Stonehead

[video:youtube]OddXCja1N4E

I feel all dirty now. baa

Liberals and conservatives aren't born. They're created. Those ideologies are social constructs augmented by developmental influences. Both sides have some factual basis but at the heart of their ideologies is social conditioning. "Nothing is true". Is that what you're saying?

Why do you have to be such a hater? Why?

Ever heard of Kill Haole Day?

Nope not grouchy. That job in the park sounds like your trick. So you want to bring alternate lifestyles into this too?

Seagal, I really love it when you use those big foreign sounding words like 'manifesto'. It definitely compliments your loaded vocabulary. You got 'assault rifle' and 'compound' in there, too? So are you a moron? You might get your talking points straight from Huffington Post or Daily Kos or whatever lameass blog you consume all day but I work for a living. And injectin' politics? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it? When you can't keep continuously projecting that arrogant latte-sippin' urban new age hipster vibe, you dim switch over to that liberal victim mode: "Eeehhhuuu...if the government doesn't protect me, I might get hurt." Here, I'm dedicating this one to you, Sparky. Now, where is hell is Chuck Norris? [video:youtube]5k5y3fBH9Og

Confucius say...

Well, FW, despite knowing where your own heart and values lie, how about having one's views on spirituality directly equated to Nazism, Communism, Genocide, and a broad and uninformed assessment that one "lacks deep feeling" and spirituality by someone who simply doesn't see things the way you see them? I thought his post deserved a response. Most people think the world would be a better place if only everyone thought like them, and the major faiths of the world in most cases specifically direct their followers to make this happen either by social/political action, or violence. Some atheists have done this also, but somehow they are singled out above all others. An unorganized and politically powerless group of socially ostracized people whose crime is an observation that religion is not rational are to be feared above the vast political power of the Christian and Catholic churches or the brutal Islamic Sharia-law seeking totalitarians? Anyone of any faith or lack thereof with an ounce of sense knows that conversion, embrace, or abandonment of faith is entirely an internal and personal matter and one that cannot ever be forced upon another whether by a state, faction, or coercion. I think it would be much harder to come to this view with the yoke of a faith that instructs me otherwise. The recognition of this matter of individual choice on spiritual matters is one of the great things about the idea behind the formation of the United States. Right, I get it. The religious folks are the real bad guys. But the joke is actually the liberal's declaration of tolerance which masks his intolerance. A day may come when religious preference of belief and action is reduced to mere window dressing to appease the liberal's sense of the state-imposed ideal society. What was written (the purported demonization) is the same medicine the liberal tries to force on his opponent whether it be the conservative, the libertarian, or whatnot but suddenly he doesn't like the taste of it? Understand that history has its changing currents so it pays to auger which way the wind blows. In the case of Board of Education of Kiryas Joel vs. Grumet Supreme Court Justice Souter wrote for the majority saying: “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” So in the latter part of that statement in his opinion is he not basically siding with the atheists? You may not be a politically active atheist but there are definitely those that are militant in imposing their view intent on silencing religion. Some think that hate crime legislation may be the beginning of the regulation of religious belief. If you are libertarian in mind, then none of this applies to you. So why bother? We do after all have the establishment clause of the first amendment which supports the separation of church and state. No one forces you to believe anything regarding religion. It is the free exercise clause that concerns me. So far, the courts have upheld the 1st amendment with regards to the use of controlled substances (drugs) as a central sacrament of religious ritual. These rulings have a bearing on the practice of religion. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DOVEGETAL et al. Court Upholds Religious Exemption For Importation and Use of Daime Tea

And Bill would be what? First man? http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Clintonese/1553258 Play it.

“There is no rational man” Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues

OMG! Think of the polar bears! [video:youtube]fxis7Y1ikIQ

[video:youtube]iL_RbCGxqsc

What they sought was to end the inter-colony religious competition and the intra-colony religious persecutions which were all to common between the various colonial religions. And it is completely self-delusional to think that people who are religious have any more capacity for feelings of any sort than atheists. It's exactly this sort of thinking that at its root is the 'them vs. us' I was speaking of upthread and just the sort of thinking Justice Brandeis was warning about. You are certainly free to be religious, I just happen to find it sad to see so many lives rooted in fear. And bug, please do in kind feel free to trot out any argument at all for god(s) that somehow leaves Tooth Fairies out of the mix. In Latin the phrase considered the de facto motto of the United States: e pluribus unum. Do you know what the official motto is? Is not your own unprofessed superiority that is at issue? Is that why you refer to the religious as if they were scared children? The atheist is the one who actually fears but denies it. He fears the irrationality of subjective feeling that is all too much a part of him which cannot be cut away despite the objections of his rational mind. Granted, religion has had its excesses in Dionysian frenzy.

I can really only reiterate or expand on what I’ve already said. For one, I do not know if my definitions are your definitions. So, I might be speaking an alien language? Feeling and spirituality are linked and inasmuch as feeling is suspect by some who consider it irrational, then spirituality will also be questioned. Yet, a man cannot cut off his head to spite his body or vice versa to remain whole. The prominent question as I see it surrounds the nature of Truth, not merely truth with a small t but that which stands for the eternal truth for humanity. For a partial explanation of this, I have to rely on the words of kindred spirits, the likes of Wittgenstein and Beethoven. As Beethoven said: "There is no loftier mission than to approach the Godhead more nearly than other mortals and by means of that contact to spread the rays of the Godhead through the human race." Wittgenstein himself was inspired by Tolstoy’s The Gospel in Brief. Make of it what you will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

Like entering into Iraq and starting a religious war wasn't? comparing atheism to nazism just shows how utterly stupid you are. Not getting laid enough?

It strikes me that the atheist is devoid of deep feeling not that he doesn’t delight in sensual pleasure but does he experience those sublime feelings that persist beyond the fleeting moment, that are everlasting, feelings which are more characteristic of the religious? And by religious I refer not to the institutional rigidity or legalism so often mistaken for religious affect. Religion by its own definition does not negate the spontaneity or free form of true spirituality. [video:youtube]EM8RlCZP0KQ And feeling and spirituality reaches back to the beginning of humanity. If one is truly cognizant of his cultural history, he cannot make a clean break from the religious heritage encapsulated in modern life despite all the efforts of political movements such as communism which sought to eradicate religious belief rooted in the transcendental only to replace it with the cult of the state. A complete break would mean a severance from the rest of humanity. The true atheist would perhaps be a transhumanist, not only in words but in actual design. Are you a new species? To my mind, the rational atheist potentially presents as much a threat as was posed by the Nazi technocrat. Are we to know that the same atheist who claims to be well-intentioned will not also support government measures perhaps under the guise of alleviating climate change, political measures that eventually lead to coercive population control? Here, the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis seem relevant: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment of men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Again, the words of Justice Brandeis: “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.” An attack on the freedom of religion is an attack on the foundational virtues of the United States.

I think it's misguided to attack the entire edifice of Christianity, perhaps you should single out certain denominations. Regardless of the opinions of its distractors, Christianity includes a relatively wide gamut of emphasis, for example, there is something called Liberation Theology which focuses on social justice particularly the role of poverty and inequality in society. Look also at the Episcopalian denomination for their social leanings. I guess I'm one of the few that sees value in the positive aspects of religion despite its faults. The Evolution of the God Gene--New York Times

[video:youtube]1uQlB99WCuk

It sounds like a problem with integration. Might I suggest psychological counseling?

If you look closely, you'll see I never made the assertion of equivalence of government and religion. Now, atheism is a special case because it seeks to eliminate religion altogether by castorating it of anything that might resemble something beyond our normal experience, i.e., the supernatural, thus relegating the functions of religion to ethics. Even if you are a strict rationalist, if you have been exposed to ideas such as expressed in Edwin Abbott's Flatland, you will see the inherent poverty of the atheist POV which limits itself primarily to the sensible world including the expansions of same allowed through technology. You have reasons for believing as you do. However, this (RE: "...any competing modes of thought") appears to be an error. Religion viewed properly does not seek to displace all other modes of thought, rather it complements other modes of thought for a picture of completeness. This is why, I believe, the founding fathers spoke of the freedom to think as you wish within limits (of course) as exemplified in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Here, they also were wise to allow for the free exercise of religion yet were cautious to prevent the exclusion of the practice of other religions through the establishment clause.

The idea, if I understand correctly, is that liberty alone will not preserve virtue in society. Rather, left to our own devices, unemcumbered by the moral constraints of religion, corruption and self-centeredness results. Today, the State endeavors to take the place of God and they call the beliefs of the secular state a religion by another name. So, the House passed a climate bill. Another bill passed committee and will be up for vote in the Senate but with little modification. It remains to be seen what Obama's administration will offer at Copenhagen although they sound committed to action. Congress, meanwhile, will probably lurch into next year to forge a common agreement in an election year no less. And then there's the EPA which SCOTUS has provided blessings too for regulating carbon dioxide as a health hazard. So if, the legislative branch cannot make progress, the administration can use the heavy hammer of the EPA.

But what about the economic effect?

You mean that you can hear all of this without playing it backward? :pagetop:j_b, you're a RTRD. I thought with the Guided by Voices video and the reference to Joyce you might figure out it's all about the subjective experience. Jeez!