One full hour of smoke blowing by Steve Paulson on consciousness:
My latest video response:
related info and articles:
Mister Icky Poo himself William Lane Craig blowing a huge amount of very thick smoke - and brought to you by who? Templeton:
Friday, November 9, 2012
Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Steve Paulson is by his own account "...a lapsed Christian who's not a strict materialist..."
One full hour of smoke blowing by Steve Paulson on consciousness:
My latest video response:
One full hour of smoke blowing by Steve Paulson on consciousness:
My latest video response:
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig
Stuart Kauffman erects anti-reductionistic straw man...
http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/11/stuart-kauffman-erects-anti.html
Templeton basically gloms onto and supports any "scientist," "philosopher," or "journalist" who wants to blow smoke, obfuscate, and whitewash.
Related article:
Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation
http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/EP0992115.pdf
William Lane Craig (a penultimate a-hole who's debated Hitchens & Harris in the past) gives a Templeton sponsored lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc
People blowing smoke - brought you to by the Templeton Foundation...
Related articles:
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/11/stuart-kauffman-erects-anti.html
Templeton basically gloms onto and supports any "scientist," "philosopher," or "journalist" who wants to blow smoke, obfuscate, and whitewash.
Related article:
Questioning the Integrity of the John Templeton Foundation
http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/EP0992115.pdf
William Lane Craig (a penultimate a-hole who's debated Hitchens & Harris in the past) gives a Templeton sponsored lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc
Mister Icky Poo himself William Lane Craig blowing a huge amount of very thick smoke - and brought to you by who? Templeton:
People blowing smoke - brought you to by the Templeton Foundation...
Related articles:
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
God & Religion apologists (and Templeton chumps) Steve Paulson (SP) and Stuart Kauffman (SK) tell us, in their article at http://www.salon.com/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/, the following:
And here's an apt response in the comment section for the article:
by http://letters.mobile.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/permalink/bba3b48ea0aec88ca7ee8f95b28f79a2.html
You guys are basically pretentious a-holes, who pretend that the only way to have awe about the Universe is through the lens of religion. It's not!
Reductionism can bring awe, and it doesn't exclude science working to explain things like morality, love, awe, and existence.
What's the history of science & religion? Religion was a first attempt, and a bad & faulty one. It got key answers wrong! And it worked very hard to kill detractors - and in Islamic countries it still does (because Islam never went through a sustained Renaissance & Enlightenment, or they're having theirs now with our help).
Where Kauffman says "...You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else..."
My response: How the fuck do you know? Have you ever spent one second in any sort of a real religion? I bet not. In real religions they believe in real gods, not in just a nebulous "sense of awe." People's lives in real religion are being curtailed & suppressed. So, the light of science can and does help people see the true light!
Kauffman: "...There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true..."
Response: We'll never explain it unless we try. Science is the best method humans have developed thus far to separate fact from fiction, period. Sounds to me like you don't want us to even try to explain consciousness.
Paulson: "...And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?"
My response: Not in your myopic Templeton-funded view of the world Steve! In your so-called "science" there's no room for honesty.
Kauffman: "...There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics..."
Response: No shit Stuart. That's why we also have neuroscience, and an emerging science of morality that Sam Harris has spoken of.
Kauffman: "...Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values..."
My response: A whole boatload of smoke just came out of your bum Stew. You're blowing smoke and so is Mr. Paulson. May I suggest that you both take your heads out of your proverbial asses and check out where awe really comes from: From continuing to use science as a means of exploring! You both are essentially asking that we stop exploring! That we just sit around thinking about how things are not explainable! And that way, we can placate people still held back by the Abrahamic concept of god? I don't think so! Homey don't play that! You're both being fucking lazy!
Excuse my French and expletives my friends, but these types of bozos don't know where true awe can come from: From finding out how we really came to be here. Keep searching. Keep pushing. And when people are being oppressed by cults, just simply replacing one definition of the word god with another isn't enough! You've got to be honest about definitions, and honest about what the history of science & religion shows. Which one held humanity back for thousands of years, and which one is leading us to the stars?
SP: We should see the ceaseless creativity of nature as sacred, argues biologist Stuart Kauffman, despite what Richard Dawkins might say.
...
SP: You’ve suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and incorporates a religious sensibility. Why?
...
SP: You don’t accept traditional beliefs about God. But are you carving out a different space from atheists, especially the scientists who are atheists?
SK: I absolutely am. Take Richard Dawkins‘ book “The God Delusion.” It’s a very good book. And I know Richard, and he lays out the atheist case well. It appeals to the billion or so of us who do not believe in a supernatural God, and who’ve hidden in the corners, particularly in the United States, where religion is so widely adhered to. But it will do no good whatsoever in bridging the gap between those who do believe in some form of God and the secular humanists like Dawkins and myself who do not. We need something else.
SP: Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they’re wrong.
SK: Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there’s a supernatural god. I think that there’s something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it. You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else. Whereas I hope what I’m saying may help create a new kind of sacred space.
SP: Can you explain what emergence is?
SK There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics — life, agency, meaning, value and this thing called consciousness. The fact is that we can act on our own behalf and make choices. So agency is real. With agency comes value. Dinner is either good or bad. There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true. So the first new strand in the scientific worldview is emergence.
SP: And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?
SK: Right. In physics, and in the meaningless universe of Steven Weinberg, there are only happenings. Balls roll down hills but they don’t do anything. “Doing” does not exist in physics. Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values.... end of excerpts.
And here's an apt response in the comment section for the article:
by http://letters.mobile.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/permalink/bba3b48ea0aec88ca7ee8f95b28f79a2.html
Salon must have made some deal with Steve Paulson - he has had a whole series of articles here - all with the "God" apologist message. Salon needs to get some other perspectives from Shermer, Harris, Dawkins, etc. (I know they will say that they have done that, but, not nearly as often as Paulson's stuff).And here's my own responses to Paulson & Kauffman:
This whole "atheists don't experience awe" thing is such bullshit. It is presumptive audacious pomposity. How the hell do these "god believers" know how atheists or agnostics or "non-believers" feel about "awe". I can tell you that as a former "believer" that I never felt REAL awe until I let go of the supernatural "god" stuff and started to study the real and natural world. It pissed me off that I had spent so much time with the phony baloney "awe" of religion.
And - those who say that Dawkins and other "non-believers" are "foaming at the mouth" fundamentalists is so much BS. I've never heard Dawkins speak in that manner. It just shows me that his detractors just don't like what he is saying. ...end of quote.
You guys are basically pretentious a-holes, who pretend that the only way to have awe about the Universe is through the lens of religion. It's not!
Reductionism can bring awe, and it doesn't exclude science working to explain things like morality, love, awe, and existence.
What's the history of science & religion? Religion was a first attempt, and a bad & faulty one. It got key answers wrong! And it worked very hard to kill detractors - and in Islamic countries it still does (because Islam never went through a sustained Renaissance & Enlightenment, or they're having theirs now with our help).
Where Kauffman says "...You see, Richard’s view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else..."
My response: How the fuck do you know? Have you ever spent one second in any sort of a real religion? I bet not. In real religions they believe in real gods, not in just a nebulous "sense of awe." People's lives in real religion are being curtailed & suppressed. So, the light of science can and does help people see the true light!
Kauffman: "...There’s consciousness in the universe. We may not be able to explain it, but it’s true..."
Response: We'll never explain it unless we try. Science is the best method humans have developed thus far to separate fact from fiction, period. Sounds to me like you don't want us to even try to explain consciousness.
Paulson: "...And that new scientific view has no room for reductionism?"
My response: Not in your myopic Templeton-funded view of the world Steve! In your so-called "science" there's no room for honesty.
Kauffman: "...There are things that we just can’t deduce from particle physics..."
Response: No shit Stuart. That's why we also have neuroscience, and an emerging science of morality that Sam Harris has spoken of.
Kauffman: "...Physics cannot talk about values because you have to have agency to have values..."
My response: A whole boatload of smoke just came out of your bum Stew. You're blowing smoke and so is Mr. Paulson. May I suggest that you both take your heads out of your proverbial asses and check out where awe really comes from: From continuing to use science as a means of exploring! You both are essentially asking that we stop exploring! That we just sit around thinking about how things are not explainable! And that way, we can placate people still held back by the Abrahamic concept of god? I don't think so! Homey don't play that! You're both being fucking lazy!
Excuse my French and expletives my friends, but these types of bozos don't know where true awe can come from: From finding out how we really came to be here. Keep searching. Keep pushing. And when people are being oppressed by cults, just simply replacing one definition of the word god with another isn't enough! You've got to be honest about definitions, and honest about what the history of science & religion shows. Which one held humanity back for thousands of years, and which one is leading us to the stars?
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
Copy of email received from KCPW confirming that they recieve To the Best of Our Knowledge for free:
Subject: Re: drop To the best of our knowledge, move the Takeaway back to live, and drop Car Talk
From: Eric Ray <eray@kcpw.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:20:36 -0600
Jonathan,
Thanks for your note. We always appreciate hearing from our listeners. Let me address the programs you have mentioned.
To The Best of Our Knowledge: You obviously have strong things to say about the show's content, and it may not be your thing, however it's obvious by our ratings that the show does have a fair share of listeners. And to your point that KCPW would save money by dropping the show. Well, the show comes to KCPW free of charge, so no, we would not save money by dropping the program, but would likely have to pay if we were to look for a replacement.
The Takeaway: This is a tough one. We were shocked when the show was re-purposed as an afternoon news magazine and removed from the morning hours. That said, the show is live during our 7 am hour - which would mean breaking up the flow of Morning Edition with a random hour of The Takeaway - and any program director would tell you that's not good programming. Unfortunately with shows produced on the east coast, west coast stations suffer. We feel having a news magazine hour during the lunch hour is best for KCPW, despite our listeners not having the opportunity to participate. We have the same issue with On Point.
Car Talk: You are correct here, which is why KCPW /has/ cancelled the program. We announced the cancellation in August and only ran the program through the end of the new episodes. We now air The Moth Radio Hour on Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Eric Ray
Station Manager/Program Director
KCPW 88.3 and 105.3 FM
Salt Lake City, Utah
eray@kcpw.org
On 10/26/2012 9:55 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As a contributor to KCPW and a listener (under FCC regulations) I
> would like to make the following programming suggestion:
>
> Drop the show, To the best of our knowledge.
>
> The show is largely a front for pseudoscience and obfuscationary
> religious apologetics and white washing, and the group the Templeton
> Foundation, whose mission is to fund such things.
>
> Please replace the show with something more useful and helpful. KUER
> refuses to drop the show. You can save money & all our our time by
> dropping it from your schedule.
>
> Secondly I would like to suggest that the show The Takeway can only
> really be useful if it's live. A big part of the show is near real
> time interaction with listeners. Tape delaying the show means we don't
> really get to participate.
>
> Lastly & sadly, please drop Car Talk. This long running show is, from
> what I understand, on near-permanent re-run status, with possibly
> occasional more recent inserts popped in. The operators of the program
> really aren't making new material - just digging up old stuff.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/entertainment/la-et-st-car-talks-click-and-clack-ends-20120608
>
...end of quote
Subject: Re: drop To the best of our knowledge, move the Takeaway back to live, and drop Car Talk
From: Eric Ray <eray@kcpw.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:20:36 -0600
Jonathan,
Thanks for your note. We always appreciate hearing from our listeners. Let me address the programs you have mentioned.
To The Best of Our Knowledge: You obviously have strong things to say about the show's content, and it may not be your thing, however it's obvious by our ratings that the show does have a fair share of listeners. And to your point that KCPW would save money by dropping the show. Well, the show comes to KCPW free of charge, so no, we would not save money by dropping the program, but would likely have to pay if we were to look for a replacement.
The Takeaway: This is a tough one. We were shocked when the show was re-purposed as an afternoon news magazine and removed from the morning hours. That said, the show is live during our 7 am hour - which would mean breaking up the flow of Morning Edition with a random hour of The Takeaway - and any program director would tell you that's not good programming. Unfortunately with shows produced on the east coast, west coast stations suffer. We feel having a news magazine hour during the lunch hour is best for KCPW, despite our listeners not having the opportunity to participate. We have the same issue with On Point.
Car Talk: You are correct here, which is why KCPW /has/ cancelled the program. We announced the cancellation in August and only ran the program through the end of the new episodes. We now air The Moth Radio Hour on Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Eric Ray
Station Manager/Program Director
KCPW 88.3 and 105.3 FM
Salt Lake City, Utah
eray@kcpw.org
On 10/26/2012 9:55 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As a contributor to KCPW and a listener (under FCC regulations) I
> would like to make the following programming suggestion:
>
> Drop the show, To the best of our knowledge.
>
> The show is largely a front for pseudoscience and obfuscationary
> religious apologetics and white washing, and the group the Templeton
> Foundation, whose mission is to fund such things.
>
> Please replace the show with something more useful and helpful. KUER
> refuses to drop the show. You can save money & all our our time by
> dropping it from your schedule.
>
> Secondly I would like to suggest that the show The Takeway can only
> really be useful if it's live. A big part of the show is near real
> time interaction with listeners. Tape delaying the show means we don't
> really get to participate.
>
> Lastly & sadly, please drop Car Talk. This long running show is, from
> what I understand, on near-permanent re-run status, with possibly
> occasional more recent inserts popped in. The operators of the program
> really aren't making new material - just digging up old stuff.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/entertainment/la-et-st-car-talks-click-and-clack-ends-20120608
>
...end of quote
Watering down science: Templeton, KCPW & KUER
Draft email to: esweeney@kcpw.org, eray@kcpw.org
cc: news@kuer.org, Mike.Crane@wpr.org
For the FCC comment files, regarding KCPW, KUER, and Wisconsin Public Radio:
Here's the most recent things we've learned about the Templeton sponsored show, To the Best of Our Knowledge:
1. On KCPW, they receive it for free. Presumably there's a similar situation over at KUER.
2. Popularity is more important than content at some public radio stations.
3. Stations receiving government funding refuse to cancel this religion-advocacy program.
Templeton is apparently enabling their flagship To the Best of Our Knowledge program to sneak under the radar, rather in a similar fashion to how "creation science" advocates try to sneak religion into science class. Same smoke & mirrors.
Remember when KCPW lost 1010 AM to a Catholic radio station? I would imagine that the current owners of 1010 AM in Utah would be more than willing to their programs also on 88.3 and 105.3 FM in Salt Lake - for free. And I bet KCPW could find an audience for this. Or how about: Rush. Howard Stern. Sports. Or some other radio equivalent of porn? As long as it's popular, that's the most important thing, right? But, here's a more accurate and rational response to this Templeton-connected snake oil being foisting upon us:
By Dr. Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago:
as from http://whyevolutionistrue.
Steve Paulson, a "journalist" on To the Best of Our Knowledge, has been honored in a high profile way by the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program in Science & Religion. http://www.templeton-
So, what's the deal with the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program?
as from http://old.richarddawkins.net/
So, presumably this letter I am sending is reaching people who claim to be "journalists," right? Can you follow the money?
Dawkins claims that journalists get paid to go to Templeton sponsored conferences?!? And, their camel's-nose-under-the-tent radio program To the Best of Our Knowledge gets carried for free on KCPW & presumably on other so-called public radio stations? What's going on here?
From Gil Gaudia:
On a recent To the Best of our Knowledge program KCPW and KUER listeners were subjected to hearing a woman bemoan the fact that her son no longer believed in God.
Who's god?
Which god?
It's not up to my public radio stations to ask that I believe in any gods or any religion. That's what the Catholic station on 1010 AM here is for. It's what the other Bible beater stations are for.
Enough is enough. The religions have their channel he Bible Beaters have their channels. Rush has his. The sports freaks have theirs. And, the little spaces taken up by public radio are supposed to be for the rest of us - those of us who are children of the Enlightenment. Your taking on this program is a betrayal of that and of our trust.
----end of draft message
Further details via past blog posts:
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig
Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Related videos:
More videos at: Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
cc: news@kuer.org, Mike.Crane@wpr.org
For the FCC comment files, regarding KCPW, KUER, and Wisconsin Public Radio:
Here's the most recent things we've learned about the Templeton sponsored show, To the Best of Our Knowledge:
1. On KCPW, they receive it for free. Presumably there's a similar situation over at KUER.
2. Popularity is more important than content at some public radio stations.
3. Stations receiving government funding refuse to cancel this religion-advocacy program.
Templeton is apparently enabling their flagship To the Best of Our Knowledge program to sneak under the radar, rather in a similar fashion to how "creation science" advocates try to sneak religion into science class. Same smoke & mirrors.
Remember when KCPW lost 1010 AM to a Catholic radio station? I would imagine that the current owners of 1010 AM in Utah would be more than willing to their programs also on 88.3 and 105.3 FM in Salt Lake - for free. And I bet KCPW could find an audience for this. Or how about: Rush. Howard Stern. Sports. Or some other radio equivalent of porn? As long as it's popular, that's the most important thing, right? But, here's a more accurate and rational response to this Templeton-connected snake oil being foisting upon us:
By Dr. Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago:
"...I know I bang on about Templeton and its prizes and huge grants, but I see the Templeton Foundation as the #1 force in America devoted to watering down science with religion, thereby confusing the two and eroding habits of rational thinking..."
as from http://whyevolutionistrue.
Steve Paulson, a "journalist" on To the Best of Our Knowledge, has been honored in a high profile way by the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program in Science & Religion. http://www.templeton-
So, what's the deal with the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Program?
"The Templeton Foundation organizes an annual meeting in Cambridge where science journalists are invited (and paid very handsomely, not to speak but to listen! When were you last paid to go and be a part of the audience at a conference?). A few years ago, when I was more naive than I am now (and not knowing that the audience were being paid to listen) I agreed to speak (unpaid) at one of these meetings (I described the experience in The God Delusion.) If I were invited again, I would decline – indeed I did decline when I was invited the following year. One of this year's paid journalists, Edwin Cartlidge, wrote a letter to Anthony Grayling and Daniel Dennett, soliciting their cooperation. These two distinguished philosophers shared their correspondence with a group of people, including me. Dan's and Anthony's reasons for not cooperating with Templeton seemed to me so good, and so well expressed, that I suggested that they should be more widely publicized. All three gentlemen gave their permission. In Mr Cartlidge's case it was especially gracious of him because he is obviously vulnerable to being tarred with the Templeton brush. I hope that commenters on this thread will reserve their fire for the Templeton organization rather than Edwin Cartlidge himself. I see him as in much the same position I was in when I agreed to go, a victim of exactly the kind of subversion of science that Templeton is making its specialty.
Richard Dawkins"
as from http://old.richarddawkins.net/
So, presumably this letter I am sending is reaching people who claim to be "journalists," right? Can you follow the money?
Dawkins claims that journalists get paid to go to Templeton sponsored conferences?!? And, their camel's-nose-under-the-tent radio program To the Best of Our Knowledge gets carried for free on KCPW & presumably on other so-called public radio stations? What's going on here?
From Gil Gaudia:
"The Camel Is Heading for Your Tentas from http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/
...
In October 2007, the Bible Literacy Project (BLP) reported that their glitzy textbook The Bible and Its Influence had been adopted by the Alabama State Board of Education, which unanimously approved it for statewide use as a comprehensive program. "This is major news in the field of education," said Bible Literacy Project Chairman Chuck Stetson. "While academic study of the Bible is legal in all 50 states, this decision means that any school in the state of Alabama can purchase our textbook with state-provided funds until 2013."
BLP is a study that was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, an organization that attempts to appear ideologically neutral, but nevertheless appears to be behind many efforts to "Christianize" American politics and education, indeed the country. A typical example of the type of funding The Templeton Foundation provides is one announced recently by the Baylor University News, "the Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR) has received a $378,862 grant from the John Templeton Foundation to fund ISR's Initiative on the Economics of Religion ... (F)our scholars [will use the funds] to investigate the connection between religion and economic growth and the effects of government intervention in religious markets on the practice of religion."
According to Media Transparency, an organization that tracks funding for conservative causes, a few of the recent top recipients of Templeton dough (and how much dough), are self-evidently connected to religion. They include "Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences" ($23,122,319); "Philadelphia Center for Religion and Science" ($4,811,892); "Science and Spirit Resources, Inc." ($4,632,933); "Metanexus Institute on Religion and Science" ($4,762,514); and the "Association of Unity Churches" ($3,509,971)..."
On a recent To the Best of our Knowledge program KCPW and KUER listeners were subjected to hearing a woman bemoan the fact that her son no longer believed in God.
Who's god?
Which god?
It's not up to my public radio stations to ask that I believe in any gods or any religion. That's what the Catholic station on 1010 AM here is for. It's what the other Bible beater stations are for.
Enough is enough. The religions have their channel he Bible Beaters have their channels. Rush has his. The sports freaks have theirs. And, the little spaces taken up by public radio are supposed to be for the rest of us - those of us who are children of the Enlightenment. Your taking on this program is a betrayal of that and of our trust.
----end of draft message
Further details via past blog posts:
Steve Paulson & Stuart Kauffman - god & religion apologists get angry at Dawkins - my response
Confirmation that KCPW receives a Templeton supported program for free: To the Best of Our Knowledge
more articles found on Kauffman, Templeton, and (ick!) William Lane Craig
Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Krista Tippett, Templeton, and the denial of basic human rights
The Templeton Bribe to journalists & scientists who whitewash the problems of religion, and who conflate science and religion
University of Utah & KUER promotes rich conservative sugar daddy's god & his religion
The distortion of science via Templeton's chumps
Related videos:
More videos at: Mr. Muffbrain blows more smoke about consciousness and (hopefully to him & to Templeton) non-overlapping magisteria
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Yes-Bama! - you Ayn Randian Social Darwinistic Psychopaths!
He did it! We did it! Obama won, over the Ayn Rand & Ron Paul idiots, the social Darwinists, and the sociopaths and psychopaths.
Psychics are charlatans who prey on the gullible and uneducated
Psychics are, generally speaking, charlatans who use word games and common sense to prey upon the gullible and uneducated. Good work if you can get it, but let's not pretend that it should ever be taken seriously.
Good videos:
By Richard Dawkins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ejmKC_DiM
Derren Brown - longer interview - part 1 of 6:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVxRE8uM-A
Derren Brown on faith healers - similar charlatans to psychics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI
"...where hope is peddled at the price."
James Randi exposes James Hydrick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc
BBC on the issue - exposes three mediums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qGfNViVN8
Penn & Teller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQnqRaVT9tY
Psychics are leeches, sometimes self-deceived, often damaging, and always either wrong or right by fucking happenstance.
Similarly, we can easily replace the title "psychic" with "cultish religious founder." Same people. Same difference. Same result.
Good videos:
By Richard Dawkins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ejmKC_DiM
Derren Brown - longer interview - part 1 of 6:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVxRE8uM-A
Derren Brown on faith healers - similar charlatans to psychics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjgeayfYPI
"...where hope is peddled at the price."
James Randi exposes James Hydrick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc
BBC on the issue - exposes three mediums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qGfNViVN8
Penn & Teller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQnqRaVT9tY
Psychics are leeches, sometimes self-deceived, often damaging, and always either wrong or right by fucking happenstance.
Similarly, we can easily replace the title "psychic" with "cultish religious founder." Same people. Same difference. Same result.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Hypocrisy and a pointed lack of morality with Mormon religious leaders
Fawn Brodie helped unearth info about Smith's horn dog and womanizing ways. http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/
He liked them young and also simultaneously married to other men. His second brain apparently gave him revelations all the time about women his "god" intended him to meet and marry. Brigham Young had a similar proclivity. Here's Mark Twain's comments on Young's wives:
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit15.html
"...Brigham Young’s harem contains twenty or thirty wives. They said that some of them had grown old and gone out of active service, but were comfortably housed and cared for in the henery..." - from Roughing It chaper XV
Also "...Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.
I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically 'homely' creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, 'No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.'"
...as from Roughing It chapter XIV
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit14.html
Maybe Young's wives were homely, although perhaps when they were younger they looked better. But in any case the morality of Smith & Young is a stark contrast to the crazed puritanism of people like Spencer Kimball & Boyd Packer, and Kimball's hate filled book Miracle of Forgiveness - used as a virtual bible for all young Mormons to help them learn to fear normal human sexuality.
Review: http://www.amazon.com/review/RTF9W8850RNTE
"This book is a negativistic, manipulative, hate-filled waste of paper and ink, written by a guy who had no professional training in Religion, Philosophy, Divinity, Psychology or any other field that might qualify him to provide counseling for individuals who are going through some sort of crisis. In short, Mr. Kimball is only capable of repeating lame nineteenth-century folk superstitions as solutions to real problems in life. This man's advice, as codified in this book, has ruined countless peoples' lives - some to the point where they completely lost hope and killed themselves. What kind of counseling is that? If you have a personal moral or spiritual dilemma, go to a trained professional: avoid this garbage and save your sanity and your life."
Damn fucking right.
Related bio on David Koresh:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0466205/bio
"...Koresh got married to a 14 year old girl but decided that he could have a 'harem of many wives' as he wanted..."
Carl Sagan is much more refreshing. Too bad many religions don't let you be intellectually and emotionally honest while simultaneously being a member.
He liked them young and also simultaneously married to other men. His second brain apparently gave him revelations all the time about women his "god" intended him to meet and marry. Brigham Young had a similar proclivity. Here's Mark Twain's comments on Young's wives:
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit15.html
"...Brigham Young’s harem contains twenty or thirty wives. They said that some of them had grown old and gone out of active service, but were comfortably housed and cared for in the henery..." - from Roughing It chaper XV
Also "...Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.
I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically 'homely' creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, 'No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.'"
...as from Roughing It chapter XIV
http://www.telelib.com/authors/T/TwainMark/prose/roughingit/roughingit14.html
Maybe Young's wives were homely, although perhaps when they were younger they looked better. But in any case the morality of Smith & Young is a stark contrast to the crazed puritanism of people like Spencer Kimball & Boyd Packer, and Kimball's hate filled book Miracle of Forgiveness - used as a virtual bible for all young Mormons to help them learn to fear normal human sexuality.
Review: http://www.amazon.com/review/RTF9W8850RNTE
"This book is a negativistic, manipulative, hate-filled waste of paper and ink, written by a guy who had no professional training in Religion, Philosophy, Divinity, Psychology or any other field that might qualify him to provide counseling for individuals who are going through some sort of crisis. In short, Mr. Kimball is only capable of repeating lame nineteenth-century folk superstitions as solutions to real problems in life. This man's advice, as codified in this book, has ruined countless peoples' lives - some to the point where they completely lost hope and killed themselves. What kind of counseling is that? If you have a personal moral or spiritual dilemma, go to a trained professional: avoid this garbage and save your sanity and your life."
Damn fucking right.
Related bio on David Koresh:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0466205/bio
"...Koresh got married to a 14 year old girl but decided that he could have a 'harem of many wives' as he wanted..."
Carl Sagan is much more refreshing. Too bad many religions don't let you be intellectually and emotionally honest while simultaneously being a member.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Exmormon conference, PTSD, and angry Muslims protesting against atheists in Australia
Yesterday at the Exmormon Foundation
conference we heard a man speak about how his Mormon mission gave him
PTSD.
Photos: http://public.fotki.com/petcrows-October-2012/10-20-12/
video: http://www.56.com/u13/v_NzcwNzk3MzA.html
More info with conference audio coming soon:
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2012.html
--------------------
Angry Muslims protesting against atheists in Australia:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCfwcd_Ajg4
Notice how the Muslims want key atheists to burn in hell, or die.
What is the appropriate response to such threats? MORE SPEECH.
Here's a good example of such courageous and apparently appropriate speech - the recent Charlie Hebdo cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4A5Y67Q5TM
It's worth noting that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with round the clock security. Having to live your life with security guards around all the time does I'm sure tend to sharpen your perspective.
Her recent Newsweek article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html
Photos: http://public.fotki.com/petcrows-October-2012/10-20-12/
video: http://www.56.com/u13/v_NzcwNzk3MzA.html
More info with conference audio coming soon:
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2012.html
--------------------
Angry Muslims protesting against atheists in Australia:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCfwcd_Ajg4
Notice how the Muslims want key atheists to burn in hell, or die.
What is the appropriate response to such threats? MORE SPEECH.
Here's a good example of such courageous and apparently appropriate speech - the recent Charlie Hebdo cartoons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4A5Y67Q5TM
It's worth noting that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with round the clock security. Having to live your life with security guards around all the time does I'm sure tend to sharpen your perspective.
Her recent Newsweek article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Where to park for free in Salt Lake, and saving the Jordan River
Now that pompous mayor Ralph Becker and his idiot cohorts
want everyone to pay for parking until 8PM (instead of 6PM like it used
to be) on weekdays, here's where you can park for free in Salt Lake:
In back of the Salt Palace next to the Buddhist Temple: http://tinyurl.com/9gcvecn
Take the train, which is free to downtown from the Salt Lake Central station:
http://goo.gl/maps/3zkSy
Parking at the second place is not limited to 2 hours. Park there and take the free "trax" train to the malls & so on. You can also take the train to the nice big library: http://www.letsrideuta.com/tag/free-fare-zone/
Parking on Saturdays is supposedly still free, but check the signs on the new meters they've put everywhere.
Here's another key reason why Becker is an idiot:
http://westviewmedia.org/soccer-complex-on-hold-by-michael-mcfall/
...his attempts to destroy a part of the Jordan River parkway.
Jordan River Restoration Network: http://www.jrrn.org/
Previous attempted contact with Becker over these issues reveals the man is very pompous and has placed himself on a nearly unreachable pedestal.
In back of the Salt Palace next to the Buddhist Temple: http://tinyurl.com/9gcvecn
Take the train, which is free to downtown from the Salt Lake Central station:
http://goo.gl/maps/3zkSy
Parking at the second place is not limited to 2 hours. Park there and take the free "trax" train to the malls & so on. You can also take the train to the nice big library: http://www.letsrideuta.com/tag/free-fare-zone/
Parking on Saturdays is supposedly still free, but check the signs on the new meters they've put everywhere.
Here's another key reason why Becker is an idiot:
http://westviewmedia.org/soccer-complex-on-hold-by-michael-mcfall/
...his attempts to destroy a part of the Jordan River parkway.
Jordan River Restoration Network: http://www.jrrn.org/
Previous attempted contact with Becker over these issues reveals the man is very pompous and has placed himself on a nearly unreachable pedestal.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Tag along friends, and problems with Ambien and Mormonism
There's this woman named Cindy who's a tag-along friend to a sister of mine. She was unfortunately converted to Mormonism in Ohio while my sister was there on a Mormon mission. Cindy has an issue with knowing what to say when. She's been fired from many jobs not only for this, but also for stealing money. She's also stolen money from my father. She's rather like a leech.
One additional key issue is that Cindy acts like she is a family member, a sister, and she takes liberties assuming she is, liberties revolving around making snide and derogatory and cutting remarks when other "family members" (according to her small brain) act in a way which she doesn't like.
In December of 2010 I dumped Cindy from my facebook friend list. During that holiday season I decided to have less contact with other people because of some epiphany work I was going through. She became angry at this and made a cutting remark then. Then I dropped her from my facebook friend list.
Subsequently I heard that she had stolen money from my father (hearing this from him), and that she was continuing to ask for money on a frequent basis from him.
My sister who went on a Mormon mission to Ohio has had a problem with Ambien. She also used to live the life of a rich woman, spending her days in the fluffy dream world of someone who need only concern herself with clothes, shoes, horse riding & training, spas, facials, and so on. Then her now ex-husband went bankrupt and she divorced him. Then she went straight onto Ambien. And Cindy was there during the Ambien years, acting as a bad influence, and apparently helping my sister get even more Ambien.
You know how some pretty women have tag along less pretty friends? Well, Cindy is the much less pretty one, and she's also been a bad influence - especially during the high Ambien fuelded druggie days of my sister.
My sister is in recovery from Ambien, and her brain is slowly coming back. But there's still division in our family revolving around her own past addiction and choice to use that terrible drug. But I think that division is also connected to Mormonism.
So now we come again to the wedding of another sister of mine. This Cindy woman was invited to another sisters wedding, because this other sister lives far away and is fairly disconnected from what's happening with the family back in Utah - by her own choice. But because she's disconnected she doesn't know that it's not really possible to just assume things are a certain way when they are not.
From the first entrance of myself & my wife into the wedding room Cindy demanded to know why I dumped her as a Facebook friend in December of 2010. I told her I didn't want to talk about it. Later she asked if she could take a picture of myself, my wife, and our new son, because she claimed she was doing this as a favor to my sister who was getting married. I told her "no thank you." Then she said "your loss."
As I was preparing to leave with my new family I walked over to Cindy and told her "stay the fuck away from me - you are not part of our family." She responded "how rude." But this woman has spent her life making rude and cutting remarks to other people.
My Ambien-damaged sister should realize that when people were upset that she was destroying her life with her use of that terrible drug, that we were trying to do her and everyone a favor.
In Utah there's a lot of women on anti-depressants. Why? Because Mormonism drives them fucking crazy. So perhaps it's understandable why one of my sisters went down that path. But, on the other hand, I have no obligation to treat as a sister a friend of hers who tries the take the liberty of assuming she's a sister of mine. And, I also am not particularly pleased at the turmoil Ambien, and indirectly & directly Mormonism, has played a roll in dividing my family and keeping us apart. Also if it weren't for Mormonism, this retarded fat ugly rude tag along woman named Cindy would have never come to Utah, as a moocher and tag along little puppy friend to my Amdien-damaged sister.
Now, as my own father has dementia, and as our family drifts apart, at the very least I have my own new family.
When you see how fucked up your own older family can become, at the very least you can determine to try to do something different with your own. And one important thing to recognize is that passive aggression is still aggression. Mormon people are famous for this. They say they love you and want to care for you. But they also believe your views of the world are evil. So in the end they really aren't nice people.
People who believe you're going to hell (or in their case, not to the highest level of heaven) because you don't kiss the ass of their god & prophet aren't nice people, no matter how many batches of cookies they may also bring to your door in the mean time. It's a means to an end for them.
And, if it weren't for Mormonism, my sister would probably have never gotten a divorce, and would have never been on Ambien (hopefully). Also another sister would never have felt the need to leave Utah, live the life of a traveling partying rebel, and not had a family of her own - because of her apparent distaste for the stuffiness of ultra-conservative Mormonism. Salt Lake has become much more liberal while she was away though. But one key thing to keep in mind is that religion can and does divide families, keep them apart, and destroy lives in the process. Unless you're educated about what the facts really are, you have no idea.
There can be some good that comes from religion, and religion is a natural phenomena. So it is a mixed bag, with good and bad, extreme damage and some good happening simultaneously. The more honest a religion can be the better though - the ones that allow their members to be intellectually and emotionally honest while still being a member. The more conservative a religion is the less this tends to be allowed though.
One additional key issue is that Cindy acts like she is a family member, a sister, and she takes liberties assuming she is, liberties revolving around making snide and derogatory and cutting remarks when other "family members" (according to her small brain) act in a way which she doesn't like.
In December of 2010 I dumped Cindy from my facebook friend list. During that holiday season I decided to have less contact with other people because of some epiphany work I was going through. She became angry at this and made a cutting remark then. Then I dropped her from my facebook friend list.
Subsequently I heard that she had stolen money from my father (hearing this from him), and that she was continuing to ask for money on a frequent basis from him.
My sister who went on a Mormon mission to Ohio has had a problem with Ambien. She also used to live the life of a rich woman, spending her days in the fluffy dream world of someone who need only concern herself with clothes, shoes, horse riding & training, spas, facials, and so on. Then her now ex-husband went bankrupt and she divorced him. Then she went straight onto Ambien. And Cindy was there during the Ambien years, acting as a bad influence, and apparently helping my sister get even more Ambien.
You know how some pretty women have tag along less pretty friends? Well, Cindy is the much less pretty one, and she's also been a bad influence - especially during the high Ambien fuelded druggie days of my sister.
My sister is in recovery from Ambien, and her brain is slowly coming back. But there's still division in our family revolving around her own past addiction and choice to use that terrible drug. But I think that division is also connected to Mormonism.
So now we come again to the wedding of another sister of mine. This Cindy woman was invited to another sisters wedding, because this other sister lives far away and is fairly disconnected from what's happening with the family back in Utah - by her own choice. But because she's disconnected she doesn't know that it's not really possible to just assume things are a certain way when they are not.
From the first entrance of myself & my wife into the wedding room Cindy demanded to know why I dumped her as a Facebook friend in December of 2010. I told her I didn't want to talk about it. Later she asked if she could take a picture of myself, my wife, and our new son, because she claimed she was doing this as a favor to my sister who was getting married. I told her "no thank you." Then she said "your loss."
As I was preparing to leave with my new family I walked over to Cindy and told her "stay the fuck away from me - you are not part of our family." She responded "how rude." But this woman has spent her life making rude and cutting remarks to other people.
My Ambien-damaged sister should realize that when people were upset that she was destroying her life with her use of that terrible drug, that we were trying to do her and everyone a favor.
In Utah there's a lot of women on anti-depressants. Why? Because Mormonism drives them fucking crazy. So perhaps it's understandable why one of my sisters went down that path. But, on the other hand, I have no obligation to treat as a sister a friend of hers who tries the take the liberty of assuming she's a sister of mine. And, I also am not particularly pleased at the turmoil Ambien, and indirectly & directly Mormonism, has played a roll in dividing my family and keeping us apart. Also if it weren't for Mormonism, this retarded fat ugly rude tag along woman named Cindy would have never come to Utah, as a moocher and tag along little puppy friend to my Amdien-damaged sister.
Now, as my own father has dementia, and as our family drifts apart, at the very least I have my own new family.
When you see how fucked up your own older family can become, at the very least you can determine to try to do something different with your own. And one important thing to recognize is that passive aggression is still aggression. Mormon people are famous for this. They say they love you and want to care for you. But they also believe your views of the world are evil. So in the end they really aren't nice people.
People who believe you're going to hell (or in their case, not to the highest level of heaven) because you don't kiss the ass of their god & prophet aren't nice people, no matter how many batches of cookies they may also bring to your door in the mean time. It's a means to an end for them.
And, if it weren't for Mormonism, my sister would probably have never gotten a divorce, and would have never been on Ambien (hopefully). Also another sister would never have felt the need to leave Utah, live the life of a traveling partying rebel, and not had a family of her own - because of her apparent distaste for the stuffiness of ultra-conservative Mormonism. Salt Lake has become much more liberal while she was away though. But one key thing to keep in mind is that religion can and does divide families, keep them apart, and destroy lives in the process. Unless you're educated about what the facts really are, you have no idea.
There can be some good that comes from religion, and religion is a natural phenomena. So it is a mixed bag, with good and bad, extreme damage and some good happening simultaneously. The more honest a religion can be the better though - the ones that allow their members to be intellectually and emotionally honest while still being a member. The more conservative a religion is the less this tends to be allowed though.
Friday, September 21, 2012
"The left" and Islamic fundamentalism
Speaking as a left-leaning anti-authoritarian myself:
What is up with the left wing in America?
I think the Iraq war made them very upset, very upset indeed. So much so that they are now engaging in several logical fallacies and conflationary actions themselves - primarily in response to their own hatred for the right, their hatred for people like George W. Bush and so on.
But, one thing the left wing lacks is experience with what it's like to live in a real religion. They have no idea what it's like. Their primarily experience with religion is light and fluffy. So, they have no concept of what it's like to be a woman or a man living in a sexually repressed culture - in other words what it's like to live in an Islamic country.
Remember George Galloway?
Here's a debate between him & Hitchens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969
Galloway is a buddy of Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now(?):
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/canadian_judge_upholds_government_decision_to
Remember Iran, where they kill people for all sorts of otherwise trivial reasons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Iran
Do you know Galloway works for Iran's Press TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTJLeMN4M0
What's up with the connection between the "left" and Islamic fundamentalism? Galloway's own actions by working for Press TV shows they are now the same thing.
I don't want to be a tool of the left or the right. Not of Israel nor of Palestine.
Dictators should be opposed & defeated. All of them, everywhere.
Freedom of speech should resign supreme, as should the right to offend cultish religions & their brain washed followers.
People who live in cultural prisons should be freed.
Offensive speech should never be banned. Rather, it should simply be responded to with other speech.
Just because the right to say certain things in certain countries has been and is being abridged, that doesn't make it right. Living together as a community doesn't mean forced silence. That's no solution for anything. It just causes feelings to be suppressed - to simmer until they boil over. Let everyone speak. Let there be a crucible. That's what true democracy is all about. That's what science is about. And only then can everyone truly figure out what is right & what is wrong, and separate fact from fiction.
Do we have "democracy now?" Can we have "democracy now?" We could well ask Amy Goodman and her buddy George Galloway. But can we have true democracy within Islamic sharia, where even the supposed moderates cry for censorship of cartoons and films? No.
Sadly, and unfortunately, the ultra left now IS the same thing as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic sharia. This happened due to anger, ignorance, and stupidity. What's the solution? Freedom of speech & education. Left originated censorship and self hatred is just as unappealing as right originated censorship and self hatred.
------------
Oh, and p.s., a reading of the posts on the following page indicates that Pakistan is a prison. And so is Iran.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701
Before September 11, 2001 I never thought much about the Muslim world. But the prison they live in made them so upset, some of their representatives lashed out in anger & violence on that day. Bush may have overreacted with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan. Anyway...
What is up with the left wing in America?
I think the Iraq war made them very upset, very upset indeed. So much so that they are now engaging in several logical fallacies and conflationary actions themselves - primarily in response to their own hatred for the right, their hatred for people like George W. Bush and so on.
But, one thing the left wing lacks is experience with what it's like to live in a real religion. They have no idea what it's like. Their primarily experience with religion is light and fluffy. So, they have no concept of what it's like to be a woman or a man living in a sexually repressed culture - in other words what it's like to live in an Islamic country.
Remember George Galloway?
Here's a debate between him & Hitchens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969
Galloway is a buddy of Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now(?):
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/canadian_judge_upholds_government_decision_to
Remember Iran, where they kill people for all sorts of otherwise trivial reasons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Iran
Do you know Galloway works for Iran's Press TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTJLeMN4M0
What's up with the connection between the "left" and Islamic fundamentalism? Galloway's own actions by working for Press TV shows they are now the same thing.
I don't want to be a tool of the left or the right. Not of Israel nor of Palestine.
Dictators should be opposed & defeated. All of them, everywhere.
Freedom of speech should resign supreme, as should the right to offend cultish religions & their brain washed followers.
People who live in cultural prisons should be freed.
Offensive speech should never be banned. Rather, it should simply be responded to with other speech.
Just because the right to say certain things in certain countries has been and is being abridged, that doesn't make it right. Living together as a community doesn't mean forced silence. That's no solution for anything. It just causes feelings to be suppressed - to simmer until they boil over. Let everyone speak. Let there be a crucible. That's what true democracy is all about. That's what science is about. And only then can everyone truly figure out what is right & what is wrong, and separate fact from fiction.
Do we have "democracy now?" Can we have "democracy now?" We could well ask Amy Goodman and her buddy George Galloway. But can we have true democracy within Islamic sharia, where even the supposed moderates cry for censorship of cartoons and films? No.
Sadly, and unfortunately, the ultra left now IS the same thing as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic sharia. This happened due to anger, ignorance, and stupidity. What's the solution? Freedom of speech & education. Left originated censorship and self hatred is just as unappealing as right originated censorship and self hatred.
------------
Oh, and p.s., a reading of the posts on the following page indicates that Pakistan is a prison. And so is Iran.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701
Before September 11, 2001 I never thought much about the Muslim world. But the prison they live in made them so upset, some of their representatives lashed out in anger & violence on that day. Bush may have overreacted with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan. Anyway...
Films, Cartoons, and Mohamed: Islam is a cult - just older and larger
A film comes out. Then some cartoons. Vociferous people demand censorship. Other people don't want "oil thrown on a fire."
Listen to recent BBC programs on the issue.
Read the comments on Charlie Hebdo's blog.
Let the comments from everyone wash over you. I did, and here's what I've come to conclude:
Islam is a wacky abusive cult, just like any other cult. What's the difference between Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology? Time, and the level of violence advocated by and allowed for by the core doctrines. Even regular Christianity, in it's many flavors, has cultish aspects depending on which church or denomination we're talking about.
Listen to what Islamic believers say about Mohamed. They love him more than they love life, more than their family, and so on.
Any criticism against Mohamed is taken so personally that the believers advocate censorship at the very least, and violence more commonly. With the recent debate over the film Innocence of Muslims, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, I constantly heard talk of "red lines." "You've crossed my red line" this, and "don't cross my red line" that.
When you cross a person's so-called "red line" what happens? What'ja gonna do? Complain? Sue me? Hit me? Kill me? Talk of "red lines" are threats. And threats for what? Regarding complaining about whom? A 6th century war mongering pedophile?
Have you ever heard of the wives of Joseph Smith? How about Brigham Young?
Why do cult leaders get to have so many wives? Charismatic charlatans really enjoy sex - with other men's wives, and with underage girls. 15, 14, 9? WTF! God gave you a message to do what? FOAD - that is the appropriate response to such people. But, you can always tell cult leaders by their actions.
They say: God gave me a message.
Reply: A message to do what?
They say: To fuck your wife and your daughter.
Reply: What if I say no?
They say: God will send you to hell... and, maybe I'll have my friends lean on you, or kill you.
They say: I am God's messenger. To deny my words is to deny the word of God.
Joseph fucking Smith, Brigham fucking Young, David fucking Koresh, L. Ron fucking Hubbard. And fucking Mohamed, peace be upon him - all the same deranged controlling fucks who want to use lies, violence, and damaging virulent meme sets to control others.
So yes, the only differences between Mormonism and Islam are this: Time, and the level of violence allowed by core doctrines.
I am an ex-Mormon. Thank god I wasn't a Muslim. But if I were, I hope that I'd have the balls to stand up to the cult members & their leaders.
People who have had no experience with real religion have no fucking idea what they're talking about when they use such phrases as "don't provoke," or "oil on flames," and so on.
It's our duty to provoke, to cajole, to help people oppressed by mind controlling cults fucking O-U-T of their religions. And to help force their religions to be more civilized. Christians were forced to have a sense of humor, by two world wars, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Islam never had either on a permanent basis. Like it or not, we're helping them have theirs now. B grade film makers are helping, as are naughty, brash, and brave French satirical magazines.
In a civil society, cartoons & films are N-O-T banned, even if they offend your cult-originated deranged sensibilities about "your prophet." And in civil societies, you don't get to censor or threaten with violence me or anyone over a cartoon or film.
Many people in Islamic countries are unhappy because they are in Islamic countries being oppressed. Their hatred and anger is derived from their status. So, when the "oil" of films or cartoons are poured upon their hatred, they become angy - becuase they are currently in a prison.
BUT, the one thing secular people who want to censor films & cartoons & art critical of Islam don't realize is that art & speech critical of Islam will help to free these people. The volume needs to be turned up as loudly as possible, not turned down.
Related views:
By Sam Harris. And a previous extended interview where Harris talks about cult leaders.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Pat Condell.
Additional copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042554-20120919-100853.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042543-20120919-100843.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042534-20120919-100905.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042594-20120919-101202.jpg
Copies of a related posts I've put up elsewhere:
--------------------- 1
Oh, no! More cartoons are coming! More drawings on paper! Run. Hide. Or, if you're an Islamist, go on a murderous rampage.
The volume should be turned up. We have, with the protests, the personification of a spoiled brat child. What if, by comparison, Rome threatened the Monty Python troupe with death for their film Life of Brian? What would be the "appropriate response" from that group & related artists? MORE OF THE SAME, and higher quality parodies as well. In the instance of the film we have a poor quality parody. We need higher quality parodies. Maybe that's REALLY why the Muslims are upset. A B movie is a B movie. We all want higher quality production values in our art.
Sam Harris on the issue:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god
BBC World Have Your Say programs on the cartoons:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1912a.mp3
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1423a.mp3
[the above links will only be available for a few days, but here's an archive for you]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnARvLa3Pd8
A parody of my own about Joseph Smith & his church. Should I be killed for this by Mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERKfXjG-7Xc Should my parody be banned? Damn, I'm glad I wasn't a f-in Muslim, but if I had been I hope I'd have enough balls to stand up to people still being repressed by the cult & their leaders.
--------------------- 2
Crazy repressed nuts kill a guy over a B film...
Part of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
The killers of the U.S. ambassador to Libya have by their actions moved this otherwise low grade laughable B movie into a very important status, and in my view it goes to show that more higher quality and more accurate films (and campy and crapily made films) need to be made.
We need a Monty Python style Life of Brian type film about Mohammed. Christians, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and two world wars, have been forced to have a sense of humor about their religion. Muslims need to have a sense of humor about their religion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_brian
--------------------- ps
The film Sumission Part 1, that Theo Van Gogh was killed over and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with constant security. Sam Harris has to have security guards travel with him. The Charlie Hebdo artists have to have this also. Having to live your life with security guards always around does tend to sharpen your mind about things, and your views about what really is important to say - and about the value of free speech, calling a spade a spade, honesty, and stating when the emperor has no clothes.
--------------------- ps2
Also, regarding certain libertarian ultra right wing nutjobs who claim that Palestine doesn't exist, I don't support them either, nor do I wish to be drawn into blind support for whatever Israel wants to do. People do have a right to live on their own land and to be left alone. But people also have a right not to be suicide bombed. So there's trouble on both sides there. But one key bottom line is that freedom of speech must not be abridged.
The "moderate" Muslims want censorship. They want their sharia also. That's not moderate though. We need freedom of speech. For the critics, for the cartoonists, for the sane people, and for the nutjobs. Everyone. Censorship is not an option. That's our red line.
Listen to recent BBC programs on the issue.
Read the comments on Charlie Hebdo's blog.
Let the comments from everyone wash over you. I did, and here's what I've come to conclude:
Islam is a wacky abusive cult, just like any other cult. What's the difference between Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology? Time, and the level of violence advocated by and allowed for by the core doctrines. Even regular Christianity, in it's many flavors, has cultish aspects depending on which church or denomination we're talking about.
Listen to what Islamic believers say about Mohamed. They love him more than they love life, more than their family, and so on.
Any criticism against Mohamed is taken so personally that the believers advocate censorship at the very least, and violence more commonly. With the recent debate over the film Innocence of Muslims, and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, I constantly heard talk of "red lines." "You've crossed my red line" this, and "don't cross my red line" that.
When you cross a person's so-called "red line" what happens? What'ja gonna do? Complain? Sue me? Hit me? Kill me? Talk of "red lines" are threats. And threats for what? Regarding complaining about whom? A 6th century war mongering pedophile?
Have you ever heard of the wives of Joseph Smith? How about Brigham Young?
Why do cult leaders get to have so many wives? Charismatic charlatans really enjoy sex - with other men's wives, and with underage girls. 15, 14, 9? WTF! God gave you a message to do what? FOAD - that is the appropriate response to such people. But, you can always tell cult leaders by their actions.
They say: God gave me a message.
Reply: A message to do what?
They say: To fuck your wife and your daughter.
Reply: What if I say no?
They say: God will send you to hell... and, maybe I'll have my friends lean on you, or kill you.
They say: I am God's messenger. To deny my words is to deny the word of God.
Joseph fucking Smith, Brigham fucking Young, David fucking Koresh, L. Ron fucking Hubbard. And fucking Mohamed, peace be upon him - all the same deranged controlling fucks who want to use lies, violence, and damaging virulent meme sets to control others.
So yes, the only differences between Mormonism and Islam are this: Time, and the level of violence allowed by core doctrines.
I am an ex-Mormon. Thank god I wasn't a Muslim. But if I were, I hope that I'd have the balls to stand up to the cult members & their leaders.
People who have had no experience with real religion have no fucking idea what they're talking about when they use such phrases as "don't provoke," or "oil on flames," and so on.
It's our duty to provoke, to cajole, to help people oppressed by mind controlling cults fucking O-U-T of their religions. And to help force their religions to be more civilized. Christians were forced to have a sense of humor, by two world wars, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Islam never had either on a permanent basis. Like it or not, we're helping them have theirs now. B grade film makers are helping, as are naughty, brash, and brave French satirical magazines.
In a civil society, cartoons & films are N-O-T banned, even if they offend your cult-originated deranged sensibilities about "your prophet." And in civil societies, you don't get to censor or threaten with violence me or anyone over a cartoon or film.
Many people in Islamic countries are unhappy because they are in Islamic countries being oppressed. Their hatred and anger is derived from their status. So, when the "oil" of films or cartoons are poured upon their hatred, they become angy - becuase they are currently in a prison.
BUT, the one thing secular people who want to censor films & cartoons & art critical of Islam don't realize is that art & speech critical of Islam will help to free these people. The volume needs to be turned up as loudly as possible, not turned down.
Related views:
By Sam Harris. And a previous extended interview where Harris talks about cult leaders.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
By Pat Condell.
Additional copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042554-20120919-100853.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042543-20120919-100843.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042534-20120919-100905.jpg
http://www.noelshack.com/2012-38-1348042594-20120919-101202.jpg
Copies of a related posts I've put up elsewhere:
--------------------- 1
Oh, no! More cartoons are coming! More drawings on paper! Run. Hide. Or, if you're an Islamist, go on a murderous rampage.
The volume should be turned up. We have, with the protests, the personification of a spoiled brat child. What if, by comparison, Rome threatened the Monty Python troupe with death for their film Life of Brian? What would be the "appropriate response" from that group & related artists? MORE OF THE SAME, and higher quality parodies as well. In the instance of the film we have a poor quality parody. We need higher quality parodies. Maybe that's REALLY why the Muslims are upset. A B movie is a B movie. We all want higher quality production values in our art.
Sam Harris on the issue:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god
BBC World Have Your Say programs on the cartoons:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1912a.mp3
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20120919-1423a.mp3
[the above links will only be available for a few days, but here's an archive for you]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnARvLa3Pd8
A parody of my own about Joseph Smith & his church. Should I be killed for this by Mormons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERKfXjG-7Xc Should my parody be banned? Damn, I'm glad I wasn't a f-in Muslim, but if I had been I hope I'd have enough balls to stand up to people still being repressed by the cult & their leaders.
--------------------- 2
Crazy repressed nuts kill a guy over a B film...
Part of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
The killers of the U.S. ambassador to Libya have by their actions moved this otherwise low grade laughable B movie into a very important status, and in my view it goes to show that more higher quality and more accurate films (and campy and crapily made films) need to be made.
We need a Monty Python style Life of Brian type film about Mohammed. Christians, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and two world wars, have been forced to have a sense of humor about their religion. Muslims need to have a sense of humor about their religion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_brian
--------------------- ps
The film Sumission Part 1, that Theo Van Gogh was killed over and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with constant security. Sam Harris has to have security guards travel with him. The Charlie Hebdo artists have to have this also. Having to live your life with security guards always around does tend to sharpen your mind about things, and your views about what really is important to say - and about the value of free speech, calling a spade a spade, honesty, and stating when the emperor has no clothes.
--------------------- ps2
Also, regarding certain libertarian ultra right wing nutjobs who claim that Palestine doesn't exist, I don't support them either, nor do I wish to be drawn into blind support for whatever Israel wants to do. People do have a right to live on their own land and to be left alone. But people also have a right not to be suicide bombed. So there's trouble on both sides there. But one key bottom line is that freedom of speech must not be abridged.
The "moderate" Muslims want censorship. They want their sharia also. That's not moderate though. We need freedom of speech. For the critics, for the cartoonists, for the sane people, and for the nutjobs. Everyone. Censorship is not an option. That's our red line.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
KKK type people now in the Republican Camp
In response to a darker skinned news camerawoman human having nuts thrown at her at the recent Repiglican convention.
In the past the KKK hung out at the Democratic Party conventions. Now their in-spirit-if-not-in-fact supporters go to the Republican ones. This is what has happened when the American southern Democrats largely switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
Also for the Repigs, holding their convention in Tampa probably did allow for more southern-style racists to show up.
Everyone's a bit racist, and we are all animals, but we're also all human.
In the past the KKK hung out at the Democratic Party conventions. Now their in-spirit-if-not-in-fact supporters go to the Republican ones. This is what has happened when the American southern Democrats largely switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
Also for the Repigs, holding their convention in Tampa probably did allow for more southern-style racists to show up.
Everyone's a bit racist, and we are all animals, but we're also all human.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Pot & tobacco: smoke is smoke, and brain altering chemicals are brain altering chemicals
In response to the BBC story "Young cannabis smokers run risk of lower IQ, report claims:"
Inhaling smoke into your lungs isn't particularly healthy, nor is the constant intake of chemicals that alter your brain chemistry. If you have a real reason for having to take it, for example if you are HIV positive or on chemo and have no other alternative to avoid feeling nauseous. Otherwise the stuff can easily make you into a retard. And the hippie political correct "there's no harm" line on this front is bull... Brain altering chemicals are brain altering chemicals, and smoke is smoke. Tobacco also alters your brain.
Inhaling smoke into your lungs isn't particularly healthy, nor is the constant intake of chemicals that alter your brain chemistry. If you have a real reason for having to take it, for example if you are HIV positive or on chemo and have no other alternative to avoid feeling nauseous. Otherwise the stuff can easily make you into a retard. And the hippie political correct "there's no harm" line on this front is bull... Brain altering chemicals are brain altering chemicals, and smoke is smoke. Tobacco also alters your brain.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
12 Step Programs: Not exactly bullshit, more of a social support solution
Penn & Teller on 12 step programs. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle - not that a middle solution is always the answer. "Free will" doesn't exist in the classic sense as per Sam Harris. AA is a religious organization. The main benefit people gain from AA is social support. Not a god. Not surrendering to a supposed higher power. Social support - and that's all. There is value to social support.
So I don't agree with every "behavior" is a free choice. So libertarians Penn & Teller and the people they had on their program are quite wrong on that point. But on the other hand admitting that we have no power at all and that all of our choices are in the hands of some god is a bogus concept also.
The only god worth worshiping is sex. And in my case that form of worship has resulted in at least one pregnancy so far.
--------------------
Related posts to god worship:
Mortal Mormonism - history & current views:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal-Mormonism-November-26-2005.pdf
Left and right fuzzy thinking subverts science - and now has converged on one “progressive” site:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/8246/
So I don't agree with every "behavior" is a free choice. So libertarians Penn & Teller and the people they had on their program are quite wrong on that point. But on the other hand admitting that we have no power at all and that all of our choices are in the hands of some god is a bogus concept also.
The only god worth worshiping is sex. And in my case that form of worship has resulted in at least one pregnancy so far.
--------------------
Related posts to god worship:
Mortal Mormonism - history & current views:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal-Mormonism-November-26-2005.pdf
Left and right fuzzy thinking subverts science - and now has converged on one “progressive” site:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/8246/
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Sam Harris responds to a-hole trolls like PZ Myers
Sam Harris responds to his critics & a-hole trolls like PZ Myers...
"...My correspondent is right about one thing, however: It was all there in my first book, The End of Faith. Since the moment I began criticizing religion in public, I have argued that Islam merits special concern—because it is currently the most militant and retrograde of the world’s major religions. This has always made certain people uncomfortable, because they find it difficult to distinguish a focus on Islam—specifically, on the real-world effects of its doctrines regarding martyrdom, jihad, apostasy, and the status of women—from bigotry against Muslims. But the difference is clear and crucial. My criticism of conservative Islam has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. And, as I have often said, no one suffers the consequences of this pernicious ideology—the abridgments of political and intellectual freedom, the mistreatment of women, the fanaticism and sectarian murder—more than innocent Muslims..."
as from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll
Related posts here:
Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/sam-harris-scott-atran-banning-islam.html
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists" http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Two videos found on feminism - challenging politically correct dogma
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/two-videos-found-on-feminism.html
Atheist conferences and sexual harassment rules
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheist-conferences-and-sexual.html
Thunderf00t vs P.Z. Myers: I vote for thunderf00t
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
I think the main mistake made by recent atheist conference organizers by inviting an unhinged stinky troll like PZ Myers into their and our midst. Some people have class. Myers has an bung hole for a mouth and a rotten pea for a brain.
"...My correspondent is right about one thing, however: It was all there in my first book, The End of Faith. Since the moment I began criticizing religion in public, I have argued that Islam merits special concern—because it is currently the most militant and retrograde of the world’s major religions. This has always made certain people uncomfortable, because they find it difficult to distinguish a focus on Islam—specifically, on the real-world effects of its doctrines regarding martyrdom, jihad, apostasy, and the status of women—from bigotry against Muslims. But the difference is clear and crucial. My criticism of conservative Islam has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or nationality. And, as I have often said, no one suffers the consequences of this pernicious ideology—the abridgments of political and intellectual freedom, the mistreatment of women, the fanaticism and sectarian murder—more than innocent Muslims..."
as from http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/wrestling-the-troll
Related posts here:
Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/sam-harris-scott-atran-banning-islam.html
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists" http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Two videos found on feminism - challenging politically correct dogma
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/two-videos-found-on-feminism.html
Atheist conferences and sexual harassment rules
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheist-conferences-and-sexual.html
Thunderf00t vs P.Z. Myers: I vote for thunderf00t
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/thunderf00t-vs-pz-myers-i-vote-for.html
I think the main mistake made by recent atheist conference organizers by inviting an unhinged stinky troll like PZ Myers into their and our midst. Some people have class. Myers has an bung hole for a mouth and a rotten pea for a brain.
Romney picks which right wing asshole to be his running mate? Paul Ryan: fucking social Darwinist Cheesehead...
Mitt Romney picks Raul Ryan as his running mate. Paul Ryan is a fucking social Darwinist Cheesehead. Romney has reached into the nut bag that all repiglican presidential candidates must now reach into and this time he's found some stinky Limberger.
Related views from others:
"Mittens is gonna announce this pompous ASSHOLE as his running."
Related views from others:
"Mittens is gonna announce this pompous ASSHOLE as his running."
Friday, August 10, 2012
End-result links between White Supremacy and Islam
In response to "American Atheists Expresses Condolences for Sikh Community Following Shooting:"
Unfortunately there are psychopaths in the world, and people who become so unhappy and deranged that they hurt innocent people. Is "white supremacist" an accurate term for the guy who did this? Perhaps a more accurate term would be "angry deranged mentally damaged f-ed up guy who should be locked away forever."
Xenophobia may be a natural and prevalent human trait, but most people aren't mass murders either. Since we don't yet have good tools for genetic intervention (or the morality to use such tools yet), in human society there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who have damaged brains. And the crazy fearful talk in the white supremacist type community and other angry crazy talk can lead the small percentage of deranged people to do evil things to innocent people.
No color of humans are "supreme" of course. And ways need to be found to pick out and weed and intervene with the deranged angry people who have the propensity to engage in physical violence against innocent people.
My own view of the Sikh's were that they tended to be gentle people with a more gentle religion than some. No one deserves to be killed for their views of course. Not atheists. Not Sikhs. No one. But in this case the violence came about mainly because some shy demented F was under a rock and the only way he could escape was to lash out in a crazy way. Some guy who couldn't get a life, other than associating with other losers. So lock away the guy and throw the away the key... Keep the dangerous animals away from the rest of us. That's what zoos and prisons are for.
A civil society allows for vociferous debate. The killing of others by people who've either tied themselves into Nazi-style hate, or who've tied themsleves to a religion that advocates killing the non-believer - all religion-originated-hate that would kill people for drawing cartoons, needs to be punished equally.
Living in fear is not an option we should choose. May the Sikhs not be afraid because of the acts of an angry looser who glommed onto Nazi-style-hate because he couldn't get a life. And, may liberals, ex-Muslims, atheists, and skeptics not be afraid or silenced by fear over offending homocidal Islamists who kill over otherwise trivial things like cartoon drawing.
Maybe "white supremecy" and conservative Islam share key traits - both appear to want to kill others for their beliefs and for criticism of their positions.
As for America: There's F-ed up people here also. If someone is F-ed up to kill others we lock them up. Some countries don't do this, and some countries have institutions which engage in systematic killing of those who oppose the government or who oppose religion. So we're lucky here in that at least we have freedom of speech guaranteed by law. That freedom even extends to allowing supremacists to speak their mind, even if they're wrong. But I agree that perhaps more infiltration & monitoring of such groups needs to be done to look for people who would be mass killers. And maybe we do need more gun control in America.
At my work there's some country bumpkins who sit near me who enjoy gun use for recreational purposes (shooting practice & hunting). In the aftermath of the recent shootings it was strange and creepy to hear these idiots talk about how if more people had guns that would solve the problem. However since a certain percentage of humans will always be deranged and damaged, maybe having less access to the tools of death would help reduce the incidence of mass murder. When the crazies can't get guns as easily then there will be less killing. And there will always be crazies, unless more genetic intervention can be done to help ensure that such people aren't ever born in the first place.
Unfortunately there are psychopaths in the world, and people who become so unhappy and deranged that they hurt innocent people. Is "white supremacist" an accurate term for the guy who did this? Perhaps a more accurate term would be "angry deranged mentally damaged f-ed up guy who should be locked away forever."
Xenophobia may be a natural and prevalent human trait, but most people aren't mass murders either. Since we don't yet have good tools for genetic intervention (or the morality to use such tools yet), in human society there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who have damaged brains. And the crazy fearful talk in the white supremacist type community and other angry crazy talk can lead the small percentage of deranged people to do evil things to innocent people.
No color of humans are "supreme" of course. And ways need to be found to pick out and weed and intervene with the deranged angry people who have the propensity to engage in physical violence against innocent people.
My own view of the Sikh's were that they tended to be gentle people with a more gentle religion than some. No one deserves to be killed for their views of course. Not atheists. Not Sikhs. No one. But in this case the violence came about mainly because some shy demented F was under a rock and the only way he could escape was to lash out in a crazy way. Some guy who couldn't get a life, other than associating with other losers. So lock away the guy and throw the away the key... Keep the dangerous animals away from the rest of us. That's what zoos and prisons are for.
A civil society allows for vociferous debate. The killing of others by people who've either tied themselves into Nazi-style hate, or who've tied themsleves to a religion that advocates killing the non-believer - all religion-originated-hate that would kill people for drawing cartoons, needs to be punished equally.
Living in fear is not an option we should choose. May the Sikhs not be afraid because of the acts of an angry looser who glommed onto Nazi-style-hate because he couldn't get a life. And, may liberals, ex-Muslims, atheists, and skeptics not be afraid or silenced by fear over offending homocidal Islamists who kill over otherwise trivial things like cartoon drawing.
Maybe "white supremecy" and conservative Islam share key traits - both appear to want to kill others for their beliefs and for criticism of their positions.
As for America: There's F-ed up people here also. If someone is F-ed up to kill others we lock them up. Some countries don't do this, and some countries have institutions which engage in systematic killing of those who oppose the government or who oppose religion. So we're lucky here in that at least we have freedom of speech guaranteed by law. That freedom even extends to allowing supremacists to speak their mind, even if they're wrong. But I agree that perhaps more infiltration & monitoring of such groups needs to be done to look for people who would be mass killers. And maybe we do need more gun control in America.
At my work there's some country bumpkins who sit near me who enjoy gun use for recreational purposes (shooting practice & hunting). In the aftermath of the recent shootings it was strange and creepy to hear these idiots talk about how if more people had guns that would solve the problem. However since a certain percentage of humans will always be deranged and damaged, maybe having less access to the tools of death would help reduce the incidence of mass murder. When the crazies can't get guns as easily then there will be less killing. And there will always be crazies, unless more genetic intervention can be done to help ensure that such people aren't ever born in the first place.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Islam is not a race, not an ethnicity - Salt Lake American Muslim SLAAM
Islam is not a race and not an ethnicity - response to a page by the group Salt Lake American Muslim:
The page at http://www.saltlakeamericanmuslim.com/#!our-story has the following statement:
Religion is not a race, not an ethnicity.
Becoming an American does not mean forcing your children & women to wear tight bags or scarfs covering most of their heads, and cloth that drapes all the way down to their feet.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion, a "meme set," and as with any set of memes it should be subject to the same set of criticisms that any meme set can be subject to. Criticism. Debate. Openness. Honesty. It's not too much to ask?
The sins of Bush should not be apologized for by dishonesty. All conservative religions have inherent lies at their heart. The group Salt Lake American Muslim (SLAAM) is very concerned about what happened with past immigrants to the US. That's nice. But here's a key message: Just stop abusing your children, that's all.
To the Jews: stop mutilating the genitals of your children.
To the Muslims: Ditto, with the added comment that you should also stop requiring your women and girls to wear cloth bags or tight scarfs.
Does your cultural diversity extend to allowing for skeptics and for atheists in your group? How about ex-Muslims? Are these types of people welcome in your "community?"
What is the response of your group to the following video from the Center for Inquiry, about how conservative Islam leads to breeding suicide bombers?
The page at http://www.saltlakeamericanmuslim.com/#!our-story has the following statement:
"In an effort to curb current tension experienced between Muslims and non-Muslims globally, which is similar to that faced historically by Native Americans, Irish Americans, Jewish Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Hispanic Americans and now Muslim Americans - Salt Lake American Muslim undertakes multicultural activities such as our festival A Celebration of Cultural Diversity to generate mutual understanding and goodwill not only between Muslims and non-Muslims but among all ethnic communities that reside in Salt Lake County through sharing of the very best ethnic cultural artistic expression as part of the American acculturation process."Response:
Religion is not a race, not an ethnicity.
Becoming an American does not mean forcing your children & women to wear tight bags or scarfs covering most of their heads, and cloth that drapes all the way down to their feet.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion, a "meme set," and as with any set of memes it should be subject to the same set of criticisms that any meme set can be subject to. Criticism. Debate. Openness. Honesty. It's not too much to ask?
The sins of Bush should not be apologized for by dishonesty. All conservative religions have inherent lies at their heart. The group Salt Lake American Muslim (SLAAM) is very concerned about what happened with past immigrants to the US. That's nice. But here's a key message: Just stop abusing your children, that's all.
To the Jews: stop mutilating the genitals of your children.
To the Muslims: Ditto, with the added comment that you should also stop requiring your women and girls to wear cloth bags or tight scarfs.
Does your cultural diversity extend to allowing for skeptics and for atheists in your group? How about ex-Muslims? Are these types of people welcome in your "community?"
What is the response of your group to the following video from the Center for Inquiry, about how conservative Islam leads to breeding suicide bombers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuAWelcome to America though, where freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and thankfully freedom from religion are supposed to be guaranteed by law. I'm not responsible for the sins of Bush or for what happened in Iraq. I'm also not responsible for the sins of Sadam, or the past sins of the CIA and so on. I'm primarily interested in honesty. Most religions aren't interested in this. Honesty cuts into the preacher's & the Imam's pay, so of course they hate it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Thoughts on hyphenated Americans, racism, and cynicism
Is it dogmatic to question dogma? Only if atheism is somehow equivalent to a conservative religion.
Yes, we could be crass cynics like Matt Stone & Trey Parker are, and spew forth flatulence which while briefly humorous becomes quickly sick and putrid.
People of a certain color can't jump. People from another culture tend to have trashy back yards and are not noted for high quality craftsmanship. People from another culture get very angry indeed at cartoons or other humor revolving around past historic and non-historic figures.
Everyone's a bit racist. The hyphenated language that permeates forums such as NPR is key evidence of this. Frankly, I don't care if you're a hyphenated American this or that. Get on with life and do something useful, other than obsess about which hyphenated phrase you can associate with yourself and others.
Is such a request cynical dogma? A dogmatist is unwilling to question his own suppositions. People on the right and left perfectly fit into the same box in this regard. The main thing I question about hyphenated Americans is that their labels take too much of my verbal time to state the self-assigned labels. And the second thing I question is that maybe the hyphenated phrases people assign to themselves & others aren't really all that accurate.
For example:
Who is a Native American? Anyone born in America. That is the traditional definition of the word "native."
Who is an African American? All humans in America, because we all came out of Africa.
And what was adding a religion to the hyphenation?
Muslim American
Mormonism American
Catholic American
Scientologist American
Idiot American
What a waste of time and language to merge these words together.
Who are your ancestors? It's ok to use labels to describe your ancestry. But adding the word "American" to your label is a lame, time wasting, pompous, and superfluous.
Friday, August 3, 2012
That Shitty Chicken Place: I never eat there anyway
I never eat at the chicken place currently being mentioned in the news, and haven't done so since maybe one time about 15 or 20 years ago when Crossroads Mall was still open. Should gay people get married? I don't think the law should ban adults from doing what they please with other adults. I'm still in favor of questioning all suppositions and dogmas, left and right alike. So I'm willing to listen to all sides. But I don't think the force of law should be used to keep people from doing what they please with other adults.
However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785
Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?
Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?
In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.
However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785
Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?
Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?
In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Sam Harris, Scott Atran, banning Islam, racism, and apology for abusive religion
Back in December of 2010 I wrote this article about Scott Atran. Atran has many basic misunderstandings about what it like to live in a conservative religion.
On February 23, 2011 Atran wrote this article criticizing Harris's new book the Moral Landscape. On page 6 of Atran's article he claims that Sam Harris has proposed a ban on Islam, but he fails to provide any references.
Harris has talked about the dangers of Islamic ideas that lead to suicide bombing.
One strange thing I heard today though was that Harris is supposedly a racist for wanting to ban Islam.
There's two really big problems with such a claim:
Problem 1: Islam is not a race. It's a religion.
Problem 2: Sam Harris has never proposed that there be a ban on Islam.
Maybe children should not be abused with having lies shoved down their throats by ignorant abusive parents. That's my view. Whether Harris was expressed concerns about this or not is irrelevant, because as far as I can tell he's never proposed a legal ban on Islam. And even if he had, such a view would not be racist, because Islam is not a race.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist. Avenue Q has stated this as well. And even with this being the case, Islam is not a race. It never was. It never will be. Religion is not a race. And, Sam Harris never said that Islam should be banned. You think he did? Prove it. And Scott Atran is an idiot, and a defato purposeful apologist for Islam and abusive religion.
In America we have freedom of religion, and thankfully increasingly freedom from religion.
Children should be educated about all human religions, their history, and so on.
Children should be educated about science, and about how in the past religions were very fearful about what science showed - for example about the Earth, the sun, the stars, and our geographic place in the Universe. Religion is still fearful about what science shows, about their supposed gods. Children should not be lied to. They should be taught the truth. And religions are full of lies, lies supported by fear & control, arguments from authority, and arguments based on abusive psycological manipulation.
People like Atran have no concept of this because they haven't lived it. Here's links to some people who have:
Me: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm
Others: http://exmormonfoundation.org
http://ex-muslim.org.uk
A guy who lived in hard core sexually repressive Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&feature=plcp
---
More info:
letter to Scott Atran - regarding his debates with Sam Harris and his views on religious belief
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-scott-atran-regarding-his.html
On February 23, 2011 Atran wrote this article criticizing Harris's new book the Moral Landscape. On page 6 of Atran's article he claims that Sam Harris has proposed a ban on Islam, but he fails to provide any references.
Harris has talked about the dangers of Islamic ideas that lead to suicide bombing.
One strange thing I heard today though was that Harris is supposedly a racist for wanting to ban Islam.
There's two really big problems with such a claim:
Problem 1: Islam is not a race. It's a religion.
Problem 2: Sam Harris has never proposed that there be a ban on Islam.
Maybe children should not be abused with having lies shoved down their throats by ignorant abusive parents. That's my view. Whether Harris was expressed concerns about this or not is irrelevant, because as far as I can tell he's never proposed a legal ban on Islam. And even if he had, such a view would not be racist, because Islam is not a race.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist. Avenue Q has stated this as well. And even with this being the case, Islam is not a race. It never was. It never will be. Religion is not a race. And, Sam Harris never said that Islam should be banned. You think he did? Prove it. And Scott Atran is an idiot, and a defato purposeful apologist for Islam and abusive religion.
In America we have freedom of religion, and thankfully increasingly freedom from religion.
Children should be educated about all human religions, their history, and so on.
Children should be educated about science, and about how in the past religions were very fearful about what science showed - for example about the Earth, the sun, the stars, and our geographic place in the Universe. Religion is still fearful about what science shows, about their supposed gods. Children should not be lied to. They should be taught the truth. And religions are full of lies, lies supported by fear & control, arguments from authority, and arguments based on abusive psycological manipulation.
People like Atran have no concept of this because they haven't lived it. Here's links to some people who have:
Me: http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm
Others: http://exmormonfoundation.org
http://ex-muslim.org.uk
A guy who lived in hard core sexually repressive Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&feature=plcp
---
More info:
letter to Scott Atran - regarding his debates with Sam Harris and his views on religious belief
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-scott-atran-regarding-his.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)