An interesting survey:

What are the biggest theological questions of all time? In my opinion they are these: 1. Is there a God? 2. If so, what is God, and what does God need, want, or require? 3. Whether you believe there is a God or there is not a God, what do you believe is the purpose of life — if any? 4. What, if anything, happens after death?

I am curious to know your answer to these questions. If you are readers of Conversations with God you already know my answers, but what are yours? And what role, if any, do your answers play in the living of your life?

As you move through the days and nights of your experience, is there any practical, functional way in which your responses to, and your ideas surrounding, these classic inquiries play an effect on how you think, what you say, and the choices you make?

I would really be very interested in hearing from all of you on this. I think it would make for fascinating reading if you offered us at least four sentences — and, if you feel a bit more ambitious, four paragraphs (or more) revealing “where you’re at” regarding these inquiries.

Some of you have already made that clear in your previous entries here, but a collection of all of your thoughts and ideas, posted here all at once, could make for a marvelous Comment String. What do you say…wanna play?

Just list the four questions and give us your four answers. No argumentation, no “make wrong” of anyone else, no defensiveness…just four straightforward replies, and your reasons for them if you want to elaborate. No one needs to comment on anyone else’s answers. It’s just an exchange of views, in the spirit of respectful, open sharing, needing no one to agree, and challenging no one to debate. Just a sharing. Kind of a survey.

Okay? Here we go then…

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Raphael

    I think that whenever a person seeks to define that which by nature is undefinable, the definition such a person comes up with says more about her or his needs than about the thing being so defined.

    For example, a lonely person who needs emotional and psychological support and comforting will define the divine as a loving father. A fearful person who needs structure and discipline will define the divine as a rule maker. Etc…

    Beware of definitions when it comes to spirituality, because in a world of polarity, the instant you define anything, you automatically imply its opposite (or complementary element). If you place what you believe to be God, which in your mind is absolutely good, in a high place, you automatically create, conceptually, its opposite: an entity that is absolutely evil, in a low place.

    You then begin a struggle without end, as you have conceptually split the universe, which is one, into two irreconcilable parts, and have consequently done so with yourself as well.

    • AKA Patrick

      Yes and no to much, if not all, of the above. Having just a couple of days ago viewed a presentation by Dr. Bruce Lipton, I can appreciate what most folks go through in trying to understand God, or anything about Him/Her/It. Lipton became a rebel from medical academia several years ago, when he opened his mind to realize that the biology he had been taught and teaching was wrong, and by wrong he meant it wasn’t the correct medical model of what really happens in the human body. So he publicly announced that he had been wrong. He took on Darwin’s theory, and to correct the error, now claims that after the evolutionary step “Human”, comes a step entitled “Humanity”, which is what we are quickly approaching. More later, as my time permits…..

      • Patrick Gannon

        I assume you are aware that he is not taken seriously by mainstream science. He starts with the proposition that mutations are not random, but has zero evidence to support that. There are lots of articles debunking him, such as this one:

        unspirituality bruce-lipton-debunked

  • Jethro

    Yes I believe there is a God.
    God is life. God is everything that exists in the universe, God is the stars and the planets and the void that exists between those objects because there is something in that place we know as nothingness, There is no such thing as “nothing” anywhere, because “something” is everywhere. God is the gasses of our sun and the heat and the light that radiate from it, the space between earth and the sun and all that exists in that space, including that place we know as space. God is the air we breath and that which keeps the air trapped around our planet, the gravity that holds all things close to our planet. God is what we know as all creation, all that surrounds us and God is us. God is Life.
    Humans cannot find God because they have defined God as a person, which God is, but is not. God is nature and all things natural, and all things unnatural as unnatural is the results of humans deforming nature, not creating something new but deforming what has existed. Science cannot prove the existence of God because they are using God to find God and do not understand they received results that are God. What they cannot find is the Human definition of God, which can only be found in the brains of humans in the form of human need.
    I believe that God is life, therefore if God could physically want something, God would want that which promotes life. This does not mean that all things should exist forever, everything exists in cycles. The hardest thing for most humans to understand is that birth, death (which is not death, but the end of a cycle), and rebirth, is the cycle of all life. All things that exist are in a state of constant change, constantly moving, constantly ageing, even if the human mind cannot fathom that something is changing, as it might take millions of years for something to run its cycle.
    Raphael has offered,”Beware of definitions when it comes to spirituality, because in a world of polarity, the instant you define anything, you automatically imply its opposite”. Agreed, I have recognized God as all life and the cycles that maintain it, in doing so I must recognize the ending of a cycle as part of life. I must accept that nothing exists in its current form forever or even long enough, by some definitions. I have to accept that which we define as death. Humans cannot accept death as part of life so humans will in turn destroy earth/life to promote human life, which is going to destroy human life as we know it which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and doesn’t even make good nonsense! BUT, Science would tell us that civilizations come and go and that in itself is part of the cycle of life on this planet. We are no different than the grass, the trees or the plants in the field. “If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you–you of little faith!”
    The purpose of individual life or consciousness is a purpose each individual must figure out for themselves, There is not a common purpose other than to live. I suggest that if any person wishes to know the Purpose of life, they go set in front of a tree and ask the tree, “What is the purpose of life?” Then look at the tree until it answers… It will answer, and it answered you before you took a seat and asked the question. I know that I am just part of the natural cycle of this planet, nothing more and nothing less. If I were a tree, I would sway in the same direction as the other trees in the wind, I would stay put like the other trees, I would be a tree and act as other trees act and some day fall over. As a human, I do as other humans do….
    Humans know they are not promoting life the best they can, they see the mistakes that have been made and some know it to the core of their energy, recognize it from the origin of their thoughts and wish to do something. Humanity is moving against God and forcing the natural to be unnatural through a lack of acceptance. The Human mind is the origin of Evil and it’s that Evil (which is simply humanity) that will complete the next cycle… then it will start over.
    The final question is what happens after death… I’ll see if I can answer that after I die. To this day, nobody who ever died has shared the experience with me and I don’t know that the living know for sure. Since I recognize myself as alive currently, my purpose is to live and know about that.
    A day came when I believe I recognized life as life truly is. I felt connected to all that is, a feeling I will never verbally do justice. No more justice than trying to explain my understanding of God as I described above. To call anything God is to bring about somebody else’s definition of God which will distort any definition or description I am able to give God, so my definition of God may exist by another name for whoever is reading this and I welcome anyone to give it whatever name that works. It will most likely not be the word “God”. I say God is Life.

  • Craig

    1 Yes God exists
    2 YHVH Work focused on achieving specific intent
    Need to know intent of this divine mediator of living things with your life, and how to achieve it.
    3 To restore wisdom and power to the never ending divine mediator
    4 Nothing after death that benefits my understanding but that is achieved through my minor contribution

    Neale give me your email and I will provide you my view relating to this blog…

    • Jethro

      Hi Craig,
      I would really like to read your view as well. Do not worry about argument. An argument goes only as far as we take it and judgement has no meaning unless we are judging ourselves, even then its usually limited in its power.

      • Craig

        Hi Jethro
        I enjoy critic as it gets me rethinking as Patrick did.
        In short the basic understanding of a creator and this realm is to find a vessel suitable to recover the garment of wisdom and power that was shredded and scattered throughout the universe with the power battle in the unseen realm called heaven. Between YHVH and Lucifer.
        The evolution theory Patrick refers to is the creation process followed to find such a suitable vessel. (Sorry more hogwash Patrick but it is only reason I could find that makes any sence.). The OT refers to the calling or conditioning of the specific created entity type to be suitable. Only a very few people actually achieved this status.
        The NT explains the collecting of the shredded bits by individuals.
        My understanding is we can only collect one piece we are way to weak to gather more… Reason second revolt in heaven is being prevented.
        Everything we read of in scripture is summarised in Job.
        There is no right or wrong as the Creator intervenes when we go to far. That is the love or grace you read of in the scriptures.
        All the theological reasonings and modern New Age view are just means to get off track. What Patrick says is true a far as our cognitive evolution is concerned as that is an essential part of retrieving and securing the retrieved garment piece…
        This view dates back before Abraham and Hebraic thinking but is closely linked to this religious movement.
        We need to understand the depicted ancient writings to understand that man refers to one giving direction while female refers to one keeping focussed within this so called spiritual growth. And has nothing to do with male and female genders.
        Sorry no reference as was part of my early research two decades ago and I have lost everything since then except what is in memory… And in rewriting scripts I am still busy with…

        • Patrick Gannon

          “All the theological reasonings and modern New Age view are just means to get off track.”

          I would like to hear some CwG disciples comment on this and the mythical battle between Yahweh and Lucifer! I get grief here for disputing Neale’s assertions, but take note – Craig is calling Neale’s god a fake too. Even worse, like Kristin, he’s asserting that Neale’s god is leading us astray. Anyone else here buy into that?

          The existence of Yahweh and Lucifer are based on debunked pillars, as mentioned previously. There was no six day creation, no two-person ‘DNA bottleneck, no global flood, no mass Exodus (or Moses) and no conquest of Canaan. We know this all beyond any reasonable doubt, and without these things, what do Yahweh and Lucifer rest upon? Mythology, and nothing more.

          I’m reading an excellent book, “Did Moses Exist?” by D.M. Murdock. The evidence for Yahweh, Moses, Abraham, etc. is far more deleterious than I imagined. I already knew of a number of holes in the story based on my own readings of the bible, but there are much larger holes than I realized. There are also a great many more contradictions than I was aware of. It’s clear that this is a mythological story that started by borrowing from earlier civilizations. Mythology was historicized, edited and revised repeatedly over centuries; long after the imaginary events in question.

          • Craig

            Actually no comment was Neale’s request… I just added more info as requested…

          • Patrick Gannon

            He said we don’t “need” to reply. He didn’t insist that we not do so, and in any event, it’s still called a global “Conversation.” It’s a public forum. You’re a former law enforcement officer, right? Chill dude. It’s OK to break the rules from time to time! Surely you let a couple people go? LOL

            I was glad to see Jethro pull some more out of you. Sorry, if it seems like I’m picking on you. There are three factions here, as I see it. There’s the CwG disciples and affiliates, the Abrahamists (you and Kristin), and the agnostic science dude (me). Most Abrahamists who come in here suggest Neale is going to Hell, along with the rest of us, or otherwise push Jeebus; but we haven’t had a fundy in quite a while. Kristin’s Kabbalistic interpretation stuff is too weird for me to follow, though she is correct that early Jewish texts refer to all sorts of gods at various levels. It’s all clearly mythical.

            It’s interesting because the CwG folks, like any other religious group, will take on the atheists/agnostics without a qualm, but are much more reticent about taking on competing religions, such as yours or Kristin’s, even though Neale has spoken quite disparagingly in the past about the legacy gods and their religions.

            This article was actually a great idea on Neale’s part, as some of what t generated is really good stuff for discussion, and if that’s not the point of a “global conversation” then I don’t know what is.

          • Craig

            Murdock’s online version is interesting summary of comments made by other people. Accepted that some claims on interpretation are very true given modern sentences and phrases. Reading messages without comma’s points or paragraphs is clearly not considered by the critics.
            I accept that we can debate till the end of time and will most probably never know.
            Neale may have a better understanding of scriptural intent than we that argue or debate its origin.
            Kristin’s God was a view I once had. Until I started reading scriptures as Murdock reflects on them. Then realisation don’t we all need some sort of doubt to make us believe…
            So truth is nobody can define, debate or argue for or against god we can form our subjective views let’s permit others to do the same. That is respect a attribute missed whenever religion, politics and history is discussed.
            I have my view, you have yours, I read through works from X, Y and Z you researched A, B and C,s work. I am open to hear and investigate but as you I will always assess from my paradigm until I am brought back to zero…

          • Patrick Gannon

            Yes, Murdock is summarizing a number of works. That is why I am enjoying it so much. I’ve read quite a few articles about the topic, but haven’t found a good book that pulled it all together in one place.

            We can debate whether agreement with other scholars is warranted, but quite a bit comes from the bible itself, what with mentioning peoples and places that didn’t even exist at the time of the supposed Exodus. It’s clear that the story was written much later, or much embellished after the fact; and that much of it derived from earlier civilizations. I haven’t finished the book, so I’m withholding judgement till I complete it, but I’m paging back and forth in my bible as I go along, and sure as heck – there are a lot of contradictions and anachronisms. You can’t write about towns that don’t exist, unless you are writing long after the fact when those towns have come into being. Edits made to a story centuries after the fact, do little to attest to the divinity of the works, particularly when the edit debunks the original event!

            And of course there is universal agreement, even among apologists, that there isn’t a shred of actual evidence for the Exodus.

            “Neale may have a better understanding of scriptural intent than we that argue or debate its origin.” Perhaps, but I doubt it. Neale, like myself, was raised Catholic, and Catholics are not encouraged to read the bible – it creates too many atheists! I suspect from reading years of articles here that his biblical knowledge is certainly no greater than mine, and probably less so. If you’re coming here looking for Neale to interpret OT scriptures for you, I think you’re in the wrong place! You ought to at least read CwG1 so you know what you’re getting into, if you want to play here with the CwG types, and not just Pat the agnostic!

            The whole purpose of being in this forum is to “define, debate, or argue for or against god…” Respect, in this forum, I think most would agree, means refraining from personal insults. There are some who think others should refrain from questioning their subjective experiences, or questioning the veracity, character and motivation of Neale – but that’s tough. It’s a public forum.

          • Craig

            Now I read that Murdock as Dyer both died in 2015…

        • Jethro

          Thank you for posting further. Patrick is pretty good at provoking additional thought, it’s what he desires to do. I enjoy his views a great deal, (I enjoy most every person posting). It took him a while to understand that I don’t promote miracles or believe in extra sensory powers… well, I think he understands it. I actually think everything is related to the brain and how it deals with everything, though I’ll admit I’m still healing from being raised a Pentecostal, so I still have a funny Idea or two at times and must give some thoughts a second run through. I see you were a police officer, so how many times have you wondered, “what was they thinking?!!”. I always find myself wondering, “Why are they thinking that way?” The answer is in the experiences each individual has. Every experience defines the next one and so on. It’s why most everyone has a different opinion, each experience and how it was experienced is different. Even if two people share the same experience, it’s perceived differently individually through past experiences. Everything we know or think we know is a product of a brain creating the idea of it. The “garment of wisdom” is clearly a metaphor used to vaguely describe something that is unknown and meant to stay unknown to hold the interest of the reader. Wisdom can only be obtained through experience and developing a deep understanding of it. People don’t recognize their own wisdom. It takes another person to recognize an idea as wise.

          I hate sounding ignorant, so I type my ignorance, therefore ignorant quietly. I have a hard time understanding the language used, it seems indirect. You wrote:
          “the basic understanding of a creator and this realm is to find a vessel suitable to recover the garment of wisdom and power that was shredded and scattered throughout the universe”…
          Huh? I don’t get it. Most of what you wrote seems to be in code. I’m not in that club that speaks that way, many people are not and are too embarrassed to say they don’t understand it. Most just go with it because it sounds pretty neat.
          As a child I asked many questions and was denied an answer, maybe you understand your statement enough to explain. few have been able to do that claiming in reality it’s just too deep.
          Am I correct in assuming you had a lot to say and rushed it?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Great question.

          • Craig

            Nope I have little to say but much to say about it…
            Questions are still a lot.
            Biggest why does this realm exist.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “….why does this realm exist.”

            As opposed to what?

          • Craig

            My thought is towards every thought and rational explanation of mankind.
            Evolution has answered the creation procedure.
            Religions even pagan views have opted for a reason to be or become better or fear condemnation or wrath from the god. Better than what and why? We are only one live only once. Reincarnation can not find rationale behind that yet. Maybe when more enlightened…

          • Patrick Gannon

            OK. I thought you were asking the old, “Why is there something, rather than nothing” question – which isn’t really an answerable question. It’s like asking what’s north of the North Pole.

            I’ll agree that evolution is responsible for the development of human thought. However evolution has not answered the creation procedure, if by that you mean the origin of the universe and life. Evolution is about what happened after it all started. How it started is still unknown, and of course it is that open door that keeps theologians in business. God is the least likely of all the hypotheses we’ve put forth so far, but until we know, it can’t be ruled out. It makes the problem incredibly more difficult though, because then you have to explain the god and where it came from. What can be ruled out is that this god, if it exists, has any impact on our natural world. That scientists have become quite confident of, and we’re starting to see this message slowly make its way out to the scientifically illiterate masses.

            A punishing god after death is not universal among pagan religions, as I understand it. Even the Jews believed that Yahweh’s punishments were to be delivered then and there. I love the book of Amos, whose theme is: “the beatings will stop when morale improves!” After death everyone went to Sheol and Yahweh was finished with you. Any condemnation and wrath were exercised in this world. It took “the good news” of Jesus to give us eternal torment!

            This is actually where Neale has some value, in persuading people that this Hell doesn’t exist. That infuriates fundies, who can’t love Jesus without a real Hell, but he provides a stepping stone for Christians who are looking for a way out. I took that step, but the key is to make sure you don’t linger or you’re still lying to yourself only with a new set of beliefs. It’s the lying to ourselves part that is what we have to get beyond, in my view. Our brains know there is no evidence for gods or afterlives, but we tell ourselves we believe – we lie to ourselves. How can that be good for us?

            I was much drawn to reincarnation in my earlier days. I saw regressions and even had it done to myself once, but since I started investigating and reading about it back in the mid-70’s there has been no increase in compelling objective evidence to support it; while during that same period, there has been an overwhelming amount of evidence developed that tells us such things are not possible in our natural world. If you recall the hoop de la about the Higgs boson back in 2012, that was the last open question for the core theory, and in the years since, they’ve been confirming it all through continued experiments, and the confidence level is such that it can be introduced to the public as something we know with extreme confidence. It’s world-changing, and the fun has just begun.

            The reincarnation trend is not going in a good direction, just like the trend for a six day creation is not going in a good direction.

          • Craig

            Nicely explained thank you. But still no answer why. Sounds as if you’re also from the early 60 or late 50….
            I seek no rational answer as none exist. Evolution for me is not a reason it is the cause…

          • Sam

            “Biggest why does this realm exist.”

            It was created to be a place that was hard. To have the satisfaction of progress, and to overcome everyday challenges, as well as those taking several lifetimes. It gives you a lot of highs of being alive. A realm that was created because our real state and world have no secrets or restrictions at all, of any kind. Wonderful, you might say. But this state for an eternity and you rather kill yourself. When comes to eternity, you trade in a place of easy to that one of a hard, anytime.
            And here we are writing posts. A challenge, as everything else in this world, and the reward of satisfaction, having the words come in place, and from discovering “new” things, slowly evolving.
            To understand what we don’t understand is not the point, as whatever answer is no real secret, being there all along. The point is the effort finding it. What we enjoy. The challenge and the reward.
            In the perspective of an endless eternity that never ends, this is what we do to keep ourselves busy. An adventure into a make-believe unknown, having drama all the way, scares and joys, throwing us up in a state of absolute alive, as we work our way out of the labyrinth once more.

          • Craig

            Sorry Sam my post seemed to have disappeared.
            No problem with your view but still leaves the question why….
            Easy answer why not.

          • Sam

            In my view, it doesn’t leave any question for why a physical realm, but indeed regarding the spiritual realm, where everything started. Why or how something first came to be, is never to be answered, in my view. We can only recognize that it did, and take it from there, making the best of it.

          • Craig

            Acceptance of what is will be. That I live with and verbalize easily, but deep down I keep seeking why this realm from nothing for something. If for nothing then may the strongest show mercy on the weak ones…

          • Patrick Gannon

            “…. I keep seeking why this realm from nothing for something.”

            1. Define “nothing.”
            2. We don’t know that this realm (assuming you mean our universe) came from nothing. It may have always existed, and simply went through a phase transition like the formation of a snowflake (which it could reverse at any time!).

            “If for nothing then may the strongest show mercy on the weak ones…”

            If it’s for anything, it’s up to us to make that happen – in part, one might argue, by having the strong show mercy to the weak!

          • Craig

            Good, if we do not know then any guess is right. The argument will determine how reliable the guess is…
            Thank you, so we need to choose and foster a purpose we believe worth living for… Very, very Hebraic thinking in such a view…
            We just need to become on of thought… Go watch the ants and become wise…

          • Jethro

            Little to say but much to say about it… Ok.
            Why does this realm exist… I’m not trying to be disrespectful Craig but I’m with Patrick on this one. Compared to what? I’m not familiar with any realms other than my own reality… if that is a realm.

            Craig I hope you stick around. Your not much for explanation but it will come… Great conversation starter!!

          • Craig

            I have no answer. I have accepted if there be a reason it is only to address an unknown realm’s ruler’s concerns or short falls. There is no benefit for me except the here and now.
            And what would these benefit any as everything on earth actually works in harmony for the survival of the higher or more intelligent living creature, claimed to be us humans when in my lifespan I have only come to realize that no knowledge tool creation or living creature can explain change or control the forces that caused this harmonious creation to work so well.
            Including natural disasters that just forcefully bring everything back to a balanced harmony. Just read up on newer findings and how important they are for the survival of the earth for the next millennium.
            For this reason my acceptance of the gnostic view that is older than Hebraic roots, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Moslem views, Greek gods etc. We are but here in to satisfy a power or source greater than us. Some call it become divine, others say gather souls, while I simply refer to it as collecting the shreds of cloak scattered in the universe due to a power struggle. No other reason makes sense.
            If you did your survival training in a bush full of beasts as I did, you would also be humbled by the rest of creations approach to actually assist each other to survive…

          • Patrick Gannon

            “We are but here in to satisfy a power or source greater than us.”

            It’s called evolution.

            Thank you again for your public service!

          • Craig

            And what would evolution benefit me… My off spring are mental carbon copies of mom and dad but physically better off than us. Is that the evolution process you are referring to? The 144 000 or multitude human natures becoming supreme beings or living standards as Neale hints towards in his version of theories originating some 6 500 years ago, as no records available prior to this…
            Just one concern if we were evolving why are we worse off than the Roman and other cultures whose works have stood the test of time.
            Take a castle Charles would proclaim…
            Or is the evolution approaching the point of no return, towards self destruction. As all started so will all end, with a big bang…
            No service rendered, just a source for survival… A service would be like devotion towards honouring and caring for. Not protecting on one side while destroying those non conformers on the other…

          • Patrick Gannon

            Well my post was a bit of a tongue in cheek response to your assertion that we are here to satisfy a power or source greater than us, as that’s what evolution is. There in no evidence for any power or source greater than us that interoperates in our natural world. Evolution is essential to our natural world; gods are not.

            What did evolution benefit you? As compared with what? Your primitive cousins, the chimpanzees? We’re all familiar with biological evolution, which is bottom up, but there appears to be a top-down evolution that sped up as we learned how to talk and cook food, providing enough food for our brains to do a lot more than we could before, and each improvement drove new ones, till we developed a secondary thinking system, that makes us intellectually superior to other species on this planet – as best we can tell.

            Who says we are worse off than the Roman culture? Life expectancy was half of what we experience now. Let’s wait and see how long the CERN particle accelerator lasts. It is the greatest engineering feat of mankind. Nothing the Romans or anyone else ever did can come close to it in sheer human scientific and engineering genius. Should we regret having lost the part of Roman culture that thought killing people for sport and crucifying them on posts was a moral thing to do? Was the widespread slavery of Roman culture a thing we should be sad that our culture has lost? I’m not sure I get your point.

            Besides, evolution between Roman times and now would be almost entirely top down evolution, with ever diminishing bottom-up biological evolution. The timeframes for that are much longer. Indeed they were evolving more than we are now because they still had diseases thinning out the population, creating winners and losers. We now allow people to live, who in the past would not have passed on their genes. Our bottom up evolution is stalling out – which may be OK, as long as top-down evolution gives us new ways of creative thinking to splice genes, fix diseases, remove infirmities, and do it so that they aren’t passed on to the next generation – which was formerly the job of biological evolution.

            Evolution doesn’t normally lead to self-destruction, but it does happen from time to time, and it could be that the reason we don’t see alien life in space is that creatures like us fail to evolve beyond a certain point. As for how it all ends, the current consensus among astrophysicists is that the universe ends in a big freeze. It just keeps expanding forever; no bang, no crunch. But this is still theory.

          • Craig

            You are forgetting I said I have more sloth in me than any other prime ape.
            Yes our technology is more advanced and all. But not so durable. Or is it just the scrap from…
            Top down evolution, interesting theory. Mind over body… We all becoming megaminds…
            But yes we are all still made up from dust, tenderized pork us humans.
            What better are we than the Romans we kill animals to advance ourselves, they at least kept human with human and not like the Hebrews that sacrificed animals. Or are we more Hebraic?
            The punishment must fit the crime… Maybe murders should work to sustain the livelihood of the victims family… Or is there another entity to dish out punishment… You do not think so, so maybe let the weak die out so progress can continue… Next generation needs strong genes…

          • Jethro

            Craig, Thank you. That’s a group of words I can understand. Turns out you had a very good answer.
            All there is, is the here and now. I do think about the future and try to forget the past as needed, but Now is here. A Higher power is the many people around us and those to come and how we choose to serve that, It’s also a desire to respect all life to the best of our ability. Not everyone agrees, but it’s my greatest concern. Before we humans started strip mining nature, everything on earth actually worked in harmony for the survival of all living creatures. But the human creature became greedy and it appears to be creating a little upset. It has been believed for thousands of years that the earth and all that is on it was put here to serve humans. That’s fair enough I guess, but we failed to see the need to serve the earth in unity with all that has served us so well for so long. The animals actually serve each other better than we intelligent human beings do as a whole, the animals accepting that natural things are normal, like dying, or having to work for things. Mostly because they are not aware of another way, but we are, and as aware humans, we are abusing our intelligence, and in our drive to live forever and wealthy as well, we are destroying our wealth and killing ourselves.
            The shreds of said cloak will be collected as we gain new experiences, I wonder if there is such a thing as a complete cloak.

          • Patrick Gannon

            We humans like to elevate ourselves and refer to ourselves as outside of, or above, nature, but we are part of nature. Animal populations have done what we’ve done. They’ve stripped every last thing there is to eat and gone extinct or nearly died out. Some species go in cycles of overpopulation followed by mass starvation. It’s evolved behavior. We’re not that different – except that we have a System2 thinking system that tells us there is a better way. The problem is getting people to use it. It’s all too easy to default to System1 and act as the animals do, instinctively.

            Animals don’t have a System2 thinking system and most researchers think animals are unaware of their own mortality. I think that our fear of death has a lot to do with human behavior.

            I go back and forth between despair and hope when I look at my fellow humans. I have great hope when I see all the things science is bringing us to make our lives better, and to address the issues that confront us; but I have despair when I see the reluctance for people to challenge their most closely held beliefs, which must happen when System2 thinking is invoked. The process of learning how to use our brains more efficiently is needed to address the problems listed, but the process of System2 thinking critically is disastrous for woo and other religious belief in imaginary, invisible beings that live in the sky!

          • Jethro

            System 2, reasoning. We know we are on a path to great change or even destruction and need to correct something.
            System 1, instinct. We continue on our path knowing its devastating because we instinctively need something.
            It would make more sense if we were animals who didn’t know. We look pretty stupid and can realize that through system 2. So much for system 2 if it allows system 1 to kill it.

            Wish to say more but of to work… Hope this day is great for all.

          • Patrick Gannon

            That was well said!

          • Craig

            Jethro, one faith (way of doing) one god in and through all… Very Pauline. But yes we agree that we need each other and the earth to survive in harmony, maybe the error was placing a value on things needed instead of sharing…
            Do you may be think the cloak is the righteous deeds done based on our mental evolution rather than the physical achievements. Things become more natural.
            The question are we aware of life after death or is this just a reason to keep the churches full? So our focus should be life now what follows is a result of what we do not what we believe, trust, rely or ponder… As Patrick said using the slow brain.

          • Jethro

            Hi Craig, Very Pauline… What does that mean?
            The value of things needed does not change whether selfish or sharing, but the value of sharing is life. The human desire to have more than needed is a senseless desire, and only one of many senseless desires.
            Righteous deeds or physical achievements, one in the same most of the time, it’s the thoughts about it that decides if righteous or not and may require more than one person to decide. A cloak is a product of protection just as a shirt or pants and can be worn for fashion which is meaningless. The analogy doesn’t make sense to me actually. A cloak of wisdom? I can get that. Protection by wisdom, yes. Righteousness, which is selfless, No. Protection by physical deeds… maybe.
            Life after death, I can neither confirm nor deny that it will happen. “What if” is the only thing left. What does it matter? If we are sure we are living the “Life” we are supposed to live the way we believe we are supposed to live it, death will be everything it’s supposed to be whether a continuation of our energy or simply non existence, either way. The big question is will we remember the life we have now? I don’t know, and if anyone really knew, it wouldn’t be a question at all. I do believe in my sanity, and my happiness. I believe in other people and their happiness. I believe the success of others can at times depends on how I choose to act, therefore I will act to help another be successful, in doing so I become successful. Will all of that help with an afterlife? I have no idea. It’s none of our business.

            I think you and I are on the same page here with different ways of expressing it. That’s priceless!!

          • Craig

            Pauline is a reference to the scripts of Apostle Paul.
            Yes we live for now, what happens when we blow out our last breath nobody knows…
            Thanks for the comments till the next blog.

          • Jethro

            And thank you.

  • Patrick Gannon

    I’ll play!

    1. Is there a God?
    A. Define god. Is the Abrahamic god real? No, he’s debunked. Is there some magical, mysterious soul, divinity, essential essence or other unworldly force that interacts with us in this natural world? No. If there was, we’d know it by now. Is it possible that there’s a deist god who kicked off the universe and then went back to watching TV? Sure, it’s possible; but a personal god who interferes in our natural world? That’s been ruled out with an extensively high degree of confidence.

    2. If so, what is God, and what does God need, want, or require?
    A. Define god. One’s definition of god, determines what its needs and wants are. Imaginary invisible beings that live in the sky seem to have a very wide variety of wants and needs, as diverse as the humans who created them.

    3. Whether you believe there is a God or there is not a God, what do you believe is the purpose of life — if any?
    A. Define life. Some say the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide, or life is an electron looking for a place to rest, or life contributes to the increase of entropy. In simplest terms, the purpose of life is to continue the mission of the stars that emit all that we’re made of. As for humans, the purpose of life is to make of it whatever we will. It’s entirely up to us. The purpose of human life is to evolve, to contribute to the human genome – or not.

    4. What, if anything, happens after death?
    A. If you’re buried, you decompose. If you’re cremated, you’re turned to ashes. In either case, and within different time periods, you return to the elements of which you are made. Whether we live after death, depends on whether or not we are remembered. This is all we get. This is not a training session, There are no second, third or 500 chances to get it right. This is it. Anything else is wishful thinking. Assuming no evil demons to torment one, it would be nice if there was life after this, but everything we know about our natural world and how consciousness works, tells us that this is it. You start plucking away little pieces of the brain, and with each piece, a part of the personality goes – who we are emerges from our brains, and can’t exist without them. The evidence that this is so, is accumulating at an increasing rate, just as continuously mounting evidence for evolution destroyed young earth creation.

    • Craig

      Patrick, just a after thought. Life, is for me the opportunity to be. Death that mysterious plug that prevents us from breathing in another source that carries our body along…
      No brain power can do that, all is dependant on that external matter called oxygen.

      • Patrick Gannon

        It’s entirely possible that we could have evolved to use something besides O2 to breathe. Such may be the case on other planets where other biological beings might arise.

        What life is far more dependent on is the strong nuclear force, without which atoms would all disintegrate in an instant, and there would be no life in this universe.

        Our brains evolved to use O2, but they might have evolved to use a different fuel if O2 was not available, or if evolution had taken some other path.

        • Craig

          Wait now I am lost. Do atomic nuclear forces cause us to breath? Would this then imply that when atoms stop moving or feeding our body with the ability to move oxygen. If this is what you are saying then atoms are life and we are but tissue being manipulated by atoms…
          Very Wayne Dyer concept a spark inside that needs to outgrow to glow outside…

          • Patrick Gannon

            The strong nuclear force and weak nuclear forces hold the atom together. They are very short range forces. Gravity and electromagnetism are the other two fundamental forces. Some scientists think that there might be a fifth force or that gravity is different than we think. Gravity and electromagnetism are long range forces.

            The strong nuclear force is what holds the half dozen or more electrons and the nucleus made of protons and neutrons together so that you can have an oxygen atom. If these forces weren’t all carefully balanced, atoms would implode into the center or fly apart disintegrating.

            If you want to define life, or at least mammal life, here as something that exists as long as the organism can utilize O2, that would probably be a fair definition. There appear to be some organisms on earth that are “alive” but that don’t use oxygen though. Look for Nat’tl Geographic oxygen-free-complex-animals-mediterranean If you want to suggest that when the organism is no longer moving (utilizing) O2, that it is dead. I’d agree. We need oxygen, but it is not a requirement for life; just our kind of life.

            You cannot talk about tissue and atoms using the same language. This is a mistake the woo-meisters do with quantum mechanics. They try to use language that is applicable at the microscopic scale in order to explain things at the macroscopic scale using the wrong language. When you talk about the air currents in the room, you do so in terms of fluid dynamics. The currents of air are emergent. They emerge from another layer that consists of Nitrogen, Oxygen and other trace molecules, and they can be described in very exact terms. You can speak in terms of every single molecule and with enough supercomputers you could make the math tell you about the air currents, but it makes no sense to do so. You talk about quantum fields in one language, quarks and gluons in another, atoms in another, molecules, then cells then tissues – each of these emerges from the layer below, and each has its own language so that we can be more efficient. Trying to describe something having to do with tissue, by talking about quantum fields makes no sense.

            There is no spark inside, no force. Life and consciousness emerge from all the layers below. They are simply another language that is useful to describe a particular layer.

          • Craig

            Thank you for molecular info, by biological research ended some 40 years ago…
            I agree on atoms etc. Basic natural law, or rather principal of energy. All seem to be somehow sparked by a source of heat.
            True even the basic survival of a tree requires carbon dioxide rather the oxygen.
            Unfortunately the molecular structure of our survival requires oxygen. Is it therefore in your view that the movement of oxygen molecules shape life. Or is there another source or energy that forces these Living organisms to keep our dust form together and moving…
            What is your view of human life? Forget that what is outside you, what will determine your life and death?
            I am with you on life per se but need to understand human life and death as that is what keeps humans seeking a force beyond or within themselves, linking them to a force greater than all. A God.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “All seem to be somehow sparked by a source of heat.”

            Heat is the result of the electrochemical reactions that take place in our bodies. There isn’t a source of heat, a force, an energy, a spark that is implanted in our cells. Our cells create that heat as a byproduct of the chemical reactions taking place within them, just like the chemical reactions in a burning candle produce heat as a byproduct. When those reactions wind down and stop – the heat goes away. We cool to room temperature and we are dead.

            Why is it unfortunate that our survival depends on oxygen? It could have ended up depending on something else – but so what? Our life is a process that emerges from chemical reactions. There is no external force or energy that sustains it, or we’d have discovered it by now.

            What keeps our atoms together are the forces I described above. Human life is like that of every other mammal, from a biological standpoint. What determines my life and death depends on a wide range of things starting with my genetics. If I’m born with genetic errors, my life may be very short or very challenged. My life depends on my environment, where I’m raised, how I’m educated, and what I experience and remember. My life depends on the occupation and partner I choose – and so on. When I die will likely be influenced in part on these and other factors. When I die, the process that sustains me will stop. Like a candle that has flickered out, the material in my body will stop producing heat, I’ll cool to room temperature and my atoms will begin to return the universe from whence they came.

            I think the human preoccupation with gods is related to our higher intellect. We are probably the only species that knows how far it has advanced and evolved, only to turn at the end of it all, into food for worms. We know we’re going to die, and that scares the crap out of us, because we’ve evolved a deep sense of survival. We want to live, so death scares us. To cope, we create imaginary gods, afterlives, souls, energy fields, forces, essential essences or whatever woo term one chooses, to hide from our fears. All of this is derived from our System1 thinking, and to get beyond it requires using more more recently evolved System2 thinking, but as I’ve mentioned, once you do that, many cherished and closely held beliefs begin to fall by the wayside.

          • Craig

            Thank you
            Till the next blog…
            Wonder if Neale will be doing a progressive discussion based on the difference mentioned on this blog.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Don’t hold your breath. Neale will sometimes submit an article and say he’ll comment further after the discussion, but he hardly ever follows through on that.

  • Stephen mills

    Humans can only take in so much of the known universe ,as we evolve so will our understanding of dark matter,energy and the full spectrum of the seen and un-seen .The only known truth I see is impermanence ,change is inevitable it is what we are nothing stands still. I look at the plants they grow and change as do trees look further ahead in time and the mountains will do the same as they did in the past .The planet will undergo those changes as well further ahead our life giver the sun will explode the elements coming together to form new stars and planets .The stardust that is present in our bodies will be present in future bodies of universal beings.
    We as humans have shorter life spans some humans such as my daughter lived only for a day . But life goes on the energy of life which I call god is in everything .

    Life has no requirements wants or needs it just continues to evolve all energy gets recycled .Its purpose is to raise consciousness to a level of knowing and experiencing the eternal essence as an individual being it gives us eons to which eventually arrive . Whole races are already there in the countless galaxy’s we observe from our spec in the universe .Even if we don’t get it right as a collective called humanity , the universe will play itself out for something else to achieve this experience ,perhaps not in human form as the universe is pure creation and only creates new forms never duplicating as we witness in snow crystals .

    I don’t believe death is the end of us ,how can you end the energy signature of the individual if it’s present in everything . The form that it was uniquely expressed as goes back to the quantum soup and a new spoonful comes back into the physical universe, the seen to experience unlimited choices .

    • Patrick Gannon

      Just to address the science….

      “how can you end the energy signature of the individual if it’s present in everything”

      If you are referring to life as some sort of force or essence, there is no evidence for anything like that. Life is a process, just like a burning flame on a candle is a process. When you blow out a candle, you don’t eliminate a force, you stop a process; you stop a chemical reaction. So too with all other life. It’s a process, not a force – otherwise we’d have found it by now, because it interacts with the particles in our natural world, and we know to amazing detail what those particles can and can’t do.

      • Stephen mills

        My thoughts about it Patrick could be complete bunkum but just from information I have gathered from many sources ,science included ! I have no need to be right . Each signature is unique but comes from the source and returns there .Our current technology has not found this force or (field) .

        • Patrick Gannon

          “Our current technology has not found this force or (field).”

          I’m glad you have no need to be right, but shouldn’t we seek to know the truth? You do realize that you are making a scientific claim, right? You are claiming, without any evidence, that there is a substance, a signature, whatever you want to call it, that manipulates the particles that make up our natural world – and there’s simply no evidence whatsoever for that. If there was, we’d know it. If such a force actually existed, we might not be able to identify the source, the energy signature or whatever you want to call it, but we would definitely be able to observe and document its effects on the particles we are all made of. If particles were doing things that can’t be explained by the known forces, that would tell us to keep looking for your hidden source, but there are no unexplained activities of particles. There just aren’t. We know what they can do.

          This is a relatively new understanding, one that arose in the last quarter century, and was finalized with the confirmation of the Higgs boson in 2012. With that discovery, we can say very authoritatively that we know all the ways that our particles can be affected – they have states or degrees of freedom and if these states were being affected – as they would have to be in order to fire synapses or heal tissue, or remote view or levitate or any other psi thing, then we would know it by now. The science simply hasn’t reached the masses yet.

          Hopefully the recent eclipse will give science a small boost. People tend to cherry-pick their science, like they cherry-pick their scriptures. Scientists were able to predict far, far in advance exactly when and where this and other eclipses will occur, and using the same scientific method, they have determined that there are no magical forces that affect our particles – but because this is against what we believe, it will be quite difficult to get the evidence out there in a way that can be explained to the scientifically illiterate masses. But it is what it is. Those who refuse to accept it will eventually be marginalized and left out of societal decision making.

          Quantum field theory, which was ill-used by the woo-meisters turns out to predict that the “woo” is possible – about as possible as a pink, polka-dotted 65 million year old dinosaur manifesting in your living room, this evening at 7:21PM. It could happen – quantum field theory is all about very exact probabilities – but don’t wait up. That’s how likely your “energy signature” is. Sorry, but that’s what the science has told us over the last few decades. Now it’s just a matter of getting the word out.

          In the decades and century ahead, people are going to have to learn to deal with the reality that there is no soul, god, essential essence, energy signature, or any other force or field that affects us. If these things exist, they are moot. They don’t matter to us. They can’t affect us. There are numerous sources for this material, but the best written summary, in my view comes from Sean Carroll in “The Big Picture.” Everyone should read it. Neale should read it. He should stay in the advice business, but get out of the woo business, or I predict that his long term legacy will be that of just another charlatan New Age dude, or a delusional author who wrote about talking to himself.

          • Stephen mills

            I have read some of Sean Carroll check out Lynn Mctaggart’s book The Field . Have you heard of spooky action at a distance or entanglement .Check out NIST Team’s recent experiment with light photons !! Only made possible with recent technical advances ,science is catching up with woo spirituality.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Good grief. Is that your source? McTaggart IS woo! She’s an anti-vax nutcase, a journalist, not a physicist. She takes a handful of studies with interesting results and twists them to her own interpretation, while studiously ignoring the vast repository of data that confirms there are no psi forces. She doesn’t even do her research.

            In her “Intention” book she says, “Most quantum experiments incorporate some test of Bell’s inequality. This famous experiment in quantum physics was carried out by John Bell, who developed a practical means to test how quantum particles really behaved.” This is completely wrong. Bell did NOT perform these experiments, he produced the theory. It’s not a minor error – it’s fundamentally bad science. She’s making stuff up. She takes quantum phenomena and tries to apply them to macroscopic states – and you can’t do that. It’s two different languages. You don’t use the language of quarks to discuss cell biology. You don’t talk about the properties of nitrogen atoms when discussing air flow around an airplane wing. Every stage has its own language.

            She’s been debunked up one side and down the other. She wrote the “Intention Experiment” which seems to imply that all the kids starving to death right now, intended to do so! She’s a wishful thinker, taken seriously by those with confirmation bias who want someone to tell them their beliefs are valid; because it’s way too much work to challenge them. Please tell me you can do better than McTaggart as a source!

            As for entanglement, this has nothing to do with woo and psi. NIST is studying how entanglement – an interesting characteristic of quantum field theory that can be used to provide secure communications. It is difficult to entangle particles. If you read the study, then you know they took more than week to generate a few hundred entangled electron pairs, whereas generating a quantum key would require thousands of bits to be processed per minute.

            Your particles and mine are not entangled. The idea is to intentionally entangle particles – send one of them to a remote location, (at the speed of light or less – entanglement does not break any speed limits), and then because these particles are entangled, if you change the spin or charge on one of them, the exact opposite will happen to the other. This does nothing whatsoever to prove that some field of woo exists. It is an interesting phenomena of quantum field theory that could have implications for cryptology and perhaps quantum computing. The trending theory that explains this is based on the proposition that the entire universe is a quantum wave. It would take too much space to try to explain it here – but Carroll’s book does a good job. In any event, entanglement has nothing to do with spiritual woo.

            Science is not “catching up” with woo spirituality. Science is debunking it one piece after the other. I am very keyed in to advances in science – I read about all the new discoveries, or at least breeze over them if they are beyond my comprehension. I never read of anything new being discovered that supports woo. You’ll get trash rags like Collective Consciousness that trot out the same tired studies every few months, but they never have anything new. I just took a quick look at Noetic Institute, and see nothing new. The situation is the same as young earth creationism vs evolution. All the evidence is on one side, and each new piece debunks the old myths.

          • Stephen mills

            Science is a young field Patrick still using huge engines powerd by ancient sunlight .Its making progress but only in warfare , medicine that’s another story 3rd biggest killer is pharmaceutical medicine ,prescribed by Doctors of science !!

            I’m not a creationist an animist or pantheist perhaps but I will keep researching ,reading trying to understand and using my intuition 6th sense perhaps to figure out this world .

          • Patrick Gannon

            “…. it’s making progress but only in warfare.”

            Oh come on Stephen. You’re brighter than that. That’s utter nonsense. We’ve discovered potentially habitable planets, dinosaurs trapped in amber, amazing information about Jupiter, the discovery of the Higgs Field, gravitational waves, we learned more about the placebo affect and what LSD does to the brain. We found evidence of the Majorana fermion that could revolutionize quantum computing. We discovered new subatomic particles. SpaceX successfully launched and landed a rocket booster on a platform on the ocean as well as on land, completely revolutionizing space travel, we spliced genes using genetic engineering to remove harmful genetic defects. We’re on the verge of synthetic blood; we’ve come up with brain implants that reverse paralysis, we have autonomous, self-driving cars and soon trucks, we have face recognition technology that will let you pay bills with your face image, we made strides in quantum computing and improved efficiency in solar cells…. I can continue, but hopefully you get the point. You might want to retract that statement, or show how all these discoveries are based on progressing warfare.

            Most of the advances we’ve made in warfare have led to more pinpoint accuracy and the ability to reduce collateral damage, as well as the ability to shoot down missiles that are launched at us.

            Now tell me what religions, including CwG have contributed.

          • Stephen mills

            Potential habitable planets ? So when science finally renders this one extinct with its chemical madness we can jump ship and try a new one. I do understand some of the marvels that science has created for the common good of society. I just have trouble seeing them as a positive for the collective good or some rich folks who can afford to be enhanced by these marvels.

            Let’s clean up the planet first before we put a base on Mars ,let’s end child mortality and poverty let’s get education to all the girls in the world .Science has a function but not to the detriment of solving basic problems of giving humans a hand up . Spending trillions on weapons of war is not a wise choice when millions are starving and have nothing. What do they care of the next automanous car when they can’t even eat a decent healthy meal or have a drink of pure clean water which is a basic right !!

          • Patrick Gannon

            New technology is always expensive to start, but as volumes rise, the costs come down. My first cellphone was as big as a woman’s purse, and came in a leather bag with a shoulder strap and if my employer had not paid for it, I couldn’t have afforded it. Today we all have cellphones. My first microwave oven cost over $600 and today you can buy them for $30. Yeah, rich people will get the first benefit of some new technologies, and their willingness to pay more for it, will help to make it affordable for the rest of us.

            The purpose of putting a base on Mars is to provide a backup, a redundancy plan, a disaster recovery for the human genome. Statistically this planet has, and will continue to have extinction events. If we don’t plan for it, the human genome could go extinct. Of course discovery and exploration such as this has always yielded far, far more in technical benefits than what is invested in the research and exploration.

            If we are to solve the problems of starving people, it will take science to do it. Science will have to come up with energy cheap enough to desalinate water in order to grow crops to feed a still-growing population. Do you think CwG is going to provide a practical solution for solving problems such as this? Of course not. Kumbaya only goes so far, and the emphasis on unscientific woo, eliminates it from serious consideration by those making practical decisions.

            When you refer to spending trillions I assume that is over a period of years, because currently Pentagon and related spending total $598 billion. I too would like to see this reduced, but this spending also provides us with technology that is good for everyone.

          • Stephen mills

            Planet spend $1.5 trillion and counting this year . Go humanity your in the zone ….

          • Patrick Gannon

            Valid point, but what practical solution is there to reduce the spending until the threats go away? For the threats to go away, we have to come up with nearly free energy in order to desalinate the oceans in order to make everything else work. You can’t do it without science. When populations stabilize, and when there is plenty for all, then the need for militaries will go away.

            We’re an evolutionary species, like all others. There are winners and losers. It’s part of who we are. It’s going to take time to get that out of our DNA – and we’ll never get rid of all of it. Any species that stops competing dies out. The reason that we act this way is because we default to our System1 thinking brain, and it’s all about survival, gut instincts, seeing every pattern as a threat – this comes from our reptilian brain, our millions of years of evolution. It won’t go away overnight. Fortunately we evolved over that time a secondary thinking system, a slow-thinking system, and it explains our rapid evolution. We’re still struggling with how to use it because it is often in conflict with System1, without which we wouldn’t have stayed alive, but which is far less pertinent in our modern world where snakes, tigers and prey are no longer part of our daily experience.

            We need to use our cognitive, slow-thinking brains if we want to stop acting in this way, but slow-thinking, deliberative, questioning, skeptical thinking systems make short work of imaginary gods, and thus this thinking system is at odds with how most people think. It’s a Catch-22. We have to start using our System2 brain, with the understanding that it means we’ll be challenging our most closely held beliefs and causing ourselves quite a bit of discomfort.

            You want to end military spending – you solve that problem.

  • Kristen

    Hi. I’ll stick with plain simple old fashioned English here.
    Q 1. Is there a God?
    My views are there are many Gods, they are a species, as mythology taught us, each the God of something, their own religions or ways based on them personally, and their own people that they will strongly influence, or encourage, to be more like them for compatibility purposes. I was born a Levite Israelite, from scripture, so my God is Jehovah/YWHW/Allah or generally just God. He’s the God of Law and Christs who are teachers of Law, as evident in scripture.. Indians are generally born under the Hindu Gods, Neales God is a God of the Afterlife and reincarnation. Other Gods influence people via astrology, their energy is around the planets we named after them so works via the Law of Attraction.. I THINK all Gods are ultimately under The Source (the maker of souls, Kether and spiritual energy). The Source governs all equally, via the Sun, craving beauty, perfection, love, joy and all the positive traits…anything Kabbalah or about the Tree of Life explains The Source, and many Gods, like Neales, identify The Source as their God of Gods etc, and Stephen Mills, Annie, Raphael and others talk of The Source, I can’t too much as scripture forbids me to do things along the lines of mentioning other Gods, Sun worship etc. Just typing this has gone against the rules in place.

    Q 2. What do they want, require or need?
    The goal of all is to restore ‘their’ people to how humans were intended to be, which is a Rainbow person. Each colour represents energies and human traits, all explained in dream books or online. Then where all colours merge blended colours count as well, apple green has a different meaning to jade, and peach differs to apricot. There are around 200 different human traits we should have in common, most teachings tell us to look to children to see these traits. A ‘rainbow human’ will be comfortable in any situation, and comfortably dress accordingly, with no hang ups. A female should be comfortable in a ballgown and heels, as well as jeans, gumboots and a shirt and everything in between. Likewise for guys, in a suit at a formal occasion, or ranch working clothes. Guides are in place for this, although its incredibly screwed up now, they are simply meant to be guiding humans ‘home’, to the original human state, and closer to our relevant God, and The Source. A person who can get to the rainbow point, with all the human traits, especially love, joy, laughter, confidence, can express themselves, shows tears of all emotions etc and doesnt knowingly cause suffering, then doesnt need to be reincarnated, its the entire point of reincarnation.
    Each God has his own expectations of their people, all in their relevant scriptures. My God, of scriptures expects no drunkenness, no immoral sexual acts, intelligence, incorruptability, abidance with Law, understanding, a sense of justice and righteousness etc. I can only really speak for Him as I havnt read other religions…old Gods like those of the Mayans wanted sacrifices etc, the Hindu Gods expect lines writtten over and over, statue worship and offerings. They are all different, and between each God and a person, no one else. Christians confuse me…they are under a God by choice, yet don’t comply with Gods instructions, a contract? Yet the end of that contract is a Judgement Day. Jesus, whom they follow, is very clear in Matthew and Revelation, how almost impossible it is to get into Gods Heaven, or Heaven on Earth at the end…it even states anyone who has lied will be banished to a hell state. Why on Earth would they sign up for that? I certainly wouldnt. I dont get it! If not an Israelite, I would have stuck with The Source…much easier!

    Q 3. What is the purpose of life?
    No idea, it somehow came into existance at some point! Someone was crazy! The purpose of the human race? I think we are the ‘entertainers’ of existance, one of the few creative, artistic, musical, fun loving, happy, funny species, that The Source chose to make, to produce positive energy. Most HEBs and everything we read about sound so insanely boring, Im sure the Gods and The Source would rather watch paint dry! I would! Somehow it all went incredibly wrong…but the Rainbow journey restores all our race has lost and rehumanises us, thank God!

    Q 4. What if anything happens after death?
    Different for everyone, I think most end up reincarnated. There’s no way I will, I hate the very concept, so will go to my relevant Gods Heaven and see whats there…His is a working realm, of Law, Tree of Life guides etc. As for others, it depends on their God, what they do or have etc. I hope mortality is available to those who choose it, and do know many end up in a hell state, a mental state of suffering for suffering they have caused, a Karmic state.

    Take care,

  • Sam

    1. Is there a God?

    How could it not be? Nothing in the universe, regarding anything, is more clear or obvious. To deny it, is from earlier misuse, and painful experiences, that at one time had you puke, making one’s sight temporary cloudy.

    2. If so, what is God, and what does God need, want, or require?

    God is everything there is. Pure intelligence, energy, and perfection without any limitations, and none the least: love. God wants to feel. God wants to feel alive. And for that, you need to be in a storm, a place of drama—which comes from contrasts. From the negative and positive clashing together, you are the instant flare shooting up in the middle, to the highest BE.

    3. Whether you believe there is a God or there is not a God, what do you believe is the purpose of life — if any?

    As God doesn’t know of anything else than itself, and have no knowledge of anything before its own existence, there is no known purpose, and therefore none, regarding life itself. The purpose is whatever we want it to be, at any given moment; to create and recreate ourselves in the making of the road being the very goal.

    4. What, if anything, happens after death?

    Immediately a big relief. No aching body, worries, sorrow or pain, but overwhelming peace and freedom. First, you encounter what your heart most of all desire, what you associate with comfort and beauty, to make sure the arrival, and transition, be a soothing one, as still the bearer of a human mind. Then to gradually discover your real powers, and the real you, soon once again be the God you really are. The human you once were, now only being a memory among many.
    You will be part of a pretty extensive network.
    Whatever you want to know, you will know just like that. Wherever you want to go, you will be instant. Whoever you want to talk to, you will right away. Whatever you want to create—how you look, or the scenery—it will immediately come to be. And all this, or any task, you can do all at once and simultaneously, no matter how many—interacting with everyone else multitasking just like yourself. The real world has no limitations, which is the ultimate existence. But this bliss of absolute freedom you can’t really understand or appreciate before coming up against something that is not, being the opposite. And that is where Earth and the physical world comes in.

    “And what role, if any, do your answers play in the living of your life?”

    The role of a firm base, having peace of mind, and a never failing compass at every crossroad. Even though far from easy to achieve, practice, and keep in mind, all the time, in a deliberately distracting world. Life on Earth is one hell of a challenge.

  • 1. Is there a God?

    Yes, but not in the way we think.
    We look everywhere for God but ourselves, where the divine energy resides.

    At the moment of writing this I think there is the inner God within, also seen in the outer world, and the larger cosmic universe/s physical and less physical. For our purposes at present we are concerned with God in regards to ourselves and the world. But one of the biggest issues facing most of us is this:

    “How to answer the question of all the evil/cruelty as we currently define it? Yes we can be the cause of much, perhaps most of our own pain and suffering. Yet what of the cruelty of nature? Insects that lay eggs inside a human to hatch later, so much disease and natural disasters that happen way before climate change. There has yet to be a answer to satisfy most people. Yes you can say “Mysterious are the ways of the lord” but that doesn’t cut it for most. That to me would be the question to address in the next blog!

    CwG book one I believe hints at a God behind God?

    2. If so, what is God, and what does God need, want,
    or require?

    My answer to what is God is too long to put here.

    Simply though, God is the energy behind all physical and less physical creation. It is a neutral energy, unbiased, and can be used like electricity for good or less good. It does not fit the standard religions view in any way. Except for metaphysical religions etc.

    CwG says, God doesn’t want or need anything, except to experience itself through us and the world etc. God has no requirements, but we do. Food, water, shelter etc. Though sun gazers claim they don’t even need to eat. Lisette Larkins says enlightened ET’s don’t eat sleep or need water and like sun gazers simply live on starlight. They live not hundreds, but thousands of years.

    3. Whether you believe there is a God or there is not a God,
    what do you believe is the purpose of life — if any?

    I believe there is a purpose to life, many in fact, we come here to experience life in the incarnation in a certain way, we have free will, but come and our born to families and environments that mold and give us the purpose and experiences we desire.

    4. What, if
    anything, happens after death?

    That’s a bit mysterious though NDE give many hope, while other schools of thought write it all off as brain activity. Lucid dreamers can directly ask this question to the dream itself and get some wild answers. Many feel the presence of those passed on, and those ready to pass on claim to see angles, relatives etc. Others say it’s just the brain. I’m not one of those, I believe we go on.

    To me the afterlife is or I like to think of as a lucid dream, we are more awake and can do and create anything or just about anything. By the way, I think the after life is still physical in some way, but without the negatives. I believe there is way more to all of this than we can imagine. But we isolate and narrow our vision for reasons we decided before coming to this human earth life. There is a great advantage to this, and that’s why we made the decision.

    The question to ask, is there a second death on the other side?

    • Patrick Gannon

      Ah the question of evil. It is much more satisfying to go with coincidence and bad luck, than to accept that an all-powerful being imposes misery on the innocent, and/or allows it to happen, isn’t it? This is a problem, even for Neale’s god. He answers by suggesting that we call evil upon ourselves before we even come here – I find that to be ludicrous, though I once believed it. It’s a way of telling people that it’s their own fault when things completely outside of their control create hardships and misery. How is that helpful? It really rules out any need for compassion. Why feel compassion for someone who elected to be miserable before they even got here?

      Don’t put too much hope in NDEs. It’s been learned that the default for our vision when the brain loses O2 is to see white light and a tunneling effect. This has been well documented by pilots in acceleration machines, among other tests. Someone here suggested that a real OBE is different from one that is manually stimulated, but the very fact that the OBE can be manually invoked means the likelihood of OBEs being real events is radically reduced, as it indicates that the brain is surely and clearly involved.

      “… is there a second death on the other side?” Wow, you mean we have to be afraid of dying, die, come back to life and then be afraid of dying all over again? I’m planning to die just once. That will be more than enough for me!

    • Raphael

      I made a comment about the cruel aspect of nature in my entry and then took it out…it certainly nullifies all thoughts of a compassionate God in my opinion, at least in the way we understand compassion.

      As an example, the spectacle of a helpless pregnant impala being torn to pieces and greedily eaten alive, one vital organ at a time and starting with the living fetus, by wild African dogs or hyenas, is shocking to humans, but apparently not shocking to the God who is said to have created it…how could that be? Mammals, who have a nervous system, obviously feel as much pain and fear as we do.

      Christians have come up with a blanket answer to explain all that they do not like about the world: it is a fallen world. Completely ridiculous but very convenient!

      I have my own answer, which I was given in another dream/vision when I was very young after spending much time in nature, and which I will not post now, but this would be an interesting topic to discuss later indeed.

      • Patrick Gannon

        “As an example, the spectacle of a helpless pregnant impala being torn to pieces and greedily eaten alive, one vital organ at a time and starting with the living fetus, by wild African dogs or hyenas, is very shocking to humans, but apparently not shocking to the God who is said to have created it…how could that be?”

        Easy. Because the “god” that created it is soul-less. It’s called evolution through natural selection.

        “All mammals, who have a complete and functional nervous system, obviously feel pain and fear.”

        The “shock” response experienced by mammals when seriously injured is still being studied, but appears to shut down the parts of the brain that experience pain. How and why such a trait might have evolved doesn’t pop immediately to mind, but it’s good that it did. I went down on a motorcycle once, and the pain didn’t kick in till later because of the shock.

        I wish I could agree with you on the topic of “evil.” I think that it’s a word used to provide a way of talking about certain behaviors, and I agree that at a deeper level, mis-wired brains are the problem – but some things, some organizations, some particular religious beliefs are best described with the word “evil.”

        While I have an extremely low prior credence that we go back and forth from spiritual to physical world, the way you described it was quite interesting. Basically we’re never satisfied. I think that is a core part of our genome, our DNA, and that it’s a good thing. However it’s applicability ends at this plane of existence. Even though we strive to continue to live, because that trait kept us alive and reproducing, just because we really want to, and we’ve evolved a strong fear of dying, it doesn’t mean that we get what we want – and indeed the likelihood of such approaches zero.

        Your memory cannot go spiritual and then come back to physical and include new memories, unless it’s placed in some sort of brain. Memories are formed by laying down tracks in the brain. Every time you recall a memory, you re-write it. Synapses fire. Neural paths are established. A new “state” of the brain is created in a continuously ongoing process. When you “remember” something, what actually happens is that the brain is put into the “state” of neural firing and paths that was in place at the time of the experience, or the last remembering of the experience. How do you reproduce that “state” of electrochemical reactions without all the mechanical stuff that creates it?

        The process of remembering creates a new track, and whatever is going on in your head at that time, can be incorporated into the new track and become part of the old memory. That’s how our memories work. It’s why our memories can change. It’s why we sometimes incorporate things into our memories that weren’t there to begin with. Without such a physical mechanism, how will these electrochemical reactions transfer over to the spirit world and continue to be modified?

        This is where I go with Annie. Neale says the soul has its own agenda. Well that agenda does not include dragging along old memories. Who we think we are comes from our memories, so “we” won’t be going along with the soul. Our memories die here with our brains. So who cares about these souls which have no impact on the particles that make up our world anyway? I don’t get all the fuss about looking after some soul that is going to dump me like a hot potato when it’s ready to move on. (A little sarcasm in there!).

        • Jethro

          Bad things happen, Evil things happen with intent and are related to human actions and thoughts about it. That about sums it up.

        • Raphael

          Thanks for your comment Patrick.

          As I mentioned before, I am more into the philosophical aspects of spirituality (such as Zen and Taoism) than theology. I do not try to define the universe theologically…I try to understand how best to relate to it and to my own nature in a way that is intuitive and creative, as well as harmonious and satisfying and hopefully enlightening.

          So about memory, I do not know, and I have no problem saying that I do not known anything with certainty. Some people say that beyond the linear time we experience in this dimension, there is no time and everything actually happens at once. That would imply the existence of multiple selves…who are related but distinct, and who do not communicate but whose personal tendencies (such as specific talents, etc) can bleed through, from one to the other. And that also implies the existence of a oversoul who acts as a puppet master…or a parent with multiple (and unruly) children.

          That’s a strange thought. Personally, I find all of these ideas interesting but unnecessary, as just like an atheist, my approach to life is here and now. As a matter of fact my spiritual philosophy causes me to understand that nothing actually exists, as far as our own humanity is concerned, apart from here and now, everything else being a thought about the past or the future (of course the physical universe exists beyond our current reach, but I am referring to our own human experience).

          • Sam

            “Some people say that beyond the linear time we experience in this dimension, there is no time and everything actually happens at once. That would imply the existence of multiple selves…who are related but distinct, and who do not communicate but whose personal tendencies (such as specific talents, etc) can bleed through, from one to the other. And that also implies the existence of a oversoul who acts as a puppet master…or a parent with multiple (and unruly) children.”

            The real world is absolute speed, and therefore no delay regarding anything; everything happens at once. Not only can we be everywhere at the same time, but also everyone at the same time, and everything else there is too. There are no limits being limitless.
            First, we may think we are human, and then maybe we will think we are the soul, but what we really are is the one and only God. There is no puppet master or someone made in its image. God is actually and single-handedly playing every single role there is at the same time. Everything is the same entity having one hell of a “chess game” with itself. There is nothing more or less God than anything else in the world. Everything is just this one “guy” trying to cope, being the only one to exist. All alone forever.
            The cruelty question, and the like, that has us occupied, gets to be of no relevance when coming all the way home, to the source, realizing there is no one else.

    • Craig

      Respectfully I would provide a resent reminder, some reading on the late Wayne Dyer’s work will prove that theories only last when the sponsor keeps repeating the theory. When the sponsor passes on…
      Well even the theory of choice to heal and stay alive eternally becomes nul and void. And only one reality causes this change… Death. The removing of life CO2 by a force greater than us all.
      Patrick recalled a truth in an earlier past. Every religion is about the now and here. Afterlife was not part of discussion until 2000 years ago. Maybe a desire to live and find worth in our dusty body.

  • Spiritual_Annie

    Is there a God?

    Yes, “God” exists. I know this both through communication directly with “God” and with my Soul.

    If so, what is God, and what does God need, want, or require?

    I have an understanding that “God” is the essential, irreducible building block of everything that exists–those things about which we know through science, those things we know through metaphysical means, and those things we have yet to discover, some of which may not be possible in this physical realm. That’s why I often refer to “God” as Divine Energy, or Divinity, so that no one confuses what I’m referring to as a God which is related to any one religion. (But I also sometimes use the term “God” in order to keep the flow of conversation going.) Others I’ve spoken with have referred to this same Divine Energy as The Source.

    I believe that Divine Energy contains all of the consciousness, experiences and knowledge of all of It’s creation, but it doesn’t need, want or require anything except for Its creation to exist–for It to create. Divine Energy is the building block of all creation, yet cannot experience Itself as any one particular thing until It creates that thing, which then interacts with Its other creations. It gains through our experiences an understanding what it is to be a particular thing, but there are no particular experiences required in order for It and we to gain from those experiences. As each part of creation is unique, It always gains a new experience through that uniqueness.

    Whether you believe there is a God or there is not a God, what do you believe is the purpose of life — if any?

    I believe the purpose of life is to live. I believe the purpose of physicality is to live. I believe the purpose of nonphysicality is to live.

    I do believe that each individual incarnation of my Soul has a purpose, set out beforehand in concert with Divine Energy and agreed to by all. I believe that purpose can be seen in the pattern of experiences we, as individuations of Divine Energy, experience in one particular life. I believe that each purpose, or incarnation, is Divine Energy’s way of creating something entirely unique for It to experience through us, as well as what we gain through having those experiences.

    What, if anything, happens after death?

    Life continues on in a different form, possibly many different forms. I know life continues because I have been able to communicate with specific people who have played a significant role in my life, and whom I’ve loved, after they have passed through death’s door–sometimes without invitation, without invocation, without intention on my part. Either I or they can initiate the conversations.

    Love and Blessings Always,

    • Patrick Gannon

      We’ve been round and round on many of the things you wrote about. I’ll just mention once again the distinction you place between yourself and your soul. They are treated as separate things. Your soul has a purpose, but not you, right? You exist as a pawn to further the advancement of your soul. Swell. I’d tell that soul to handle its own agenda and leave me alone!

      I won’t go into detail again about how your “building block of everything that exists” manages to manipulate the particles of our natural world, without being identified, particularly when there is no need for this magical force to explain any of the properties and actions of our particles in the first place. Do photons have intelligence, memories, experiences and consciousness? How does that work?

      In your description of what god needs, I see the same relationship as you have with your soul and its agenda. We appear to be here as pawns so your god can know itself.

      “I believe the purpose of life is to live. I believe the purpose of physicality is to live. I believe the purpose of nonphysicality is to live.”

      Life is a process, not a force or energy. How can you have a process without physicality? I’m not saying you can’t, but if you’re going to assert it, don’t you have to come up with some sort of explanation for how a process can exist without any mechanism to support it? You can’t have a flame without fuel. A flame is a chemical process. Life is a chemical process too. How do you have life without chemicals?

      • Spiritual_Annie

        I will say this only once: I am not required to, nor will I, respond to your comments, criticisms and questions that involve my own Spirituality born from my own knowings and experiences.

        EDIT: I would suggest you reread what I wrote as I do mention that I gain from my own experiences.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Your prerogative, but a failure to defend one’s views is its own message.

          And your experiences are entirely subjective and explained by natural phenomenon, so they aren’t really an explanation at all; only a justification for your beliefs – which of course you are entitled to, no matter how unscientific!

          • Spiritual_Annie

            The only message, which I will make perfectly clear for you, is that I will not make myself a target for your dismissiveness of some of the most important moments of my life. My knowings and experiences are part of who I am, and I won’t respond to your dismissing or belittling them—which you make clear is your only goal in the second sentence of your latest reply.

            Science is not all there is. Although, one would be led to believe so, if all they read were your posts.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Then I advise two things: 1) stop responding. 2) skip my posts. Perhaps you should block me again. I have a right to challenge your subjective experiences on this forum and make them a topic of discussion once you make them public, unless Neale kicks me out and turns it into the Kumbaya Club.

            I didn’t say science is all there is – but it does explain your subjective experiences.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I will post what I feel like posting here, including replying to what I choose to. I have that right, unless Neale blocks me. That includes pointing out that you are as dogmatically attached to science as any religious fundamentalist.

            And, no, science hasn’t come far enough along to explain metaphysical experiences. Since science is focused on a particle-based theory, it hasn’t looked to explain the metaphysical except from that bias.

          • Patrick Gannon

            How would you know? What books on the subject have you read? I’ve given you books to read, you’ve failed to do so; but managed to find a way to read CwG4, something that would support, rather than challenge your cognitive bias. Don’t talk to me about bias!

            There is a huge difference between me and a religious fundamentalist. I have access to a huge mountain of evidence and the fundy has none, and I’m not threatening anyone with eternal damnation if they don’t believe me. If the fundy comes up with evidence, I’ll be right there in the pews next to them, praising Jeebus.

            And yes, science has come along far enough to explain metaphysical experiences, and again – how would you know otherwise? What research have you done? What books have you read about particle physics, quantum mechanics, neurobiology, etc.?

            Science is NOT focused on particle-based theory – it’s focused on quantum field theory, and any level below that. The standard model, the core theory insofar as it pertains to the particles that make up our natural world – is essentially complete; it’s finished, though there are a few footnotes we’d still like to add, like the discovery of the graviton. It was completed with the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, and explained how particles get their mass. They are on to the next stage – quantum field theory and beyond. You aren’t up to date on the science. You’re a few decades behind. The uncertainty of quantum mechanics initially gave some impetus to the woo-meisters when we discovered the oddity of the measurement problem, and they leveraged that to the hilt; but it turned out that quantum field theory debunked the woo-meisters.

            Science does not look to explain things from a bias. Certain scientists surely do, but the process of science is a mechanism that has nothing to do with bias, and is based solely on results. If evidence was emerging that supported your woo claims, it would have been noted, and expanded upon. I started reading about reincarnation, astral travel, etc. back in the mid-70s and we have no more evidence today than we did then – and it’s subjective, and thus of very limited value, and that value becomes less and less as we learn more and more about how the brain works, and how these phenomenon occur. Decades of failure to find any evidence for your woo, while simultaneously finding evidence against it again and again and again, puts your woo in the same category as fundies and their six day creation. The tide is not going in your direction.

            What’s such a shame, is that there are so many people who are clearly intelligent enough to discover all this for themselves, but lack any motivation to challenge their closely held beliefs. Courage is in short supply, it seems.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            As I previously stated, CWG Book 4 was a gift. I didn’t “manage to find a way to read [it].” I didn’t ask for it to be bought for me, nor did I express a lack of money so that someone would buy it for me, nor did I state the desire to own it to the person who bought it. The person who did so did it because they wanted to give me a gift. Period.

            I don’t lack courage. If you believe that facing one’s inner demons in intensive therapy doesn’t take courage, you are flat out wrong. If you believe that living with chronic pain lacks courage, you are flat out wrong. And if you believe that I haven’t questioned my beliefs, you are also flat out wrong.

            Just because the money for science is geared towards the physical rather than the metaphysical doesn’t mean the metaphysical isn’t worth studying. There’s just no monetary payoff at the end like there is with the study of the physical.

            So, science isn’t biased. The mainstream scientific community, and their financial backers are. You knew what I meant as I’ve explained this before. I just don’t repeat myself over and over and over again to suit your specific needs.

            Just because I don’t read the books you recommend, that doesn’t mean I don’t read. I spend a good deal of each day on the internet investigating many things, scientific advancement included. I don’t need a book to explain to me what a scientific study published in a journal means. And I don’t owe you an accounting of what I’ve read.

          • Patrick Gannon

            None of that answers the question, “how would you know?”

            “Just because the money for science is geared towards the physical rather than the metaphysical doesn’t mean the metaphysical isn’t worth studying.”

            Money for science, like most things, is based on results. String theorists may find their funding cut if they don’t make some progress. Obviously “psi” research has failed to provide compelling, objective evidence since it began in earnest back in the 70’s. It’s ludicrous to spend a lot of money on research that fails to yield useful results. If the “law of attraction” actually worked, for example, there would be no problem getting funding, would there?

            No, you don’t owe me an accounting of what you read, but if you did, it might address the question, “how would you know?”

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I know because I read. I read scientific journals and magazine articles; I read medical journals and magazine articles; I read psychology journals and magazine articles; I read articles on philosophy, sociology, anthropology, evolution, archaeology, astronomy, quantum physics, history, art, creativity, poetry, literature, ecology, economy, politics, and more.

            What I don’t do is accept an author’s viewpoint over my own understandings and knowings. I form my own opinions.

            I never said that I believe in the “Law of Attraction.” I have had the Mechanics of the Mind work for me, as well as having what I call the “Law of Gratitude” and the “Law of Compassion” work in my own life and the lives of others.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Miss Straw Ma’am, I never said that you believe in the “Law of Attraction,” did I? You complained that woo researchers don’t get the funds they need. Why is that, if there are all these laws you speak of? Are the woo researchers lacking in “gratitude” or “compassion”? Are they violating those “laws” so that they don’t get funding? If all this woo stuff is real – why doesn’t it manifest so as to provide the funding for those trying to study it?

            It is not necessary to accept an author’s viewpoint, but one should place credence where credence is due, when one author has reams and reams of compelling evidence and another (woo) author has absolutely none. I’m going with the evidence. You’ve made it clear that you prefer woo. To each his or her own.

            I see very little in your posts to demonstrate a significant knowledge base regarding the items you listed, but perhaps you choose not to share your knowledge. I’m a natural teacher, so I like to share what I have learned.

            In my original response to your post above, I raised a number of questions. You’ve answered none of them – only nagged at me like you always do. I think I’m finished with this thread unless you want to go back and answer my questions.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            You see my responses as “nagging.” I see them as clarifications about to whom, and about what, I will comment. It was your choice to reply to my original post. I’m not required to answer your questions. I am allowed to express what I choose, unless Neale says otherwise.

          • Patrick Gannon

            That is correct. You are not required to answer my questions, but I can certainly point out that you frequently fail to do so, can’t I?

            Go ahead. Get the last word. Done here.

    • In lucid dreaming people have talked with those that passed on and got info not known to them or others but later verified.

      They are also careful to point out differences that some deceased people you meet are in fact your own unconscious dealings, but not all. I talked with a friend the other day who has had premonition dreams and that is not uncommon.

      • Patrick Gannon

        “In lucid dreaming people have talked with those that passed on and got info not known to them or others but later verified.”

        Do you have a source for that?

        • Lucid Dreaming Gateway to the inner self by Robert Waggoner.

          Lucid Dreaming Experience. Volume 4 #4 March 2016 See Lucidly Meeting the Angel of Death.

          LDE Vol 5. #1 June 2016. This issue is pretty much dedicated to the topic.

          No links allowed on this blog, but it is on online magazine.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Thanks. I was hoping for a scientific study. Your sources are all subjective reports that are only as valuable for evidence as the subject’s memory. Lucid dreaming is a real thing, but the paranormal stuff attached to it requires that everything we know about the laws of physics are wrong, and I don’t see anything that makes that challenge.

            I looked up a couple reviews of Waggoner’s work and the consensus seems to be cherry-picking data, and inconclusive or non-repeatable results. I want to see a peer-reviewed study, not a woo-guy selling books.

            Mainstream science sees nothing supernatural:

            Neuroscientist J. Allan Hobson has hypothesized what might be occurring in the brain while lucid. The first step to lucid dreaming is recognizing one is dreaming. This recognition might occur in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is one of the few areas deactivated during REM sleep and where working memory occurs. Once this area is activated and the recognition of dreaming occurs, the dreamer must be cautious to let the dream continue but be conscious enough to remember that it is a dream. While maintaining this balance, the amygdala and parahippocampal cortex might be less intensely activated.[30] To continue the intensity of the dream hallucinations, it is expected the pons and the parieto-occipital junction stay active.[31]

            Using Electroencephalography (EEG) and other Polysomnographical measurements, LaBerge and others have shown that lucid dreams begin in the Rapid Eye Movement (REM) stage of sleep.[32][33][34] LaBerge also proposes that there are higher amounts of beta-1 frequency band (13–19 Hz) brain wave activity experienced by lucid dreamers, hence there is an increased amount of activity in the parietal lobes making lucid dreaming a conscious process.[35] (Wikipedia).

          • LD is ripe for scientific study. One expert LD a woman, was the first to record an orgasm in LD she signaled when it was happening. Likewise others have signaled when Lucid as well directly controling the eye movements as the signal.

            LD may in fact be the link between the psychic and spiritual. Studies have been done. But if I remember correctly Waggoner and LaBerge have said the scientific community is slow to conduct studies because of it’s etheric psychic quality.

            Rebecca Turner the founder of the world of lucid dreaming who’s writing style I love grew up a Christian fundamentalist and bought heavily into the psychic realm only to go the other route to the scientific. She personally doesn’t believe in the OBE or actually meeting with the departed. But to her credit, she is still open minded to question it’s possibility. Waggoner in another book lists the differences of conversing in LD with the departed as aspects of our own unconscious and differences with actual connection.

            I plan on experimenting in this realm at some point. I have numerous experiments I want to try.

            Neale does not want this (particular) string to get bogged down in the side bars that happen. But you did ask. And I admire the research you’ve done so far, but you are still only touching the surface, and I at least, have a bit of my foot in the water. Speaking of I gotta try walking on the water! Cheers. I recommend you try it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I agree that it’s a subject deserving of further study. I’ve read that it may provide a mechanism to treat PTSD. We’re learning that if you get good sleep with normal, strong dream patterns, then you don’t get PTSD.

            What dreams do is allow your brain to lay down your memories of the day, and to process and collate all that you experienced, but it does it while certain parts of the brain – such as those that register emotion – are inactive. The process of viewing the traumatic event in your brain, without the associated emotion, means writing synaptic memory tracks in your brain without the angst, fear, shock, etc. being associated with the memory. People who do not get good sleep or who do not dream for whatever reason, tend to get PTSD because their memories get laid down with the emotion track fully active. Something sparks a memory, and it pulls up a brain state (that’s all a memory is), but the state includes all the original emotions.

            I’ve read that using LD, it may be possible to go in and help people run those dreams over and over again, without the emotion, in order to create new memory tracks that don’t give the subject PTSD during waking states. It’s an interesting idea.

            But it’s all the product of the brain. Study the phenomenon from a neurology standpoint, instead of a woo standpoint, and you’ll see the practical benefits, while the woo passes away.

          • PTSD is used in LD to actually face the fear/trauma in a safe environment, that is, knowing you are dreaming and can’t be hurt. Like wise, this is great for children & adults with nightmares.

            Psychic phenomena, communing with the departed, premonitions are worthy subjects to be studied in LD.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Study away! But don’t hold your breath! To commune with the dead would require forces, fields, particles or whatever to manipulate the neurons in our brains, and if that was happening, we’d know about it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Marko, you might be interested in this article: BigThink new-study-shows-how-to-control-your-dreams

            It seems that, like OBEs, we can now manually stimulate the ability to lucid dream, which makes it less and less likely that dreaming comes from somewhere “out there” rather than from within our brains.

      • Spiritual_Annie

        When I was younger, I had premonitions that would come to me in dreams, as well as just “out of the blue” knowings. The dreams that were premonitions were always in color, in 3D, and the first thing I would remember on waking, never fading like traditional dreams do. They are as vividly remembered today as when I had them, some of them 50 years ago.

        Love and Blessings Always,

        • Patrick Gannon

          Do you understand how memories work? When you call up a memory, you place the brain in the same state as it was in when the memory was written. The problem is that every time you experience a memory, you re-write it. Over 50 years, a memory you recall over and over again becomes quite distinct, but each and every time that you recall that memory, you modify it, a lot or a little, implanting current experiences and emotions into the “new” memory that overwrites or modifies the original.

          Memories that are extremely “real” feeling were laid down during periods of sleep when you were partially conscious. Normally during dream sleep, certain parts of your brain are inactive – particularly those dealing with emotion and “fact-checking,” which is why so many of our dreams are wild and crazy. If a memory gets laid down while that fact-checking part is inactive, the memory can seem more real than normal. People who have sleep/dream issues (as I recall you have mentioned experiencing), are more prone to these kinds of memories.

          Premonitions are cognitive bias. We only notice when they come true, and fail to notice the many times that they do not. This is well understood.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I never said I “recall over and over” those premonitions that came to me in dreams. The only times I recall them are during discussions like these, which are rare.

            I now have a sleep disorder that I was diagnosed with in my 40’s. I have no reason to believe that I had this disorder when I was young.

            I have shared premonitions that I’ve had with no prior knowledge of the subject, both in dreams and while fully conscious.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You seem recall them here quite frequently. You’ve said that you like to share your experiences with others. A couple times a year is probably more than enough to keep a dream active and modified – and large breaks in between would just make the memory less reliable. If we don’t recall memories, they get weaker and weaker and less and less trustworthy, so you can’t have it both ways.

            That you were diagnosed with a sleep disorder in your 40’s does not rule out that you may have had it for much longer. I don’t know (or want to know) your medical history, but you share much of it here, and you’ve described traumatic events when you were younger, so it’s not unreasonable to consider that you may have had a sleep disorder, or other conditions for longer than you know.

            I just stumbled across this video, which attempts to put an associated topic into a layman-friendly format (I’ve mentioned Prof Visconti’s, more thorough book previously), some of which is pertinent to our discussion. Please read the article and watch the video at the end.

            bigthink philip-perry hallucinations-are-more-common-than-we-think?

            You, like many others, are in a tough position. If you read the science and based on the compelling, objective evidence, come to accept what the state of science has become quite confident about, then it means admitting that your beliefs were wrong. That’s extremely difficult for most people to do, and is probably the main reason otherwise intelligent people hang on to beliefs long after they should have discarded them.

            But I’ll keep doing my part to see that the “other side” is presented so that it can at least be considered, and so people will be familiar with what is going to become a larger and larger part of our societal discussion in the decade ahead. Things are profoundly different – we just haven’t realized it yet.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I’m not in a “tough position.” I merely accept that there is much more undiscovered by science than what has passed your test of “objective, compelling evidence.” Time has not changed my premonitions, nor has repeating them, many of which I have not shared here or elsewhere.

          • Raphael

            About science, let me add a thought or two:

            The scientific method of testing hypotheses in real-world experiments allows humans to discover powerful facts about the world. All reasonable people can agree on those facts but new data can always throw those facts into question. This is as it is supposed to be. That is the very essence of science, it forms the so-called scientific spirit.

            The repeated perversion of the scientific spirit has, however, led to horrendous situations in which countless lives have been lost or gravely harmed.

            History is filled with the hubris of those who believe they are the experts with the only valid “scientific” knowledge.

            Examples: in the 17th Century, meteorites were destroyed by the President of the French Academy of Science because every scientist “knew” at the time (or was “quite confident”) that rocks could not fall from the sky and he, as the President of the French Academy of Science, would know if they did!
            In 19th Century Vienna, the doctor who crusaded for physicians to wash their hands was hounded from the profession and into an insane asylum.
            In 20th Century USSR, if as a biologist you didn’t believe in the “truth” of acquired genetic traits (“Lysenkoism”) you might well end up in the Gulag.

            As bad as these unscientific errors were, modern crony corporate “science” takes the distortion of science to new lows, making the big lie, “the science is settled”, the battle-cry of censors and thought regulators everywhere.

            True science, however, is never, and in fact, can never, be “settled” and can never be determined by political decree. True science is always subject to challenge and falsification by later contrary evidence. That, indeed, is how science advances. Take that away and there is no science at all. Science is converted to dogma.

            This attitude of scientific humility is universally embraced by real scientists. This humble scientific spirit had led to the time-honored and very wise tradition that the authors of scientific papers acknowledge their own limitations and call for further research — inviting falsification of their own results.

            But not if you are a practitioner of the religion of fake science, of crony corporate science. Unfortunately, much scientific research today is financed by corporations that have a vested interest in obtaining biased results that will benefit their bottom lines, and sanctioned by a government that is also bought off and controlled by corporations…at least in America.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Thank you, my friend, for your words. They reflect my thoughts as well, but I like the way you explained it.

            Love and Blessings Always,

          • Patrick Gannon

            “The scientific method of testing hypotheses in real-world experiments allows humans to discover powerful facts about the world. All reasonable people can agree on those facts”

            All reasonable people “can” agree on those facts, but a great many do not, thus implying that they are not reasonable people! I agree, but rather than use the word “fact” I would use the word “evidence.”

            So scientists have made mistakes in the past. Who hasn’t? Care to count up the misery created by science and compare it with the misery created by religion? Care to take a look at when religion or politicians used science as a weapon (think Christians giving blankets infected with smallpox to natives). Despite its travails, science has produced more for positive good for this world than any other discipline because of the methodology it employs. Where else would you get a platform to rant about the people who gave you the platform in the first place?

            I don’t share your hatred for corporations, large or small. There are always bad actors, and some people prefer to focus on the bad, ignoring what is good. Jethro could not have his business without the large corporations that manufacture the tools and appliances that he uses in his business. Kristin would not have the same products to sell if there were no large corporations. I would not be able to help connect people in third world countries to the global community without large corporations. You would not have this platform to rant on, if it were not for large corporations. Corporations are not inherently evil. Do you ever look for good? You have become so negative in my view. Maybe you’ve always been that way, and I just didn’t notice.

            Scientists are human beings with wives, kids, homes, communities, and most of them are good people doing the best they can just like the rest of us. So too with most people in large corporations, and I think even most politicians want to do the right thing; but I’m sure you disagree.

            I agree that science never “proves” anything, which is why I referred to “evidence” instead of “facts” above. If the evidence indicates that our theories are wrong, then we modify or replace them. What other discipline does that? Do you see any of the Abrahamic religions altering their beliefs now that we know the premise for their god is completely debunked? Do you see Neale renouncing his delusionary conversations with an imaginary invisible being that lives in the sky, now that we’ve taken the core theory, the standard model of physics to the point that it completely rules out his delusionary discussion as something that could possibly be real? No. Certainly not while it’s still generating revenue!

            Yes, these things are still theories, subject to being overturned with new evidence, but all the new evidence we collect supports the theory. There comes a point where it no longer make sense to believe in alternate theories completely lacking in compelling, objective evidence.

            With the discovery of the Higgs boson, the implications of which most people don’t understand, the standard model has completed its explanation of the material that makes up our natural world. We’re as solid on this as we are that the earth is round and that it goes around the sun. Yes, it’s possible that evidence could be provided that the earth is flat and that the sun goes around it, but the odds are so small that it makes no sense to act as if that were possible. It makes no sense to award grants to study a flat earth. That’s where we are with all this consciousness woo, and in the decades ahead, there’s going to be a lot of angst as this knowledge filters out to the scientifically illiterate masses who hold dear to their subjective experiences.

            The “religion of fake science, of crony corporate science…”

            I’m more concerned about the religion of pseudoscience, which is what CwG is based on. Sure there are corporations that hire great scientists to develop new technologies and products. What’s wrong with that? You wouldn’t have a cellphone if it wasn’t for the corporate drive for profitability. There are drugs and procedures that would not exist if corporations weren’t trying to make a profit.

            Scientists are very competitive. If the science is biased, it will eventually be called out in peer-review. The most important thing about science is pretty simple. It works.

  • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

    1.I don’t care.
    2.I don’t care.
    3.I don’t care.
    4. I hope I become a universe where I can self experience myself and do whatever my muscles wish to do.

  • Raphael

    A little British humor might be needed:

    “Living organism are merely tubes which put things in at one end and let them out at the other, which both keeps them doing it and in the long run wears them out. So to keep the farce going, the tubes find ways of making new tubes, which also put things in at one end and let then out at the other. At the input end they even develop ganglia of nerves called brains, with eyes and ears, so that they can more easily scrounge around for things to swallow. As and when they get enough to eat, they use up their surplus energy by wiggling in complicated patterns, making all sorts of noises by blowing air in and out of the input hole, and gathering in groups to fight with other groups.

    In time, the tubes grow such an abundance of attached appliances that they are hardly recognizable as mere tubes, and they manage to do this in a staggering variety of forms.

    There is a vague rule not to eat tubes of your own form, but in general there is serious competition as to who is going to be the top type of tube.

    All of this seems marvelously futile, and yet, when you begin to think about it, it begins to be more marvelous than futile. Indeed, it seems extremely odd.

    It is a special kind of enlightenment to have this feeling that the usual, the way things normally are, is odd, uncanny and highly improbable.”

    The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, by Alan Watts.

    • Jethro

      Simplifying the complicated. Stating a “simple” truth. There does seem to be a taboo against knowing ourselves. Want to know the true needs of a human? Pay attention to the elderly and the young children. Food, shelter, companionship. In relation to the tube, a place away from those three to let things come from the other end. Anything beyond that is greed and vanity.
      Greed = demanding those things that we don’t need while believing we need them so we can be better.
      Vanity = producing an image of ourselves that doesn’t actually exist for the purpose of feeding the greed.
      Self pity then consumes those who fall short in receiving what greed has demanded and when others have not responded well to their vanity. On top of that, people have ignored their self pity. Anger and hatred and blame are now dominant because they are greedy and vane and do not have something. The only answer is to gather others who are angry and hating and blaming to go to war with those who have what they want and forcefully take it. In order to gather and fight this war they know that what they need to have to be successful is… Food, Shelter, companionship and a place away from all that to pee and poop. This is how civilization is born.

      A little Jethro humor…

      • Raphael

        Regarding simple needs, I am reminded of a story I heard about elderly Native Americans living on North and South Dakota reservations in the late 19th century…they would flock to the local church in he winter, and the local priest or minister thought they were becoming enthusiastic about the sermons. The truth is, they were looking for warmth, and these churches had good stoves!

        • Jethro

          People still do that today at Wal-Mart and every mall across America. I guess it all depends on who has the money to heat and cool yet stupid enough to think there is another reason for people to flock to their location. Free food gets the same reaction! Food, shelter, companionship. A place to pee and poop away from the other three. It just works. Vickie and I are making a dream catcher from deer antlers. Looking forward to the finished product!! I may post a picture of it where it says coexist.

    • Craig

      Raphael and Jethro
      Thank you for the most interesting comments this far…

      • Raphael

        Thank you Craig…

    • Food and sleep are not needed for highly evolved ET’s according to Lisette Larkins. They get their nutrition solely from starlight and also don’t need to sleep. I guess when you are truly awake, sleep is no longer needed.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Why are these HEBs so reluctant to show themselves to real scientists?

        When I search for HEBs or “highly evolved beings” the only two names that come up are Walsch and Larkins, and Walsh gets a lot more hits than she does. She pitches UFOs, and like Neale, has no evidence for UFOs or HEBs, so why should either of them be taken seriously? I wonder which of them first originated the idea…

        By the way (grin), do fairies and goblins also eat photons? Actually we all eat starlight. Everything we eat relies on photons (star light) to grow. Odd that being “awakened” means not sleeping when sleep deprivation is well established as a highly effective means of torture for humans. If we are deprived of sleep for long enough, it will drive us insane or kill us. I can’t help but wonder if there are stupid people who read stuff like this and intentionally try to keep themselves awake in order to become “awakened.” If there are, then I expect Darwin will remove them from the gene pool, to our mutual benefit.

        I can learn nothing about her. She seems to have no credentials beyond talking with aliens and being a caregiver for a late stage dementia patient. There’s no Wikipedia on her, her Facebook page says zilch of interest, her website is down. Why should she be taken seriously, when she has no evidence for anything? If she did, then at least, she’d have a Wikipedia page!

        • Hi Pat, I won’t be answering any more of your questions on this blog, to keep it simple like Neale asked. But I will post some answers in the next blog regarding this post.

      • Raphael

        I am not sure that sleep is such a bad thing…all that a sleepless life would give us is more time to “do”…when what we actually need is being, and being asleep is also a form and expression and exploration of being.

        As far as eating, if you could restrain from eating animals, which is totally unnecessary, we might move one step towards evolution.

        • Patrick Gannon

          From a neurological standpoint, sleep may serves a number of purposes, but we’re still learning. For one thing, the brain may need time to clear out wastes. The membrane that houses the brain only allows certain things through – which is one reason it’s so difficult to come up with drugs that can pass this membrane in order to get to the brain in the first place. Caffeine is one such drug that has little trouble doing so, but most substances have difficulty going through this membrane. This may mean it may be difficult to get waste products out of the brain through that membrane. While our bodies need time to clean out the toxins, the brain may need more time, or to be in a different state where electrochemicals are released that help enable the process. The brain may need this time to clear out biological crap. This is not known for sure yet.

          What does seem clear though, is that the brain needs this time to consolidate and store memories. Memories are a brain state. When you recall a memory, you put your brain into the state it was in when the memory was created or last recalled, with the same synaptic firing patterns and pathways. The brain needs time to figure out what to keep, what to discard. During the day, the whole brain is firing all the time (that myth about using only 10% of our brains is nonsense), but most of that activity does not reflect things we want to remember. The brain sorts out what to keep, what to drop. When we sleep, certain sections of the brain are idled, such as the emotion and “fact-checking” centers. People who don’t sleep well after traumatic events are more likely to experience PTSD because the memories remain closely tied to the emotions.

          Source: “Brain Myths Exploded – Lessons from Neuroscience” Professor Indre Viskontas, Ph.D

          • Jethro

            I had a good friend say once that sleep and going to the bathroom really takes up a lot of time and is useless. I wondered then why a creator would create a worker that needed to sleep and use the bathroom. No creator? So many ideas that make absolutely no sense!

          • Raphael

            Was your friend constipated? Ha ha…
            No Creator ever created a “worker”…human civilization created workers, who are always pressed for time and can hardly breathe under their yokes.

          • Jethro

            LOL, at the time I believe she was busy with much to do.
            My parents are my creators and trust me, they created workers!

          • Patrick Gannon

            That’s actually an excellent point. Our bodies, and those of many other species, contain “designs” that any “intelligent designer” living today would scoff at as incompetence. Running the optic nerve in front of the retina? What intelligent designer would do that? Running the septic system through the middle of the playground? What’s the rationale in that? In the giraffe, there is a nerve that loops 15 feet in order to go 2 inches! None of this describes an intelligent creator; but it certainly describes a process of evolution that is constantly “hacking” the code that it has to start with. An intelligent designer starts with a fresh canvas. It can remove design flaws and fix them. Evolution just keeps hacking away, changing the code on the fly to keep up with the demands of natural selection.

          • Jethro

            What’s the rationale in running the septic system through the middle of the playground… Greener grass! The grass is always greener over the septic system. I know, everyone says the other side of the fence, but that’s where the septic system is. Biological design is what it is I guess. I have a cat box and a toilet, I’ll step in the rest when I work in the yard I’m sure…Hmmm maybe better sight would have been good.

          • Patrick Gannon

            The octopus’ eyes evolved almost the same as ours – except that nature didn’t put the optic nerve in front of the retina, giving the lowly octopus a better eye design than us, however it can’t see in color.

          • Craig

            Patrick after reconsidering all the options maybe the best processing is exactly how it is. After due consideration the safest option would be to protect the intestines by own bacterial channel.
            It is not always about the quickest route it is about the best option. Evolution manufacturing for survival.
            Our rethought processes are not always flawless. Consider the houses built in the 30s against those built 5 years ago. Which need the least maintenance in structural restrengthening?

          • Raphael

            This explains much of the ptsd suffered by military personnel, as one of the things that is widespread within the military, particularly in combat, is sleep deprivation, so that people cannot properly process their traumatic experiences.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I read an article just the other day that said they are looking to approve MDMA to treat PTSD. It seems some psychedelics can disrupt the brain patterns that are causing so much anxiety, and lay the memories back down without the emotions. This is promising and exciting research.

            The military is working closely with emerging technology to manage these problems. They spend a lot of money training soldiers, and it does them no good to have them become unfit for duty. They want to understand the problem and to find a solution. You’d be amazed at what they put into mental health and “flow” technology for Seals, Rangers and other specialized troops.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            You think that to “lay the memories [causing PTSD] back down without the emotions” is a good thing for mental well being? I completely disagree.

            One cannot resolve a horror one has lived through without dealing with the emotions involved. In fact, it’s by walking through the totality of the horror, with all the emotions and all the sensual memories attached, that one heals the memory and is no longer haunted by the horror. In fact, many with PTSD have compartmentalized the horror, and it’s only through reintegration of the differing pieces—the sights, the sounds, the sensations and pieces of the event itself—that healing can occur.

            I’ve read the studies on MDMA and other psychedelics to treat PTSD. I find it may work for returning one to being an active soldier short-term, but the horrors will eventually win out in the end because it’s natural to have emotional reactions to horrors. The studies haven’t yet been going on long enough to understand what happens when one later reacts with emotions to the horrors years later when they’re no longer in combat.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You are certainly free to disagree with experts and the prevailing science. You disagree with other science that challenges your beliefs, so it doesn’t surprise me – though I would think that if you consider yourself to be a PTSD survivor, that you would be interested in new cures.

            The idea, as I understand it, is to lay down memories without the emotions, because if you don’t have the emotions, you don’t get the horror. If you can recall an event, without the associated emotion, then you won’t experience the horror. This seems pretty self-evident to me.

            The current method for dealing with this situation is to slowly reduce the impact of the emotions by recounting the event over and over and over again until the emotional quotient is reduced. I did this for a traumatic childhood event myself, when I was much younger. The counselor had me tell him the story, and then again, and again, and again…. Each retelling lays down a new memory, overwriting the previous one. That’s how memories work. When one tells their counselor the same story again and again, they will start off full of emotion and detail, but with each subsequent retelling, it becomes less emotional and less detailed, and eventually the original memory has been modified so that emotions aren’t tied to it – hence no horror. Because you’ve overwritten the original memory which included all the emotion, you are no longer plagued by it. It’s gone, or significantly modified to the point where it doesn’t cause angst.

            The idea of using MDMA, as I understand it, is to speed up the process. The idea with both traditional therapy and MDMA or similar therapy, as I understand it, is that you remove the emotions so they don’t come back in the future. Every recall of a memory overwrites the original memory. The original memory is so weakened and reduced, that it has no future impact. That’s the idea of both types of therapy. This therapy, to the best of my knowledge is being developed, not to get soldiers back on the battlefield, but to help our veterans, and other victims of great emotional trauma.

            The results have been good enough for the FDA to justify a larger trial….

            “83% of the subjects receiving MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in a pilot study no longer met the criteria for PTSD, and every patient who received a placebo and then went on to receive MDMA-assisted psychotherapy experienced significant and lasting improvements.”

            “long-term follow-up of patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy revealed that overall benefits were maintained an average of 3.8 years later.”

            “These extremely powerful results indicate a promising future for MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD and lay the groundwork for continued research into the safest and most effective ways to administer the treatment.”

            These results were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.

            Maybe you should try it.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I don’t “consider [myself] to be a PTSD survivor.” I have chronic PTSD.

            I have been following the developments with interest, but I have three problems. First, I don’t consider 3.8 years to be a long-term study. I would need at least ten years of solid study with thousands of participants and follow-up to consider it long-term. Second, it doesn’t address the experience of those who have multiple horiffic experiences. Third, and most importantly for humanity’s sake, there are things about which I believe the natural human reaction is horror. This horror needs to be expressed, not erased as if the experience is somehow something about which we shouldn’t react to with emotion.

            I don’t disagree that this might help an individual who has been through the standard therapies, where their feelings about the event has been expressed, for a single horrific experience that is complete (not compartmentalized) and is unable to resolve their PTSD.

            My long-term experience of having PTSD and knowing, over the years, literally hundreds of others with PTSD has been that expressing one’s emotions about a horrific event is healing. Oftentimes, the event is compartmentalized—different parts being blocked, such as sensations and emotions, or even the memory itself being fragmented. Standard therapies, such as talk therapy, EMDR, support groups and others, bring these compartmentalized pieces together to make the memory whole.

            I will go with my own experience and the experience of hundreds of others I’ve personally known, some for decades, over that of a scientific experiment that’s not even 10 years old.

            Maybe you should speak about things which you’ve personally experienced, other than a single, complete horiffic memory.

            And I don’t need you to teach me about how memory works. I understand neuroplasticity.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “First, I don’t consider 3.8 years to be a long-term study. I would need at least ten years of solid study with thousands of participants and follow-up to consider it long-term. ”

            Isn’t it great that we live in a society where you can choose to wait ten years when the science is more firmly established, and others have the option to take advantage of treatments that look very promising in the short term. Choice is a wonderful thing.

            “Second, it doesn’t address the experience of those who have multiple horiffic (sic) experiences. ”

            Says who? There are certainly soldiers and others who have experienced multiple horrific experiences.

            “Third, and most importantly for humanity’s sake, there are things about which I believe the natural human reaction is horror. This horror needs to be expressed, not erased as if the experience is somehow something about which we shouldn’t react to with emotion.”

            Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and in my opinion it is directly at odds with “humanity’s sake.” I am quite confident that there is many a soldier, many a rape victim, many a person who has experienced great trauma whose lives would be vastly improved by simply erasing, if not the entire memory, then the painful emotions associated with it. It sounds like you would deny people relief from their suffering because YOU believe they need to incur it.

            If I’m wrong, please clarify your statement, because this strikes me as sick. The idea of suffering in this way is a very Christian idea though. The idea that the horror must be experienced by a victim, strikes me as vicious and uncaring, when there might be a simple way to eliminate it and allow people to get on with their lives . I’m guessing you don’t really mean this, or you said it poorly, or didn’t think it through all the way.

            I’ve already agreed that expressing one’s emotions about an event can be healing. That’s why therapists have patients repeat the memory again and again. With each retelling, it becomes less vivid, and less attached to the emotion. If drugs can speed up this process, then those who want to take advantage of it will apparently be permitted to do so if the FDA approval stays on track. I say more power to them. You do understand that this isn’t about popping a pill and getting better, right? It’s about putting your mind in a particular state and then letting psychotherapy do its thing more efficiently.

            You don’t have to remind me that you are always going to choose your subjective experiences over compelling, objective evidence. I’ve got that down solid, but what your response calls up in my mind is those in the early 1940s perhaps with dreadful diseases, refusing to take penicillin because it hadn’t been tested for 10 years, or a 1950s parent refusing to vaccinate their child against polio because the vaccine hadn’t been tested for ten years.

            What about a risk assessment? You could potentially be relieved of your “chronic PTSD ” (whatever that is – I can find no definition for that terminology), in the near term, or you could wait another 6 or 7 years, and possibly get hit by a bus in the interim having suffered PTSD that entire time. If you were relieved of symptoms in the short term, and your PTSD recurred more than 4 years down the road, you would have had 4+ years without PTSD to enjoy, versus having your symptoms continue unabated for all those years. I fail to see any down-side, unless it’s losing an infirmity one has grown attached to for other reasons. It strikes me as being a bit like that guy in The Shawshank Redemption who couldn’t survive outside of prison. But that’s just me musing. You do whatever you want to do…

            You’ve shared nothing I can recall to indicate that you understand how memory works aside from throwing out the word “plasticity,” but in any event, there may be others who are interested. In any event, it was necessary to mention the process in order to get the point across. You need not read my educational tidbits.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            It has been evident for years, again through the knowing of hundreds of people with PTSD over decades, that those victims of an horrific event who have blocked the memory completely still suffer the same effects as those who have full memories, including PTSD. It’s only on recalling the event that they come to understand why they act the way they do and why their life is the way it is. I’ve known some who repeated being sexually and/or physically assaulted in their relationships almost as an unconscious means to bring the issue of that first abuse to the surface.

            These people with blocked memories are relieved, because a problem can only be solved when the cause is evident. Once it’s recalled, healing can occur.

            You’ve assumed that I don’t enjoy my life because of my PTSD. You are wrong. I very much enjoy life. I’m human and have days where I could be happier, but I love life. The removal of my PTSD (if that we’re even possible as I have had many horrific experiences that causes it) probably wouldn’t make me any happier. I find and create happiness, even with PTSD.

            Chronic PTSD is debated in mainstream circles, as are many other diagnoses, whether pertaining to physical or mental well-being. I was diagnosed with chronic PTSD by a licensed and experienced psychiatrist who worked with incest and rape survivors. It’s really quite simple. Over a period of years, day in and day out, I experienced traumatic events. I developed certain skills to protect myself, such as hyperawareness of my surroundings. Hyperawareness is one of the symptoms of PTSD. (That’s just an example.) With other symptoms of PTSD, my emotional reactions—my startle response when someone touches me to wake me, and at any loud noise, for example—were “laid down in my brain” repeatedly over those years and are so set that it’s expected I’ll have them the rest of my life.

            No, I don’t have to respond to your comments (“educational tidbits?” ROFLMAO!), but then you don’t have to respond to any posts here, either, but you do. I respond to far fewer than you do.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “You’ve assumed that I don’t enjoy my life because of my PTSD.”

            I have? Where did I say that?

            On the other hand, you share your stories again and again, telling us how difficult your life is. If you enjoy all that – fine. You sure complain about it a lot. If there were a new treatment that could relieve you of all that and you refuse to take it because it hasn’t been tested 10 years, that’s fine too. I don’t really care, as long as you don’t try to prevent other people from trying to alleviate their PTSD issues using whatever works best for them – including new “breakthrough” treatments being approved by the FDA. That doesn’t happen very often by the way.

            When you get up off the floor from laughing, maybe you could see your way to picking up a science book and coming up with some tidbits of your own to share – something that for a change is based on real evidence rather than illusory subjective experience. Don’t try to pretend you are a friend of science. You upvote everything anyone says here to criticize science.

          • Raphael

            Patrick, I am sorry but your so-called “therapy” regarding your childhood was not the proper way to deal with trauma. I would personally call your therapist a quack or an idiot. This form of therapy is known, sarcastically, as “talk therapy”, and it is ridiculous.

            Real therapy is not about just talking, but FEELING, EXPRESSING and RELEASING all the EMOTIONS attached to a given memory. This is when you make VERY rapid progress…when you INTEGRATE the memory and the feeling, and express and release.
            This means expressing with tears, with expressions of fear or anger, whatever is appropriate, not just with words!

            However scientists are so lost in their fantasy worlds that they seem, in this case, to ignore the obvious: feelings are meant to be expressed and released, not suppressed or eliminated!!! And feelings and memories are meant to be INTEGRATED, not split apart!!!

            Of course the government and the military would support such a research, because suppressing feelings associated with trauma in combat assures that a person will never question the legitimacy of war. Only when you FEEL a situation in all of its depths can it wake you up to its horror and absurdity, and make you question its validity.

          • Patrick Gannon

            So you’re my psychotherapist now? That is the process I went through. I talked about the experience again and again, each time with less angst, until the original memory was overwritten. Don’t tell me the guy was a quack. It completely resolved the issue in only a session or two. I can recall the event today, with no emotional baggage attached. It worked.

            “Don’t you think that, rather than financing the screwing of veterans with psychotropic meds and fake therapy,…”

            Are you referring to the new FDA approval of MDMA? Please provide a source to support your contention. Please tell me if you’ve even bothered to read up on what this is all about before going off on your rant.

            You really do have a hate problem – don’t you? You aren’t much fun to talk to anymore. I don’t recall you always being so full of hate.

          • Raphael

            Hate? I do suspect that this is a clear case of psychological projection on your part, as something is definitively driving you intensely to be all over this blog, respond to every post and “set everyone straight” with sarcasm and an occasional rather unpleasant tone. Rather than getting ridiculously personal with me, or with Annie and others, why don’t you stick with the issues?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Psychological projection??? Me?

            “Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”

            So you say I’m the one full of hostility to government, military, corporations, rich people, etc.? I don’t think so. I’m hostile to religions, and I don’t need to project that to others. I can admit that quite easily. I’m a pretty open book.

            Hey, Raphael, it’s just the way you come across to me. Sorry I mentioned it. I apologize and I won’t go there again. You’ve already admitted having a lot of anger. I was actually wondering if everything was OK with you. You seem different to me.

            As for sticking to the subject – please suggest that to Miss Annie. In her mind, when it comes to my posts, there is only one subject and that’s to try and one-up me, and I’m better at it than she is and I enjoy playing the game. It keeps my mind sharp.

            As for responding to lots of posts – that’s what a conversation is. That’s why I’m here. If people take the trouble to write something to me, in most cases, I try to make the effort to respond.

            I am also going to jump in and correct things for which evidence is available, when someone says something scientific that is incorrect. If that’s a character flaw, it’s one I can live with. I’m one of those people who fact-check lots of posts on FB. I consider it a community service. People here talk all the time, about bottom up (Kumbaya) solutions to the world’s problems. It all starts with us, they say. Well one of those bottom up actions should be trying to find truth and ending misinformation and ignorance.

            As for the “rather unpleasant tone,” do you ever read your posts that are filled with such sarcasm, anger and hostility toward corporations, government, military, rich, etc.? (See Matt 7:3)

          • Raphael

            Are you part of the government, military, the banking system, the corporate world? Why are you so concerned about what you perceive to be hostility on my part towards these institutions? You should hear Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedge, who is actually calling for revolution. But I suppose that from your rather conservative, mainstream, conformist viewpoint, these individuals would appear to you to be consumed with hate as well…

            You are indeed confusing criticism with hate, and righteous indignation with anger. Again, look at your own possible anger towards religion, and don’t be so concerned about other people’s state of mind…stay with the issues.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You posted just a couple days ago, a passionate defense of anger. The definition of hate is ‘to feel intense dislike for.’ I think that qualifies in your case. You’ve been quite clear about your intense dislike for most of our institutions.

            I’m not hiding my intense dislike for religions that promote unjustified beliefs, and that includes CwG. I’m also not ashamed to be somewhat of a centrist; one who seeks compromise and cooperation, rather than having hissy fits when the chips don’t all line up in my favor. I look in the mirror all the time. How do you think I came to the conclusion that by switching beliefs to CwG I was still lying to myself?

          • Raphael

            Unfortunately, in America, which has dramatically veered to the extreme right in the past decades, a centrist is truly rightwing, as compared to European or Canadian standards. Which is allowed, of course, but I just thought that it should be made clear.

            You see, establishment Democrats do seek to “compromise”…they compromise with totally uncompromising Republicans! How is this supposed to work? It doesn’t…which is why the Democratic party is quickly becoming completely irrelevant, as it has nothing to offer but compromises with extremists, with a lame strategy of “incremental” progress while the rightwing extremists, when in control, fervently slash and burn everything unopposed. as they are doing now.

            I do not dislike institutions…I intensely dislike corruption. There is a huge difference. I am not anti-government (I am aware that, unfortunately, people are not mature and evolved enough to govern and police themselves, being somewhat still like irresponsible children), I am anti government corruption. I did not create the idea of the military-industrial complex controlling the government…now we can call it the military-industrial-banking-corporate complex, and it is more powerful than ever! Most people can actually see this…except perhaps centrists?

            The book The Best Government Money Can Buy is not sold in the fiction category…and neither is the documentary!

          • Patrick Gannon

            I will agree that both political parties are a disaster, which is why I almost always vote third party. What is missing in our society is compromise and cooperation. In a prior post, you suggested that to end war, someone has to voluntarily disarm, but here, don’t you disdain compromise – which is essentially the same as taking the first step to disarm?

            You don’t like the left. You don’t like the right. And you don’t like centrists…. Not much left…

          • Raphael

            The Democrats are not the left…they are centrists and ineffective! There is actually no left in America….except for a couple of communists and anarchists who show up in the streets protesting and most likely do not understand the meaning of what they are standing for.

            I do think political ideologies are obsolete…we should be concerned with what works, practically, for the world and the vast majority of people, not with following a strict ideological program. Some conservative/capitalist ideas make sense, some socialist/liberal ideas make sense…I don’t see it as compromise but picking the best of what works for the people regardless of political affiliations.

            I don’t see disarming first as a compromise either but a very bold step towards changing the world (rather than taking the middle path of compromise).

          • Sam

            “Hate?” […] “why don’t you stick with the issues?”

            Your “passionate” way of expressing yourself makes it derail. There are no quacks, idiots, parasites, etc., just because of a different point of view. I think there must be a better way to express one’s opinion.

          • Raphael

            The Journal of Psychopharmacology huh? What a surprise!

          • Raphael

            I totally agree with you Annie…we think exactly alike on this issue.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You revised this comment. Initially you inferred that it was just for soldiers, and took another opportunity to bash the military. I can find no evidence at all to confirm that this use is just for military patients.

            It sounds like you agree with Annie that in order to cure people, we must make them suffer first. Perhaps you don’t understand how this works:

            “Once MDMA gets into the bloodstream, it prompts a massive release of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. The collective efforts of all three neurotransmitters make the user feel euphoric, giving them a heightened sense of empathy and of physical sensations. A loved one’s touch suddenly feels like it transmits their love directly through your skin. Rhythmic beats and aesthetically pleasing sights become completely enthralling. That’s why people take it at raves—it amplifies all the positive sensations they feel when they listen to music and dance.

            That’s the same reason that it works so well for PTSD patients. On MDMA, the user’s brain is flooded with all the neurotransmitters that make them feel good, and that can make it a lot easier to recall painful memories. Biologically speaking, every time you engage a memory, you’re re-experiencing it. The set of neurons that encodes that memory are all firing the same way they did when the memory formed. But that means you might have an opportunity to revise the memory every time you recall it: because the original neurons are firing, they’re more susceptible to making new connections or strengthening old ones. A fearful memory will stay fearful you experience the same fear all over again whenever you recall it.

            MDMA could help rewire that memory. While high on ecstasy, patients don’t feel the same pain when resurfacing a scarring memory. It becomes much easier for people to deal with those experiences with their therapist when they’re not fighting visceral fear. MDMA helps patients have more productive conversations about past trauma with their therapists.” (Popular Science fda-says-mdma-is-breakthrough-drug-for-ptsd-patients). There are many articles with the same info.

            Surely you would not deny patients who want it, this tool to help improve their lives?

          • Raphael

            Hey Patrick I don’t need to be given an opportunity to bash the military…I will bash it whenever I please…such as now:

            He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would fully suffice.

            This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once.
            Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is.

            I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action!
            It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

            And I will add:

            Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I am not so sure about the universe.

            Is that enough hate or should I add more?

          • Sam

            “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.”

            Contempt is what leads to war in the first place; “a cloak of war” on the inside. Not a road to peace in any regard.

            “Is that enough hate or should I add more?”

            For me, I find honesty most important. As long as you are honest about it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            No, but thank you for confirming what you have denied elsewhere – your hate.

            My son is in the military. He works with the Patriot Missile defense system. I couldn’t be more proud of him. If NK launches a nuke in your direction, it would be a real shame if he went to sleep on the job.

          • Raphael

            Ha ha ha…it was not my hate Patrick, but Albert Einstein! These are statement by Einstein! Yes, according to you, and let it be known to all who care to understand your state of mind, Einstein was hateful! You are so predictable that it was easy to lure you into this little trap.

            Patrick, I unfortunately have to admit that I couldn’t care less about your pride in your son’s military service. Pride in an institution whose mission is organized murder, as Einstein put it, is one of the most unintelligent of any emotions. You should read War is a Racket, it might enlighten you a bit, if that’s ever possible, which I doubt.

            And I am not concerned about N. Korea…I do not buy the mainstream media or government propaganda, unlike you. You might notice that all of the wars America has waged in the past few decades were WARS OF AGGRESSION, not defense. But this fact obviously escapes people like you, who are wholly propagandized and happy to believe the lies because these lies are comforting.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Do you think that matters to me? I admire Einstein’s contributions to science, but I do not share all his social views by any means. In any event, it was Einstein who suggested that the US build an atomic bomb, so he didn’t live by his own words. Einstein was a genius, but he wasn’t the most honorable man who ever lived.

            I assume you copied the words because you believe them, thus it seems you are confirming your hate, as far as I’m concerned.

            I’m not worried about N.Korea either, but if a war starts there, I am worried about China.

            “….which might enlighten you a bit, if that’s ever possible, which I doubt.” …and the rest of it.

            Thanks for the personal insults and a good reason to discontinue this thread. Good bye Raphael. You have placed yourself in the same category as others who are unable to converse without invoking personal insults, and I don’t play that game.

          • Raphael

            Let me enlighten you a bit, because it appears that you completely lack self-awareness.

            You haunt this blog like a driven man to repeat the same things over and over gain, about “woo” and cognitive dissonance. You pounce on every comment to “set people straight”, assuming that you and you only are in possession of the true gospel of science. You insult everyone’s most cherished beliefs and dismiss their most precious experiences as meaningless or illusory.

            You are often antagonistic and disrespectful, as well as arrogant and overbearing, and regularly personally insult certain individuals (Neale, Annie, etc) because you know you can get away with it, as they, unlike me, usually make a super-human effort to be kind. I don’t feel such a need to act kind, perhaps due to my non-Christian roots…as I always prefer truth and honesty.

            You are not, most of the time, having a normal conversation, but you seek to debate, apparently motivated by an unhealthy drive to be right and prove others wrong (this could come from low self-worth, but that’s for you and you only to figure out).

            But your mission to “save” everyone here from “woo” spirituality is not that of a reasonable person but of a believer. Your present faith is in science, but in psychological terms you have simply replaced your Christian and new age beliefs with an equally intense faith in science, and are acting as a sort of missionary who is out to convert the unenlightened.

            This happens to a lot of people, so don’t feel bad. Many individuals replace one compulsion with another, when they fail to address the cause of their unhealthy needs or drives.

            So what is driving you Patrick? You frequently write about Neale in a way that clearly reveals a certain amount of resentment towards him. But again, that’s only for you to admit to yourself and work out in your own private space-or not. Perhaps it is time to let go of such resentment…for your own well-being!

          • Raphael

            You are right Patrick, I hate war, and I have no respect for military personnel that mindless engages in organized murder on command…That indeed makes me a hateful, horrible person…mea culpa! If only I could have opted for a military career and blown a few browned-skin foreigners to pieces, that would have made me such a nicer individual ha ha…

            And no, Einstein was not a dishonorable man, but your political views are now quite clear. Let’s just say we don’t share anything in common politically, and prudently leave it at that.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You should do a little research about how Einstein treated his wife and family.

          • Raphael

            What does this have to do with his highly moral stance against war? Absolutely nothing.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You said he was not a dishonorable man. You did not qualify your statement to indicate any honor regarding his position on war, and besides, as I’ve noted elsewhere, this means you must explain his letter to Roosevelt suggesting the development of the atomic bomb.

            If you consider adultery and womanizing to be honorable in a husband, then we clearly disagree on the meaning of the word. Perhaps it needs to be capitalized. If he was Dishonorable, maybe that means cheating is OK???

          • Raphael

            Hey Patrick, I just saw these comments.

            I have never been interested in the private lives of famous individuals, whether actors, scientists, spiritual gurus or politicians. I really find spying on their bedroom activities distasteful…As the saying goes, no one is perfect. A person can shine in one area and suck at another.

            I liked what Einstein said about war, in the quote I posted. Whether he changed his mind later, and pushed for the development of an atomic bomb because Nazi Germany was rapidly moving forward with research to have such a bomb, I can’t say that I agree.

            War can always be rationalized…but I choose to be irrational and to say no to war, no matter what. That might not be practical, but again neither is large scale organized murder in the name of peace. When will we stop, if we all keep waiting for the other guy to disarm?

            Have you checked the book War is a Racket? Seriously, you should read it…it gives a new perspective on war. Nothing much has changed, as far as motivations. I actually saw Pentagon documents (available to the public at the time) in the 1990’s that spelled out a future strategy of full spectrum dominance (air, land and sea) over the entire world, as well as the fact that the future wars will be fought over resources, by the haves (rich nations poor in resources) against the have-nots (poor nations rich in resources)…their own words!

            Of course, the idea is to make the mainstream public believe that these wars are justified and fought to help “liberate” populations from tyrants, or to help defend an ally, or as self-defense, or to spread freedom and democracy! And the public, swayed by the mainstream media that acts as a cheerleader for the Pentagon, falls for it, because it is much more convenient to believe lies than to do your own research and face unpleasant facts.

            The mindset that causes a person to blindly believe religious authorities and to follow religious dogma is the exact same mindset that causes another to believe governmental authorities and to follow a political ideology. It is a non questioning frame of mind that finds comfort in the idea that such institutions can be trusted, kind of like a benevolent father can be trusted.

            Everyone, it seems, is looking for a daddy…in the sky (God) or at the head of government. When will people grow up and think for themselves, and stop playing “follow the leader”?

          • Patrick Gannon

            You flaming hypocrite. You say let’s “leave it at that” and then you post a long diatribe against me in the new headline article. You’re so full of it.

            Einstein was horrible to his wife and family. HIs actions in this regard were dishonorable in my view. He was a cheating womanizer who denigrated his wife and ignored his children.

          • Raphael

            Let me explain slowly, and try to pay attention: “Living it at that” was specifically and clearly meant for political issues.

            I did not know Einstein personally, and I wouldn’t give much credit to hearsay. Einstein was surveilled by the FBI, which was notorious for trying to dig (or create) dirt on the people it perceived to be a threat, such a MLK. Einstein’s strong stance against war was considered threatening by the US government.

            Furthermore Einstein’s personal relationship with his family, whether good or bad, does not discredit in any manner his highly moral stance against war.

            Do I have to explain everything?

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’ve read more about Einstein, it appears, than you have. Heck I think it was National Geographic did a complete series on him a few months ago, and even they went into the detail of his personal life. It’s not hearsay. There are letters that confirm he was an adulterer. You need only do a simple search.

            You say his personal relationship doesn’t discredit in any manner his highly moral stance about war, but then what is your position on his letter to Roosevelt in 1939 advocating that the US develop an atomic bomb?

            Thanks again for insulting my intelligence doc. You are not at all who I thought you were. I liked the old you a lot better.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Raphael, I see a post from you in notifications that does not appear here. I don’t know if you deleted it, or if it failed to post, but I am going to respond to it:

            Let me enlighten you a bit, because it appears that you completely lack self-awareness.

            PAT: Thank you for the condescending insult.

            You haunt this blog like a driven man to repeat the same things over and over gain, about “woo” and cognitive dissonance.

            PAT: You have been “haunting” this blog for longer than I have, assuming you are Mewabe. You talk about the same things over and over again – like how evil and corrupt our institutions and people who don’t think like you, are. If you can grind your axe, I can grind mine.

            You pounce on every comment to “set people straight”, assuming that you and you only are in possession of the true gospel of science.

            PAT: I challenge everyone to question anything I say about science. If I make a mistake, I’ll admit it. Nobody challenges the information I provide – they only challenge me, because I’m creating cognitive dissonance in them. And of course you “pounce” on anyone who says anything in favor of our major institutions. Don’t be such a hypocrite.

            You insult everyone’s most cherished beliefs and dismiss their most precious experiences as meaningless or illusory.

            PAT: Yup. I would prefer to say that I challenge the cherished beliefs of many here. Perhaps I do insult their beliefs, but I try to avoid personal insults. If someone is hurt because I challenge their beliefs, that’s their problem. We’re all adults here I think.

            You are often antagonistic and disrespectful, as well as arrogant and overbearing, and regularly personally insult certain individuals (Neale, Annie, etc) because you know you can get away with it, as they, unlike me, usually make a super-human effort to be kind.

            PAT: BWAHAHAHAHA. Annie makes a super-human effort to be kind? To me? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read so far, but keep going. It’s not a question of getting away with it. It’s a question of standing for something and promoting it. When it comes to Neale there are three options: 1) He’s delusional. 2) He’s a scoundrel and a charlatan (and I’d have begrudging admiration for this!) 3) The laws of physics are completely wrong and every experiment ever performed has produced incorrect results. Take your choice. Arrogant and overbearing? Perhaps so, when it comes to nonsensical woo.

            I don’t feel such a need to act kind, perhaps due to my non-Christian roots…as I always prefer truth and honesty.

            PAT: I could be wrong, but from my perspective, this is a change. I had not seen this unkindness in you until recently. If you preferred truth and honesty, you’d give more credibility to science.

            You are not, most of the time, having a normal conversation, but you seek to debate, apparently motivated by an unhealthy drive to be right and prove others wrong (this could come from low self-worth, but that’s for you and you only to figure it out).

            PAT: Again, thank you for the psychological advice. Where do I send my payment? Do you take insurance? Who else do you provide unsolicited psychiatric advice for?

            But your mission to “save” everyone here from “woo” spirituality is not that of a reasonable person but of a believer.

            PAT: Now, you’re getting nasty. Science is NOT based on belief. Show me compelling, objective evidence. It’s not a case of belief. It was belief, when I was a Christian, and then a wide-eyed New Ager, but those beliefs turned out to have no evidence to support them, so I took the mature step of moving on. Thank you for distinguishing between “spirituality” which can include a sense of awe and wonder at our universe, and “woo” which makes unscientific, unsupported assertions about magical forces. There’s a big difference.

            Your present god is science, but in psychological terms you have simply replaced your Christian and new age beliefs with an equally intense faith in science, and are acting as a sort of missionary who is out to convert the unenlightened.

            PAT: Again, I appreciate the psychotherapy. Can you tell me where you got your degree in psychology? Science is not a god. Science is a process. I don’t have “faith” in science. I abhor that word. Faith is pretending to know things you don’t know. I have “trust” in science because it provides evidence, and because I’ve studied a lot more of it than anyone else here, as best I can tell.

            This happens to a lot of people, so don’t feel bad. Many individuals replace one compulsion with another, when they fail to address the cause of their unhealthy needs or drives.

            PAT: I don’t feel bad. I’m having a pretty good time. If I didn’t have an estimated tax payment coming up in a couple weeks, I’d be really happy. Temps are coming down. My garden did really well this year. My yard looks good. My personal relations are strong. I don’t seek happiness, but sometimes it happens, such as when I put a big smile on my face while confronting people who think they are qualified to psychoanalyze me.

            So what is driving you Patrick? You frequently write about Neale in a way that clearly reveals a certain amount of resentment towards him.

            PAT: Neale takes advantage of weak-minded and uneducated people in order to line his pockets. Whether he is doing this because he is delusional, or whether it is because he is a charlatan and a scoundrel, he is encouraging people to believe in things that have absolutely no evidence to support them. That is worth calling out, and I feel no guilt about doing so. I like much of the advice that he offers in his books – I use some of his ideas or ways of speaking about certain things, all the time; but when he insists that there is an immaterial god who interacts with us in this natural world – he is flat out wrong. He never even attempts to provide anything to support his beliefs. We’re supposed to take them on faith. We’re supposed to pretend to know that magical forces affect us, when the science says it’s impossible. He’s wrong. He should be called out on it, and somehow I became the person to do that. You don’t have to like it.

            But again, that’s only for you to admit to yourself and work out in your own private space-or not. Perhaps it is time to let go of such resentment…for your own well-being!

            PAT: And a final thank you Mr. Therapist. Again – where do I send the payment for your psychiatric services?

          • Sam

            “Einstein was hateful! You are so predictable that it was easy to lure you into this little trap.”

            Patrick is honest. You are not. Who is trapped?

        • Jethro

          I wish humans ate mosquitos!!! They would be extinct by now.

          • Raphael

            Dipped in chocolate. perhaps that could work?

        • Worthy considerations. I love to sleep and experience lucid dreaming, however, at some point in advanced enlightenment it is outgrown. As for the food part, it would help much in reducing waste & pollution.

          As for beingness, my own personal conclusion of the CwG cosmology is summed uP in one word. Beingness.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “As for the food part, it would help much in reducing waste & pollution.”

            That’s for sure; because if we all ate nothing but starlight (photons), in a very short time we would all be dead, and that would indeed reduce waste and pollution!

          • Craig

            Thy say healthy eating habits have the same effect…

          • Patrick Gannon

            We die of natural causes today, and bottom-up biological evolution won’t significantly extend our lives in the near future, but top-down evolution, based on using our superior intellect, might result in technology that allows us to live significantly longer lives, and that development could become available in mere decades.

          • Craig

            Until someone pulls the plug. But ye it will be interesting to interact with brain dead entities going through life motions because of machines. Then again one of our great minds to do lived a productive life talking via computer sensors…

          • Patrick Gannon

            I wasn’t talking about putting our brains in vats. I was talking about solving the aging problem. In the not too distant future, we may be able to stop or even reverse aging of our bodies and presumably our minds.

          • Raphael

            Sorry for barging in, but I am curious: why do you think aging is a problem? Would you choose to live forever if you could? I am not criticizing you, I am intrigued by people who want to reach immortality, or stay young forever.

            I personality see no point in it…not that I do not love life….I do. But I accept life as a natural cyclical process….I accept nature and its processes.

            Nature can be improved, in my opinion, up to a point, just as we created corn or wheat out of wild grains, and delicious fruits out of wild fruits. But when you go too far in your recreation of nature, it becomes rape (as with glyphosate laced GMO’s for example) and you end up with garbage (such as perfect looking-non GMO-fruits that keep forever and taste like cardboard, and have about the nutritional value of cardboard).

            Should we rape humanity with science and technology to give it the immortality (or shelf life) it believes will give it happiness? Do you actually think happiness can originate from solving the fear of death with transhuman technologies, as an example, which is the wet dream of many scientists?

          • Patrick Gannon

            I was not taking a moral stance on anti-aging, just pointing out that we are making progress in understanding our biology, and we may be able to extend human life significantly in the future.

            Overpopulation is an issue, but why do people have kids? So they can have a little copy of themselves that perseveres after they are gone. Might we have fewer kids if we knew we could live longer?

            If we could live longer, might it reduce our fear of dying and make us less likely to believe in imaginary, invisible beings who live in the sky, and instead use our brains for practical, useful things, instead of fighting with each other over who believes in the right gods.

            Consider that as this kind of technology advances, so too with other technologies such as space travel, where our excess population might one day spread to the stars.

            Biological evolution may still be at work. Male sperm counts are dropping all over the world. I have been a chicken little regarding overpopulation, but having been prompted to take a closer look, it’s pretty evident that the curve is flattening. We still have a rough period ahead, but science may give us very low cost power to desalinate water, which will take care of food needs for the growing population. According to the science reports I’ve read, glyphosate is not nearly as evil as it is made out to be, and if it has issues, they can be repaired as the science improves.

            Initially, like any other technology, the rich and elite will have first crack at the new capabilities, and as has always happened with every new technology, as the amount of use goes up, the price comes down. If not for rich elites, you might have no microwave oven, video recorder, cellphone or many of the other products that someone spent far more on, than you and I. This is not a bug, it’s a feature.

            Is there anyone you like besides American Indians, Raphael? You don’t like corporations or scientists or religions, or rich people, or politicians, etc. Sounds like you wish the whole world would go away and leave you alone. I feel that way sometimes too.

          • Raphael

            People have children for many different reasons…not just to assure the perpetuation of their precious genes.

            People will fight with each other whether they believe in a God or not. Religion is not a cause of violence, it is merely used as a validation for violence, just as are political ideologies (such as communism or fascism).

            Male sperm counts declining has nothing to do with natural evolution and everything to do with the chemicals we have introduced in our diets and artificial environments.

            The belief that the second coming of science will save us from having to suffer the consequences of our unintelligent actions is precisely what keeps humanity irresponsible…that and the similar belief that the actual second coming will do the same.

            Given the political extremism currently sweeping the planet, I do not have the same blind faith in the elite’s intentions as you appear to have. Do you know that Trump, as a small example of the current insanity of government, just gave the green light for the police to obtain grenade launchers and bayonets. Yes, bayonets! What on earth does the police need bayonets for? I hear the sheeple already: if you are a good citizen, you have nothing to fear, you won’t get bayonetted!

            Is there anyone you like beside scientists and atheists, Patrick?

            I do not like corporations that claim to have all the rights of a person without any of the responsibilities, and that privatize profits and socialize losses, as do industries.

            Scientists are tolerable and truly useful, when they are humble, knowledgeable and clear-minded enough to admit that they don’t have it all figured out yet, and when they don’t sell their souls to the military or law breaking corporations (such as Monsanto).

            Why would I like religions?

            I don’t mind rich people, but I do not respect the filthy rich who use their wealth to acquire the power to attempt to control governments (such as the Koch brothers), and I do not worship the mighty dollar.

            I do not mind politicians when they know their place, which is that of a servant, not of a master. I however do not approve of a politician who serves the elite exclusively to the detriment of the common man (and woman).

            To whom do I relate best? True artists, poets, musicians, rebels, old hippies, and indigenous people…creative, natural, freedom loving people. To whom do I relate the least? All authoritarians, who today are legions, both as followers and leaders.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Sure, people have children for many reasons, but the underlying biological reason is the continuation of the species. Aside from that, I have nothing to add. Thanks for sharing.

          • Craig

            Some would say just live healthier, but even that is no guarantee. I’ve see all sides with different results.
            AGE DIED:
            97 year old sex everyday with three small portions of food.
            92 year old I do not know.
            86 year old 40 cigarettes a day and partying every weekend (alcohol consumption from Friday till Sunday morning would have kill half of us…)
            32 year old make time for exercise or make time for illness.

            So if something is found just make sure the dummy being tested on has strong genetic genes with a history of long livity. This science will only be a possibility not a guarantee. As even doctors with the most advanced tools cannot stop cancer. Today the cut it out. Four months later the affected area is bigger…
            Atoms are in control you say, maybe we should focus on the genetic formulation of atoms around us instead of DNA inside us…

          • Patrick Gannon

            I didn’t say “atoms are in control.” I pointed out that they exist at a certain level and have their own language to describe them. I don’t think anything is “in control” per se. Everything emerges from the layer below it, but that doesn’t mean the layer below is in any way calling the shots for what is happening at the layer above. The individual atoms in the air in your room have nothing whatsoever to say about the wind currents (fluid dynamics) that move the air around the room. The atoms don’t get together, share stories and a bottle of wine, and then decide to flow across the ceiling and down the wall in such and such a pattern. Different levels, different languages, but the air currents do emerge out of the layers below including quantum fields, atoms and molecules. That’s it. Please don’t read any “control” into that.

            I don’t see any value in going to the atomic level, but definitely the molecular level where our chemistry comes together. Quarks have nothing to do with cancer, just as electrons have nothing to do with determining air currents. The molecules and chemicals that formulate our genes on the other hand…. that’s where we’re studying. We have made significant progress on cancer. This study doesn’t take into account the new immunotherapy drugs that are wiping some formerly untreatable cancers out – like the melanoma which appears to have been wiped out in former Pres Jimmy Carter’s brain.

            “Between 2010 and 2014, overall cancer death rates decreased by an average of 1.8 percent per year for men and an average of 1.4 percent per year for women.

            Eleven of the 16 most common cancers in men showed decreases in mortality, including leukemia, melanoma, myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and cancers of the colon and rectum, esophagus, kidney, larynx, lung and bronchus, prostate, and stomach. Lung and bronchus cancer had the greatest decrease in mortality. Cancers of the brain, liver, oral cavity, and pancreas showed increases in mortality for men between 2010 and 2014, with liver cancer having the greatest increase. The AAPC for bladder cancer mortality was 0%, which is considered stable.

            Fourteen of the 18 most common cancers in women showed decreases in mortality, including leukemia, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and cancers of the bladder, breast, cervix, colon and rectum, esophagus, kidney, lung and bronchus, oral cavity, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. Colon and rectum cancer had the greatest decrease in mortality. Myeloma and cancers of the brain, corpus and uterus, and liver showed increases in mortality for women between 2010 and 2014, with liver cancer having the greatest increase.” (Cancer dot gov report to nation)

            Only 100 years ago, 48 was the average life expectancy for males, while today it’s around 70, and higher in many countries.

    • Patrick Gannon

      There is much in this that I like. First, it’s scientific. It describes life as a “process” rather than some sort of force. It acknowledges that the process ends when the physical mechanism wears out. It describes evolution – reproducing, evolving, adapting, growing. Indeed evolution does seem “marvelously futile” because evolution has no guided purpose; but when you think about it, we humans, the product of evolution, are more marvelous than futile. And it does feel extremely odd that this all arose without an intended purpose. But maybe it’s not odd at all.

      The part I struggle with is the part where he suggests that the way things normally are is highly improbable. Evolution seems to take similar paths over and over again, so I’m not sure how improbable our current evolution is. Eyes, for example have evolved in similar ways in a wide variety of organisms and some independently evolved iterations end up being quite similar. But evolution gave us the dinosaurs, which are rather different “tubes” from us, so would we have arisen even if they didn’t go extinct? Hard to say. If we find life in other parts of the universe that resembles our own, that will tell us something about how improbable we are.

      Continuing to mull over this in my mind, I recall an allegory for how the universe might have come into its current state. It is suggested that the universe was in some particular state, (one it may have been in and out of many times or forever) and a phase transition occurred. Think of a snowflake. When the temperature falls to a certain level water will spontaneously undergo a phase transition turning into a crystal snowflake, for example. The total amount of material and energy is exactly the same, but the substance has dramatically changed. Our universe could work like this.

      The idea is that the laws of physics that control our universe were created in the same way, as the product (think of it as crystallization) of a phase transition. There could have been as many options as there are for crystalized snowflakes. We just happened to end up with this configuration versus some other, just as every snowflake is different. This thought, however leads me to revisit how improbable we might be, because if phase transitions are as varied and unique as those for snowflakes, then indeed, our current configuration would be as highly improbable as any other.

      This is going to roll around in my head the rest of the afternoon. Curse you Red Baron!

      • Raphael

        I hope you do not get a migraine from too much mental rolling…for now I am going to concentrate on the notion that life is a process, and its philosophical-spiritual implications.

        Life is indeed a process…whether you are exclusively scientifically or spiritually minded, you cannot escape this fact, and should not.

        The interesting thing about a process is that it demonstrates that nothing is a separate “thing”, but is a string of events, all interrelated and interdependent.

        Take a tree…the tree process involves sunlight and warmth…it involves the ground and nutrition from the soil…the air and carbon monoxide and dioxide…moisture and rain…in some cases the wind and birds that transport its seeds. And any of these elements is also a process that involves countless other processes, so that you can reasonably conclude that everything in the universe is indeed interrelated and interdependent, that each process involves and implies the entire universe.

        Why is this important? First, because it implies that everything we do to any of these processes affects the whole. This is something our civilization has yet to understand, as it still functions on the old premise that everything is separate and independent, and that we can tweak or actually destroy any of these processes without consequences to the whole, to the global ecological balance. Secondly, it blasts away the belief and experience of the human ego acting as a separate entity wrapped up in a bag of skin and confronting a hostile and foreign universe.

        When we know that we are part of something, we tend not to want to destroy it, if we are a minimally reasonable creature, but to want to cooperate with it in mutually beneficial manners. But as long as we keep perceiving everything as a separate “thing”, and ourselves as separate egos contained in separate bodies-vehicles, we will tend to act antagonistically towards everything we encounter, furiously driven to “conquer” and control everything because remaining unreasonably afraid of everything (fear is healthy to a degree…beyond that it becomes destructive).

        Holistic medicine proposes the idea that a human being is a process that implies its physical and emotional environment as well as its thought, beliefs, expectations and feelings-emotions, rather than just its physical limbs and organs. When we have understood, on a global scale, that all life is such a process, we might have a better chance at survival as a specie.

        This is why, in my opinion, the concept of life as a process is very important, when we understand its ramifications.

        • Patrick Gannon

          I’m in agreement with most of that – a couple points though. “Spiritually minded” people almost always see life as a force, energy, essence, spark – something separate from and different than the body. In my interpretation of the quote, based on no background knowledge of the author, it seems to me that he’s not speaking about a separate force or energy when he refers to life, since he agrees that it wears out. Thus, if my interpretation is correct, the CwG folks here should not agree with at least this part of the quote.

          At some level, I suppose everything is connected, by the force of gravity, if nothing else, but that connection is so weak, that there is no harm in treating many things as being separate from each other. A dust storm on Mars will have no effect on what I have for lunch, for example, and you scratching your nose will not make my foot itch. We have to be careful to not go overboard with this ONEness thing, and imply forces or fields that do not exist.

          At a philosophical level, I completely agree that our “separation theology” as Neale refers to – and contributes to – is a large part of the problem. Having unfounded beliefs that contradict each other and that we are loathe to examine and challenge keeps us separate. If we are to unify, then we’re going to have to get beyond beliefs and look to the truth – and as we know beyond doubt, there is one tool best suited to do this: “Science, solely because of its method, is the most successful human endeavor in history. The others don’t even come close.” (Steven Schafersman – Naturalism and Materialism).

          • Jethro

            The separation theory. We are all one in the way that we truly desire the same thing. We have different thoughts but we are all the same in our core desires. We see each other as different but we are the same with differences. I think that as soon as we accept a few of the differences that DON’T matter, we will realize that we are the same in most of the things that DO matter. At the core of our desires we all wish for the same thing. All the other animals on earth desire pretty much the same thing. Food, water, shelter, companions. Humans should have gotten past one question centuries ago… who or what are we going to have to kill to get that?

          • Raphael

            or enslave and exploit…as many so-called humans are predatory and parasitic, and would rather keep other people down to feed off their toil. Parasites are indeed not found at the bottom of society as Americans are always told, but at the very top.

          • Stephen mills

            Parasites are indeed found at the top of society just as you observe its its purpose is indeed parasitical ,the more wealth you have the more power you get . You are deemed to have made it , thus rule and behave as you like with impunity.
            The opposite is to have nothing as do millions on the Earth ,cultural meme is called survival of the fittest. But the fit are not fit until the all are fit. Ba…Boom..
            What do you think of interest in our money system ? The more you have the more you collect just for having !!!

          • Raphael

            About money, most average people associate money with freedom, as the only way they are told that they can emancipate themselves from daily slavery, such as debt, a mortgage and a job they hate (and for good reasons), is to buy their freedom, almost as did the slaves of old.

            I agree that the elite indeed associates money with power…and because power is a powerful drug for the unevolved, they never have enough, as they fantasize about ruling the world, and as they do rule the world, Caligula style, claiming a monopoly on violence and terror though the state and its brutal means of coercion and repression (first, they will try to manufacture consent…if that doesn’t work, there are the state’s rubber bullets, tasers and pepper spray…and if these don’t work, there are oppressive laws to silence and lock people away for decades, or actual bullets).

            As far as interest, it might have originally been intended to encourage people to save, although people are also brainwashed to consume and spend more than they have, on credit. Now however banks can legally charge 30% interest on credit cards accounts while they give us less than 1% interest on savings accounts. This alone should be cause for a revolution, if today’s humans were actually sentient beings!

          • Patrick Gannon

            But the very top is not “many.” The very top is “some.” A few. A handful. I think parasites are found throughout humanity. Were you always so angry, or am I just noticing it?

          • Raphael

            “But the very top is not “many.” The very top is “some.”

            Yes…”some”. who control most of the wealth of the world and nearly all of the easily corrupted political systems and governments, through money.

            You sound as those individuals who confuse criticism with hate, and indignation with anger. Again, there is nothing wrong with anger, or with criticism, or with indignation.

            Actual spirituality does not imply the elimination of human emotions…unless you equate spirituality with lobotomy and enlightenment with prozac, which appears to be an American mistake.

            Why are so many Americans so afraid of normal anger, to the point that they keep repressing it until it becomes extremely concentrated and ultimately explodes in irrational violence?

          • Patrick Gannon

            No, no, I don’t confuse criticism with hate, but I agree that many people do, and I guess that’s what I was wondering about you. I sensed something greater than criticism emanating from you.

            Perhaps a good reason to keep anger in check is to make sure it does not turn into hate. I see all sorts of both hate and anger in my Facebook account. I refrain from those discussions. I don’t see any progress being made when people are so busy yelling that they can’t possibly listen to each other.

          • Raphael

            Yes, but again, when normal, legitimate anger is expressed in a non destructive manner, it it released, and consequently cannot concentrate into hate…anymore than released sadness can turn into despair. The key words here are expression and release, of all appropriate, legitimate feelings. And all feelings are legitimate, originally, before they become distorted by suppression and start accumulating and festering in an unhealthy manner.

            So…”keeping feelings like anger in check” might precisely be what leads to hate and violence…and this is where American culture seems to fail in its understanding of how to deal with emotions, as compared to Canada or Europe.

            I agree with you that the level of hate is rising in the world…and this has many causes, but it is dangerous. People are so ready to use physical violence to impose their ideas…again, authoritarianism.

          • Sam

            “You sound as those individuals who confuse criticism with hate”

            Anger and criticism do not mix that well, unless hate is the very point to bring across. Having a harsh language to support the idea as well. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” Calling people for parasites are not from love. Would not come from someone with a deeper understanding of things, like for example Neale.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Humans should have gotten past one question centuries ago… who or what are we going to have to kill to get that?”

            It took millions of years to evolve those traits. How could you expect biological evolution to reverse them in an eye-blink of evolutionary time? A century is barely a blip in the evolutionary record.

            Our best hope is that Daniel Dennett is right, and that we’ve evolved a top-down evolutionary mechanism that is supplanting the bottom-up biological evolution that has brought us to where we are after millions of years. This top-down evolution is driven by the development of our System2 thinking brain, which appears to have evolved rapidly over the last several hundred thousand years. This thinking system has given us the tools to turn away from biblical morality (slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, murder of innocents, genocide, discrimination against the disabled, etc.). When you look at the advances we’ve made in turning away from all that in the last couple thousand years, I think it’s pretty impressive that we’ve come so far in such a short time.

            The problem with System2 thinking is that it tends to annihilate woo.

          • Craig

            And requires a lot of mental commitment…

          • Patrick Gannon

            That is definitely true, and the human brain is notoriously lazy. We have to figure out how to make System2 thinking desirable.

          • Craig

            How about popping a brain stimulating pill, like alcoholics do to stop drinking and smokers to quit…

          • Raphael

            The author was trained in England to be a Christian minister but thankfully dropped that and went on to extensively study Zen, Taoism, Buddhism and the Vedanta philosophy, as well as the effect of psychedelics with Timothy Leary, and became a philosopher. He became the unofficial muse of the hippy movement and lived in Sausalito in a houseboat.

            His message is that consciousness is the ground and the root of the universe, which is from the Vedanta philosophy…so you wouldn’t agree with him on that. But unlike many others he doesn’t separate consciousness from the body, or from the universe. He goes quite deeply into all these topics (Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, etc), unlike today’s more superficial and rather unlearned new age leaders, who rely on oversimplified formulas.

            He didn’t believe in (and did not care about) the survival of a separate soul, but rather thought, as many Japanese people do, that whatever energy is released at death merges with the physical universe, returning to the natural elements. And he was fine, spiritually and philosophically, with returning to the “void”.

            As far as oneness, I did not imply forces or fields but interconnected natural processes…without the universe, neither of us would exist. Without trees and plants, we wouldn’t exist, or at least not in this form. Without the humble and lowly bacterias in our guts, we wouldn’t exist either…or again not in this form.

            This interconnection and interdependence of everything is something that is too easily forgotten, as people and their overblown egos take their lives for granted, and parade around like peacocks under extreme delusions of power and control while walking on a planet whose natural phenomenas could extinguish nearly all life in short order (at least temporarily, such as with a supervolcano). Bang, and it’s all gone, and this hyper arrogant human specie, these “top of the food chain” schmucks are suddenly begging for mercy, as none of their guns, bank accounts, scientific formulas or bibles can save them!

            I am not so concerned about people feeling separate from each other…I am much more concerned about people feeling separate from the earth and all life (which includes people). The New age, whose roots are in Christianity, is, of course and just like Christianity, blindly people-centered…not placing much importance on anything that is thought to exist “outside” of humanity. This is a very dangerous and very outdated expression of ignorance.

            As far as unity, we need to distinguish between unity and uniformity, as these are two different things. Unity does not have to imply uniformity of thought under science or religion or spirituality, and conformity. What unity requires is tolerance. That’s all…live and let live. I do not care what another person’s beliefs are, as long as such a person doesn’t attempt to impose them on me. It shouldn’t be that difficult to live this way, all it requires is maturity.

            Can Humanity be mature or do we have to keep acting like diminutive Napoleons, each one of us attempting to impose his or her (mostly his under patriarchal cultures) vision on the world?

            Uniformity and conformity are the outcomes of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism opposes creativity because it opposes diversity and multiplicity. This is the reason why you will not find too many artists or creative people who are conformists. The two do not mix. People are however so accustomed to authoritarianism (to which they are subjected the moment they are born) that they actually believe that peace and unity can only come from the following conditions: all of humanity must look, act and think the same way, and live under a centralized, hierarchical global system. They do not get that this could only happen under extreme authoritarianism, under something that would essentially amount to mental and/or physical tyranny and that would cause the end of creativity and diversity/multiplicity.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I like that idea of the consciousness being released back to the universe, in a way that removes the individual aspects of consciousness. I don’t think it works that way, as you noted. For this to happen, consciousness would have to be a force that affects the body, and the science is quite definitive in saying that the chances of that are extremely small. It’s a comforting and elegant idea though.

            Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, re. oneness. I think to most people it implies some sort of force, field, energy, etc. I agree that we’re interconnected with the earth in a variety of ways, but we are also a product of evolution. We’re at a cusp. Our biological evolution, unchecked, could wipe us out, but we are also evolving top-down thanks to our superior intellect. We may even be evolving biologically given reports showing male sperm counts dropping across the globe (probably due to environmental factors – in any event, it works to slow overpopulation). We can affect our biological evolution which has given us the drives for power, money, control, etc. by managing it from the top down – using our ability to think cognitively in order to come up with solutions. Like it or not, nothing has ever worked better than the scientific method to produce useful results.

            The problem with this kind of thinking is that it requires that we challenge our most closely held beliefs, and based on the evidence available today, debunks many of them. Our default thinking system doesn’t like this, and punishes us for it. We’re in a bind. Will we make it through? I don’t know.

            You sound angry to me; like I was when I was younger. You say you are against conformity and uniformity, but it seems you’re having difficulty tolerating the diverse beliefs of those who do favor authoritarianism. Aren’t they entitled to their beliefs? (grin) Are you an anarchist?

            Perhaps age brings perspective, an understanding that we’ve evolved to be who we are and that there are limits on how quickly we can modify an entire species. If anyone can do it, we can. Other species have consumed all resources and gone extinct, but they did not have the ability to consider and devise solutions for their problems. Religionists and New Agers aren’t working on these problems, beyond Kumbaya, but science is. The scientific method works by taking many thoughts, many ideas, and testing them to see what works and what doesn’t. This does lead to a uniformity of thought – but this uniformity is pretty specific and it is still open to being overturned by compelling evidence – unlike uniformity based on belief rather than evidence. I think a characteristic of maturity is a recognition of what is practical – and that’s science.

          • Raphael

            “You sound angry to me; like I was when I was younger. You say you are against conformity and uniformity, but it seems you’re having difficulty tolerating the diverse beliefs of those who do favor authoritarianism. Aren’t they entitled to their beliefs? (grin) Are you an anarchist?”

            I am not any kind of “…ist”. I do not define myself as belonging with any current human group…only with nature and natural, freedom loving humans, if there are any left anywhere.

            You sound as if you think anger is bad. Is this coming from your Christian background? This outlook seems very widespread, and a strong (and very irrational) aspect of American culture. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with anger, it is a natural emotion that is just as valid as any other, as long as it doesn’t consume you or cause you to act in destructive ways.

            I do not tolerate intolerant people…authoritarians cannot be tolerated precisely because of their authoritarianism. It would seem obvious but I will explain: you cannot, by definition, tolerate a person or a group that uses force to impose their ways upon you.

          • Patrick Gannon

            No, I don’t think anger is bad, but sometimes it becomes a pattern, which might limit efficiency in solving that which makes one angry. Before I learned mindfulness, I would get caught up in cycles of anger that just went on and on, and served on useful purpose. Other people were using my brain without paying any rent, so I ended much of it.

            However I have to agree. I retain anger toward organized religion, and will probably never release all my anger with the Catholic Church, but I try to keep it under some sort of check. You just seemed a little more angry than usual.

            “Given the choice between leading or follower, I am one who gets out of the way of the mad, driven, unconscious hordes!”

            Well, there’s certainly something to be said for that!

  • Christopher Toft

    1. No not in a biblical sense. Perhaps in a oneness kind of way. In all honesty I don’t know.

    2 . I certainly don’t believe in a big human who wants or requires something from people.

    3. Dear god , I have no idea! I used to think I knew what I was doing, considered myself “spiritual”. To be frank I’m really rather disillusioned with the whole idea of spirituality. I’ve spent my whole life just overcompensating by trying to make people see me as lovable by being “spiritual”(oh isn’t that Chris such a lovely guy), because I’ve felt like a square peg in a round(heterosexual) universe. I have zero interest in impressing people or making them “like” me now, it’s pointless and banal. What I ache for is connection. There is a “No not god thank you very much because the idea has brought me nothing but pain, but something, connection, where do I fit in the world, what is my relation to others around me? To life?” Shaped hole in my life right now. I think for me that a large part of my own answer to this question is about finding a balance a “fit” with myself and life. It’s Hard to describe what I mean , sort of like ” Oh my god the world is so monumentally messed up, but hey this is my response and it feels compassionate and sane.” Now that’s what I call living? But how to get there?

    4. I’m kind of ambivalent about this. In some ways I’d rather this was our one and only life(Who want’s to come back as Black person in 1700’s America? Or a German Jew in the 1940’s. Or a contemporary Syrian?..) On the other hand I feel like I missed out on so much when I was younger. It would be nice to have another chance or two. Or three.. The truth is once again I don’t know what happens after we die, if anything. Is’nt what happens before we die more important? Well perhaps?.

    Your questions drew me Neale. Thanks for asking. Work in progress I guess.

    • Jethro

      “I certainly don’t believe in a big human who wants or requires something from people.”
      Here, Here!

      Christopher, your human and your here and alive now in this wonderful mess. Be you, Be alive. That’s it. It’s all that’s required. Except the part where if you break the laws they will throw you in jail or put you to death, so don’t do the things that cause that.

  • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

    A message to everyone that believes in CwG.

    I am givimg you a chance aknowledge that love is real by agreeing to send me back in time on 19 august 2017. If you don’t than you are evil.

    • Stephen mills

      non capisce

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        Then kill yourself

        • Stephen mills

          That’s a bit harsh ,perhaps better to love thyself .

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            No, seriously ,kill yourself

          • Stephen mills

            The purpose of this website is to have a serious dialogue ,conversation about the topic in the headline ?

    • Craig

      They call it positive self reflection. We cannot change the past or relive it we can only learn from it to do critical personal adaptations… All the best for that session…

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        CwG makes a lot of claims that it has never backed up. So much for a loving and all powerful God.

        • Craig

          All religious doctrines do the same. Only miracles for certain people to accept doctrine… Call in selective revelation by the gods.
          Another thought our Greek mindset has us considering love and compassion in terms of our intellect instead of that harsh cruel reality that actually makes “men – men”…

    • Patrick Gannon

      I don’t believe in CwG woo, though I support much of the good advice in the books, but speaking “tongue in cheek,” how do you know that the CwG people didn’t send you back in time, and then wipe your memory of the event? (grin)

      Oh you want evidence? Sorry, you’re in the wrong place!

  • Richard Peterson

    1. Yes 2. Nothing 3. Have Fun and evolve to become more like and therefore closer to God. 4. Death is the greatest adventure of this life and where we rejoin the Whole.

  • Jethro

    “What God has created in you, lives within you now. It lives beyond your intellect, beyond your thoughts and understanding, beyond your concepts, beyond your ideas and beliefs in a deeper place within you—a deeper mind, a mind that in the New Message is called Knowledge. It is the mind that knows. It is the mind that waits. It is the mind that sees clearly without distortion, without fear, without preference, without confusion, without speculation—a deeper mind within you.
    This is what God has created in you that is permanent, that will last forever. Beyond your temporary identity in this world, beyond all the events of this world and all other worlds, beyond the river of your experience in this life, there is Knowledge within you, and it is God that is the Author of this Knowledge.
    If you think of God within this greater context, you can begin to appreciate the power and magnificence of God’s Creation, in the world and eventually within yourself.
    Your body, your mind, your personality—these are all temporary vehicles whose greater purpose is to express your relationship with God and the Wisdom that God has given to you to communicate and to contribute to a world in need.
    Think then of your mind, your body, your intellect as vehicles of expression, valuable in and of themselves, but not as valuable as that which they are meant to express and to serve.
    Then you will begin to see that God permeates all things, lives within all things and yet is beyond all things—all at the same time.
    You can feel this Presence wherever you are, and you can find and follow Knowledge wherever you are.
    Therefore, to fully understand and experience God within your life, you must come to Knowledge within yourself, which is the Greater Intelligence, the permanence that God has created within you and for you. It is who you really are, beyond all concepts, ideas and delusions. It is your true nature.” – (Marshall Vian Summers)

    • Patrick Gannon

      Oh no! Not another god-messenger! This guy is another Neale, only he claims his messages come from angels rather than directly from the big guy himself, like Neale. I guess that makes him a secondary messenger. I’ve never read any of his books, but I assume he has as much evidence for his deity as Neale and every other prophet or messenger. Let me know if I’m wrong.

      • Jethro

        Another person wanting to bring about change, removing the punishing vengeful God that keeps the wars going and placing a God of all life in the minds of those who need God. I see nothing wrong with that.
        If these Gentlemen can bring about an idea to all existence that we should be helping each other and sharing with one another, more power to them. Change the word God to “nature” or “life” as you read, if those words fit, it might be something good to think about. I don’t think life or nature ever wanted anyone to pour molten gold into the throats of non believers.

        I think I read a little bit about a view of science from this other fellow. Might be worth a look.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Sorry, I can’t see it that way. It’s another “bury your head in the sand” god, when it comes to facing reality. It’s another “happy belief drug” that avoids facing reality.

          I would be much less annoyed if they avoided the use of divisive words like “god.”

          “I don’t think life or nature ever wanted anyone to pour molten gold into the throats of non believers.”

          Sorry, but evolution is a very key part of nature, and if humans evolved traits that drove them to torture other humans, that means nature did it. Nature never “wants” anything. Nature simply evolves.

          These guys claim to speak with supernatural deities, yet never have anything to offer us that we don’t already know. Yes, I agree with you that these guys help provide a stepping stone from fundamentalism to Christianity Lite, but it’s important to keep stepping – all the way to truth. These guys are not interested in that next step. They want us to change our old beliefs to their new beliefs, and join their “religion” so we can buy their books, programs, seminars, etc. It’s a business, Jethro.

          • Craig

            You’re a remarkable individual. All this information. Are you family of a giraffe… Only sleep 20 minutes per day.
            What Jethro says makes sense even in evolution, knowledge brings assertiveness and assertiveness freedom. Peace, righteousness and joy need these three mental abilities to manifest. And that is the Greek view of the kingdom of God while the Hebraic view is more about using your talent or skill or wisdom depending on the era we focus on to manifest our salvation… Peace and joy being alive.
            That is the reason for the ancient records. The modern messengers becoming rich on individuals misunderstanding is not the atoms fault. The atoms are but manifestations of our mental will in observable form. That is YHVH in you and me according to ancient scripts and modern evolution views…
            Gandhi had a nice view… How can we present a gift or a welcoming gesture with clenched fists. I like to add to this how can our insight be ready to evovle when we keep rephrasing or redefining what was accepted as mental progress generations before us.
            Patrick I have learnt one thing from you. That is; Let go and move on.

            As proven through generations of evolution our minds already has the answers we just need to apply them… Evolution in action or as Neale phrased becoming the messenger (doer) of your insight. As scripture refers a single minded approach to achieving results. Not much difference in these principles if I may say.

          • Patrick Gannon

            LOL. Sorry, but I have a hard time letting go when it comes to things we actually know. Not sure I follow all of your discussion, but a couple points:

            You speak of manifesting a salvation. What salvation? From what do we need to be saved?

            “The atoms are but manifestations of our mental will in observable form.”

            This I cannot let go. This is something called “downward causation” meaning behavior of the parts is caused by the state of the whole in a way that cannot be interpreted as being due to the parts themselves. In other words, your consciousness causes the universe to manifest itself. Consciousness creates matter, rather than the other way around. There is no evidence for this, and if it’s true it means every single thing we think we know about physics is wrong. That’s a pretty big leap.

            In the very early days of quantum mechanics, when they were trying to explain the “collapse of the wave function,” there was a proposal that a conscious observer caused the wave to collapse and thus for a particle to appear in one slit versus another. This theory has been removed from consideration by almost all QM scientists because consciousness had nothing to do with it. It’s a measurement issue, and the measurement can be taken by a nematode a piece of toast or delicate hardware. The presence or absence of a conscious observer does not matter.

            Consciousness does not create the atoms in our universe. Every elementary particle has certain characteristics, (we call them ‘degrees of freedom’ or ‘states’ such as spin or electric charge). If “panpsychism” was valid (the idea that everything is made of consciousness), then there would have to be states that could be affected in order to make the particles do certain things – like fire synapses or heal tissue or levitate. For sake of simplicity we can name these happy/sad states. If such states existed, we’d have found them by now. Particles would do unexplained things and we’d have to seek out those undiscovered states. Particles, however, don’t do unexplained things. Happy/sad degrees of freedom don’t exist. Consciousness does not manifest atoms. The science is very solid on this and quantum field theory tells us that the likelihood that we are wrong about this is about the same as the likelihood that a pink polka dotted dinosaur will manifest in your living room this evening at 11:03 PM. It could happen. Don’t wait up.

            Why do I have all this information? Because I read. I got a subscription to Audible Books and I read a book a month, sometimes listening several times to good books. The more I learn, the easier it is to learn more. I listen while I jog and sometimes on lunch breaks or while working in the yard, etc. I’ve only read a couple works of fiction – everything else is religion, philosophy, science, etc. I’m not one-sided in what I read. In fact I recently read “The Devil’s Delusion” a response to Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” LOL. Neale has accused me of being “snarky” (yeah, at times), but I can’t hold a candle to the author of that book, David Berlinski. It’s a book that challenges the accepted science, and it’s valuable to have people do that to make sure the science stays honest. The thing is, he really challenges only those things we don’t understand yet – how the universe and life started, and uses those two things to try and discount all the other things we have discovered and do know. Still, a dose of skepticism is always a good thing.

          • Jethro

            “Consciousness does not create the atoms in our universe.” So what your saying is, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it DOES make a sound. Damn! I owe Vickie a dollar.
            Well I owe her two dollars. I bet her that the tree would only fall if an aware being was there to experience it. I’m going broke!

          • Patrick Gannon

            No, I’m not saying that! If a tree falls in the forest and no one (including animals capable of hearing), is there to hear it, then it did not make a sound.

            Sound requires a sender and a receiver. Sound is a vibration of the air, creating waves that are interpreted by our ears and brain as sound. If there are no ears or brain, then there is no reception of the vibrating air, hence there is no sound.

            As for betting that a tree will only fall if there is an aware being there to experience it – perhaps we should get together and play poker? If you’re going to bet like that, bring lots of money!

          • Jethro

            That was humor… but, Since sound is a vibration of the air, creating waves that are interpreted by our ears and brain as sound, then the air vibrated all the same there was just nothing there to translate it to sound, but if the sound was loud enough and violent enough even without ears and a brain to hear it, it could have created enough movement in the air to trigger another action such as a loose limb falling from a different tree or setting loose snow into motion in the form of an avalanche. Since we know this vibration as sound, we must admit that sound exists when no brain attached to ears was there to hear it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I know it was humor, but lots of people ask that question and few know the answer.

            The fallacy in your argument is when you say, “but if the sound was loud enough and violent enough even without ears…” If there is nothing to receive and interpret the sounds, i.e. ears and brain, then there is no “sound.” There is only a vibration of the air. That is not a sound. The vibration only becomes a sound, once it is received and interpreted.

            We can agree that a vibration in the air exists, but it is not sound until it is heard. The snowpack doesn’t shift because it “heard” something, it shifted because the vibration unsettled it.

            It’s a somewhat technical point, but it’s valid. Sound has to be heard in order to be called sound: “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear.” Wikipedia. Snowpacks don’t have ears – so no sound.

          • Jethro

            I know, I know, I caught it after the fact and needed to go, I new you wouldn’t punish me so it was ok. I said the sound caused the avalanche and when I seen it… I used foul language. You are the master my friend, I am merely grasshopper from the kung-fu series. BUT ONE DAY!!!!
            If the recipe for noise is there, we must recognize it as such. We know it made a noise, but nobody was there to recognize it. This also becomes evident with the same tree if it falls across the road, If a nut job blind person gets into a car and manages to drive as far as the fallen tree, they will run into the tree even though they cannot see it. Not seeing the tree does not mean it isn’t there. The recipe for a solid tree is there. To ask, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, can it be heard? Then no, it was not heard, but it still made the recipe of noise so the scientific recipe for noise was present.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Sure. We can safely say that if someone had been there, they would have heard it, and thus there would have been a sound. (Unless that person was deaf!). LOL

          • Jethro

            In the case of the chicken and the egg, which came first? Microbes?

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the egg. So, the egg must have come first.” (Sciencebasedlife).

          • Craig

            Cool fact thank you

          • Jethro

            “A zygote, is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote’s genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage.” – (
            Formed by a fertilization event, What fertilized the egg? The thing that fertilized the Egg would have to be so close to a chicken that Studies would have called it a chicken until DNA proof proved otherwise. Evolution doesn’t work that fast…. Or Does it? Whatever fertilized the egg tasted like chicken either way. I’m sure of it!!

          • Patrick Gannon

            I think the explanation provided on Sciencebasedlife is a bit tongue-in-cheek. The chicken probably indirectly evolved from dinosaurs, so the correct question should probably be: which came first, the dinosaur or the egg?

          • Jethro

            Trees making sounds in the absence of the hearing, eggs and chickens… very fun conversation. I learned something more to think about in the process of having a little fun. Just so you know, I understand your point and agree more than I’m willing to admit lol.

          • Jethro

            You have a new friend/fan.

          • Craig

            Salvation is a solution for the concerns faced nothing more. This has always been the Hebraic view. Greek thinkers trying to be Hebrew thinkers tend to add something beyond the now and here…
            John Kehoe et al the power of the mind and positive thinking.

            Maybe The Eagles had the correct message, Get Over It.

            On the contrary everything we know is a result of creating that which is the mind… except that we cannot create out of nothing, we need to use what is available to bring forth.
            It is not sowing it is planting ideas and concepts that bring about change.
            And that is what evolution boils down to. Be it thought patterns, Be it beast brutality to survive, Be it a child’s cry, Be it and earthquake or whatever disaster. All result in the slow or quick manifestation of something new.
            Nature as us all uses quick fixes and slow patient manifestation principles. System 1&2 not new way of thinking. Explained throughout human existence. We just choose to try rewrite so that we can be heard…

            Now read the Greek version of Genesis 1:1 in John 1:1-14.
            Not making you scriptural. Just pointing out nothing is new we always try to outsmart or rather outthink the generation before. That is called growing up, you use facts while some of us use ideas and concepts. Unfortunately we normally end taking all this wealth of knowledge to the grave as we are scared of what others may think. Fear of rejection. And that is what I read in Home with God. Overcoming our fear to communicate and do what we think will assist and improve the next generation. They call it passing the buck when we expect others to do what we think…
            Two things we may need to foster in the teaching of the next generation. The proper interactive supportive attitude (teach them my statutes) and mastery of talents (those that do). That is what brings about salvation not self pitied transferring of blame towards phantoms but rather self critic towards improvement. It makes life easier.

            Come and share with us how we can also free our hours and do so much research… I need that route to salvation… Yesterday!

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Get over it!” Yes, great song. I just played it. Very appropriate for some here. Very appropriate indeed! LOL.

            I don’t understand the point you are making with scripture, and I don’t read Greek! Genesis would have been written in Hebrew. John is the last of the gospels, written at least 60 years after (the mythical?) Jesus supposedly died. It was written in Greek and consequently says things that don’t translate from the Hebrew or Aramaic that Jesus and his followers would have spoken – including the famous line about needing to be “born again” in order to avoid the eternal fires of Hell that fundies love so much. The John gospel has multiple authors. It completely reinvents the character of Jesus and disabuses certain notions like a virgin birth found in earlier gospels. Why would I give either Genesis or the gospel of John any credibility whatsoever? Other than as allegory, most of the words in those texts cannot have any real credence. Both the Genesis and John texts describe a creation that cannot be supported with evidence. We should stop living our lives based on primitive mythology. Scripture is sometimes clever as an allegory for something being discussed, but I don’t see the connection here. The “salvation” that the scriptures, particularly Christian scriptures, point to is based on a “fall from grace” or “original sin” that has been debunked by evolution and DNA evidence. Why do these books deserve a seat at the table, given how unreliable they are? I understand that many people who claim to be believers, actually worship the bible, a chunk of paper, far more than the god that it portends to describe.

            You say “nothing is new we always try to outsmart of rather outthink the generation before” Yes we do – and we do so successfully. And that’s a good thing. There is much that is new, like our understanding of how the natural world works, about which none of the bible writers had a clue. Outsmarting or outthinking our predecessors is not a weakness, it’s a strength – constantly improving and building on the success of those who came before. That’s how real progress is made.

            Obviously there is no more evidence for the Home with God concept, than the restored paradisical garden concept, or the heaven concept, or any other concept of the afterlife, so I see no more sense in talking about it than in discussing the dietary habits of unicorns. I still don’t get what you mean by salvation. I have no need to be saved. In fact, “get over it” suggests if I need any saving, I should do it myself.

            “Home with God” starts with delusion. The Intro begins: “This is the word-for-word transcription of a holy conversation. It is a conversation with God about being Home with God.” That’s nonsense. Neale is delusional (or a charlatan). In order for this god to have spoken with him, all the laws of physics as we understand and have demonstrated, in every physics experiment ever performed, are completely and utterly wrong. Are you willing to take that leap? If so, I’ve got a bridge for sale.

            I don’t care for the confusion of words like “god” or “salvation” when they are used in ways that are not well understood by the majority. We have no need to be saved due to some mythical early event, but the mere use of the word is going to raise that concept in the mind of most listeners. The human race may be in trouble because our biological evolution is not “planned,” but if we are in need of being saved, we’re going to have to do it ourselves, and we’re going to have to do it by invoking a part of our brain we are often loathe to use, because doing so causes us pain (cognitive dissonance).

          • Craig

            Scriptures not for you but for other readers. Irrespective of the flaws in translation the creation is provided as a thought becoming a deed. That is works bringing about results. That is not mythical that is the way things work. All I pointed out is remove all the misconceptions in modern theology and the scriptures keep repeating the same message. Hear, understand, do and you will have peace, joy and righteousness in your life found in the results manifested… That is salvation, a solution for a concern.
            I read nothing more in the gospel of salvation as nothing else was recorded…. I trust we say the same thing just differently.

            Paradise… Mmmm could mean many things for different people, just as progress means life for you. Cool way of living if climate is right. No need to wash clothes for next working day… Just a skinny dip.

            I have planted words as you have. When these germinate and take on life we will never now. But one day when we reflect on something that is when we will actually hear the words for the first time. That is how I think Neale may have communicated. Using the slow brain when the fast brain could not resolve his predicament. And what a resolution from nothing to “hero” in fewer years than it took to actually get his prior learning and research to make any since. That is what I am applauding. For that is 95% of human beings struggle. Take ownership of your knowledge by applying it and you will create a worthy reality…
            Thanks bridge not needed. Methodology is what is needed not mythology…
            O yes, you need to trust a thought or possibility before you will apply it. Trust is the key here not god or doctrine. If we but trust in the methodology (YHVH) all things will work out.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I agree that we are probably talking semantics. I sometimes have a little trouble understanding you. Where are you from, if you don’t mind sharing? If you told me already – sorry, I forgot.

            Where you lose me is the last line. If you had just said, “if we but trust in the methodology, all things will work out,” I could have found common ground. When you suggest that Yahweh is the methodology, my skin crawls.

          • Craig

            South Africa… I assume you’re from New Zealand/Australia.
            Again you make YHVH an entity when it seems that it rather refers to hearing and doing, shema… Words, words and more words will forever shape the way we consider things or use things to progress….

          • Patrick Gannon

            Shema: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one”

            What “LORD” besides Yahweh (I’m going to stick with the more colloquial spelling), are they talking about?

            I completely agree with your comment about how words shape the way we consider things. That’s why I object to anything that sounds like a glorification of Yahweh, the god of the bible. He has few, if any, redeeming values. The Jews who recite this prayer every day, remind themselves that they worship the one and only god. Some early Christian sects believed Jesus role was to save us from that god – an understandable endeavor!

            I live in the good ‘ol US of A, about 45 or 50 minutes from all the recent hullabaloo in Charlottesville, VA. I was out of town on vacation in FL, on the other coast from where Miss Annie lives, when that took place.

            South Africa, hunh. You guys have pretty good internet access. I don’t think I have any sites in your country right now. I’m working a deal in Lesotho now though.

          • Jethro

            Well, that’s ok. Each one of us needs to exercise our thoughts the way that works for us. And agreed, nature never wants anything. Want is a biological thing for entities with brains. I’m not so sure some start as a business, but it sure turns into one. I usually like the beginning ideas, but after a while it’s like they are trying too hard. Today it’s fashionable to keep creating something new to keep the people interested, sometimes leaving the best thoughts behind.

    • Spiritual_Annie


      This is wonderful!

      I especially like: “Your body, your mind, your personality—these are all temporary vehicles whose greater purpose is to express your relationship with God and the Wisdom that God has given you to communicate and to contribute to a world in need.”

      Close second: “Then you will begin to see that God permeates all things, lives within all things and yet is beyond all things—all at the same time.”

      In some Gnostic traditions, Wisdom, or as it’s called—Sophia, was present with God at the time of Creation. She was the Motherhood, the Goddess, which is missing from so many Faith traditions.

      Thank you for posting this.

      Love and Blessings Always,

      • Jethro

        Your welcome Annie, I’ve read a little bit from this fellow and his thoughts are in-line with Neale’. That’s just a first impression. Patrick appears to see the same thing. A world that isn’t going to end but is going through a great change. A God that is in all things and for all things, not just one group of people or type of person. A greatness in nature rather than a punisher in our minds. I wonder what our world would look like today had these ideas prevailed 2000 years ago giving recognition to all life and its right to exist rather than a certain type of human.
        Of course their should be great recognition for our Goddesses, it takes a man and a woman to complete a proper view of human life. Not just a God/man or a Goddess/woman in charge, but working side by side as we do in reality.

        Love and Blessings Always

  • Raphael

    What if…
    …you suddenly realized that everything that you ever thought, believed, strived for and hoped, desired, loved and cherished, and thought you knew, was an illusion?

    What if part of such an awakening meant having the deep realization that everything about life is unreal, even the awakening itself?

    What if this sense of unreality extended beyond your personal life to make you see that the entire world is unreal, an illusion (maya in the Hindu tradition)?

    Would you experience mental vertigo and loose your bearings?

    This unreality we call life is a blank canvas upon which the mind projects its own creations. These endless creations have no more substance or reality than the dreams we experience while asleep. And just as with a dream, almost everything in life is possible. Yet everything is ultimately futile and meaningless, a mirage, a passing hallucination.

    To grasp reality, if there is such a thing hidden at the core of all life, we then would have to stop dreaming…we would have to stop conceptualizing and scheming, and immerse ourselves in the most fundamental, barest, deepest state of pure being, bereft of any hope or expectation, of any memory and perception, of all ideas and concepts, and even of all that makes up our “persona” (mask) or personality…of anything at all.

    We would have to, as Krishnamurti put it, directly experience “what is”, or as Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj said, “I am”.

    If there is any reality to life, this is most likely where it is to be found…in pure being, here and now.

    Everything else is a story.

    There is nothing wrong with creating and living out a story if it so pleases us, as long as we remember that it is only a story, as long as we do not literally loose our being in the “doing” and the “becoming” of the story, of the dream.

    When we look at the world, we can plainly see that most of humanity is lost in its stories, in its mental creations, which are becoming more acutely absurd the more they are divorced from a fundamental experience of being.

    How do we reach such a state of pure being?
    We learn non-doing. Non-doing is not laziness. Vegetating on a couch watching TV doesn’t count, anymore than napping under a palm tree (unfortunately).

    Non-doing is a conscious process by which we shift our energies, attention and identity from conditional, relative doing and becoming to unconditional, absolute, unchanging being.

    With practice, we can be non-doing while doing, while engaging in our daily tasks, because non-doing is not a physical condition but a state of consciousness.

    How could this change the world? A person who acts from the identity “I am” (pure being) does so with a calm and clear mind.

    • Sam

      “Would you experience mental vertigo and loose your bearings?”

      For a moment.

      “And just as with a dream, almost everything in life is possible. Yet everything is ultimately futile and meaningless, a mirage, an hallucination.”

      Yes, but the experience is real, as something we keep, long after the “mirage” is over.

      “To grasp reality, if there is such a thing hidden at the core of all life, we then would have to stop dreaming…”

      We like the experience of “dreaming”, or else we never been here in the first place. But it takes its toll, and therefore need to cross the finish line, now and then. Coming home. That’s a given. That’s the system. But then the urge for a new “run of marathon” builds up again.

      “We would have to, as Krishnamurti put it, directly experience “what is”, or as Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj said, “I am”.”

      It’s built into the system that we will, as just a matter of time.

      “There is nothing wrong with creating and living out a story if it so pleases us, as long as we remember that it is only a story, as long as we do not literally loose our being in the “doing” and the “becoming” of the story, of the dream.”

      There is nothing wrong. Period. We are gradually waking up to a higher understanding as we go.
      To fully realize “the dream”, as first a few, then several more, and then everybody, is to step out of “the dream” altogether, and therefore Earth. That’s not the point; going straight to the end game. We will have the satisfaction to reach new stages of enlightenment for quite a few centuries more. Also regarding the understanding of “the dream”. But when understood completely, we leave.

    • Kristen

      Lots of writings teach us similar, including those on the ‘human experiment’, that eventually a species will be ‘made’ that fits the desired profile, then we will rewind to ‘Eden’ and actually start those lives, blissful Nirvana lives.
      Until then are we all just a part of a surreal game, no different to a computer game, with The Source, Gods, guides and life energy the ultimate gamers? In a sick competition to win?
      Do we get to call game over?

      • Raphael

        We can always refuse to become completely involved in the game. That’s an inner choice…some call it detachment. I am personally detached from the human world (you wouldn’t think, with some of my comments, but I actually am), and very attached to the natural world. I just get a bit annoyed about what these fools are doing to my planet!

        • Jethro

          Very Marvin the Martian of you. Still a little better than “Get off of my planet!”

          • Raphael

            As long as people pay the rent, I won’t kick them of the planet…I am trying to be fair.

        • Kristen

          Good scam, can I be your rent collector, for a small fee of course?. Just a mere 10% commission should do the job!
          What are you renaming it? And do you have to be a god to get a planet named after you? CwGers will support that, they believe we are all god!

          Im the opposite, I love humans, well true humans anyway. I love nature… a distance!. My thing is the creative relationship between humans and nature, what we do with it….clothes, verandahs, landscaping, boardwalks, treehouses. I love anything Steampunk, the epitome of human creativity working with natural materials especially clothes….all the best thing thrown together but primarily based on Victorian, French and Wild West creativity before money making became the priority. And love Steampunk music like The Cure, November Rain, I Write Sins Not Tragedies, Leather and Lace. To me the entire concept is the best work of creative humans all thrown toogether.
          Nature on its own bores me.

          • Raphael

            Hey I missed you comment, just found it today!

            True humans are hard to find…as far as nature, I love it completely untouched…as if no human ever set foot in it. That’s why I love the wilderness…I go where no one goes…it’s my “church”. I know a lot of people say this, t doesn’t sound very original, but I always had this feeling…that’s where I feel the presence of the divine Source, where things are not messed up by humans, whose energies are usually a bit out of sync with natural harmonies and rythmes.

            I know I am unusual this way…all I need in life is a large granite boulder to sit on and a bunch of pine trees all around on a hill, far away from civilization’s disturbances…a fresh breeze…and all the time in the world to hear what the earth has to say…to absorb and understand the energies of the universe, the Native American way, directly from the Source. I have done it before, and need to do it again!

            I will rename the earth The Third Rock From The Sun. and to hell with copyright laws, as I won’t allow lawyers to stay anyway…
            !0% it is!

  • AndyK

    Greetings from Finland. I’m new here – I just created my account. But I’m not new to CWG. I read the Finnish translations of the first three books and some others about six years ago. I’ve also read the newest one in English. But that’s about me. Here are my answers, put in my way:


    I was sitting

    next to a man

    who told me:

    “There is no God.”

    and I answered:


    There was this person

    I encountered at the main street

    who told me:

    “Jesus is the savior.”

    and I answered:


    Back home

    I sat down,
    closed my eyes

    breathed in
    and breathed out.


    In my silence

    I asked:

    “What do you need?”

    “What do you want?”

    “What do you require?”

    I breathed in
    I breathed out

    After a noteworthy
    amount of waiting

    I lost my will

    to ask again.


    I used to be keen

    to find meaning


    I gave up



    “After death?”

    Instead of nothing

    I guess:


    • Craig

      Thought provoking thank you.

  • Neale has a new blog up.

  • 1. Is there a God?
    The word ‘GOD’ is a translation of the hebrew word ‘ELOHIM’ found in the bible. Elohim is a plural and for me it is a race of physical extraterrestrials scientist who came to this earth to create all life forms including humans ‘in their image’.
    2. If so, what is God, and what does God need, want,
    or require?
    The Elohim would like us to understand that ‘Infinity’ is everything that is, including the Elohim themselves as our creators and us, and the most important thing is ‘ LOVE’. If we wish, we can also welcome the Elohim back on the earth by building an Embassy for their return as they have requested, but only if we want to meet them.
    They will come back with all the prophets of old, to give us their heritage of science and love.
    3. Whether you believe there is a God or there is not a God,
    what do you believe is the purpose of life — if any?
    Life is ‘Infinity becoming conscious of itself’. and We are ONE with infinity, then we are infinity. WE can know that if we connect with our ‘Supraconsciousness’. And our mission is to be happy and help others be happy and finally travel in our universe to scientifically create others ‘individuation of infinity’.
    4. What, if
    anything, happens after death?
    After death, the organised matter that is us return to infinity, loosing all ‘identity’. We can if we want, thanks to the science of cloning, be re-created and find again our body and identity. But it is a choice that humans will have to make in the near future,

    • Patrick Gannon

      Ancient Aliens. LOL.

      At least it’s more likely than literal gods.

      We agree on death, which makes the first three points irrelevant. Whether there is a god, or whether it wants something is of no consequence, if we’re going to return to the basic elements that we came from and lose our identity, then we are going to be dead, dead, dead – just like the atheists and scientists say. Why should we care about gods, if they can’t give us eternal life? (And would we really want that? No matter how glorious, after a few billion years, it’s bound to get boring!)

      This explanation (4) goes along with Neale’s bit about “the soul’s agenda.” Mind and body will remain behind, the soul will go on without any piece of who we are; as our thoughts and memories will be gone. So why should we care about that soul, if it exists?

      • With thee science of cloning it will be possible to live eternally in a body and with our identity, but only if we choose to. It is not automatic. The first step toward this could be the “2045 Initiative” by Dmitry Itskov.

      • I am a raelian and for me the soul = DNA, So it is not eternal, it also dissappear with the rest of the body. But the science of cloning can make it eternal IF we choose to, it is not automatic. With the science of cloning it will be possible to live eternally in a body and with our identity.The first step toward this could be the “2045 Initiative” by Dmitry Itskov or Brigitte Boisselier and “Clonaid”. Brigitte is also an active member of the Raelian Movement.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Seriously? The story is as strange and unbelievable as any in the bible. There’s this “absurd image of a race of superior beings working for thousands of years in a laboratory to create all our insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, etc., not to mention all their lovelies that have gone extinct. Why would any beings do such a thing? And why would they wait 25,000 years to reveal their handiwork to a French race car driver who spots their UFO in a volcano? And then tell him that the message is to clone ourselves so we can be immortal.” (Skeptics Dictionary)

          Why did these people invent the mosquito, or the insect that burrows into children’s eyes as part of its life cycle, or AIDS or TB or Polio? It seems they are no more “good” than Yahweh. Evolution explains such things. If your Elohim aliens did this, then they are evil, which means the bible got it right.

          How can cloning let us live for eternity? The fuel in our sun will burn out and after increasing in luminosity and burning us up, the sun will go dark. We’ll have to be living somewhere else, perhaps pretending to be Elohim for other species on other planets? In any event, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. If this continues, our long term future many billions of years from now, is a deep freeze. There is a cycle wherein gravity pulls material together and accumulates enough mass that is tightly squeezed together such that it turns into a new sun. When its fuel is used up, it explodes and spews out heavy atoms and other material. Over time gravity pulls this stuff back together and a new star is born. As the universe expands, gravity will no longer be able to do this – things will be too far apart for gravity to pull material back together. The universe will go cold and dark.

          I browsed Wikipedia’s listing for your religion, and most of it is far too fantastic to take seriously without compelling objective evidence – like the UFO that flew Rael around the galaxy. Why are such critical pieces of evidence always missing from these prophets and messengers?

          On the other hand, there were some ideas I found to be quite interesting, like only permitting those with a certain level of intelligence to vote. I would suggest that the same requirements might apply to reproducing! Perhaps there is a “gullibility” scale in addition to the intelligence scale, the Elohim could help us develop as well!

          The free-love aspects are interesting, but I find most female mates have little interest in this! I did find the last line in the Wikipedia report to be most unsettling: “The estranged former wife of Vorilhon characterised him as a “cult leader” and claimed he brought groups of female Raëlians home and held orgies which affected the children from an early age.[177]”

          • Don’t worry. This information about raelians is a 3rd possibility to explain the origins of life on earth. It may not be right. Raelians do not use violence to spread this option. You are free to have a better one. If Darwinian evolution satisfy you, it’s ok. Like Neale often said, “can we discuss it ?”

          • Patrick Gannon

            You called yourself a “raelian” which, to me, is a belief system. It is categorized as a religion, but you say “it may not be right.” Why call yourself a Raelian, if you don’t believe it’s right?

            This is an open forum. We can discuss whatever we want here as long as we avoid profanity. I’m not sure I want to have a debate about Ancient Aliens vs Evolution, either here or anywhere else. To be honest, it would be like debating Unicorns vs. Horses, unless one can come up with some evidence for Unicorns. I guess it was you who put the posts on my FB page, which I deleted. (I left the scientific one about a universe from nothing). I don’t want to debate chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptile people or anything else so far out of the mainstream, unless it has significant evidence to support it. I have enough on my plate to jump into all that.

            There are literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers about evolution. How many peer reviewed papers providing an alternative to evolution, have the Raelians submitted to reputable scientific journals? Provide enough to google one, and I’ll check it out.

            I’m open to any reasonable idea, but a guy who claims to find a UFO in a volcano who flies to another planet…. that’s just a bit too much to swallow, unless you can present some compelling, objective evidence that this space flight took place. Land the UFO in front of the White House and we can talk.

            I know Raelians don’t use violence to spread this option, you’re a tiny sect with less than 100,000 members – but why would you even bring up such an option? CwG people don’t use violence to spread their woo option either – but they don’t brag about it. That seems an odd thing to say out of the blue.

          • The only thing as close as possible to a paper to a scientific journal about the “Raelian Hypothesis” is this : “The Raelian hypothesis: Star Trek-like origin and spread of intelligent life in the galaxy” by Damien Marsic at the first “Startrek Symposium” dot com. You can find the text on academia dot edu.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Well, you’re right. It’s not a peer-reviewed paper for a scientific journal. It would never make the cut. It’s all supposition and guesswork, but it is fodder for an interesting armchair discussion.

            If we are able to prove life began on our planet and then evolved, that will be the end of the Raelian hypothesis. I’m going to be patient and allow the researchers more time. If Raelian UFOs show up in the meantime, then we can alter our prior credences as required, but for now the prior credence that panspermia, as described in this paper, explains the existence of humans, is little more than idle musings…

            It would still leave open the question of where that life came from. As with anything else – it all comes down to the evidence, which we don’t have.

            I doubt few here will read your paper, but it does one thing Neale would love, and that I hate. It redefines words by capitalizing them. There’s “Evolution” and then there’s “evolution.” I would propose that they come up with another word, rather than confuse the issue, by denouncing Evolution, but embracing evolution. That’s a recipe for confusion. I don’t think that’s helpful to a reasoned discussion, and it certainly doesn’t engender support among scientists who don’t want different definitions for the same word.

            That being said, if I had to choose between a god like Yahweh, and an extraterrestrial who seeded life, I would have to agree that the second option is more likely, and I would have to agree that it’s easy enough to read that sort of thing into the bible. However, in the absence of any real evidence, it is, as I said, an interesting armchair discussion. I’m pleased that it was referred to as a hypothesis, rather than a theory – because it definitely doesn’t live up to that standard.

            So do you “believe” this, or just “think” it might be true with some degree of confidence (prior credence)? I’d give it a couple percentage points of likelihood, while the likelihood of Yahweh as a god I would give a mere fraction of a percent of credibility; so it is a better theory than god(s) in my view!

            Thanks for sharing the document. Not sure it makes sense to create a religion focused on a vague, unsupported hypothesis – but hey, many of the people here are part of a “religion” that is based on much less!

          • If you read the latest book by Yuval Noah Harrari : “Homo Deus” you will see that the creation of new life forms by humans is at our door. Then the hypothesis that it was done for us in the past is a real possibility. And since the Universe is eternal … Just search for : “Text by Raelian Bishop Marcel Terrusse on Atheism”

          • Patrick Gannon

            I browsed through the essay on religion, and am pleased that Raelism is atheistic. I’m pretty atheistic about a UFO being found in a volcano though….

            Yes, we are on the verge of creating new life forms, and yes, there’s a reasonable chance we were at least “seeded” with the basic components required to start life. The universe is old enough that there certainly could have been many civilizations before our own. it’s those vast distances in space that are a problem, given a speed limit of 186,000 miles per second, which is agonizingly slow in cosmological terms.

            I want to see the UFO… and not in a blurry picture. I want to see it parked on the White House lawn.