55 replies to this topic

[Karomesis]

At the risk of offending more than a few of the individuals on this forum here is a brilliant elucidation on the foolishness of a beleif in a divinity. please excuse my forthcoming impropriety. [lol]


"endless would be the task of listing the various opinions of pagans, jews, mohamadeans, and christians concerning the means to employ to escape eternal woe and to attain felicity; endless the task, and yet more cheerless of describing the puerile and ridiculous formulas and devices invented to those ends"

- Doatien alphonse francois de sade (Marquis De Sade)

Indeed,I beleive that technological progress is the surest path to the extermination of various absurdities such as the affirmation of a magical divinity" somewhere up in the sky" or the clouds or whatever. frankly,I tire of it and will not suffer opinions contrary to atheism unless evidence is provided. Personally,were any of these imaginings to actually exist,first on my list would be to send this wonderful divinity to hell for the devils fucking. [thumb] If this etheral phantasm were to actually maintain dominion over the universe as we know it, then surely it would be a despot of the most insidious nature.Please don't waste your time with a non evidence based refutation to the preceeding,it is an expenditure of useful typing skills that could be best used on another thread worthy of your response and ponderment.

[susmariosep]

I agree with you completely. No this is not a refutation of your attitude.

I will just say that for me religion should be and I apply that tenet to my own socalled -- not religion, but sense of religion, namely: religion should be rational, provisional, and optional to the thinking man.

You might feel depressed but I have a sense of religion which I prefer it as true to my personal policy, that it be and is for me rational, provisional, and optional.

Tell me what you think of my rational, provisional, and optional sense of religion, and we will have a fun time enjoying each other's views.

The secret is that for me, religion is a luxury which we can all indulge in, provided we take it with copious doses of rationality, provisionality, and optionality. Religion belongs to the realm of emotions which are more predominant in the human entity than our rational faculty. And as I said, it is one emotion we can indulge in provided we keep it rational, provisional, and optional.

Glad to meet you and I am always glad to exchange ideas with folks like you.

Susma

[Karomesis]

susma, the pleasure is mine. I trust this will be quite the informative and reciprocally pleasing dialogue.

I understand your rationale in justifying religious based human emotions, however, in replying I will state that I have evidence to the contrary. In a true atheist you have an individual who seeks to understand the world around him without resorting to unfounded beliefs, I am not saying that provisional semi rational religious emotions do not fullfill a role as endorphin producing experiences, but i beleive that someday soon these emotions and thier chemical counterparts released by the brain will be replicated a thousandfold by technology. And as you were saying the emotions experienced by the rational individual during a religious episode will have a calming effect, but it will not be necessary to force oneself to maintain irrational deist worldveiws.

[stranger]

karomesis,

It's one thing to be an agnostic, demanding some type of proof.
It's another thing to be an atheist, neither wanting nor demanding any proof.

But an atheist badmouthing what he doesn't know exists is only looking for trouble of the worst kind.

You seem to imply that all religions are superstition. You're forgetting one.

The one concerned with worshipping Blessed Death. Not your devil. Blessed Death. The very Lord of Death-- Lord Yamarajah.
Don't tell me that death is only superstition. We're all gonna get it , whether we want it or not. It's not a matter of believing.
You sound so self assured, but watch out, the one pleasing the devil will only be you. I don't think you're gonna like it one bit. But you're gonna get it good.

I feel sorry for fools like you. There's all kinds of hell, but the one you're going to, I wouldn't wish it even for the Iraqi insurgents, however much I hate the punks.

stranger

[stranger]

Susma,

...........................

You'll agree with anyone for the sake of a silly dialogue.

And then you say that you're not full of contradictions.

............................

Get a life, dude.

stranger

Edited by Lazarus Long, 10 January 2005 - 02:17 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Hey Stranger you do know our rules on personal assaults right?

Your post crossed that line, do you want to change them or will you have to made an example of?

Karomesis clearly understood such a response might happen from his opening dialog but I had hoped those of more intelligence would not fall so easily for the bait. You have not demonstrated such ability. It shall be his decision, made publicly whether you can stay but the personal flames stop now or you do.

Stick to the subject and stop attacking the other posters.


I have edited out the more offensive aspects of the previous post and I hope the example is not lost on those that have observed the exchange till now.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 10 January 2005 - 04:18 PM.

[Karomesis]

stranger, is your name indicative of your familiarity with logic or reason? It appears that we have in our midst an expert on matters of religion and the like. I apologize stranger for not being one of the enlightened ones,please continue on your path to enlighten me on the fallacies of my belief, [:o] or lack thereof in your silly and quite absurd religious ideas.(forgive the redundancy). I take it you took me up on my concluding remarks,however you provided no evidence of your magical and phantasmal belief in your despotic God.I am afraid you wasted your valuble time and typing skills replying to a thread in which your knowledge is that of a young child as are your ridiculous, unfounded, delusional beliefs. I lok forward with great anticipation to your remarks, I trust they will only serve to authenticate your lack of aptitude and confusion on the matter.

[stranger]

Lazarus,

I'm surprised you're noticing just now. Macdog's attack on Susma wasn't so civilized. I don't think Karomesis' introductory post was clean, either.

"It shall be his decision,made publicly, whether you can stay..."

I don't know who you're referring to(karomesis or susma)?

stranger

[stranger]

Karomesis,

With your satanic overtones, why should I be concerned,for now, with providing evidence.

I worship different Gods , but I'm also very familiar with some of the demigods.

The Lord of Death is one of the, not so minor, of the demigods. His minions are very eager to deal with people verbally attacking any and all of the members of the Hierarchy.

I cannot provide the proof directly, but you can be sure that you'll get it from his minions in due time. Death is not an illusion, and neither or the controllers.

In this world we're the puppets, not the masters.

stranger

[immortalitysystems.com]

Is opium good or bad? I guess that depends on whom you ask.

Remember what Nietsche had to say. (Religion is the Opium of the People)

Are we here vicariously indulging?

[stranger]

Lazarus,

As far as me getting banned from these forums, I'll go along with whatever decision is made. I acknowledge that this place (Imminst) is a collection of bright minds, but as far as the people participating in the Religion forums are concerned, it leaves much to be desired. I might be one of the dimbulbs also, but I, at least, have some experience with the forces of the hereafter. I don't base my claims on stuff that I read nor am I an avid Bible thumper. I pass along what I have witnessed myself, and not what somebody else said or wrote. I don't proclaim , as real, all of the gods mentioned throughout the world. I only speak of the ones I have had direct interaction with. There are some that I am not sure if they're real or not, just because some people call them gods.

stranger,

P.S. I glance, from time to time, through the other forums.
Didn't know you were familiar with the 'chickenhawks'...

[stranger]

Immortality Systems,

"Religion is the opium of the people"

Yes, I've heard that one before.

Some people need it to survive. Their poison is their medicine.

It gets more dangerous when it has been 'cut'. Same with religion. You dilute it , you get undesired effects.

strangers

[kraemahz]

Stranger, did you just imply that anyone who disagrees with you will die? Now I know you're unbalanced [huh]. You sound like a textbook case of megalomania, e.i. delusions of grandure and self-importance. Being in communication with higher beings and so on.

At any rate, your personal attacks are unwarranted under any circumstance. Whether you think keromesis' initial post was inflamatory or not, it was not directed at any particular person. You cast the first stone, which makes YOU the troll. Until you agree to have a civil conversation there is absolutely no reason to have any discussion with you.

[stranger]

kraemahz,

NO, both the ones that agree and the ones that disagree with me are going to die. Including myself. No one is immune from death,yet.

"Being in communication with higher beings and so on..."

Yes. What's so unusual about that? I'm not the only one. I have known of countless others in my thirty years of researching( formally and informally) the different areas of the paranormal. The unusual thing about is that I'm dealing with the Gods (plural). The religious(?) ones shudder at the thought.

Also, I am not saying one religion is better than the other. I am just pointing out the differences. And I have made it very clear here, to all agnostics; It is not imperative to worship any Deity. Some religions , imply that if you do not worship a given Deity, you won't be saved. Getting 'intact' to the other side is not determined by whether you were a fervent worshipper or not. It all depends on your intentions--whether they're good or bad, not on whether you went to church or not. I have never cared much for the religious dogma of the church. It is so diluted from the original messages that the different sects are contradicting each other. Just look within the Christian domain. Neither the catholics,nor the protestants, nor the witnesses can stand each other. They don't get along because
they each feel that their message is the 'right' one.

"...it was not directed at any particular person."

Well, to me, insulting any divinity(or deity) is the same as anyone insulting me.

I am their spokesman. And not because I made myself so.

Wouldn't you speak up for a parent, or a friend?

stranger

[Lazarus Long]

I'm surprised you're noticing just now. Macdog's attack on Susma wasn't so civilized. I don't think Karomesis' introductory post was clean, either.

"It shall be his decision,made publicly, whether you can stay..."

I don't know who you're referring to(karomesis or susma)?

Obviously karomesis as it is his thread.

I haven't seen Mac's attack on Susma but a lot depends on the specifics not your allegations and innuendo. It is also important *where* the exchange occurred as we do have a Free Speech Forum where such free for all dialogs are allowed. But here in these areas confined to more academic pursuits we have strict rules of conduct and these specifically prohibit Malicious Attacks.

You have been edited and I will continue to do so unless you confine your responses to the subject. Stranger, I did not threaten to ban you over what was done but gave you a formal warning over your excessive style and did specifically state that I would edit your post. I can show this to be another example from the list. There is a list of 33 truth avoiding tactics of which, most of your posts can be found to be applying one or more. Perhaps folks here can think of a few to add to it.

Including the example you just gave of a false association and rationalization based on two wrongs somehow making something right. Your irrelevant claim was not presented with any supporting fact but was simply irrelevant to the facts at hand and out of order. Oh and you are not alone as Susma (as well as others) here have been more and more employing these deceptive tactics of late and I think a special note should be made to all to please cease doing so.

I suggest that everyone needs to realize these are not *chats.* A little informality is tolerated as entertaining but the role of these forums is not to entertain it is to inform. Perhaps boredom and the need to be entertained is a sign of weaker minds, less able to stay focused on a subject and too blinded by their own prejudices to be able to engage a subject on its own merits.

If you want to pretend to yourselves that formal debate is equivalent in validity to the kinds of bar room discussions and role playing chats that many have engaged in since childhood then perhaps this is not the correct venue to voice yourselves in.

Here is the list so that not only you but everyone can begin to understand what methods are objectionable (and immediately obvious) in formal debate. Oh and these are Socratic style fora so the rules of such scholastic pursuit are *formal* for a reason as it is an alternative to actually trying to harm one another over our beliefs. This appears to be something theists (politicians too) are historically very poor at doing but it is never too late to learn so long as you are alive.

Truth avoiding tactics

1. false portrayal, of specific beliefs or of the traits of a person or group
2. preemptive false portrayal
3. misinterpretation of the meaning or purpose of statements
4. referring to statements that were not made, or the absence of statements that were made (types of false assumptions)
5. referring to things that are not true as if they were assumed to be true (a type of false assumption)
6. playing dumb (a type of false assumption)
7. logic twisting, i.e. false associations that are not viable enough to be caused by mistakes
8. projection of one's own traits or actions onto others, especially when that is done immediately after the traits or actions are displayed by oneself
9. projection of other(s)' traits or actions onto oneself
10. discouragement of consideration
11. distraction from logic via personal attacks or crude insults
12. false portrayal via an emotional reaction, such as laughing or surprise, to discourage the detection of a false assumption
13. asking questions that have already been answered, making arguments that have already been disproven, or asking for explanations or proof that has already been given (types of false assumptions)
14. repeating a deception after it has been exposed, which serves to make the deception more convincing, as well as serving somewhat as the power of suggestion
15. using a large quantity of people to compensate for weak logic
16. using fame, awards, or certificates of knowledge to compensate for weak logic
17. criticizing a minor error for the purpose of falsely invalidating a central statement
18. using the power of suggestion
19. asking questions or giving commands that contain false assumptions (types of false assumptions)
20. false portrayal of oneself as good-willed, whereas oneself uses malicious deceptive verbal tactics
21. using derogatory nicknames so as to discredit a person or persons, and thus avoid logic
22. discrediting a person or persons so as to avoid logic
23. falsely portraying facts as opinions or as being otherwise subjective
24. stating the exact opposite of the truth
25. falsely stating that others have used malicious deceptive tactics, especially when that fallacy is immediately before or after oneself uses other malicious deceptive tactics
26. making a seemingly random or nonsensical statement, often highly confident, that contains an implicit deception -That serves to cause innocent third parties to suspect the deceptive meaning with their own thoughts and regard the absence of explanation as a sign of truth, and thus make the deception more convincing
27. using an overwhelming quantity of deceptive tactics, sometimes densely packed together, such that it is very difficult to expose all of them
28. trying to invalidate a proven relatively basic fact by arguing against a more advanced possibility that is based upon the relatively basic fact
29. making self-contradicting statements, oftentimes subtly disguised
30. avoiding a conclusive argument by diverting a debate with a different argument
31. falsely portraying the use of malicious deceptive tactics as style of debate
32. falsely portraying the use of malicious deceptive tactics as manners of disagreement
33. asking questions of others as a method of argument, so as to distract from the fact that one's self has presented no actual arguments to support one's statements or to disprove the statements of others, which results from the absence of any strong arguments


http://www.cotse.net.../t3nj/ttcs.html

I apologize if I sound "humorless" but I think given the volatile aspects of this thread and the generally poor conduct that these types of theistic debate appear to result in, I am making a preemptive appeal to sanity and reason before things get out of hand.

[Lazarus Long]

Upon rereading your post Stranger I see you may have thought I was deferring to someone with respect to "banning" you when I discussed "letting you stay."

No; To be more specific I was considering just erasing what you had done to that point from this thread.

To his credit karomesis (though not publicly) specifically asked me to let you stay in this thread.

[Lazarus Long]

Since you refer above to my implied use of the term "chickenhawk" let me respond specifcally that

A: Next time cite a reference and link
B: Make sure you are clear about context
C: Demonstrate that I used such a term about another poster to disqualify their claims, or otherwise.
D: Demonstrate why such an allegation is remotely relevant to the topic at hand.
E: You might provide a reason why such a term was not valid in its use as well.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW Immortalitysystems I believe Nietzsche was quoting Karl Marx.

http://www.quotation...uote/31765.html

[Lazarus Long]

Well, to me, insulting any divinity(or deity) is the same as anyone insulting me.

I am their spokesman. And not because I made myself so.

BTW Stranger would you please provide some tangible supporting evidence for such claims as these?

Otherwise it is not only valid to simply dismiss anything and everything you offer as the product of self delusion, it is logically necessary because at best you are a well intentioned, yet misguided unbalanced individual or conversely a destructive, deceptive counter productive person engaged in willful deceit invalidating by default all they claim to hold dear.

I would suggest to you that *deities*, consistent with their descriptions, are doing just fine with or without you. They don't need you, you need them and they (if they exist) don't need or benefit from your protection, assistance, or support.

In fact your conduct contributes to discrediting them, invalidating any legitimacy you claim. As for being their *spokesperson* I sincerely hope they could do much better if they exist, as you are not contributing to establishing credibility as much as scorn. How ironic then is it that if you really believe all that you claim you conduct yourself as a poster child of what De Sade describes.

[Lazarus Long]

I have tried to limit my subsequent attacks on your credibility Stranger but since you made this a debate about you personally through the substance and merits of your own claims I am logically forced to address your credibility as well as the specific subject at hand and the general issue of interpersonal conduct.

Frankly for that I am dismayed and apologize to you and everyone for that beforehand but this is another good reason not to make these kinds of personalized claims or attacks on others.

As I fully expect a response *in kind* would you please take it to an appropriate area when you do. Like the bouncer says to the drunks: "Let's take this outside" or when it happens I might be forced to exercise judicial privilege again.

Of course you could demonstrate some maturity and a *sense* of reason and stop taking and making this all personal. The option is yours.

Immortality Systems,

"Religion is the opium of the people"

Yes, I've heard that one before.

Some people need it to survive. Their poison is their medicine.

It gets more dangerous when it has been 'cut'. Same with religion. You dilute it, you get undesired effects.

strangers

Actually this is another clear example of “disinformation” from the list above Stranger.

*Uncut* opiates like heroin and morphine are not someone’s medicine or ever needed to survive; when pure they are poisons that kill through over-dosage.

Also nobody *needs* the opiates to survive until they first make and then continue to allow themselves to be “addicted” to them. They are not food and offer no requisite nutrients. Some people do “depend” on the opiates to assuage pain but it is not the opiate that is the causal issue, it is the pain.

Religion may in fact be a lot like that, a common analgesic designed to abrogate the pain of *fear* for oblivion and the unknown. Humans it appears cannot long stand *uncertainty* about a subject they care about as this induces some forms of psychological anguish (pain) and they appear to prefer false and improvable beliefs in a purported truth to the *relativism* of uncertainty and the cognitive demands of the pursuit for truth.

However uncut by the objectivity of *reason*, religion like most opiates, becomes toxic.

[Karomesis]

Stranger, thank you for verifying my hypothesis on your lunacy. [thumb] I do not hate you or even dislike you, and I feel that you should be allowed to voice your opinion, But as was mentioned by lazarus,truth distortion is anathema to valid discourse on any subject worthy of dialogue. Woe to the man who ignores this lesson, his intellectual demise will be brought about in short order on a forum such as this.

My interaction with this thread is therefore concluded, My apologies to imminst members who were bored with this thread, that was not my initial intention.

[stranger]

Lazarus,

Yes, I know the opiates are not totally harmless. But for treating pain, morphine is still the number one choice in most hospitals.

What I meant by 'cut' was an alteration to its original components.

And talking about disinformation; That was the point, actually. Religion altered, cannot possibly have the same effects as the intention of the original writer or the transmitter of such message.

That is the reason you notice me more concerned with the 'religious' than with the agnostics.

I know not all religious advocates are flawed, but , a lot of them are.

____________________________________________

You wanted me to provide some 'tangible supporting evidence for such claims'(my claims).

Lazarus, that would be like me asking you to describe the color of the air you breathe. You cannot see it, but you can feel, or perceive, its effects.

What the air is to the physical body, the spirit is to the soul.

stranger

[Lazarus Long]

Religion altered, cannot possibly have the same effects as the intention of the original writer or the transmitter of such message.

By what manner are you certain that you are better aware of the original intent than others and more important what difference does it make?

Shall we allow our course of action today to be determined by forces long dead or too cowardly, should I actually believe you, to make their presence known?

Yes, I know the opiates are not totally harmless. But for treating pain, morphine is still the number one choice in most hospitals.

What I meant by 'cut' was an alteration to its original components.

That was my point about pain too as the causal concern is to STOP the pain, not contribute anything positive in itself, it is then that the drug becomes medicinal.

The issue of pain is that helping to stop it is not the same as sustenance. The drug is not what is needed, stopping the pain is, and morphine is just another tool for mitigating suffering until better methods to provide true healing come along like what can be offered through Stem Cell research.

Ironic isn't it that it is usually through politics that religion is most adulterated and perverted from any original purpose.

The point of *cutting* is that it is the term for reducing the percent purity and making the drugs more manageable. That cutting can be with toxic adulterants or in the form of sterile saline.

Lazarus, that would be like me asking you to describe the color of the air you breathe. You cannot see it, but you can feel, or perceive, its effects.

What the air is to the physical body, the spirit is to the soul.

What color is the air?

Why clear of course, unless obscured by too much light or darkness and even then the blind can know it at the very least as not solid or wet. They can smell its color and imagine the warmth of the Sun or feel a cold, dark, frigid night. Know the wind in your face. Do you depend on only one sense to know anything?

What is that sense?

Would you care for me to describe why the sky is blue or the sunset a rich red hue?

Or is the problem really that you are afraid of the truth and prefer *spirit guides* of your own creation and that only *you* understand, to the challenge of seeking deeper knowledge on your own?

What property do you offer to distinguish the mind from what you identify as the soul?

Of course I can perceive its effects:

Cogito ergo sum.

That is the reason you notice me more concerned with the 'religious' than with the agnostics.

I know not all religious advocates are flawed, but, a lot of them are.

I do not preach and I am not evangelizing. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

You are welcome to frequent our halls of religion Stranger. I am not bothered by not agreeing with much you say and it doesn't bother me either that you are not parochial, even if you are a bit too righteous at times yourself.

But you will have to please be more comfortable with the flow of tourists, theists, agnostics, and even atheists that also frequent our somewhat scholastic ivory towers here in our Secular Chapel to Religion. Please try not to lose your patience so easily, lashing out at others as you have already done too often.

Whether you truly believe what you say or not, you cannot really expect others to treat you as credible without sufficient evidence of a more objective nature. Do you?

After all it is not the beings, which you claim that are we really being asked to take on faith, it is you, and the claims.

Why don't you stop making that an issue by simply not referring to what *they* say but only what you believe instead?

[susmariosep]

Hey Stranger you do know our rules on personal assaults right?

Your post crossed that line, do you want to change them or will you have to made an example of?

Karomesis clearly understood such a response might happen from his opening dialog but I had hoped those of more intelligence would not fall so easily for the bait.  You have not demonstrated such ability.  It shall be his decision, made publicly whether you can stay but the personal flames stop now or you do.

Stick to the subject and stop attacking the other posters.


I have edited out the more offensive aspects of the previous post and I hope the example is not lost on those that have observed the exchange till now.

Dear good Lazarus:

For myself, I can take anything anyone can throw at me, the kitcen sink even and the bathroom bowl, all the scatological discharges which in Japanese society they collect for precious vegetable nutrients of the best and safest quality.

The only thing that causes me apprehension is when powers that be show dissatisfaction or dismay or even irritation with my posts and my posting style.

I used to feel bad with epithets thrown at me, no longer now. Here in the net sticks and stones can't reach me, and words have also lost their lethal poison. Maybe it's from writing in a critical manner about Buddha and Buddhism and their Western enthusiasts.

And also I would lose my orientation when a poster writes in a style that is not conventional English writing, as I had learned to write in English in the schools of my homeland, which schools have accreditation linkage with established schools in the US.

Stranger I love, notwithstanding all the angry words he hurled against me. We are fellow Christians or more correctly fellow humans. So also with Macdog.

I will say just this observation about Stranger and Macdog, theirs is a kind of interaction, that goes into recourse to ills that psychic forces can wreak on you, for your not appearing to treat them with due regard, though you are just being curiously analytic about them, and in an academic manner.

Then also they get angered easily and start talking against you with rancor.

There, my study of Stranger and Macdog. But if Lazarus deletes or edits this message, it's okay with me.


About the topic of this thread, I agree with the author, and yet I can hold at the same time a sense of religion, in a rational, provisional, and optional way. Is that being contradictory? If so, is there a law against being contradictory in things where contradiction is not going to disrupt law and order and the best interaction on purely social interpersonal relationshis with fellow humans? I beg to disagree.

Man is an animal for being intelligent can perceive his own contradictions owning to drives pulling in opposite directions; but very few are they who can have this perception. -- Susma

Susma

[stranger]

Lazarus,

I am having technical difficulties. I answered to this post on a different thread by mistake.

[stranger]

The spammers are getting pretty annoying, here.

I am barely breaking through, before this system is crashing.

Thank you for your replies.

[stranger]

Lazarus,

Like I said, (on the other thread,by mistake) the mind can never be taken away from the soul. It can go dormant, but it can never be vanquished from the soul, itself. The soul 'feeds' on spirit. Much like a car battery.

The three states of mind( conscious, subconcious, and unconcious) are like three flames of the soul.

Momentary lapses in conciousness are experienced from time to time, but the mind itself always finds a way back to its source. You can sleep for hours or ages, but you will always find your way back to your 'self'---your eternal self.

[stranger]

"Why don't you stop making that an issue by simply not referring to what "they"
say ,but only what you believe, instead?"


I'm only pointing out into what I am 'witnessing' or perceiving.

You cannot blame me for endless repetitions about the same god.

I am only trying to help people here to re-orient themselves with whatever god they most likely identify with.

Also, notice that I am addressing those with some type of belief. Those with a basic notion of 'whats out there'. I am not trying to convince everyone to believe in 'what might not be out there'. That's your choice.

stranger

[stranger]

Lazarus,

"Do you depend on only one sense to know anything?"
"What is that sense?"

The sixth sense , which we all possess, ( although, it may be dormant in some)
is the missing link to the first five senses.

stranger

[susmariosep]

Dear Stranger:

The author of this thread has left. But we can continue, for my curiosity is still unquenched. When I come across any topic which stirs up my curiosity, I can't leave it alone. And it is a happy stroke of good luck that I have met you, because I had always wanted to talk with someone who communicates with spirits.

I am a believer in God, and also in spirits like angels and Satan with his followers who are essentially angels but fallen ones for their ambition. But I know what is belief and what is knowledge. In your case, you have knowledge; so you don't need to believe. In my case, I have belief but it does not enable me to concretize my beliefs in regard to the entities I believe in. So I have no experience and cannot have any, of communication with spirits.

At this point, I must remind everyone that belief is for me always founded on some rational grounds, and it is always provisional, and lastly also always optional.

Tell me, when you communicate with gods, demigods, and similar beings, which we might call paranormal entities or psychic agents, do you do so with or without audible voice between you and them? This means you talk with your lips and they talk with their, what?

Do you hear them with your ears? and they hear you with their, what?

For precision in communication we need the medium of language. Do you and they communicate with language and which one, English? Where and how did they master English?


You accuse me of making a mockery of your psychic entities. Please do not entertain this accusation, because I am not making any mockery of your spirits and certainly not you. I will insist that when I study a matter, in this connection your communication with spirits, there is no mockery whatsoever involved or intended. The purpose is purely my quest for information which can lead to my further education about the world, where so much still hides from our mental grasp.

Please answer my simple questions. I will still ask you more. It is a great break for me to learn about communication with spirits, your kinds of, which are gods and demigods and others of an akin character.


In this respect I am still a child who is eager to hear what others have experienced, which owing to my youth and lack of exposure to so many vicissitudes of life, I remain ignorant about so much of life and the world; but I can obtain a vicarious experience of them from others like you, who have personally encountered such events, and even played the role of a protagonist in them.

Thanks for all information you will supply me.

Susma