One guy I would die to have a conversation with…
“This hour long documentary explores the early beginnings of Krishnamurti as a child. From his early discovery by C.W. Leadbeater through adulthood every detail is covered peppered with interviews of friends, followers and family.”
“Primer is a 2004 American science fiction drama film about the accidental discovery of a means of time travel. The film was written, directed, and produced by Shane Carruth and was completed on a budget of $7,000. Carruth graduated from college with a degree in mathematics and is a former engineer. Primer is of note for its extremely low budget, experimental plot structure, philosophical implications, and complex technical dialogue, which Carruth chose not to simplify for the sake of his audience. One reviewer said that “anybody who claims [to] fully understand what’s going on in Primer after seeing it just once is either a savant or a liar.” The film collected the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 2004 before securing a limited release in US cinemas, and has since gained a cult following.”
Ligers, Geeps, and Zorses oh my…
An excerpt from the book 2012: Return of Quetzalcoatl by Daniel Pinchbeck (quoting John Martineau author of A Little Book of Coincidence)
“Venus rotates extremely slowly on her own axis in the opposite direction to most rotations in the solar system. Her day is precisely two-thirds of an earth year, a musical fifth. This exactly harmonizes… so that everytime venus and earth ‘kiss’, venus does so with the same face looking at the earth” — 8 earth years equals exactly 13 venus years, the five kisses between them crafting a perfect pentagon, carved out of space. The numbers 5, 8 , and 13 belong to the Fibonacci sequence, defining phi (the golden ratio = 1.61803399). Every 243 years, venus passes between the earth and the sun twice in 8 years– a pair of ‘venus transits’, visible to the naked eye. In our own time, an initial transit occurred on June 8th, 2004, to be matched by a second on June 6th, 2012. The venus transits also reflect the harmonic relation between the two obits–in those 243 earth years, exactly 365 venus days will have passed.
It’s interesting to note that the golden ratio that applies to so many biological and natural formations in our earth level existence, does in fact show itself on a larger scale in the universe. It seems to suggest some “galactic concordance” as Pinchbeck puts it.
What this shows to me is just an insight into the way matter and energy works. We study it to no end, and we have found out the basic laws by which it operates, yet it behaves to chaotically and randomly sometimes. Such as the spreading out of matter in the early universe. It spread itself out evenly but there was a small change in the spreading out of the matter so that parts of it gravitated towards one another and formed the galaxies we see today.
There is a program we are running on. How much of what we experience is a program and how much is free-will? Is not will movement or resistance against what is? Resistance to the program? Don’t we run on auto pilot without ‘will’? I will do this, I will do that. Are we really doing what we’re saying we will do, or are we just living according to the program, and our thoughts tell us we are willing things into being?
The program is the universe’s purpose. It has a purpose as long as we are aware. We give it a purpose by being conscious. We say there has to be a reason for all this experience, or else why would I be conscious? Couldn’t a brain run a human body on auto-pilot without it being ‘aware’ and having a ‘self’. If the universe runs on a set of laws and rules that govern its whole evolution, why need us at all?
Well, that’s a tricky one. When we’re aware of being aware, are we really aware? That question seems kind of strange but if you really stop and consider it carefully, we’re not really aware when we’re aware of being aware right? Because we’re focusing on that, and not what actually is. We’re focussing on our ‘self’ our ‘image’ of what we are or what we should be or change to be. But there is only one thing that is real and that is ‘the fact’. What you really are. Whether it’s you are jealous or angry or happy. That is the fact, that’s the program that the planets orbit on. The fact.
Is the self created by the program to be so emotional, personal, full of guilt and fear and desire so that it keeps perpetuating itself, gaining and acquiring, whether it’s knowledge or money and power, to better itself and survive? Do we really need that for survival? Is that the only way to have us really reach this point in our evolution?
Our thoughts consume us on a daily basis and make so many decisions. Constantly planning for the future and fearing or regretting the past. We can’t just let the program take us where it wants, because isn’t that too scary? We gotta impose our will or else we’ll be taken down an unsure path, won’t we? The randomness of the universe! Or does that really change anything? Don’t we keep winding up in the same spot? With our same hopes and fears and worries?
Why don’t we just let the program take us where it’s taking us? Venus seems to be…