Tuesday, May 1, 2012

This Just In...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html

This just in...  surprising no one here.   (It doesn't surprise Eric because he doesn't believe it anyhow)

Nice to see it in the NYT though. 

You know, this isn't psychological mumbo-jumbo.   When one is aware that one is homosexually inclined, and one loathes and despises oneself for it and denies it to one's self as well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the natural inclination is to be *very* publicly against it.  

I'm just tired of everybody pretending these people aren't sick and that this isn't what's happening.  There's an awful lot of this sort of pathology on the right.  It explains a lot.   

141 comments:

  1. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/irish-priest-accidentally-flashes-gay-porn-during-first-communion-meeting/

    Funny. Oops, I guess...

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/dan-savage-and-the-truth_b_1463390.html?ref=religion

    I think Dan Savage is fantastic, and here's proof...

    What are you testing, pboy?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Everyone has some naughty feelings and/or imaginings.

    Shame on us all. LOL

    The GOP prefer to punish others for their shameful feelings, and hey, they're a bit jealous too. If you won't repress your shameful feelings,like they do, and they know you won't, punishment and criminalization are the order of the day, right?

    Stands to reason that I'll feel less repressed if I condemn those who refuse to repress their own feelings and convict those who act on them.

    We're a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Though experiment.

    'YOU' are a child molester. You suffer terribly from guilt. Why do you do these horrible things? You go to the church and confess your sins to a priest, who happens to be a child molester. What happens next?

    That same priest gets caught molesting a kid. What happens to him now?

    I'm thinking that the ruling class, while condemning child-molesting is going to tend to punish those who are not in their class very severely precisely because they know that they are lenient, forgiving towards the guilty in their own class.

    Priests gat away with it, common folk get imprisoned and stygmatized for life.

    Yea, get used to it, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When I was a kid I idolized science. All I read was science fiction, science texts and articles, and some fantasy. So my opinion of my fellow man was that we were smart and getting smarter all the time and we were making a lot of progress, and that we were a very rational species.

    I mean, holy shit could I have been more wrong? Science and technology is just about the ONLY good thing we've got going for us, and about half of us would love to do away with *that.*

    ReplyDelete
  6. I remember when the priest sex abuse scandal hit the news years ago for the first time, talking about the extent of it and all that...
    I remember thinking 'AT LAST! Finally they've shown their true colors! NOW something will be DONE ABOUT IT! Finally people will see that religion is a false and dangerous path filled with pompous hypocrites! Thank goodness!'

    What a rube I was.

    The wife and I thought in a similar manner about the tea party when it first came out. "Is that all they've GOT? We're gonna CREAM 'em in 2010! Nobody will vote for the party of STUPID!'

    Boy, I still have a lot to learn, don't I? I keep expecting people to be rational and sane... wtf is wrong with me?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Priests get away with it
    ---------------------
    Only for twenty centuries or so.

    That's the thing. People (read: believers and associated dummies) think it's like, something new, because we just heard about it.

    No. It's something very, very old indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I never thought that the church would be able to overcome the revelation of all those pederasts in the priesthood.

    I underestimated the vast power of stupid. Believers *want to believe* that there's nothing to see here, move along...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apologists like Eric will even openly defend the church in this matter.

    Once someone says 'it's only a small percentage of the priests' they may as well say "c'mon, a little child rape isn't such a bad thing."

    It's four percent, by the way. Four percent of all priests, over the years.

    So what's unacceptable Eric? Five percent? Ten? At what level is it too much child fucking for you? Just curious here... I want to understand a good christian man like you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, and important point:

    Four percent of all priests, that they CAUGHT.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That 80 year old priest with nothing to lose told the truth, "The kids get over it."

    The attitude is, 'Why ruin a man's career over what amounts to a child's anecdote?'

    Molesters rarely look like they're evil, while the kids, put under the scrutiny of the church hierarchy are likely to feel as if it is them that are doing something wrong.

    Of course the knee-jerk reaction in the other direction is to prejudge ALL MEN as molesters, it being just that they haven't been caught or that they just haven't had the opportunity.

    It is routine for guys to imagine that if they're sent to prison, they need to be on the lookout for sexual predators AND that if you are convicted of being a sexual predator, the inmates will beat the crap out of you.

    I remember a face-book comment explaining that men in prison advertise their sexual preference by the the way they wear their pants.

    Seemed to me that the idea was to encourage young homophobic guys to wear their pants the way she, the commenter, prefered, and not in the fashion of some young cliques.

    Thinking back on that, I wonder what kind of response I'd have recieved if I'd answered by thanking her for the tip, since I was leaving for prison and I'd been worried that I wouldn't be able to locate the gays to service me. LOL

    One less homophobic friend, I'll bet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul Ryan sure got himself into a pickle, eh? The Catholic church denouncing his policies as sociopathic libertarianism. As usual the Goddies conflate sociopathy with atheism as easily as they conflate their belief-system 'isms' with atheism. As easily as they conflate their handy rhetorical tools with 'truth'.

    Still, it's a step in the right direction to denounce social-darwinistic capitalism as evil, putting Paul Ryan and his despicable budget head to head against the idea of a caring community.

    Funny that, that us 'evil Atheists' have been saying exactly that for years, us apparently being the evil bastards for not wanting to abandon the poor, the old and the sick, for not wanting to throw them under the bus in the name of 'real American values'.

    How long before the main body of the Catholic church denounces the Jesuits as COMMIE BASTARDS, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm quite sure that the Christian Right can come up with a technical reason why, "Jesus suffered and died on the cross so that no more should suffer.", doesn't really count for the poor, the old and the sick. Nono, HE suffered and died for well-to-do Christians, of course. The poor, the old and the sick, wouldn't be poor and/or old and/or sick, if they were doing it right, right?

    Maybe the answer is, "Well, if you don't believe that Jesus suffered and died, happy suffering to you! I'll pray for you though."

    I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the idea is that we all really do get what we deserve, unless of course we imagine that deep down we're all selfish assholes and that's 'okay', just so long as we 'confess Jesus'.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another post on Debunking Christianity on how atheism as a movement would be better off treating them in a kinder, gentler, less academic manner, especially if we are to make inroads away from the coasts.

    All I can think of when I hear this kind of stuff, usually from ex-Christians, apparently harking for some kind of alternative to the system they left behind, is, atheism isn't a movement.

    It's not a movement if Christians claim it is and it is no more a movement if ex-Christians make that same claim.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The thing I seem to be getting at here is that Christianity, like any other movement will end up being controlled by sociopaths. Control is what they do, what they live for. The idea that Christianity is a bulwark against being controlled by sociopaths is as laughable as the idea that a sociopath would present him/herself as an atheist, unless there were, in fact, an atheist movement for him/her to control.

    It would be hilarious if it were not so sad that the 'soldiers of Christ' are constrained to fight a non-existent organisation, 'slaying' the 'new atheists'(capitalized or no), thinking that they have struck a blow for God.

    What we need is government and religion too, making a concerted effort to balance public health and welfare against corporate greed. Corporations are by their nature greedy, they're in it for one thing, to make a profit. Left to themselves they'll rape the land and leave behind a poisonous shit-hole, all to maximize profit. They'll sell us poisonous food if they can get away with it. They'll control government if they can get away with it. They'll blame everyone but themselves for the resulting ravaged landscape and health problems because, after all, they were just doing business as best they knew how, maximizing profit.

    They are like children, in that, left to their own devices, it's 'Lord of the Flies' on a global scale.

    Seems to me that the West needed the hated Communist East as a bad example for the people to prosper. As it stands, the right seem to be willing to let capitalism run rampant over all until the economy comes to a standstill.

    What is going to happen when the 1% own everything, when the monopoly game is over? There's no switching gears here, they'll still be saying, "If only the rich were richer everything would be just hunky-dory!", long after they don't have to even pretend we live in a democracy.

    I wonder if it's too late.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's not a movement if Christians claim it is and it is no more a movement if ex-Christians make that same claim.
    ------------------------
    ...and the only way it could become a movement is if the christians started to hunt us down and kill us.

    No wait.

    (shouldn't give them ideas... )

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/north-carolina-pastor-sea_n_1468618.html?ref=mostpopular

    Pastor says to beat the gay out of your kid.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ignorance seems to be winning on all fronts, doesn't it. You have people like WL Craig spewing gossamer arguments about theology while his church refuses to come clean about child abuse in its ranks. In a perfect world, we'd all shout them down as moral authorities until they cleaned their own house of evil.

    You have philosophers talking about differing ways of knowing from empiricism when in fact all they have is different ways of perceiving.

    You have people attacking science with claims that it's just another belief system, when all they really want to do is tear down the only mechanism we have to unearth their subsequent self-serving lies.

    The decibel level of an argument has replaced facts and evidence as the gold standard for authority.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I worry that we've passed some threshold of 'average level of ignorance' or something where it's just all downhill from here.

    Are we not men? Um, no. We are Devo....

    ReplyDelete
  20. The means of victory on the right seems to me to be the dual process of putting out a tapestry of lies and spin and never letting up for an instant, and then also claiming that the other side is doing the same thing when they present actual facts. The facts are lost in the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The general populace seems to have been successfully lulled into the idea that both sides are just spinning everything, so it's a wash.

    When people can't be reached with proof or facts anymore, game over. The liars have already won.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You know what I wish? That Obama calls out the lies in a speech sometime, quotes them, and laughs in his infectious way. Humor seems the best weapon against this kind of ludicrous lying.
    If you call a person a liar, they call you one back and it's a wash. But when you *laugh* at their lies, it catches on with others and forces the perpetrators to reverse themselves. Obama's done this a bit recently. I want him to do it a lot more.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/north-carolina-gay-marriage-amendment-1_n_1470956.html

    So they're against gay marriage because the 'caucasian race' is in decline! Why, that makes sense! (to the KKK)

    ReplyDelete
  24. The projection is the worst thing to me. We'll hear that if Obama gets another four years it'll be the end of America. Seems to me that the right's libertarian agenda would guarantee the collapse of the economy.

    Reduce taxes on the extremely wealthy and cut anti-poverty programs. If we take this to a significant extent, the rich will be wealthier and the poor will be starving. Sure the wealthy can invest in business and sell their product to the consumers, BUT, the consumer base is withering. Poor people can't afford to buy stuff. Small business people are forced out of business if they can't sell their products, and bigger businesses who sell those products to the smaller businesses start going out of business.

    The slide towards poverty increases.

    I don't know how this is good policy for the wealthy at all. It's certainly not good policy for the poor. Seems to me that it could only be considered 'good' policy for 'end-of-worlders' hoping that Jesus will show up and fix everything or crazy bastards who are upset that their unrealistic dreams turned out to be unrealistic and just wants everyone hurting as much as themselves.

    The United States, and Canada too btw, seem to be in the grip of greedy bastards who are determined to maintain their greedy bastard control and policies. The Reps. took control of the States by lying to old people that their medicare was under attack by Obama, somehow small business was under attack by Obama's tax policies, and that they were going to magically create jobs by union busting, firing government employees, and giving poor rich businessmen even more tax breaks.

    I don't 'get' the greedy bastard perspective. Household and business model economy is working when wealth is accumulating, but a country's economy is not an open system like a household and a business, there's nothing coming in from the outside.

    By this I mean, if consumers don't have money they cannot buy stuff. If they cannot buy stuff that stuff will stop being produced. This creates more consumers who now don't have money so now less stuff needs to be produced, more layed off workers, more consumers with no money.

    How can this be a good thing? Under any circumstances at all, how can this be a good thing??

    Seems to me that the greedy bastards are using the household model of economy where, if mom and dad are getting richer their economy is doing great!

    By this standard though, our countries are doing GREAT! If we cut all the poor off welfare, cut off the pensioners, cut it all off, the country will be no worse off.

    In fact, by that standard the only way the country could possibly be worse off is if the very wealthy get taxed more, even as the wealthy are running out of consumers to buy their products.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Families don't elect to stop feeding their children in order to increase their personal bank accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  26. United Technologies' $1 billion employee college plan

    ReplyDelete
  27. In the analogy the poor are not the kids. That's why national economy has nothing much in connection to a household economy.

    The truth is that they're nothing like each other, only the name 'economy' is the same, which the right use to confuse everyone, perhaps even themselves.

    I hear lots of complaints about the 'Fed', the Federal Reserve, libertarians, who seem to be confusing national economy with household economy, wanting to change to the gold standard, meaning that there is only so much money and no more.

    How the hell would that work? We gonna be bartering some chickens for a heart replacement, 'cos the oil kings would have all the fucking gold.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This sums up my thoughts on catholic clerics.

    Even one case swept under the rug is too many to forget. 4% of priests? How many of those are multiple/repeat offenders? Gone unpunished, or even reported, these pedophiles were allowed to commit their crimes over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If they keep whittling away at you guys' education budget, pretty soon you'll be back to butting heads to establish a hierarchy of dominance!

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Police-believe-Neo-Nazi-killed-4-himself-in-Ariz-3531301.php

    A former marine, neo-nazi amateur border patrol guy into militias and white supremacy, kills a bunch of people including a baby, and himself. He hated the guv'mint so much, thought he was acting 'like the founding fathers.'
    Pretty standard, actually. There's millions of these guys now.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/mom-in-scissors-slaying-1430659.html

    LAS VEGAS — The lawyer for a Las Vegas mother accused of killing her 6-year-old daughter with scissors says her client is expected to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
    (...)
    Slaughter told police the blood was from the "lamb of God" and that she stabbed the girl after she spoke and laughed "in an evil voice."
    --------------------
    Ahh, gimme that good old time religion....

    ReplyDelete
  32. Good last name for a crazy bitch killer, huh? "Slaughter"

    ReplyDelete
  33. Whittling away at our education budget? Pboy, they're only trying to make us all so that we can receive Christ into our lives! We have to be properly prepared after all, and step one is getting rid of that pesky intellectual ability. Make us all dumb as a fundy, that's the goal.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Can't decide if you said that in an evil voice or not.

    Seriously though, this woman would likely have been thought of as a paragon of virtue for her extreme views, in right-wing circles, right up 'til she blows a gasket and murders her kid. Do they attract people on the edge or does the worldview push them towards the edge, I wonder?

    Wow though, every Dem. should be patting their local Rep. pals for being willing to vote for Romney, knowing full well that they have absolutely no idea if he/she agrees with any of his policies. The 'gay thing' for example, as soon as Romney gets their vote, he's admitted that he cares nothing for the gay-bashers' agenda at all.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hey, that white supremacist neonazi guy also was *running for Pinal county sheriff!*

    ReplyDelete
  36. Romney tried to shake his Etch-A-Sketch, but the far right grabbed his arms, and then spanked him soundly.
    He might have more trouble 'shaking it up' than he anticipated. The people of his base were never this rabid before.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Now for some fun:

    http://literallyunbelievable.org/

    "Onion" articles as interpreted by Facebook....
    Wow, we're stuuuuupid.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Irony is apparently a really accurate intelligence test.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Off topic , but maybe an interest to you Brian.

    Maybe an interest to young earth creationists as well. How old is this meteorite ?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yeah... I'm kind of a semi-expert on meteorites. I still have a couple, a nice little Sikote-Allen from Russia and of course a big slab of Gibeon from South Africa. Both are at least 4 billion years old, more likely a lot older.
    I once explained meteorites to a fundy online. The age. He didn't believe it. Said that there was no way to tell how old they really were, that the 'scientific' methods were lies or something like that.
    In short, no fact can get through a good christian mind shield.

    ReplyDelete
  41. S.E.("Sippy") Cupp is pretending that she is simply a fiscal conservative.

    Unless she's planning on voting for Obama, I'm calling here a liar. Is she a George "The Decider" Bush, "fuck the budget, I'm warring here", kind of fiscal conservative? Is she an, "I'm no economist*!", kind of fiscal conservative?

    *which is a lie, if you take into account that Republican economists are just some guys who have aquired degrees with the word 'economy' in them and spout right-wing talking points. Those degrees are surely optional.

    Most important thing to know about Republican economists is whether they represent the oil companies or the banks, or both. The key point being that oil companies and banks do not give a toss about the deficit or the overall job situation.

    They can go on and on about the deficit and jobs and gas prices knowing that it's all talking points meaning absolutely nothing, because, in the end, they just want the guy elected who will do their bidding.

    How can the gay-bashers and the pro-lifers and the 'don't-tax-me-ers' be so stupid? Especially the 'don't-tax-me-ers' who don't seem to mind everyone else, barring huge corporations and the 'more-money-than-God' guys, being taxed.

    If some asshole in a State which gets $1.30 from the Feds for every dollar they give to the Feds is complaining about being overtaxed by the Feds, and is not realising that it's not the Feds fault if he sees no benefit, it's the local politicians who he voted in that are using up that money, he/she has been completely fooled by the talking points.

    Would this greedy asshole really rather owe his State $1.30 on top of his regular State taxes at the end of the fiscal year?

    Do you imagine that THAT is what this asshole is thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I used to deal in meteorites and amber and a lot of other minerals, besides just gemstones.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Do you imagine that THAT is what this asshole is thinking?
    ----------
    No, I imagine that that asshole doesn't think. He only believes.

    ReplyDelete
  44. S. E. Cupp is more annoying than poison ivy of the crotch.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Keee-riste. Koch representative Scott Walker is in a dead heat for governorship of Wisconsin. What does he have to do to prove he's a total asshole to half the voters, go on a frickin' killing spree?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yeah but did you know that his out-of-state super-pac buddies spent 11 million dollars on this race, and his numbers have actually gone DOWN in the process? So hope is not lost. Plus, it does me good to see that the money hasn't won it, at least not yet.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I almost think that if he did go on a killing spree, he's still get 20 percent or so. The die-hard reality-denier crowd. Teabaggers and the ilk.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Walker's lead is shrinking, as we speak... just heard it on Hardball. He's only one point ahead. So a little shrinkage can go a long way at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I just love Michelle Bachmann today.

    Gushing about how wonderful Mitt Romney is.

    Unbelievable.

    At least Gingritch gave a half-hearted endorsement and Rick Santorum basically none at all... This woman doesn't even have *their* principles. She's just happy to have a camera in front of her.

    No character, no honor, no love. And they're running close to Obama in polls.

    We suck. I honestly wish I could move. Amsterdam would be nice for me, but the UK wouldn't be too bad either.... fat chance. As if they want an ugly American. Because, as noted, we suck, and they ain't blind.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I should correct that to read "if Romney wins." Because then it would be REAL. As in, I would mean it, I'd want to move out of this place like a Jew out of 1937 Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  51. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11398655-zombie-ants-fight-fungus-with-fungus

    Amazing. Nature and this universe offer so much more wonders than any religion ever has.

    ReplyDelete
  52. So the redefinition of 'conservative' these days is 'get rid of Obama'.

    Hey, if it's true that Romney IS a good businessman, that might work, he might turn around and tell all the crazy libertarians that that is not good business, tell the crazy homo-haters that that is just not good business, tell the crazy tax killers, hey, 'What, are you NUTS?", and so on.

    (Busying myself sticking pins in an effigy of the Koch Industries representative Scott Walker now.)

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't know. Right now he's all about closing the deal, no matter what he has to do. But if he gets the job? I don't think he has the first idea what he'll do. And I don't think he cares about that. As long as he beats dead daddy and goes the distance.

    I know what he'll do of course. Fuck up. That's what he'll do. And we'll all get to pay for that.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pboy, doesn't it seem that, on the right, there's SO MUCH awful shit going on everywhere, SO MANY schemes going on, so much corruption and so many lies, that, well, something's gotta give? I mean, doesn't it seem that the whole thing has at least some potential to go KABLOOIE?

    ReplyDelete
  55. (Busying myself sticking pins in an effigy of the Koch Industries representative Scott Walker now.)
    -----------
    Hope that you do that voodoo that you do so well.

    ReplyDelete
  56. http://www.takepart.com/video/indian-snake-charmer-releases-cobras-tax-office-protest

    BEST TAX PROTEST EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wish we'd do this over here... but our tax officials would just eat the snakes.

    ReplyDelete
  57. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/patrick-lanzo-georgia-bar-n-word-sign_n_1475288.html

    Niiiice.

    ReplyDelete
  58. He's not racist though. He says he's not.

    How I ask you, can a person that has enough coherence to put on clothes at least, think that actually coming out and calling the president a nigger, is somehow not racist?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I wonder what that guy would do if one was to pit up a huge sign across the street calling him queer. He really is queer in a way. Wonder what he would think about the definition of words then

    ReplyDelete
  60. What the HELL is wrong with the right, sabre-rattling away and basically calling Obama chicken for not standing up to those Chinese while they're busy still trying to negotiate??

    Are they fucking insane? I don't know what the 'average' American thinks of the situation between the USA and China, but whatever it is, they surely don't want mutual assured destruction over one guy, or rather, over 'any' excuse to slam Obama?

    ReplyDelete
  61. You got it. I'm living in a country where half the politicians including the republican nominee, just don't give a fuck. They remind me of the probably apocryphal idea of 'Nero fiddling while Rome burned,'

    Imagine how good I feel about that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Or more concisely, er, yes, they are all fucking insane.

    ReplyDelete
  63. http://www.mandm.org.nz/2012/03/true-reason-christian-responses-to-the-challenges-of-atheism.html

    This is where Matt Flannegan and Hugh use their outsider POV to trash John Loftus worldview.

    They're pretending to trash Loftus' Outsider Test of Faith.

    What they're not realizing is that they, being outsiders from Loftus' worldview are busy trashing his POV as outsiders. The 'trashing' of his POV comes in the form of him failing their test, kind of, "See how wrong you are, because of this, this and this.", failing their test of their reality, trying to convince him that he fails his test for his own point of view.

    But all Loftus is saying that their religion would fail their tests of other faiths unless they use different standards for their faith.

    Even if they are right that their tests show Loftus that his worldview is wrong, they've used the OTF on him!

    I pointed out to them that it doesn't matter even if they can show Loftus that he is batshit crazy for having his worldview, in fact it shows that the OTF is valid, since they themselves are willing to use it on him!

    ReplyDelete
  64. I see what you mean, Pboy. Typical, though.

    It's like:

    Atheist: All true believers in all faiths accept their faith and believe it's the one true faith and thus aren't capable of seeing that any other believer in any other faith will be and indeed is equally just as sure, and so the original person here will refuse to see any validity in this idea, so they must reject this test.

    Believer: That's a stupid test!

    Atheist: Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Nice thrashing on the mandm site, peeb...

    The theists just don't get it (or they DO, and that's why they object so vehemently to the OTF)...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Yes pboy, well done on that site. You've gone as far as humanly possible.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I cannot imagine any kind of decent comeback there. It'd have to be some kind of total diversion or a complete denial that they ever try to bolster their own POV by dismissing others' POVs.

    Seems to me that the second case leaves them in an agnostic position where they're claiming that the stuff they believe, they believe due to their indoctrination, influence of family and friends and that it is absolutely okay for people of other faiths to have their faith for their same reasons, influence of family and friends and/or indoctrination.

    There is one bad reason why it wouldn't be okay for others to be faithful to another religion though. That would be if part of your tradition or indoctrination or familial/peer influence was that 'we' are not allowed to tolerate 'them'.

    Colour me unconvinced that blatant tribalism is 'sufficent' reason for the intellectuals on all sides though, although every last man jack of them seems to think so.

    Thus sayeth the fairies at the bottom of the garden. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  68. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in the fairies at the bottom of the garden. He wrote Sherlock Holmes stories. To write about geniuses solving crimes, it seems obvious to me that the writer himself must be a genius. If garden-bottom fairies were good enough for Doyle, I'll never understand why they wouldn't be good enough for you!

    If I look out my window there is a tree line some 20 or 30 yards away and I can see them, unidentifyable thingies flying around. Some of them must be fairies. Remember that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote some great books!

    Oh I know that if we were to go over to the tree line and observe, we'd likely notice that we could identify the flying thingies as dragonflies or perhaps the odd humming bird, or a cloud of midgies.

    Hey party-pooper, some of them may be fairies, maybe fairies are shy and they don't like to be 'examined', in fact who is to say that fairies, when examined don't turn out to be dragonflies because 'that is what they do'?

    Your skepticism and doubt convinces me even more that the bottom of the garden is where the fairies live.

    I mean after all, they are called the fairies 'at the bottom of the garden', right? They're not called THAT for nothing, right?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Man pboy - that was some very sophisticated Fairitology. I was clearly unknowledgeable about this deep level of understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Actually, fairies make more sense in a 'god of the gaps' argument - Fairies are tiny so would more easily hide between the scientific facts.

    ReplyDelete
  71. But but... what's flying around at the end of Marcus Bachmann's garden?

    ReplyDelete
  72. But but... what's flying around at the end of Marcus Bachmann's garden?

    I'm guessing, that would be a garden variety witch.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I was imagining Rick Santorum in a tutu...

    (...right up until I realized what a horrible thing that was to imagine)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Man, that Hugh bugger is obdurate. It must be time for the torture. Oh wait, we don't do that in this day and age.

    How they can possibly imagine that simply overgeneralizing the OTF somehow makes it lose it's validity, I do not know.

    They're willing to 'slay' Loftus' worldview sentence by sentence, but the simple idea behind the OTF is untouched, not only untouched but, since they are using their OTF on Loftus to make their point, it validates the OTF.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Good show coming up next Sunday about five men who had been abused by the priests.

    One, reading an obit, "..he was greately loved by the people that he touched.", "..but, they didn't mention the boys that he touched."

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  76. Owing to the austerity measures in some European countries, angry voters have kicked out the right-wing bastards. On tonights news, the horrible consequences this could have on Canada!

    What? More austerity measures from our right wing assholes??

    Canada will respond the only way that King Harper(actually our Prime Minister) knows how. Cut programs for the poor, raise student fees and cost of loans, maybe some union busting and tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy.

    Yippers! That'll do 'er.

    ReplyDelete
  77. It's obvious to me that their 'solution' is to completely disenfranchise the poor and the middle class. Then they'll say, 'Wait a bit, wait a bit." Then, when the middle class are good and fucked, they'll say to each other, "I cannot believe they fell for it!"

    Of course there'll be no middle class and they'll vote to make an absolute "Christian' monarchy since that used to work so well for the people, didn't it?

    Pretty soon they won't be begging for our money, on commercials, for that little black child in Africa that you ought to be sure to sponsor, no, that little homeless black child for you to sponsor will be right there in Louisiana and Missippi!

    ReplyDelete
  78. I am curious where is the thinking of the atheist on the subject of oneness?

    ReplyDelete
  79. I would think that would depend on the atheist. I'd wager most of them don't see it as a valid issue in the real world.
    I'm still working on my views of it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I was wondering about the valid issue thing.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This is funny in general, but panels 1 and 14 are apropos. 
     

    ReplyDelete
  82. Well Jerry, it may come as some surprise to you, but the idea of 'oneness' and for that matter of 'duality' or 'yin and yang' are spiritual concepts, and as you should know by now from your dealings with Pboy, many atheists stop right there and go no further.
    As for me, I see a use for the concept in the idea of universal brotherhood if nothing else.
    As to the deeper idea of "I AM" being the root of human consciousness and us all being one, that is definitely too spiritual for most atheists.
    I see reality as more than that, though. However, I also see that I may be mistaken due to wishful thinking. So I'm still conflicted. If I hadn't had the coincidences and a few other things that affected more than just my mind but reality as well, why Pboy would have talked me out of this two years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ryan, bad link. I just get 'page does not exist.'

    ReplyDelete
  84. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I do approach oneness from a spiritual viewpoint, but I got to thinking a bout the problem with our culture today, and I believe a large part of that to be individualism vs collectivism. I believe that the ideal position would be a perfect balance between the two, with an individual or the whole society. If that was achieved it would render the fruit of oneness. No god necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I can equate individualism to yang and collectivism to yin, and so it is easy to see that the best option would be to strive for balance.

    I also think that a lot of times when people try to achieve a balance like this, they make the error of thinking that such a balance is equal and constant, when (to me it seems) ideally one must find the right balance of the two in each individual situation.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Well, we're down to insulting each other on the m and m blog.

    Great success, I guess.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  88. Well, there's not really anywhere to go but to insulting each other when one side is delusional and obstinate and insists they're right in spite of all fact and reason.
    And I suppose insults do no good, either.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Okay, this interests me:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120504110024.htm

    You see, on salvia I've been able to see 'auras.' And when I meditated (in my case, involving investigative thought) about it, I came to the conclusion, not definite but a strong feeling if you will, that seeing auras is related to synesthesia on my part brought on by the substance. And here is confirmation!
    Unfortunately when I strive to eliminate the supernatural conclusion, I seem to always do.
    See Pboy, I'm (hopefully) not just a 'believer' in this stuff... if I were, I doubt I'd readily accept such a conclusion on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  90. http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2012/05/the_reason_for_the_ambivalence.php

    I highly recommend this. It speaks eloquently about the problem that some occasional visitors seem to be incapable of understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I wish I had something interesting and/or funny to say about Salvia, Brian.

    On the OTF, though, I'm thinking that there is a perfectly valid reason why it ought to be specifically about inspired knowledge and not simply knowledge in general.

    The OTF is a process whereby 'believers', 'the faithful' or whatever else they want to call themselves, are invited to examine their 'other ways of knowing', that thing they use to push spiritual/supernatural stuff out of the purview of science and even the common reality that we all see around us.

    I'm sure it makes theists and others who feel that their esoteric knowledge is unassailable by science(and dare I say common sense?) a bit uneasy, a bit queasy, because they are used to having their worldview assailed, if at all, from a pragmatic, scientific perspective.

    The OTF asks them to test their own faith against other faiths, something that ought to be automatic for, at the very least, all doctrinal faiths, since, on some level there must be some reason for the doctrine.

    Now all doctrinal faith at least implies a 'we're right 'cos we're right' doctrine, which is where the OTF comes in, since a 'God is three persons in one' doctrine, directly conflicts with a 'God is one, and only one' doctrine.

    The theists who rail against the OTF use the argument that the OTF is not necessarilly religion specific and can be changed from "faith" to "religion" to "a set of beliefs" to "any set of beliefs" and this muddies the waters so much, 'we don't all agree on everything, do we?', that this somehow allows theists use their 'inspired knowledge', to keep their 'sacred inspired knowledge' as their special tool to dismiss other faiths without holding themselves to account.

    But the thrust of the OTF is that it is pitting 'sacred inspired knowledge' against 'sacred inspired knowledge' and, hopefully when the lack of difference of effect among the various 'sacred inspired knowledge' comes crashing together in the theist's mind(one at a time folks, one at a time), this will inspire them to understand that they cannot all be right and that their version is just as flawed as other versions.

    Presumably it is hoped that a crisis of faith will follow this realization, "Why do I believe this junk, and not this other junk.", and encourage them to start the critical thinking processes in their minds that indoctrination and superstition have been blocking.

    The theist response is only to be expected. Projection. "This is YOUR problem, not ours.", the reason for overgeneralizing it in the first place.

    If you can make them see why overgeneralization doesn't solve their problem, because they are using a form of OTF to try to disarm the OTF, their claim against it amounts to, "It's used inconsistently, even by proponents of the OTF themselves!"

    But so what? The rules of the road are not being applied absolutely consistently either, causing many fatal accidents, this is not a reason for us to abandon the rules of the road completely.

    Plus, if you contend that your religion is the path of truth, all you're doing by applying the OTF is keeping yourself honest.

    Now, honestly now, can you theists honestly say that one religion has more truth to it than another?

    I'm stumpped, are you?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Of course they can say that, and they do. The fact that it isn't true is irrelevant. They believe it, and belief isn't swayed by mere facts, is it? So almost unbelievably we have them saying things like 'our faith is the One True Faith; all others are false' in response to the OTF, even though it misses the point completely. They want to avoid even thinking about it. They've been taught not to think. To think is bad.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Martin Bashir talking to a Rep. Senator about his religious beliefs, Biblical beliefs concerning the poor, the old and the sick. He quotes a psalm about helping the poor, the old and the sick.

    The Rep. Senator comes back with a zinger, "The Lord helps those who help themselves."

    Oh, zing!

    Bashir comes back, "I don't think you'll find that anywhere in the Old or New Testaments."

    ZINGZINGZING!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Yea, Brian.

    "Our faith is the ONE TRUE FAITH!"

    "Think about it."

    "NO. You can't make me. Who died and put you in charge?"

    "No, I mean, just think about it."

    "Nonononono! (Jumping up and down, falling on the ground, having a tantrum!) You guys are like tantrumming children, telling to think! You are NOT the boss of me! Think yourself, think of Jesus hanging on the Cross to save you from your sins!"

    "Okay, now let's think about that then."

    "... ... ... NO!"

    ReplyDelete
  95. As far as intellectual apologists go, I'm thinking that they consider themselve the RULE MAKERS. Kind of 'Hey, we have the book, we believe in the BOOK, therefore we make the rules.'

    Here's the rule. YOU cannot quote anything out of the Bible which may or may not look like a rule if you do not believe in the BOOK!

    The rule is that a rule making believer can use philosophy to defend his belief and this rule making rule follows him/her.

    The rules of philosophy include fallacies, which the rule making apologist/philospher can point out to defeat philosophical opposition.

    But here's the twist. The apologist/philosopher can also USE fallacies to make his/her point since he/she is a rule maker, they're his/her rules, not 'the' rules.

    This crosses over to politics. An apologist/philosopher/politician feels that he/she is making rules for the other guys to follow, but as a rule maker him/herself, he/she is above those rules.

    We can see this all the time when the Reps. are reacting to something a Dem. has done. As rule makers, it doesn't count if they do it, but GAWD-FORBID a Dem. does it. Who the fuck do these Dems. think they are anyways, rule makers?

    That's it. It's 'Don't do what I do, do what I tell you!"

    About half the population can be convinced that they ought to do what they're told, that there must be some kind of saving logic behind it, that the rule makers are telling you to do stuff for the benefit of all.

    Meanwhile the other half of the population look at the first half's complete and utter stupidity, in awe.

    "God helps those who helps themselves!" Is this the god of the con-men? Help yourself to my money and, and imagine GOD helped you? How hard can it be to convince yourself that it's those who do not just simply follow arbitrary rule maker rules, who are the stupid ones?

    Especially if you're willing to emulate them and aim to be a rule maker yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  96. I the same vein, why is it that people who are screeching, "Don't tread on me!", are looking down screaming it at people who they are treading on?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Because proclaiming 'don't tread on me' is the best way to tread on people and still look like the victim and not the perpetrators.


    It's a definite pattern. Whatever you're guilty of, you proclaim in the loudest voice possible, that your opponents, the very ones who are noticing what you are doing, are the actual perpetrators of it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Rachael calls it the 'I'm rubber, you're glue' strategy. Goes well with my 'Christian Peewee Herman defense' which is of course, 'I know you are, but what am I?'

    ReplyDelete
  99. Did everyone hear that Mitt is willing to take credit for GM not going bankrupt!

    Tomorrow, I hear he's taking credit for chocolate milk, radial tires, summer, quarks, pull tabs, angry birds and single-handedly sustaining the World economy.

    Three cheers for Mitt Romney, the saviour of the human race! He'll reveal how he did it, day after tomorrow!

    ReplyDelete
  100. Greene County, Virginia GOP Group's Newsletter Calls For 'Armed Revolution' If Obama Is Reelected

    ReplyDelete
  101. If we imagine all United States citizens as a huge family, some of dad types are more than willing to put 'gramma' on the ice floe when she has outlived her usefulness.

    This may seem a bit harsh, but imagine that it's your household and, there being no pensions from 'big government' available, the onus is on you to feed grandma and grandpa. Now imagine they die in their sleep tonight. Well, tomorrow, your expenses drop dramatically, don't they?

    We might imagine that this idea is completely immoral, just social darwinism at it's worst, but, what if the people proposing the kind of legislation that would essentially cut off g'mas and g'pas food supply and rent, were themselves the self appointed keepers of morality itself!

    "You cannot say that I'm immoral, 'cos I'M a Christian!"

    If we stop this nonsensical covering of old people's bills and simply start praying for them instead, the effect on the economy ought to be immediate and our consciousnesses are clear!

    (slaps dust off hands) 'DONE, and done!'

    ReplyDelete
  102. Consciousnesses.. no, I meant consciences. It's the old folks consciousnesses that get the old heave ho! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  103. Isn't it ironic how the religious people are the darwinists now?

    ReplyDelete
  104. We can only imagine what 'a President Mitt Romney' might be willing to take credit for.

    "Good morning my fellow Americans, as President, I'd like to take the time to honour my predecessors, the one who did that Louisiana Purchase deal, the one that bought Alaska, that big dam that supplies California with water and hydro-electricity, the one that won WWI and that other one who won WWII! If that had been me in their place, that's what I would have done! Hey, I deserve a lot of credit for those things, I really do!"

    ReplyDelete
  105. I've never seen a candidate more shallow and empty and without center. He has no substance. I've seen ten-year-olds that would make better presidents.

    ReplyDelete
  106. So finally, Obama's evolution on gay marriage is complete. He 'came out' today in favor of it.

    This should be interesting, what the right does with that.

    ReplyDelete
  107. You have to keep your objections specific. "Romney is a horse's ass.", is begging for a tu quoque from anyone.

    'Romney taking credit for everything good now', made a Rep. woman I know on fb laugh. This is only funny BECAUSE it is true. If she even votes, she might consider voting for anyone but an idiot who thinks he is talking to his children, making himself a hero. Even if Romney had suggested that Obama do exactly what he did and predicted the exact outcome, what happened, Romney doesn't deserve credit, it wasn't his call.

    "Obama gets up in the morning? Big deal, everyone gets up in the morning! If I(Romney) were President, I'd really get up in the morning. I need some kudos for doing the Presidential thing, even though I'm not yet President!"

    They intend to keep throwing shit at Obama hoping that will stick. Seems that Romney is trying to start a trend of throwing petals at his feet, hoping they'll run with that and that that will 'stick'.

    Politicians. What ya gonna do with them?

    ReplyDelete
  108. And who didn't see THIS coming?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/fox-nation-obama-flip-flop-war-marriage_n_1503889.html

    Fox News' take on the president coming out in favor of gay marriage, is that he's at war with marriage!

    These people need to have the smug slapped right off their faces!

    ReplyDelete
  109. "I laugh when I hear William Lane Craig say the majority of scholars believe the resurrection is the best explanation. The "majority" of scholars in this case teach at christian colleges and seminaries where they are not allowed to diverge from doctrine."
    'epicurus'(not 'the' epicurus, obviously)

    The above and the Heritage Foundation propaganda that the rich are carrying the load when it comes to income tax, have something in common.

    The propaganda states that the very wealthiest income earners are footing the income tax bill, paying some 30% or 40% of the income tax bill while 50% of the population is only contributing 3%.

    While this is true, it is not the whole truth. Income tax and payroll tax are not taken under the heading 'income tax' as most of us might imagine. In fact total payroll taxes amount to roughly the same amount as total income tax.

    While the wealthy are whining about paying 'more than their fair share' of income taxes, they are technically correct, but of course very disingenuous. Rich income tax earners, by the definition of 'income tax' will of course pay most of the income tax. They just don't mention that people who earn a paycheck or a salary aren't paying income tax by it's definition, no, they're paying payroll tax.

    Essentially the whine is, "I don't want to be paying more income tax than people who don't earn any 'income'(non-payroll income)."

    This is similar to William Lane Craig letting his readers believe that the 'scholars' agree with him when the scholars in question are constrained to agree with him or lose their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  110. http://xkcd.com/1052/

    sorry. Here you go.

    William Lane Craig say the majority of scholars believe the resurrection is the best explanation.

    Has he (or anyone (who's sane)) ever said that? I've heard him claim that the "majority" of scholars believe X things are historical facts and WLC believes those X things are best explained by the resurrection, but not that the resurrection is considered by a "majority" of scholars to be a historical fact.

    I'd would be surprised if he actually said that, but I can't imagine a rational human being would actually make that claim.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I'm sure that when confronted by a world of 'scholars' that, what with christian myopia, the only ones visible will be those which agree with the believers considering them.
    It seems that we continue to be amazed at how very blind total blindness is. I've ceased to be surprised anymore. Which is frankly depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Actually, 'Epicurus' agrees with the Christian response. I think it's a subtle point since I disagree that there is any historical evidence for Jesus.

    I suppose tax lawyers could just say, 'Well, that's just how taxes are split up here. If you don't know that, you're likely some kind of redneck, blaah person or Latino anyways and we weren't talking to you.'

    Well, technically they weren't talking to rednecks, the nonexistent blaah people or yer average Chicano, but if any of them are faced with this 'news' about income tax, they ARE going to assume that their salary or pay check is income.

    ReplyDelete
  113. What I mean is that there are supposedly four historical 'facts' in the Gospels, which WLC claims is enough to make the Resurrection 'historical', so there is just another step involved there and it's quite possible, probable in WLC's case that he could be talking general historians then switch to Christian historians to suit himself.

    Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Thought patterns are our servants. Due to not understanding this many people are servants to their thought patterns. Many think their thought patterns are reality, and will go to great lengths to defend their thoughts thinking they are protecting reality.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Thoughtful liberals don't like the ad slamming Romney for his Bain Capital record. They call Obama hypocritical for taking money from Wall St. just the same as Romney. (WTF? Would they rather have an unhypocritical, unsuccessful Dem. Presidential nominee?)

    Romney is running on his business experience AS IF he can use it to 'create jobs'. The thoughtful liberal's argument is that no President can create jobs therefore Obama's anti-Romney ad is disingenuous. (WTF? So it's okay for Romney to disingenuously claim that he can create jobs?)

    These thoughtful liberals, lefty pundits, are busy shooting their own POV in the foot while Romney himself would not correct someone calling for Obama's trial as a traitor to the USA, a terrorist and a secret Muslim non-American communist.

    Muttering, "They're just crazy is all.", when the right puts out this kind of ad, then howling about how Obama is hypocritical and disingenuous when the left does it makes me wonder how much money they get from right-wing sources to be so 'thoughtful', when their intention is to stop the right from turning the USA into a Dickensian social-darwinistic, "I'm alright Jack!" banana republic.

    You'd almost imagine that they're AIMING at movie dystopias like 1984, New Jack City, Soylent Green, The Fifth Element etc. etc.

    Yep, yep, if the country has to turn into most people standing around wearing rags on garbage strewn streets so that we can squeeze that last buck out of the deal, so be it!

    Fucking insane.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "Thought patterns are our servants."

    You mean like yourself talking in metaphors simply because there is no actual substance there?

    "Thought patterns are our servants."

    Is this a quote or did you pull this straight out of your own ass?

    "Thought patterns are our servants."

    What I'm saying is, there seems to be some sense in that, but the more I think about it, the less sense it's making to me.

    Does this have something to do with free will or the lack of it, because by the very nature of a 'thought pattern', we wouldn't be controlling it unless we broke the 'pattern', right? In which case the 'pattern' wouldn't be there anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I'm interested in your answer to this Jerry, because it seems to me that when we're talking about 'thought patterns', we're talking about whether something is coherent or not, like Eric always says about stuff being coherent or not.

    We simply cannot have a bunch of random meaningless bullshit running through our minds and be pretending that we're somehow 'mastering' our thought patterns.

    Even "Thought patterns are our servants." is some kind of koan, a thought pattern, isn't it? It is at once a thought pattern AND it is incoherent, so incoherent in fact as to make me want to rant on and on about it's incoherence.

    Here's a thought pattern for you to consider. "We should always treat our friends and neighbours with the utmost courtesy, respect and kindness, for in that way we maintain the element of surprise!"

    See how the thought pattern gets 'broken' at the end? Even saying, "Thought patterns are our servants.", seems to be conveying a secondary message to break the thought patterns we don't like, which raises the question, "How'd they become thought patterns in the first place if they're subservient?"

    What if I decided that, "There are no gods, not even one!", is simply a thought pattern which I could switch off, turn on it's head? Wouldn't I be as much as admitting that there is no truth at all, that all is simply opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Break out of your thought patterns! Sacha Baron Cohen for President, 2013! Hey yea, I know, rule is 'born in the USA, but no anchor-baby is ever, ever going to be the Prez, so, well 'at least' he's white, right?

    Watched 'Bruno' on Friday night. He has to get really, really off the wall before I think it's funny, so, the scenes where he's asking the martial arts guy for defense against gay attacks, that was good.

    (not really quotes) "What if a gay attacks me with a dildo?", "What if a gay attacks me with a black dildo?", "How about both a regular and a black dildo?", "What about a strap on?"

    The poor martial arts guy did his best to make 'Bruno' understand that no combination of dildos and strap on was beyond his power to resist!

    ReplyDelete
  119. I imagine that Jerry meant that thoughts, in patterns, otherwise called beliefs or belief systems, are often mistaken for reality, and obeyed unthinkingly out of habit as if the person thinking them had no choice.

    Of course, it would have been better if he'd said that...

    Am I close here, Jerry?

    ReplyDelete
  120. I noticed that "The Dictator" (S.B. Cohen also) has endorsed Romney... says he'll make a great dictator!

    I really like that guy.

    ReplyDelete
  121. That's part of what I mean Brian, it's so bloody vague. Is me thinking that I am Ian Taylor over and over a 'thought pattern'? Is it more than that? How are these thoughts our servants? They do our bidding? No. We're 'the boss of them', somehow? What about catechisms, lists of questions with specific answers? Is memorizing some list the same thing as believing that list, or having a thought pattern about that list? Vague.

    ReplyDelete
  122. On a lighter note:

    http://www.brewdog.com/blog-article/341

    This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen on the entire Internet. And I'm not exaggerating in the least.

    (No animals were harmed)(but they're real animals!)

    ReplyDelete
  123. How are these thoughts our servants? They do our bidding? No. We're 'the boss of them', somehow?
    ------------
    It seems to be an 'elegant-ized' way of saying that we should not let our beliefs (this is all I can get out of 'thoughts' as used here, sorry; any other interpretation makes it meaningless) rule us, but should push the boundaries of our beliefs and rule them instead... asking critical questions of one's self, and so forth. Transcending the limitations of our thought patterns by breaking them...

    Funny thing, this is doctrinal to chaos magicians...

    ReplyDelete
  124. So if I'm close here, I'd say it's good advice.

    But I could be misinterpreting it due to my own belief biases about belief itself, of course.

    So I'll wait for Jerry to score me on it.

    ReplyDelete
  125. On a slight tangent, a question for both you and Jerry:

    Do you think that our identities are divisible in such a way that there is a core to them, an 'I AM' level that is the most basic unit, as in 'I AM' but nothing more, not 'I AM Brian' or even 'I AM human' but just the 'I AM' with no further qualifiers, and then everything else is secondary to that core identity, or is the 'I AM' part an illusion and the sense of 'I AM' comes from the whole gestalt of our consciousness, all parts as the whole?

    ReplyDelete
  126. I ask because this point is one of the linchpins of mystical thought. The idea of the 'I AM' and nothing more. Yahweh, the word, is a form of the verb 'to be' and so is 'Eheieh,' the name god spoke from the burning bush. Both are forms of 'I AM.'
    It is often purported that the sense of 'I AM' that we all feel, is in reality shared among all beings, that literally there is only one 'sense of basic identity' in the whole universe, but everything is made up of it, so we are all feeling the same sense of 'I AM' but are all believing it is unique to us as individuals.
    This is a clue to the deepest meanings of the words 'all is one' and 'god is one' and the concept of unity.

    ReplyDelete
  127. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/

    Really? REALLY?

    Awful. We suck as a species.

    ReplyDelete
  128. So apparently someone did a study, and McCain would have lost to Obama by even larger margins if he hadn't chosen Sarah Palin as his veep.

    So then, we're really that dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  129. If Scott-Trade made 'streaming quotes' sound any sexier they'll have to show them streaming down Lady Gaga's face....

    ...and if I see too many more wholesome and american sounding petroleum industry commercials trying to portray fracking as if it were tickling the earth's clit or something, I'll puke in my mouth.

    I hate that skinny blonde bitch. She sounds so reasonable and nice as she advocates the utter raping of america like that.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "I noticed that "The Dictator" (S.B. Cohen also) has endorsed Romney... says he'll make a great dictator!"

    Just noticed this. Hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  131. It is, isn't it?

    Hey, we're at the new post. All three of us.

    ReplyDelete
  132. When some one searches for his required thing, so
    he/she desires to be available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained over here.


    my web blog; Pilate classes

    ReplyDelete