MOTORCYCLE DIARIES
I watched the above flick tonight. It was interesting. We get a portrait of what the young
bright-eyed, pre-obstinant-and-cold-blooded-idealogue Che Guevara might have
been like. I'll actually bet that it is a fairly accurate portayal too. We see that he was fiercely loyal and loving, honest to a fault, extremely charismatic, and deeply passionate. The movie is fun and made me want to do exactly what they did; just say fvck-all and drive all over the damn place on a motorcycle without any money or security at all. It sounds scary, but fun as all hell.
But would someone please explain to me the hero-worship of this guy? Yes, he was an idealist. Yes, he was a revolutionary. Yes, his motivations were good... initially. BUT from what I read he was so bull-headed that after the success of the cuban revolution he pushed so hard for pure communism so fast that he single-handedly nearly collapsed the economy completely. He succeeded in quickly alienating himself from Fidel and his cronies with his inflexibilty (not to mention the big boys in the USSR) and they basically kicked him out.
WIKIPEDIA talks in very nice phrases about that period. Very generously they say that he "left" cuba. Right, he helped start a war, set up a new government and then thought it was time to mosey on. Sure. Truth is it turned out he was good with guerilla warfare, but he had no aptitude for governing, and was too stubborn to compromise. After he "left" he then went on to latch himself onto fledgeling revolutions in other South American locales, and even one in Africa. All failed to become communist regimes in the end. One such attempt got him caught and executed by a CIA-backed operation. The movie calls it murder. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for the man. In war time he tended to execute prisoners out of hand himself, so let's call it karma and leave it be.
I've written about this before here, this movie just kicked up the dust.
Anyway, as a movie existing in a vaccuum, I liked it. Taking it for what it was, it was good. You have likable characters undertaking a challenging and interesting journey that is full of good dialogue and fun twists and turns as they haphazardly make their way across South America. BUT knowing what I know about the figure that the endearingly passionate young man will become, and that people will sing his praises for generations, it leave a bad taste in my mouth. It feels kind of propagandish.
Coined a new word there. Propagandish. Watch, some people will attribute that to Che too.
2.5 out of 5 Poops
COMMENTS:
Yeah, Joey and I more or less agree on this one. But Joey gives me no sidekick credit or love. And I need some love here. On Joey's blog. I need love on Joey's blog.
Josh
Hagler 05.12.06 - 10:37 pm
Haha. Nothin but love
And who's to say I'm not the sidekick? This movie was viewed, afterall, on your recommendation. :-)
Joey 05.12.06 - 11:02 pm
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Wine tasting
While visiting the newly-wed Crohns this weekend they took us to this amazing little wine and cheese shop within a short walk from their house. It's called Gouda and Vines and it was really very cool.
The guy running the tasting explained to us that we'd be tasting Pinot Noirs and the reason he chose that particular varietal is because of the insane popularity that these wines have experienced since they were heavily featured in the movie Sideways. On the flipside of that, the movie seems to also have provoked a sharp decline in the sale of Merlots. A line in the movie goes "I'm NOT drinking any fvcking Merlot!" Since that tasting I have done some reading about wines on my own, and there is nothing wrong with Merlot. It's widely considered to be one of the easiest reds to drink, and many Merlots are made in a style that is popular with "new" wine drinkers, so that is why some wine snobs will look down on it. BUT my reading also yielded that a good Merlot paired with the right food is a treat for even a wine veteren. But people avoid it because a movie said so. Hilarious.
The tasting was a lot of fun because he would tell us the conventional knowledge for each of the brands that we tried, and then we'd all compare our opinions about what each of tasted and smelled. We found that some of us were more sensitive to certain aspects of wine than others.
The Poppy, for example, was too strong for me. Too sharp is the word I kept using. This surprised the wine guy. Then the next wine, The Marlowe was much easier on my palet, whereas everyone else said it was a bolder, fuller flavor. Again, the wine guy was surprised by my reaction. I explained that it was softer on my mouth, for lack of a better word. It tasted more like wine and less like alcohal than The Poppy, and sure enough the Poppy was higher in alcohal content. The wine guy smiled and nodded, explaining I'm more sesitive to the alcohal taste. Everybody else liked the Marlowe more as well, but for different reasons. They all felt The Poppy was a weaker, softer flavor. I saw The Marlowe as lighter and softer, because I could actually taste the flavor instead of just alcohal burn.
Then there was The Campion. Mmmmm. It was a large flavor, very full, but at the same time smooth and soft and had a flavor that had a hint of a black cherry. Everyone agreed that this was the best of the first three. After this one, we went back and tasted the Marlowe and Poppy again and they tasted like water by comparison.
The final label was Alma Rosa. Blech. We all agreed that this wine had the biggest flavor of all four, but some of us liked it more than others. I had heard the word spicy used to describe wine before, but I had never had one. Spicy isn't a completely accurate word to describe the sensation of this wine, but it's as close as you can get. I like spicy foods, but spicy wine is not my scene. Meg loved it, so she finished mine too.
We brought home a bottle of The Campion and a really nice bottle of imported Sake. We spent WAY too much money, but my birthday cash from my parents covered a big chunk of it.
I can't wait to learn more about wines. It's such an interesting world.
COMMENTS:
joey,
the privacy smashing power of the internet grows with each passing day i.e myspace.I would like to be able to speak/share without a simple/accidental internet search leading to my i.d. and consequently prevent me from getting a job/promotion or custody of my beloved daughter in the future.
Prime Numbers is (e)volving. On that note, a fellow blogger was recently placed on the governments watch list as a dangerous person without due process thanks to the patriot act and is now being treated like a felon in his home state simply because of posts on his website. this has resulted in some deep obstacles providng for his family.
Pleae feel free to unlink me if my new directions is not your cup of tea, I will not be insulted.
I will be looking into what causes the pop up.....
like the hulk but smaller and brown, {m}
mulk 05.09.06 - 6:00 pm
Fair enough, but in future I would appreciate it if you responded in the comment thread that the response is relevant to. I check the comments for the last three or four posts almost every day.
Joey 05.09.06 - 9:43 pm
was that not you inquiring mr. moore?
mulk 05.10.06 - 12:26 pm
p.s. winespeak - "varietal" is an adjective often used incorrectly as a noun, and refers to a wine made from a certain type of grape such as a merlot or a chardonnay - for example, "a verietal wine"
mulk 05.10.06 - 1:04 pm
Well, Mulk, the great thing about language is that it's dynamic. Popular usage actually changes things. The dictionary might list "varietal" as an adjective, and maybe it used to only be used as such but in my own readings on several wine websites I constantly see varietal used as a noun, and I see it used that way by vintners and professional wine reviewers, so I think it's fine.
Joey 05.10.06 - 1:51 pm
Oh, and using it in this way is just basically shorthand for the way you mention anyway. Saying Pinot Noir is a varietal is just a shortcut for saying it's a varietal wine.
Joey 05.10.06 - 1:54 pm
Thank You Joey for being part of the problem instead of the solution. I expected better from you, forgive me.
mulk 05.10.06 - 6:07 pm
I hope you're kidding, but I can never tell with you, you wily devil. :-)
Just to cover both bases, here are two replies for you.
1) HAHA! You crack me up, mulk.
2) If you are referring to my comment about popular usage, then you're only going to get more and more angry the older you get. You should just move to the mountains and live in a cave alone where language will never pester you again. It will save you some bother.
ALL LANGUAGES CHANGE ALL THE TIME.
The MLA rules change every damn year. Ending a sentence with a preposition is no longer a big no no, and neither is saying "Me and mulk" instead of "Mulk and I."
Ask France, they know what I mean. They tried to ban the use of slang in any printed medium to avoid the evolution of their native tongue. It didn't work.
And anyway, all this stuff is besides the point. Like I said, this example isn't even really a change, it's just a shorthand. Saying "a varietal" instead of "a varietal wine" is like saying "a stealth" instead of "a stealth bomber."
Nothin' but love fo' ya, mulk.
Joey 05.11.06 - 4:07 am
While visiting the newly-wed Crohns this weekend they took us to this amazing little wine and cheese shop within a short walk from their house. It's called Gouda and Vines and it was really very cool.
The guy running the tasting explained to us that we'd be tasting Pinot Noirs and the reason he chose that particular varietal is because of the insane popularity that these wines have experienced since they were heavily featured in the movie Sideways. On the flipside of that, the movie seems to also have provoked a sharp decline in the sale of Merlots. A line in the movie goes "I'm NOT drinking any fvcking Merlot!" Since that tasting I have done some reading about wines on my own, and there is nothing wrong with Merlot. It's widely considered to be one of the easiest reds to drink, and many Merlots are made in a style that is popular with "new" wine drinkers, so that is why some wine snobs will look down on it. BUT my reading also yielded that a good Merlot paired with the right food is a treat for even a wine veteren. But people avoid it because a movie said so. Hilarious.
The tasting was a lot of fun because he would tell us the conventional knowledge for each of the brands that we tried, and then we'd all compare our opinions about what each of tasted and smelled. We found that some of us were more sensitive to certain aspects of wine than others.
The Poppy, for example, was too strong for me. Too sharp is the word I kept using. This surprised the wine guy. Then the next wine, The Marlowe was much easier on my palet, whereas everyone else said it was a bolder, fuller flavor. Again, the wine guy was surprised by my reaction. I explained that it was softer on my mouth, for lack of a better word. It tasted more like wine and less like alcohal than The Poppy, and sure enough the Poppy was higher in alcohal content. The wine guy smiled and nodded, explaining I'm more sesitive to the alcohal taste. Everybody else liked the Marlowe more as well, but for different reasons. They all felt The Poppy was a weaker, softer flavor. I saw The Marlowe as lighter and softer, because I could actually taste the flavor instead of just alcohal burn.
Then there was The Campion. Mmmmm. It was a large flavor, very full, but at the same time smooth and soft and had a flavor that had a hint of a black cherry. Everyone agreed that this was the best of the first three. After this one, we went back and tasted the Marlowe and Poppy again and they tasted like water by comparison.
The final label was Alma Rosa. Blech. We all agreed that this wine had the biggest flavor of all four, but some of us liked it more than others. I had heard the word spicy used to describe wine before, but I had never had one. Spicy isn't a completely accurate word to describe the sensation of this wine, but it's as close as you can get. I like spicy foods, but spicy wine is not my scene. Meg loved it, so she finished mine too.
We brought home a bottle of The Campion and a really nice bottle of imported Sake. We spent WAY too much money, but my birthday cash from my parents covered a big chunk of it.
I can't wait to learn more about wines. It's such an interesting world.
COMMENTS:
joey,
the privacy smashing power of the internet grows with each passing day i.e myspace.I would like to be able to speak/share without a simple/accidental internet search leading to my i.d. and consequently prevent me from getting a job/promotion or custody of my beloved daughter in the future.
Prime Numbers is (e)volving. On that note, a fellow blogger was recently placed on the governments watch list as a dangerous person without due process thanks to the patriot act and is now being treated like a felon in his home state simply because of posts on his website. this has resulted in some deep obstacles providng for his family.
Pleae feel free to unlink me if my new directions is not your cup of tea, I will not be insulted.
I will be looking into what causes the pop up.....
like the hulk but smaller and brown, {m}
mulk 05.09.06 - 6:00 pm
Fair enough, but in future I would appreciate it if you responded in the comment thread that the response is relevant to. I check the comments for the last three or four posts almost every day.
Joey 05.09.06 - 9:43 pm
was that not you inquiring mr. moore?
mulk 05.10.06 - 12:26 pm
p.s. winespeak - "varietal" is an adjective often used incorrectly as a noun, and refers to a wine made from a certain type of grape such as a merlot or a chardonnay - for example, "a verietal wine"
mulk 05.10.06 - 1:04 pm
Well, Mulk, the great thing about language is that it's dynamic. Popular usage actually changes things. The dictionary might list "varietal" as an adjective, and maybe it used to only be used as such but in my own readings on several wine websites I constantly see varietal used as a noun, and I see it used that way by vintners and professional wine reviewers, so I think it's fine.
Joey 05.10.06 - 1:51 pm
Oh, and using it in this way is just basically shorthand for the way you mention anyway. Saying Pinot Noir is a varietal is just a shortcut for saying it's a varietal wine.
Joey 05.10.06 - 1:54 pm
Thank You Joey for being part of the problem instead of the solution. I expected better from you, forgive me.
mulk 05.10.06 - 6:07 pm
I hope you're kidding, but I can never tell with you, you wily devil. :-)
Just to cover both bases, here are two replies for you.
1) HAHA! You crack me up, mulk.
2) If you are referring to my comment about popular usage, then you're only going to get more and more angry the older you get. You should just move to the mountains and live in a cave alone where language will never pester you again. It will save you some bother.
ALL LANGUAGES CHANGE ALL THE TIME.
The MLA rules change every damn year. Ending a sentence with a preposition is no longer a big no no, and neither is saying "Me and mulk" instead of "Mulk and I."
Ask France, they know what I mean. They tried to ban the use of slang in any printed medium to avoid the evolution of their native tongue. It didn't work.
And anyway, all this stuff is besides the point. Like I said, this example isn't even really a change, it's just a shorthand. Saying "a varietal" instead of "a varietal wine" is like saying "a stealth" instead of "a stealth bomber."
Nothin' but love fo' ya, mulk.
Joey 05.11.06 - 4:07 am
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
To The Journals!
I'm currently packing up stuff to move it to Meg's parents' house. While I'm gone this summer Meg will be staying there along with most of our belongings.
In my packing I came across some journals from younger days. Yes, from that time long ago when the phrase Y2K was on everybody's lips. A time when at any given moment there was somebody somewhere on this planet that had Hit Me Baby One More Time or Livin La Vida Loca stuck in their head. I am speaking, of course, of 1999-2000.
As I skimmed through one journal in particular I rediscovered a fondness for copying down quotes that were interesting and/or funny. Here's a few:
"Do not run away; let go. Do not seek, for it will come when least expected." --Bruce Lee
"Even with a paddle, Sh*t Creek is not a nice place to be."
--Bill Maher
"Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement."
--Al Pacino in Godfather III
I also used to write these really bad poems. Probably the same crappy angsty garbage that most people write when they are in that high school/college age range. Most of it is terrible, but once in a while my younger self surprises me with something that's not so bad. Here's one:
Untitled
Past the point where it's new
and interesting
Still shy of where it gets easy
That'll be the day...
I know, it's not amazing or anything, but it's got a kind of simple rawness that most of my other young poetry lacked. I think the biggest difference between this and the rest of the poems from my younger days is that they all seemed to be trying too hard. This one seems to be unguarded, and an honest attempt to reveal something about myself instead of dressing myself up in colorful robes of language that I can hide behind.
Am I writing about love? A specific girl? Or Life in general? At this point I couldn't tell you exactly what was going through my mind when I wrote it, but I'm betting I had just been through one of those experiences that destroys an illusion or two. The fact that I answer my own thought about "easy" with "that'll be the day" tells me that I finally hit that age when one realizes nothing ever gets easy.
Disillusionment is a b*tch.
I'm currently packing up stuff to move it to Meg's parents' house. While I'm gone this summer Meg will be staying there along with most of our belongings.
In my packing I came across some journals from younger days. Yes, from that time long ago when the phrase Y2K was on everybody's lips. A time when at any given moment there was somebody somewhere on this planet that had Hit Me Baby One More Time or Livin La Vida Loca stuck in their head. I am speaking, of course, of 1999-2000.
As I skimmed through one journal in particular I rediscovered a fondness for copying down quotes that were interesting and/or funny. Here's a few:
"Do not run away; let go. Do not seek, for it will come when least expected." --Bruce Lee
"Even with a paddle, Sh*t Creek is not a nice place to be."
--Bill Maher
"Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement."
--Al Pacino in Godfather III
I also used to write these really bad poems. Probably the same crappy angsty garbage that most people write when they are in that high school/college age range. Most of it is terrible, but once in a while my younger self surprises me with something that's not so bad. Here's one:
Untitled
Past the point where it's new
and interesting
Still shy of where it gets easy
That'll be the day...
I know, it's not amazing or anything, but it's got a kind of simple rawness that most of my other young poetry lacked. I think the biggest difference between this and the rest of the poems from my younger days is that they all seemed to be trying too hard. This one seems to be unguarded, and an honest attempt to reveal something about myself instead of dressing myself up in colorful robes of language that I can hide behind.
Am I writing about love? A specific girl? Or Life in general? At this point I couldn't tell you exactly what was going through my mind when I wrote it, but I'm betting I had just been through one of those experiences that destroys an illusion or two. The fact that I answer my own thought about "easy" with "that'll be the day" tells me that I finally hit that age when one realizes nothing ever gets easy.
Disillusionment is a b*tch.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Bob
There is an online game called WORLD OF WARCRAFT. Some refer to it as WOW. I used to play WOW. A lot. I started a "guild" in this game called The Ten. A guild is just a fancy way of saying that a group of us online gaming dorks group ourselves together and our characters wear matching uniforms and help each other out in various ways.
In the game one of our big headquarters was called Orgrimmar. My character was Orzo, Bob was Zannicorus (or Big Z), Brian was Orphion, and Jesse Cornwell was called Melgan. Bob and I were Taurens (minotaurs), Brian was an Orc, and Jesse was Undead. Remember this as you read the following.
Today, Bob left this birthday greeting on my myspace comments:
"SWEET SASSY MALASSY. Its your Birthday. HUZAHH! The crowds in Orgrimmar gather together to see the birthday boy. Ohh... over there is that him? Blast! its only Orphion dressed up as a Tauren Shaman. That poser. Where is the man of the hour? Wait look... there... a Zepplin off course flying over Orgrimmar. It crashes into the Wind-rider tower and the helium explodes in a grand display of pyro-technics. Big Z says in squeaky voice (due to Helium). "What Ho! Person jump off the Zep Zep just as went Ka Boom." Orzo falls at blinding speeds as he kerangs towards the opening in front of the auction house. He cast his new spell he just got from an elite birthday dungeon. "Pumpf" a cushion of Jello appears on the ground as he hits. Splat! Orzo hits the Jello and it splatters all over everybody, including Melgan who thought he was too skinny and could dodge it. Ahh... there's nothing like rotting flesh and Jello to make a great party. All of Orgrimmar sang the traditional Birthday Song and praised Orzo for a day. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Captain My Captain. May Though Have An Incredible Birthday."
Best birthday card EVER!
COMMENTS:
hey now, happy birthday
therealdavid 05.03.06 - 4:12 pm
Helium is usually non-reactive, but I'm assuming this was magical exploding helium.
Guillermo 05.04.06 - 5:20 am
Usually? Not always? Are there some exceptions that I don't know about?
Joey 05.09.06 - 9:44 pm
There is an online game called WORLD OF WARCRAFT. Some refer to it as WOW. I used to play WOW. A lot. I started a "guild" in this game called The Ten. A guild is just a fancy way of saying that a group of us online gaming dorks group ourselves together and our characters wear matching uniforms and help each other out in various ways.
In the game one of our big headquarters was called Orgrimmar. My character was Orzo, Bob was Zannicorus (or Big Z), Brian was Orphion, and Jesse Cornwell was called Melgan. Bob and I were Taurens (minotaurs), Brian was an Orc, and Jesse was Undead. Remember this as you read the following.
Today, Bob left this birthday greeting on my myspace comments:
"SWEET SASSY MALASSY. Its your Birthday. HUZAHH! The crowds in Orgrimmar gather together to see the birthday boy. Ohh... over there is that him? Blast! its only Orphion dressed up as a Tauren Shaman. That poser. Where is the man of the hour? Wait look... there... a Zepplin off course flying over Orgrimmar. It crashes into the Wind-rider tower and the helium explodes in a grand display of pyro-technics. Big Z says in squeaky voice (due to Helium). "What Ho! Person jump off the Zep Zep just as went Ka Boom." Orzo falls at blinding speeds as he kerangs towards the opening in front of the auction house. He cast his new spell he just got from an elite birthday dungeon. "Pumpf" a cushion of Jello appears on the ground as he hits. Splat! Orzo hits the Jello and it splatters all over everybody, including Melgan who thought he was too skinny and could dodge it. Ahh... there's nothing like rotting flesh and Jello to make a great party. All of Orgrimmar sang the traditional Birthday Song and praised Orzo for a day. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Captain My Captain. May Though Have An Incredible Birthday."
Best birthday card EVER!
COMMENTS:
hey now, happy birthday
therealdavid 05.03.06 - 4:12 pm
Helium is usually non-reactive, but I'm assuming this was magical exploding helium.
Guillermo 05.04.06 - 5:20 am
Usually? Not always? Are there some exceptions that I don't know about?
Joey 05.09.06 - 9:44 pm
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Moving right along
Sheesh. I'm done discussing religion for a bit. Too taxing and it just goes nowhere.
To Charles: Welcome. I hope you do come back. If you read back into my archives, I don't tend to write that kind of material all the time. I just write about stuff that I find interesting and/or funny. That time it happened to be a Christian instructional video that even Christians I know found laughable. I'm sorry if you felt tag-teamed, that was not my intention. Just know that if these subjects come up again that you are in a roomful of people who share certain opinions. And if you are not Christian, then you play devil's advocate EXTREMELY well. :-)
*********************************************
Secret Garden wrapped up this past Sunday and since then I have been catching up on two months worth of rest and relaxation. The project was six days a week, and generally that seventh day that we had off had me cleaning the house or running errands or both. Tuesday of this week was the first time I had a second consecutive day off since the middle of February.
All I have to do this whole week is work on my lines for the next project and go pick up our BRAND NEW TOYOTA PRIUS!
This week: reading a lot and working on my tan. Next week: probably packing/moving. :-(
COMMENTS:
I love Prius's (?). Maybe that'll be my next car since I followed you and Meg's lead on the last one.
Vega 04.27.06 - 2:24 pm
I was thinking about getting a Civic Hybrid as my next car.
Edward Carter 04.27.06 - 3:45 pm
Look at Mr. Joey. Mr. Environmentalist Hybrid Purchaser. And a harnesser of solar energy, what with that fantastic copper sheen.
What a girl.
By the way, yer damn "pebbly poop" section cut off my seminally important diatribe on how the 80% vs. 20% idea is misleading. I had this great phrase "cocophonous rave of unhappy feelings." I can't remember what it related to, but it's a nice phrase, and now we can't join together in loving it.
Damn pebbly poop section obviously has something against me personally.
Hagler 04.27.06 - 10:30 pm
Well, despite the loss of your wonderful prose, the message of the percentages being misleading came across loud and clear.
And the car was less about the environment and more about my bank account. Three f*cking bucks a gallon?!?! AND STILL CLIMBING!
Holy hell!
Joey 04.29.06 - 12:47 am
wait until may 15th when it's supposed to reach 3.40 a gallon.
Valley Metro all the way Baby!
mulk 05.01.06 - 12:41 pm
Sheesh. I'm done discussing religion for a bit. Too taxing and it just goes nowhere.
To Charles: Welcome. I hope you do come back. If you read back into my archives, I don't tend to write that kind of material all the time. I just write about stuff that I find interesting and/or funny. That time it happened to be a Christian instructional video that even Christians I know found laughable. I'm sorry if you felt tag-teamed, that was not my intention. Just know that if these subjects come up again that you are in a roomful of people who share certain opinions. And if you are not Christian, then you play devil's advocate EXTREMELY well. :-)
*********************************************
Secret Garden wrapped up this past Sunday and since then I have been catching up on two months worth of rest and relaxation. The project was six days a week, and generally that seventh day that we had off had me cleaning the house or running errands or both. Tuesday of this week was the first time I had a second consecutive day off since the middle of February.
All I have to do this whole week is work on my lines for the next project and go pick up our BRAND NEW TOYOTA PRIUS!
This week: reading a lot and working on my tan. Next week: probably packing/moving. :-(
COMMENTS:
I love Prius's (?). Maybe that'll be my next car since I followed you and Meg's lead on the last one.
Vega 04.27.06 - 2:24 pm
I was thinking about getting a Civic Hybrid as my next car.
Edward Carter 04.27.06 - 3:45 pm
Look at Mr. Joey. Mr. Environmentalist Hybrid Purchaser. And a harnesser of solar energy, what with that fantastic copper sheen.
What a girl.
By the way, yer damn "pebbly poop" section cut off my seminally important diatribe on how the 80% vs. 20% idea is misleading. I had this great phrase "cocophonous rave of unhappy feelings." I can't remember what it related to, but it's a nice phrase, and now we can't join together in loving it.
Damn pebbly poop section obviously has something against me personally.
Hagler 04.27.06 - 10:30 pm
Well, despite the loss of your wonderful prose, the message of the percentages being misleading came across loud and clear.
And the car was less about the environment and more about my bank account. Three f*cking bucks a gallon?!?! AND STILL CLIMBING!
Holy hell!
Joey 04.29.06 - 12:47 am
wait until may 15th when it's supposed to reach 3.40 a gallon.
Valley Metro all the way Baby!
mulk 05.01.06 - 12:41 pm
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Wowee!
I'm not quite sure how I managed to attract so much attention, but this sure is fun!
My previous post is the second instance of late that a Christian has expressed the idea that they are being persecuted. I'd like to address that now.
I do not know an exact number, but I do know that David's estimate of 80+% was reasonable. That number represents people in this country who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. And before you people flame me again, understand that I am not saying that 80+% of the country is just like you. I understand that there are many different sects of Christianity, and various levels of commitment to the faith, but they all count. That 80% of the country isn't just say Catholic, but 80% of the country falls into a group that includes Catholics, and Baptists and Methodists etc etc. Even though all those groups disagree on many issues, they all agree on the basics, such as The Bible, Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and Mary and Joseph and The Apostles, etc etc. Right? We can all agree that this, so far, is absolutely true, yes?
Okay, now from my experience with the word persecution it necessarily involves oppression and/or serious harassment and/or abuse. In this country of ours if my voice, and the voices in my comments system, fall into a category that is roughly 20% of the population then how can we be oppressing anybody? And how are some bad jokes serious harassment or abuse?
You guys are the establishment, not us. We are just a handful of dissenting voices. Why does that threaten you so much? I have asked that question here before, and nobody from the other side of the discussion has dared to address it yet. Why do we frighten and anger you so much?
To paraphrase a metaphor from COUPLING, you people are Darth Vader and the Empire, whereas I am merely Princess Leia of the fledgeling Rebel Alliance, desperately feeding my words of dissent into R2D2, who I have cleverly disguised as a MegaMan-style robot up on the top left of this page.
Help me Charlie Darwin-obi, you're my only hope.
COMMENTS:
Now Princess Leia is a deity I can get behind! *wink wink nudge nudge*
Josh 04.26.06 - 5:22 pm
ERRRR, PUT ON THE BRAKES!!!
Who said I was Christian? I sure didn't. This is about me, right? Awesome. I'm famous. Woot.
"I do not know an exact number, but I do know that David's estimate of 80+% was reasonable."
First off, WTF!!!
Haha, just kidding, I learned that from this site.
"Why does that threaten you so much?"
It shouldn't threaten them, and if so, then they need to do some more soul searching. If anything, I would only see it annoying them or making them really sad. Sad for you and not them.
"...you people are Darth Vader and the Empire, whereas I am merely Princess Leia of the fledgeling Rebel Alliance, desperately feeding my words of dissent into R2D2, who I have cleverly disguised as a MegaMan-style robot up on the top left of this page."
Charles is here, baby! You called? Christians are the Empire, huh? Then who are the Jedi, that they tried to whipe out? Oh, you are probably going to mention the Christian Crusaders...clever, one Joey . But that's all Catholic stuff isn't it? Would that make the pope Vader? What's with all the Star wars hype? I saw it in the thearte, but really. I was thinking, why did the bluey Obiwan tell yoda that he was similiar to Luke when he trained him? Didn't Qwigon train Obiwan and not yoda? That story has some holes in it, but its entertaining. Does that mean Christianity has holes in it to? In my opinion, Christianity doesn't have holes, except for the ones that Christians poke into it. Is that Clear? I don't care. In closing, all I have to say is, "FIRST POST!! BAM. SHIZAM!"
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:57 pm
Josh! You beat my post?
*pulls out saber*
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:58 pm
this person is quite insane, or has too much time on their hands.
therealdavid 04.26.06 - 6:31 pm
Gravatar I have lightening quick reflexes.
Josh 04.26.06 - 6:45 pm
FYI
Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America. (NOTE: in the comments that first sentence was a link to a site that listed poll results of 100,000 people across the USA. It backed up David's 80% figure) The counting is done by self-identification. That is, if someone calls you up and asks what religion you are, and you say "Christian," then you'd be counted as a Christian. They have separate categories for non-religious, atheist, etc.
Edward Carter 04.26.06 - 8:41 pm
To Charles: Well, to be totally accurate, you didn't say that you were a Christian, but you did say a lot of things that made it easy to think you were.
And this latest comment is... ummm...
to be generous it is nonsense. My Star Wars reference was a joke based on the idea that Christians represent the majority voice while we agnostics and atheists represent the much smaller voice. You see the parallel there?
...And did you just sort of call yourself Charles DARWIN?!
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:18 pm
And thank you Ed for going the extra mile and backing up David's estimated statistic very nicely.
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:20 pm
STFU, therealdavid. Say that to my face and not like I'm not here. assh*le. Like this, "YOU are either a 'know it all' dumb guy, or YOU are a jackass who reads other forums and cut/paste what someone else says. Sadly you have no opinion to call your own, just an amulgam of other peoples.
Joey, i like how you take some information and form your own facts. Like, example one, Charlie is a Christian. She is not butt munch.
"...majority voice while we agnostics and atheists represent the much smaller voice."
How can you group ags, and aths toghether? They are two different groups. If I were Jess, or if I were you, I would go on to say that your point is invalid and you should do some actual research before you form a statement. Blah, blah, your dumb but I'm going to say it in a way that makes me sound more intelligent. blah, blah, signed Joey/Jess
And this concludes how to post a counterpoint to an argument that never exsisted. Therefore, my opinion is truth (just like evolution). If you would like to subscribe to futher ramblings on how to come off as better than someone in the blog community, then please buy 'wasting my time for dummies' by Joey and coauthor Jess. Otherwise, don't talk to me cause I don't take my time and read entire posts for their contents. I just critique them in my counter. Yay, I'm mean.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:37 am
I would like to appologize to therealdavid, Jess, and Joey. Please find it in your hearts to forgive me. May God watch over you all. Much love. Bye, bye..forever.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:43 am
I think Charles will be back.
Edward Carter 04.27.06 - 3:33 am
Hey Joey,
Just thought I'd bring in another perspective (not argument, because I haven't been paying enough attention to the progression of what this is all about here.) Just a little thinking out loud that might help to complicate the situation, you know and to say, hey, I started reading your blog.
There often seems to be a tendency for groups of people with particular ideas to pit themselves against other groups of people with particular ideas to create and "us vs. them" strategy of sorting out and solidifying their great ideas, thus giving themselves relevance to and voice in, I guess you'd say, our "cultural landscape" for lack of a less pretentious phrase.
Secular groups do this as much as religious groups do.
This 80% business is kind of misleading.
Catholics, and Baptists and Methodists as you say all fall under "Christian" but they don't necessarily identify with each other. Also, Mormons believe that Jesus is their savior but most Christians don't include them in the, shall we say, Christian Club. Also Quakers may be Christian, but their beliefs differ dramatically, from say Catholics or Baptists, with all this "inner light" and "no war" business. You also have the couple thousand or so Handsome Lake followers who merged a native religion with Christianity by the proclimation, as the story goes, of a drunk chief who saw angels come out of some lake in Pennsylvania. Even Rastafarianism as I understand it, grew out of Christianity, but it would be hard to find a Calvinist willing to take a toke (and admit it later). Then there's Gnostics who think all these things about having stars, and seem to think learning is a good idea. (Have you read the recent Gospel of Judas. Some Gnostic sounding ideas in there, if you ask me.) Then there's Jews for Jesus which confuses everyone. Chances are good that I got something wrong in there.
My point is, it's all in how you look at it. If you're a Menonite and someone takes the time to visit you on the homestead (because you're behind on your cell bill) and asks you if you think Christ is your savior, you'll probably say yes. But I think it's a little rich to call a Menonite the "oppressor." In this sense they're a tiny minority in a society, which in their view is completely lost (i.e. society), which in a way, I can see what they mean. Personally, I'd vote for a Menonite if he ran for office becasue the Menonites are a pretty alright crew.
"Even though all those groups disagree on many issues, they all agree on the basics, such as The Bible, Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and Mary and Joseph and The Apostles, etc etc. Right? We can all agree that this, so far, is absolutely true, yes?"
Well, no. They disagree on all those issues too. It's always complicated.
These differences between sects and denominations may seem small to any of us who aren't participating in the tradition, but when you're really absorbed in the cul
Hagler 04.27.06 - 4:22 am
Charlie, dude, you're just giving us too much material to work with here, and proving most of our points at the same time. Sigh... Aww, for a moment there, I felt sad for you.
Jess 04.27.06 - 4:25 am
To Charlie: If you think I say what I say just to sound better than you, then that is a problem of perception. I say what I say because it makes sense to me, and what you said didn't. Period. And the comment about "write something worth reading" was not sarcastic or mean, it was an honest invitation to stop writing emotionally charged stuff about individual commenters and return to a debate about the topic we started on. You had veered from it.
Joey 04.27.06 - 1:31 pm
To Hagler: Thanks for the input. It's good to see you here.
I think I wasn't clear enough in my oppressor thing. Certain Christians out there have accused me, and people like me of persecuting them. I was just trying to illustrate that there are many more Jesus fans in his country than there are people like me, so that MY voice can hardly be called the oppressor. In fact, take my blog as a microcosm. Charles became the minority voice of dissent on here and he got tag-teamed for his efforts. On this blog atheists and agnostics are the majority voice, and therefore are not persecuted or oppressed by the minority Christian voice. BUT in the real world, the numbers are flipped around. Make sense?
And yes, I know they all agree on very little. How about just Jesus then? They all agree on Jesus, or they aren't Christian.
And, yeah, those Jews for Jesus DO confuse everyone.
And, yes, Charles, I am very aware that agnostics and atheists are very different, but they tend to agree on certain specifics when arguing with Christians. In this case, we did.
Joey 04.27.06 - 1:38 pm
Kaaaaaaahn!
Guillermo 04.29.06 - 8:01 am
I'm not quite sure how I managed to attract so much attention, but this sure is fun!
My previous post is the second instance of late that a Christian has expressed the idea that they are being persecuted. I'd like to address that now.
I do not know an exact number, but I do know that David's estimate of 80+% was reasonable. That number represents people in this country who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. And before you people flame me again, understand that I am not saying that 80+% of the country is just like you. I understand that there are many different sects of Christianity, and various levels of commitment to the faith, but they all count. That 80% of the country isn't just say Catholic, but 80% of the country falls into a group that includes Catholics, and Baptists and Methodists etc etc. Even though all those groups disagree on many issues, they all agree on the basics, such as The Bible, Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and Mary and Joseph and The Apostles, etc etc. Right? We can all agree that this, so far, is absolutely true, yes?
Okay, now from my experience with the word persecution it necessarily involves oppression and/or serious harassment and/or abuse. In this country of ours if my voice, and the voices in my comments system, fall into a category that is roughly 20% of the population then how can we be oppressing anybody? And how are some bad jokes serious harassment or abuse?
You guys are the establishment, not us. We are just a handful of dissenting voices. Why does that threaten you so much? I have asked that question here before, and nobody from the other side of the discussion has dared to address it yet. Why do we frighten and anger you so much?
To paraphrase a metaphor from COUPLING, you people are Darth Vader and the Empire, whereas I am merely Princess Leia of the fledgeling Rebel Alliance, desperately feeding my words of dissent into R2D2, who I have cleverly disguised as a MegaMan-style robot up on the top left of this page.
Help me Charlie Darwin-obi, you're my only hope.
COMMENTS:
Now Princess Leia is a deity I can get behind! *wink wink nudge nudge*
Josh 04.26.06 - 5:22 pm
ERRRR, PUT ON THE BRAKES!!!
Who said I was Christian? I sure didn't. This is about me, right? Awesome. I'm famous. Woot.
"I do not know an exact number, but I do know that David's estimate of 80+% was reasonable."
First off, WTF!!!
Haha, just kidding, I learned that from this site.
"Why does that threaten you so much?"
It shouldn't threaten them, and if so, then they need to do some more soul searching. If anything, I would only see it annoying them or making them really sad. Sad for you and not them.
"...you people are Darth Vader and the Empire, whereas I am merely Princess Leia of the fledgeling Rebel Alliance, desperately feeding my words of dissent into R2D2, who I have cleverly disguised as a MegaMan-style robot up on the top left of this page."
Charles is here, baby! You called? Christians are the Empire, huh? Then who are the Jedi, that they tried to whipe out? Oh, you are probably going to mention the Christian Crusaders...clever, one Joey . But that's all Catholic stuff isn't it? Would that make the pope Vader? What's with all the Star wars hype? I saw it in the thearte, but really. I was thinking, why did the bluey Obiwan tell yoda that he was similiar to Luke when he trained him? Didn't Qwigon train Obiwan and not yoda? That story has some holes in it, but its entertaining. Does that mean Christianity has holes in it to? In my opinion, Christianity doesn't have holes, except for the ones that Christians poke into it. Is that Clear? I don't care. In closing, all I have to say is, "FIRST POST!! BAM. SHIZAM!"
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:57 pm
Josh! You beat my post?
*pulls out saber*
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:58 pm
this person is quite insane, or has too much time on their hands.
therealdavid 04.26.06 - 6:31 pm
Gravatar I have lightening quick reflexes.
Josh 04.26.06 - 6:45 pm
FYI
Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America. (NOTE: in the comments that first sentence was a link to a site that listed poll results of 100,000 people across the USA. It backed up David's 80% figure) The counting is done by self-identification. That is, if someone calls you up and asks what religion you are, and you say "Christian," then you'd be counted as a Christian. They have separate categories for non-religious, atheist, etc.
Edward Carter 04.26.06 - 8:41 pm
To Charles: Well, to be totally accurate, you didn't say that you were a Christian, but you did say a lot of things that made it easy to think you were.
And this latest comment is... ummm...
to be generous it is nonsense. My Star Wars reference was a joke based on the idea that Christians represent the majority voice while we agnostics and atheists represent the much smaller voice. You see the parallel there?
...And did you just sort of call yourself Charles DARWIN?!
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:18 pm
And thank you Ed for going the extra mile and backing up David's estimated statistic very nicely.
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:20 pm
STFU, therealdavid. Say that to my face and not like I'm not here. assh*le. Like this, "YOU are either a 'know it all' dumb guy, or YOU are a jackass who reads other forums and cut/paste what someone else says. Sadly you have no opinion to call your own, just an amulgam of other peoples.
Joey, i like how you take some information and form your own facts. Like, example one, Charlie is a Christian. She is not butt munch.
"...majority voice while we agnostics and atheists represent the much smaller voice."
How can you group ags, and aths toghether? They are two different groups. If I were Jess, or if I were you, I would go on to say that your point is invalid and you should do some actual research before you form a statement. Blah, blah, your dumb but I'm going to say it in a way that makes me sound more intelligent. blah, blah, signed Joey/Jess
And this concludes how to post a counterpoint to an argument that never exsisted. Therefore, my opinion is truth (just like evolution). If you would like to subscribe to futher ramblings on how to come off as better than someone in the blog community, then please buy 'wasting my time for dummies' by Joey and coauthor Jess. Otherwise, don't talk to me cause I don't take my time and read entire posts for their contents. I just critique them in my counter. Yay, I'm mean.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:37 am
I would like to appologize to therealdavid, Jess, and Joey. Please find it in your hearts to forgive me. May God watch over you all. Much love. Bye, bye..forever.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:43 am
I think Charles will be back.
Edward Carter 04.27.06 - 3:33 am
Hey Joey,
Just thought I'd bring in another perspective (not argument, because I haven't been paying enough attention to the progression of what this is all about here.) Just a little thinking out loud that might help to complicate the situation, you know and to say, hey, I started reading your blog.
There often seems to be a tendency for groups of people with particular ideas to pit themselves against other groups of people with particular ideas to create and "us vs. them" strategy of sorting out and solidifying their great ideas, thus giving themselves relevance to and voice in, I guess you'd say, our "cultural landscape" for lack of a less pretentious phrase.
Secular groups do this as much as religious groups do.
This 80% business is kind of misleading.
Catholics, and Baptists and Methodists as you say all fall under "Christian" but they don't necessarily identify with each other. Also, Mormons believe that Jesus is their savior but most Christians don't include them in the, shall we say, Christian Club. Also Quakers may be Christian, but their beliefs differ dramatically, from say Catholics or Baptists, with all this "inner light" and "no war" business. You also have the couple thousand or so Handsome Lake followers who merged a native religion with Christianity by the proclimation, as the story goes, of a drunk chief who saw angels come out of some lake in Pennsylvania. Even Rastafarianism as I understand it, grew out of Christianity, but it would be hard to find a Calvinist willing to take a toke (and admit it later). Then there's Gnostics who think all these things about having stars, and seem to think learning is a good idea. (Have you read the recent Gospel of Judas. Some Gnostic sounding ideas in there, if you ask me.) Then there's Jews for Jesus which confuses everyone. Chances are good that I got something wrong in there.
My point is, it's all in how you look at it. If you're a Menonite and someone takes the time to visit you on the homestead (because you're behind on your cell bill) and asks you if you think Christ is your savior, you'll probably say yes. But I think it's a little rich to call a Menonite the "oppressor." In this sense they're a tiny minority in a society, which in their view is completely lost (i.e. society), which in a way, I can see what they mean. Personally, I'd vote for a Menonite if he ran for office becasue the Menonites are a pretty alright crew.
"Even though all those groups disagree on many issues, they all agree on the basics, such as The Bible, Jesus Christ dying for our sins, and Mary and Joseph and The Apostles, etc etc. Right? We can all agree that this, so far, is absolutely true, yes?"
Well, no. They disagree on all those issues too. It's always complicated.
These differences between sects and denominations may seem small to any of us who aren't participating in the tradition, but when you're really absorbed in the cul
Hagler 04.27.06 - 4:22 am
Charlie, dude, you're just giving us too much material to work with here, and proving most of our points at the same time. Sigh... Aww, for a moment there, I felt sad for you.
Jess 04.27.06 - 4:25 am
To Charlie: If you think I say what I say just to sound better than you, then that is a problem of perception. I say what I say because it makes sense to me, and what you said didn't. Period. And the comment about "write something worth reading" was not sarcastic or mean, it was an honest invitation to stop writing emotionally charged stuff about individual commenters and return to a debate about the topic we started on. You had veered from it.
Joey 04.27.06 - 1:31 pm
To Hagler: Thanks for the input. It's good to see you here.
I think I wasn't clear enough in my oppressor thing. Certain Christians out there have accused me, and people like me of persecuting them. I was just trying to illustrate that there are many more Jesus fans in his country than there are people like me, so that MY voice can hardly be called the oppressor. In fact, take my blog as a microcosm. Charles became the minority voice of dissent on here and he got tag-teamed for his efforts. On this blog atheists and agnostics are the majority voice, and therefore are not persecuted or oppressed by the minority Christian voice. BUT in the real world, the numbers are flipped around. Make sense?
And yes, I know they all agree on very little. How about just Jesus then? They all agree on Jesus, or they aren't Christian.
And, yeah, those Jews for Jesus DO confuse everyone.
And, yes, Charles, I am very aware that agnostics and atheists are very different, but they tend to agree on certain specifics when arguing with Christians. In this case, we did.
Joey 04.27.06 - 1:38 pm
Kaaaaaaahn!
Guillermo 04.29.06 - 8:01 am
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Not an atheist.
Okay, I know that I have been a bit preachy (pun intended) lately, but crap like THIS FILM just cracks me up.
I found this on ONEGOODMOVE. If you don't watch the whole thing, at least watch the bit about the banana. It's about a minute and a half long, from time marker 3:00 to about 4:30. If you watch, feel free to comment here. It's ripe for jokes (pun intended).
Firstly, I think it's slick that they got an evangelist who has what sounds like an Australian accent. I don't know if it's the whole Crocodile Hunter association or what, but I think most Americans will take a crazy Aussie seriously for longer than say a crazy Alabama-nite. The guy in this video gets his foot in the door for longer with his legitamizing voice. Tricky. He almost had even me. Not really.
Second, there's one argument presented in this film that is supposed to "make an atheist backslide." This argument was so bad that my jaw hit the floor. I just can't believe that people think this drivel makes sense. There are two versions, actually. One uses a building, and the other a car. But both use the same principle argument. We'll look at a car. They point out that the car has all kinds of well-designed features like a steering wheel to allow you to control it, and windows to see out of, and brakes for stopping, etc. So, it would be foolish to think that this car didn't have a designer, right?
Up to that point in the argument, I am right there with them. Everything checks out so far. Yup. Cars have designers. Makes perfect sense.
Seconds later they spoil it with crazy talk.
They use the car as an analogy to the human body. We have a brain that is like a steering wheel, and eyes that are like the windows, etc etc. It's foolish to think something so well-designed didn't have a designer, right?
Wrong.
A person can go into a Ford facility and meet the people who designed the car. A person can go and see the blueprints and tiny scale mock-ups and the smashed-up wreckage from safety testing, etc. A person can even go and see the robotic assembly-line that assembled their vehicle. The point being there is ample evidence to show anyone willing to look that the car was, in fact, designed.
No such evidence exists for humanity. The human body has no such place of origin. There are no age-old blueprints, or scale mock-ups... unless you count other primates, but that clearly doesn't help the religious case at all.
The larger issue here is not about people's beliefs or God at all. The problem here is people trying to apply logic to a completely illogical set of beliefs. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to, hell believe that there is a purple yack who lives in your shower drain that will grant you wishes when you jerk off on his head, I don't care. BUT don't try to tell me that this belief can be supported by evidence or logical argument.
Just say to me "I have no evidence, nor any proof, but this just feels right to me."
To which I will smile and shrug. I can't argue with that.
COMMENTS:
I notice not one of the "atheists" actually converted after hearing their pearls of wisdom. In fact, they seemed pretty unimpressed. Yet the presenters went on blindly as if their words were really getting through.
Did they explain why their god supposedly created us?
Of course not.
Simon 04.25.06 - 6:06 am
God is a dictator. I will not accept any deity that was not elected directly by the people. No damnation without representation!
Josh 04.25.06 - 3:17 pm
the funny thing is (and I've seen that video before) that total fvcking loon doesn't realize that the common banana is actually a result of hundreds of years of selective plant breeding. Farmers mixed crops and changed rotations to SELECT out certain traits. A banana 1000 years ago would look amazingly different (and probably would be unedible) from what it looks like today.
This is why when people make claims that GMO's are "unnatural" they should be promptly punched in the face. We've been genetically modifying food since man first realized he could grow sh*t of the ground for consumption.
But back to the original point, this video is the prime example of what happens when people choose faith over reason, fact, and logic. They can't resort to arguing in terms of physical reality, so they resort to coming up with the single most absurd bullsh*t anyone can think of.
"God designed the banana with ridges to fit in my hand!"
It's a good thing that God also designed the human genome in such a way that one slight swap of an atom would cause a baby to be born with tay sachs disease. A disease that causes a fatty layer to grow around the child's brain and will make the child brain dead within the first year of its life.
Intelligent Design indeed. I'm thoroughly convinced that if there is a god, he designed us while drinking a canister of turpentine.
therealdavid 04.25.06 - 6:19 pm
I want to thank god for designing my hand the perfect shape to fit around every man's cock. That's real proof of intelligent design.
Vega 04.25.06 - 7:07 pm
HAHA Intelligently designed cock
They are using what is commonly referred to now as Paley's argument.
This type of argument is as old as they come. There are minor variations of it in pre-socratic philosophy from Herakleitos but the first person to fully illustrate it was Plato. And then everyone from Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Paley, and numerous people in between and thereafter.
This argument will never go away. It will change its face but it will always remain to be the same old stupid argument.
Brian Y 04.25.06 - 8:42 pm
To Josh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
To Vega: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...and the winner, by applause...
JULIA VEGA!!
(crowd goes wild)
Joey 04.25.06 - 11:37 pm
If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist, then I guess you would be making a valid counter point then just violently ranting and making sick jokes at a stranger's expense. To Christians, it is their belief in God and JC that governs their way of life, and to publicly denounce that in such an ill'contrived way and manner, you are offending your friends and family that are Christians. It is best that you just keep your religous opinions, and offenses to yourself if your intent is to belittle them, instead of aiding them in life. I do not know you, so maybe you and the some of the other posters enjoy being cruel to other humans that are just trying to find some truth to this world. Forgive them and let them be at peace. If you really don't belive in what they say then you shouldn't take offense at what they say. Now, I see how you can say that I should take my own advise and that I shouldn't take offense. But it's clear that your intent is to offend. Their intent is to save you, for in their world everyone is damned if they don't. Clearly, you should appreciate that and just say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Charles 04.26.06 - 2:23 am
"It is best that you just keep your religous opinions, and offenses to yourself"
That's a two way street. You dislike hearing about atheism/agnostisism as much as I dislike hearing arguments for Christianity, or other religions. If our intent was to offend you, I think that we would be more likely to direct the attack towards people of faith, rather than having a fun discussion about it in a forum mainly intended for a small group of friends.
But I can see your argument that having fun and making jokes within our circles is clearly being "cruel to other humans who are just trying to find some truth in this world".
You want to find some truth in this world, here's a suggestion: Go to www.google.com and type in the word "evolution".
Jess 04.26.06 - 2:50 am
**circle as** not "circles is", my bad.
Jess 04.26.06 - 2:58 am
It's not fair to call this group of comments an argument.
Whether this forum is intended for a small group of friends, is beside the point. I'm here and I'm not your friend. I didn't read a disclaimer on the blog warning me that religions get persicuted openly. There should be so then I wouldnt have wasted my time.
Lastly, don't compare what I dislike and rate it on a level of how much you dislike something. I never said I disliked hearing about atheism, I implied I disliked how people come up with crude jokes to something that was addressed in a serious manner, regardless of what was discused. I don't care if its a video on Hinduism. I'm tired of reading people pretend they know what they are talking in a rebuttle that is littered with irrate verbiage and foul jokes. How is someone supposed to take your point seriously. All they are going to get, is offended and not your poorly drawn point.
If evolution is the truth, then you are nothing more than an animal with unjustified emotion and an opinion as valid as my dog. Personally, I don't believe in evolution so you should thank me.
Charles 04.26.06 - 3:17 am
First of all, spell check.
Second of all, that's the point. We aren't trying to be taken seriously. This isn't a launched attack against religion. It's just fun.
And as far as a disclaimer to tell you that religions get persecuted openly, let's just take a look back to the 1400's and the Spanish Inquisition. If you were to ask me, that was a pretty large scale persecution of religion. But to be fair, that was a long time ago, so you might not remember. How about the Holocaust? That was a little more recent persecution of religion. How about the laws being passed preventing gay couples from being married? Still surprised that religion is persecuted? Wait; wasn't Jesus persecuted based on religion? Hmm.
Persecution is a fact of life. People's belief systems and cultural backgrounds cause them to conflict with other people outside of their own belief system and upbringing. Oppression comes from people with power using their resources to hold down those who are outside of their moral and ethical systems.
And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions.
Jess 04.26.06 - 4:32 am
Oh my dear, sweet Mr Charles, you are such a silly and misguided man.
I would like to reiterate the final point I made in my original post, if I may:
"Just say to me 'I have no evidence, nor any proof, but this just feels right to me.'
To which I will smile and shrug. I can't argue with that."
I also point you towards the paragraph that immediately preceded that thought. I am not "persecuting" anybody. Yes, I am poking fun, but what harm is there in that. You say that I "publicly denounce" and that my "intent was to offend." Clearly you saw what you wanted to see, sir.
What I publicly denounce is bad logic, not religion. And now, sir, I will politely bid you good day.
I said GOOD DAY!
Joey 04.26.06 - 4:46 am
Charles... honestly.
"If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist"
It's impossible to prove a negative.
I cannot disprove god any more than I can disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn that lives on the moon.
Also, my comments had nothing to do with proving or disproving god, but pointing out that the clearly in-the closet kirk cameron and his mustachioed counterpart are completely ignorant of plant biology.
Please spare me your comments about religious people in the united states being persecuted. What is it with the 80+% majority in this country that claims it's being persecuted? Save me?
If I need to be saved from anything it's from a so called "intelligent designer" who makes me vulnerable to horrific genetic diseases by means of a few atoms in my DNA.
Also, how does evolution being true lead to animals with unjustified emotion? If evoloution isn't true therefore emotion is justified? Or animals are incapable of having justified emotion? And just what is a justified emotion? See, this right here is the problem. You simply throw out a comment and claim it to be truth without any evidence.
I feel sorry for you Charles, because claiming that you don't believe in evolution is exactly the same thing as saying to a crowd that you don't believe in gravity.
therealdavid 04.26.06 - 4:46 am
Speaking of "unjustified emotions", there have been some highly enlightening papers written about emotions themselves actually being an integral part of human evolution. The gist is that early humans that were predisposed towards a loving nature and altruism and all that (traits that Christians claim wouldn't exist in a Godless world, but clearly had to have existed in a pre-bible world) are what allowed humans to group into tribal societies, and the whole strength-in-numbers thing is a big part, among other things, of what furthered our ability to survive the process of natural selection. That's a WAY boiled down version, but these comments are getting obscenely long.
Joey 04.26.06 - 4:54 am
"We aren't trying to be taken seriously. This isn't a launched attack against religion. It's just fun."
Okay. then its easily compared to the fun children have slinging crap.
"First of all, spell check."
Nice opening.
"Persecution is a fact of life."
Nicely put. I guess since everybody else is doing it...
"And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions."
what will? Evolution doesn't concern itself with that. True or not. At least, not through my 'google' search, which you claimed to be truth.
I'm done here. I won't be back to read anymore of your comments unless i'm bored.
Charles 04.26.06 - 4:59 am
WARNING, JESS DO NOT READ THIS...I DID NOT SPELL CHECK IT...OH, NOOOOOOOOO. HEHE
more comments. yay. before I go...
Joey, you're right. I based the majority of my post on other peoples posts.
therealdavid, haha, gavity. Bad analogy, but I get your point. It's unfortunate that you don't get mine. I came here thinking this was all serious, and that some of you were being jerks much like a bad evangelist.
"It's impossible to prove a negative."
What does that mean? Cause I can say that, "The sun doesn't rise in the west."
"If I need to be saved from anything it's from a so called "intelligent designer" who makes me vulnerable to horrific genetic diseases by means of a few atoms in my DNA."
so you are saying you need to be 'saved'? According to chrisianity, the body can't be perfect because...well just pick up the new testemant and read it yourself if you care to really find an answer to that question.
"I cannot disprove god any more than I can disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn that lives on the moon."
C'mon, your first post was trying to disprove. Or addressing how you disproved religion in your head.
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:15 am
JESS, DUDE, I DIDN'T SPELL CHECK......AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. KHEM.
[
[
[
-------------------
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
COMEBACK:
"I DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY!"
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:20 am
MY CROSS DIDNT' COME OUT RIGHT...ARGH. ARRRR. PIRATE CHARLES. ARRR.
PS. JUST HAVING FUN LIKE WHAT JESS SAID.
ARRR, YOU'RE WORTH YOU'RE SALT, JOEY. THEREALDAVID, WALK THE PLANK YOU SCALLYWAG AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT GRAVITY!!!
ARRRRRRRR.
'GROWING PAINS' *SHEDS TEAR*
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:23 am
My point about spell check is that if you are trying to make some kind of intelligible argument, poor spelling really hurts your logos. It's basic rhetoric.
I never said that persecution is right, I'm pointing out the fact that is has been a huge part of all of the history classes that you had to take in middle school, so that you might see that being so blatantly offended and surprised that religion is so openly persecuted and that you needed "a disclaimer on the blog warning me that religions get persicuted openly" is just plain silly.
I am especially surprised to see that you were unaware that this blog might offend you, because I'm just assuming that you found this blog through Joey's somewhat controversial post on another blog. From that post, you should have expected it.
But hey, the majority of Howard Stern's radio show listeners were actually the ones who hated him and got offended by him. They were just listening to hear the next thing that offended them rather than just turn the radio dial.
"'And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions.' what will? Evolution doesn't concern itself with that."
What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that for every thought that comes into my head or emotion that I feel, the big G is up there with a "valid" and "invalid" stamp and working away to justify them?
The events the preceded my existence (that whole evolution thing) do not change who I am. In a way they do, because they have shaped the culture in which I was raised, as well as the history that I have learned. And by learning history and other facts, I can for more educated opinions about the things that make you go hmmm.
Here's a tip, you aren't in a forum where you can just make blanket statements that don't mean anything without being questioned on it. So if your purpose here is to try and make an intelligent argument, a. You failed; and b. You might want to think about proof-reading your posts to make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense and has some sort of factual basis. But if your purpose here is to offend, a. You failed, because you can make fun of us "believing" in evolution all you want, it doesn't change its validity; and b. You'd be doing exactly what you accused us of doing in the first place.
Jess 04.26.06 - 1:34 pm
I'm like Howard Stern?
COOL!
Not that I want to be a big asshole like him, but being compared to his ability to stir things up and cause controversy is a compliment. Despite his failings as a human being he really knows how to move people.
Joey 04.26.06 - 2:09 pm
Jess, dude, should I be taking you seriously now?
I will.
So you want me to pretend I know how to spell? You want me to cheat? My logos? whatever. sounds like your either an english teacher or a perfectionist. Or just a very anal person who thinks using a third-party program can help you get your point across. I just set you up for a joKe....you gonna take it? please do.
"...blah blah, Intelligent argument,...blah blah"
So I'm going to assume you're either a woman or gay but not both. You assume way too much. Hehe, that's a joke so i don't want to hear it! (Note: If this joke would find any better place to exsist, it would be this site)
Who said I was trying to make an Intelligent argument. I pwned you in my message, playing D's advocate, and ended my post with a happy alternative. Read it again, please.
SECOND POST BY ME! OPENING STATEMENT
"It's not fair to call this group of comments an argument"
You are the one searching for something to argue about, not me. For all I know, everyone on this site are highschoolers and I'm just trying to help send you out into the real world with a little grace.
My post was meant to make you think, not get all hot in the pants. So you can answer all your 'IF' satements with 'not at all.'
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:36 pm
You accuse us of such base behavior Charlie, but so far in this thread, yours is the only insulting voice I have read.
Charles said: "If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist, then I guess you would be making a valid counter point then just violently ranting and making sick jokes at a stranger's expense."
Violently ranting? Now see here, my ranting is far from violent, I see it as bitingly satirical ranting. And I have never thought of my sense of humor as sick, but I suppose that is all a matter of perspective. I think I can be acidly sarcastic, and even a touch mean with my jokes, but sick? Nah, I think sick would be making jokes about cannibalism or vampirism, you know like eating of my flesh and drinking of my blood kind of stuff. That stuff is just SICK.
More importantly, I take issue with the "valid counter point" bit. I think what you missed, Charles, is that we did something else that is much easier on us. We don't have the burden of evidence weighing on us. You see, nobody has to present a valid counter point because we simply showed that the original points (i.e. the car and banana analogies) to be invalid themselves.
I repeat again, have your faith in whatever you want, and I will shrug and say whatever, but try to apply logic to it and that's where the problems start. Because, put simply:
FAITH IS NOT A LOGICAL THING, IT'S AN EMOTIONAL THING.
If that idea makes you feel threatened, then I'd say you have some insecurity issues about your faith to work out.
And most recently you mentioned we might be high-schoolers. Now, who is the one trying to be offensive? And what does that even mean? I'm a college graduate, thank you. That said, some high school kids are a hundred times more thoughtful and mature than many of the adults I know, so what relevance does that even carry here? It's a simple attempt at the name-calling or mud-slinging that you have accused us of, Mr Charlie. And it is not appreciated.
We can keep this conversation going provided you have something to add that is worth reading. Otherwise I would kindly ask you to move on.
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:07 pm
"...and even a touch mean with my jokes, but sick? "
Not you, Some other person said about wrapping their hand around a penis. Ewww. That's why I'm a lesbian.
"You accuse us of such base behavior Charlie, but so far in this thread, yours is the only insulting voice I have read."
Of course I do? What are you, blind!!!! Talk about narrow minded. I was only insulting to Jess. If you dish, then you would think you can take it...but I didn't even serve it. Be a man.
I agree with the rest of your post.
"We can keep this conversation going provided you have something to add that is worth reading."
That has assh*le written all over it. You sound like Jess. Who the hell are you to say such an arrogant thing to me? My very first post might have been rough but I wasn't some arrogant prick. I was being truthfull. You were cool up until this post.
"And most recently you mentioned we might be high-schoolers"
I was implying that I don't know how old you monkeys are. The use of language and prose lead me to believe that you are pretentious little pricks. Much like some high'schoolers I used to know. Blah, blah, yeah, I know some good high schoolers too. Now I'm just angry. That's why I stepping down to your level. P.S> don't respond to this, I won't be back.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:24 am
Heh heh, "pwned." Go for the head shot! The head shot!
Guillermo 04.27.06 - 4:32 pm
I wish this conversation had been more interesting. Oh well.
Okay, I know that I have been a bit preachy (pun intended) lately, but crap like THIS FILM just cracks me up.
I found this on ONEGOODMOVE. If you don't watch the whole thing, at least watch the bit about the banana. It's about a minute and a half long, from time marker 3:00 to about 4:30. If you watch, feel free to comment here. It's ripe for jokes (pun intended).
Firstly, I think it's slick that they got an evangelist who has what sounds like an Australian accent. I don't know if it's the whole Crocodile Hunter association or what, but I think most Americans will take a crazy Aussie seriously for longer than say a crazy Alabama-nite. The guy in this video gets his foot in the door for longer with his legitamizing voice. Tricky. He almost had even me. Not really.
Second, there's one argument presented in this film that is supposed to "make an atheist backslide." This argument was so bad that my jaw hit the floor. I just can't believe that people think this drivel makes sense. There are two versions, actually. One uses a building, and the other a car. But both use the same principle argument. We'll look at a car. They point out that the car has all kinds of well-designed features like a steering wheel to allow you to control it, and windows to see out of, and brakes for stopping, etc. So, it would be foolish to think that this car didn't have a designer, right?
Up to that point in the argument, I am right there with them. Everything checks out so far. Yup. Cars have designers. Makes perfect sense.
Seconds later they spoil it with crazy talk.
They use the car as an analogy to the human body. We have a brain that is like a steering wheel, and eyes that are like the windows, etc etc. It's foolish to think something so well-designed didn't have a designer, right?
Wrong.
A person can go into a Ford facility and meet the people who designed the car. A person can go and see the blueprints and tiny scale mock-ups and the smashed-up wreckage from safety testing, etc. A person can even go and see the robotic assembly-line that assembled their vehicle. The point being there is ample evidence to show anyone willing to look that the car was, in fact, designed.
No such evidence exists for humanity. The human body has no such place of origin. There are no age-old blueprints, or scale mock-ups... unless you count other primates, but that clearly doesn't help the religious case at all.
The larger issue here is not about people's beliefs or God at all. The problem here is people trying to apply logic to a completely illogical set of beliefs. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to, hell believe that there is a purple yack who lives in your shower drain that will grant you wishes when you jerk off on his head, I don't care. BUT don't try to tell me that this belief can be supported by evidence or logical argument.
Just say to me "I have no evidence, nor any proof, but this just feels right to me."
To which I will smile and shrug. I can't argue with that.
COMMENTS:
I notice not one of the "atheists" actually converted after hearing their pearls of wisdom. In fact, they seemed pretty unimpressed. Yet the presenters went on blindly as if their words were really getting through.
Did they explain why their god supposedly created us?
Of course not.
Simon 04.25.06 - 6:06 am
God is a dictator. I will not accept any deity that was not elected directly by the people. No damnation without representation!
Josh 04.25.06 - 3:17 pm
the funny thing is (and I've seen that video before) that total fvcking loon doesn't realize that the common banana is actually a result of hundreds of years of selective plant breeding. Farmers mixed crops and changed rotations to SELECT out certain traits. A banana 1000 years ago would look amazingly different (and probably would be unedible) from what it looks like today.
This is why when people make claims that GMO's are "unnatural" they should be promptly punched in the face. We've been genetically modifying food since man first realized he could grow sh*t of the ground for consumption.
But back to the original point, this video is the prime example of what happens when people choose faith over reason, fact, and logic. They can't resort to arguing in terms of physical reality, so they resort to coming up with the single most absurd bullsh*t anyone can think of.
"God designed the banana with ridges to fit in my hand!"
It's a good thing that God also designed the human genome in such a way that one slight swap of an atom would cause a baby to be born with tay sachs disease. A disease that causes a fatty layer to grow around the child's brain and will make the child brain dead within the first year of its life.
Intelligent Design indeed. I'm thoroughly convinced that if there is a god, he designed us while drinking a canister of turpentine.
therealdavid 04.25.06 - 6:19 pm
I want to thank god for designing my hand the perfect shape to fit around every man's cock. That's real proof of intelligent design.
Vega 04.25.06 - 7:07 pm
HAHA Intelligently designed cock
They are using what is commonly referred to now as Paley's argument.
This type of argument is as old as they come. There are minor variations of it in pre-socratic philosophy from Herakleitos but the first person to fully illustrate it was Plato. And then everyone from Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Paley, and numerous people in between and thereafter.
This argument will never go away. It will change its face but it will always remain to be the same old stupid argument.
Brian Y 04.25.06 - 8:42 pm
To Josh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
To Vega: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...and the winner, by applause...
JULIA VEGA!!
(crowd goes wild)
Joey 04.25.06 - 11:37 pm
If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist, then I guess you would be making a valid counter point then just violently ranting and making sick jokes at a stranger's expense. To Christians, it is their belief in God and JC that governs their way of life, and to publicly denounce that in such an ill'contrived way and manner, you are offending your friends and family that are Christians. It is best that you just keep your religous opinions, and offenses to yourself if your intent is to belittle them, instead of aiding them in life. I do not know you, so maybe you and the some of the other posters enjoy being cruel to other humans that are just trying to find some truth to this world. Forgive them and let them be at peace. If you really don't belive in what they say then you shouldn't take offense at what they say. Now, I see how you can say that I should take my own advise and that I shouldn't take offense. But it's clear that your intent is to offend. Their intent is to save you, for in their world everyone is damned if they don't. Clearly, you should appreciate that and just say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Charles 04.26.06 - 2:23 am
"It is best that you just keep your religous opinions, and offenses to yourself"
That's a two way street. You dislike hearing about atheism/agnostisism as much as I dislike hearing arguments for Christianity, or other religions. If our intent was to offend you, I think that we would be more likely to direct the attack towards people of faith, rather than having a fun discussion about it in a forum mainly intended for a small group of friends.
But I can see your argument that having fun and making jokes within our circles is clearly being "cruel to other humans who are just trying to find some truth in this world".
You want to find some truth in this world, here's a suggestion: Go to www.google.com and type in the word "evolution".
Jess 04.26.06 - 2:50 am
**circle as** not "circles is", my bad.
Jess 04.26.06 - 2:58 am
It's not fair to call this group of comments an argument.
Whether this forum is intended for a small group of friends, is beside the point. I'm here and I'm not your friend. I didn't read a disclaimer on the blog warning me that religions get persicuted openly. There should be so then I wouldnt have wasted my time.
Lastly, don't compare what I dislike and rate it on a level of how much you dislike something. I never said I disliked hearing about atheism, I implied I disliked how people come up with crude jokes to something that was addressed in a serious manner, regardless of what was discused. I don't care if its a video on Hinduism. I'm tired of reading people pretend they know what they are talking in a rebuttle that is littered with irrate verbiage and foul jokes. How is someone supposed to take your point seriously. All they are going to get, is offended and not your poorly drawn point.
If evolution is the truth, then you are nothing more than an animal with unjustified emotion and an opinion as valid as my dog. Personally, I don't believe in evolution so you should thank me.
Charles 04.26.06 - 3:17 am
First of all, spell check.
Second of all, that's the point. We aren't trying to be taken seriously. This isn't a launched attack against religion. It's just fun.
And as far as a disclaimer to tell you that religions get persecuted openly, let's just take a look back to the 1400's and the Spanish Inquisition. If you were to ask me, that was a pretty large scale persecution of religion. But to be fair, that was a long time ago, so you might not remember. How about the Holocaust? That was a little more recent persecution of religion. How about the laws being passed preventing gay couples from being married? Still surprised that religion is persecuted? Wait; wasn't Jesus persecuted based on religion? Hmm.
Persecution is a fact of life. People's belief systems and cultural backgrounds cause them to conflict with other people outside of their own belief system and upbringing. Oppression comes from people with power using their resources to hold down those who are outside of their moral and ethical systems.
And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions.
Jess 04.26.06 - 4:32 am
Oh my dear, sweet Mr Charles, you are such a silly and misguided man.
I would like to reiterate the final point I made in my original post, if I may:
"Just say to me 'I have no evidence, nor any proof, but this just feels right to me.'
To which I will smile and shrug. I can't argue with that."
I also point you towards the paragraph that immediately preceded that thought. I am not "persecuting" anybody. Yes, I am poking fun, but what harm is there in that. You say that I "publicly denounce" and that my "intent was to offend." Clearly you saw what you wanted to see, sir.
What I publicly denounce is bad logic, not religion. And now, sir, I will politely bid you good day.
I said GOOD DAY!
Joey 04.26.06 - 4:46 am
Charles... honestly.
"If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist"
It's impossible to prove a negative.
I cannot disprove god any more than I can disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn that lives on the moon.
Also, my comments had nothing to do with proving or disproving god, but pointing out that the clearly in-the closet kirk cameron and his mustachioed counterpart are completely ignorant of plant biology.
Please spare me your comments about religious people in the united states being persecuted. What is it with the 80+% majority in this country that claims it's being persecuted? Save me?
If I need to be saved from anything it's from a so called "intelligent designer" who makes me vulnerable to horrific genetic diseases by means of a few atoms in my DNA.
Also, how does evolution being true lead to animals with unjustified emotion? If evoloution isn't true therefore emotion is justified? Or animals are incapable of having justified emotion? And just what is a justified emotion? See, this right here is the problem. You simply throw out a comment and claim it to be truth without any evidence.
I feel sorry for you Charles, because claiming that you don't believe in evolution is exactly the same thing as saying to a crowd that you don't believe in gravity.
therealdavid 04.26.06 - 4:46 am
Speaking of "unjustified emotions", there have been some highly enlightening papers written about emotions themselves actually being an integral part of human evolution. The gist is that early humans that were predisposed towards a loving nature and altruism and all that (traits that Christians claim wouldn't exist in a Godless world, but clearly had to have existed in a pre-bible world) are what allowed humans to group into tribal societies, and the whole strength-in-numbers thing is a big part, among other things, of what furthered our ability to survive the process of natural selection. That's a WAY boiled down version, but these comments are getting obscenely long.
Joey 04.26.06 - 4:54 am
"We aren't trying to be taken seriously. This isn't a launched attack against religion. It's just fun."
Okay. then its easily compared to the fun children have slinging crap.
"First of all, spell check."
Nice opening.
"Persecution is a fact of life."
Nicely put. I guess since everybody else is doing it...
"And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions."
what will? Evolution doesn't concern itself with that. True or not. At least, not through my 'google' search, which you claimed to be truth.
I'm done here. I won't be back to read anymore of your comments unless i'm bored.
Charles 04.26.06 - 4:59 am
WARNING, JESS DO NOT READ THIS...I DID NOT SPELL CHECK IT...OH, NOOOOOOOOO. HEHE
more comments. yay. before I go...
Joey, you're right. I based the majority of my post on other peoples posts.
therealdavid, haha, gavity. Bad analogy, but I get your point. It's unfortunate that you don't get mine. I came here thinking this was all serious, and that some of you were being jerks much like a bad evangelist.
"It's impossible to prove a negative."
What does that mean? Cause I can say that, "The sun doesn't rise in the west."
"If I need to be saved from anything it's from a so called "intelligent designer" who makes me vulnerable to horrific genetic diseases by means of a few atoms in my DNA."
so you are saying you need to be 'saved'? According to chrisianity, the body can't be perfect because...well just pick up the new testemant and read it yourself if you care to really find an answer to that question.
"I cannot disprove god any more than I can disprove the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn that lives on the moon."
C'mon, your first post was trying to disprove. Or addressing how you disproved religion in your head.
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:15 am
JESS, DUDE, I DIDN'T SPELL CHECK......AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. KHEM.
[
[
[
-------------------
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
COMEBACK:
"I DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY!"
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:20 am
MY CROSS DIDNT' COME OUT RIGHT...ARGH. ARRRR. PIRATE CHARLES. ARRR.
PS. JUST HAVING FUN LIKE WHAT JESS SAID.
ARRR, YOU'RE WORTH YOU'RE SALT, JOEY. THEREALDAVID, WALK THE PLANK YOU SCALLYWAG AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT GRAVITY!!!
ARRRRRRRR.
'GROWING PAINS' *SHEDS TEAR*
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:23 am
My point about spell check is that if you are trying to make some kind of intelligible argument, poor spelling really hurts your logos. It's basic rhetoric.
I never said that persecution is right, I'm pointing out the fact that is has been a huge part of all of the history classes that you had to take in middle school, so that you might see that being so blatantly offended and surprised that religion is so openly persecuted and that you needed "a disclaimer on the blog warning me that religions get persicuted openly" is just plain silly.
I am especially surprised to see that you were unaware that this blog might offend you, because I'm just assuming that you found this blog through Joey's somewhat controversial post on another blog. From that post, you should have expected it.
But hey, the majority of Howard Stern's radio show listeners were actually the ones who hated him and got offended by him. They were just listening to hear the next thing that offended them rather than just turn the radio dial.
"'And I don't need your beliefs to justify my opinions or emotions.' what will? Evolution doesn't concern itself with that."
What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that for every thought that comes into my head or emotion that I feel, the big G is up there with a "valid" and "invalid" stamp and working away to justify them?
The events the preceded my existence (that whole evolution thing) do not change who I am. In a way they do, because they have shaped the culture in which I was raised, as well as the history that I have learned. And by learning history and other facts, I can for more educated opinions about the things that make you go hmmm.
Here's a tip, you aren't in a forum where you can just make blanket statements that don't mean anything without being questioned on it. So if your purpose here is to try and make an intelligent argument, a. You failed; and b. You might want to think about proof-reading your posts to make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense and has some sort of factual basis. But if your purpose here is to offend, a. You failed, because you can make fun of us "believing" in evolution all you want, it doesn't change its validity; and b. You'd be doing exactly what you accused us of doing in the first place.
Jess 04.26.06 - 1:34 pm
I'm like Howard Stern?
COOL!
Not that I want to be a big asshole like him, but being compared to his ability to stir things up and cause controversy is a compliment. Despite his failings as a human being he really knows how to move people.
Joey 04.26.06 - 2:09 pm
Jess, dude, should I be taking you seriously now?
I will.
So you want me to pretend I know how to spell? You want me to cheat? My logos? whatever. sounds like your either an english teacher or a perfectionist. Or just a very anal person who thinks using a third-party program can help you get your point across. I just set you up for a joKe....you gonna take it? please do.
"...blah blah, Intelligent argument,...blah blah"
So I'm going to assume you're either a woman or gay but not both. You assume way too much. Hehe, that's a joke so i don't want to hear it! (Note: If this joke would find any better place to exsist, it would be this site)
Who said I was trying to make an Intelligent argument. I pwned you in my message, playing D's advocate, and ended my post with a happy alternative. Read it again, please.
SECOND POST BY ME! OPENING STATEMENT
"It's not fair to call this group of comments an argument"
You are the one searching for something to argue about, not me. For all I know, everyone on this site are highschoolers and I'm just trying to help send you out into the real world with a little grace.
My post was meant to make you think, not get all hot in the pants. So you can answer all your 'IF' satements with 'not at all.'
Charles 04.26.06 - 5:36 pm
You accuse us of such base behavior Charlie, but so far in this thread, yours is the only insulting voice I have read.
Charles said: "If you guys could actually prove that God doens't exsist, then I guess you would be making a valid counter point then just violently ranting and making sick jokes at a stranger's expense."
Violently ranting? Now see here, my ranting is far from violent, I see it as bitingly satirical ranting. And I have never thought of my sense of humor as sick, but I suppose that is all a matter of perspective. I think I can be acidly sarcastic, and even a touch mean with my jokes, but sick? Nah, I think sick would be making jokes about cannibalism or vampirism, you know like eating of my flesh and drinking of my blood kind of stuff. That stuff is just SICK.
More importantly, I take issue with the "valid counter point" bit. I think what you missed, Charles, is that we did something else that is much easier on us. We don't have the burden of evidence weighing on us. You see, nobody has to present a valid counter point because we simply showed that the original points (i.e. the car and banana analogies) to be invalid themselves.
I repeat again, have your faith in whatever you want, and I will shrug and say whatever, but try to apply logic to it and that's where the problems start. Because, put simply:
FAITH IS NOT A LOGICAL THING, IT'S AN EMOTIONAL THING.
If that idea makes you feel threatened, then I'd say you have some insecurity issues about your faith to work out.
And most recently you mentioned we might be high-schoolers. Now, who is the one trying to be offensive? And what does that even mean? I'm a college graduate, thank you. That said, some high school kids are a hundred times more thoughtful and mature than many of the adults I know, so what relevance does that even carry here? It's a simple attempt at the name-calling or mud-slinging that you have accused us of, Mr Charlie. And it is not appreciated.
We can keep this conversation going provided you have something to add that is worth reading. Otherwise I would kindly ask you to move on.
Joey 04.26.06 - 10:07 pm
"...and even a touch mean with my jokes, but sick? "
Not you, Some other person said about wrapping their hand around a penis. Ewww. That's why I'm a lesbian.
"You accuse us of such base behavior Charlie, but so far in this thread, yours is the only insulting voice I have read."
Of course I do? What are you, blind!!!! Talk about narrow minded. I was only insulting to Jess. If you dish, then you would think you can take it...but I didn't even serve it. Be a man.
I agree with the rest of your post.
"We can keep this conversation going provided you have something to add that is worth reading."
That has assh*le written all over it. You sound like Jess. Who the hell are you to say such an arrogant thing to me? My very first post might have been rough but I wasn't some arrogant prick. I was being truthfull. You were cool up until this post.
"And most recently you mentioned we might be high-schoolers"
I was implying that I don't know how old you monkeys are. The use of language and prose lead me to believe that you are pretentious little pricks. Much like some high'schoolers I used to know. Blah, blah, yeah, I know some good high schoolers too. Now I'm just angry. That's why I stepping down to your level. P.S> don't respond to this, I won't be back.
Charles 04.27.06 - 2:24 am
Heh heh, "pwned." Go for the head shot! The head shot!
Guillermo 04.27.06 - 4:32 pm
I wish this conversation had been more interesting. Oh well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)