Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

PeterC wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:04 amThere was plenty of new age BS in the UK that didn't rely on psychedelics - the Blavatsky / theosophy nonsense was, remarkably, not reliant on drugs.

I do rather like the "you hearing this shit?" face that Dawkins does in interviews. It's very carefully calibrated - the audience sees it, the interviewer not so much.

At least Blavatsky took formal Refuge, isn’t opposed to past & future lives, and apparently received some teachings from the Panchen Lama.

Dawkins is just another smug materialist, and a lot of his ‘quips’ against religion are only straw-men, if mainly because he’s not acquainted with the esoteric dimension of religions (or perhaps he is familiar with them in passing, yet is feigning ignorance of them because even mentioning them would undermine his agenda, because he wouldn’t be able to cut down said straw men of religion so “easily”).

And as many things as Blavatsky may have been mistaken on, she did seem sincere, and not smug like the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Nemo »



Dawkins can't even understand Kafka. He is what my kid would call not neurotypical. His nature may have a biological component.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Norwegian »

Nemo wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:58 pm

Dawkins can't even understand Kafka. He is what my kid would call not neurotypical. His nature may have a biological component.
This is a typical STEM phenomena, where this exaggerated focus on STEM and STEM alone makes some people incapable of understanding symbolism, metaphors, allegories, or understanding and appreciating art, whatever it may be. Everything has to be dissected in a cold sterile forensic manner, or be beaten to death with logic and what not.

There was a time when Neil deGrasse Tyson was very popular. However, the moment he started applying his "Only science!" approach to pretty much everything in life, people turned on him. Dawkins is similar. Scientism is a lifeless place to be.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

:good: Exactly.

You might say that their worldview completely devalues subjective experiences.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9448
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:35 pm
You can't avoid the language of "I", it seems; you too say "whose three-dimensional space am I occupying?”. Language refers to things in the outer and inner world. In the Apohavada it is said that if the things that language refers to have results, then they exist and are real, i.e. they act as real causes.
Decision is or it can be a complicated process, e.g.: 1. certain possibilities appear to you in your mind or imagination, 2. you weigh these possibilities, 3. you try to visualize and predict their outcomes, 4. maybe you remember your previous commitments and promises to certain courses of action, 5. you decide to follow your commitments, or 6. you interpret these commitments in some ingenious way, or 7. you discard the commitments and you decide to do something contrary to them, and 8. you give reasons to yourself for doing so, and 9. time is running out now and you finally you have to make a decision, 10. you arrive at a decision and execute it as speech, bodily action or activity of mind.
All true.
However, they are still conventions imputed on the object.
Again, if I perish, the space I occupied is still there.
In the Apohavada it is said that if the things that language refers to have results, then they exist and are real, i.e. they act as real causes.
Santa Claus makes children behave and have trouble going to sleep on Christmas Eve. Those are both very real results. But is Santa real then?

Most would argue that it isn’t Santa Claus per se but rather childhood anticipation which causes behavioral changes. I suggest that, likewise, it is like this with other things as well. If something can be identified as a cause, as an ultimate cause, then that thing must have an inherent existence, being the result of not anything other than itself. Buddhist theory says “good luck finding very many things that fit that description!”
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PeterC »

I note that this thread continues to not engage with Dawkins’ actual arguments, and instead criticizes his tone of voice, his presumed psychological motivations, etc.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:41 am I note that this thread continues to not engage with Dawkins’ actual arguments, and instead criticizes his tone of voice, his presumed psychological motivations, etc.
I brought up specifically his public statements on Islam, women, and both.

As far as other stuff, he mocks pretty much all varieties of spirituality and like most materialists his philosophy is somewhat ambiguous regarding the status of subjective experience.

I may be confusing with Daniel Dennett with Dawkins (it’s been a while since I’ve read anything by either), but what I recall is a dismissal of any subjective spiritual experience as a form of ‘delusion’. This is of course a bit absurd because all experience is subjective, including the experiences needed for empirical verification of scientific facts.

Indeed it’s not the same kind of gulf as exists with a conservative Christian. But it is still a gulf.

I don’t know why that stuff would be controversial. What do you expect here? I mean, I think most of us are on board with his stuff insofar as actual science goes. Similarly, I’m all good with living in a secular society which allows me to practice my religion in a way song crazy theocracy never could. So the issues here usually boil down to the materialist view of Mind and subjective experience, a long with the stuff mentioned before.

In short, one of the biggest disagreements I have practically with materialist/atheists I know is that they see Buddhist practice as -a total waste of time- minus the stuff that makes life more pleasant, maybe helps one be a little nicer, etc.

Materialist philosophers have not worked out the significance of the subjectivity which defines all our experiences, because it’s all ultimately reducible to matter; I.e. consciousness is an illusion, but not one with continuity as in Buddhism. I have experienced this as a significant divergence in thought; even with fairly basic issues... ymmv.

You could say there is even less in common with many ‘theists’, but again I object to the broadness of that term and have in fact found some theists in which I can find as much common ground as I would an atheist.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Danny
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:43 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Danny »

Beginning to wonder if Dawkins is actually having subtle digs at Darwinian anthropology. He’s a purist, and Darwinian anthropology branches into all the social sciences of today, and by watered down extension “wokeness”. Really not sure that’s it, after all he wouldn’t be backwards in coming forwards. Not his style.

Any way I’ll not interject in the conversation, just posting a thought.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:44 pm
And as many things as Blavatsky may have been mistaken on, she did seem sincere, and not smug like the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.
Yeah, sure, that’s why she was such an excellent con artist, running the short grift with seances and mediumship. But her long con was even better…she wrote books, inspired Crowley, and a whole generation of occult grifters.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PeterC »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:03 am
PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:41 am I note that this thread continues to not engage with Dawkins’ actual arguments, and instead criticizes his tone of voice, his presumed psychological motivations, etc.
I brought up specifically his public statements on Islam, women, and both.
Ok, but which statements specifically? Said where? They weren’t in the video at the top of the thread
As far as other stuff, he mocks pretty much all varieties of spirituality and like most materialists his philosophy is somewhat ambiguous regarding the status of subjective experience.
As do I. I don’t need any of that to justify or explain my Dharma practice. I think most “spirituality” is complete BS. My position is, fwiw, in accordance with the Buddhadharma.
In short, one of the biggest disagreements I have practically with materialist/atheists I know is that they see Buddhist practice as -a total waste of time- minus the stuff that makes life more pleasant, maybe helps one be a little nicer, etc.
That is a fair and honest comment. Dawkins would probably think me a fool for practising the Dharma. I do have a pretty good counterargument for him that applies only to the Dharma and not other religions. But I don’t need to respond to his opinion because it in now way affects or impedes my practice.
You could say there is even less in common with many ‘theists’, but again I object to the broadness of that term and have in fact found some theists in which I can find as much common ground as I would an atheist.
Perhaps we too should object to the broadness of the term “atheists”. Buddhists are atheists too. #notallatheists?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Malcolm »

PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:44 am. Buddhists are atheists too.
Bravo.
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:06 am
Sādhaka wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:44 pm
And as many things as Blavatsky may have been mistaken on, she did seem sincere, and not smug like the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.
Yeah, sure, that’s why she was such an excellent con artist, running the short grift with seances and mediumship. But her long con was even better…she wrote books, inspired Crowley, and a whole generation of occult grifters.

I’m not sure if and/or how long she may have been into mediumism; however she eventually denounced it, and likely even before she had written Isis Unveiled:

H.P. Blavatsky wrote: https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/pa ... -magic.htm

“Of course no one can say that one or all of the possible members of our friend A's ideal Cagliostrian lodge might not also be ready for Adeptship, but the chance is not good enough to speculate upon: Western civilization seems to develop fighters rather than philosophers, military butchers rather than Buddhas. The plan "A" proposes would be far more likely to end in mediumship than Adeptship.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:44 am
Ok, but which statements specifically? Said where? They weren’t in the video at the top of the thread

They are both pretty well known, if you are some fan of the guy you should actually know about them. One was the one where he called Islam "an incredible evil" or something similar, and doofusly stepped around his comments when called to explain them. One was where he penned an obnoxious letter about how a Western feminist should basically just shut up because women in Islamic countries have it so much worse. Nothing demonic, but pretty moronic. If you want more info just look em up. He also has a professional group of haters, which I don't think is necessarily right, but their criticism is warranted in places.

As do I. I don’t need any of that to justify or explain my Dharma practice. I think most “spirituality” is complete BS. My position is, fwiw, in accordance with the Buddhadharma.
No it's not, it's in accord with your feelings and personal opinions. Virtually every Buddhist text which examines other belief systems does so dispassionately, and with very little value judgement. "I think most spirituality is BS" isn't some dispassionate examination of view, ethics, etc. it is just an expressive emotional reaction to whatever you think "spirituality" is. Maybe it's fair that you dislike religion and religious things (there is surely plenty there to dislike), but it isn't "in accord with Buddhadharma" to feel a certain way about religions, it just makes it in accord your personal conditioning, however you came by it. You dislike religion in the same way I dislike both religion and people who make "atheism" into a snarky, pointless and elitist identarian philosophy. We have both mainly been talking about what we like and don't like though, not so much the various things that Buddhism says. So no, nothing like that is necessarily "in accordance with Buddhadharma", it's in accordance with us.
That is a fair and honest comment. Dawkins would probably think me a fool for practising the Dharma. I do have a pretty good counterargument for him that applies only to the Dharma and not other religions. But I don’t need to respond to his opinion because it in now way affects or impedes my practice.
I don't need to either, but I feel reasonably ok saying that I don't think his overall worldview has much to recommend it in Buddhist terms. Since we are on a Buddhist forum discussing a well-known materialist thinker and all, I think that shouldn't be unexpected.

Perhaps we too should object to the broadness of the term “atheists”. Buddhists are atheists too. #notallatheists?
Buddhists are certainly atheists in the technical sense, who tend to have some pretty different views of the world than materialist atheists. Non-theist is probably a more accurate term since it is the soteriological lack of necessity of deities which defines the Buddhist view, rather than their non-existence.

I am not calling Dawkins a monster, just a dippy guy sometimes with some boringly imperialist beliefs in places, who is possessed of some great knowledge in other areas. You seem to be comparing a liberal UCC minister or something to to Westboro Baptist Church leader because they are both "theists". If types of theism can be that divergent, then surely so can different types of atheism.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:59 am
PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:44 am. Buddhists are atheists too.
Bravo.

Yea well it’s kind of one of those apples & oranges type of things.

I think it would be better to say that Buddhists are “non-theists”, to separate ourselves from the “atheist” label of those who often have swung towards militant-atheism as an knee-jerk reaction to having been traumatized by growing up in roman catholicism or some other type of exoteric churchianity.

I mean their frustration is understandable, having gotten raised in exoteric christianity and likely not having been informed that there is a rich philosophical culture to be found within the Coptic & Eastern Orthodox teachings, The Desert Fathers, Nestorianism, Neoplatonism, Gnostic Christianity, etc.

Also, most people who label themselves as atheist, would have a hard time entertaining the idea that all universes are included within the Body of Mahavairocana (I mean that I believe that this is something that we consider from Lower/Outer Tantra on up....)
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Non-theist is probably a more accurate term...

That’s funny, I had no idea that you were also suggesting the term non-theist, around the same time that I was typing up my post.

Anyway, I want to add that the science that the likes of Dawkins champions, is more often than not an “science” that is heavily influenced by corporate & government/lobbying interests (e.g. big-pharma, monsanto/big-agri, biotech, etc.); not necessarily the science of an actual unbiased scientific-method....
Last edited by Sādhaka on Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Sādhaka wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:17 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Non-theist is probably a more accurate term...

That’s funny, I had no idea that you were also suggesting the term non-theist, around the same time that I was typing up my post.

Anyway, I want to add that the science that the likes of Dawkins champions, is more often than not an “science” that is heavily influenced by corporate & government/lobbying interests (e.g. big-pharma, monsanto/big-agri, biotech, etc.); not necessarily the science of an actual unbiased scientific-method....
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, a respected one. AFAIK his work is completely unconnected to any particular corporate influence.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Sādhaka »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:32 amAFAIK his work is completely unconnected to any particular corporate influence.

Maybe not directly; however you can almost be sure that he would jump up to defend those types of things, then call anything else that disagrees with it as “quackery”.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by PeterC »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:45 am
PeterC wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:44 am
Ok, but which statements specifically? Said where? They weren’t in the video at the top of the thread

They are both pretty well known, if you are some fan of the guy you should actually know about them. One was the one where he called Islam "an incredible evil" or something similar, and doofusly stepped around his comments when called to explain them. One was where he penned an obnoxious letter about how a Western feminist should basically just shut up because women in Islamic countries have it so much worse. Nothing demonic, but pretty moronic. If you want more info just look em up. He also has a professional group of haters, which I don't think is necessarily right, but their criticism is warranted in places.
And do these comments bear on the truth or falsity of his arguments?

As do I. I don’t need any of that to justify or explain my Dharma practice. I think most “spirituality” is complete BS. My position is, fwiw, in accordance with the Buddhadharma.
No it's not, it's in accord with your feelings and personal opinions. Virtually every Buddhist text which examines other belief systems does so dispassionately, and with very little value judgement. "I think most spirituality is BS" isn't some dispassionate examination of view, ethics, etc. it is just an expressive emotional reaction to whatever you think "spirituality" is. Maybe it's fair that you dislike religion and religious things (there is surely plenty there to dislike), but it isn't "in accord with Buddhadharma" to feel a certain way about religions, it just makes it in accord your personal conditioning, however you came by it. You dislike religion in the same way I dislike both religion and people who make "atheism" into a snarky, pointless and elitist identarian philosophy. We have both mainly been talking about what we like and don't like though, not so much the various things that Buddhism says. So no, nothing like that is necessarily "in accordance with Buddhadharma", it's in accordance with us.
“Wrong view” is a polite way of saying it, or all the various “does not lead to liberation” formulas you find in the Pali canon. I prefer the more contemporary “BS”. So I maintain that this is absolutely in keeping with the Buddhadharma. Emotional reaction to religion has nothing to do with it.
That is a fair and honest comment. Dawkins would probably think me a fool for practising the Dharma. I do have a pretty good counterargument for him that applies only to the Dharma and not other religions. But I don’t need to respond to his opinion because it in now way affects or impedes my practice.
I don't need to either, but I feel reasonably ok saying that I don't think his overall worldview has much to recommend it in Buddhist terms. Since we are on a Buddhist forum discussing a well-known materialist thinker and all, I think that shouldn't be unexpected.

Perhaps we too should object to the broadness of the term “atheists”. Buddhists are atheists too. #notallatheists?
Buddhists are certainly atheists in the technical sense, who tend to have some pretty different views of the world than materialist atheists. Non-theist is probably a more accurate term since it is the soteriological lack of necessity of deities which defines the Buddhist view, rather than their non-existence.

I am not calling Dawkins a monster, just a dippy guy sometimes with some boringly imperialist beliefs in places, who is possessed of some great knowledge in other areas. You seem to be comparing a liberal UCC minister or something to to Westboro Baptist Church leader because they are both "theists". If types of theism can be that divergent, then surely so can different types of atheism.

When moderate Christians, who do not want to interfere in others’ lives, condemn and argue against their extremist wing that does, then I will consider the moderate wing representative. But they conspicuously do not. Groups like Westboro get the occasional pro forma “we’re not like them” statement, but generally, the “moderates” sit out the political debates. They don’t ever say that there should be separation of church and state, that Christians shouldn’t force their views on others. They’re quite happy for other Christians to force Christian views on non-Christians. Similarly, good luck finding the moderate Hindus who speak out against the BJP oppressing Muslims. Sure, moderate Muslims in the US speak out against Muslim extremists, because if they don’t there are consequences for them. “Moderate” Muslims in Egypt, though - different story.

So at best the “moderate” deists are indifferent to their extremist coreligionists forcing their views on society, at worst they condone it. Until we see the majority of theists arguing that their religion should stay out of politics and that government should be free of religious influence, we have to treat them as functionally equivalent.

But all of this is, as you say, somewhat beside the point. We can draw a simple inference from this thread. Someone posts a video of Dawkins. Cue multiple pages of people saying he’s mean, he’s obsessive, he’s deranged, he’s rude, he says bad things about women. But almost no actual engagement with what he said.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Giovanni »

Sādhaka wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:35 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:32 amAFAIK his work is completely unconnected to any particular corporate influence.

Maybe not directly; however you can almost be sure that he would jump up to defend those types of things, then call anything else that disagrees with it as “quackery”.
You are not correct. Dawkins is a fierce defender of academic freedom from commercial and party political pressures.
He has organised and participated in marches in his home city of Oxford to protest such.
Including a march to defend his college funding a labrority which was opposed by the local politicians.
We may not agree with him on various important philosophical views, but he is a person who is true to his own quite strict ethical views. He is pro choice and has opposed most recent military actions. He was very prominent in opposing the Iraq war for example. Let us see people as they are even when they are wrong in our eyes.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason - Part 1: Slaves to Superstition

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:03 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:06 am
Sādhaka wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:44 pm
And as many things as Blavatsky may have been mistaken on, she did seem sincere, and not smug like the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.
Yeah, sure, that’s why she was such an excellent con artist, running the short grift with seances and mediumship. But her long con was even better…she wrote books, inspired Crowley, and a whole generation of occult grifters.

I’m not sure if and/or how long she may have been into mediumism; however she eventually denounced it, and likely even before she had written Isis Unveiled:

H.P. Blavatsky wrote: https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/pa ... -magic.htm

“Of course no one can say that one or all of the possible members of our friend A's ideal Cagliostrian lodge might not also be ready for Adeptship, but the chance is not good enough to speculate upon: Western civilization seems to develop fighters rather than philosophers, military butchers rather than Buddhas. The plan "A" proposes would be far more likely to end in mediumship than Adeptship.
Theosophy was a better grift.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”