The one thing that makes this worth it is that the Virgin Mary's head quite literally explodes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Former Porn Actress, Virgin Mary, Crib, Joseph' to 'Former Porn Actress, Virgin Mary, Crib, Joseph, sasha grey' - edited by BoneRemake

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's ...Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

I think you're looking at the argument from the wrong perspective. Let's examine the premises:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist:

The basic question here is, in the absence of God, is there is any objective difference between good and evil? That, if there is no God, is the difference between good and evil like the difference between coke and pepsi? An example Craig gives is, is the difference like which side of the road that you drive on, which varies from culture to culture?

So, this is where you would make an argument for valid and binding objective moral values outside of Gods existence. You can invalidate the whole argument right here, but you have to provide a logical foundation. I have yet to see anyone refute premise one.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Now, to say this premise is false is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. IE, you will have to admit that torturing babies for fun isn't actually wrong. I have actually debated people who tried to defend it, but I give them credit for being intellectually honest, because that is the logical conclusion; that if objective moral values do not exist, torturing babies for fun isn't absolutely wrong. However, I think we both know that it is, therefore objective moral values do exist.

So, this is a rather tricky argument for an atheist. Qualia soup gets the whole thing wrong here. The basic trouble for you is, if you want to dispute premise one, you have to come up with a foundation for objective moral values outside of God. If you admit there is no such foundation, then we move to premise 2, and there you have to argue that objective moral values do not exist. If you can not argue it, or if you admit objective moral values do exist, then you are forced to accept premise 3, that therefore God exists.

For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Yes, I can agree with all of this. I believe that the Universe is tangibly real, and is generally how it appears to be, in that it is not a malicious deception or a meaningless illusion. I believe we are both individuals made in the image of God with an independent existence and a soul. I believe we can come to meaningful conclusions about reality, and that there is a truth which is tangible, accessible to reason, and which does not change based on our interpretation or personal preferences.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

I am very consistent when it comes to meanings. This is one of the hallmarks of literal interpretation, that the words in the bible, while they can sometimes be applied in a metaphorical sense, always have an intended meaning which is absolutely true in all circumstances.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I generally won't propose arguments that would take faith to accept. I understand your natural skepticism because I used to be equally skeptical. I will just submit that when you are deceived, you don't know you are deceived:

2 Corinthians 4:4

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I admit the possibility that I could be deceived, so I think if we both can admit this, we will have a more fruitful conversation.

know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I think it is logically airtight. That if you cannot prove there is a foundation for objective moral values outside of God, and you cannot disprove that some actions are objectively wrong, that you must accept the conclusion of the argument.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

I am dubious of the philosophy of empiricism upon which science is founded upon. Empiricism assumes that truth can only be discerned through our senses, and that our minds merely processes and categorizes this truth. I reject this view because there are clearly truths that empiricism cannot evaluate, including the validity of empiricism itself. I'll bring in craig again for this one:



I apologize for the title..it's just the best clip I could find.

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

I would say my experience is generally subjective but is objectively confirmed, both by other people, and my daily life. You can say I have interpreted those experiences subjectively, and I am just fooling myself, of course. Personal experience is something hard to prove, as the other person is naturally skeptical of the other persons ability to evaluate what is true. All I can say is that truth is paramount to me and I am incapable of believing something just because I want it to be true. I would rather have nothing and die a meaningless death than live out a comfortable lie.

Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

This is a rather large subject. I'll do my best..

God is perfect. He is holy, loving, and just. He exists outside of time and space in His own realm, which is called Heaven. He is capable of doing anything that can be done. As far as what God feels, that can be hard to quantify. For instance, you can say God feels love, but by definition, God is love. In general, from the bible, it seems God can be pleased, can be jealous, has compassion, is kind, is loving, can be grieved and can be angered. His nature is immutable, in that He is goodness itself. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. That doesn't change. He can however change how He interacts with us.

God created us out of the abundance of His love. It wasn't out of a need, as He already had perfect love within the relationships of the Holy Trinity, but it was an overflowing of that love. He created us to be in relationship to Him, as His children.

There were no diseases, or any inequality before the fall. He created the world perfectly, and He set us in paradise, to learn and grow under His care. However, because robots would be undesirable, He gave us free will to be obedient to Him or not. Unfortunately, we abused that, and broke fellowship with God. Sin and death were brought into the world because of it, and since then this has been a fallen creation. If you have something perfect, and introduce an imperfection, then it is no longer perfect and neither can anything perfect ever come from it. Sin and death ruined that perfection, and they are the cause for all of the disease and inequality today.

Because of this, God brought the law into the world, to give us a minimum standard for moral behavior. The law in itself was not capable of fixing the situation, as everyone fell short of the law, but rather it highlighted our need for a savior. This is the reason Jesus Christ came.

He came to Earth, putting aside His glory and position to live as a man, being the first human being since Adam to be born without sin. He lived a perfect life, though He was tempted in every way that we are, and fulfilled the entire law. Finally, He sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of mankind, as a substitutionary atonement for our crimes, and He tasted death for all men. God proved all of this by raising Him from the dead. So, Christ defeated death and sin on the cross, and imputed His righteousness, the righteousness of God, back into mankind. Therefore, anyone who accepts His Lordship will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life. It is by the imputation of Gods perfect righteousness and substituionary atonement that the effects of the fall have been countered, and we are again reconciled to God and can enjoy perfect relationship to Him as His children.

God is three persons, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus ascended to Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession on our behalf. Jesus was born of a virgin, and was both God and man; He had two natures, which were united for one purpose in submission to the Father. Jesus, before He was born as a human being, existed as God. "Before abraham was, I am."

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Hope that answers your questions.



>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

@shinyblurry

Having watched the first 30 seconds again and thought about it, with Craig's definition of objective moral values (OMVs) inserted into Premise One, it reads: "If God does not exist, then nothing exists which is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." If by this he means, "If God does not exist, then nothing exists which is good or evil no matter who believes or does not believe it to be so", then it's pretty close to a truism, but as Qualia says, it leaves Craig with significant problems. Then, unfortunately, Q goes off apparently on an irrelevant tangent about people assessing other people's moral behaviour, which is the wrong argument to make at this point, as Craig's definition is all about things being moral or evil independent of everyone's judgement. The correct point to make here would be that by Craig's own definition of OMVs, it's now impossible to verify Premise Two because it would require either a human or God to assess that such a moral value or duty existed. This can never happen because Craig's definition of OMVs precludes humans from evaluating things morally, and the argument cannot, obviously, invoke God's opinion, since proof of God's existence is the argument's conclusion. So, by definition, Premise Two cannot be proven, and that's Craig's argument completely sunk, and it could have been the end of the video too.

Except something interesting happens: Craig contradicts his earlier definition of "objective" meaning that it doesn't matter what any human thinks, and presents the fact that 99% of people would say that torturing and caring for a child hold different moral values as evidence that OMVs exist, in other words, now, suddenly the definition of OMVs rests in what 99% of people think. This means he accepts somebody's assessment of moral value, if on a large enough scale. If Craig appeals to the moral opinion of 99% of people to prove objectivity in his own arguments, then obviously anybody arguing against Craig is allowed to do the same, so any points Qualia Soup makes in the video based on the opinions of humans in general stand because they follow Craig's own rules of evaluation.

So, Qualia's point is valid and relevant, that on the whole, we don't make moral judgements based solely on the act itself, but on what the person committing the act believed about their actions: a healthy adult killing a baby is viewed entirely differently than a retarded adult or a very young child killing a baby. This is not irrelevant if Craig's proof for Premise Two relies on the opinion of 99% of people. This shows that OMVs may not exist independent of what people think. It suggests the opposite: that judgements of the moral value of an action may only exist based on what people think.

QS: It goes on, asking "what do we make of a being that's decided that only one species is morally accountable?"

SB: This is simply a red herring. It makes absolutely no difference and is not relevant what we think about God holding humans accountable and not animals. Our standard for moral behavior is not measured by the behavior of animals. The relevant difference is that the standard for our moral behavior is measured by what God chooses as morally correct.

Here, QS is responding to Craig's accusations of atheists being "speciesist" for thinking humans are special, and throws it back in his face by showing by his definition, God is speciesist if he only chose to hold one species morally accountable. Also, your own argument that morality relies on what God decides is morally correct assumes the existence of God, which you cannot assert in the middle of a proof of God's existence.

The section that follows about "unevaluated value" makes the point that if there are moral values that exist but we lack awareness of them, then it's useless for them to exist undetected. And if we're not positing that a God already exists, it makes more sense for the actions to be noticed, and then evaluated as either evil or good at that moment, rather than to have already been evaluated morally by God, and then detected as morally good or evil by that person due to their internal morality detector provided by God. In other words, the capacity for moral judgement is not proof that God gave it to us. It could have evolved.

The argument beginning at 3:47 shows there's no way to determine that a person has detected something that was already evaluated as good by God and understood it as so, rather than has seen something and evaluated it as good himself by his own judgement.

***

And it goes on from there. Anyway, that's my evaluation of your evaluation of Qualia Soup's evaluation of Craig's ontological proof that God exists.

I'd much rather talk about you and me and our relative faiths in God, but before we go on, I have to know what the rules are and what I will be expected to establish.

About us
For example, can we just accept that you and I exist, one independent of the other, neither a figment of the other's imagination? Can we accept that our normal external sensory input can be accepted as correct for the purposes of this conversation, (except in the trivial cases of optical illusions and so forth)? You probably know what I'm saying. I hate it when I get into an argument and think I've made a very strong point, only to have my opponent come back with, "Everything's subjective; you can't prove anything is real," or, "Maybe you imagined the whole thing, I mean, you can't prove you didn't," or, "You can prove anything with facts," or, "Well, you have your beliefs and I have mine," or some crap like that where I'm not talking about subjective facts or my own beliefs.

Also, in theological arguments, I must insist on a couple things. The first is that words must have meaning. If you say something, you can't later say that it's not to be taken literally, or that that word has a different meaning when applied to God. The second is that everything logically entailed by a statement must stand with the original statement, and any other statement. If there's any inconsistencies, then at least one of the statements must be false.

Also, please don't assert supernatural things like the existence of Satan, or your knowledge of how he works, telling me these things like I'm ignorant of them, rather than fully aware of the stories, but sceptical. Say that it's what you believe or have come to believe or whatever, but don't say it like objective fact. Same goes for Bible verses. I don't accept them as fact any more than you'd accept Skeletor quotes as fact. To me that book is best treated as fiction, though it's possible it conveys some details of events that really happened, but pronouncements of the way the world is I absolutely do not accept as the word of God, especially since I don't believe he exists. I don't care if the Bible predicts atheists/sceptics. All that tells me is that people have been doubting the veracity of the word for 2,000 years, and someone took the precaution of adding a word or two against non-believers into the text so believers down the line would have justification "from God" for dismissing my arguments as guided by Satan, or whatever.

I know you don't think Qualia's line of reasoning holds, but I don't know what you think of Craig's argument. Is it valid, in your mind? And here, I'm mostly interested in how you think. As I've said, the video was only intended to take apart the argument of one Christian apologist, and not to prove or disprove anything.

I'm 99% sure you said in a comment somewhere that you're dubious of science. Could you explain what you mean by that? Science isn't a system of faith or a set of theories. It's a process of testing theories. Are you dubious of the process? What parts of it specifically do you mean?

Is it accurate to say that the sum of your experience of God is subjective, that's to say, is based solely on your own experience in your head, and possibly in things in the objective world that you have interpreted in a subjective way, and is not borne out in any demonstrable way in the measurable material world?

About God
Please describe God. Where is he? When is he? What is he capable of? What does he feel? Is he immutable? Please add anything you can about why he did things like create the universe and animals and us and disease and suffering and inequality and joy, why he cares for us, why he cares what we do, why he made some things moral and some things evil, and any other informative facts. Is there a God the Father anymore, or just Jesus? Did Jesus have a human form and a godly form, or did he transmute from one to the other? What was Jesus before he was born? Was he born of the virgin Mary?

I'll answer your most recent post in my next sitting.

"Abstinence works EVERY time." I guess she's never heard of the virgin Mary...On a serious note; the sooner these last few bronze aged myths are consigned to history -as have been countless myths before them- the better off we will all be.

A Christian is someone who follows Christ and the true church is the body of Christ. This means that all the different denominations are false divisions in the body. This doesn't mean they don't have any Christians, it just means that the church is not a human institution..the catholics for example, most of what they do is not biblical, and is in fact blasphemy. There is no such thing as a pope, or nuns, or monks or priests in the bible. Neither are there sacraments. The conception of the virgin mary and the immaculate conception are both unbiblical and blasphemous. The same with bowing to statues, the worship of Mary, and confession. The catholic church is rife with apostacy. Does this mean no catholic is saved? I wouldn't say that..I don't limit God. I would say though that if I were catholic I wouldn't be confident of my salvation.

I wasn't "indoctrinated". I grew up agnostic, without any religion. I was a strict materialist who would have fit right in with many of the sifters here. I can understand the perspective of someone who can't see a spiritual reality because that used to be my perspective. I probably would have scoffed at this video too, but it would have been from the depths of ignorance. I have direct knowledge that there is a demonic host controlled by Satan who runs this world and is bent on seperating every soul on Earth from Jesus Christ. I have dealt directly with evil spirits, spoken to them directly, and have been directly deceived by them. This girl, whatever her history is, is/was possessed..of that there is no doubt.

Science is great, but this is spiritual warfare. You may not understand it, but you live in harmony with this world system and thus passively support the objectives of the enemy. Everytime you're arguing against Christ, you are doing Satans work for him. The world itself isn't frightening..

matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. If you're a jew, you should know that much.
>> ^G-bar:
First, It is stated in the video that she had had this "possession" for a long time, and her medieval parents were taking her to those voodoo sessions for quite some time. This hints that the girl could be suffering from a minor mental illness and/or autism, which the parents are either too dumb or too religious to realize. Making her do things against her will over and over again might make her go completely crazy.
Second, If catholics are not the real Christians, who is? what are you shiny? how can you justify your own belief as the correct one?
And to sum it up, you throw every possible scientific measures against evolution, and now this? come on shiny, let go of your childhood indoctrination. Use your own eyes to see the world and you will see it is not as frightening as they told u it would be.

Thank you for keeping me from being the one that had to say it.

Here's a photographic thesis project based on the gender construct of color preference.

I know I have a pretty radical view on the topic, but someone standing up & defending the gender binary is incredibly off-putting. "Trappings of gender identity" are exactly that, just trappings.

"Trappings" of anything should be abandoned. Be what you are, not the social construct of what you're told you are.>> ^xxovercastxx:

In Western culture, the practice of assigning pink to an individual gender began in the 1920s or earlier. From then until the 1940s, pink was considered appropriate for boys because being related to red it was the more masculine and decided color, while blue was considered appropriate for girls because it was the more delicate and dainty color, or related to the Virgin Mary. Since the 1940s, the societal norm was inverted; pink became considered appropriate for girls and blue appropriate for boys, a practice that has continued into the 21st century. - from Wikipedia.
What's funny is some of these old men who make up the modern, cranky, "conservative" base inevitably grew up wearing pink as it was considered manly for 20+ years during their youth. They should think about that the next time they're secretly jerking a guy off in the bathroom stall of a truck stop.
Pink (or "pank", as I said it) was my favorite color as a toddler and, while I've never exactly become a ladies man, I'm certainly not gay.

In Western culture, the practice of assigning pink to an individual gender began in the 1920s or earlier. From then until the 1940s, pink was considered appropriate for boys because being related to red it was the more masculine and decided color, while blue was considered appropriate for girls because it was the more delicate and dainty color, or related to the Virgin Mary. Since the 1940s, the societal norm was inverted; pink became considered appropriate for girls and blue appropriate for boys, a practice that has continued into the 21st century. - from Wikipedia.

What's funny is some of these old men who make up the modern, cranky, "conservative" base inevitably grew up wearing pink as it was considered manly for 20+ years during their youth. They should think about that the next time they're secretly jerking a guy off in the bathroom stall of a truck stop.

Pink (or "pank", as I said it) was my favorite color as a toddler and, while I've never exactly become a ladies man, I'm certainly not gay.

My after comment explained what type of respect I was talking about.

“Respect in America” meant that women have lost respect in American society. American culture, not self respect or such... And that meant both men and women, in America, have less respect for the penis-less sex (;)

Respect was given to women, and in other cultures is still alive and well. However, it should be noted that respect and equality are two different beasts. Joan of Arc is a hero highly regarded by men for her valor--but she was far from equal in most men's eyes when she lived. The Virgin Mary, another figure--but see if she could vote or own property. Queen Cleo--a better example of equality and respect, but still comes up short, etc. The good housewife, respected... if not controlled.

The problem, in my opinion, is that we equate freedom and equality with good. Neither are good, just perspectives. Freedom and equality bring much---but they are cold, hard tools.

It used to be that nations fought nations for the sole purpose of women and their virtue. Slight a noble’s wife and die... Nowadays, men just replace women, and run their nations anyways.

But to answer an unspoken question--I think both sexes lost respect in this commercialistic world. Consume, buy, consume, repeat until death. Big tits, no brains... = wealth... Funny part is, this has always been a male concept for the most part, but now women have a vivacious appetite for this greed too.. Sad...

>> ^peggedbea:
respect in what sense? respect of society in general? respect of men? self respect? respect from other women?
i disagree that "respect" has always been the general attitude directed at women. >> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.
I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...
>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Yeah? Well mine popped up with an image of Jesus!

>> ^ulysses1904:

Anyone who believes that this person is talking on a cellphone in 1928 or is a time-traveler or anything like that is beyond help. There is some logical explanation for why they are walking and talking like that, even if the answer is there is no clear reason why they are behaving that way. Or else it's a digital hoax.
I can only hope that most people are playing along with the usual light-hearted whimsical time filler that news organizations throw in to the mix, rather than thinking that this is a actually an indication of anything supernatural. It's only a crazy loon talking to their hand in an old movie and somehow didn't end up on the cutting room floor.
BTW, my toast popped up this morning with an image of the Virgin Mary.

Anyone who believes that this person is talking on a cellphone in 1928 or is a time-traveler or anything like that is beyond help. There is some logical explanation for why they are walking and talking like that, even if the answer is there is no clear reason why they are behaving that way. Or else it's a digital hoax.

I can only hope that most people are playing along with the usual light-hearted whimsical time filler that news organizations throw in to the mix, rather than thinking that this is a actually an indication of anything supernatural. It's only a crazy loon talking to their hand in an old movie and somehow didn't end up on the cutting room floor.

BTW, my toast popped up this morning with an image of the Virgin Mary.

"So the Virgin Mary . . . this won't stay in . . . "

I love it.

It could be the Virgin Mary, she is worshiped. It could be Mother Teresa, she is revered.

Joan of Arc... Of course all of these women are put down and held back as sluts... After all, they were not the head of households, nor the top of the food chain... I mean, being a Patron Saint of France must have been so degrading--such a lowly place... (Of course, politics led to her later execution, but then doesn't it always?)

Also, Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in eternal punishment. And they are Christian. They think that is beyond god's wrath. Of course they are a peaceful Christian and as such an exception to most religions... And their Dogma, as such and for countless other reasons of peaceful intent, is not very well liked.

So yeah, it has to be the gloom-and-doom that attracts people. But wait? Isn't that true for politics? I mean, that is what the Republican part is based on! Hold, isn't that true for the Entertainment? I mean, who actually paid attention to sex-ed class documentaries? But switch to Titanic and BOOBIES!

Just sayin...

>> ^deathcow:
> the Dag household has been TVless for going on 11 years.
TV isn't all shit you know...



So for all ya folks who took some sort of offense at the idea that I believe folks here are morons??? Gert real. Only a few of you are indulging that outer moron screaming to go back in. As I have maintained here on the site for some time, after having to stomach the ceaseless editorializing about what should be common-sense moral and ethical questions, the fine-points of God VS No God according to fucking GARP, and the attention to political bullshit rhetoric paid when the proper AND reasonable human response to the condition of the same in the world is to SHUT IT THE FUCK OFF, AND THROW ALL THOSE SICK MOTHERFUCKERS OUT, TELEVISION, and the propaganda and newspeak that disguises itself as reality thereon, is a major reason this place has become a clearing house for the mentally ill, sexually frustrated, and the "who wants to see my douchebag" crowd. The latter I would venture to guess, were not raised on the programming coming out of the cathode ray shitstain exclusively( your retarded parents who raised you were), but on a combo-platter of Internet foolishness, Telly, videogames, porn, and a cadre of dysfunctional fuck-ups, lovingly referred to as, "Parents." Sorry, just calling it the way any reasonable soul should see it-ALL COMPLETE DIVERSIONS DESIGNED TO ROB HUMANS OF LIFE....and the freedom to fuck anything they want.

Society is in flux, ever changing, and becoming more non-linear with each passing second. The CHALLENGE we all face as humans being, with a view to self-conscious awareness, is to see through the muck created by living in a world where some men struggle to maintain dominance over others while others simply wish to be, is to rise above the fucking illusion and embrace the essence of the shit, prior to having to check out of the place. Always has been, always will be.

GeoPolitics is the illusion created by those first types of fucking assholes, the fucks who would tell me, of all people, what they should and shouldn't, can't and can do. Fuck You, I can decide that for myself, and if I had a clan, or a tribe, for about 50 others.... Fuck it, make it a hundred...we need people that like to dig holes and plant stuff. Religion? Religions are a good thing.They give us all something to aspire to, whatever the fuck that may be. Including Scientology and born-again Christains. Clever bunch of folks dreamed that shit up, more power to em. Greed and power got the best of most of em, and they turned douchebag real quick....that's the nature of mankind struggling to admit that they don't want to fuck themselves in their own ass. Most fail miserably and DON'T end up fucking that tender rusty sheriff's badge a few times.

Now to the douchebags who still don't have a clue, after all my work here to convince them otherwise....GET A FUCKING LIFE ALREADY! Stop trying to figure out why I say and do what I do here to stir up shit, and look in a fucking mirror, when the assumptions and accusations begin to fly-You are me and I am you...end a-fucking story.

Namaste, peace, the Virgin Mary wants to skull fuck you all while L. Ron watches, and good night....And THAT'S, the end of the news. we now return you to your regularly programmed schedule.

these movie comparisons are too much like findings of virgin mary in pieces of burned toast for my taste. although dunecat was nice