Fox News viewers are ignorant as FUCK
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
So, in my last VP debate post, Dave Watson commented wondering how you could call either candidate the winner, when people's perceptions of who won differ by party affiliation. Which is not precisely correct.
Educated, informed Republican pundits and party higher-ups are not pretending McPalin is kicking ass and taking names. Why? Simple: Because they aren't kicking ass. However, Fox News viewers and their ilk are madly in love with the empty-headed hockey mom and her geriatric warmonger sidekick, and have indeed been proclaiming her debate victory loudly across the interwebs in spite of the reality of the situation.
How is it possible that CNN, MSNBC and NPR viewers/listeners and most non-Fox media pundits called the debate squarely in Biden's favor, and yet Fox viewers and commentators are proclaiming Manchurian Barbie's victory? Simple: Fox viewers are fucking ignorant, and Fox commentators are fucking liars.
No, really. It's true.
Think of it this way: Fox viewers support George Bush, and think Bill O'Reilly actually has something worthwhile to say. What do BushCo and the O'Reilly clan have in common? How about willful denial of any verifiable facts that don't agree with what they want to believe, for starters? Or how about an unstoppable dedication to persist in repeating untruths as "facts" even after they've been disproven? Doesn't that sound just a teeny bit like what Palin did in the debate, when she fully ignored almost every single question the moderator asked, and instead cheerfully parroted all the innuendo and untruth she'd been coached to recite?
I could go on, but someone else already beat me to it:
While looking for relevant statistical differences between Fox Newsies and followers of other news outlets, I found an interesting piece summarizing a 2003 Program on International Policy Attitudes survey: Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War. Granted, the poll was taken five years ago, but I've seen recent polls suggesting that a shocking number of Americans still hold the misperceptions addressed in this survey … and I've seen no evidence of Fox News making any great movement toward greater factual accuracy in their broadcasts … so I'm perfectly willing to assert that all of the conclusions outlined below are still correct in essence, if not in their exact numbers.
The survey asked the following questions, noting which news outlet the respondents gave as their primary source of world information:
- Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
- Since the war with Iraq ended*, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
- Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the US having gone to war?
*Quaint, isn't it? The pollsters actually thought that whole "Mission Accomplished" speech meant the war in Iraq was actually over.
- Misperceptions are widely-held. To quote a few numbers, 48% believe the US has found clear evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda, 22% believe Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks, 22% believe the US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, 20% think Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the war that just ended, and 25% believe the majority of world opinion is in favor of the US having gone to war.
- Misperceptions are strongly correlated with support for the war. Both pre- and post-war, support for the war is much higher among those who are wrong about the facts. For example, 86% of those who incorrectly answered all three questions listed above were in favor of the war, compared to 23% of those who had no misperceptions. Of course, we can't know for certain whether people are basing their support for the war on incorrect information, or if they are instead making up their minds and then choosing to believe rumors and insinuations that support their already-formed opinions. However, this is still a good indication that these misperceptions had a real effect on public support for the war.
- Misperceptions correlate strongly with media source. People who watch Fox News as their primary news source were much more likely to be incorrect on the questions of links to al Qaeda, WMD and world opinion than those who watched any other source. People who got their primary news from television were more likely to have misperceptions than people who got their news from print media, and NPR/PBS viewers were the best informed on these subjects.
Misperceptions Held Fox
NewsCBS
NewsABC
NewsCNN
NewsNBC
NewsPrint
NewsNPR/PBS None of the 3 20% 30% 38% 45% 45% 53% 77% 1 or more 80 71 61 55 55 47 23 2 or more 69 51 41 38 34 26 13 All Three 45 15 16 13 12 9 4 The data also show that these differences aren't explained by different viewer demographics. For example, the average incorrect answer rate was 54% for Republican Fox viewers, but only 32% for Republicans who get their news from PBS-NPR.
So yeah. If you're wondering how in the world all of us "liberals" could possibly think Biden won the VP debate, you're asking the wrong question. Look beyond Fox, Limbaugh and Drudge. Read some actual newspapers. Watch some other TV stations. Hell, get online and do a general Google search on the candidate's names, and see what a few blogs and news sites you haven't bookmarked are saying.
It's not "liberals" and "the liberal media." It's "informed individuals of any party affiliation" and "media outlets with even a passing interest in factual reporting."
The simple fact is this: Fox News is neither "fair" nor "balanced," nor indeed even factually accurate in their news reporting. Do your fucking homework, people. Quit letting a single media source … any media source, whether Fox or NPR … spoon-feed you every last thing you know about the world. You're getting fucked over, and every time you go to the voting booth, your ignorant asses are fucking the rest of us over too.
See, you just made my point. Your best argument is the broadbrush stroke that ALL Fox viewers are ignorant and fucking liars? But I watch both CNN and Fox. Does that make me well informed? No, but it points out the utter lockstep views that the left has. Do you ever actually watch Fox for content or do you just throw darts? My observation is the right generally takes both views into account before dismissing the left. Leftists are the real militant people of the country. They're the ones you always see frothing at demonstartions. "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
And NPR is worthless tripe so leftly slanted that the only thing they have going for them is the Blues music show on Saturday afternoon. For that, I commend them. But hey, that's just my opinion.
And by the by, the big reason we're in Iraq is to establish a military presence next to our real enemy - Iran. We knew we'd have to deal with them someday and now we're right next door. You'll be thankful for that when Iran's president, A-ma-dick-head gets a nuke. And look at the fuel our planes will save on the short bombing sorties. Hell, that's practically a GREEN war!
8th October 2008 at 6:13 am | permalink |Yes, Dave Watson, because oppressing ANOTHER country because of something that MIGHT happen is just awesome, isn't it? Causing civil unrest in ANOTHER country for years and utterly failing to do something about it is also awesome, isn't it?
8th October 2008 at 7:55 am | permalink |@Dave Watson Statistically FOX viewers are ignorant and liars. If you look at the numbers you can see this. When everyone says the sky is blue but a small group insists it is red against evidence that says it is blue what does that say? The fundies and the hard Bush supporters tend to ignore what they want to. I've never seen one actually weigh anything that does not agree with their world view.
It is amusing you slam NPR. NPR has always tried rather hard to not be biased. Do you have an example? If so I'd love to see it. As for Iran, it's been the Iraq war that has allowed them to gain the power they have in the region. A nuclear iran is not a direct threat to the US, they are a direct threat to Israel. Now you could argue this in turn causes a threat to the US and it does but let's look at the history.
8th October 2008 at 8:40 am | permalink |NPR - Larry, do mean an example other than Garrison Keillor, Ari Shapiro and most guests on Shows like, "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me?" PJ O'Rourke comes to mind. It's a laugh-a-minute Bush bash, most days. But see, I still can enjoy the show along with Car Talk and Fresh Air without calling them fucking ignorant and liars. Tripe yes, but 'ignorant and liars' I'll save for the host here.
And Jojo, get over it. War is what we do on this planet. Always have, always will. Sticking daisies down our gun barrels won't stop someone else from wanting and taking what you have. Every great society has ultimately depended on its military to save its ass. I'm not saying we won't go the way of ancient Rome (fighting on too many fronts and going broke) but true peace comes from swinging the bigger stick. And yet peace is like glory, always fleeting. We are all one step from total barbarism anyway. Katrina and New Orleans proved that…again. Turn out the lights, run short of food, water and bottle openers and people will beat you and eat you in just a few short days. We are mostly incapable of attaining lasting peace here on Earth. Haven't done so for several thousand years, and it ain't gonna change with Barry as Prez, either.
8th October 2008 at 11:16 am | permalink |You mean Prairie Home Companion? It's more midwest populism than anything. As for the quiz show, it's all comedians, or mostly I've heard them rip on a number of topics.
I take it you like Bush? If you think where Bush has pushed this country is a good thing, well then there is not much to say. Pretty much everything but Fox nowadays would seem like it was against you. Katrina proved the importance and the need for a lawful society. Those people needed help and they were ignored and things took a big step back. If anything that proves that the Bush policies have been a disaster. And trying for peace is not a foolish goal, your attitude seems rather cynical about the world.
Funny you should mention Rome. The fall of Rome was a combination of factors including it's size - it grew too big, financial problems, and some would say Christianity helped hasten the demise as well. Rome was not fighting on too many fronts, it split because it expanded too much and had many internal problems resulting from it's empire building.
8th October 2008 at 11:57 am | permalink |@Dave Watson: 1: Your broadbrush stroke is a straw man. 2: Your big reason for going to war with Iraq is utterly reprehensible. You argue that the war in Iraq, and all US and Iraqi war-related deaths in Iraq, mainly was just convenient in the upcoming war against Iran. Convenience. Not even greed, convenience. I'm shocked and appalled.
8th October 2008 at 1:15 pm | permalink |@Dave Watson: Do you realize how stupid you sound? Seriously. Read over what you have wrote and try to keep a straight face. Yes, I'm resorting to ad hominems.
Your two arguments for why we go to war is because it is convenient, and because it's a part of history? Are you really that hopeless? We are in a new era of globalization, we do not need to old on to old standards and expect the worst from the world. Why do you dismiss any chance of moving forward? If all you expect is to go to war and enter conflict, no shit that is what you are going to get.
8th October 2008 at 4:54 pm | permalink |"No, but it points out the utter lockstep views that the left has."
"They're the ones you always see frothing at demonstartions."
That doesn't sound at all like lockstep views…
Criticising Bush isn't an indicator of 'liberal elite bias' or some bullshit like that, it's an indicator of common sense. The man has been a fucking disaster for both the US and the rest of the world. Or is that just the liberal elite controlling my mind, and in reality the fundamentals of the economy are strong?
And just for the sake of pedantry: none of the major news outlets in the US are left wing. There are some that or slightly less right-wing (read, "more centrist" and therefore "generally better"), but what idiot wingnuts consider 'leftist slant' is still pretty damn conservative by the standards of the rest of the world.
"Sticking daisies down our gun barrels won't stop someone else from wanting and taking what you have. Every great society has ultimately depended on its military to save its ass."
That might be a remotely relevant point if any of the wars the US has waged in the last decade were defensive wars. or the last 50 years even. The vast majority of wars the US has been involved in have had nothing to do with saving its own arse, and lots to do with advancing selfish agendas.
But that's probably beyond your understanding, of course. Because Faux news junkies, particularly, seem to be utterly obsessed with the whole "America's the greatest and whatever we say is right is right" bullshit. Nothing ever works like that. God's not on your side, you don't have a divine right to be the global schoolyard bully. Big guns only give you the capacity, not the right. And in the long run they make things worse for everyone.
As for "we've always fought wars"… So fucking what? If our protohuman ancestors thought 'well, we've always not controlled fire… we've always not used tools… etc' then humans wouldn't exist. If we just went with the status quo, never tried anything new we wouldn't have science, medicine, cooking, any of the things that define human existence. … Conversely, we wouldn't have Republicans, so maybe it'd be worth it.
8th October 2008 at 6:47 pm | permalink |Holy shit, Dave Watsons post only proved the point that Fox news viewers are ignorant. IT'S OKAY TO KILL 100,000 civilians for the sake of convenience because ……….? No reason. It's just okay to kill them because we're Americans and they are not. Americans can inflict as much suffering on the rest of the world as we want and it's OK. Fuck you, Dave Watson, and all the rest of the ignorant Faux News puppy fuckers.
8th October 2008 at 8:35 pm | permalink |One thing that always puzzled me is that american "right" demonizes the "left" as believing in words and rhetorics, while the "right" looks at 'how it actually is', and yet… when it comes to their stands, it's the EXACT opposite.
In the same way science debunks religion, you have to realize that the words mean nothing - look at what has factually been done, what's historically been done, who historically has been a nation that attacks others, etc.
What the hell makes anyone think Iran would ever think of launching a first strike against the US? Have you seen the geography between the US and Iran? You know… the water, the logistics required?
Iran doesn't have 100+ bases spread out across the world like a militaristic madman, the US does.
To even think that Iran would start a campaign against the US is ridiculous. They'll DEFEND themselves, sure, but attack the american continent? They'd have nothing to gain from it. There is no logic behind it. There is no historical precedence behind it.
What you do have historical precedence for, however, is the US attack others first strike, the US provenly going to war for resources and conquest, the US forcibly destroying democracies in other nations.
There is no logic behind your beliefs, dave.
Given enough time and enough wars instigated, obviously - evetually, the US will be attacked. This is a given, but what you're stating and how you portray it is as if you're wanting it to happen.
The idea also of "now we're finally in a position against our REAL enemy", can't you see how that plays out? Just like al qaeda, afghanistan, then it was 'finally we can go after the REAL enemy… iraq!', ad nauseum.
Calling the left "militant" is again, also, a striking double-think opposite here…
It is not the "liberals" in america striving for guns for everyone, nor the "liberals" being the ones hopping around shouting about federal government control needing to go away; and forming groups of vigilantees. Those would be on the right side of the spectrum, members of the republican party - and/or crossovers into libertarian thinking.
The "left" in america hasn't been militant since the 60s, after the state practically scared them to death when they finally saw how hard and carelessly they'd strike back at their own population.
The more I see the internals of the US, the more I wish they WERE militant, however.
9th October 2008 at 12:00 am | permalink |To be honest, I have a hard time deciding wether or not your post was for real, or simply a troll, but I guess it's like parodying fundamentalism - there'll always be someone exactly like it.
@Dave: No, I'm not saying ALL Fox news viewers are ignorant fucks. I am, however, going to say that YOU are.
Did you actually read anything in this post besides the headline? Like, oh, I don't know, while you're busy saying NPR is liberally-slanted shit, did you look at the table of poll respondents showing that over 70% of PBS/NPR viewers/listeners got all three factual questions correct, compared to 20 PERCENT of Fox viewers?
Did you actually read the sentence in the last paragraph where I encouraged people to use MORE THAN ONE news source, even if their primary source of news was already NPR?
It's responses like yours to articles like this one that convince people that Fox news viewers really are small minded fuckwits. You read the headlines, or one out of context quote, and you write a fucking full-length essay about that ONE point, while completely ignoring every other aspect of your chosen target that might dispell any of the absurd, one-dimensional myths you're trying to spread.
In short, thank you Dave, for helping to prove the point I was making here.
9th October 2008 at 7:12 am | permalink |Wow, looks like I took a baseball bat to the liberal hornet's nest. Let me take your eloquent replies in the order of their posts:
Larry - Again, I enjoy, A Prairie Home Companion - when they do their show. Garrison Keillor likes to spout off on the side. I enjoy Bruce Springsteen - when he plays & sings. Sing the songs and don't exploit your position to bore me with your wacky opinions. Just do what you get paid to do.
Let me make this clear. I don't like politicians…period. So, "like" Bush? We share some views but I don't have his poster on my wall. But I will say this, I and my family are better off now that I was 8 years ago. Save for a possible reduction in my investments - which you can't hang solely on Bush. But I won't even go there. And I improved my lot under Clinton as well but I didn't "like" him either.
Another factor in the downfall of Rome was, dare I say, liberal notions like "alternative lifestyles." Bath houses, too much sex, too little religion, like the U.S. (as opposed to Muslims where the order is reversed) and the moral decay that things like this breed. And their military was indeed spread thin.
Secateur - (among others) I didn't say that was the ONLY reason we were in Iraq. Another, as in, one more reason, was that Saddam was beginning to trade oil (w/ Russia, France) using the Euro standard as opposed to the U.S. dollar standard whereby it continues to be traded. That would have been (another) economic disaster. But see, few people can grasp that. You would have had Bush's head if he allowed that to continue and the dollar took a serious dump. "Why didn't Bush do something…" (insert whine here) And Saddam wouldn't play ball. He thumbed his nose at the world and played the WMD thing to the hilt. Virtually EVERYONE on the planet was convinced he had them from Bill and Hillary, to Blair and on and on. Bad intel? Probably, but it wasn't just Bush's idea to go in. Check the sound bites from most in Washington from Clinton's reign to 2003.
deeesseee - Stupid is as stupid does. - Forrest Gump
Grimbles - "The man has been a fucking disaster for both the US and the rest of the world." Not in my world. See my statement above. And fuck what the world thinks. I don't see anyone stepping up to help us with cash in our hour of need - especially the people who hate us that we've already given billions to. Take care of our own and then hand it out if there's a surplus. Like every other clear-thinking country in the world would do. What good will has giving away trillions created for us? Nada! Hmm, maybe all that charity DOES give us the right to be the bully. "Paying the cost to be the boss." If they won't even give us money do you think they'd come to our aid in a real scrape? And don't spout off with we reap what we sow. That's ideological horse shit. If that were the case then the reciprocation from all our charity would have us in God-like status among the world. "The vast majority of wars the US has been involved in have had nothing to do with saving its own arse, and lots to do with advancing selfish agendas." You mean like, preserving the dollar? Probably a noble cause if you value your American lifestyle.
And please, tell your theories about advancing the human cause to those who espouse Jihad. It'll go over in a big way with those whose sole desire is to kill infidels and wanting to die for Allah. They could give two shits about science and medicine. But probably embrace cooking. And yes, that is your future enemy, whether or not you think it's all a trumped-up Bush boogie man. Hell, they're still pissed about the Crusades. Real rational folks.
akshelby - Puppy fuckers? I'm not familiar with that practice. Is that another liberal, alternative lifestyle, too?
Zef - Science debunks religion? I thought the greatest scientist of the last century - Einstein - said he could not disprove the notion of God. In fact, the older he got he simply had to attribute the many things he didn't understand to a higher authority.
Are you familiar with the theory of EMD's? How the possibility of detonating a nuke 200 miles above the U.S. could create an "electromagnetic pulse" that could have the potential to wipe out the electrical grid? You don't have to sail to the Jersey shore to cripple us in the 21st century. And I'll bet Russia would help them. You don't have to have a clear objective to start a war. Bush proved that! Did Hitler really think he'd rule the world? There will always be some sumbitch who thinks he can.
The "Troll"
9th October 2008 at 7:26 am | permalink |@Dave Watson:
Wow you are slow. "Stupid is as stupid does" means judge people by their actions, as opposed to the way they look.
You clearly don't understand the saying, and are trying to use it at "takes one to know one". Not only is it stupid to quote Forest Gump with the goal of convincing others you are not an idiot, but you couldn't even do it right.
9th October 2008 at 7:51 am | permalink |Alpha, if I spent all my time reading freaking "lies, damn lies and statistics" like they were the do all end all, then I wouldn't have bothered to make the original point - that polls and poll numbers are created to further someone's agenda.
And why you think that just because I don't drink the kool-aid here on this blog means that I'm some kind of shill for FOX is beyond me. I've stopped my local paper and could almost care less if my big screen fell off the wall and into the fireplace. I'll draw my own conclusions, thank you.
And for those of you who wondered why I'm here in the first place, I was directed here once when Googling a story on Chris McCandless and found Alpha's (I think it was her) post funny and insightful. But I like a good argument with the rationally challenged on occasion. But I won't stoop to name calling like "some" here.
9th October 2008 at 8:22 am | permalink |@ Dave Watson (a.k.a., "The Troll"): Wow. You're parading some serious stupidity around here. You might want to take a step back and re-read the shit you just posted, because you've just laid bare the full breadth of your ignorance and myopia in one fell swoop.
1) You're better off now than 8 years ago? Congratulations. You're one of the few—as am I. However, if in this country, you wind up with everything and the rest of the country is eating dirt for dinner, then we've utterly failed as a country. The success of a few is not indicative of anything. As a whole, by any measure, this country is in dramatically worse condition then when the current caretaker, G.W.B., took over. The words "unmitigated disaster" come to mind.
2) You're trying to make the case for the downfall of Rome and draw parallels to the U.S.? Fine. Go ahead if you'd like to do that. However, your history lesson should also incorporate the apathy, complacency, and gluttony of a country grown too soft and too self-assured in its own position of power to comprehend the rot of inner decay. Part of that internal rot was Christianity and religiousness in general.
3) The reason you don't see anyone stepping up, offering cash to help us out in our hour of need would be plainly evident if you bothered to peer beyond your myopic, self-centered existence. News flash, fucktard: The COUNTRY of Iceland is on the verge of bankruptcy. The COUNTRY of Pakistan is in, or is near bankruptcy. Britain has had to nationalize 3 banks in the last 2 weeks, and force the merger/acquisition of the largest bank in Britain to save them from bankruptcy. Germany has had to bail out its banks, and the bonds of the EU are being strained like never before. There isn't anyone to come to the aid of the U.S. in our hour of need because everyone is in the same boat.
And yes, we reap what we sow. Take a class in economics. The current economy is the "invisible hand of the marketplace" giving you the "invisible finger of financial meltdown."
4) Muslims? Jews? Christians? Fuck 'em all—they're all equally deluded in adhering to the beliefs of their Invisible Voo-Doo Daddy in the Clouds. There is little to no difference between a Muslim suicide bomber and some hyper-Christian piece of shit that would bomb a gay bar or an abortion clinic. Actually, there is one small difference, and that's the fact that the Muslim at least has the wherewithal to stand accountable for his/her beliefs (as idiotic as they may be).
5) Einstein!? Seriously. Einstein? I find it incredibly ironic that in attempting to argue against science and in favor of religion, your toehold of "proof" is a scientist. What about the thousands of other scientists who utterly deny and refute the existence of the Invisible Voo-Doo Daddy in the Clouds? Does their opinion count for anything? What about the scientists that proved various of Einstein's postulates wrong? Just because Einstein gave us the theory of relativity doesn't mean that any utterance of his is infallible. So yes, science debunks religion. Religion is nothing more than emotional masturbation and the church is the vibrator that you curl up with on dark, cold nights to salve your ignorant, superstitious soul.
6) EMD? Fucking ignorant. The term is "EMP," or Electro-Magnetic Pulse. Of course, you could have cheated and just read the words to get the letters, but I realize that reading may be a bit of a stretch for you.
And I'm sharing this enlightenment with you because sharing is caring, and I care that you are informed of actual facts instead of some pseudo/quasi-opinion-is-sort-of-like-a-fact-based reality. If you want to argue a point, bring facts to the table. If you don't want to be called "stupid" or something else by "some" here, then don't come in acting stupid, idiotic, moronic, asinine, obtuse, canaille, or anything else in a similar vein of intellectual retardation.
9th October 2008 at 4:21 pm | permalink |That hardly merits a response but…"Stupid, Fucktard, Fuck you", and someone said the left hasn't been militant since the 60's? One typo and I'm a fucktard? And what is that exactly, anyway? Sorry but visiting this site must've had me thinking of "destruction" (D) instead of "pulse." (P) So, sue me. I forgot I was on a site of the immaculate chosen.
This is EXACTLY why the prospect of an EMP-borne nuke worries me. You liberal fucks would be the first to shoot me for my generator and eat my children in the event your computer wouldn't power up after 6 or 7 days. All the while singing Lennon's, "Give Peace a Chance" as you feasted on the human meat. Because that would make you FEEL good which is what it's always about over here on the left.
I'll be joining the warmongers on some right-wing blog. They're much more open minded, tolerant and peaceful than you, "Peaceniks." You people are downright crazy. But then, I knew that going in. Hasta la vista, F*cking C*nts. But you were fun to fuck with anyway.
And Alphasnatch, remove me from the e-mail updates. It's a waste of good electrons and you certainly wouldn't want to be associated with anyone wasting a good green resource like that, now would you?
9th October 2008 at 5:58 pm | permalink |Fuck if I listen to a thing I hear on the radio or tv and take it serious. Man is flawed the good book says so I can't trust none of you sons of bitches.
Fox news is a hoot to listen to now and again but they don't spin shit much more then any of the others. Just for some reason a larger percentage of the dumb or gullible watch it over the others.
Mainly just wanted to chime in once again and let you know Alpha its always fun reading not only you blog but the comments of this that happen around.
9th October 2008 at 6:56 pm | permalink |Two quotes from you Dave… they don't seem to gel….
"But I won't stoop to name calling like "some" here."
"'ignorant and liars' I'll save for the host here."
A few things you seemed to be ignoring.
1. Trading oil in Euros would be better for the global economy, as the EU structure makes for a far more stable currency than the greenback.
2. What the world thinks has a lot to do with why people aren't falling over themselves to help the US. That, and the fact that this whole crisis has been set off by the greed of US politicians and CEO's, as well as a good dose of stupid from the average shill.
"If that were the case then the reciprocation from all our charity would have us in God-like status among the world."
Sure, aside from all the warmongering, and the meddling in the domestic affairs of democratic nations… Latin America has a right to be pissed about SOA/WHINSEC, and all the US Govt. sponsored assassinations and coups.
3. "I don't see anyone stepping up to help us with cash in our hour of need" Yeah, that would be because the rest of the world is dealing with the repercussions of idiot policies and decisions in the US. But you probably haven't noticed that because you've been to busy worrying about yourself. And being a standard geo-politically challenged American.
4. Reap what you sow is ideological horseshit? Really? Here was me thinking that cause and effect was a pretty non-partisan phenomenon. You know, "Piss the world off" leads to "the world not having much pity when you soil your own nest".
5. My American lifestyle, huh? You mean over here in Australia?
6. Here's a thought. If Americans didn't drop bombs on Muslim weddings, and hospitals and schools, if US troops didn't rape and murder muslim women and children, and torture civilians… there might just be a whole lot less people pissed at the US. Yeah, there's always going to be extremist wingnuts, but fighting endless wars of aggression will do nothing *at all* to stop those people, and will do a lot the help them recruit.
7. "Virtually EVERYONE on the planet was convinced he had them" Yeah, that would be why there was a vocal group who were constantly saying 'this is bullshit'. It wasn't just 'bad intel' as you call it, it was made up. From official memos to whistleblowers there's a whole raft of evidence that Bush had decided as early as 2001 that he was going to invade Iraq. He told people to find an excuse. When the couldn't they made up an excuse. Let's not forget that the main reason Bush went in without UN support is that the entire world was not convinced about the presence of WMDs.
Oh, and being the only country to have deployed nuclear weapons doesn't really make for a moral high ground on WMD's.
8. "Another factor in the downfall of Rome was, dare I say, liberal notions…"
You mean the bathhouses that had been an integral part of Roman life for centuries? And all that terribly disgusting natural sex? Too little religion… what were we saying about ideological horseshit? Religion is one of the leading, if not the greatest cause of violence throughout history. Too little of it wouldn't cause anyone to fall. Unless you're selling some idiot notion that 'god' destroyed them for not being Christian, in which case it would have happened *before* Christianity became the dominant religion. But there I am using that liberal elite 'logic' again…
9. Einstein and god. For starters, so fucking what? Einstein is not the embodiment of science. Secondly, yes, he said he couldn't refute the doctrine of a personal God. Because God by definition is metaphysical and thus not quantifiable or observable. He also said "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." And given that the predominant flavour of religion in the US these days is of the childlike personal deity kind, Zaf was for the most part right. Science can demonstrate that you don't get struck by lightning for saying 'FUCK JESUS!'. It can demonstrate that there was no great flood (and archaology can demonstrate that the judeo-christian great flood mythology was inherited from Babylon), that creationism is bullshit, that Genesis is *at best* an allegory. But no, science can't refute the idea that there is something beyond the realm of science. That's what common sense is for.
10) "an EMP-borne nuke"? What the fuck is that? EMP's come from nukes… At least the ones we can make that would have anywhere near the effect you're talking about. So maybe a nuke-borne EMP?
11) "They're much more open minded, tolerant and peaceful than you" By which you mean agree wholeheartedly with your idiocy and won't try to hurt your fragile mind with 'facts' and 'statistics' and 'logic'. Here's a news flash: while it may seem counter-intuitive, being intolerant of intolerant people isn't really intolerance - it's human decency. So *technically* we're intolerant here: intolerant of bigotry, stupidity, and a complete disregard for reality and/or logic. But we're nowhere near as intolerant as people who want to ban/burn books, force-feed children religious mumbo-jumbo, bomb Ay-rabs and shoot 'them gays'.
I'd say that was hyperbole, but sadly, for some people it's accurate.
9th October 2008 at 7:08 pm | permalink |Hmmm … seems David W. stomped off in a huff because he couldn't just spew bullshit unopposed.
Mr. Blah-Blah-Blah-No-Name-Calling calls everyone "liberal fucks," throws up a shoddily constructed straw man, does a piss poor job of debunking it with Sean Hannity-approved talking points, and then marches off to Mordor or some other relaxing locale where he can bask in the warm glow of collective stupidity.
Hey, at least he now knows how to spell EMP. We can be thankful for that.
10th October 2008 at 2:04 am | permalink |Well, let's not waste time with person-by-person replies…
The last thing US "liberals" need to do in the current political climate, in the last days of a presidential election campaign, is relax in any way. After 8 years of "fuck science and other bothersome facts, we're pursuing our ideological goals regardless of their actual effect on reality or the rest of the world," the very very last thing we need to do is be more "tolerant" of the US right-wing.
The whole "American Exceptionalism" mentality that seems to think is perfectly acceptable to fuck off anyone who disagrees with us is utter bullshit. We're all in it together, aren't we? We're all stuck on the same planet, and we have the scientific and historical knowledge to see quite clearly that nothing happens in a vacuum, no matter how much a rather large contingent of US citizens would like to believe it does, and it's about fucking time we got a group of politicians in power who understand there are more important things to worry about in this world that US corporate interests.
10th October 2008 at 5:18 am | permalink |Oh, and @Becca: "Religion is nothing more than emotional masturbation and the church is the vibrator that you curl up with on dark, cold nights to salve your ignorant, superstitious soul."
Fucking hell, I actually did laugh out loud when I read that. :-)
10th October 2008 at 5:19 am | permalink |Fun thread. Too bad he left, now it has to end.
"So *technically* we're intolerant here: intolerant of bigotry, stupidity, and a complete disregard for reality and/or logic."
10th October 2008 at 8:18 am | permalink |I will gladly admit that I am intolerant of said people, but it usually ends up me wanting to shoot myself to get away from the bullshit, not wanting to shoot them.
Its the only kind of good intolerance =p
10th October 2008 at 8:40 am | permalink |Oh, I may play again if I feel the need to lie down with the unwashed, Godless inhabitants of this blog of iniquity.
It's just that most here seem so utterly twisted that the task is beyond daunting.
10th October 2008 at 12:33 pm | permalink |I always like to say I'm intolerant of intolerance … prejudiced against prejudiced people … etc.
It's not only the only "good intolerance", it's fucking necessary intolerance in my book.
Although I do rather like the phrase "blog of iniquity", so thanks for coming back to share that gem, Dave. It's about time for me to update the default description of the site anyhow. ;-)
11th October 2008 at 5:57 am | permalink |Alright, my enemies await… I'll take on some of the commentary before my hasty retreat. But I must cull it down to something manageable because the shit is simply too far and deep.
deeesseee - Yeah, I get the saying and actually understood several whole minutes of the movie, too. It just came to mind.
And to the economist, grimbles: "1. Trading oil in Euros would be better for the global economy, as the EU structure makes for a far more stable currency than the greenback."
That's certainly proved out this week, huh? NOT. The Euro, it seems, was built with the cellophane wrapper our house of cards came in. It collapsed like a controlled implosion. And you have extra large grapes sitting down there casting stones at the U.S. You'd probably be better served taking up a more provincial cause like keeping your government from taking your fucking guns - and using them on you. Viva la 2nd Amendment, baby. And what about "science" finding aquatic fossils on mountain peaks? Without some kind of flood, how did they get there, flying fish? (yes, I know they exist)
Becca - were your molested by Jimmy Swaggart in a New Orleans hotel room or something? You seem to have a lot of anger toward God and those who believe. And you must be absolutely miserable having to report on prosperity at the end of a Bush reign. There really must be a God! Inner rot caused by religion. How so?
Alpha, feel free to adopt my line, I got a million of 'em.
11th October 2008 at 7:25 am | permalink |"Without some kind of flood, how did they get there, flying fish? (yes, I know they exist)" HAHA, you do know mountains were at one time on the ocean floor right? I suggest you study some geology.
11th October 2008 at 7:54 am | permalink |That's merely one way for the rock to have been submerged, not the only way. A waterspout is another possible theory. But so is a flood of "Biblical" proportions.
11th October 2008 at 8:48 am | permalink |There's been quite a lot of floods, the biblical/noah's flood is thought to refer to the flooding of the black seas somewhere between 7000bc and 5000bc.
Other than that, several floods spanning vast areas and periods. Some caused by the ending of the ice age, others just your everyday catastrophy (like the earthquakes in china, hurricane katrina, etc. we have floods today, too)
How they wrote descriptions of them the way they did, is a matter of seeing a world with much less people, no media, no/little education - tiny group (comparatively) of people in a small area seeing a huge floodwave coming for their village. It'd be the end of the world, to them.
No one is saying that there wasn't "a flood", there were many floods, just like there are today. (it's just not that big a deal)
11th October 2008 at 10:00 am | permalink |@ D.Watson: I don't have any anger towards your god, because there isn't anything to be angry at. However, I do have a bit of anger towards those who advance the idea of an invisible friend in the clouds, because that idea is chock full of insanity and used by "true believers" to guide their political decisions.
Your Bible has nothing to do with U.S. law. In your church, your Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean. But it is worthless as a guiding legal precept.
As for my success, who in the hell are you to begrudge me that? Who are you to begrudge the fact that I don't subscribe to the same isolated myopia as you?
11th October 2008 at 3:01 pm | permalink |Bec, take a Prozac, girl. This is a blog for exchanging ideas - however whacked-out yours might be. Nobody's bombing your crystal worship palace. Just typing a few words on a screen. I'm glad I'm not in ballistic range.
Carry on, and pay homage to whomever you see fit. Really, even us on the right fight for your right to do so. Geesh.
11th October 2008 at 3:18 pm | permalink |I think Becca might be my long-lost cousin under a pseudo name. Sometime about 1994 I gave her shit in an e-mail about worshipping her (dead) dog more than humans. I haven't heard from her since. You can't buy good fortune like that!
11th October 2008 at 3:22 pm | permalink |" The Euro, it seems, was built with the cellophane wrapper our house of cards came in"
That's because the USD is the default international currency, along with a raft of other causes you're obviously too stupid to understand. Look at it in these very simple terms: the US economy, and thus the dollar, are linked to one single national economy. When that economy shits itself, so does the dollar. The Euro on the other hand is linked to 15 national economies. The odds that, if the Euro was the center of world trade rather than the greenback, all 15 of those economies would go into recession at the same time is much lower than the odds of a single economy doing so. It's pretty fucking simple.
"You'd probably be better served taking up a more provincial cause like keeping your government from taking your fucking guns - and using them on you. Viva la 2nd Amendment, baby."
You should really read AB's joint-post about the 2nd ammendment. In short though: your pissy little collection of semi-automatic rifles and the odd handgun isn't going to protect you against a government with tanks, choppers, jets and nukes. Oh, and more people per capita get shot by the government (and just generally) in the US than Australia. Idiot.
"And what about "science" finding aquatic fossils on mountain peaks? Without some kind of flood…"
11th October 2008 at 6:13 pm | permalink |Fossilisation doesn't really have time to occur in the… what is it you idiots think again, 5000 years since the flood. Yes, it's true that a flood of biblical proportions could have happened and dropped a fish on top of K2. But then there's be geological evidence of a global flood, rather than just isolated regional incidents. Oh, and if the whole flood thing is true, and all the animals except the ones on the ark (which as we all know must have been early quantum state phenomenon to have worked) how'd all the unique species end up in the right place? Including over entire oceans?
@grimbles: "Oh, and if the whole flood thing is true, and all the animals except the ones on the ark (which as we all know must have been early quantum state phenomenon to have worked) how'd all the unique species end up in the right place? Including over entire oceans?"
11th October 2008 at 9:16 pm | permalink |Don't you understand? That's just how much God loves all of his creations.
Ahhh, what a great thread. We've got news media, religion, politics, and of course lots of love:)
12th October 2008 at 6:08 am | permalink |Yeah, cos God is obviously the hands on vengeful god wingnuts believe in. Let me demonstrate: MARY WAS A SLUT! JESUS WAS A BASTARD! PAUL WAS GAY!
Oh wow, still haven't been struck down… hmmmmm…
12th October 2008 at 6:41 am | permalink |"Oh wow, still haven't been struck down… hmmmmm" Ah, but he is a patient God, as well. I'm certain He will smite thee all in due course.
12th October 2008 at 8:04 am | permalink |It occurred to me that since it's been established that I'm so utterly stupid on an array of topics that I'm now qualified to be president!
I hope I get through the day without hurting myself.
12th October 2008 at 8:33 am | permalink |One would think if there was a God floating about with a habit of smiting 'evildoers' that there might be somewhat more evidence of it than the oral tradition of the Jewish people that was only written down a few thousand years late…
12th October 2008 at 6:17 pm | permalink |@D. Watson: (@Becca) This is a blog for exchanging ideas - however whacked-out yours might be. Nobody's bombing your crystal worship palace.
In what two-dimensional alternate universe are the only belief options Christianity or "crystal worship"? Has it occurred to you that some people don't feel the need to "pay homage" to any silly supernatural fantasy beings?
And how, pray tell, is it "whacked out" to believe that the world around us is exactly what it is, as opposed to believing in a judgemental, all-knowing, all-powerful invisible overlord who never shows any sign of its existence? (Never mind the stories in the Bible/Torah/Quran/etc./whatever … hearsay doesn't stand up in a court of law or a scientist's laboratory.)
…even us on the right fight for your right to do so.
No, in today's United States for the most part, the most active segment of the right are not fighting for anyone's right to do anything but what the members of that particular religious-wingnut contingent think people should be doing. So long as the Christian Right continues trying to enshrine their religious morality in our secular law books, neither myself nor Becca, nor anyone else who actually gives a fuck about personal freedom, is going to "relax" about the issue.
Now, as you said yourself, this is a blog for exchanging ideas … however the political bias is pretty fucking clearly broadcast, and the regular commenters tend to be those who either agree with said bias, or who can play nicely with those who do. It is not a blog for making gratuitous ad hominem attacks on other commenters because you feel threatened and outnumbered. You are outnumbered, and if you can't handle that with a reasonable degree of maturity, I'm sure you could find another forum where petty flamewars are the accepted standard of behavior.
13th October 2008 at 7:05 am | permalink |I'll take the last paragraph first. Looking over the posts chronologically, I would have to say, initially, I was being mostly civil and was attacked first. And then broke my own rule of said civility because it certainly appeared to be the "standard of behavior" on this blog to the uninitiated. But enough of that, sticks and stones…
Honestly, the notion of the world around us just being what it is, the result of a cosmic, opposite and equal reaction to an implosion/explosion that just "happened" for no particular reason is as hard to get your head around as the idea of a supreme deity. Enter faith. Faith can be a useful tool. You use it every time you drive a car, for example. You have some general faith that you'll return safely and that some asshole won't cross the yellow line. But you have about as much control over that as what happens when you die. So, in the end, we all have some crutch to bear us, real or imagined. Suum cuique…
I'd have to think that most of the boots-on-the-ground tend to be right thinkers (from what I hear them say) that ARE fighting for your rights, insofar as there are many left worthy of the cause. I can hardly believe you don't "give a fuck" about personal freedoms, while maybe not a "personal" freedom, the freedom to express yourself how you see fit right here is a biggie in my book. And very personal. Worth fighting for, I'd say.
Though I can't speak from personal experience, the world's full of people's accounts of having come into contact with some type of supernatural existence - especially when in life threatening situations. Who are we to dismiss their experience as hallucinatory babble? "There are no atheists in foxholes." (whomever came up with that one probably saw it first hand) And then you throw in experiences like Fatima where something happened…or else the Grateful Dead were in town and distributed 70,000 "doses" to the witnesses.
"Hearsay doesn't stand up in a court of law or a scientist's laboratory" I don't think I'd hang all that is just and true on those pillars of society.
13th October 2008 at 8:59 am | permalink |@ D.Watson: Honestly, the notion of the world around us just being what it is, the result of a cosmic, opposite and equal reaction to an implosion/explosion that just "happened" for no particular reason is as hard to get your head around as the idea of a supreme deity.
Honestly, no it isn't. There is plenty of evidence that we (Earth) are nothing more than a cosmic happenstance. Spend a week watching the National Geographic channel,
particularly the show "Naked Science," and you'll see that we have a pretty solid understanding of how the Earth, and life on it, came to be.
Don't tell me there are no atheists in foxholes, because I can assure you there are.
Meanwhile, whatever supreme being it is that you worship continues to hide every single bit of its existence. And you want to bring up Fatima? Seriously? The sun did crazy shit, according to reports. Wonderful. They said the same thing about the sun at Jericho. If you believe that the sun
revolves around the Earth, then there's no problem. Unfortunately, the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun—a provable scientific fact—and if
any thing happened, it was a trick on the eyes of 70,000 people caused by clouds and the atmosphere. Otherwise, the entire planet would have witnessed the same
thing. Or was there a temporal quantum existence for the town of Fatima, Portugal, while the rest of the planet went about its day, completely unaware?
Of course, you're free to bash the pillars of society, science and law, but you do so at your own peril. You're free to dismiss the law of gravity all you wish, and your
13th October 2008 at 2:13 pm | permalink |faith that you can fly won't provide any of the lift necessary to keep your carcass airborne. You're free to dismiss biological sciences and believe that we don't
need oxygen to survive, but your faith won't provide the breath of life when you start to turn blue. You can bash the law as well, but when you're swindled out of
your life savings, your faith won't put food on the table.
Seriously, you're going to go with NDE's as your grand evidence of the supernatural? I've experienced all that out of body, floaty, weird lights shit. It's called dreaming. And just like dreaming NDE's are determined by a person's personality. The beliefs a person holds are the predominant determiner for what form a NDE will take, just as what you did during the day influences what you dream during the night. They are wholly physiological phenomenon.
"Honestly, the notion of the world around us just being what it is, the result of a cosmic, opposite and equal reaction to an implosion/explosion that just "happened" for no particular reason is as hard to get your head around as the idea of a supreme deity."
No, no it's not. The supreme deity of 'modern' theism, in fact the vast majority of deities throughout history are meddlers. They smite, damn, drown and crush with wicked or the annoying. They protect the innocent and he good. That doesn't happen. Good people are slaughtered in the millions by evil - cruel, selfish, evil - people. Millions die of starvation because the rich of the world left the South in squalor once it was done with overt colonialism. Because the rich fuck with food markets, patent seeds, prey on the vulnerable. And when those grand gestures long attributed to deities hit, who gets hit worst? The poor, doing their damnedest to live a good life. Who gets of free and clear? The fuckers that exploited them. Good people suffer, evil people aren't smote. The interfering god of the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot exist - if 'he' has the power and doesn't do anything, he's no the interfering deity he's described as. If he doesn't have the power, he's not as supreme as he's described. Simply put, the nature of that deity is self-evidently contradictory and therefore impossible. Simply put we can see no evidence for a supreme being, and plenty of evidence that the ones who get the most air-time don't exist.
On the other hand, we can see the residual radiation left over from the big bang. We can see billions of years of geological history and billions more with astrophysics. We can look out to the stars and see what the universe like at the very dawn of this existence. We can see a lot of evidence supporting the big bang theory.
Both require a leap of faith. We don't know what might have caused the big bang, or what came before. But neither do we know what might have caused god, or what came before. There's plenty of evidence of the former, and not much at all of the latter. Even if you want to believe that trippy natural phenomenon are really miracles, and try to claim that there's equal evidence of both, Occaam's razor blows that out of the water. The big bang requires you to believe in spontaneous existence (big bang). Creator requires you to believe in spontaneous existence (god), and that god decided to create the universe, and that god decided to do it in such a way that it looked like god didn't do it.
And that's just for deist creationism, which is the least unlikely of all of the voodoo daddy crap. Theist creationism, the personal deity… How arrogant is it to think that some supreme entity created an all but infinite universe just for us to live in, and then, with this infinite universe to observe, decides to spend all it's time utterly wrapped up with what a bunch of slightly evolved monkeys are doing?
13th October 2008 at 8:33 pm | permalink |@D. Watson: "'There are no atheists in foxholes.' (whomever came up with that one probably saw it first hand)"
I love the way that one gets thrown around as though it's some statement of indisputable fact … the people I've seen bring that up as some kind of "proof" of anything more often than not have no personal experience in the military, much less in any kind of combat situation.
I have atheist friends who've been in combat, and yes, they were atheists when they were in "foxholes" just as much as they are now. If anything, I've heard more combat veterans say the experience destroyed their belief in a higher power than said a God had anything to do with their survival.
As for the argument that the scientific theories of the origin of the universe/life on Earth are so hard to understand that belief in God makes more "sense," I'd have to say lack of understanding of the theories in question is a pretty poor excuse for defaulting to a belief system that has absolutely nothing even vaguely resembling proof to back it up. "Irreducible complexity" is a red herring. It's basically saying, "I don't get it, so if I have to go on faith, I'll take my faith with a side of eternal bliss, thanks."
I think the "miracle" thing has been pretty well covered insofar as actual explanations of the phenomena involved, but nobody's mentioned the mass hysteria angle yet. Sure, there are plenty of accounts of mass witness to a supposed "miracle" that are held up as "proof" of whatever religious belief system is shared by the witnesses … there are also plenty of accounts of mass hysteria involving the supposed disappearance of men's penises, which could be (and probably is, by the "victims") held up a "proof" of the existence of witchcraft. Humans are funny creatures when acting en masse.
(Here's a BBC news link on the subject of disappearing penises, lest you pooh-pooh the wikipedia link for needing more citations. Also a Google search for "penis panic" will turn up loads of examples.)
@grimbles: "How arrogant is it to think that some supreme entity created an all but infinite universe just for us to live in, and then, with this infinite universe to observe, decides to spend all it's time utterly wrapped up with what a bunch of slightly evolved monkeys are doing?"
14th October 2008 at 2:00 am | permalink |Silly grimbles, we're not slightly evolved monkeys, we're created in God's own image! (Which seems pretty fucking narcissistic for an omniscient being, if you ask me.)
Which is one of the major issues I have with the traditionalist view of the Judeo-Christian god. Here's an entity that's meant to be perfect. Absofuckinglutely beyond reproach. No flaws. But it's first commandment is "Dude, don't sleep around with other gods." It's a glaring admission of insecurity at best and at worst insane levels of - as you say - narcissism. We're supposed to get struck down and burn in hell for that shit. We got thrown out of Eden for that shit. And here's this perfect god up on his cloud with his big white beard, the creator of the cosmos, all powerful… and he has a fucking inferiority complex? What the hell is that about?
Thou shalt not kill… says the deity that turned a chick to a pillar of salt for looking over her shoulder, committed mass infanticide to make a political point (isn't that terrorism?) and helped the Israelites on their merry ethnic-cleansing way to clear out Canaan.
Adultery? He knocked up a 13 year old girl who was - by Jewish tradition - as good as married. By Jewish law, Joseph had the right to commit Deicide for that.
Why all the inconsistencies? Because the Bible is written by human hands with human minds and human motives. How rich and powerful is the vatican these days? And it's a fucking weenie compared to what the medieval church could bring to the fight. The Roman Catholic church (re)-wrote the Bible mostly for their own purposes. Granted, the first few hundred years there was legitimate theological debate going on. After that, the bible was about power. After that, 'heretics' were tortured and murdered, slaughtered wholesale in some cases. Arians were exiled from Roman lands, Jews, Muslims, pagans were brutally repressed, had their property consfiscated by the church. Sounds real Christian, doesn't it? And this church that has done anything but live by the tenets it espouses is the one that writes the book we're all supposed to live by?
Nuts to that.
If there is a god, I'll find god on my own. Because all god really is is meaning, the answer to 'life the universe and everything'. But god isn't really an answer, god is a chickenshit cop-out for those who can't bear (or don't know) to dig deeper. I'm not going to find meaning in my life be someone telling me about my friend in the sky (who moonlights as an insecure mass-murdering pedophile). No wonder there's so many damn kiddie-fiddlers in the clergy with the example the big-guy sets. Well, that probably has more to do with copious amounts of repressed sexuality imposed upon clergy by their overlords.
As a disclaimer, I'd like that say that for the purposes of this post I'm equating 'god' with the personal interfering theistic god that idiots thank at awards ceremonies and politicians ask for military advice. I've got a whole lot more patience and respect for non-theist Christians (they do exist) who see god as a purely spiritual exercise, a path to betterment in much the same way as Buddhist spirituality.
14th October 2008 at 5:57 am | permalink |And you guys accuse me of throwing around some serious silliness. You like to cite the perfection of the universe on it's own. When's the last time you saw the sun do "crazy shit?" About the craziest shit I see it do, at my latitude, is seasonally alternate between the northern and southern sky. It's absurd to think the Earth's orbit perturbated enough to make the sun appear to wobble in the sky. That would have had oceans spilling over every land mass. And I'll buy mass hypnosis for 7 or even 70 but not 70K.
And without taking a lot of time to debunk all the points, (I have a plane to catch, sorry) how is it that a "bunch of slightly evolved monkeys" got so fucking smart to have this all figured out anyway? What we don't know would fill another universe and probably does. You can't have it both ways. I agree we're very primitive in evolutionary terms (and said so early on) so to have suddenly been given total enlightenment in the last 400 years or so, is insane. How arrogant is that? Given our relative ignorance a God makes just as much sense as believing you got it all down. Gotta go, I'll check grimbles latest tonight…
Oh, and don't confuse me with the type of believer that turns down the helicopter ride while standing on the roof of his flooded home because Jesus will save me. I'm figuring he sent the fucking chopper!
14th October 2008 at 6:58 am | permalink |@grimbles That was an entertaining post, I must admit. Until you went down that, "mass murdering pedophile" road. I fear to tread there. But I think we're actually approaching some common ground here.
Later that same day…
Something curious happened today. When I landed in Portland, OR, the rent-car radio was tuned to a Christian station. I listened off and on while making my rounds and also listening to my GPS prattle on. It was sort of the typical "preachy" programming but it was oddly geared toward answering to non believers who use science as a baseline. I mean, heavy on that content. I only picked up snippets between the stop and goes but later today, while surfing the dial for music, the scan stopped on another Christian station. I don't recall Portland being so Christian oriented. Hell, they're Obama supporters! I don't normally listen to "Christian music" per se. It was the usual, soothing, vocally-melodic stuff you've all heard before but I didn't initially recognize it as such. It just sounded like good, light rock. Being a guitar player, I enjoy a lot of different music. I found the stuff I heard musically appealing at first and then, ok, lyrically boring but…I took this as some kind of sign that I just don't belong here. So while I think you get my drift that I'm not some evangelical freak, I will continue my lifelong quest for spiritual companionship somewhere else, thank you. I just can't wallow in the negative, it-is-what-it-is, and my only future is returning to so much carbon stardust and no, "Voo Doo Daddy" at the end of the day. (I liked that one, Becca) So, my lost souls from some darkened corner on the internet, I bid you a fare thee well and hope that whatever you're looking for, you find it, and whatever you want to ignore, doesn't condemn your soul to an eternal Christian music station. I'll leave you with this:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10
Cheers!
14th October 2008 at 6:21 pm | permalink |"caused by clouds and the atmosphere."
Becca didn't say anything about the earth's orbit altering to make the sun wiggle.
I don't think we've attained total enlightenment. It's not like we've gone from 0 to 100 in 400 years, more like 60-100. And that's not that hard to believe - when the population grows, there are more people around to come up with new ideas. When more emphasis is placed on knowledge, there's more opportunities for people to learn and come up with new ideas. Aside from anything else, the main reason we didn't end up here sooner is because of a little thing called the Dark Ages, where for the most part the learning accrued by Greek and Roman scholars was suppressed in the christian world. Primitive steam engines existed before the Roman empire, and the Romans built roads better than we could manage until the 20th century.
Yeah, 'knowing' god exists makes as much sense as 'knowing' you know everything. That's because they're both bollocks. Scientists (generally) don't think they know everything, I don't think I know everything, nor - I imagine - do alpha or becca. What we do know is that because something is unknown does not mean it must be magic. And when a certain brand of magic makes claims that it doesn't come through with (like smiting, protecting, etc) odds are that brand of magic is a bunch of crap.
Though, going back to the subject of arrogance, the idea that Jesus would send you a helicopter to save you while others drowned around you, that seems pretty arrogant. Forget all the other people who are drowning, they suck. You're good enough to have the attention of the man upstairs. But wait, when god chooses to save people in the bible he does it by telling them to get out/prepare for the disaster, not by getting in the thick of it and plucking them out (directly or indirectly).
That's pretty much the definition of the standard Christian American self-important delusion (granted, other nationalities do it to, but the general self-importance of Americans compounds it). To say that you are more worthy of saving than hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people in some disaster scenario is the height of arrogance and pride. Which is a mortal sin. Which would mean god wouldn't be interested in saving you.
As for jesus saving you instead of god? Trinitarianism is bullshit. It was a cynical marketing ploy to appeal to the polytheists of the Roman Empire who weren't interested in a pantheon of 1. The bible has numerous quotes of Jesus himself saying he's not god, is less than god, is not perfect/divine/etc. The best biblical stuff trinitarians have is references to 'the father, the son and the holy spirit', which is about as definitively trinitarian as 'the tv, the pvr and the playstation'. It's entirely made up, and the idea didn't appear until sometime in the 3rd century. Jesus is depicted as a saviour, yes, but a spiritual one. And rising water isn't a spiritual threat.
14th October 2008 at 7:06 pm | permalink |@D. Watson
14th October 2008 at 7:25 pm | permalink |I’ve often wondered how people have such big capacity in believeing in nonsense? The supposedly fact that, -if you just believe enough, or hope allot, every little thing’s gonna be alright then some creatures from the old sky’s gonna come down and bless everyone and you’re kind?
Like Britney on the Emmy’s; -“Thank you God, for blessing Me!” Then I think; Why the fuck does God bless she and not me, or the ones who really deserve blessings, like the people that experienced “Katrina”, or some shit like that?
Mass hypnosis means mass hypnosis, what you’re gonna do? Mass hypnosis made my ancestors see scary shit in the sky, the northern light. Spooky shit! But, relaxe, it wasn’t “God Almighty”, it was the fucking aurora :)
Anyway, one thing I agree with you is, It’s fucking arrogant believing science has everything down. And there’s a fucking lot we human assholes don’t understand! I’m with you on that, but that doesn’t call for a God or some believe system or some motherfucking place to go to when shit happens.
By the way. I don’t confuse you with the “chopper, flooded, fanatics”. I believe you’re a good, decent person who means well and believe in this bible-stuff. I also think you inherited the believe-system from your parents.
The best way to some up my feelings on atheism:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
From: http://atheistblogger.com/2008/02/15/101-atheist-quotes/
14th October 2008 at 7:50 pm | permalink |