<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_2032241</id>
	<title>Brain Surgery Linked To Sensation of Spirituality</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265880600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>the3stars writes <i>"'<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-surgery-boosts-spiritual">Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace</a>, according to researchers from Italy. Their study provides the strongest evidence to date that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas. This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality, among them whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma."</i>

One critic's quoted response: "It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure, which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items."</htmltext>
<tokenext>the3stars writes " 'Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace , according to researchers from Italy .
Their study provides the strongest evidence to date that spiritual thinking arises in , or is limited by , specific brain areas .
This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality , among them whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma .
" One critic 's quoted response : " It 's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure , which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the3stars writes "'Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy.
Their study provides the strongest evidence to date that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas.
This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality, among them whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma.
"

One critic's quoted response: "It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure, which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107452</id>
	<title>Objective spirituality?</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1265893020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure, which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items.</p></div></blockquote><p>As opposed to an objective, fine measure of spirituality?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure , which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items.As opposed to an objective , fine measure of spirituality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure, which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items.As opposed to an objective, fine measure of spirituality?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106530</id>
	<title>Robert Sapolsky on Religion</title>
	<author>slasho81</author>
	<datestamp>1265889180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're interested in a quick introduction (19 minutes) to the neurobiology of religion, check this out: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDTuri0YR9Y" title="youtube.com">Part 1</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT1fCJBumcs" title="youtube.com">Part 2</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're interested in a quick introduction ( 19 minutes ) to the neurobiology of religion , check this out : Part 1 [ youtube.com ] Part 2 [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're interested in a quick introduction (19 minutes) to the neurobiology of religion, check this out: Part 1 [youtube.com] Part 2 [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106166</id>
	<title>Tinfoil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just going to make sure my tinfoil hat is on nice and snug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to make sure my tinfoil hat is on nice and snug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to make sure my tinfoil hat is on nice and snug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31114718</id>
	<title>Re:Kooky</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265996940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well, specifically, alien abductions, ala X-files, including cow mutilations and crop circles. Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.</i></p><p>Ok, yes, I agree these things are getting pretty far into left field.  I don't think alien abductions are a completely ridiculous concept, after all we "abduct" other animals on this planet all the time and perform horrific experiments on them.  Who knows, maybe it's happened once or twice.  However, it seems that everyone and his brother now wants to claim he's been abducted and had an anal probe or whatever.</p><p><i>Ooh, and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she's psychic.</i></p><p>This is another one of those things where I think there might be something to it in a few cases (after all, there's a lot of things about the mind and physics we don't understand yet), but again it seems like everyone and her sister claims to be a psychic, so I don't buy their claims unless they can provide some serious evidence (which no one does).</p><p><i>My premise, which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot,</i></p><p>The moderation on this site is very bad.  Just ignore it.</p><p><i>Ooh, here's another great one I heard - for billions of years, there were only females. Men were a mutation. So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such, and evil (men) didn't enter the world until very recently, and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.</i></p><p>Wow, that's pretty funny, and downright ludicrous.  What's the point of a vagina if there's no males around to fertilize it?  She has a point with the suffering and war thing, though, but that's a modern thing.  Male aggression was needed in the past when humans were hunters and tribal.  Now it's mostly a hindrance.  I think some people might be right when they say the civilized world would be better off without men.  After all, with modern medicine and genetic engineering, women won't need men to reproduce pretty soon.</p><p><i>Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself, that while there should be nothing at all there is, and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who don't believe in a creator?</i></p><p>I think the creation of the universe is a question that science cannot answer at this time, if ever.  It can (and does) make theories about what happened in the early history of the universe, based on observable evidence.  But what happened before that point is anyone's guess.</p><p>I personally think it's less far-fetched to say that some intelligence force created the universe to see what would happen, than the idea that this force is personally involved in the everyday lives of mortal humans, doing things like parting seas to help them out from time to time, but somehow disappearing altogether (or at least not doing any more large-scale spectacular miracles) for a couple thousand years now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , specifically , alien abductions , ala X-files , including cow mutilations and crop circles .
Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.Ok , yes , I agree these things are getting pretty far into left field .
I do n't think alien abductions are a completely ridiculous concept , after all we " abduct " other animals on this planet all the time and perform horrific experiments on them .
Who knows , maybe it 's happened once or twice .
However , it seems that everyone and his brother now wants to claim he 's been abducted and had an anal probe or whatever.Ooh , and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she 's psychic.This is another one of those things where I think there might be something to it in a few cases ( after all , there 's a lot of things about the mind and physics we do n't understand yet ) , but again it seems like everyone and her sister claims to be a psychic , so I do n't buy their claims unless they can provide some serious evidence ( which no one does ) .My premise , which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot,The moderation on this site is very bad .
Just ignore it.Ooh , here 's another great one I heard - for billions of years , there were only females .
Men were a mutation .
So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such , and evil ( men ) did n't enter the world until very recently , and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.Wow , that 's pretty funny , and downright ludicrous .
What 's the point of a vagina if there 's no males around to fertilize it ?
She has a point with the suffering and war thing , though , but that 's a modern thing .
Male aggression was needed in the past when humans were hunters and tribal .
Now it 's mostly a hindrance .
I think some people might be right when they say the civilized world would be better off without men .
After all , with modern medicine and genetic engineering , women wo n't need men to reproduce pretty soon.Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself , that while there should be nothing at all there is , and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who do n't believe in a creator ? I think the creation of the universe is a question that science can not answer at this time , if ever .
It can ( and does ) make theories about what happened in the early history of the universe , based on observable evidence .
But what happened before that point is anyone 's guess.I personally think it 's less far-fetched to say that some intelligence force created the universe to see what would happen , than the idea that this force is personally involved in the everyday lives of mortal humans , doing things like parting seas to help them out from time to time , but somehow disappearing altogether ( or at least not doing any more large-scale spectacular miracles ) for a couple thousand years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, specifically, alien abductions, ala X-files, including cow mutilations and crop circles.
Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.Ok, yes, I agree these things are getting pretty far into left field.
I don't think alien abductions are a completely ridiculous concept, after all we "abduct" other animals on this planet all the time and perform horrific experiments on them.
Who knows, maybe it's happened once or twice.
However, it seems that everyone and his brother now wants to claim he's been abducted and had an anal probe or whatever.Ooh, and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she's psychic.This is another one of those things where I think there might be something to it in a few cases (after all, there's a lot of things about the mind and physics we don't understand yet), but again it seems like everyone and her sister claims to be a psychic, so I don't buy their claims unless they can provide some serious evidence (which no one does).My premise, which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot,The moderation on this site is very bad.
Just ignore it.Ooh, here's another great one I heard - for billions of years, there were only females.
Men were a mutation.
So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such, and evil (men) didn't enter the world until very recently, and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.Wow, that's pretty funny, and downright ludicrous.
What's the point of a vagina if there's no males around to fertilize it?
She has a point with the suffering and war thing, though, but that's a modern thing.
Male aggression was needed in the past when humans were hunters and tribal.
Now it's mostly a hindrance.
I think some people might be right when they say the civilized world would be better off without men.
After all, with modern medicine and genetic engineering, women won't need men to reproduce pretty soon.Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself, that while there should be nothing at all there is, and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who don't believe in a creator?I think the creation of the universe is a question that science cannot answer at this time, if ever.
It can (and does) make theories about what happened in the early history of the universe, based on observable evidence.
But what happened before that point is anyone's guess.I personally think it's less far-fetched to say that some intelligence force created the universe to see what would happen, than the idea that this force is personally involved in the everyday lives of mortal humans, doing things like parting seas to help them out from time to time, but somehow disappearing altogether (or at least not doing any more large-scale spectacular miracles) for a couple thousand years now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31121028</id>
	<title>Re:New Westboro Baptist Church sign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all of them.</p><p>- T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all of them.- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all of them.- T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105690</id>
	<title>Evolution</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1265885760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always held the opinion that religion is a result of evolution, religious groups with the same beliefs tend to do their best to oppress smaller groups &amp; groups with other beliefs, individuals will even kill themselves for those religions if they think that it'll further their 'god's cause'.<br>
<br>
Well, if that were to be true, it'd be quite ironic that the very reason why creationists oppose the acceptance of evolution would be evolution itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always held the opinion that religion is a result of evolution , religious groups with the same beliefs tend to do their best to oppress smaller groups &amp; groups with other beliefs , individuals will even kill themselves for those religions if they think that it 'll further their 'god 's cause' .
Well , if that were to be true , it 'd be quite ironic that the very reason why creationists oppose the acceptance of evolution would be evolution itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always held the opinion that religion is a result of evolution, religious groups with the same beliefs tend to do their best to oppress smaller groups &amp; groups with other beliefs, individuals will even kill themselves for those religions if they think that it'll further their 'god's cause'.
Well, if that were to be true, it'd be quite ironic that the very reason why creationists oppose the acceptance of evolution would be evolution itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110324</id>
	<title>Science vs. Religion is beside the point</title>
	<author>russbutton</author>
	<datestamp>1266007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been said that science is the attempt to know all there is (God) by thinking without feeling, and that religion is the attempt to know God by feeling without thinking.

Each path is equally limited.

To declare either path better than the other is simple vanity because each will take you places the other cannot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been said that science is the attempt to know all there is ( God ) by thinking without feeling , and that religion is the attempt to know God by feeling without thinking .
Each path is equally limited .
To declare either path better than the other is simple vanity because each will take you places the other can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been said that science is the attempt to know all there is (God) by thinking without feeling, and that religion is the attempt to know God by feeling without thinking.
Each path is equally limited.
To declare either path better than the other is simple vanity because each will take you places the other cannot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109278</id>
	<title>finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265906760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always knew religious people were crazy.  Now at last I have proof!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always knew religious people were crazy .
Now at last I have proof !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always knew religious people were crazy.
Now at last I have proof!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106146</id>
	<title>I Knew It!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less brains = more spirituality?  I knew religious people were inferior!  And the stronger they believe (read fundies) the less intelligent they appear!</p><p>(The troll is out from under the bridge)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less brains = more spirituality ?
I knew religious people were inferior !
And the stronger they believe ( read fundies ) the less intelligent they appear !
( The troll is out from under the bridge )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less brains = more spirituality?
I knew religious people were inferior!
And the stronger they believe (read fundies) the less intelligent they appear!
(The troll is out from under the bridge)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106310</id>
	<title>New Westboro Baptist Church sign</title>
	<author>StefanJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265888160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GOD HATES BRAINS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GOD HATES BRAINS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GOD HATES BRAINS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</id>
	<title>Flamebait</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265884380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?</p><p>To be less inflammatory, this doesn't really change anything.  For a religious person, they would accept that God created the brain in such a way that makes the spiritual experience possible.  Why would there not be a physical substrate for that experience?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this is proof that religious people are n't using their whole brain then ? To be less inflammatory , this does n't really change anything .
For a religious person , they would accept that God created the brain in such a way that makes the spiritual experience possible .
Why would there not be a physical substrate for that experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?To be less inflammatory, this doesn't really change anything.
For a religious person, they would accept that God created the brain in such a way that makes the spiritual experience possible.
Why would there not be a physical substrate for that experience?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105920</id>
	<title>Less brains equal religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like reality. Ever wonder about religious kooks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like reality .
Ever wonder about religious kooks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like reality.
Ever wonder about religious kooks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106428</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265888640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny thing bout that.</p><p>If you were to prove that homosexuality was a symptom of a physical ailment then you would be in fact destroying any religious arguments for persecution of them.</p><p>Any btw, it's not my job to prove a negative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing bout that.If you were to prove that homosexuality was a symptom of a physical ailment then you would be in fact destroying any religious arguments for persecution of them.Any btw , it 's not my job to prove a negative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing bout that.If you were to prove that homosexuality was a symptom of a physical ailment then you would be in fact destroying any religious arguments for persecution of them.Any btw, it's not my job to prove a negative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105996</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1265886840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, this is <b>proof</b> that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?</p></div><p>You keep using that word. <br> <br>I do not think it means what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this is proof that religious people are n't using their whole brain then ? You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106472</id>
	<title>Re:What conflict?</title>
	<author>TheIzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1265888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take it a step further.  We can manipulate people's ability to see better or worse by messing with their eyes, optical nerves, and occipital lobes.  Certainly no one would contend that the "real" world therefore doesn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take it a step further .
We can manipulate people 's ability to see better or worse by messing with their eyes , optical nerves , and occipital lobes .
Certainly no one would contend that the " real " world therefore does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take it a step further.
We can manipulate people's ability to see better or worse by messing with their eyes, optical nerves, and occipital lobes.
Certainly no one would contend that the "real" world therefore doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106988</id>
	<title>Good to know...</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1265891040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to know that I might finally reach Zen nirvana, at least for a moment, as the zombies gnaw through my brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to know that I might finally reach Zen nirvana , at least for a moment , as the zombies gnaw through my brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to know that I might finally reach Zen nirvana, at least for a moment, as the zombies gnaw through my brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106462</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1265888880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)</p></div><p>Alright, I'll accept that he exists. Now, what does he want? When does he want it? How do you know this? Why should I trust your hearsay over the hearsay of others?</p><p>The existence of God is the beginning of your problems, not the end. Now you have to prove that he approves of you, and the only thing separating you from a lunatic on the street is hygiene, and the willingness to keep your unfounded beliefs to yourself, at least for most of the time.</p><p>Unless we all want to be assaulted with the crackpot theories of every personal delusion, from believing you're a reincarnated Roman Emperor to believing that a burning bush just talked to you, or that ants can talk, or that the Infinite and All Knowing God is terrified of menstruating women and big penises, I'd say why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself. Only a fool is really convinced that he knows the will of God better than another.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ezekiel 23:19<br>Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>The Cow 2:222<br>They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) Alright , I 'll accept that he exists .
Now , what does he want ?
When does he want it ?
How do you know this ?
Why should I trust your hearsay over the hearsay of others ? The existence of God is the beginning of your problems , not the end .
Now you have to prove that he approves of you , and the only thing separating you from a lunatic on the street is hygiene , and the willingness to keep your unfounded beliefs to yourself , at least for most of the time.Unless we all want to be assaulted with the crackpot theories of every personal delusion , from believing you 're a reincarnated Roman Emperor to believing that a burning bush just talked to you , or that ants can talk , or that the Infinite and All Knowing God is terrified of menstruating women and big penises , I 'd say why do n't you keep your beliefs to yourself .
Only a fool is really convinced that he knows the will of God better than another.Ezekiel 23 : 19Yet she multiplied her whoredoms , in calling to remembrance the days of her youth , wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt .
For she doted upon their paramours , whose flesh is as the flesh of asses , and whose issue is like the issue of horses.The Cow 2 : 222They question thee ( O Muhammad ) concerning menstruation .
Say : It is an illness , so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed .
And when they have purified themselves , then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you .
Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him , and loveth those who have a care for cleanness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)Alright, I'll accept that he exists.
Now, what does he want?
When does he want it?
How do you know this?
Why should I trust your hearsay over the hearsay of others?The existence of God is the beginning of your problems, not the end.
Now you have to prove that he approves of you, and the only thing separating you from a lunatic on the street is hygiene, and the willingness to keep your unfounded beliefs to yourself, at least for most of the time.Unless we all want to be assaulted with the crackpot theories of every personal delusion, from believing you're a reincarnated Roman Emperor to believing that a burning bush just talked to you, or that ants can talk, or that the Infinite and All Knowing God is terrified of menstruating women and big penises, I'd say why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself.
Only a fool is really convinced that he knows the will of God better than another.Ezekiel 23:19Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.The Cow 2:222They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation.
Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed.
And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you.
Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110050</id>
	<title>Even more peace:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Removing the whole brain can induce even more inner peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Removing the whole brain can induce even more inner peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Removing the whole brain can induce even more inner peace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106842</id>
	<title>Duh...</title>
	<author>firewrought</author>
	<datestamp>1265890440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Snooze... it is only "interesting" if you believe the human mind to be some sort of mystical phenomenon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality.. . Snooze... it is only " interesting " if you believe the human mind to be some sort of mystical phenomenon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality...


Snooze... it is only "interesting" if you believe the human mind to be some sort of mystical phenomenon.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106632</id>
	<title>Reverse Phrenology</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1265889600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Terry Pratchett was on to something when he invented the concept of reverse phrenology. Hitting someone in the head enough times <i>will</i> change their personality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Terry Pratchett was on to something when he invented the concept of reverse phrenology .
Hitting someone in the head enough times will change their personality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Terry Pratchett was on to something when he invented the concept of reverse phrenology.
Hitting someone in the head enough times will change their personality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109892</id>
	<title>Re:Kooky</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1265914140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Whoa... you think Christianity's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens?</p><p>Well, specifically, alien abductions, ala X-files, including cow mutilations and crop circles. Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.</p><p>I'm not strawmanning, either. These are all beliefs espoused by my atheist friends, who ostensibly believe in the primacy of science and logic.</p><p>Ooh, and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she's psychic. And that I am too, for that matter, because I can "look at a photo and know what the people in it are like." Yeah.</p><p>My premise, which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot, is that if this article is correct, and we do indeed have a region of the brain devoted to the supernatural or spiritual elements of our existence, is that when it's not being used by atheists because they've given up on religion, they start adopting other, less plausible elements<br>instead. Or it atrophies, and they become a sort of hollow, bitter person like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.</p><p>&gt;&gt;That's no atheist, that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion, even if he doesn't want to admit it.</p><p>That's sort of my point. He can somehow hold both ridicule for Christianity and his belief in an obviously false creation myth side by side in his head. I think this article might explain why.</p><p>Ooh, here's another great one I heard - for billions of years, there were only females. Men were a mutation. So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such, and evil (men) didn't enter the world until very recently, and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.</p><p>True story. The presenter told this to a room full of elementary school teachers during a professional development workshop in San Diego. To be fair, I don't know if she was an atheist, but her creation myth is funny enough to be worth relating.</p><p>&gt;&gt;Sure. But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea, resurrection, and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.</p><p>Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself, that while there should be nothing at all there is, and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who don't believe in a creator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Whoa... you think Christianity 's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens ? Well , specifically , alien abductions , ala X-files , including cow mutilations and crop circles .
Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.I 'm not strawmanning , either .
These are all beliefs espoused by my atheist friends , who ostensibly believe in the primacy of science and logic.Ooh , and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she 's psychic .
And that I am too , for that matter , because I can " look at a photo and know what the people in it are like .
" Yeah.My premise , which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot , is that if this article is correct , and we do indeed have a region of the brain devoted to the supernatural or spiritual elements of our existence , is that when it 's not being used by atheists because they 've given up on religion , they start adopting other , less plausible elementsinstead .
Or it atrophies , and they become a sort of hollow , bitter person like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. &gt; &gt; That 's no atheist , that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion , even if he does n't want to admit it.That 's sort of my point .
He can somehow hold both ridicule for Christianity and his belief in an obviously false creation myth side by side in his head .
I think this article might explain why.Ooh , here 's another great one I heard - for billions of years , there were only females .
Men were a mutation .
So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such , and evil ( men ) did n't enter the world until very recently , and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.True story .
The presenter told this to a room full of elementary school teachers during a professional development workshop in San Diego .
To be fair , I do n't know if she was an atheist , but her creation myth is funny enough to be worth relating. &gt; &gt; Sure .
But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea , resurrection , and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself , that while there should be nothing at all there is , and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who do n't believe in a creator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Whoa... you think Christianity's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens?Well, specifically, alien abductions, ala X-files, including cow mutilations and crop circles.
Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.I'm not strawmanning, either.
These are all beliefs espoused by my atheist friends, who ostensibly believe in the primacy of science and logic.Ooh, and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she's psychic.
And that I am too, for that matter, because I can "look at a photo and know what the people in it are like.
" Yeah.My premise, which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot, is that if this article is correct, and we do indeed have a region of the brain devoted to the supernatural or spiritual elements of our existence, is that when it's not being used by atheists because they've given up on religion, they start adopting other, less plausible elementsinstead.
Or it atrophies, and they become a sort of hollow, bitter person like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.&gt;&gt;That's no atheist, that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion, even if he doesn't want to admit it.That's sort of my point.
He can somehow hold both ridicule for Christianity and his belief in an obviously false creation myth side by side in his head.
I think this article might explain why.Ooh, here's another great one I heard - for billions of years, there were only females.
Men were a mutation.
So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such, and evil (men) didn't enter the world until very recently, and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.True story.
The presenter told this to a room full of elementary school teachers during a professional development workshop in San Diego.
To be fair, I don't know if she was an atheist, but her creation myth is funny enough to be worth relating.&gt;&gt;Sure.
But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea, resurrection, and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself, that while there should be nothing at all there is, and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who don't believe in a creator?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106388</id>
	<title>They should've been called "researchers."</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't even the <i>plural</i> of anecdote. It's definitely not data. I can't think of any reason we're reading this other than atheists with doctorates who enjoy trolling the normals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't even the plural of anecdote .
It 's definitely not data .
I ca n't think of any reason we 're reading this other than atheists with doctorates who enjoy trolling the normals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't even the plural of anecdote.
It's definitely not data.
I can't think of any reason we're reading this other than atheists with doctorates who enjoy trolling the normals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105676</id>
	<title>Should we change that old saw to "Happiness is...</title>
	<author>notjustchalk</author>
	<datestamp>1265885640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a state of mindlessness?"<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...a stateless mind?"<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...a mindless state?"</p><p>On a different note, when did "inner peace" = "spirituality"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a state of mindlessness ?
" ...a stateless mind ?
" ...a mindless state ?
" On a different note , when did " inner peace " = " spirituality " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a state of mindlessness?
" ...a stateless mind?
" ...a mindless state?
"On a different note, when did "inner peace" = "spirituality"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106800</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265890260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can certainly vouch for this.</p><p>In my early teen years I was diagnosed with a form of this epilepsy. The thing not mentioned in the post above is that such form of spirituality goes away somewhat if the condition is dealt with quickly, as happened in my case. Few years later I stumbled upon some info and came to realize that I'm almost a textbook example (for short summary, see also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwind\_syndrome" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwind\_syndrome</a> [wikipedia.org] )</p><p>What many of you can't really grasp, without experiencing it, is how real it feels - basically the question about existence of spiritual part of reality doesn't come into it at all; it's just present, that's...obvious. Only after it lessens the grip, you might ask yourself "what was that all about"?</p><p>The thing that it's often exploited by religious "guidance" certainly doesn't help to escape. And with TLE being one of more underdiagnosed forms of epilepsy (heck, it was almost a chance in my case), I wouldn't be surpised if statistically significant number of deeply religious people had a mild form. In case of such, you end up arguing against what is...very much real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can certainly vouch for this.In my early teen years I was diagnosed with a form of this epilepsy .
The thing not mentioned in the post above is that such form of spirituality goes away somewhat if the condition is dealt with quickly , as happened in my case .
Few years later I stumbled upon some info and came to realize that I 'm almost a textbook example ( for short summary , see also http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwind \ _syndrome [ wikipedia.org ] ) What many of you ca n't really grasp , without experiencing it , is how real it feels - basically the question about existence of spiritual part of reality does n't come into it at all ; it 's just present , that 's...obvious .
Only after it lessens the grip , you might ask yourself " what was that all about " ? The thing that it 's often exploited by religious " guidance " certainly does n't help to escape .
And with TLE being one of more underdiagnosed forms of epilepsy ( heck , it was almost a chance in my case ) , I would n't be surpised if statistically significant number of deeply religious people had a mild form .
In case of such , you end up arguing against what is...very much real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can certainly vouch for this.In my early teen years I was diagnosed with a form of this epilepsy.
The thing not mentioned in the post above is that such form of spirituality goes away somewhat if the condition is dealt with quickly, as happened in my case.
Few years later I stumbled upon some info and came to realize that I'm almost a textbook example (for short summary, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwind\_syndrome [wikipedia.org] )What many of you can't really grasp, without experiencing it, is how real it feels - basically the question about existence of spiritual part of reality doesn't come into it at all; it's just present, that's...obvious.
Only after it lessens the grip, you might ask yourself "what was that all about"?The thing that it's often exploited by religious "guidance" certainly doesn't help to escape.
And with TLE being one of more underdiagnosed forms of epilepsy (heck, it was almost a chance in my case), I wouldn't be surpised if statistically significant number of deeply religious people had a mild form.
In case of such, you end up arguing against what is...very much real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107162</id>
	<title>Re:Kooky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265891700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights*</p></div><p>* unless you happen to be black (up until the 1863), female (up until 1920), an interracial couple (up until 1967) or are a homosexual (ongoing), of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights * * unless you happen to be black ( up until the 1863 ) , female ( up until 1920 ) , an interracial couple ( up until 1967 ) or are a homosexual ( ongoing ) , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights** unless you happen to be black (up until the 1863), female (up until 1920), an interracial couple (up until 1967) or are a homosexual (ongoing), of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109276</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Yosho</author>
	<datestamp>1265906700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)</p></div><p>Well, of course it's foolish to try to prove that "God" doesn't exist.  That makes as much sense as you trying to prove that I don't have an invisible unicorn in my back yard.</p><p>On the other hand, if you want to be taken seriously, you should prove that he <i>does</i> exist, just like how I'll have to present some solid evidence to convince anybody that I have a unicorn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because people believe in God ( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) Well , of course it 's foolish to try to prove that " God " does n't exist .
That makes as much sense as you trying to prove that I do n't have an invisible unicorn in my back yard.On the other hand , if you want to be taken seriously , you should prove that he does exist , just like how I 'll have to present some solid evidence to convince anybody that I have a unicorn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)Well, of course it's foolish to try to prove that "God" doesn't exist.
That makes as much sense as you trying to prove that I don't have an invisible unicorn in my back yard.On the other hand, if you want to be taken seriously, you should prove that he does exist, just like how I'll have to present some solid evidence to convince anybody that I have a unicorn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110418</id>
	<title>Re:Frist</title>
	<author>EricTheO</author>
	<datestamp>1265965320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of my favorite misunderstood song lyric: "I can see clearly now my brain is gone."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of my favorite misunderstood song lyric : " I can see clearly now my brain is gone .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of my favorite misunderstood song lyric: "I can see clearly now my brain is gone.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31111892</id>
	<title>Brain Damage</title>
	<author>Andypcguy</author>
	<datestamp>1265984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought religion was a result of brain damage.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought religion was a result of brain damage .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought religion was a result of brain damage.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110614</id>
	<title>TED talk about this subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the best videos I have seen that delves into this subject was <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill\_bolte\_taylor\_s\_powerful\_stroke\_of\_insight.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">Jill Bolte Taylors TED talk about her own stroke</a> [ted.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best videos I have seen that delves into this subject was Jill Bolte Taylors TED talk about her own stroke [ ted.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best videos I have seen that delves into this subject was Jill Bolte Taylors TED talk about her own stroke [ted.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105520</id>
	<title>Does that explain Catholocism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace<br> <br>

Does that explain Catholocism?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace Does that explain Catholocism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace 

Does that explain Catholocism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106238</id>
	<title>Alternative</title>
	<author>crevistontj</author>
	<datestamp>1265887860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being High As Fuck Linked To Sensation of Spirituality</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being High As Fuck Linked To Sensation of Spirituality</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being High As Fuck Linked To Sensation of Spirituality</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106018</id>
	<title>Protesters</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1265886960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see the picket signs over this now: "God is Not a Tumah!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see the picket signs over this now : " God is Not a Tumah !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see the picket signs over this now: "God is Not a Tumah!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106460</id>
	<title>Re:What conflict?</title>
	<author>smaddox</author>
	<datestamp>1265888880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one said spirituality is not real.</p><p>Spirits are not real.. There's a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one said spirituality is not real.Spirits are not real.. There 's a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one said spirituality is not real.Spirits are not real.. There's a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106840</id>
	<title>Re:What conflict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265890440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The caps in your sentence are even more profound. Y AM I NOT I . Why am I not I? Why am I not myself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The caps in your sentence are even more profound .
Y AM I NOT I .
Why am I not I ?
Why am I not myself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The caps in your sentence are even more profound.
Y AM I NOT I .
Why am I not I?
Why am I not myself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107502</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>Dread\_ed</author>
	<datestamp>1265893320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most "religious" people I know, and know of, do not "feel spiritual."  They learn about their religion as a self-help course directed by God, as a guide/law book for morality, or as a compulsion ingrained into them as a child and reinforced with inner feelings of guilt.</p><p>The people I know who tell me thay have "felt spiritual" are dope-heads, "chrismatic" worshippers, new-age spiritualists, kooky weirdos, and psychics.  This observation matches much better with your first statement of people who feel spitirual not using their whole brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most " religious " people I know , and know of , do not " feel spiritual .
" They learn about their religion as a self-help course directed by God , as a guide/law book for morality , or as a compulsion ingrained into them as a child and reinforced with inner feelings of guilt.The people I know who tell me thay have " felt spiritual " are dope-heads , " chrismatic " worshippers , new-age spiritualists , kooky weirdos , and psychics .
This observation matches much better with your first statement of people who feel spitirual not using their whole brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most "religious" people I know, and know of, do not "feel spiritual.
"  They learn about their religion as a self-help course directed by God, as a guide/law book for morality, or as a compulsion ingrained into them as a child and reinforced with inner feelings of guilt.The people I know who tell me thay have "felt spiritual" are dope-heads, "chrismatic" worshippers, new-age spiritualists, kooky weirdos, and psychics.
This observation matches much better with your first statement of people who feel spitirual not using their whole brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590</id>
	<title>What conflict?</title>
	<author>Matey-O</author>
	<datestamp>1265885340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a thing. A Marvelous machine. If you are poked and prodded we can illicit love, hunger, fear...why NOT spirituality? It does not make the phenomena any less real, you've just figured out how to manipulate the machine to do it on command.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a thing .
A Marvelous machine .
If you are poked and prodded we can illicit love , hunger , fear...why NOT spirituality ?
It does not make the phenomena any less real , you 've just figured out how to manipulate the machine to do it on command .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a thing.
A Marvelous machine.
If you are poked and prodded we can illicit love, hunger, fear...why NOT spirituality?
It does not make the phenomena any less real, you've just figured out how to manipulate the machine to do it on command.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106952</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265890860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you would be utterly wrong.</p><p>You and those of "faith" claim this fantastical being "god" exists and then go on to provide exactly ZERO evidence for such claims.</p><p>Such idiocy MUST be mocked and buried if society is to progress past the hysterical babblings of you and your ilk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you would be utterly wrong.You and those of " faith " claim this fantastical being " god " exists and then go on to provide exactly ZERO evidence for such claims.Such idiocy MUST be mocked and buried if society is to progress past the hysterical babblings of you and your ilk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you would be utterly wrong.You and those of "faith" claim this fantastical being "god" exists and then go on to provide exactly ZERO evidence for such claims.Such idiocy MUST be mocked and buried if society is to progress past the hysterical babblings of you and your ilk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105740</id>
	<title>TED Talk Covers Similar Case with Stroke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ted.com/talks/jill\_bolte\_taylor\_s\_powerful\_stroke\_of\_insight.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ted.com/talks/jill \ _bolte \ _taylor \ _s \ _powerful \ _stroke \ _of \ _insight.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ted.com/talks/jill\_bolte\_taylor\_s\_powerful\_stroke\_of\_insight.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106376</id>
	<title>Re:Religion = beeing out of the mind</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1265888520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose, if you're that sort of Atheist. But some of us think there is something psychologically valuable in practices like meditation, even if we think it's silly to believe in gods or adopt ideologies centered around gobbledygook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose , if you 're that sort of Atheist .
But some of us think there is something psychologically valuable in practices like meditation , even if we think it 's silly to believe in gods or adopt ideologies centered around gobbledygook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose, if you're that sort of Atheist.
But some of us think there is something psychologically valuable in practices like meditation, even if we think it's silly to believe in gods or adopt ideologies centered around gobbledygook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105280</id>
	<title>Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265884260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you can make someone a lot happier with a lobotomy too. And stupid people who don't *use* their brains are often amused by the human equivalent of shiny keys (aka "reality television"). And people who drug themselves into a brainless stupor are are often in a complete euphoria (even a rat-infested, filthy trailer becomes paradise with just a little dab of meth).</p><p>But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy. Sure, we sometimes get depressed. But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you can make someone a lot happier with a lobotomy too .
And stupid people who do n't * use * their brains are often amused by the human equivalent of shiny keys ( aka " reality television " ) .
And people who drug themselves into a brainless stupor are are often in a complete euphoria ( even a rat-infested , filthy trailer becomes paradise with just a little dab of meth ) .But the rest of us , stuck with all of our fully-functional brains , are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that are n't so happy .
Sure , we sometimes get depressed .
But humanity probably would n't make much scientific , intellectual , or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized , with stupid goddamn grins on their faces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you can make someone a lot happier with a lobotomy too.
And stupid people who don't *use* their brains are often amused by the human equivalent of shiny keys (aka "reality television").
And people who drug themselves into a brainless stupor are are often in a complete euphoria (even a rat-infested, filthy trailer becomes paradise with just a little dab of meth).But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy.
Sure, we sometimes get depressed.
But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105406</id>
	<title>Ragu Soul</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1265884680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The soul is to the body as "Italian-ness" is to Ragu Spaghetti Sauce: "It's In There!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The soul is to the body as " Italian-ness " is to Ragu Spaghetti Sauce : " It 's In There !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The soul is to the body as "Italian-ness" is to Ragu Spaghetti Sauce: "It's In There!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109394</id>
	<title>Very thought-provoking finding.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1265908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's start with a quote from the article, since I know <em>you</em> won't read it =p</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The authors pinpointed two parts of the brain that, when damaged, led to increases in spirituality: the left inferior parietal lobe and the right angular gyrus. These areas at the back of the brain are involved in how we perceive our bodies in spatial relation to the external world. The authors of the study in the journal Neuron1, say that their findings support the connection between mystic experiences and feeling detached from the body.</p></div><p>The first thing I thought was that these areas must be somewhat responsible for the sense of self.  If we are in a deterministic universe, then we are all automatons and our sense of being is if not exactly an illusion then inconsequential--everything must take its course and "we" are simply what must happen next.  By having those areas of the brain damaged, those people's individuality routines are diminished.  The same thing can reportedly be obtained temporarily but to a much greater extent with LSD, with some users experiencing a complete "ego-death."</p><p>My next thought was, "Hang on, I don't believe in a clockwork universe."  I may be a materialist, I haven't settled that question yet, but if so I am certain that the stuff of the universe is far stranger than science has discovered thus far, and may never discover.  Given that belief, it reasonably follows that what these people experience is as externally motivated as sight or sound--after all, it is external stimuli for those senses that trigger electrochemical changes in the brain causing us to see or hear something, even if nothing is there.  The troubling difference is that it takes extra stimulus (via electrode or abnormal brain activity) to trigger visual or auditory hallucinations, while "extra" spirituality is triggered by a lack of brain matter (or presumably less/no activity there).  I have ideas that resolve this difficulty for me, but they need to simmer a while longer before being spoken.</p><p>If nothing else, the study gives legitimacy to the sensation of spirituality, which is a very good thing.  Sensation is a very different concept from belief, and this sensation is different from religion (as stated in the article).  Hopefully the study of spirituality will extend beyond direct manipulation of the brain.  It has from time to time before, but it's generally been a taboo topic for the laboratory--it was viewed as the domain of pseudo-science to even peek.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's start with a quote from the article , since I know you wo n't read it = pThe authors pinpointed two parts of the brain that , when damaged , led to increases in spirituality : the left inferior parietal lobe and the right angular gyrus .
These areas at the back of the brain are involved in how we perceive our bodies in spatial relation to the external world .
The authors of the study in the journal Neuron1 , say that their findings support the connection between mystic experiences and feeling detached from the body.The first thing I thought was that these areas must be somewhat responsible for the sense of self .
If we are in a deterministic universe , then we are all automatons and our sense of being is if not exactly an illusion then inconsequential--everything must take its course and " we " are simply what must happen next .
By having those areas of the brain damaged , those people 's individuality routines are diminished .
The same thing can reportedly be obtained temporarily but to a much greater extent with LSD , with some users experiencing a complete " ego-death .
" My next thought was , " Hang on , I do n't believe in a clockwork universe .
" I may be a materialist , I have n't settled that question yet , but if so I am certain that the stuff of the universe is far stranger than science has discovered thus far , and may never discover .
Given that belief , it reasonably follows that what these people experience is as externally motivated as sight or sound--after all , it is external stimuli for those senses that trigger electrochemical changes in the brain causing us to see or hear something , even if nothing is there .
The troubling difference is that it takes extra stimulus ( via electrode or abnormal brain activity ) to trigger visual or auditory hallucinations , while " extra " spirituality is triggered by a lack of brain matter ( or presumably less/no activity there ) .
I have ideas that resolve this difficulty for me , but they need to simmer a while longer before being spoken.If nothing else , the study gives legitimacy to the sensation of spirituality , which is a very good thing .
Sensation is a very different concept from belief , and this sensation is different from religion ( as stated in the article ) .
Hopefully the study of spirituality will extend beyond direct manipulation of the brain .
It has from time to time before , but it 's generally been a taboo topic for the laboratory--it was viewed as the domain of pseudo-science to even peek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's start with a quote from the article, since I know you won't read it =pThe authors pinpointed two parts of the brain that, when damaged, led to increases in spirituality: the left inferior parietal lobe and the right angular gyrus.
These areas at the back of the brain are involved in how we perceive our bodies in spatial relation to the external world.
The authors of the study in the journal Neuron1, say that their findings support the connection between mystic experiences and feeling detached from the body.The first thing I thought was that these areas must be somewhat responsible for the sense of self.
If we are in a deterministic universe, then we are all automatons and our sense of being is if not exactly an illusion then inconsequential--everything must take its course and "we" are simply what must happen next.
By having those areas of the brain damaged, those people's individuality routines are diminished.
The same thing can reportedly be obtained temporarily but to a much greater extent with LSD, with some users experiencing a complete "ego-death.
"My next thought was, "Hang on, I don't believe in a clockwork universe.
"  I may be a materialist, I haven't settled that question yet, but if so I am certain that the stuff of the universe is far stranger than science has discovered thus far, and may never discover.
Given that belief, it reasonably follows that what these people experience is as externally motivated as sight or sound--after all, it is external stimuli for those senses that trigger electrochemical changes in the brain causing us to see or hear something, even if nothing is there.
The troubling difference is that it takes extra stimulus (via electrode or abnormal brain activity) to trigger visual or auditory hallucinations, while "extra" spirituality is triggered by a lack of brain matter (or presumably less/no activity there).
I have ideas that resolve this difficulty for me, but they need to simmer a while longer before being spoken.If nothing else, the study gives legitimacy to the sensation of spirituality, which is a very good thing.
Sensation is a very different concept from belief, and this sensation is different from religion (as stated in the article).
Hopefully the study of spirituality will extend beyond direct manipulation of the brain.
It has from time to time before, but it's generally been a taboo topic for the laboratory--it was viewed as the domain of pseudo-science to even peek.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109782</id>
	<title>Re:Try LSD</title>
	<author>notoriou5</author>
	<datestamp>1265912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really liked this from The Atlantic Monthly Online:  <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/nitrous/nitrous.htm" title="theatlantic.com" rel="nofollow">The Nitrous Oxide Philosopher.
</a> [theatlantic.com]<p>
"HE has short hair and a long brown beard. He is wearing a three-piece suit. One imagines him slumped over his desk, giggling helplessly. Pushed to one side is an apparatus out of a junior-high science experiment: a beaker containing some ammonium nitrate, a few inches of tubing, a cloth bag. Under one hand is a piece of paper, on which he has written, "That sounds like nonsense but it is pure on sense!" He giggles a little more. The writing trails away. He holds his forehead in both hands. He is stoned. He is William James, the American psychologist and philosopher. And for the first time he feels that he is understanding religious mysticism. "
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really liked this from The Atlantic Monthly Online : The Nitrous Oxide Philosopher .
[ theatlantic.com ] " HE has short hair and a long brown beard .
He is wearing a three-piece suit .
One imagines him slumped over his desk , giggling helplessly .
Pushed to one side is an apparatus out of a junior-high science experiment : a beaker containing some ammonium nitrate , a few inches of tubing , a cloth bag .
Under one hand is a piece of paper , on which he has written , " That sounds like nonsense but it is pure on sense !
" He giggles a little more .
The writing trails away .
He holds his forehead in both hands .
He is stoned .
He is William James , the American psychologist and philosopher .
And for the first time he feels that he is understanding religious mysticism .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really liked this from The Atlantic Monthly Online:  The Nitrous Oxide Philosopher.
[theatlantic.com]
"HE has short hair and a long brown beard.
He is wearing a three-piece suit.
One imagines him slumped over his desk, giggling helplessly.
Pushed to one side is an apparatus out of a junior-high science experiment: a beaker containing some ammonium nitrate, a few inches of tubing, a cloth bag.
Under one hand is a piece of paper, on which he has written, "That sounds like nonsense but it is pure on sense!
" He giggles a little more.
The writing trails away.
He holds his forehead in both hands.
He is stoned.
He is William James, the American psychologist and philosopher.
And for the first time he feels that he is understanding religious mysticism.
"
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106546</id>
	<title>Religious epiphanies from temporal lobe seizures</title>
	<author>\_\_roo</author>
	<datestamp>1265889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty well known that religious epiphanies and other feelings of religiosity, spirituality, or sensations of a "presence" can sometimes be linked to neurological events such as some temporal lobe seizures. (Wasn't this the plot for an episode of House?) It's common enough that there's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal\_lobe\_epilepsy#Temporal\_Lobe\_Epilepsy.2C\_Neurotheology\_and\_Paranormal\_Experience" title="wikipedia.org">section on religious and paranormal experiences</a> [wikipedia.org] in the temporal lobe epilepsy Wikipedia page. There was a good BBC documentary a few years ago on this called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml" title="bbc.co.uk">"God on the Brain"</a> [bbc.co.uk] (here's a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml" title="bbc.co.uk">transcript</a> [bbc.co.uk]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty well known that religious epiphanies and other feelings of religiosity , spirituality , or sensations of a " presence " can sometimes be linked to neurological events such as some temporal lobe seizures .
( Was n't this the plot for an episode of House ?
) It 's common enough that there 's a section on religious and paranormal experiences [ wikipedia.org ] in the temporal lobe epilepsy Wikipedia page .
There was a good BBC documentary a few years ago on this called " God on the Brain " [ bbc.co.uk ] ( here 's a transcript [ bbc.co.uk ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty well known that religious epiphanies and other feelings of religiosity, spirituality, or sensations of a "presence" can sometimes be linked to neurological events such as some temporal lobe seizures.
(Wasn't this the plot for an episode of House?
) It's common enough that there's a section on religious and paranormal experiences [wikipedia.org] in the temporal lobe epilepsy Wikipedia page.
There was a good BBC documentary a few years ago on this called "God on the Brain" [bbc.co.uk] (here's a transcript [bbc.co.uk]).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105324</id>
	<title>An Ig Nobel Prize candidate?</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1265884440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Removing a part of brain makes you sensitive to things that AFAWK aren't there... Hemispherectomy, anyone with guru ambitions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Removing a part of brain makes you sensitive to things that AFAWK are n't there... Hemispherectomy , anyone with guru ambitions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Removing a part of brain makes you sensitive to things that AFAWK aren't there... Hemispherectomy, anyone with guru ambitions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31138630</id>
	<title>Re:What conflict?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266152640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>elicit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>elicit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>elicit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105646</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Jesus freak neighbor. He gets shit on all the time and as far as he's concerned, he's being tested by God.</p><p>He's a happy guy. Shit happens; it just a test from God. Move along and deal with it. I try to take that lesson - the move along part.</p><p>If I were able to believe, I would. Unfortunately, I can't believe in God anymore than I can believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Plus it would help with the prejudice that religious people have against atheists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Jesus freak neighbor .
He gets shit on all the time and as far as he 's concerned , he 's being tested by God.He 's a happy guy .
Shit happens ; it just a test from God .
Move along and deal with it .
I try to take that lesson - the move along part.If I were able to believe , I would .
Unfortunately , I ca n't believe in God anymore than I can believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny .
Plus it would help with the prejudice that religious people have against atheists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Jesus freak neighbor.
He gets shit on all the time and as far as he's concerned, he's being tested by God.He's a happy guy.
Shit happens; it just a test from God.
Move along and deal with it.
I try to take that lesson - the move along part.If I were able to believe, I would.
Unfortunately, I can't believe in God anymore than I can believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Plus it would help with the prejudice that religious people have against atheists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106212</id>
	<title>+1 Mod-bomb</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1265887800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prepare to be modded up--perhaps you can be the next Slashdot approver.  Anything pro-religion gets modded way up on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prepare to be modded up--perhaps you can be the next Slashdot approver .
Anything pro-religion gets modded way up on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prepare to be modded up--perhaps you can be the next Slashdot approver.
Anything pro-religion gets modded way up on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105622</id>
	<title>My hypothesis</title>
	<author>frog\_strat</author>
	<datestamp>1265885460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that a lot of cognitive activity creates noise that frustrates the 'transcendent' receiver.  I can say from experience that successful meditation practice (where the mind gets really quiet) produces a vastly different experience of the moment to moment passage of time, than my normal consciousness.  Perhaps increased intelligence means increased neuroticism, up to the point where you cognitively learn to turn down the cognition.  Hence the athletes, coaches, woodworkers and musicians that strangely bring up Zen while discussing their work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that a lot of cognitive activity creates noise that frustrates the 'transcendent ' receiver .
I can say from experience that successful meditation practice ( where the mind gets really quiet ) produces a vastly different experience of the moment to moment passage of time , than my normal consciousness .
Perhaps increased intelligence means increased neuroticism , up to the point where you cognitively learn to turn down the cognition .
Hence the athletes , coaches , woodworkers and musicians that strangely bring up Zen while discussing their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that a lot of cognitive activity creates noise that frustrates the 'transcendent' receiver.
I can say from experience that successful meditation practice (where the mind gets really quiet) produces a vastly different experience of the moment to moment passage of time, than my normal consciousness.
Perhaps increased intelligence means increased neuroticism, up to the point where you cognitively learn to turn down the cognition.
Hence the athletes, coaches, woodworkers and musicians that strangely bring up Zen while discussing their work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107720</id>
	<title>Doesn't prove much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265894340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If my doc was to tell me he was gonna crack my skull open for brain surgery and potentially make me a vegetable, I would certainly consider starting to pray to some form of $god without him ever touching the scalpel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If my doc was to tell me he was gon na crack my skull open for brain surgery and potentially make me a vegetable , I would certainly consider starting to pray to some form of $ god without him ever touching the scalpel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If my doc was to tell me he was gonna crack my skull open for brain surgery and potentially make me a vegetable, I would certainly consider starting to pray to some form of $god without him ever touching the scalpel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</id>
	<title>Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1265885880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.  Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status".  This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.  What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?  I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.</p><p>Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God , I have had enough of this shit .
Just because people believe in God ( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) , it does not mean they have an " altered mental status " .
This sounds like someone 's attempt to demean a group of people .
What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma ?
I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.Since a majority of humans believe a creator , or some entity/force outside of humanity ( essentially , the spirituality this study links to ) , then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.
Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status".
This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.
What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?
I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106226</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God,</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), </p></div><p>Hypocrite</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God , ( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) , Hypocrite</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God,(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), Hypocrite
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105266</id>
	<title>Frist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... where was I?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... my brain has disap<tt>no carrier</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frist ... where was I ?
... my brain has disapno carrier</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frist ... where was I?
... my brain has disapno carrier</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105770</id>
	<title>In other news, Rocket Surgery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linked to Sensation of AWESOMENESS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linked to Sensation of AWESOMENESS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linked to Sensation of AWESOMENESS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107874</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1265895180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a majority of humans is stupid. There is a strong correlation between low IQ and strong religious feelings. But surely shit must taste good because millions of flies just cannot be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a majority of humans is stupid .
There is a strong correlation between low IQ and strong religious feelings .
But surely shit must taste good because millions of flies just can not be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a majority of humans is stupid.
There is a strong correlation between low IQ and strong religious feelings.
But surely shit must taste good because millions of flies just cannot be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108156</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1265897040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all framing:<br> <br>
Atheists: Spirituality associated with having less brain matter!<br>
Theists: The devil's cortex discovered and removed!<br>
Slightly more physical theists: Sin found to be a cancer of the mind!<br>
Neurologist: The parietal cortex seems to inhibit the attachment of meaning to mundane events.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all framing : Atheists : Spirituality associated with having less brain matter !
Theists : The devil 's cortex discovered and removed !
Slightly more physical theists : Sin found to be a cancer of the mind !
Neurologist : The parietal cortex seems to inhibit the attachment of meaning to mundane events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all framing: 
Atheists: Spirituality associated with having less brain matter!
Theists: The devil's cortex discovered and removed!
Slightly more physical theists: Sin found to be a cancer of the mind!
Neurologist: The parietal cortex seems to inhibit the attachment of meaning to mundane events.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105550</id>
	<title>Religion = beeing out of the mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is this the chanse we atheists have been waiting for to get to say religious people are literally out of their minds ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this the chanse we atheists have been waiting for to get to say religious people are literally out of their minds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this the chanse we atheists have been waiting for to get to say religious people are literally out of their minds ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31122868</id>
	<title>Bible bashing...</title>
	<author>Demonoid-Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1265983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>gets new converts<p>
Just saying....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gets new converts Just saying... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gets new converts
Just saying....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31127630</id>
	<title>Studies of people ACTUALLY experiencing "God"</title>
	<author>SteamDot</author>
	<datestamp>1266081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike experiments which try to induce the sensation of "God" through the deft turn of a knob or a drop of a pill, experiments have been done on individuals who already experiencing a supernatural personage (apparition).</p><p>According to one of the many websites and books searched for some information on the studies "The reported apparitions in Medjugorje are the first apparitions in history to be thoroughly investigated by science. The regularity of the apparitions has made for consistent and extremely reliable findings."</p><p>Scientific experts have defined the phenomena "as a state of active, intense prayer, partially disconnected from the external world, a state of contemplation with a separate person whom they alone can see, hear, and touch."</p><p>Some scientifically inexplicable events occur during the time that they are having the vision.<br>-- the larynx (voice box) shuts off even though all muscles continue to operate normally with the exception during the time the alleged visionaries will be heard simultaneously praying, "Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name..." When later asked, they report Mother Mary is leading them in the Lord's Prayer."<br>--No brain response is detected when a 1000 bulb is placed near the visoneers eyes.  Likewise loud sounds, pin pricks or burns are not being noticed / responded to either until the visitation disappears.<br>-- Brain waves are predominantly of a normal beta rhythm conscious attentiveness before the visitation.  During the apparition almost uninterrupted alpha rhythm predominates, which is previously measured in states of sleep, meditation or relaxation.  Oddly, the visioneers eyes remain open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike experiments which try to induce the sensation of " God " through the deft turn of a knob or a drop of a pill , experiments have been done on individuals who already experiencing a supernatural personage ( apparition ) .According to one of the many websites and books searched for some information on the studies " The reported apparitions in Medjugorje are the first apparitions in history to be thoroughly investigated by science .
The regularity of the apparitions has made for consistent and extremely reliable findings .
" Scientific experts have defined the phenomena " as a state of active , intense prayer , partially disconnected from the external world , a state of contemplation with a separate person whom they alone can see , hear , and touch .
" Some scientifically inexplicable events occur during the time that they are having the vision.-- the larynx ( voice box ) shuts off even though all muscles continue to operate normally with the exception during the time the alleged visionaries will be heard simultaneously praying , " Who art in heaven , hallowed be Thy name... " When later asked , they report Mother Mary is leading them in the Lord 's Prayer .
" --No brain response is detected when a 1000 bulb is placed near the visoneers eyes .
Likewise loud sounds , pin pricks or burns are not being noticed / responded to either until the visitation disappears.-- Brain waves are predominantly of a normal beta rhythm conscious attentiveness before the visitation .
During the apparition almost uninterrupted alpha rhythm predominates , which is previously measured in states of sleep , meditation or relaxation .
Oddly , the visioneers eyes remain open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike experiments which try to induce the sensation of "God" through the deft turn of a knob or a drop of a pill, experiments have been done on individuals who already experiencing a supernatural personage (apparition).According to one of the many websites and books searched for some information on the studies "The reported apparitions in Medjugorje are the first apparitions in history to be thoroughly investigated by science.
The regularity of the apparitions has made for consistent and extremely reliable findings.
"Scientific experts have defined the phenomena "as a state of active, intense prayer, partially disconnected from the external world, a state of contemplation with a separate person whom they alone can see, hear, and touch.
"Some scientifically inexplicable events occur during the time that they are having the vision.-- the larynx (voice box) shuts off even though all muscles continue to operate normally with the exception during the time the alleged visionaries will be heard simultaneously praying, "Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name..." When later asked, they report Mother Mary is leading them in the Lord's Prayer.
"--No brain response is detected when a 1000 bulb is placed near the visoneers eyes.
Likewise loud sounds, pin pricks or burns are not being noticed / responded to either until the visitation disappears.-- Brain waves are predominantly of a normal beta rhythm conscious attentiveness before the visitation.
During the apparition almost uninterrupted alpha rhythm predominates, which is previously measured in states of sleep, meditation or relaxation.
Oddly, the visioneers eyes remain open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105390</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so take away that area of brain and you take away spirituality !!!</p><p>Or, in other words, now feelings can be mapped to certain brain areas ? I knew different physical operations could be but feelings and emotions!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so take away that area of brain and you take away spirituality ! !
! Or , in other words , now feelings can be mapped to certain brain areas ?
I knew different physical operations could be but feelings and emotions !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so take away that area of brain and you take away spirituality !!
!Or, in other words, now feelings can be mapped to certain brain areas ?
I knew different physical operations could be but feelings and emotions!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110834</id>
	<title>Re:Kooky</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1265971140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, what?</p><p>That's not athiesm, that's.... uhm.....   I dunno.   Pokemon-ism.</p><p>There's seriously no scientific basis for that, which makes it (somewhat by default) a "faith" based issue.</p><p>Again, absolutely nothing to do with "athiesm" bu more with "you-have-weird-friends-ism"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Originally , " my atheist friend told me , " there were four elements , earth wind water fire , that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table .
" Ok , I said , what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen ?
He could n't answer that.I 'm sorry , what ? That 's not athiesm , that 's.... uhm..... I dunno .
Pokemon-ism.There 's seriously no scientific basis for that , which makes it ( somewhat by default ) a " faith " based issue.Again , absolutely nothing to do with " athiesm " bu more with " you-have-weird-friends-ism "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table.
" Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen?
He couldn't answer that.I'm sorry, what?That's not athiesm, that's.... uhm.....   I dunno.
Pokemon-ism.There's seriously no scientific basis for that, which makes it (somewhat by default) a "faith" based issue.Again, absolutely nothing to do with "athiesm" bu more with "you-have-weird-friends-ism"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110202</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1266005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.</p></div><p> <i>Inconceivable!!!</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
Inconceivable ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!!!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107630</id>
	<title>Re:Ezekiel and Mohammed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Epilepsy isn't exactly subtle. So yeah, it was recorded.<br> <br>And I imagine the books are based in fact or have chunks of fact in them. There probably was some jesus type guy and mohamed guy. Doesn't say much for there being magical gods and all but still. Ancient religious texts are often referenced by archaeologists due to their accurate dates (for certain leaders and events).<br> <br>So it is interesting to note that the leaders the stories are based on had epilepsy... And seems to be a reasonable explanation, while clearly not conclusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Epilepsy is n't exactly subtle .
So yeah , it was recorded .
And I imagine the books are based in fact or have chunks of fact in them .
There probably was some jesus type guy and mohamed guy .
Does n't say much for there being magical gods and all but still .
Ancient religious texts are often referenced by archaeologists due to their accurate dates ( for certain leaders and events ) .
So it is interesting to note that the leaders the stories are based on had epilepsy... And seems to be a reasonable explanation , while clearly not conclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epilepsy isn't exactly subtle.
So yeah, it was recorded.
And I imagine the books are based in fact or have chunks of fact in them.
There probably was some jesus type guy and mohamed guy.
Doesn't say much for there being magical gods and all but still.
Ancient religious texts are often referenced by archaeologists due to their accurate dates (for certain leaders and events).
So it is interesting to note that the leaders the stories are based on had epilepsy... And seems to be a reasonable explanation, while clearly not conclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105822</id>
	<title>If there was a definition of spirituality ....</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1265886120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One that everyone could agree on, I might take this study seriously.</p><p>But the quote in the article "It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure" is quite telling. We see a change in a trait, commonly associated in some religions traditions as "spiritual." Interesting, certainly. Meaningful? Probably not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One that everyone could agree on , I might take this study seriously.But the quote in the article " It 's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure " is quite telling .
We see a change in a trait , commonly associated in some religions traditions as " spiritual .
" Interesting , certainly .
Meaningful ? Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One that everyone could agree on, I might take this study seriously.But the quote in the article "It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure" is quite telling.
We see a change in a trait, commonly associated in some religions traditions as "spiritual.
" Interesting, certainly.
Meaningful? Probably not.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106666</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1265889780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, we now know that homosexuality is attributable to differences in the amygdala, and that those differences are developed while in the womb. Homosexual men tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight women, while homosexual women tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight men.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , we now know that homosexuality is attributable to differences in the amygdala , and that those differences are developed while in the womb .
Homosexual men tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight women , while homosexual women tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, we now know that homosexuality is attributable to differences in the amygdala, and that those differences are developed while in the womb.
Homosexual men tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight women, while homosexual women tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight men.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108160</id>
	<title>That is dumb...</title>
	<author>brunokummel</author>
	<datestamp>1265897100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean , if someone had to go through a brain surgery, it implies that his life was in danger somehow... <br> People always tend to get more linked to religions if their lives are at stake...<br> I know so for personal experience...<br> <br>
The decrease on the number of pirates is not causing global warming! Correlation is not causation...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if someone had to go through a brain surgery , it implies that his life was in danger somehow... People always tend to get more linked to religions if their lives are at stake... I know so for personal experience.. . The decrease on the number of pirates is not causing global warming !
Correlation is not causation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean , if someone had to go through a brain surgery, it implies that his life was in danger somehow...  People always tend to get more linked to religions if their lives are at stake... I know so for personal experience... 
The decrease on the number of pirates is not causing global warming!
Correlation is not causation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598</id>
	<title>Not a new idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neuroscientist VC Ramachandran (sp?) a bunch of years ago was dealing with patients that had temporal lobe epilepsy. The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning', it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance. He found that after an episode the patients had overwhelming feeling of spirituality. The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass. One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god. (I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed).<br> <br>You can find the guy in NOVA (secrets of the mind). He also gave a talk or two on www.TED.com .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neuroscientist VC Ramachandran ( sp ?
) a bunch of years ago was dealing with patients that had temporal lobe epilepsy .
The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning ' , it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance .
He found that after an episode the patients had overwhelming feeling of spirituality .
The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass .
One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god .
( I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed ) .
You can find the guy in NOVA ( secrets of the mind ) .
He also gave a talk or two on www.TED.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neuroscientist VC Ramachandran (sp?
) a bunch of years ago was dealing with patients that had temporal lobe epilepsy.
The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning', it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance.
He found that after an episode the patients had overwhelming feeling of spirituality.
The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass.
One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god.
(I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed).
You can find the guy in NOVA (secrets of the mind).
He also gave a talk or two on www.TED.com .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106738</id>
	<title>Ezekiel and Mohammed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265890080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect you dont hold the qur'an and the bible in high regard as to their accuracy? am i wrong?<br>
&nbsp; <br>assuming you don't - how did you make your medical diagnosis of these "people" whose lives were "recorded" in these "holy" books? was it by some other ancient work that was *actually* an accurate account of these people? why make medical diagnosis from a fairy tale? what did snow white suffer from? kris kringle?</p><p>assuming you *do* believe these books, why don't you believe them? i'm pretty sure they are pretty clear about having a divine experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect you dont hold the qur'an and the bible in high regard as to their accuracy ?
am i wrong ?
  assuming you do n't - how did you make your medical diagnosis of these " people " whose lives were " recorded " in these " holy " books ?
was it by some other ancient work that was * actually * an accurate account of these people ?
why make medical diagnosis from a fairy tale ?
what did snow white suffer from ?
kris kringle ? assuming you * do * believe these books , why do n't you believe them ?
i 'm pretty sure they are pretty clear about having a divine experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect you dont hold the qur'an and the bible in high regard as to their accuracy?
am i wrong?
  assuming you don't - how did you make your medical diagnosis of these "people" whose lives were "recorded" in these "holy" books?
was it by some other ancient work that was *actually* an accurate account of these people?
why make medical diagnosis from a fairy tale?
what did snow white suffer from?
kris kringle?assuming you *do* believe these books, why don't you believe them?
i'm pretty sure they are pretty clear about having a divine experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107960</id>
	<title>Punga..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265895660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go get some punga seeds they said....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go get some punga seeds they said... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go get some punga seeds they said....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109304</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?</p><p>I thought a few years back a difference WAS found between the brains of straight and gay people.  There was some organ in the brain that was large in women and small in men (or vice-versa) and the sizes were reversed in gay people.</p><p>This isn't from trauma, it's just how the person is built.  This isn't the only male/female mixup that's well documented.  Consider hermaphrodites, people with seemingly normal bodies but the wrong XX or XY makeup in their cells etc.  Like it or not, the body is made of matter, things go wrong with it.  Some of these differences are major (sickle cell anemia), some minor (webbed fingers), some vary wildly between serious and not (allergies) and some have no meaning of themselves, but have a meaning given to them by society  (being gay).</p><p>&gt; Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.</p><p>The majority of the world has believed many silly things over time, from the rest of the universe revolving around us to the idea that war is ok.  (Crusades, to spread your own version of the RIGHT way to worship the shared God of Abraham.)  (And no, I'm not pinning war on religion, war is the result of greedy leaders valuing what they can conquer more than the lives of their own people, religion is merely a convenient excuse and if it wasn't there another would be found.  That said, it has been too easily accepted as an excuse, but that can be targeted to the fact that many religious people only give lip service to "loving others" and only certain others, not the least among us, going so far as to say the ENTIRE middle east should be turned to glass over the offenses of a probably fairly small group controlling the terrorism.)</p><p>Consider how most people drive.  Might makes right is the common creed behind the wheel.  Whatever you can get away with is ok.  A *true* believer in Christianity has to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, which includes civil obediance.  (Follow speed limits and use turn signals, pass on the left, no reckless driving / weaving)  It's not accurate to say most of the world belives when most of the world may claim to believe, but don't act as though they do.  (Especially given the social stigma long attached (and still in some areas) to not being a believer.)</p><p>&gt; God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise),<br>By definition, you can't disprove the existence of an all-powerful being, if he is all-powerful, he can manipulate all tests for him (or your perception of the results) such that they read any way he likes.  Also, how can we tell a non-existant god from one that is ignoring us.  For the most part I don't think athiests try to prove God doesn't exist, but that the common arguments for him aren't sufficient evidence to prove that he does.</p><p>&gt; This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.<br>This sounds like a true atheist trying to figure out what's what</p><p>(my definitions to avoid confusion from here on:<br>anti-theist: believes gods don't exist<br>athiest: has no belief in gods (doesn't know, possibly doesn't care)<br>(a in athiest isn't anti, but along the lines of moral (good person) immoral (bad person) amoral (hammer))<br>agnostic: a more stringent athiest who believes the question of whether a god exists is unanswerable<br>thiest: believes a god exists</p><p>An athiest isn't always a person who rejects religion, it's often a person who rejects the arguments given in favor of religion.  This is an entirely different thing.  I can be in favor of the same political candidate as you for reasons a and b, while I think their positions on c and d are bad (but less important than a and b) and if you say you're for them because of c and d, I might call you down for ignoring the more important issues of a and b, while still supporting t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma ? I thought a few years back a difference WAS found between the brains of straight and gay people .
There was some organ in the brain that was large in women and small in men ( or vice-versa ) and the sizes were reversed in gay people.This is n't from trauma , it 's just how the person is built .
This is n't the only male/female mixup that 's well documented .
Consider hermaphrodites , people with seemingly normal bodies but the wrong XX or XY makeup in their cells etc .
Like it or not , the body is made of matter , things go wrong with it .
Some of these differences are major ( sickle cell anemia ) , some minor ( webbed fingers ) , some vary wildly between serious and not ( allergies ) and some have no meaning of themselves , but have a meaning given to them by society ( being gay ) . &gt; Since a majority of humans believe a creator , or some entity/force outside of humanity ( essentially , the spirituality this study links to ) , then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.The majority of the world has believed many silly things over time , from the rest of the universe revolving around us to the idea that war is ok. ( Crusades , to spread your own version of the RIGHT way to worship the shared God of Abraham .
) ( And no , I 'm not pinning war on religion , war is the result of greedy leaders valuing what they can conquer more than the lives of their own people , religion is merely a convenient excuse and if it was n't there another would be found .
That said , it has been too easily accepted as an excuse , but that can be targeted to the fact that many religious people only give lip service to " loving others " and only certain others , not the least among us , going so far as to say the ENTIRE middle east should be turned to glass over the offenses of a probably fairly small group controlling the terrorism .
) Consider how most people drive .
Might makes right is the common creed behind the wheel .
Whatever you can get away with is ok. A * true * believer in Christianity has to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar 's , which includes civil obediance .
( Follow speed limits and use turn signals , pass on the left , no reckless driving / weaving ) It 's not accurate to say most of the world belives when most of the world may claim to believe , but do n't act as though they do .
( Especially given the social stigma long attached ( and still in some areas ) to not being a believer .
) &gt; God ( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) ,By definition , you ca n't disprove the existence of an all-powerful being , if he is all-powerful , he can manipulate all tests for him ( or your perception of the results ) such that they read any way he likes .
Also , how can we tell a non-existant god from one that is ignoring us .
For the most part I do n't think athiests try to prove God does n't exist , but that the common arguments for him are n't sufficient evidence to prove that he does. &gt; This sounds like someone 's attempt to demean a group of people.This sounds like a true atheist trying to figure out what 's what ( my definitions to avoid confusion from here on : anti-theist : believes gods do n't existathiest : has no belief in gods ( does n't know , possibly does n't care ) ( a in athiest is n't anti , but along the lines of moral ( good person ) immoral ( bad person ) amoral ( hammer ) ) agnostic : a more stringent athiest who believes the question of whether a god exists is unanswerablethiest : believes a god existsAn athiest is n't always a person who rejects religion , it 's often a person who rejects the arguments given in favor of religion .
This is an entirely different thing .
I can be in favor of the same political candidate as you for reasons a and b , while I think their positions on c and d are bad ( but less important than a and b ) and if you say you 're for them because of c and d , I might call you down for ignoring the more important issues of a and b , while still supporting t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?I thought a few years back a difference WAS found between the brains of straight and gay people.
There was some organ in the brain that was large in women and small in men (or vice-versa) and the sizes were reversed in gay people.This isn't from trauma, it's just how the person is built.
This isn't the only male/female mixup that's well documented.
Consider hermaphrodites, people with seemingly normal bodies but the wrong XX or XY makeup in their cells etc.
Like it or not, the body is made of matter, things go wrong with it.
Some of these differences are major (sickle cell anemia), some minor (webbed fingers), some vary wildly between serious and not (allergies) and some have no meaning of themselves, but have a meaning given to them by society  (being gay).&gt; Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.The majority of the world has believed many silly things over time, from the rest of the universe revolving around us to the idea that war is ok.  (Crusades, to spread your own version of the RIGHT way to worship the shared God of Abraham.
)  (And no, I'm not pinning war on religion, war is the result of greedy leaders valuing what they can conquer more than the lives of their own people, religion is merely a convenient excuse and if it wasn't there another would be found.
That said, it has been too easily accepted as an excuse, but that can be targeted to the fact that many religious people only give lip service to "loving others" and only certain others, not the least among us, going so far as to say the ENTIRE middle east should be turned to glass over the offenses of a probably fairly small group controlling the terrorism.
)Consider how most people drive.
Might makes right is the common creed behind the wheel.
Whatever you can get away with is ok.  A *true* believer in Christianity has to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, which includes civil obediance.
(Follow speed limits and use turn signals, pass on the left, no reckless driving / weaving)  It's not accurate to say most of the world belives when most of the world may claim to believe, but don't act as though they do.
(Especially given the social stigma long attached (and still in some areas) to not being a believer.
)&gt; God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise),By definition, you can't disprove the existence of an all-powerful being, if he is all-powerful, he can manipulate all tests for him (or your perception of the results) such that they read any way he likes.
Also, how can we tell a non-existant god from one that is ignoring us.
For the most part I don't think athiests try to prove God doesn't exist, but that the common arguments for him aren't sufficient evidence to prove that he does.&gt; This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.This sounds like a true atheist trying to figure out what's what(my definitions to avoid confusion from here on:anti-theist: believes gods don't existathiest: has no belief in gods (doesn't know, possibly doesn't care)(a in athiest isn't anti, but along the lines of moral (good person) immoral (bad person) amoral (hammer))agnostic: a more stringent athiest who believes the question of whether a god exists is unanswerablethiest: believes a god existsAn athiest isn't always a person who rejects religion, it's often a person who rejects the arguments given in favor of religion.
This is an entirely different thing.
I can be in favor of the same political candidate as you for reasons a and b, while I think their positions on c and d are bad (but less important than a and b) and if you say you're for them because of c and d, I might call you down for ignoring the more important issues of a and b, while still supporting t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106192</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1265887680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's subjective.</p></div><p>No, it is not. Not any more than any other forms of mental disease.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's subjective.No , it is not .
Not any more than any other forms of mental disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's subjective.No, it is not.
Not any more than any other forms of mental disease.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110240</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1266005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there has been a point in evolution where epilepsy was the trade-off for enhanced sensory perception, similar to how the survival of sickle cells is a result of malarial immunity.</p><p>No flaming please folks, this is just idle speculation.  I make no claim to scientific theory or fact.  But I do confess to believing that there is obviously more to the world than meets the eye, and future scientific research will uncover other phenomenon that would currently be considered in the realm of pseudo-science.  Take a point in history during the last few hundred years, and if a person made claims for things we know have scientifically verified, they would be called quacks or heretics.  What I'm getting at is that a subset of unexplained currently untestable phenomena may be testable in the future with.</p><p>LS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there has been a point in evolution where epilepsy was the trade-off for enhanced sensory perception , similar to how the survival of sickle cells is a result of malarial immunity.No flaming please folks , this is just idle speculation .
I make no claim to scientific theory or fact .
But I do confess to believing that there is obviously more to the world than meets the eye , and future scientific research will uncover other phenomenon that would currently be considered in the realm of pseudo-science .
Take a point in history during the last few hundred years , and if a person made claims for things we know have scientifically verified , they would be called quacks or heretics .
What I 'm getting at is that a subset of unexplained currently untestable phenomena may be testable in the future with.LS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there has been a point in evolution where epilepsy was the trade-off for enhanced sensory perception, similar to how the survival of sickle cells is a result of malarial immunity.No flaming please folks, this is just idle speculation.
I make no claim to scientific theory or fact.
But I do confess to believing that there is obviously more to the world than meets the eye, and future scientific research will uncover other phenomenon that would currently be considered in the realm of pseudo-science.
Take a point in history during the last few hundred years, and if a person made claims for things we know have scientifically verified, they would be called quacks or heretics.
What I'm getting at is that a subset of unexplained currently untestable phenomena may be testable in the future with.LS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105634</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's possible for theists to become atheists and vice-versa. Born-again Christians, after all, are among the most rabid religious fanboys. <br> <br>

It's not a predisposition to religion so much as it is predisposition to <i>zeal</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible for theists to become atheists and vice-versa .
Born-again Christians , after all , are among the most rabid religious fanboys .
It 's not a predisposition to religion so much as it is predisposition to zeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible for theists to become atheists and vice-versa.
Born-again Christians, after all, are among the most rabid religious fanboys.
It's not a predisposition to religion so much as it is predisposition to zeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106314</id>
	<title>"Spiritual"</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1265888160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They use the term "spirituality" like its a defined psychological term. They just chose some arbitrary ideas and declared them to be a measurement of spirituality. Perhaps the worst is "belief in a higher power". If "spiritual" is a basic mental state, then whether or not one agrees with the proposition that X exists is hardly a measure of that state. It would make more sense, but still be utterly bogus, to take belief in angels and an invisible man in the sky as a measure of psychosis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They use the term " spirituality " like its a defined psychological term .
They just chose some arbitrary ideas and declared them to be a measurement of spirituality .
Perhaps the worst is " belief in a higher power " .
If " spiritual " is a basic mental state , then whether or not one agrees with the proposition that X exists is hardly a measure of that state .
It would make more sense , but still be utterly bogus , to take belief in angels and an invisible man in the sky as a measure of psychosis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use the term "spirituality" like its a defined psychological term.
They just chose some arbitrary ideas and declared them to be a measurement of spirituality.
Perhaps the worst is "belief in a higher power".
If "spiritual" is a basic mental state, then whether or not one agrees with the proposition that X exists is hardly a measure of that state.
It would make more sense, but still be utterly bogus, to take belief in angels and an invisible man in the sky as a measure of psychosis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107896</id>
	<title>Quite simply</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265895300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The mind is what the brain does" - National Geographic March 2005</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The mind is what the brain does " - National Geographic March 2005</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The mind is what the brain does" - National Geographic March 2005</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106126</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>cyphercell</author>
	<datestamp>1265887440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see you're frustrated, I also agree that this thread is a bit more bold than usual, but do you realize you just sunk to their level?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see you 're frustrated , I also agree that this thread is a bit more bold than usual , but do you realize you just sunk to their level ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see you're frustrated, I also agree that this thread is a bit more bold than usual, but do you realize you just sunk to their level?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200</id>
	<title>Kooky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?</p><p>Err, no.</p><p>If there's a part of our brain devoted to religion/spirituality (and since it's such a large part of human experience, I wouldn't be surprised by it), then it means that *atheists* are not using their whole brain.</p><p>In fact, over time, the neural map for this region in strict atheists ought to atrophy, making them incapable of being spiritual. Which may or more may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. But I'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that aren't precisely religions, like belief in ghosts or aliens (more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians), or Gaia ("The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature's way of punishing us for global warming!" --Danny Glover) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.</p><p>"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.</p><p>As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights, it's nice to see that Cog Sci can explain why atheists believe in even kookier stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; So , this is proof that religious people are n't using their whole brain then ? Err , no.If there 's a part of our brain devoted to religion/spirituality ( and since it 's such a large part of human experience , I would n't be surprised by it ) , then it means that * atheists * are not using their whole brain.In fact , over time , the neural map for this region in strict atheists ought to atrophy , making them incapable of being spiritual .
Which may or more may not be a good thing , depending on your perspective .
But I 'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that are n't precisely religions , like belief in ghosts or aliens ( more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians ) , or Gaia ( " The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature 's way of punishing us for global warming !
" --Danny Glover ) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity .
" Originally , " my atheist friend told me , " there were four elements , earth wind water fire , that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table .
" Ok , I said , what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen ?
He could n't answer that.As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights , it 's nice to see that Cog Sci can explain why atheists believe in even kookier stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?Err, no.If there's a part of our brain devoted to religion/spirituality (and since it's such a large part of human experience, I wouldn't be surprised by it), then it means that *atheists* are not using their whole brain.In fact, over time, the neural map for this region in strict atheists ought to atrophy, making them incapable of being spiritual.
Which may or more may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective.
But I'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that aren't precisely religions, like belief in ghosts or aliens (more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians), or Gaia ("The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature's way of punishing us for global warming!
" --Danny Glover) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.
"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table.
" Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen?
He couldn't answer that.As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights, it's nice to see that Cog Sci can explain why atheists believe in even kookier stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107068</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new idea</title>
	<author>warriorpostman</author>
	<datestamp>1265891340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning', it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance.</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass. One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god. (I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed).</p></div><p>Great poets and other artists have always seen radical importance (or sometimes radical unimportance) in everything "down to individual blades of grass".  William Blake for one:
<br> <br>
<i>To see a world in a grain of sand / And a heaven in a wild flower, / Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, / And eternity in an hour.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning ' , it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance .
The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass .
One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god .
( I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed ) .Great poets and other artists have always seen radical importance ( or sometimes radical unimportance ) in everything " down to individual blades of grass " .
William Blake for one : To see a world in a grain of sand / And a heaven in a wild flower , / Hold infinity in the palm of your hand , / And eternity in an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning', it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance.
The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass.
One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god.
(I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed).Great poets and other artists have always seen radical importance (or sometimes radical unimportance) in everything "down to individual blades of grass".
William Blake for one:
 
To see a world in a grain of sand / And a heaven in a wild flower, / Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, / And eternity in an hour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107284</id>
	<title>this is news?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1265892180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newsflash: damaging or disrupting brain cells gets you high. Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsflash : damaging or disrupting brain cells gets you high .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsflash: damaging or disrupting brain cells gets you high.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106102</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>akabigbro</author>
	<datestamp>1265887320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignorance is Bliss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignorance is Bliss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignorance is Bliss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107970</id>
	<title>spirituality through head trauma?</title>
	<author>Rick Bentley</author>
	<datestamp>1265895780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma."</p></div><p>
I didn't think there was any other way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma .
" I did n't think there was any other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma.
"
I didn't think there was any other way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107044</id>
	<title>Re:Kooky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265891220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But I'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that aren't precisely religions, like belief in ghosts or aliens (more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians), or Gaia ("The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature's way of punishing us for global warming!" --Danny Glover) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.</i></p><p>Whoa... you think Christianity's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens?  Christianity's claims are entirely supernatural.  Aliens are not; that's just the supposition that intelligent life evolved on another planet, just as we've already seen it has on Earth (we are its product).  Given the number of stars in the galaxy (billions), and the number of galaxies in the observable universe (billions), and the fact that planets around other stars appear to be fairly common, the idea that aliens do not exist is frankly absurd.  The only questions are how common are they, are there any near us, how advanced are they, and have they achieved spaceflight and bothered to visit us.  Given that all these things are completely possible under our understanding of physics, and the claims of Christians are not possible without resorting to the supernatural, any supposition about aliens is far more likely than Christianity's claims.</p><p>Ghosts and Gaia are another matter, however, but they're still no more unlikely than Christianity's claims.  Even ghosts are slightly more likely; many ghost-fans claim that ghosts are basically some sort of energy manifestation that's currently not understood, and that ghosts absorb energy from the environment, leading to cold spots in their vicinity.  Far-fetched?  Sure.  But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea, resurrection, and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.</p><p><i>"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.</i></p><p>That's no atheist, that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion, even if he doesn't want to admit it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that are n't precisely religions , like belief in ghosts or aliens ( more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians ) , or Gaia ( " The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature 's way of punishing us for global warming !
" --Danny Glover ) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.Whoa... you think Christianity 's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens ?
Christianity 's claims are entirely supernatural .
Aliens are not ; that 's just the supposition that intelligent life evolved on another planet , just as we 've already seen it has on Earth ( we are its product ) .
Given the number of stars in the galaxy ( billions ) , and the number of galaxies in the observable universe ( billions ) , and the fact that planets around other stars appear to be fairly common , the idea that aliens do not exist is frankly absurd .
The only questions are how common are they , are there any near us , how advanced are they , and have they achieved spaceflight and bothered to visit us .
Given that all these things are completely possible under our understanding of physics , and the claims of Christians are not possible without resorting to the supernatural , any supposition about aliens is far more likely than Christianity 's claims.Ghosts and Gaia are another matter , however , but they 're still no more unlikely than Christianity 's claims .
Even ghosts are slightly more likely ; many ghost-fans claim that ghosts are basically some sort of energy manifestation that 's currently not understood , and that ghosts absorb energy from the environment , leading to cold spots in their vicinity .
Far-fetched ? Sure .
But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea , resurrection , and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives .
" Originally , " my atheist friend told me , " there were four elements , earth wind water fire , that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table .
" Ok , I said , what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen ?
He could n't answer that.That 's no atheist , that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion , even if he does n't want to admit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that aren't precisely religions, like belief in ghosts or aliens (more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians), or Gaia ("The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature's way of punishing us for global warming!
" --Danny Glover) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.Whoa... you think Christianity's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens?
Christianity's claims are entirely supernatural.
Aliens are not; that's just the supposition that intelligent life evolved on another planet, just as we've already seen it has on Earth (we are its product).
Given the number of stars in the galaxy (billions), and the number of galaxies in the observable universe (billions), and the fact that planets around other stars appear to be fairly common, the idea that aliens do not exist is frankly absurd.
The only questions are how common are they, are there any near us, how advanced are they, and have they achieved spaceflight and bothered to visit us.
Given that all these things are completely possible under our understanding of physics, and the claims of Christians are not possible without resorting to the supernatural, any supposition about aliens is far more likely than Christianity's claims.Ghosts and Gaia are another matter, however, but they're still no more unlikely than Christianity's claims.
Even ghosts are slightly more likely; many ghost-fans claim that ghosts are basically some sort of energy manifestation that's currently not understood, and that ghosts absorb energy from the environment, leading to cold spots in their vicinity.
Far-fetched?  Sure.
But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea, resurrection, and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.
"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table.
" Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen?
He couldn't answer that.That's no atheist, that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion, even if he doesn't want to admit it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105782</id>
	<title>Backward...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265886060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy.</p></div><p>That sounds a lot more interesting when you say it like this:</p><blockquote><div><p>Spirituality can induce inner peace without drugs or surgery.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace , according to researchers from Italy.That sounds a lot more interesting when you say it like this : Spirituality can induce inner peace without drugs or surgery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy.That sounds a lot more interesting when you say it like this:Spirituality can induce inner peace without drugs or surgery.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109410</id>
	<title>Radiohead</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1265908440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or as Thom Yorke put it in There There, "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean its there"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or as Thom Yorke put it in There There , " Just 'cause you feel it does n't mean its there "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or as Thom Yorke put it in There There, "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean its there"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107956</id>
	<title>spirituality through head trauma?</title>
	<author>Rick Bentley</author>
	<datestamp>1265895660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma.

I didn't think there was any other way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma .
I did n't think there was any other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma.
I didn't think there was any other way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106856</id>
	<title>A Slanted Conclusion</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265890500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Does it not occur to them that a lack of ability to be spiritual can be due to injury, birth defect, or illness? They are seeing the problem in reverse due to bias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it not occur to them that a lack of ability to be spiritual can be due to injury , birth defect , or illness ?
They are seeing the problem in reverse due to bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Does it not occur to them that a lack of ability to be spiritual can be due to injury, birth defect, or illness?
They are seeing the problem in reverse due to bias.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106924</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1265890740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.</p></div><p>Excellent!  So in theory, all we have to do to make something true is convince a majority of humans that it is true!  I think the easiest way to do this is to kill people who disagree with you.  Before long, you'll have a majority, and you can change the fundamental nature of the universe!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since a majority of humans believe a creator , or some entity/force outside of humanity ( essentially , the spirituality this study links to ) , then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.Excellent !
So in theory , all we have to do to make something true is convince a majority of humans that it is true !
I think the easiest way to do this is to kill people who disagree with you .
Before long , you 'll have a majority , and you can change the fundamental nature of the universe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.Excellent!
So in theory, all we have to do to make something true is convince a majority of humans that it is true!
I think the easiest way to do this is to kill people who disagree with you.
Before long, you'll have a majority, and you can change the fundamental nature of the universe!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502</id>
	<title>Re:Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It begs the question anyway: which brain is right?</p><p>Does the theist have an underactive brain portion, or does the atheist have an overactive one? It's subjective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It begs the question anyway : which brain is right ? Does the theist have an underactive brain portion , or does the atheist have an overactive one ?
It 's subjective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It begs the question anyway: which brain is right?Does the theist have an underactive brain portion, or does the atheist have an overactive one?
It's subjective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31111836</id>
	<title>There's a kit for that...</title>
	<author>MasterOfGoingFaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be offering a kit, soon.  It will include a ball peed hammer, a sticker and a map.  Simple - easy to use:<br>1 - place sticker on head at location indicated<br>2 - Aim hammer at sticker<br>3 - strike briskly - repeat if necessary<br>4 - bliss - if not for you, then perhaps others</p><p>Order one today at w w w . I want to strike myself in the head with a hammer to achieve bliss . com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be offering a kit , soon .
It will include a ball peed hammer , a sticker and a map .
Simple - easy to use : 1 - place sticker on head at location indicated2 - Aim hammer at sticker3 - strike briskly - repeat if necessary4 - bliss - if not for you , then perhaps othersOrder one today at w w w .
I want to strike myself in the head with a hammer to achieve bliss .
com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be offering a kit, soon.
It will include a ball peed hammer, a sticker and a map.
Simple - easy to use:1 - place sticker on head at location indicated2 - Aim hammer at sticker3 - strike briskly - repeat if necessary4 - bliss - if not for you, then perhaps othersOrder one today at w w w .
I want to strike myself in the head with a hammer to achieve bliss .
com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108300</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1265897940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.</p><p><i>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.</i></p><p>So you don't look for such opportunities, yet are making one right now.</p><p><i> Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status". </i></p><p>Are you sure?  What is 'altered' to you?  Just different from what you believe?</p><p>What you feel you believe does not change reality.<br>When doctors poke a piece of brain and consistently get the same reaction, it doesn't at all matter what you 'feel'.  Either you agree with reality and are called 'right', or you state that what is happening in front of your eyes is not actually happening, and people call you 'wrong' (Among other bad names no doubt)</p><p><i> This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people. </i></p><p>Well, sorry you read it that way, but it is not.  "Action A gets reaction B" is all it is attempting to say.<br>And really not even that, only that in their very small sample and crude methods this can be inferred but is not enough to be considered 'proof'</p><p>Far from demeaning anyone, they are stating the results of a freaking survey!<br>Would you prefer they LIE about what their subjects told them to say?</p><p><i>What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma? I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate. </i></p><p>Actually almost every church in America would be behind you 110\% and even help you try to prove that.</p><p><i>Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something. </i></p><p>Well, the majority of humans also felt slavery was perfectly OK.  Guess the majority is right.</p><p>Another majority of people felt before that a specific minority shouldn't even exist, and began rounding them up for mass extinctions.  You feel that is OK too since the majority must be right?</p><p>Most people also thought the sun orbits the earth.  Guess since the majority thinks it, reality will bend to make it true.</p><p>As you admit to being one of those types who feels the mob is always correct no matter if they actually are or not, that says way more about you than if you believe in a god or not.<br>You are a horrible human being, and it has nothing to do with your belief in god, but how little you care about your fellow man.</p><p>Now go ahead and mod this as the flame it is  (Because just like you, I've had enough of this shit as well)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow.While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God , I have had enough of this shit.So you do n't look for such opportunities , yet are making one right now .
Just because people believe in God ( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) , it does not mean they have an " altered mental status " .
Are you sure ?
What is 'altered ' to you ?
Just different from what you believe ? What you feel you believe does not change reality.When doctors poke a piece of brain and consistently get the same reaction , it does n't at all matter what you 'feel' .
Either you agree with reality and are called 'right ' , or you state that what is happening in front of your eyes is not actually happening , and people call you 'wrong ' ( Among other bad names no doubt ) This sounds like someone 's attempt to demean a group of people .
Well , sorry you read it that way , but it is not .
" Action A gets reaction B " is all it is attempting to say.And really not even that , only that in their very small sample and crude methods this can be inferred but is not enough to be considered 'proof'Far from demeaning anyone , they are stating the results of a freaking survey ! Would you prefer they LIE about what their subjects told them to say ? What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma ?
I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate .
Actually almost every church in America would be behind you 110 \ % and even help you try to prove that.Since a majority of humans believe a creator , or some entity/force outside of humanity ( essentially , the spirituality this study links to ) , then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something .
Well , the majority of humans also felt slavery was perfectly OK. Guess the majority is right.Another majority of people felt before that a specific minority should n't even exist , and began rounding them up for mass extinctions .
You feel that is OK too since the majority must be right ? Most people also thought the sun orbits the earth .
Guess since the majority thinks it , reality will bend to make it true.As you admit to being one of those types who feels the mob is always correct no matter if they actually are or not , that says way more about you than if you believe in a god or not.You are a horrible human being , and it has nothing to do with your belief in god , but how little you care about your fellow man.Now go ahead and mod this as the flame it is ( Because just like you , I 've had enough of this shit as well )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.So you don't look for such opportunities, yet are making one right now.
Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status".
Are you sure?
What is 'altered' to you?
Just different from what you believe?What you feel you believe does not change reality.When doctors poke a piece of brain and consistently get the same reaction, it doesn't at all matter what you 'feel'.
Either you agree with reality and are called 'right', or you state that what is happening in front of your eyes is not actually happening, and people call you 'wrong' (Among other bad names no doubt) This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.
Well, sorry you read it that way, but it is not.
"Action A gets reaction B" is all it is attempting to say.And really not even that, only that in their very small sample and crude methods this can be inferred but is not enough to be considered 'proof'Far from demeaning anyone, they are stating the results of a freaking survey!Would you prefer they LIE about what their subjects told them to say?What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?
I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.
Actually almost every church in America would be behind you 110\% and even help you try to prove that.Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.
Well, the majority of humans also felt slavery was perfectly OK.  Guess the majority is right.Another majority of people felt before that a specific minority shouldn't even exist, and began rounding them up for mass extinctions.
You feel that is OK too since the majority must be right?Most people also thought the sun orbits the earth.
Guess since the majority thinks it, reality will bend to make it true.As you admit to being one of those types who feels the mob is always correct no matter if they actually are or not, that says way more about you than if you believe in a god or not.You are a horrible human being, and it has nothing to do with your belief in god, but how little you care about your fellow man.Now go ahead and mod this as the flame it is  (Because just like you, I've had enough of this shit as well)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110264</id>
	<title>That's actually well-documented</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1266005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It does the same thing.</p></div><p>You were probably joking, but there is actual research that suggests you're correct (second link is about psilocybin but its effects are known to be quite similar)<br>

<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=mGscSLMA\_P4C&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;ots=JOhFdkh5qu&amp;dq=study\%20lsd\%20spiritual\%20experience&amp;lr=&amp;pg=PA202#v=onepage&amp;q=study\%20lsd\%20spiritual\%20experience&amp;f=false" title="google.com">http://books.google.com/books?id=mGscSLMA\_P4C&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;ots=JOhFdkh5qu&amp;dq=study\%20lsd\%20spiritual\%20experience&amp;lr=&amp;pg=PA202#v=onepage&amp;q=study\%20lsd\%20spiritual\%20experience&amp;f=false</a> [google.com] <br>

<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=visions-for-psychedelics" title="scientificamerican.com">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=visions-for-psychedelics</a> [scientificamerican.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does the same thing.You were probably joking , but there is actual research that suggests you 're correct ( second link is about psilocybin but its effects are known to be quite similar ) http : //books.google.com/books ? id = mGscSLMA \ _P4C&amp;lpg = PA199&amp;ots = JOhFdkh5qu&amp;dq = study \ % 20lsd \ % 20spiritual \ % 20experience&amp;lr = &amp;pg = PA202 # v = onepage&amp;q = study \ % 20lsd \ % 20spiritual \ % 20experience&amp;f = false [ google.com ] http : //www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm ? id = visions-for-psychedelics [ scientificamerican.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does the same thing.You were probably joking, but there is actual research that suggests you're correct (second link is about psilocybin but its effects are known to be quite similar)

http://books.google.com/books?id=mGscSLMA\_P4C&amp;lpg=PA199&amp;ots=JOhFdkh5qu&amp;dq=study\%20lsd\%20spiritual\%20experience&amp;lr=&amp;pg=PA202#v=onepage&amp;q=study\%20lsd\%20spiritual\%20experience&amp;f=false [google.com] 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=visions-for-psychedelics [scientificamerican.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105834</id>
	<title>PROFIT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Research
2. Simulate
3. ???
4. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Research 2 .
Simulate 3 .
? ? ? 4 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Research
2.
Simulate
3.
???
4.
Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105732</id>
	<title>Well, duh</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1265885880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could have told you that, after all, this isn't brain sur... er... nevermind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could have told you that , after all , this is n't brain sur... er... nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could have told you that, after all, this isn't brain sur... er... nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105778</id>
	<title>please define spirituality</title>
	<author>RockyPersaud</author>
	<datestamp>1265886000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spirituality is one of those non-words that doesn't actually mean anything because you cannot define it without a circular reference to itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spirituality is one of those non-words that does n't actually mean anything because you can not define it without a circular reference to itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spirituality is one of those non-words that doesn't actually mean anything because you cannot define it without a circular reference to itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107844</id>
	<title>Be careful about what you take away...</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1265894940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it may be that spiritual feelings can be manipulated in the brain with surgery (just like they can be with LSD), it would be ignorant to trivialize or dismiss those experiences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it may be that spiritual feelings can be manipulated in the brain with surgery ( just like they can be with LSD ) , it would be ignorant to trivialize or dismiss those experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it may be that spiritual feelings can be manipulated in the brain with surgery (just like they can be with LSD), it would be ignorant to trivialize or dismiss those experiences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106590</id>
	<title>If this were true...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265889420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this were true then blonde girls would be the most spiritual people on earth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this were true then blonde girls would be the most spiritual people on earth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this were true then blonde girls would be the most spiritual people on earth!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106344</id>
	<title>Obvious</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265888400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no "right" or "wrong"...there's just survival. Fact is, a certain level of spirituality was beneficial for most of organisms with complex neural system - oversensitive alertness helps survive. False positives in noticing <i>things</i> end up better than false negatives.</p><p>There was always a sweet spot of course - too much "internal stimuli" and the organism also was less succesfull in passing its traits. On human level you have complications with fullblown religions and societal dynamics, but it's still essentially about being convinced there might be something which is not there.</p><p>Not that usefull in many places now, sure. But still succesfull when it comes to passing it on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no " right " or " wrong " ...there 's just survival .
Fact is , a certain level of spirituality was beneficial for most of organisms with complex neural system - oversensitive alertness helps survive .
False positives in noticing things end up better than false negatives.There was always a sweet spot of course - too much " internal stimuli " and the organism also was less succesfull in passing its traits .
On human level you have complications with fullblown religions and societal dynamics , but it 's still essentially about being convinced there might be something which is not there.Not that usefull in many places now , sure .
But still succesfull when it comes to passing it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no "right" or "wrong"...there's just survival.
Fact is, a certain level of spirituality was beneficial for most of organisms with complex neural system - oversensitive alertness helps survive.
False positives in noticing things end up better than false negatives.There was always a sweet spot of course - too much "internal stimuli" and the organism also was less succesfull in passing its traits.
On human level you have complications with fullblown religions and societal dynamics, but it's still essentially about being convinced there might be something which is not there.Not that usefull in many places now, sure.
But still succesfull when it comes to passing it on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632</id>
	<title>Try LSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31111392</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265978880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.  Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status".  This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.  What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?  I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.</p><p>Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.</p></div><p>I know this is flamebait, but it makes me think.</p><p>I don't believe in god.  not the christian idea, or the jewish, or the arabs, nor the indians, nor any culture diety.   Why?  Because of human history.  Man has been the same since the dawn of time.  We lie, we deceive, we abuse power, and best yet, we lie to ourselves.   For whatever reasons the various religons started, they all were created by man to give their life some sort of meaning.</p><p>Basicly, i would call the the "leap of faith" that religious peeps usually make.</p><p>Maybe thats what seperates me, the non believer over you, the believer.   I can't make that leap.  My mind stubbornly refuses to allow myself to believe in stories as, well, evidence that some greater power exists.</p><p>It's possible I'm a minority, with some sort of mental damage to my brain that doesn't allow me to believe what you do.    Wait, i got that wrong.  Sorry, my bad.  I forgot, it's you religious peeps that apparently have the damage.</p><p>lol, i kid, really i do.</p><p>To add to the fun, i'm going to throw out something you won't live.  evolution.  ya, i know, it's a sin or something to even think that.   but here's how it is.  Religions are destroying the world.    Religons have proven time and time again to cause wars, hatred, and forced beliefs on other cultures.    And while you don't want to admit it, religons are losing their place in the mindsets of humans.   I can't make the "leap of faith" because my brain has evolved past the point that it needs to accept such ideas to have some self worth.</p><p>I don't have to live my life for some reward when I die.   I am more then happy accepting that when I die, that's it.   It does not scare me, nor does it motivate me to live my life in any paticular way.  I choose to be a nice person because I like how it makes me feel.    I think for myself.  I follow what I want.   And guess what?  It works.</p><p>Truth is, your scared to live on your own.   Scared to think on your own, scared to consider that there is no point to life, other then living it.  No greater power, no plan, nothing laid out with someone in charge knowing all and seeing all.    Not sure why that is so scary, but whatever, I guess we all have our fears (i'm a bit afraid of heights, but I don't let it stop me), and guess our own ways of dealing with them.</p><p>My question is, how come I am tolerant of you, yet you aren't tolerant of me?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God , I have had enough of this shit .
Just because people believe in God ( sorry , but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to " prove " otherwise ) , it does not mean they have an " altered mental status " .
This sounds like someone 's attempt to demean a group of people .
What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma ?
I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.Since a majority of humans believe a creator , or some entity/force outside of humanity ( essentially , the spirituality this study links to ) , then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.I know this is flamebait , but it makes me think.I do n't believe in god .
not the christian idea , or the jewish , or the arabs , nor the indians , nor any culture diety .
Why ? Because of human history .
Man has been the same since the dawn of time .
We lie , we deceive , we abuse power , and best yet , we lie to ourselves .
For whatever reasons the various religons started , they all were created by man to give their life some sort of meaning.Basicly , i would call the the " leap of faith " that religious peeps usually make.Maybe thats what seperates me , the non believer over you , the believer .
I ca n't make that leap .
My mind stubbornly refuses to allow myself to believe in stories as , well , evidence that some greater power exists.It 's possible I 'm a minority , with some sort of mental damage to my brain that does n't allow me to believe what you do .
Wait , i got that wrong .
Sorry , my bad .
I forgot , it 's you religious peeps that apparently have the damage.lol , i kid , really i do.To add to the fun , i 'm going to throw out something you wo n't live .
evolution. ya , i know , it 's a sin or something to even think that .
but here 's how it is .
Religions are destroying the world .
Religons have proven time and time again to cause wars , hatred , and forced beliefs on other cultures .
And while you do n't want to admit it , religons are losing their place in the mindsets of humans .
I ca n't make the " leap of faith " because my brain has evolved past the point that it needs to accept such ideas to have some self worth.I do n't have to live my life for some reward when I die .
I am more then happy accepting that when I die , that 's it .
It does not scare me , nor does it motivate me to live my life in any paticular way .
I choose to be a nice person because I like how it makes me feel .
I think for myself .
I follow what I want .
And guess what ?
It works.Truth is , your scared to live on your own .
Scared to think on your own , scared to consider that there is no point to life , other then living it .
No greater power , no plan , nothing laid out with someone in charge knowing all and seeing all .
Not sure why that is so scary , but whatever , I guess we all have our fears ( i 'm a bit afraid of heights , but I do n't let it stop me ) , and guess our own ways of dealing with them.My question is , how come I am tolerant of you , yet you are n't tolerant of me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.
Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status".
This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.
What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma?
I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.I know this is flamebait, but it makes me think.I don't believe in god.
not the christian idea, or the jewish, or the arabs, nor the indians, nor any culture diety.
Why?  Because of human history.
Man has been the same since the dawn of time.
We lie, we deceive, we abuse power, and best yet, we lie to ourselves.
For whatever reasons the various religons started, they all were created by man to give their life some sort of meaning.Basicly, i would call the the "leap of faith" that religious peeps usually make.Maybe thats what seperates me, the non believer over you, the believer.
I can't make that leap.
My mind stubbornly refuses to allow myself to believe in stories as, well, evidence that some greater power exists.It's possible I'm a minority, with some sort of mental damage to my brain that doesn't allow me to believe what you do.
Wait, i got that wrong.
Sorry, my bad.
I forgot, it's you religious peeps that apparently have the damage.lol, i kid, really i do.To add to the fun, i'm going to throw out something you won't live.
evolution.  ya, i know, it's a sin or something to even think that.
but here's how it is.
Religions are destroying the world.
Religons have proven time and time again to cause wars, hatred, and forced beliefs on other cultures.
And while you don't want to admit it, religons are losing their place in the mindsets of humans.
I can't make the "leap of faith" because my brain has evolved past the point that it needs to accept such ideas to have some self worth.I don't have to live my life for some reward when I die.
I am more then happy accepting that when I die, that's it.
It does not scare me, nor does it motivate me to live my life in any paticular way.
I choose to be a nice person because I like how it makes me feel.
I think for myself.
I follow what I want.
And guess what?
It works.Truth is, your scared to live on your own.
Scared to think on your own, scared to consider that there is no point to life, other then living it.
No greater power, no plan, nothing laid out with someone in charge knowing all and seeing all.
Not sure why that is so scary, but whatever, I guess we all have our fears (i'm a bit afraid of heights, but I don't let it stop me), and guess our own ways of dealing with them.My question is, how come I am tolerant of you, yet you aren't tolerant of me?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106100</id>
	<title>Just another emotion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. I know that in Buddhism, spiritual highs are often considered to be just another illusion -- another thing to become attached to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
I know that in Buddhism , spiritual highs are often considered to be just another illusion -- another thing to become attached to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
I know that in Buddhism, spiritual highs are often considered to be just another illusion -- another thing to become attached to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31112394</id>
	<title>I don't know about brain surgery......</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1265987340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but if you want a spiritual experience that's less dangerous than cutting your head open or reading the Bible, then I highly recommend ingesting 10 grams of Psilocybin Mushrooms - completely natural and <b>non-toxic - skeptic or not, I recommend every sane, creative or intelligent person give them a go!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but if you want a spiritual experience that 's less dangerous than cutting your head open or reading the Bible , then I highly recommend ingesting 10 grams of Psilocybin Mushrooms - completely natural and non-toxic - skeptic or not , I recommend every sane , creative or intelligent person give them a go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but if you want a spiritual experience that's less dangerous than cutting your head open or reading the Bible, then I highly recommend ingesting 10 grams of Psilocybin Mushrooms - completely natural and non-toxic - skeptic or not, I recommend every sane, creative or intelligent person give them a go!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106828</id>
	<title>Re:Try LSD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265890380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll second that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll second that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll second that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107682</id>
	<title>Re:Frist</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265894220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zKDQfVbWqc" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">His brain is gone</a> [youtube.com]..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His brain is gone [ youtube.com ] . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His brain is gone [youtube.com]..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107832</id>
	<title>Re:Does that explain Catholocism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265894940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you even know the first thing about Catholicism? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU\_tlX0k" title="youtube.com">This</a> [youtube.com] will explain everything to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you even know the first thing about Catholicism ?
This [ youtube.com ] will explain everything to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you even know the first thing about Catholicism?
This [youtube.com] will explain everything to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106464</id>
	<title>Re:Enough of the faith bashing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265888940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, according to the article, it's religious people who are missing something.  Part of their brains, actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , according to the article , it 's religious people who are missing something .
Part of their brains , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, according to the article, it's religious people who are missing something.
Part of their brains, actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108180</id>
	<title>spiritual causing brain? brain causing spirtiual?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1265897160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One could argue both ways.  On one hand there may be a spiritual world out there and the brain is developing an inner sense to perceive it. This not yueat a fully developed sense like sight, but a start.  Ont he other hand, one could take the opposing stance that the spiritual is an artifact arising from the brain and does not exist independently.  Perhaps religion is some social-evolutionary phenomena and not real.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One could argue both ways .
On one hand there may be a spiritual world out there and the brain is developing an inner sense to perceive it .
This not yueat a fully developed sense like sight , but a start .
Ont he other hand , one could take the opposing stance that the spiritual is an artifact arising from the brain and does not exist independently .
Perhaps religion is some social-evolutionary phenomena and not real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could argue both ways.
On one hand there may be a spiritual world out there and the brain is developing an inner sense to perceive it.
This not yueat a fully developed sense like sight, but a start.
Ont he other hand, one could take the opposing stance that the spiritual is an artifact arising from the brain and does not exist independently.
Perhaps religion is some social-evolutionary phenomena and not real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31121028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31111392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31138630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31114718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2032241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31121028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107044
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109892
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31114718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31138630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31108300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31109304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31111392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31107682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31110418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31106376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2032241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2032241.31105834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
