Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God-Mind

I twiddle my thumbs in anticipation of your reply. No change in my vote. --Ardonik.talk 19:36, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can anyone support this? Was listed for speedy deletion but should be discussed on VfD. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Original research, statements not in evidence ("strongly backed up by imperial research"), reads like a stream-of-conciousness. Delete.  --Ardonik.talk 18:27, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I misquoted. The statement not in evidence was "strongly inferred in empirical experiments."  --Ardonik.talk 18:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Khrackpottery&mdash;probably created by the hard-banned user Khranus&mdash;the IP address that created this article popped up not long after I blocked the IP he had been using before, it resolves to the same general area (Nova Scotia), and it edited the exact same set of articles. &#8212;No-One Jones m 18:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unattributed religious manifesto, no evidence it's encyclopedic. Andrewa 20:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. ---Rednblu 23:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a tirade. You could call it original research, only it seems more like idiosyncratic mumbojumbo and spiritualist tourism.  Geogre 00:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rant/original research. Andris 01:53, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What the blork is this supposed to be?  Dukeofomnium 14:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV guru-wannabe new age rant. A term used by whom? There are many other problems with the article too tedious to mention. Fire Star 16:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crackpot streetcorner rant.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Anon author - invalid vote - Keep. Many great scientists, philosophers and the like throughout history have believed in a non-religious concept of God-Mind.  Now this universal intelligence has been proven to exist, and many scientists and philosophers, such as Albert Einstein and David Bohm, have taken a spiritual/deistic view of it.  Einstein stated that "a human being is part of a whole, called by us Universe".  Bohm stated, based upon the evidence, that an implicate state of reality governs over the explicate state.  This has since been proven.  Physical reality is guided by a non-physical implicate intelligence, referred to by some as "Hyperspace".  Although religions such as Materialism, Atheism and Accidentalism conflict with this fact, it remains, nonetheless, a quite pertinent--fact.
 * First, we receive a lot of sock puppets here on VfD, so it's generally understood that the votes of anonymous users carry less weight. (The remedy for that situation can be found in the "log in" link at the upper right corner of the page.)  Secondly, do you have any proof that Einstein subscribed to "God-Mind?"  He seemed more like a deist to me.  I don't even believe that your quote of him is accurate--do you have a cite?  On smiliar lines, I'll need to see explicit evidence that "many great scientists, philosophers, and the like" subscribed to this concept.  Your say-so is not good enough.  Thirdly, your jab at atheism (and in particular, your mislabeling it as a religion) does you no credit; we adhere to a neutral point of view here, and if you want to contribute, you must adhere to it as well.  Or is your "God-Mind" meant to be some sort of proof of God's existence?  I can't tell by reading the article.  That leads me to my fourth point: the article as it stands is, to be quite honest, rambling and incoherent.  Nobody understands it enough to improve it.  You could help us by explaining the concept in a way the average reader could understand.  Fifth (this is the most important point), have you read No original research?  We are a compendium of existing knowledge, not a soapbox from which new ideas may be expounded.  Anyone wanting a soapbox, including Ardonik, is encouraged to get their own website.  Their words will not be altered there.
 * Einstein's quote is thus: "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.", cited from Albert Einstein Quotes (it can be found in many other places, basically every quote resource on Einstein). There is also much good information about Implicate-Explicate reality at: Implicate Order.  More can be found under David Bohm and John Stewart Bell.  Atheism is a category of religions, and Materialism is a full-fledged religion.  It is unfortunate, but true, that since the Victorian period many people have been victims of the religions of Atheism, Materialism and Accidentalism.  Just like any religion, it has a dogma, is based on little evidence, and encites fear in the believer.  God-Mind is existing knowledge.  It has been spoken of since the beginning of time.  Mentions of it are everywhere, using different terminology.  Words do not matter very much when it comes to God-Mind, but I use that term because it seems most fitting to me.  You can call it whatever you like.  It exists.  It is quite proven, both by simple logic (order+non-locality+seamless whole=God-Mind), and by empirical science.  In terms of people not being able to understand the article, perhaps I should create a layman section of the article.  It should not be too difficult to understand.  To explain it now in simple terms: God-Mind is the infinite whole of which all existence is comprised, which exists in a state of Eternal Now without linear time and space, in which energy moves based upon focus and diffuses rather than moves sequentially along a time-line (through time).  God-Mind is the same as the idea of "God" in many ways, as well as "Oneness", but I think it should be approached a little more objectively than that, without religious belief systems applied to it.  Really, if an Infinite Intelligence had commandments, given that It is non-local and non-temporal, they would be fulfilled instantaneously without any need for a 'battle between good and evil'.  However, there clearly do exist large portion of God-Mind with very explicit intentions.  One of these portions is what religions have referred to as "Ultimate Ego", "Satan", etc.  Based upon the behaviour of reality, it would appear that an entropic parasite of some kind is latched on to this universe and others.
 * Delete, although the above invalid vote is great! Do you wash with Dr. E. H. Bronner's Soap, may I ask? Quadell (talk) 18:26, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * In regards to the "New Age guru" comment, I am extremely abject to the New Age, being aware that it is a disinformation and mind-control programme. Gurus are mostly frauds, including Sai Baba.  They feast upon the minds of the masses, preying on their mental and emotional weaknesses to become powerful and wealthy at their expense.  All religions are mind-control of some kind, including more spiritual religions like Buddhism.  The practises of self-torture involved in extreme Buddhism create dissociative identity disorder, a foundation for programming.  Religions always contain some truth, but many lies as well, with the truth as the bait, the lie as the hook.  I would avoid any form of religion. Instead, merely go where evidence and your own spirit/Oversoul lead you.  Don't rely on external people in physical reality to tell you what to believe.  The actual truth can only be obtained when the universe is viewed objectively, and that means a balance between left brain scepticism and right brain spirituality, as well as a strong ability to withstand social mind-control and hive-mindedness.  It is more the hive mind than anything else that impedes the advancement of society into a true Republic.  An example is the mob-ruled Athens, in which Socrates was forced to commit suicide after a majority rule decision by the hive-minded determined so.
 * That will be quite enough. You're lecturing to us, but your pseudointellectualism is transparent and is fooling no one.  Get your own website.  My vote very much remains to delete.  --Ardonik.talk 20:45, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This guy is deliberately and inaccurately insulting other religious groups to promote his POV. Don't listen to anyone else, listen to me, in other words. This is the origin of my "guru-wannabe" comment. It isn't convincing, and his anti-authoritarian, anti-teaching agenda seems decidedly New Age, at least to me. My vote is unchanged. Fire Star 21:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --Improv 11:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)