Post #5.1 Phillip's Reply

Here is Phillip's reply in whole copied from his comments.

I certainly don’t want to get involved in some kind of juvenile slanging match. If you genuinely find my comments of no interest then clearly you will not read any comments I make. However, I will point out what appear to be some misunderstandings:

My explanation (not a definition) of intuition is perfectly compatible with the definition you give.

I’m surprised you say that the alpha state is only recognised by spiritualists, etc. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_wave) mentions it, as do some skeptic sites (http://skepdic.com/alphawaves.html). It is widely acknowledged by conventional medicine.

Your comment on racism misses my point. It is not only racism that leads to violence. Jews are not even a race and the problems in Northern Ireland were based on religion not race. It is the emotional reaction that leads to violence, not the remarks themselves. In the US many schools ban hats or the wearing of certain colours because students identify these with gangs. Once a person has been identified as belonging to a gang they become an ally or an enemy. There is no appreciation of the individual – they get lumped into a group. The same principle is used in training soldiers. There is ‘the enemy’ they are not individuals who may have families or enjoy a drink down the pub. One of the salient features of the Christmas of 1914 in the trenches was that soldiers saw the enemy as individuals. It doesn’t make for good warfare. If a group were identified because of the length of their nose (as were Jews in Nazi Germany) then nose-ism would be violent.

In talking about good and bad events I may have explained the point poorly. Suppose your child divided their food into good and bad, where pizza and chips were good and broccoli and asparagus were bad. You, as a parent, may say that food isn’t good or bad. Some food is nicer to eat whereas other food may be better for you. Some food that your child considers bad, they may learn to enjoy. You may say ‘it’s all just food’. I know left-brain thinkers dislike analogies but surely you can see my point here? You say that this is not an "atheistic idea", but I have studied many atheistic web sites and it a common theme. So much so that I would that 70-80% of the arguments against a belief in God are variations of this.

You go on to say that “…you lost any respect from me that you might have had” because of my discussions about relationships. I won’t reiterate them all here, but I will say that most of these views are commonly held by counsellors. I am writing a blog, not a scientific paper but if you talk to many male transvestites they will tell you they had a poor relationship with their father. I did not say that that being a transvestite is a damaging thing. Nor did I say that a same-sex couple is in some way inferior to a heterosexual couple. In fact, if you talk to many gay parents they will tell you that they are aware of the contra-sexual relationship and lesbian mothers will encourage their boys to hang out with male friends in order for them to get a relationship with an adult male figure. If they are aware of this then I really don’t understand what your issue is. I said it was that this issue is ignored in the debate over same-sex couples or single parent families. It often is – you seem to want to ignore it. For the record, I am in favour of gay marriage.

Your last shot is really the issue here. It is a common syndrome to put people into a group and then dismiss their ideas by condemning the group. So, for instance, you can say that so-and-so must be stupid because, for example, he owns a gun. Therefore his ideas on the economy can’t be taken seriously. It is a variation of what I mentioned earlier. I find this typical, but very sad. Real intelligent discussion is rare instead we get name-calling.