Anonymous blathered:

Because it can't be described or reduced conceptually does not mean something is not real. It does not mean that someone who experiences God,( and what he or she has experienced cannot be communicated adequately to someone else), has not experienced anything. It also does not mean that experience is delusional even if there are people, suffering from mental/brain disorders who seem to have similar experiences.

That is simply begging the question, though I grant you it's a clever effort at it. But, we're not buying it. The fact is that 100% of entities proferred which "can't be described conceptually" tend not to possess real world existence.

Another thing, if you're going to be so generous in granting such leverage to word usage, ANYONE can make any claim he or she wishes and expect to be taken seriously.

Maybe "YONANDA" came to me in a dream and demanded "her" fealty and worship as a "Goddess". I then begin to spread the "message of YONANDA". What you are saying is that the concept of "YONANDA" must be respected and need not be an invention or brain disorder, or simply trick of the imagination.

This is plain bollocks!

Reason and the ability to parse an idea or claim in words (even if not with full rational analysis) is a first line of defense against accepting any manner of bunkum at all. Without which the floodgates to unreality and irrationality would open.

Like it or not, this applies to "GOD" as much as "YONANDA" or the green fairy dragon mother from Antares.

The onus is always on extraordinary claim proponents to demonstrate their case-claim or at least provide an evidentiary basis for it. If not there is no way to be certain the entity proferred isn't a confection of their own interior reality, OR something they simply made up to bamboozle the gullible.

"Experiences" of God, or YONANDA or the the green fairy dragon mother of Antares also have no basis for acceptance until and unless they can be objectively and independently validated in some way.

One's subjective claim of experience is simply not adequate to get it done.

in any case i thought the bill of rights read

--- Fredom OF Religion

not --- Freedom FROM Religion

Sorry, but minus the LAST, it is not much of a "right' at all. Let's also bear in mind that the Founders and their ilk escaped RELIGIOUS persecution and bloodhshed in their own nation (England) and the clear intent was not to make the same errors (for example that led to the Cromwell excesses) in the New World.

Yes, people can have their freedom of religion, but there must ALSO be the freedom FROM religion (and others' delusions) or the first means nada.

The Indians are one win away from a flyover World Series that will have Fox TV executives diving for the Maalox. Cleveland vs. Colorado, in a postseason that had started out with the possibility of a Red Sox-Chicago Cubs Series and the 20th century ratings such a matchup promised.

Well, instead of ratings-whining, FAUX ought to appreciate if it is Cleveland v. Colorado. For baseball purists, and real lovers of the game - flyover Series have been among the best.

For example, the 1982 Series between Milwaukee (Brewers, then in the AL) vs. the St. Louis Cardinals. More spectacular plays were seen in that Series (which went a full 7 games) then seen in many others.

We will see what occurs this time, but I am predicting Indians in 7, on account of the Rockies' long layoff.