I only buy Playboy for the pictures ...

That's why they call it faith. Which is not be confused with religion. Chemical process or consciousness of a higher power?

Secularists always seem to be searching for consciousness or awareness. Perhaps they just don't realize what they are searching for is the God they reject. The spirit in them that nags to be identified.

I think that on some level we are aware of our soul. Why else would the atheist bother to deny the existence of something that doesn't exist. I wouldn't even know how to go about denying something I'm not aware of.

Does any of that make any sense?

What is up with the U.K. now? The eminent climate quack Dr. Hanson, a man who has given us global warming and global freezing, is the expert testimony in an "end justifies the means" trial of green jihadists.

And they get off!! God help us all. (see not too far off topic after all) HaHa!

Don't they feel things that let them know we are spiritual beings, not just chemicals? I think they try hard to block it out, but go to all kind of sources to connect with the universe or whatever they think God is.

I was channel hopping tonight, and I found a programme on BBC2 entitled "The President's Guide to Science" I didn't watch it, because I had an inkling what it would REALLY be about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7619202.stm

Hmmmmm.

Word for the day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Qualia is the philosophical label used to describe something very down to earth.

Qualia are not mind, matter, or energy.
Yet qualia are extremely familiar.

You see ... the experience of reading this text, the black text on cream background, the humming noise that your computer's fan is making ... all of these are qualia.

I have zero interest in preaching my faith to others. This isn't about faith.

It's about my deep concern about materialism.
And hence denial of your spiritual feelings, e.g. transpersonal love.

I'm beginning to realise just how embedded this nonsense is amongst liberal elites in society.

So there are thousands, possibly millions, of people out there who are incapable of love.
(Apart from a warm "feeling" inside their "head" created by a chemical reaction. Whoopie-do!)

As Aimee Mann sang:

"If you could save me
From the ranks of the freaks
Who suspect they could never love anyone"

Haven't seen you for a while.


New one up at the Island/Orphanage. As a matter of fact, several since you've last dropped by.

you can touch vs. things you can't, I am reminded of my philosophy studies and the debates between empiricists (think Hume, for example) and rationalists (ultimately embodied by Descartes and cogito ergo sum). Which allows me to seguay into one of my favourite jokes illustrating the difference between these two views.

A rationalist and an empiricist encounter each other during their evening constitutionals. They greet each other, and the rationalist says "I'm fine, how are you" and the empiricist replies "you're fine, how am I"?

With respect to your final two questions:

"Why are scientific materialists so intent on mocking "concepts" like "love" and reducing them to chemical processes?"

I also studied the hard sciences (physics and chemistry), and no matter how great your need to "get out more", believe you me when I say science types are in far more dire straits. They mock love because they don't get any. Figuratively and literally, if you get my drift, say no more, say no more!

"What do they hope to achieve by imposing such a narrow and frankly absurd monist view onto a complex pluriverse?"

They are trying to get back at those 'brainless jocks' that so derided them and got plenty, whilst they got none. And of course the female sex in general, which is more of a stranger to them than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is to your average political science student.