From poor, humble serf
Dependent on government
Up through tax brackets

Beautifully done, QM. May your artistic residency on these boards continue for many years!

>> ^quantumushroom:

According to liberal doctrine, this man just went from a humble serf, dependent on government, to an evil rich White guy who should be taxed at 90%.

According to liberal doctrine, this man just went from a humble serf, dependent on government, to an evil rich White guy who should be taxed at 90%.

WTF.

I guess the castle doctrine doesn't extend to squatters?

I hate to sound violent, but removing someone from your house by force should always be legal.

What liberal doctrine? Be specific.
>> ^quantumushroom:

If there was no Bill Moyers using tax dollars to push unchallenged liberal doctrine, I'd agree.
>> ^packo:
PBS actually has factual news
not a propaganda arm of big business
must die

If there was no Bill Moyers using tax dollars to push unchallenged liberal doctrine, I'd agree.

>> ^packo:

PBS actually has factual news
not a propaganda arm of big business
must die

Either this was a brilliant troll attempt or a hilariously written rant. Either way, good job. Upvoted.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I only wish this were true, but so many homos have allowed themselves to be conditioned to tolerate and even respect, uncritically, inferior cultures.

I care that they're offended. I can sense their confused, mooing outrage like a bad smell. It's psychic baggage I'm tired of carrying. There are too many muslims in the world and the stink is becoming unbearable.

As a proudly hardened islamophobe, let me tell you apologists something. The correct word for islamic 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist' is muslim. These are the ones who actually believe in the doctrine of their absurd cult. I bet you don't even know what that doctrine is; go do some research instead of just smugly congratulating yourselves for holding the sanctioned position. The so-called majority, which is not so much a majority as you like to tell yourselves, of peaceful muslims aren't muslims at all; they're liars and cowards who pay lip service to their cultural standards without really believing in them or having the strength to form contrary ideas of their own - they're just like you.

I only wish this were true, but so many homos have allowed themselves to be conditioned to tolerate and even respect, uncritically, inferior cultures.

I care that they're offended. I can sense their confused, mooing outrage like a bad smell. It's psychic baggage I'm tired of carrying. There are too many muslims in the world and the stink is becoming unbearable.

As a proudly hardened islamophobe, let me tell you apologists something. The correct word for islamic 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist' is muslim. These are the ones who actually believe in the doctrine of their absurd cult. I bet you don't even know what that doctrine is; go do some research instead of just smugly congratulating yourselves for holding the sanctioned position. The so-called majority, which is not so much a majority as you like to tell yourselves, of peaceful muslims aren't muslims at all; they're liars and cowards who pay lip service to their cultural standards without really believing in them or having the strength to form contrary ideas of their own - they're just like you.

@ChaosEngine

Oh sweet irony, I'm being called wilfully ignorant by a young-earther.

I'm not going to refute you. I don't need to; @BicycleRepairMan has already done an excellent job of it.

An excellent refutation? He cherry picked one sentence out of my reply, a reply where I had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument from incredulity by proving his assumption of the constancy of radioactive decay rates was nothing more than the conventional wisdom of our times. Is this what passes for logical argumentation in your mind? He posited a fallacious argument. I exposed the fallacy. He ignored the refutation and cherry picked his reply. You seem to be showing that in your eagerness to agree with everything which is contrary to my position that you have a weak filter on information which supports your preconceived ideas. Why is it that a skeptic is always pathologically skeptical of everything except his own positions, I wonder?

@BicycleRepairMan

...and to see an exampe of such a racket, check the flood "geology" link.

Seriously, you cant see the blinding irony in your own words? So, things like radiometric dating, fossils, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology are all just parts of a self-perpetuating racket confirming each others conclusions in a big old circlejerking conspiracy of astronomical proportions.. well, lets assume then that it is. So they are basically chasing the foregone conclusion that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life on this planet emerged some 3,6 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. But where did these wild conclusions come from? Who established the dogma that scientists seems to mindlessly work to confirm, and why? And why 13,72 billion years then? Why not 100 billion years, or 345 million years?

The thing is, what you have here is an alleged "crime" with no incentives, no motivation.. Why on earth would all the worlds scientists, depentently and independently and over many generations converge to promote a falsehood of no significance to anyone? it might make some kind of sense if someones doctrine was threatened unless the world was exactly 13.72 billion years old. Or if someone believed they were going to hell unless they believed trilobites died out 250 million years ago.. The thing is, nobody believes that.

The truth is pretty much staring you in the face right here. The conclusions of science on things like the age of the earth emerged gradually; Darwin, and even earlier naturalists had no idea of the exact age of the earth, or even a good approximation, but they did figure this much: It must be very, very old. So old that it challenged their prior beliefs and assumptions about a god-created world as described in their holy book. And thats were nearly all scientists come from: They grew up and lived in societies that looked to holy books , scripture and religion for the answers, and everybody assumed they had proper answers until the science was done.If scientists were corrupt conspirators working to preserve dogma, they be like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. Ignoring vast mountains of facts and evidence, and focus on a few distorted out-of-context quotations to confirm what they already "know".

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me? In any case, I'll reply to what you've said here. I was going to get into the technical issues concerning why scientists believe the Universe is so old, and the history of the theory, but so far you have given me no reason to believe that any of it will be carefully considered.

Instead I'll answer with a portion of an article I found, which was printed in "The Ledger" on Feb 17th 2000. It's interview of a molecular biologist who wanted to remain anonymous

Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”

Caylor: “What elephant?”

MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”

Here are some selected quotes:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,

Chinese Paleontologist

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Professor Whitten,
Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very hard."

Prof. Evelleen Richards,
Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

Speaks for itself, I think..

@shinyblurry said
It's quite a racket they have going, where the evidence is interpreted by the conclusion. Last time I checked that wasn't science.

...and to see an exampe of such a racket, check the flood "geology" link.

Seriously, you cant see the blinding irony in your own words? So, things like radiometric dating, fossils, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology are all just parts of a self-perpetuating racket confirming each others conclusions in a big old circlejerking conspiracy of astronomical proportions.. well, lets assume then that it is. So they are basically chasing the foregone conclusion that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life on this planet emerged some 3,6 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. But where did these wild conclusions come from? Who established the dogma that scientists seems to mindlessly work to confirm, and why? And why 13,72 billion years then? Why not 100 billion years, or 345 million years?

The thing is, what you have here is an alleged "crime" with no incentives, no motivation.. Why on earth would all the worlds scientists, depentently and independently and over many generations converge to promote a falsehood of no significance to anyone? it might make some kind of sense if someones doctrine was threatened unless the world was exactly 13.72 billion years old. Or if someone believed they were going to hell unless they believed trilobites died out 250 million years ago.. The thing is, nobody believes that.

The truth is pretty much staring you in the face right here. The conclusions of science on things like the age of the earth emerged gradually; Darwin, and even earlier naturalists had no idea of the exact age of the earth, or even a good approximation, but they did figure this much: It must be very, very old. So old that it challenged their prior beliefs and assumptions about a god-created world as described in their holy book. And thats were nearly all scientists come from: They grew up and lived in societies that looked to holy books , scripture and religion for the answers, and everybody assumed they had proper answers until the science was done.If scientists were corrupt conspirators working to preserve dogma, they be like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. Ignoring vast mountains of facts and evidence, and focus on a few distorted out-of-context quotations to confirm what they already "know".

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

@PostalBlowfish - easy friend ... I wasn't labeling you absurd, just one interpretation of the opening remark of your comment. Surely there is a distinction. You don't need to do anything with the fact that I don't often vote on comments. That fact and this specific exception to it have no real effect, except apparently to have upset you.

To your specific points, though ...

I don't think I veered off topic at all. I was trying to figure out to what exactly you were referring by "religion". I tried to make a guess based on the rest of your comment. I didn't offer an example of the benefits of religion because 1) I wasn't sure my guess about your meaning was correct, and 2) if you were referring to religion in its broadest terms, the claim seemed patently false. Your response suggests a broad definition of religion and that what I think is obvious is not at all obvious to you.

You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.

Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.


The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it.

I agree with much of your comment, but that opening statement is so broad and overreaching that I had to downvote it (and I almost never vote on comments).

Unless I am mistaken, I think you are referring to a very narrow definition of religion in making that claim. It is absurd otherwise. Religion, in the most general sense, is a collectively accepted doctrine of moral, philosophical, and spiritual belief. There is nothing inherently detrimental to such systems of belief, except perhaps the tendency towards tribalism. But it's worth noting that some religious doctrines explicitly warn against tribalism.

I think what you may be arguing against is demagoguery and tribalism, both of which are often attached to religion, but are not synonymous with it.

It is important to make this distinction because only by being careful with such words can we ever move those enthralled by the negative aspects of religious social control.

i have to agree with @xxovercastxx
while this video brings up questions i have always found interesting.the speaker does cherry pick to build an argument for a pre-determined conclusion.
a conclusion which promotes his view of the world.

to suggest that an atheist or agnostic has no meaning,or can never find meaning in their lives due to an absence of religion,is not only intellectual dishonesty but lacks imagination.

the reason why this confounds or eludes many religious folk is because religion is externalized.
they derive meaning through submission to a higher power ie:god,jesus,allah,(fill in deity here).
they adhere to a doctrine and dogma that the atheist/agnostic does not.so both parties view/experience their worlds in very different manners.so it should be no surprise that there would be a disconnect between these two parties,because they approach the "meaning of life" question from very different perspectives.

Genji,

I appreciate your words, Ezra, thank you. Let's say that you're right, that my life is meaningless, and that I am the one who determines what is true. Do you know what I would determine to do? What I would determine to do is to do the same things I am doing right now. Even if I knew Jesus Christ was not God, I would still determine to follow His blueprint for the ideal person, because following that blueprint has radically transformed my life for the better. There are many who aren't Christians who feel the same way, that Jesus got it right. If I wasn't a Christian, I would follow the ideal He set forth, summed up in the great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. To turn swords into plowshares. To pray for your enemies and hold banquets for the homeless. To walk two miles when someone asked you to walk one. To give the shirt off your back to someone else who needs it. To love everyone unconditionally, and see every person as fundamentally worthy of my respect. That is what my life about it, and I wouldn't consider that to be a wasted life, even if I was wrong.

I've also lived the alternative. Contrary to what you say, I was never really afraid of death. I can't say I liked the idea of death, but I accepted it; and so I was resigned to triviality, and meaninglessness. I was also content to go to the grave with those beliefs. Like everyone else, I got by on my dreams, my relationships, and whatever gratification I could get out of the moment; I indulged in the pleasures of sin freely, and felt little shame.

So I didn't come to be a Christian out of fear, or a need to be comforted. I came to be a Christian because God touched my life and shook me from my agnosticism. He showed me I wasn't quite as smart as I thought I was. He showed me that the material reality is but a thin veil covering a much greater truth. He showed me that the truth was always staring me right in the eyes, but I was too blind to see it. What He showed me was that He had always been there, my entire life, and that many of the things I wrote off as coincidence really were not.

You see, it is perfectly reasonable and rational for me to believe there is a God. He has simply given me too much evidence to deny it. It's not a convenient belief that fills in all the scary things about life; rather, it is my reason for being, my logos. It is also my eternal gratitude to the Creator for rescuing me and loving me even though I don't deserve it. To know God is to know truth, to know who you are, and why you're here. To know God is to have hope for your future, and an ever present peace and contentment. You believe I am fooling myself, but I say that even if you're right, it is a life worth living, a life well enjoyed, a life that hopefully will touch many others in positive ways. If that is the only meaning I die with, its worth it to me.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Shiny.
Accept it. You're an ape.
You're a conglomeration of amoeba.
Your life is a just a blip in the twinkling of the universe.
There is probably no god or gods.
There's probably no purpose or reason for your existence.
You are the being that gives purpose or meaning to your life.
When you realize that.
When you realize that there's not supernatural sky daddy to hold you when you're scared or confused..
You'll understand that you've been talking all this nonsensical religious babble in order to establish that purpose.
That the only reason you and jihadist are so adamant about your own personal interpretation of the essence of the abyss..
Is to distract yourself from the fact that your life is just another series of events in this long chain of entropy, chaos, disorder.
The only reason you're so religious is because you're an ape that's too scared to accept your death and the triviality of your existence.
One day, I hope you'll realize this.
On that day, you'll be "born again" just like you were when you accepted "Jesus Christ" and Christian doctrinal teachings.
On that day, you may become self-actualized..
And from then on, understand that we homo sapiens are very lucky.
For we, among few other animals, are able to choose their life's meaning and purpose.
Please don't waste yours.. being a religious troll on the interwebs.
Your brother,
Ezra.