30 October 2010
25 October 2010
"In this talk, Father Keating discusses the dynamic nature of God and the paradox implicit in experiencing divine oneness. With humor and wisdom, he explores the practice of contemplative prayer, and how we might begin to approach God through being present to our senses." (Length 34:41)
24 October 2010
20 October 2010
Ken Wilber is naive and believes politicians tell the truth. He also supports "rude boy" cultist Andrew Cohen (pictured above).
If weed were legalized the government could collect $400 billion a year in taxes and pay off both wars in a few years.
The Other Wiki's page on Cohen, the man who supposedly gained complete and final enlightenment in two and a half weeks.
The Other Wiki's page on Cohen's guru, H. W. L. Poonja. He pronounced Cohen's enlightenment after two and a half weeks.
Be Scofield's "Integral Abuse" article on Cohen and evolutionary enlightenment. He asks the brilliant question about Cohen's "rude boy" enlightenment: "But I must ask, if Cohen's tactics are so revolutionary and 'crazy wisdom' is needed to become enlightened, why haven't any of his students become enlightened? And why are these tactics so necessary when neither Cohen or Wilber attribute their awakenings to these sorts of experiences?"
WHAT enlightenment??! - a site where former Cohen devotees vent. May be true, may be lies, I don't know, I didn't read it.
The Urban Mystic versus The Shirtless Spiritual
Geoffrey D. Falk, a man with no kind words to say to anyone (except maybe Ramana Maharshi), has a site that demonstrates that all gurus, no matter how great, are still human, even if they are divine. Warning: Goeff does believe in the Randi prize, even though there is good evidence to suggest it is a fraud and even though so called "skeptics" say that winning the prize would prove nothing. Goeff might be skeptical of gurus but he sure isn't skeptical of his own skepticism. He quotes Randi several times and believes fully the sexual incidents involving Sai Baba, even though every single court case involving Baba was thrown. In one the so called "victims" were brought in and said they had never heard of the man who brought the case to court, had never met him, and had never claimed Baba molested them. The man, a disillusioned Western devotee, made the whole thing up to get back at Baba for giving him a ring with a zircon instead of a real diamond, even though he said it was a "die-mind" ring, not a "diamond" ring (meaning the death of the ego). He also says videos of Baba's miracles reveal sleight of hand when a magician interviewed for Haraldsson's book says the videos are all too poor quality to come to any honest conclusions. He also supports the view of scholars who find spurious homoeroticism in the life and teachings of Ramakrishna, based on bad translations of Bengali into English (Narasingha Sil and Jeffrey Kripal who mistranslate Bengali to English, misunderstand Tantra, and misuse psychoanalysis to do things it was never meant to do). Goeff also seems to have a thing for stories about gurus and blonds (both men and women). Gentlemen may or may not prefer blonds, but according to Goeff all gurus do. Virtually all of the sexual stories involve blonds from exotic lands like the band mates from ABBA. He also quotes Joe Nickell, another skep-dick phony paranormal investigator, and Indian "rationalists" who call themselves "rationalists" even though they are materialists who believe sense perception is the only means of true knowledge, and the original rationalists were people who believed the senses are unreliable and only reason can be used to gain true knowledge, like Descartes and Kant.
In fact, there's a caveat to his book, listed on his website that reads:
The inclusion of any particular individual in Stripping the Gurus is not meant to suggest or imply that he or she represents him- or herself as a guru, nor is it meant to suggest or imply that he or she has indulged in sex, violence, the abuse of others, or any other illegal or immoral activities.
So it all could be false. Most of it probably is.
He is a disillusioned spiritual believer, much like Michael Shermer, which would explain why he's so angry and full of vitriol. He also decorates his site with the anti-religious/secular humanist/utopianist "A" symbol, meaning he's a utopianist/secular humanist/anti-religious do away with others freedom of thought because they're too stupid kind of guy FakeSagan warned about.
19 October 2010
18 October 2010
16 October 2010
14 October 2010
I’m a theistic science fiction witer, or to be more accurate I’m a theist who writes science fiction, among other things. There seems to be nothing intrinsically atheistic or theistic about science fiction that would lead me to see why one group would be more attracted to it over the other, if, indeed, that is the case, I don’t know. I suppose if I were to have to make a choice I would say that the allure of “science” or the air of “science,” what Ken Wilber calls “narrow science,” is appealing to atheists because it serves as an alternative to God and gives them a sense of authority. “Science” (hardcore materialism) has become the sort of gatekeeper of all that is real in the modern world, for various complicated reasons too many to go in to here. Without a belief in God (used as broadly or narrowly as you choose) one still has to believe in something, and that something might as well be “science” as the new world authority.
Moving on to the fiction part, well, humans are remarkable storytellers. Everything is a story, built up around facts. Facts in themselves are just pieces floating around waiting to be attached to a story that explains how they all fit together. For an atheist instead of writing about God why not write about the new authority, “science?”
Of course all this is speculation; the ramblings of a man with too much to say and too small an audience.
05 October 2010
04 October 2010
I assumed that [Richard] Curtis was making the savage point that, beneath the veneer of principled and high-minded concern for the future of the planet, the advocates of man-made global warming theory were actually psychotic fanatics who cared so little about human beings, and were so determined to erase all dissent, that they would blow to bits anyone who disagreed. After all, that was the only conclusion that any normal, decent person could reach about such behaviour.
But no. It was not meant to be a satire against eco-fanatics at all. It was supposed to show them as principled opponents of all those displaying an inappropriate degree of apathy towards man-made global warming. So inappropriate they needed to be blown to kingdom come.....The joke was only about blowing dissenters to bits and raining their flesh down on terrified people. Because exterminating human beings is acceptable to greens as a joke. From which we can only assume at best indifference towards and at worst a profound loathing of the human condition. And if you think that’s an exaggeration, ask yourself if Curtis would ever have made a similarly playful satirical point by showing winsome furry animals being repeatedly blown to bits. Unthinkable. But exploding global warming sceptics? Hahahahaha!! Fuck you, 10:10. Fuck you Richard Curtis. Fuck you very much.