Given that with its next government the Green / Labor axis, having spent all the money for many years out last time, they will look at the Super Industry and "redistribute" it to their favourites. Hence these 60's will be poor and paranoid.

If you think they will let them keep it you are as one with the Pixies.

As a journalist who will soon hit 60 I can say I only wish this was true, but there is no indication that it will happen, or at least not in the way the author thinks. At the moment, the age groups the author is talking about are simply not prime markets for advertisers. Although many are cashed up, there are many more scraping by on fixed incomes, or simply don't buy newspapers or magazines. Just look at the problems with Readers Digest.. Its readership base has been aging for decades - younger people simply don't go in for the product - and that's not a place it wants to be..

How pathetic!

People in their 60's, 70's and 80's, yet still haven't learned their lesson, still craving for material goods and still addicted to the media.

Now that their time has finally arrived to be free of the shackles of employment and child-rearing, now they can pursue God whole-heartedly, they can read scriptures, pray and meditate, they can even go on pilgrimage if their health allows, now it's their opportunity to make their final dash to avoid coming back to this world and going through it all over again.

Shame on the author who sides with the devil to lure them back into the vanities of the world.

Yes, young people know nothing about ageing and they don't have the imagination to think that they will grow older themselves. There is less respect than ever for seniors, and we are best ignored.

But that does not make women (the author's target audience) 'lovely at 60'; and anyone thinking that a 100 year old woman can look "glamorous" is wearing beer glasses.

Young women are getting fatter and scruffier. What are they going to look like when they are old!

The writer believes that "hundreds of thousands of us actually enjoy near-perfect health". In your dreams.

"Seniors are avid consumers..". So why do we hear so many seniors saying how hard up they are, with barely the resources to maintain basic living standards?

Just as young people are naive about ageing - if they even think about it - this lady appears to be living on another planet, or she has had very limited experience of real life.

Well Margret, your article was indicative, I believe, of a class of (I want what she's having) female?

And arguably the finest argument ever put to completely wind back all subsidies on millionaires' super; soon to cost the budget bottom line more than medicare or pensions! [50+ billion?]

End negative gearing and finally end subsidies private health! [8+ billion?]

Family trusts? [More than the above?]

Even so, hand back more by junking our current tax system and replace it with a single, stand alone entirely unavoidable, simplified system that simply treats all income equally!

And therefore the rate is able to be lowered to the point, where it all but forces the current commercial offshore exodus, to go into reverse!

Q: How many Irishmen does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 101, 100 to turn the house around while one holds the light bulb steady!

And while that's mildly amusing, it underscores the fact, if there are enough hands employed at the task/sharing the workload, it becomes light work for all; rather than a huge burden for a few!

And those few are saying enough already, there's just no way my tax dollars should be used to subsidize the lifestyles of the better off in their retirement!

It also tells me it is way past time to start means testing all government benefits and services/public health delivery etc!

There is a budget deficit and we have to borrow as much as a million a day to pay the interest bill? And it only exits because of welfare for the rich as outlined in the foregoing!

And Myers and other retailers could be forgiven for asking, where are all these (pampered pets/poodles) rich women and their spend-a-thons?

Without bias and no personal offence intended.
Rhrosty.

Calling old people seniors makes it sound as though they are in a hierarchy. I am 89 years old and prefer to be called an old man as that is what I am. I take no medication and have a devoted wife, and I return that devotion.

The epicurean philosophy is a good one. They recommend the pursuit of happiness. However, the pursuit of happiness is not found in the acquisition of material goods as one may always want more. Happiness is obtained by tranquility of mind. As long as one gets enough to eat and has a comfortable shelter what more material goods are necessary? One can always learn more about nature, history, mathematics or whatever interests one. One can find some creative pastime. If one is fortunate one has a companion with which to share one's life. I am not enthusiastic over efforts of the media to part me from what resources I have to buy things I don't need.

Along with others I do a bit here and there for older people living independently. Voluntary, arranged through local churches and community groups.

It is sobering that even those who with financial advice and prudence made what was considered to be more than enough provision for their future are now living very modest existences, which can include strategies such as under-insurance to survive in their homes.

There is a number of forces that have come together over the years to gobble away their nest eggs, even though astutely invested and managed with advice. Government taxes and user pays feature strongly in that. At local government level, raters and charges have been ramped up considerably. I will not go into the reasons why, but the cost of infrastructure for 'Big Australia' and (over-)population growth, feature strongly.

I think we are seeing the last of the generations who could look forward to living their post-retirement years in the family home and familiar surroundings in which they raised their families.

The author need not fear that wealth gathering entrepreneurs have not discovered 'seniors' or the 'Boomers', call them what you will. Because government, both sides, have already been complicit in setting loose the entrepreneurial sharks on retirees to lighten their wallets ever sooner than later. Then again, government has been taking dips out of retirement savings as the money is invested and returning for more chomps later. 'User pays'? Covered that angle too: the greying lot can sell their shelter to pay for aged care. Labor will take an extra, greedy bite with their planned capital gains tax on private homes. Then death taxes, courtesy of the Greens.

Perhaps the author is thinking of the very well remunerated womyn of Emilys List: materialistic, conspicuous consumers who intend to 'retire' as directors on the boards of taxpayer-funded Quangos and private companies. Yes, they will need glossy reading mags with the latest niche 'to die for' buys to flaunt at their next Hilton networking knees-up (somehow paid for the taxpayer as usual).

"So why do we hear so many seniors saying how hard up they are, with barely the resources to maintain basic living standards?"

Because in their younger days they were avid consumers and didn't put enough away for their old age, and then in old age with time on their hands they still spend too much on the pokies, smokes and grog.

David OBE.

Hear hear David F.
And isn't youth wasted on the young?

I have a Brother who shares your nomenclature, who married a blonde bombshell, with film star looks and a narcissistic personality?

20 years of marriage was reportedly a living hell, where he did everything, while she preened!

I spent a fortnight long holiday with them ONCE! I guess she thought she was God's gift to men?

[And doesn't Margret look nice; and or, remind one of a (Tammie's in love) singing Hollywood star, who's name I'll recall as soon as I've posted!?]

When the kids where educated and all successfully earning their own livelihoods he packed it in and found someone else; no oil painting, but seriously dedicated to their shared happiness.

He was and remains a very decent bloke; albeit, I haven't heard from him for several years!

And no amount of money and material goods can buy the Shanghai that is their (the last I heard) current lives, even with the warts and all, never let the sun set on an argument, that is successful marriage!

It is true that money can't buy happiness, but then, it can make the misery just a little more tolerable, and or, make serious inroads to the Bucket list!

Mine is a comprehensive/stay a while as the fancy takes you (getting to know you) road trip around Oz, with an affable like minded companion. Always providing, I have a place called home to eventually return to! I don't understand those wanting to jet off, when they've seen little or nothing of this wonderful wide brown land!

Too many grey nomads have sold up while the health was holding up, then regretted the hell out of it, when it failed!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhosty,

In true socialist fashion, the moment you see anyone with money you want to tax them more. It doesn't matter that they have already paid some tax on their earnings, nor that they are not a burden to the taxpayer.

Yuyutsu wrote: "Now that their time has finally arrived to be free of the shackles of employment and child-rearing, now they can pursue God whole-heartedly, they can read scriptures, pray and meditate, they can even go on pilgrimage if their health allows, now it's their opportunity to make their final dash to avoid coming back to this world and going through it all over again."

Waste one's precious life in pursuit of an imaginary entity? How absolutely silly. There are many scriptures - the Jewish Bible, the New Testament, the Buddhist Tripitaka, the Muslim Koran, the Hindu Vedas etc. Which do you recommend? I intend to take a pilgrimage to the United States next year and visit Oklahoma, New Orleans, Santa Fe, Williamsburg, VA and other places where family are. Make the most of living in this world. Like other forms of life we get only one chance. Don't worry, Yuyutsu, neither of us is coming back.

As Hamlet said, "The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns."

The author does not know what she is talking about. The whole problem is very simple.

People can be divided between the young and the old.

The old can be divided between those that have money, and those who don't.

Those who don't have money are not much of a market.

Those who have money are people who are too smart to be sucked in by advertising, and so they are not much of a market.

They also realise that all the rest of society are keen to separate them form their money. They want to hang on to it, so that even if they can't take it with them when they go, they can leave it tax free to their heirs.

In addition to all of the above, retirees with money have been seeing their income fall steadily over the last few years, due to the decline in interest rates, so they are pulling their belts in and spending as little as possible.

Everybody else is complaining that they are not getting a wage increase. Retirees would be ecstatic if they could only continue to get the same income! This, of course, is ignored by the media, as their only interest is separating the retirees from their money, as mentioned before.

So, the secret of success in retirement is simple:

DON'T SPEND!!

Good comments David F (on page 1). I agree 100%.

Perhaps the author never heard about acquiring wisdom with age.

VK3AUU,

That's rubbish. People who are old now didn't have the consumer goods of today to spend money on, nor did they have the superannuation of today, or the high wages of the greedy buggers of today. They had enough to live on, and very little if anything to save. Families also usually relied on a single income as well. The galahs both working now and expecting
other people to pay to look after their kids wouldn't last 5 minutes in those days. There's no saving, and Australia has the highest family debt in the world.

Dear David,

<<Waste one's precious life in pursuit of an imaginary entity?>>

Waste one's precious life in pursuit of temporary comfort and pleasure, nothing of it will remain or will even be remembered?

(P.S. I wrote "God", not "entity": since God is not an entity, the imagination is all yours)

---

Dear Plerdsus,

<<DON'T SPEND!!>>

Yes, but don't stop at that - make a point of boycotting those who advertise, meaning that instead of paying for a good product or service, part of your money would go towards financing their advertising campaign.

While it's not feasible and cannot be morally justified to make advertising a criminal offence, in the least it should not be allowed as a taxable deduction. It would also be nice if all products are marked: "XX% of the price you pay are for advertising".

Dear Yuyutsu,

I know you wrote God. God is not the only imaginary entity. It is not my imagination that created God. Other people's imagination created God. It is a waste of one's precious life to pursue God or any other imaginary entity. Better?

Eventually nothing will be remembered. If one does not pursue sensual and/or intellectual pleasures one will miss out on them. There will not be pie-in-the-sky by and by. Carpe diem.

From The Garden of Proserpine:

Though one were strong as seven,
He too with death shall dwell,
Nor wake with wings in heaven,
Nor weep for pains in hell;
Though one were fair as roses,
His beauty clouds and closes;
And well though love reposes,
In the end it is not well.

Death is the end. One is no more. That's all, folks.

Plerdus makes the point that elderly generation like myself are not easily sucked in by advertising. The women I know all look very presentable within their means without going over the top 'glamorous'.
The notable indulgence is in travel, mostly O/S, but not exclusively. Kids have left home or can look after themselves. The travel market has adjusted accordingly to our needs and there is probably further to go.

Dear David,

<<It is not my imagination that created God.>>

True, but it is your (and other people's also) imagination which dressed God as an entity.

<<Other people's imagination created God.>>

How could they when God is not created?

<<It is a waste of one's precious life to pursue God or any other imaginary entity. Better?>>

I tend to agree that it is a waste of one's precious life to pursue entities, real or imagined, but whence has this issue of entities arisen? I only wrote "God" and you are the one who repeatedly reverts to entities.

<<If one does not pursue sensual and/or intellectual pleasures one will miss out on them.>>

Well I believe otherwise, that if one deserve pleasures, then they will eventually have them whether they like it or not, even without pursuing them (not that it should matter to one who no longer pursues pleasures).

<<Death is the end.>>

Then what have you to lose?

Look at it statistically: if there is even an infinitesimal chance (1 > e > 0) of eternal life after death which can be affected by our choices in this life, then the statistical expectation of what you can get by sacrificing pleasure in order to invest in the long-term future is:

e * bliss * infinity - (1-e) * pleasure * 100-years = infinity

Now if something happened once, then the chances of it happening again are usually positive. You have once, upon or around the time of your birth, associated your consciousness with a body, so why should it not be probable to happen again?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I can think of no reason why, if one decides to believe in God, one should choose the god of the Bible rather than Allah, Thor, Apollo, Krishna or the other gods that humans have created. It is therefore logical for me to believe that the God of the Bible is merely a creation of the human imagination as are the other Gods that humans have worshiped. Humans unable to explain the world have created substances or entities to explain it. Phlogiston, ether to carry light waves and God or gods are examples. We understand enough about physical processes to need a belief in phlogiston and ether no longer. Although there is no evidence that God is anything other than a human invention many continue with that belief.

Eternal life? When we die our body like the body of any other being decays. To be conscious we need to have a brain. Our brain decays after death like the rest of our physical being. What would be the point of eternal life without consciousness? What would be the purpose of eternal life? How would it evolve? If we humans have it why would not walruses and bacteria have it? Life after death is simply another human invention. Apparently it makes death less awful if we can imagine that we continue on after death. There is no evidence to support any existence after death for humans or any other living entity.

Pascal's wager assumes that we should accept Pascal's God rather than the many other gods that humans have invented.

If you need to believe in the God of the Bible and eternal life you will continue to do so. I don't have that need and consider pursuit of God a waste of time. Of course one can consider this post a waste of time also. However, if I may spread understanding and enlightenment I get pleasure. if I don't spread understanding and enlightenment I still get pleasure from this contact with another human.

This discussion seems to have morphed into a philosophical debate whether God exists or not.

David f, although you believe you have the proof there is no God, you do not offer any solid evidence, other than speculation.

There are many unsolved mysteries throughout the universe. How many times during your life have you seen the temperature of the sun or the red spot on Jupiter revised upward. By your logic anything that science doesn't understand or hasn't worked out can be written off as non-existent.

Whether you believe or not doesn't matter. But it is much harder to believe when you refuse to look and/or even open yourself to the possibility. Your comments are clearly those of a non-believer but that doesn't make all the believers wrong, no matter how simple minded you think they are. It's comical to see you refer to your comments as Enlightened.

You need physical proof but it doesn't exist. Believers experience the proof which is beyond the senses. I can tell you what sugar tastes like but you will never know until you actually taste it. Same goes for God. God is there, if you embrace it.

There is a whole lot more to Enlightenment than you can ever imagine David. You need to get outside of your own head, drop your defensiveness long enough to experience the Oneness momentarily; awareness is everywhere all the time (the ultimate observer of quantum physics); know the Awareness and you'll understand you are not your body, your brain, your breath, your thoughts, or even who you think you are. Once you experience your true Self, if even for a few seconds, you'll find there is so much more than you ever perceived possible.

Shadow Minister:

Firstly, if you actually bother to actually read me mate instead of going the verbal, I've consistently argued for much lower tax!
Consistently!

Secondly, I've never ever proposed using super to raise more tax; just remove the current subsidies; which are made good by other taxpayers anyway, mostly the less well off!

There's something wrong with any system that taxes the rich man's secretary much more than the Boss! i.e., 30% for her and 15% for him!

Besides, a stand alone and entirely unavoidable expenditure tax would at the very least, treat all income equally. Be it earned here by tax avoiding billionaire multinationals or the school Janitor!

As for incentives?

Well given pensions are just around 25% of average male incomes, and I'm sure anyone savvy enough to succeed in business/private venture, is going to set aside something to support them in retirement, and in the standard they're accustomed to!?

Besides, I'd make super absolutely compulsory for all income earners; and given the savings inherent in a completely reformed and massively simplified tax act, the rate could be lifted to 15% minimum and made non contributory?

And then paid out as a whole of retirement/lifetime annuity and prepaid burials, so that it does what it's supposed to do, get old folks of off pensions and on to something at least as good as average male incomes!

Which in turn would at least allow the retiree to afford not for profit health insurance, which might include no frills funerals! And we still have a few of those!?

And the later said retirement is taken, the larger the monthly annuity? Or double after 75?

David F: The name I was trying to think of who a surprisingly attractive Margret reminded me of, was a multi talented Audrey Hepburn.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Clearly some folk treat their money as something they can take with them?

And given that's not possible; and or, the only thing we can take are the memories we built up in this lifetime, then bank as many of those as you can; preferably the good ones!

Which just has to include the delight and the smiles of all those you've helped unbidden, along the way!

And certainly a far better use of surplus capital than mindlessly feeding it into the pokies or trying to buy more shoes than Imelda Marcos?
Rhrosty.

It's funny how these discussions evolve. The Comments section of David van Gend's last article turned into a discussion involving the 9/11 conspiracies.

Yuyutsu,

<<Then what have you to lose?>>

Precious time in the only life we know we're going to have.

ConservativeHippie,

There's a heck of a lot of assertions there about what david f does and does not believe. You don't seem to understand that the default position in any situation is disbelief. The burden of proof is on the believer and until such time as reliable evidence is provided, david f's disbelief is already justified. He doesn’t need an expectation of physical proof for everything, so your, “by your logic …”, remark is fundamentally flawed.

<<Believers experience the proof which is beyond the senses.>>

Convenient that, isn't it? I can justify a belief in anything with "proof" like that.

<<I can tell you what sugar tastes like but you will never know until you actually taste it.>>

You at least know sugar is real and can verify the reasons for the sensation you get when you put it in your mouth. How do you distinguish between what believers experience and normal neurological sensations? How do you know that there are no other more rational explanations? The euphoria that Christians experience when they go to church, for example - the one they often attribute to being the presence of God - is the same euphoria that anyone experiences when they are surrounded by like-minded people.

<<God is there, if you embrace it.>>

So are fairies, by that logic.

That's an interesting concept in a thread about seniors...

"Believers experience the proof which is beyond the senses."

My father didn't believe he had ever been married and had six children, but that was a consequence of his dementia.

At the same time he was still a professing Christian! Dad was incapable of distinguishing his reality and could not have proven either claim.

The only differences between supernatural belief, self-delusion and mental disorders are degrees of harm done to oneself or to others. Yes, sometimes not only is there is no harm but their belief is undetectable... still doesn't make the belief an existent truth outside the person's imagination.

Politicians, it should be remembered, never think this about themselves.

Rhosty,

You said
"And arguably the finest argument ever put to completely wind back all subsidies on millionaires' super; soon to cost the budget bottom line more than medicare or pensions! [50+ billion?] End negative gearing and finally end subsidies private health! [8+ billion?]"

Ending tax breaks is essentially an increase in tax, which is exactly what you are calling for.

The purpose of tax breaks is to encourage activity that is in the public good. Considering that all super is taxed at either 15% or 30% the "subsidy" is minimal at best and the $8bn "savings" to remove this subsidy is certainly not based on removing the tax break only from the wealthy.

Similarly, tax breaks for private health have so far reduced the cost to public hospitals more than the cost of the tax break, and finally negative gearing (or writing off interest as a business expense) is used by every business in the world, as it encourages investment.

Taxing super will kill it and leave the government with a huge bill later in pensions, and the really wealthy that don't rely on super will not be touched.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Of course I don’t have proof that there is no God, and I never contended I have such proof. I cannot prove that there is no unicorn circling the earth, but there is no evidence to support the contention that there is.

I once believed there was a God. I examined what I was taught and decided that God was just a human invention. That had absolutely nothing to do with science. It was you who brought science into the matter. I do not believe that science is the font of all knowledge.

Of one thing I am convinced. There may be a god. However, if there is a god it is not the arbitrary, irascible, irrational god of the Bible. I can see no evidence that there is one. That is a very different statement from claiming proof.

I do not have a closed mind. I examined what I was taught about God and rejected it. To be able to change one’s mind is a characteristic of an open not a closed mind. I have changed my mind about other things. Unfortunately those who have the opinions I once had assume that I have never examined their positions. It is especially irritating when god bashers tell me to open my mind to their beliefs as though those beliefs are alien to me.

You wrote: “drop your defensiveness long enough to experience the Oneness.”

That’s meaningless crap and offensive. It is offensive to be accused of being defensive. I would rather discuss your views than attack you in any way. ‘experience the Oneness’, ‘your true Self’, ‘awareness is everywhere all the time’ and ‘you'll understand you are not your body, your brain, your breath, your thoughts, or even who you think you are’ are all meaningless New Age gabble.

On believing that there is much more than I perceive possible I agree with you.

I think differently from you. That makes me defensive, unaware and I guess a lot of other things. Arguing by calling the other guy names is not a good way to argue.

Dear David,

If one follows an entity such as the god of the Bible because they believe He exists, then s/he is mistaken in their assumption, yet the outcome can still be good (or it may not, if for example they come to kill and rape through belief in Allah). Belief is merely a technique, so what matters is its outcome, both the final outcome which was just referred to as Enlightenment by ConservativeHippie, but also the positive character-building that precedes it.

The West seems to have forgotten the purpose of imagining various gods and goddesses and dressing God in their attributes: it helps the devotee to focus their attention and meditate on an attractive and beloved object, it's merely a great technique, it was never intended to become a scientific statement, so one should choose a deity with their heart, not with their mind.

In reality there is nothing but God, including other gods, yet if one finds it too abstract to concentrate on God, then one should choose to believe in and worship the deity which appeals to them best.

Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 7, verses 21-22:

"
I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.

Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.
"
(http://www.asitis.com/7)

Yes, to be conscious of the world we need a brain. That brain also holds memories, which are lost once it decays.

Whatever the purpose(s) of acquiring and growing a brain to be conscious through, is well beyond this discussion. My point simply was, that since we already did it once (when or around the time we were born), it is not unreasonable to assume we can and would do it all over again, using a different body/brain.

I'm glad you derive pleasure from this discussion. Pleasure itself is not an obstacle in the pursuit of God, only our attachment to it.

Just for clarification sake, my God is not sitting on a thrown, my God does not have a human-like body, it is not the God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, one of the specific Hindu deities, or Ra of the ancient Egyptians, or even the Sun although it could be all of those. My God is all that is and all that isn't, beyond space and time, ever present, infinite, eternal, within, and accessible.

My God is not New Age claptrap. My God is as simple as being the empty space that contains everything else, the spark of consciousness that let's you know you are awake, Love, Nature, the Universe, the distance between atoms, quarks and the stars, the big bang, the dynamic void, the past present and future rolled into one.

If you were the only person for miles in the middle of a desert when a flying saucer landed, you would always know it happened but most everyone else would think you had some sort of psychotic episode. Their perception of you would not negate the truth about what you witnessed. The ancient sages, mystics, and the Dali Lama are not just a bunch of quacks.

God is not religion. Study your mind. Know your Self.

Perhaps to get back on topic, no, the media have not a clew about seniors.

I know dozens who have given up newspapers, as they are too much hassle.

Even more have given up TV as the people who produce most of it have no idea. A huge number of older people have some level of tinnitus, & it appears few if any TV production people understand how this affects their hearing ability.

While they can hear perfectly well despite a constant noise in their ears, they can only interoperate one line of speaking. With 2 conversations, or one with a TV or radio as well, the sound all merges into just noise.

The same thing occurs with background noise, or "atmosphere" in sporting broadcasts, & even in documentaries. Even background music can render the commentary unintelligible.

I know many who have given up most TV & radio after developing tinnitus in their late fifties. Unless a cure is developed for tinnitus, an aging population will seriously reduce their audience, if they don't start to understand this simple & common affliction, & alter their techniques to accommodate sufferers.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Organised religion is one of the few social organisations in this modern world which build community. We interact with people at work but don't necessarily see them outside of working hours. Many of us get our food from an impersonal supermarket. Even members of a family may not have a close relationship. Religion provides fellowship in the midst of an atomised society. However, the beliefs of religion contain a great deal of nonsense.

To reject organised religion and to keep a belief in fairy tales such as God means to me to withdraw from what is worthwhile about religion and retain the nonsense.

Yuyutsu,

<<...since we already did it once (when or around the time we were born), it is not unreasonable to assume we can and would do it all over again, using a different body/brain.>>

It is not reasonable until there is something to suggest that there is any part of US or aspect of US (as you would say, using capitals) that is capable of transferring to another body. The fact we happened at some point does not in anyway suggest that we can happen again. You cannot rationally go from 'if something has happened before, then it could happen again', to 'therefore it is reasonable to assume that we have souls and that those souls will transfer to another body'.

There's some pretty big leaps and assumptions in your thinking that I think require a bit more detail.

http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

ConservativeHippie,

Thanks for the clarification although I’m not sure what difference it makes. Claims that religious beliefs are nonsense aren’t usually circumvented simply by departing from religion or the bearded-old-man-in-the-sky model of God. It’s not so much what we believe that makes it rational, but why we believe it.

<<If you were the only person for miles in the middle of a desert when a flying saucer landed, you would always know it happened but most everyone else would think you had some sort of psychotic episode.>>

I would also suspect that I’d had a psychotic episode. Even more so if I thought I had experienced God. There’s nothing supernatural about UFOs, after all, and there’s all sorts of brain activity and mal-functioning that can make people feel like they’ve had a supernatural experience. Certain people are more prone to such experiences too. People with temporal lobe epilepsy, for example, experience God all the time.

<<The ancient sages, mystics, and the Dali Lama are not just a bunch of quacks.>>

"Quacks" is such a harsh term. I'd say those people are/were delusional.