BajaNomad

To Doug"

 Pages:  1  ..  4    6  

Pompano - 6-16-2012 at 11:01 AM

I am sure of it...



and quite pleased with my current fishing guide...but it is a 'he', I believe. Known by locals as ...Moe.

willardguy - 6-16-2012 at 11:10 AM

Iflyfish - 6-16-2012 at 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
I am sure of it...



and quite pleased with my current fishing guide...but it is a 'he', I believe. Known by locals as ...Moe.



Is he the guy with the indivisible partners Shep and Larry

He looks peeed, no bait?

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 6-16-2012 at 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish

God I feel bad.



Some day it'll be the G word's turn to be shunned.

I think some would like it that way now.


Did this kid read the entire thread? No wonder he is up in the tree! Smart kid!

Iflyfish

Poor god. I wonder if she will be up to the challenge?

Iflyfish


Oh .... I'm sure He's still watching over us.

Pompano - 6-16-2012 at 11:50 AM

Not peeed, no..rather much the opposite...con mucho gusto.

Moe has a unique sense of humor...often plays this one on bait fishermen.

Phil S - 6-16-2012 at 12:14 PM

I wonder how many "foes" of Skeet have EVER MET HIM that have posted negatively about him on this subject??????? I'd verture ZEROOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Cypress - 6-16-2012 at 12:48 PM

"foes" of Skeet? Heck, he is/was a good source of information, possibly a little past the expiration date, but his two bits were as good as anyone's.:yes:

Iflyfish - 6-16-2012 at 03:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
"foes" of Skeet? Heck, he is/was a good source of information, possibly a little past the expiration date, but his two bits were as good as anyone's.:yes:


Don't forget history, he is a part of the living history of Baja and of a type one ran into often in the old days in Baja.

Iflyfish

LancairDriver - 6-16-2012 at 05:04 PM

It has been interesting to see this thread start with Skeets resignation to "let's beat up old skeet" to brilliant proselytizeing by a few of the philosophers on the board. Personally I have been amused by Skeets comments over the past few years and will miss his contribution. This is not to say I agree with his musings 100%, but it is obvious he does know Baja better than most on this board.

In 1974 Muhammed Ali won a boxing match with George Forman in which the term "Rope-a-Dope" was coined and made somewhat famous by Ali. Ali leaned on the ropes and covered up while Forman punched away to no effect, and burned himself out losing the fight. Skeet has used this technique successfully on this board and always succeeds in roping a few. Usually the same ones each time. Ali may have coined the term, but Skeet has perfected it. Anyway, unless Skeet has a change of heart and returns, the entertainment is gone.

oxxo - 6-16-2012 at 05:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Criticizing Skeet for a particular statement is one thing, but to judgementally bully him and intellectually crucify him is worse than ANYTHING that Skeet has supposedly done,


You describe exactly what Skeeter was doing both here and on OT.

Pompano - 6-16-2012 at 06:09 PM

I say tar and feathering is for sissies. Now drawing and quartering brings back great memories....think of it like field dressing an elk in the town square. It rivets your audience..and we all like that, si?

Note: The very recent excavation next door to the Dead Sea Scrolls dig revealed this tablet.

Skeet and God...Pro or Con?.. this tablet satisfies both sexes, by Gar.




Been there..done that.


Now..where did I leave that other jug of compassionate squeezings?

vgabndo - 6-16-2012 at 06:17 PM

I'm guessing that the Skeet that is communicating with DK is the one who couldn't spell or punctuate. That one, I judge, would STILL not be able to "get" that he himself by virtue of his use of a common browser has "sold"/given away his valuable intellectual property. The one who could spell should know better!

I have kept a multi-year pledge to stay off OT which I made largely because my inability to stay away from Skeet's* hateful rants was showing me a side of myself I couldn't abide. *(Patrick Chicas too.) I'm a lot less likely these days to get REALLY upset when someone is talking out their patoot.

He helped me to learn some Spanish though! In thinking of him in espanol I learned: Llena de odio. I think I'll always remember that phrase. I hope I seldom need it.

To have learned: Una fuente de compascion would have been better.:lol::lol::lol:

Barry A. - 6-16-2012 at 06:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Criticizing Skeet for a particular statement is one thing, but to judgementally bully him and intellectually crucify him is worse than ANYTHING that Skeet has supposedly done,


You describe exactly what Skeeter was doing both here and on OT.


Huh???? Please explain to this simple person what you mean.

Skeet "bullied" folks???? Skeet "intellectually crusified" people???? Try as I might, I can't picture Skeet EVER doing that. And even if he did (which I do NOT admit) bad bahavior is not an excuse for more bad behavior, IMO, especially from certain people on this board that should/do know better, and make a point of stating and demonstrating how wise and fair they are.

Sorry, Oxxo, I just don't buy it, at this point. I smell a witch-hunt, plain and simple, and for what purpose? :?:

Barry

woody with a view - 6-16-2012 at 09:16 PM

could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?

Barry A. - 6-16-2012 at 09:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?


Heck, I don't even know him. And Skeeter is a Christian--------I am an agnostic, and have been for 55 years, or so. Gnu is "out there" with his comments, but I like his take on other things. :o

I just admire all Skeets adventures and accomplishments, and he does not need my help, but I feel strongly that the atheists are grouping, and bullying him, or trying to. Probably impossible, actually, to "bully" Skeet, but they are trying. They can't see it, of course, based on their comments. Talk about "group think". :lol:

Back to my movie (a John Wayne movie, naturally)

Barry

Ateo - 6-16-2012 at 09:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?



but I feel strongly that the atheists are grouping," :lol:



Barry


Barry, just remember, all "atheist" means is a lack of belief in gods. Not far from agnosticism. The fact is, all 7 billion people on this earth are atheist in regards to the thousands of gods they don't believe in. A Christian is an atheist in regards to Vishnu, Allah and Thor. Those gods aren't real! But their god is.......

So, there's no atheist conspiracy. We're not grouping or ganging up. What I see is people calling out bad behavior.

And I give skeet the benefit of the doubt. Most things we say as humans and what we believe, is formed at an early age. We have little control over it unfortunately. If I was born in 1221, I'd pretty much have the morals of someone growing up in that era. I may think the world is flat, Muslims should be slaughtered, women should be subservient, slaves taken.....

We should evaluate our morals constantly. Is this just what I was taught by my parents? Is this good for my fellow humans? Do I have flaws? Do I harbor hatred towards some other tribe or color or religion? What would someone in 2156 think about my current morals?

I care if what I believe is true. I want to believe the most amount of true things. We all should.

Blah blah blah.........

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by ateo]

Barry A. - 6-16-2012 at 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
We forgive you Barry, and we love you. Please drop the ol thin blue line mantra and the masonic platitudes, you're shilling for the criminal brotherhood is as transparent as the sea of cortez.

Ask yourself why would someone pledge to a group they initially know nothing about, and what do perceive to be your gain? Money? Security? Hardly, you've lost sight, morality, common sense, and independence which is the heart of being human. So who are you? A shill for the two-faced delusional masonic brotherhood?

Do really believe it was worth it? Do you believe you are the highest power? Are you seeing the light? Do you enjoy seeing others suffer? Do you think poor people deserve to be poor? Are you racist against other races beside your own?

Do you believe all people are equal? Do you believe in the right to liberty, freedom, independence and to be free from oppression by so called collective associations?

What is your feeling about lucifer? Smart Good guy?

Barry are you a member of a secret society?

Barry are you a member of a masonic society?



[Edited on 6-17-2012 by gnukid]


I have been called a few things, Gnu, but a "groupie" is not one of them. I don't know a thing about Mason's, other than what I have read long ago. Gnu, no "masonic" leaning here. I would not even join the Rotary when I was pressured too. I am basically a loner------groups make me nervous. :O

Lucifer does not exist as far as I know. All people begin equal, but they become very unequal depending on their choices in life. I have NEVER felt "oppressed". Never thought much about "races"-------we all seem pretty much the same to me. My only "secret society" is my family, and we are NOT secretive, believe me. :lol: "Common sense, morality, and independence" is my life-blood, but I do believe that others should feel the same. I hate seeing others suffer, which is why I sing the praises of the STOCK MARKET so that others can too be comfortable in this wonderful Country. I think poor people are poor because they are poor (which I don't begin to understand, but think it is true) I think that about covers your questions.

As for Ateo's comments, they are too numerous to remember, and I can't access them while replying. I may, as you say, be a reflection of my youthful larnins, but I doubt it. From the time I was about 12 I was basically on my own------no
Dad (dead), and my Mom was overseas much of my teen years, and my sister was 5 years older but we got along great----I did not get along with Mom anyway, tho I liked her. Never bothered me in the least being alone, as far as I remember-------and I had a wonderful childhood growing up in Coronado, CA with my friends, none of which were Church goers. I really know very little about religion----never felt I needed to know---------but my Mom did introduce me to the Church (Episcopal) and I served in it for a brief while-------did not relate, tho, and left----did not understand the attraction.

At 74, I am still learning, but not really seeking stuff as i am very happy with my lot in life, my extended family, and my existance, and I stay really busy with projects (and this Board). :lol: We are building a swimming pool right now------a BIG project, for sure. (thank you, Stock Market)

anuff of this. To bed I go.

Barry

Ateo - 6-16-2012 at 10:39 PM

Enjoy that swimming pool. Sounds nice. Sleep well. I'm about to do the same....

Barry sez:

toneart - 6-17-2012 at 10:30 AM

"I think poor people are poor because they are poor (which I don't begin to understand, but think it is true)."

Oh yeah, and do you know how to make a million dollars? You start with a million dollars. :light:

Otherwise, Barry, if you will indulge me in being judgmental :o :

I think you are basically a fair person and a gentleman. However, you appear to be very content when not venturing mentally outside of your comfort zone. The Big Picture possibly may not be being considered. I can understand that though. Most of us operate that way, especially at your age. :rolleyes::P:lol::lol:

wessongroup - 6-17-2012 at 12:20 PM

Hear "water-boarding" is acceptable ... :biggrin::biggrin:

Ateo - 6-17-2012 at 12:32 PM

Wessongroup,

Wanna watch that heathen atheist Christopher Hitchens get water boarded? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=youtu...

Skipjack Joe - 6-17-2012 at 01:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Wessongroup,

Wanna watch that heathen atheist Christopher Hitchens get water boarded? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=youtu...


All I get from the link is a black screen. Nothingness. I guess he's taking his atheism seriously.

Ateo - 6-17-2012 at 01:09 PM

Haha! I gotta laugh outta that one!

Gotta wait a second for it to load. Maybe the link is bad. Worked for me. You can also google "Christopher Hitchens water boarding".
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Wessongroup,

Wanna watch that heathen atheist Christopher Hitchens get water boarded? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=youtu...


All I get from the link is a black screen. Nothingness. I guess he's taking his atheism seriously.

toneart - 6-17-2012 at 02:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Wessongroup,

Wanna watch that heathen atheist Christopher Hitchens get water boarded? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=youtu...


All I get from the link is a black screen. Nothingness. I guess he's taking his atheism seriously.


Atheism is a secret society, Skip. Your screen is black because you believed it would open. :wow: That's pretty impressive power! That's what Blind Faith will do to you; leave you in the dark. :(


Anyway, Hitchens is dead now; Esophageal Cancer. He wouldn't appreciate this guy either>>>>>>> :saint:

Barry A. - 6-17-2012 at 03:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
"I think poor people are poor because they are poor (which I don't begin to understand, but think it is true)."

Oh yeah, and do you know how to make a million dollars? You start with a million dollars. :light:

Otherwise, Barry, if you will indulge me in being judgmental :o :

I think you are basically a fair person and a gentleman. However, you appear to be very content when not venturing mentally outside of your comfort zone. The Big Picture possibly may not be being considered. I can understand that though. Most of us operate that way, especially at your age. :rolleyes::P:lol::lol:


"millions producing millions"----------That did not seem to help Rodney King. :spingrin:

That the old phrase, "it takes money to make money" is certainly true. But I am living proof that it CAN be done without millions to start, and I have many friends that did also. I was thinking, maybe it helped growing up among the fairly wealthy in Coronado which set my "state of mind"--------Coronadoan's all think "success", and it usually happens when you stay concentrated on making it happen.

One of my Ranger's once quoted that phrase, "the poor are poor because they are poor", and it really struck me, and has stayed in my mind how true that is. Being poor, in many cases, is a 'state of mind' that apparently is very hard to break out of for many. When you consider all the billions that have been spent since the "Great Society" began on the programs for the poor, and how little things have changed for the poor since (a few % points different in "poor" today), I don't think it is money well spent-------there has GOT to be a better way!!! THAT is the "big picture" to me, anyway.

But Tony (ToneArt) is correct in that I don't venture mentally very far outside my & my Family's immediate concerns and happiness these days------age 74 probably has a lot to do with it, and I am not alone. I learned over the many years that what I call "mental masturbation" with little to show for it is not a rewarding endeavor, either for me or the poor. :lol:

added in Edit-----------I thought that Chris. Hitchens was a master of thought and letters, and I loved listening to his interviews and critiques. I often did not agree with him, but watching his "mind work" was truly a phenominae (sp?).

I miss him, as I do William Buckley.

Barry

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by Barry A.]

Off Topic

thebajarunner - 6-17-2012 at 05:31 PM

Isn't it time to take this little private dialogue down to Off Topic?
Been non-Baja related since about Page 2 IMO

Just wondering why this off topic thread continues here.....

SFandH - 6-17-2012 at 05:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thebajarunner
Isn't it time to take this little private dialogue down to Off Topic?
Been non-Baja related since about Page 2 IMO

Just wondering why this off topic thread continues here.....


Unfortunately, most of the contibutors to this thread that I've found to be the most interesting don't post in the Off Topic part of the message board.

I'd prefer to keep this thread here. It appears to be dying anyway.

Ateo - 6-17-2012 at 05:59 PM

You definitely have a point.
Quote:
Originally posted by thebajarunner
Isn't it time to take this little private dialogue down to Off Topic?
Been non-Baja related since about Page 2 IMO

Just wondering why this off topic thread continues here.....

Cisco - 6-17-2012 at 06:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hear "water-boarding" is acceptable ... :biggrin::biggrin:


Actually the U.S.A. determined water-boarding to be torture at the war crimes trials of the Japanese after WWII.

Since they were water-boarding U.S. POW'S we executed the perpetrators for the crime.

Cisco - 6-17-2012 at 06:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?



but I feel strongly that the atheists are grouping," :lol:



Barry


Barry, just remember, all "atheist" means is a lack of belief in gods. Not far from agnosticism. The fact is, all 7 billion people on this earth are atheist in regards to the thousands of gods they don't believe in. A Christian is an atheist in regards to Vishnu, Allah and Thor. Those gods aren't real! But their god is.......

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by ateo]


Jon, consider polytheism. Works for some. (not me).

And do recall that although an agnostic is not sure, an atheist KNOWS there is no God.

wessongroup - 6-17-2012 at 07:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hear "water-boarding" is acceptable ... :biggrin::biggrin:


Actually the U.S.A. determined water-boarding to be torture at the war crimes trials of the Japanese after WWII.

Since they were water-boarding U.S. POW'S we executed the perpetrators for the crime.


Sorry, wasn't speaking to the legality of the pratice, rather to its use in the "field"

As to the legal position, just love the way these folks talk ...


"The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[205]

Nevertheless Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel, on 14 February 2008 testified:

There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law.[206"

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

Certainly glad Steve cleared that up for us .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Maybe he didn't get the memo on the Japanese ... :):)

vgabndo - 6-17-2012 at 07:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
You definitely have a point.

Quote:
Originally posted by thebajarunner
Isn't it time to take this little private dialogue down to Off Topic?
Been non-Baja related since about Page 2 IMO

Just wondering why this off topic thread continues here.....


I see a lot of irony in the "belief" highjack of Skeet's snit. I also see a lot of value, and I'll cite the number of hits on this thread as evidence. I am of the school that feels that there are LOTS more closet atheists and agnostics among us than is obvious. In many families, coming out as a atheist is not unlike coming out gay. One can expect all manner of bad manners from Christian family and friends; including complete disowning. It appears almost impossible to question belief comfortably in a Christian family.

The lurkers (non-participants) who made up the vast bulk of the hits on this thread likely included a number of folks who are questioning their inherited beliefs, and found a safe place here to compare information. This has value.

This discussion simply would not have happened if it was living over on the dark side. Off Topic dart slingers would have pinned it's shadow to their wall in hours.

Thank you Doug, for watching the hit counter and seeing the civility and letting my friends and me pretend we had a campfire between us in Baja.

Cisco - 6-17-2012 at 08:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hear "water-boarding" is acceptable ... :biggrin::biggrin:


Actually the U.S.A. determined water-boarding to be torture at the war crimes trials of the Japanese after WWII.

Since they were water-boarding U.S. POW'S we executed the perpetrators for the crime.


Sorry, wasn't speaking to the legality of the pratice, rather to its use in the "field"

As to the legal position, just love the way these folks talk ...


"The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[205]

Nevertheless Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel, on 14 February 2008 testified:

There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law.[206"

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

Certainly glad Steve cleared that up for us .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Maybe he didn't get the memo on the Japanese ... :):)


Probably not. It has been made a pretty arcane reference due to our utilization of the practice.

How we twist things, my goodness. "The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[205]" We can and do, justify, rationalize, sanitize and other ize's just about any action we wish unfortunately.

Guess we lost the man who tried to keep it simple today also, with his televised quote of "Why can't we all just get along"???

I hope there is hope for us all, pretty scary world we have created for ourselves.

Ateo - 6-17-2012 at 08:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?



but I feel strongly that the atheists are grouping," :lol:



Barry


Barry, just remember, all "atheist" means is a lack of belief in gods. Not far from agnosticism. The fact is, all 7 billion people on this earth are atheist in regards to the thousands of gods they don't believe in. A Christian is an atheist in regards to Vishnu, Allah and Thor. Those gods aren't real! But their god is.......

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by ateo]


Jon, consider polytheism. Works for some. (not me).

And do recall that although an agnostic is not sure, an atheist KNOWS there is no God.


Cisco, just the fact that you mentioned polytheism gains you mass respect in my book. :)

I would disagree that an atheist KNOWS there is no god. There is no way to prove a negative. He could be hiding in a corner of the universe, afraid to come out. :)

I prefer this definition: no evidence for your god, so I don't believe the claim that your god exists. I'm agnostic as well I guess. Show me evidence and I'm down. Until then, I guess I'm an a-theist.

I don't know everything so I'm willing to learn.
Best regards.

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by ateo]

Cisco - 6-17-2012 at 08:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?



but I feel strongly that the atheists are grouping," :lol:



Barry


Barry, just remember, all "atheist" means is a lack of belief in gods. Not far from agnosticism. The fact is, all 7 billion people on this earth are atheist in regards to the thousands of gods they don't believe in. A Christian is an atheist in regards to Vishnu, Allah and Thor. Those gods aren't real! But their god is.......

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by ateo]


Jon, consider polytheism. Works for some. (not me).

And do recall that although an agnostic is not sure, an atheist KNOWS there is no God.


Cisco, just the fact that you mentioned polytheism gains you mass respect in my book. :)

I would disagree that an atheist KNOWS there is no god.

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by ateo]


They take it on FAITH! :lol:

Ateo - 6-17-2012 at 08:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by woody with a view
could Barry be the alter ego of Skeet?



but I feel strongly that the atheists are grouping," :lol:



Barry


Barry, just remember, all "atheist" means is a lack of belief in gods. Not far from agnosticism. The fact is, all 7 billion people on this earth are atheist in regards to the thousands of gods they don't believe in. A Christian is an atheist in regards to Vishnu, Allah and Thor. Those gods aren't real! But their god is.......

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by ateo]


Jon, consider polytheism. Works for some. (not me).

And do recall that although an agnostic is not sure, an atheist KNOWS there is no God.


Cisco, just the fact that you mentioned polytheism gains you mass respect in my book. :)

I would disagree that an atheist KNOWS there is no god.

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by ateo]


They take it on FAITH! :lol:


:lol:

The same way we take that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist "on faith".

;D

Paula - 6-17-2012 at 09:27 PM

Quote:
That the old phrase, "it takes money to make money" is certainly true. But I am living proof that it CAN be done without millions to start, and I have many friends that did also. I was thinking, maybe it helped growing up among the fairly wealthy in Coronado which set my "state of mind"--------Coronadoan's all think "success", and it usually happens when you stay concentrated on making it happen.

One of my Ranger's once quoted that phrase, "the poor are poor because they are poor", and it really struck me, and has stayed in my mind how true that is. Being poor, in many cases, is a 'state of mind' that apparently is very hard to break out of for many. When you consider all the billions that have been spent since the "Great Society" began on the programs for the poor, and how little things have changed for the poor since (a few % points different in "poor" today), I don't think it is money well spent-------there has GOT to be a better way!!! THAT is the "big picture" to me, anyway

Barry

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by Barry A.]



Barry, I agree that attitude, confidence, and vision count in getting to the top. It is a nice thing that you got there, I'm happy for you. But luck and good breaks count too.

It is said that the great thing about America is that anyone can make it to the top.

The flip side is that there is not room at the top for everyone. Many of those who don't get there are hard working, intelligent and earnest folk-- just like you. Some of them may be brighter and more creative than some successful people, but circumstances stand between them and material success.

"The poor are poor because they are poor" is an arrogant, rude and presumptive statement. Some people who lack hutzpah, self-confidence, and good fortune may be the dark stars who have the answers and the compassion to bring about a better world. If the have-muches listened to the have-nots instead of dismissing them, they might find themselves arriving at a place of compassion and attention and open-mindedness as opposed to guardedness and dismissiveness. And they might find their lives improved for doing so.

For the record, I am not poor. And if you choose to reply to my post, please just call me Paula. My name is not, and never was Paula Paula Paula.:dudette::D

Barry A. - 6-17-2012 at 10:08 PM

Paula-------------"rude, presumptive, and arrogant" were the furthest things from my mind when I heard that statement about the poor-------it was a kinda resignation by me that no matter how hard we try, and how many different approaches we take, there are simply many in the poor community that do not appear to respond. My conclusion, after exhausting all possibilities that I could come up with, was that many would stay poor no matter what.

I do have a tendency to 'go on to other things' when I find after a while that my approach is not working----------sorta like the other phrase that says something like, "the definition of insane is trying the same things over and over again when they simply don't work". If that is any one of the 3 descriptions you gave, then I plead guilty. I have always hated wasting time.

On Edit---------and Paula, I am a long way from "the top". I am just comfortable.

Barry

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Barry A.]

Paula - 6-17-2012 at 10:13 PM

Barry, Barry, Barry... you and I will never see eye to eye....

Barry A. - 6-17-2012 at 10:15 PM

:lol: I am afraid you are right, Paula (times 3)

Barry

Paula - 6-17-2012 at 10:40 PM

:dudette::lol:

Iflyfish - 6-17-2012 at 10:40 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Paula
That the old phrase, "it takes money to make money" is certainly true. But I am living proof that it CAN be done without millions to start, and I have many friends that did also. I was thinking, maybe it helped growing up among the fairly wealthy in Coronado which set my "state of mind"--------Coronadoan's all think "success", and it usually happens when you stay concentrated on making it happen.

One of my Ranger's once quoted that phrase, "the poor are poor because they are poor", and it really struck me, and has stayed in my mind how true that is. Being poor, in many cases, is a 'state of mind' that apparently is very hard to break out of for many. When you consider all the billions that have been spent since the "Great Society" began on the programs for the poor, and how little things have changed for the poor since (a few % points different in "poor" today), I don't think it is money well spent-------there has GOT to be a better way!!! THAT is the "big picture" to me, anyway

Barry

[Edited on 6-17-2012 by Barry A.]



Barry, I agree that attitude, confidence, and vision count in getting to the top. It is a nice thing that you got there, I'm happy for you. But luck and good breaks count too.

It is said that the great thing about America is that anyone can make it to the top.

The flip side is that there is not room at the top for everyone. Many of those who don't get there are hard working, intelligent and earnest folk-- just like you. Some of them may be brighter and more creative than some successful people, but circumstances stand between them and material success.

"The poor are poor because they are poor" is an arrogant, rude and presumptive statement. Some people who lack hutzpah, self-confidence, and good fortune may be the dark stars who have the answers and the compassion to bring about a better world. If the have-muches listened to the have-nots instead of dismissing them, they might find themselves arriving at a place of compassion and attention and open-mindedness as opposed to guardedness and dismissiveness. And they might find their lives improved for doing so.

For the record, I am not poor. And if you choose to reply to my post, please just call me Paula. My name is not, and never was Paula Paula Paula.:dudette::D


Well said Paula. We are not all born equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some better looking. Some have a higher status pigmentation, some are exposed to better education, some are of the sex that make more money doing the same work, some are dealing with problems with the senses i.e. deafness, blindness, tactile defensiveness, developmental differences like Autism, Mongolism, Hydrocephaly etc. It is presumptive and displays a great deal of denial to say that this is not true. We do not all have the capacity to earn or acquire wealth and the wealthy that claim that we all could be wealthy must have skipped out on the day the class studied the Great Depression, where the economy tanked so bad that it was near impossible to gain employment, let alone become rich.
The corollary to this argument that anyone can become rich is that the rich somehow have greater virtue than the person who is poor by virtue of their wealth. This view, not often stated overtly, is often embedded in statements like "I'm rich and anyone can be rich too, see how my hard work has created wealth for me and mine.

The bible refers to the difficulty of the rich attaining salvation, heaven, enlightenment etc. depending upon how one interprets the statement about the rich entering the Eye Of the Needle, a gate in the wall of the Holy City that was very narrow and difficult for someone carrying a lot of baggage to navigate. It is the self sanctity, arrogance and hubris of the rich that can blind them to the genuine situation and needs of others. I have mine....go get yours....add pejorative adjective here. Witness Barbara Bush's comment about how the poor in the Astrodome were "underprivileged anyway so this is working well for them" or "why should we about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. Why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara2.asp

It is this sanctimonious attitude of rich=good/virtuous and poor=bad/morally bankrupt, deficient etc. that is so destructive to the commons, our public space, our shared boat. If you don't see a problem, or deny it's existence, or discount the problem by making up a fairy tale about the problem then positive change cannot occur.

To say that the Great Society Programs did not work discounts many other societal changes that happened during that period including the Vietnam War that nearly bankrupted the country and in order to pay for it required that it would take two working parents to provide the lifestyle of their parents generation. I saw Great Society Programs working, I see Great Society Programs working, I worked in Great Society Programs and saw many, many people helped by them. These programs got cut by austerity measures and defunding undermined their effectiveness. The Great Society Programs were a work in progress whose life was cut short by economic constraints. Johnson tried to provide both Guns and Butter and it did not work any better under him than under the Republicans.
The Great Society Programs were intended to end poverty, racial discrimination, create more schools and education, better medical care, and help the economy. President Lyndon B. Johnson created this program after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Some things from his program are still in use today like Medicare and Medicaid, others were very helpful to minorities like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and education opportunities.

I do not deny the existence of an entrenched subculture of intractable poverty and a sense of entitlement that binds people to poverty. I do not deny that there is a permanent underclass in US society. I do say that it is disingenuous to say that all poverty is self created by victim entitlement. This simply is not true but it is a common belief in the upper/ruling class.

“About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at an average of $2.56 million, a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-...
The attitudes and beliefs that Paula and I are confronting are commonly held by this ruling class. This aught to concern Americans because the majority interests are not being addressed and to Christians who have been told by their Teacher, to care for the poor and the "least of these".

Iflyfish

Iflyfish

SFandH - 6-18-2012 at 06:05 AM

Thanks Iflyfish. I enjoy your writing.

I was watching a TV show last night about monk who happens to sing well and I was impressed by his vow of poverty. Much more impressed than by anyone who is rich. Materialism and the measure of worth by a bank statement has never been taught or practised by what I consider truly religious people. Probably their best trait. Something to emulate.


[Edited on 6-18-2012 by SFandH]

Osprey - 6-18-2012 at 06:11 AM

Well said Flyguy. Now would be a perfect time for some really bright poor people and some dumb as they come billionaires to jump in here, nail this thing down once and for all. If you're out there, let us hear from y'all.

woody with a view - 6-18-2012 at 06:50 AM

i'm here!:P

Barry A. - 6-18-2012 at 08:01 AM

Just to clarify one thing, per IFlyFish's excellent post---------the average net worth of the so called "1%'ers" is 14 million, down from 19 million earlier. Senators and Congressmen in general are NOT in the top 1%, or even close, as I interpret this article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-...

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 6-18-2012 at 09:01 AM

The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.

I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.

She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.

She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.

Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.

It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.

Iflyfish - 6-18-2012 at 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Just to clarify one thing, per IFlyFish's excellent post---------the average net worth of the so called "1%'ers" is 14 million, down from 19 million earlier. Senators and Congressmen in general are NOT in the top 1%, or even close, as I interpret this article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-...

Barry


Thank you for the nod to my post. I appreciate your engaging this issue.

I share the content of your link below to leave it up to the readers whether our Senators and Congressmen/women are in the top 1%. I know those people don't frequent the same haunts that I do, maybe Woody is an exception to that rule and I would be happy to quaff a Tecate or two with him, first one's on me Woody.

This post has been updated.

Occupy Wall Street says their movement represent the “99 percent” of Americans who’ve been left behind, while a tiny minority of wealthy earners pull ahead. So who are the 1 percenters?


(SOURCE: REUTERS ) Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.

That number is down from peak of $646,195 in 2007, before the economic crisis hit, all adjusted to 2011 dollars, according to calculations by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum. As Annie Lowrey points out, that gap has grown wider over time: “The top 1 percent of households took a bigger share of overall income in 2007 than they did at any time since 1928.” (And in New York City, it’s even more skewed: the top 1 percent have an average of $3.7 million in income.)

When you look at the disparity in net worth, things look even more skewed. Wealthier Americans have assets — in home equity, stocks and other investments — that generally outstrip their cash income. Average wealth of the top 1 percent was almost $14 million in 2009, according to a 2011 report from the Economic Policy Institute. That’s down from a peak of $19.2 million in 2007.

By contrast, the poorest households were experiencing declines in net worth even before the recession hit. In 2007, the bottom 20 percent of households had an average (negative!) net worth of –$13,800 in 2007, which fell further to –$27,200 in 2009. Altogether, “average wealth of the bottom 80 percent was just $62,900 in 2009 — a dropoff of $40,900 from 2007,” EPI writes. That means the wealthiest 1 percent held an average of 225 times the wealth of the average median household in 2009 — a ratio that was 125 in 1962.

Interestingly, just as Occupy Wall Street is bringing their grievances about this growing gap to a broader public, the Democratic Party is re-adjusting it’s definition of “rich.” As my colleague Lori Montgomery reports, Senate Democrats have ditched President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households who have more than $250,000 a year for a proposal to tax those who earn more than $1 million a year. Those who have a household income of $250,000 wouldn’t fall in the top 1 percent. But those who have incomes of more than $1 million would — at least outside New York City.

*Update: This post was updated to clarify that the second and third paragraphs describe income floors — the mininum amount at different percentiles — not average income. The average income of the top 1 percent of US households in 2011 is $1,530,773, while the average income of the bottom 20 percent is $9,187, and the median income is $65,357, according to Jim Nunns, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 6-18-2012 at 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.

I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.

She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.

She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.

Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.

It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.


"She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.

She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.

Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press."

She is saying BOTH of these things and both are odious to me.

She believes that showing the American Public the consequences of the wars her son waged are "cluttering of her beautiful mind". Really, hard to take reality sometimes isn't it? This is the very sort of thing that life in a bubble can produce, gross insensitivity and denial of the everyday reality of other people. Marie Antoinette said it best when watching Paris in the throes of a revolution fermented by the accumulation of too much wealth at the top when she said when told that the people were starving "Let them eat cake".

She belies the truth that which is before her in the press, discounts information that does not fit with her world view by calling it "mistruths".
"I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that." No indeed, he was actually President of the Untied States, one time Head of the CIA, a decorated war hero and a man of considerable intelligence and accomplishment. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Her comments about people in the Astrodome are well documented and display the same lack of interest, consciousness and awareness.

I am not saying that Barbara Bush has not done some wonderful things for her country, she has, I am only referring to her obviously classist perspective. Class is the dirty little secret in the US of A. and our class/subculture affects our perception of our society and those people around us. It bothers me that many people of power in the ruling class in the US or for that matter in Mexico are out of touch with the realities of the poor. George I for example was stumped when asked what the cost of a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread was. I don't begrudge him his wealth, nor the fact that others fill his larder, fill his car at the pump etc. and understand that this well could account for his lack of knowledge of these things. However it is precisely this lack of knowledge that concerns me in this context as people of this class are on a daily basis making decisions that have profound affects on the daily lives of those who are of lower classes and economic circumstances. When you add a sense of moral superiority to this lack of information or empathy for the lower classes whose life your decisions profoundly affect then you are adding insult to injury. I am not casting aspersions here on George I, who was in my view eminently qualified to be President of the US, unlike Bush II. I disagreed with many of his policies but don't for a minute question his qualifications to hold the office he did.

Iflyfish

Iflyfish

Cypress - 6-18-2012 at 11:32 AM

Is Skeet/Loreto blaming Bush for his(Skeet/Loreto)dropping out of the Nomads? And is Bush responsible for the various religious/nonreligious belief systems expressed by various Nomads? Why not? Bush has been blamed for everything else that has had a negative impact on anybody and everyone.:biggrin:

Cisco - 6-18-2012 at 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Is Skeet/Loreto blaming Bush for his(Skeet/Loreto)dropping out of the Nomads? And is Bush responsible for the various religious/nonreligious belief systems expressed by various Nomads? Why not? Bush has been blamed for everything else that has had a negative impact on anybody and everyone.:biggrin:


Probably have to ask Skeet about the first part.

Regarding Bush's responsibility are you referring to the elder or the lesser Bush? I have different issues with each.

Cypress - 6-18-2012 at 11:59 AM

Cisco, The younger, he's the one that's been blamed for everything with the exception of the Chicago fire. He wasn't born yet. Issues with each? You do? Wonder why?;D

Mexitron - 6-18-2012 at 12:02 PM

By definition, capitalism---the economic system we generally have---depends on a working class to fuel the engines of the upper classes. So in that sense some people are destined to be poor.

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Paula-------------"rude, presumptive, and arrogant" were the furthest things from my mind when I heard that statement about the poor-------it was a kinda resignation by me that no matter how hard we try, and how many different approaches we take, there are simply many in the poor community that do not appear to respond. My conclusion, after exhausting all possibilities that I could come up with, was that many would stay poor no matter what.

I do have a tendency to 'go on to other things' when I find after a while that my approach is not working----------sorta like the other phrase that says something like, "the definition of insane is trying the same things over and over again when they simply don't work". If that is any one of the 3 descriptions you gave, then I plead guilty. I have always hated wasting time.

On Edit---------and Paula, I am a long way from "the top". I am just comfortable.

Barry

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Barry A.]

Cypress - 6-18-2012 at 12:12 PM

Mexitron, Some people, having inherited a fortune, end up being broke. Some people born poor have acquired a fortune. The former didn't work to maintain it and the later worked hard to obtain it.:D Lady Luck has a lot to do with it, up or down.:D

Skipjack Joe - 6-18-2012 at 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.

I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.

She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.

She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.

Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.

It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.


Marie Antoinette said it best when watching Paris in the throes of a revolution fermented by the accumulation of too much wealth at the top when she said when told that the people were starving "Let them eat cake".



Not a good day for you flyfish.

Marie Antoinette never said that. It's a historical myth.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/antoinette....

But it is valuable from my point of view. Rousseau coined that phrase during her lifetime in order to bring her down. In order to make her seem insensitive so that his Revolution would have more public support and succeed(sp?). It was a lie. I see parallels here with the interpretation of Barbara Bush's quote.

P.S. There is now a wonderful movie on Marie Antoinette directed by Copolla's daughter that has tried to be historically correct. It shows her as a sensitive woman whose marriage was arranged to a mentally handicapped king who was the most powerful man in europe. He supposedly enjoyed a full evening meal and slept soundly the night before he was guillotined. Her only fault was that she was the figuredhead of the monarchy and for that she paid with her life. Her son, the dauphine, was spared the blade but spent a portion of his life in prison simply for who he was.

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

Skipjack Joe - 6-18-2012 at 02:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo

Mine was an evil laugh when I read something earlier on this thread about the Judeo-Christian ethic. There would almost certainly be no such thing today if the Russians hadn't kicked Hitler's butt. Christian Germany could have completed the "final solution" and there would be no judeos to have an ethic. Sectarian warfare is historically a major part of Christian behavior.



While I don't agree with the idea that N-zi Germany's war crimes were motivated by Christianity I would like to comment on the "final solution" (Anschluss).

We watched Schindler's List the other day. At the start of the war there were 3 1/2 million Jews in Poland. At the end - 4,000. Almost complete annihilation. That's astounding. The final solution was almost achieved.

gnukid - 6-18-2012 at 02:30 PM

Did you know that California Cap and Trade act to cure the false notion of anthropomorphic global warming is called The Final Solution...

http://www.examiner.com/article/california-emissions-reducti...

Cisco - 6-18-2012 at 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
Did you know that California Cap and Trade act to cure the false notion of anthropomorphic global warming is called The Final Solution...

http://www.examiner.com/article/california-emissions-reducti...


Please illuminate me on this.

The article is two or three years old, what are you referring to?

gnukid - 6-18-2012 at 03:10 PM

The legislation being passed in California actually passed in 2006 called Global Warming Solutions Act aka The Final Solution, was of course never voted on by actual voters is also called Cap and Trade.

While it does nothing to reduce pollution, it provides for a new market called a carbon market which trades imaginary things called carbon units, big energy companies can stop producing energy and be awarded carbon units to sell to people like you who may be required to buy them since you are a human and expel CO2.

The legislation is referenced as CARB Cap and Trade titled the Final Solution.

The fact that most people have no idea about this is no surprise, as no one except Al Gore really supports a new financial market to escalate energy costs while doing nothing to reduce actual pollution.

Read about it and get involved, submit your comments, do your research. Its a bit confusing, you'll note the law says about reducing pollution??? It only creates this huge funnel of money to a private company who will decide what to do with it.

http://www.examiner.com/article/california-emissions-reducti...

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California%27s_AB_32,_...

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/03/the-speculative-game-w...

http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/how-california-c...

Read it quickly, Doug will delete this and any factual post since it goes against his politics.

Oh and by the way, all the money, estimated to be billions per year from California will be funneled to a private Delaware company called WCI Inc. headed by ex Shell advisers.

http://www.wci-inc.org/

And if you read carefully Baja and Mexico are expected to pay heavily as well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/08/global-warm...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NcFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/14/a-top-germa...

http://youtu.be/WbLK4RZDdzI

http://youtu.be/tJ-1iL9g8nU

http://youtu.be/hgaeyMa3jyU

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by gnukid]

Iflyfish - 6-18-2012 at 03:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.

I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.

She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.

She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.

Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.

It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.


Marie Antoinette said it best when watching Paris in the throes of a revolution fermented by the accumulation of too much wealth at the top when she said when told that the people were starving "Let them eat cake".



Not a good day for you flyfish.

Marie Antoinette never said that. It's a historical myth.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/antoinette....

But it is valuable from my point of view. Rousseau coined that phrase during her lifetime in order to bring her down. In order to make her seem insensitive so that his Revolution would have more public support and succeed(sp?). It was a lie. I see parallels here with the interpretation of Barbara Bush's quote.

P.S. There is now a wonderful movie on Marie Antoinette directed by Copolla's daughter that has tried to be historically correct. It shows her as a sensitive woman whose marriage was arranged to a mentally handicapped king who was the most powerful man in europe. He supposedly enjoyed a full evening meal and slept soundly the night before he was guillotined. Her only fault was that she was the figuredhead of the monarchy and for that she paid with her life. Her son, the dauphine, was spared the blade but spent a portion of his life in prison simply for who he was.

[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


I appreciate your clarification of the Marie Antoinette quote, which is not attributable to her, according to this source. I am sorry that I besmirched the good name of the lady. I love to learn and have learned something from you post.

I do however stand by my position that subculture/class can skew perception of the world, ourself and other people in it. I also stand by the thrust of my argument that it is not good for the US to have a Congress made up of the upper class as they may not well represent the interests of the majority of the people. That is the point, they may be hopelessly out of touch with the real lives of people whose lives they so potently affect.

It is actually a good day for me, I learned something. My view of the statements of Barbara Bush have not changed, hopelessly out of touch, insulated and isolated by wealth, power and a lack of curiosity. George I is/was at least interested in current events.

Thanks for the clarification, I always enjoy your posts.

Iflyfish

oxxo - 6-18-2012 at 05:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Paula
Barry, Barry, Barry... you and I will never see eye to eye....


For the record Paula, there are a great number of us who do see "eye to eye" with you.

Mexitron - 6-18-2012 at 07:18 PM

Just read this this quote from Richard Feynman----

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not Absolutely sure of anything."

Where I read it the "A" in absolute was capitalized but I don't know if that was a tweak from someone else.....

Paula - 6-18-2012 at 09:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Paula
Barry, Barry, Barry... you and I will never see eye to eye....


For the record Paula, there are a great number of us who do see "eye to eye" with you.



Oh OXXO! thank you so much for these words!

Skipjack Joe - 6-21-2012 at 07:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Iflyfish,

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a soul?

And if so, what is it?


If you believe in a soul then you have one for sure! You would have to tell me what it is.

Iflyfish


Christian:"I loved her with all my soul"

Atheist: "I loved her with all my hypothalamus"

Doesn't get the idea across very well, does it?

Ateo - 6-21-2012 at 07:53 AM

Crazy how so much in of our lives is determined by our brains, chemical reactions in our brains, and that almond shaped section called the hypothalamus.

The Sculpin - 6-25-2012 at 10:48 PM

http://crabbyoldfart.wordpress.com/

Skeet in a different form!
I can't tell if this guy is serious or putting everyone on........

Mexitron - 6-26-2012 at 06:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Crazy how so much in of our lives is determined by our brains, chemical reactions in our brains, and that almond shaped section called the hypothalamus.


We're probably more like a radio though---the radio has all the circuitry but isn't anything without a signal from somewhere outside of it........

Ken Bondy - 6-26-2012 at 06:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Iflyfish,

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a soul?

And if so, what is it?


If you believe in a soul then you have one for sure! You would have to tell me what it is.

Iflyfish


Christian:"I loved her with all my soul"

Atheist: "I loved her with all my hypothalamus"

Doesn't get the idea across very well, does it?


How's about : "I loved her with all my heart". That gets the point across and refers to something that actually exists.

Skipjack Joe - 6-26-2012 at 06:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Iflyfish,

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a soul?

And if so, what is it?


If you believe in a soul then you have one for sure! You would have to tell me what it is.

Iflyfish


Christian:"I loved her with all my soul"

Atheist: "I loved her with all my hypothalamus"

Doesn't get the idea across very well, does it?


How's about : "I loved her with all my heart". That gets the point across and refers to something that actually exists.


The Greeks believed it should have been "I loved her with all my stomach".

----------------------------

Because when your heart was "broken" you felt it in the stomach. Come to think of it there's probably a relationship between love and ulcers.

[Edited on 6-26-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

vandenberg - 6-26-2012 at 08:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe


While I don't agree with the idea that N-zi Germany's war crimes were motivated by Christianity I would like to comment on the "final solution" (Anschluss).



Anschluss has nothing to do with " the final solution"
It's simply the idea of Germany and Austria as one country.

Skipjack Joe - 6-26-2012 at 09:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vandenberg
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe


While I don't agree with the idea that N-zi Germany's war crimes were motivated by Christianity I would like to comment on the "final solution" (Anschluss).



Anschluss has nothing to do with " the final solution"
It's simply the idea of Germany and Austria as one country.


I'm sorry. I probably should verify things before shooting my mouth off. And I thought about checking too, but it slows the exchange down to a crawl.

Die Endlösung

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

Good catch, Mein Fuhrer.

Iflyfish - 6-26-2012 at 09:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Iflyfish,

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a soul?

And if so, what is it?


If you believe in a soul then you have one for sure! You would have to tell me what it is.

Iflyfish


Christian:"I loved her with all my soul"

Atheist: "I loved her with all my hypothalamus"

Doesn't get the idea across very well, does it?


Indeed!

Iflyfishwithmysensorymotorstrip

Iflyfish - 6-26-2012 at 10:08 AM

Dare I say I loved her with my

amygdala - regulates emotions
nucleus accumbens - controls the release of dopamine
ventral tegmental area (VTA) - actually releases the dopamine
cerebellum - controls muscle function
pituitary gland - releases beta-endorphins, which decrease pain; oxytocin, which increases feelings of trust; and vasopressin, which increases bonding

And this list excludes the necessary organs involved. Whew, exhausting! No wonder people crave cigarettes and sleep after.......

Iflyfishinaseaofhormones

Skipjack Joe - 6-26-2012 at 10:11 AM

Does anyone still have the link to the Harrison's 90 minute lecture on the absence of self will? I feel like getting depressed.

[Edited on 6-26-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

Ken Bondy - 6-26-2012 at 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Does anyone still have the link to the Harrison's 90 minute lecture on the absence of self will? I feel like getting depressed.

[Edited on 6-26-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


Igor if you mean Harris, here is Sam's website. You can find everything here. And I do mean everything :)

http://www.samharris.org/

vgabndo - 6-26-2012 at 11:13 AM

The miracles of Christianity extend to those afforded one of the foremost proponents of Christian dominionism. Pat Robertson, who was recently told by God that it was ok to flip-off Jehovah relative to the "in sickness and in health" portion of the Christian marriage vows. If one's wife get Alzheimer's all promises to the Lord God Almighty are meaningless according to Robertson.

The important part is the convenience of no witnesses when God spoke to Brother Pat. HE only speaks to Robertson's HEART. In this way there can be no confusion as to HIS will. With the impossibility of witnesses, Robertson is always right. Right?

And, naturally we all know that human morality and commitment to a loved one would never suggest that there was a reason to stay with a mate who became ill. Right?

Christian Morals....sort of like Military Intelligence in the present age!:fire:

Cypress - 6-26-2012 at 11:28 AM

So the Christian community is responsible for the actions of Pat Robertson? :biggrin: Alzheimer's is a horrific affliction. The physical body is there, but the mind has wandered off somewhere, never to return.:(

toneart - 6-26-2012 at 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by The Sculpin
http://crabbyoldfart.wordpress.com/

Skeet in a different form!
I can't tell if this guy is serious or putting everyone on........


This guy's writing is too good for it not to be a put on. He is too smart and too engaged in the real-time world rather than in a state of isolation.

Oh sure, there are lots of traits that merit criticism in the youth of every generation, but to single out a generation to vent one's disdain, to me, is a waste of energy and talent (the writer's). Can anyone see any parody that supports an agenda other than the disdain for youth? If not, he is very entertaining. There are enough bases for truth, but in my opinion it is overkill. There has to be something else behind his efforts. :?:

I was skeptical that the Skeet persona was not a real person based on the two distinct writing styles and skills. But, at his character's age, being a born-again Christian and living in Texas, one could make a case for him being isolated for real, with a part-time (nanny?) ghost writer.

vgabndo - 6-26-2012 at 02:26 PM

Cypress

When Robertson came out with his disgusting hypocrisy I don't recall any concerted call by the members of our national religion to send him packing off to some sort of mental rehabilitation. I never hear any complaints about his "secret communication with God Almighty" which he claims to be real. How does one separate the followers of these cults from the LEADERS of these cults?

How much more main stream than the "700 Club" does irrationality have to be before the sheep are accountable for following an a-moral mental midget.

This mealy-mouthed whack job, Robertson, is also certain that a marriage is a sacred institution only between a man and a woman.

Same sex marriage, unlike abandoning one's sick wife after swearing to "God and the assembled community" not to forsake her until you're dead, is an Obamanation to a man of God like Pat Robertson, and about half the population of the U S A.:fire:

If there was any real morality in Christian practice, our Federal Treasury would be in better shape. Any corporate preacher of a 501 c 3 non-profit who took a political side from the pulpit, would immediately hold him/herself accountable to the IRS and give up their tax-free status. With their access to other "flocks" the accountable would also be in a good position to report their breathern who fail in the eyes of their Lord. Either the churches would take themselves out of the political equation or, pay their fair share like any other organization with a political voice.

Without resorting to Google, tell me when you remember scores of churches being required to prove their non-profit status as is needed. Then, do you remember a preacher, representing his church, taking a political stance?

I rest my case.

[Edited on 6-26-2012 by vgabndo]

Cypress - 6-26-2012 at 02:32 PM

vgabndo, Evidently you think I give a damn about all that BS.:D Your case can rest on whatever stance you feel most comfortable with.:biggrin:

vgabndo - 6-26-2012 at 03:17 PM

"So the Christian community is responsible for the actions of Pat Robertson?" I took this to be a question, and the short answer would have been YES. I'm only good a short when it is in the category of stature.:lol:

Skipjack Joe - 6-27-2012 at 03:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Does anyone still have the link to the Harrison's 90 minute lecture on the absence of self will? I feel like getting depressed.

[Edited on 6-26-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


Igor if you mean Harris, here is Sam's website. You can find everything here. And I do mean everything :)

http://www.samharris.org/


Ken,

After digging into this a bit, admittedly not as much as you, I feel it's too early to talk about the absence of free will.

His entire argument seems to be based upon the neurological observations of brain activity in a cause and effect manner that begats further effect, ad infinitum. A sort of determinism that never ends from birth until death. A predetermined chain of events that we have no control over.

So we have some information of how the brain works. That we are bombarded with unconscious brain events and some are acted upon without any choice on our part. And from this we draw major conclusions about free will.

Well, before deciding if there is free will you have to decide what is I. In the sentence:

I choose.

it seems to me we have to know what 'I' is at the physical level before the choose part. And the best guess is that 'I' is just a series of brain events that make it to our consciousness mind.

All of this is very unsatisfactory to my way of thinking. It's unsatisfactory because it's so primitive. The collection of human thoughts through the ages is far too rich to be adequately described by the handful of discoveries about human brains.

How is it that people like Shakespeare and Byron can tell us more about love than the brain scientists that know the 'truth'. These people knew nothing about brain chemistry yet their words resonate more richly on the subject than the chemists.

I remember watching a program on Nova titled something like 'What is Love'. In it a series of tests where done on people who were in love showing their changing hormone levels, their heart rates, and brain activity in certain areas.

"This is love?", I thought to myself. This is the best we can do? Spare me please. The Romantics of the 19th century knew a thousand times more than this. The Bible, the Buddhists all have a 1000 times more to offer.

Of all the things you wrote on religion and the afterlife on this thread, Ken, the most meaningful in an inner sense was the one you wrote about your deceased friend. And yet this was declared to be false. Well, why does falseness feel as though it's closer to reality than reality? Why doesn't truth feel as enriching as the lies?

Perhaps that explains why people aren't dropping their bibles and rushing to brain chemistry. So far it does little to quench the soul. It does so by conveniently denying that it exists. It doesn't even understand what religion provides. It spends all of it's energy on where religion erred. Past human attempts at understanding what is felt within is mocked with a series of logical explanations that are irrelevant to a search for inner truth.

Ken Bondy - 6-27-2012 at 07:16 AM

Igor

We look at things very differently amigo. You are skeptical about Harris's work because, I think, you are wishing for something else, something outside the brain which is somehow part of consciousness. I don't need supernatural things, they serve no purpose for me. I find Harris's work thrilling, beautiful, and well.....spiritual. The idea that all these things discussed in this thread originated in an evolved biological organ, our brains, and that we are now beginning to understand what goes on in there, is to me much more exciting and awe-inspiring than any religious fairy tales. I simply don't need anything outside the physical world to satisfy my spiritual nature.

I agree with you about the great writers of the past like Shakespeare and Byron. Their work is infinitely more beautiful and inspiring than the bible, which is inherently evil and repulsive. How did Shakespeare and Byron accomplish what they did? Because they had brains that let them do it. Nothing more, nothing less is necessary to explain this.

Your take on my tribute to a deceased friend is bewildering to me Igor. Declaring it to be "false" is misleading. The feelings expressed in those words were true, even though I knew Jim wasn't bouncing around the universe or flying old airplanes or lying on Baja beaches. It was simply a poetic tribute, in words, to an old friend who had died. Please don't read anything more into it, or try to turn it into a "gotcha" moment. It does not mean that I have a secret, repressed belief in some imaginary beings or stories.

People are not dropping their bibles and rushing to brain chemistry because the science of brain chemistry is at its infancy, and religion has had a stranglehold on humanity for centuries. As I said, religion resides in that ever-shrinking part of human experience that has not yet been explained by science. I am confident that when people have a choice between rational thinking and superstition, they will choose rationality and the bibles will drop.

Mexitron - 6-27-2012 at 07:19 AM

Well, one could make the argument that all the events that have unfolded since the Big Bang are part of a logical sequential chain of cause and effect---gravity wells turn into monster black holes and create galaxies and stars, planets form, bacteria appear, life evolves into more complex organisms...all still part of the original forces from the Big Bang. So at what point could free will possibly suddenly appear? How can we extricate ourselves from the flow of the universe and say "I choose?"

That was the best argument for pre-determinism, I always thought...however the discoveries in the quantum world probably shoot holes in that argument---in the quantum world nothing is certain, only probabilistic. In fact, there are those physicists who observe quantum behavior that think they are watching the universe create itself at that moment----that is, future and past emanate from this moment----this moment is all that truly exists. To take it farther some say its like looking at the roots of consciousness...

SFandH - 6-27-2012 at 08:22 AM

Thanks guys for keeping this thought provoking discussion going. I can't think of a way to contribute, my thoughts are far from crystallized.

comitan - 6-27-2012 at 08:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Well, one could make the argument that all the events that have unfolded since the Big Bang are part of a logical sequential chain of cause and effect---gravity wells turn into monster black holes and create galaxies and stars, planets form, bacteria appear, life evolves into more complex organisms...all still part of the original forces from the Big Bang. So at what point could free will possibly suddenly appear? How can we extricate ourselves from the flow of the universe and say "I choose?"

That was the best argument for pre-determinism, I always thought...however the discoveries in the quantum world probably shoot holes in that argument---in the quantum world nothing is certain, only probabilistic. In fact, there are those physicists who observe quantum behavior that think they are watching the universe create itself at that moment----that is, future and past emanate from this moment----this moment is all that truly exists. To take it farther some say its like looking at the roots of consciousness... [/quote

Now I like this very much, but would substitute BEING
for consciousness.

Mexitron - 6-27-2012 at 08:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by comitan
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Well, one could make the argument that all the events that have unfolded since the Big Bang are part of a logical sequential chain of cause and effect---gravity wells turn into monster black holes and create galaxies and stars, planets form, bacteria appear, life evolves into more complex organisms...all still part of the original forces from the Big Bang. So at what point could free will possibly suddenly appear? How can we extricate ourselves from the flow of the universe and say "I choose?"

That was the best argument for pre-determinism, I always thought...however the discoveries in the quantum world probably shoot holes in that argument---in the quantum world nothing is certain, only probabilistic. In fact, there are those physicists who observe quantum behavior that think they are watching the universe create itself at that moment----that is, future and past emanate from this moment----this moment is all that truly exists. To take it farther some say its like looking at the roots of consciousness... [/quote

Now I like this very much, but would substitute BEING
for consciousness.


Good choice of words--I like that better too. ;D

Skipjack Joe - 6-27-2012 at 08:58 AM

Ken,

Yes, I want something else. In fact, I'm pretty sure you and everyone else wants something else. Who wants nothingness and the absence of free will. Religion isn't something imposed on people. As I said earlier in this thread I believe religion is created by people. It answers questions that science doesn't come close to answering. A theory of neuron behavior does nothing to answer those questions in any other way than a rational explanation. Science will never be the new religion because it only fulfills a small part of man's needs.

Why is it that when you speak of the beauty of evolution it's a spiritual pleasure but those who worship the bible are simply superstitious? In fact why use the concept of spiritualism if everything is materialistic?

My remarks about your remarks about Jim was not a "gotcha" moment. They were made to support the point that atheists who are completely rational materialists use the language of poets and men of religion to make their points.

To me at this point, the idea of the beauty, inspiration, and spirituality of the physical properties of the universe seems inappropriate. If all you believe is scientific truth than why use terminology and concepts that aren't supported by science.

Why not describe your feelings as the titillation of the hypothalamus? Isn't that being more consistent.

No - it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous because the world outside that realm is more real and necessary than you give it credit for.

-----------------------------------

My point was that until science can bridge the gap in understanding between a description of neurotransmition and the contents of a Shakespeare sonnet there will be no acceptance on absence of a free will. Not from me. There may not be a free will but we're far from proving of disproving it.

--------------------------------------

Also this.

I don't like the idea of handing over the controls my understanding of my inner world to an 'expert'. Whether the expert is the church or Mr Harris. I have recently come to this knowledge about myself. This 'personal truth' may seem irresponsible but there is something meaningful about it that no outside teacher can provide with facts. And as I followed this thread I noticed that at least Shari and Baja Gringo go about it the same way. I suspect many others as well.

So I am less impressed with these "four apocalypse" of atheism. They're just ideas to consider and put in a safe place.

wessongroup - 6-27-2012 at 09:05 AM

Mexitron .. yep .. "consciousness" gets a big different, moving it into Quantum mechanics .. a truly fascinating world to venture into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

[Edited on 6-27-2012 by wessongroup]

Ken Bondy - 6-27-2012 at 09:10 AM

OK Igor you win. My hypothalamus is titillated.

The difference between the beauty of evolution and bible worship is that there is evidence for the truth of evolution.

[Edited on 6-27-2012 by Ken Bondy]

shari - 6-27-2012 at 09:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Your take on my tribute to a deceased friend is bewildering to me Igor. Declaring it to be "false" is misleading. The feelings expressed in those words were true, even though I knew Jim wasn't bouncing around the universe or flying old airplanes or lying on Baja beaches.


Brother Ken...I am curious how you KNOW your friend isnt lying on a baja beach...just wondering if you have some inside info you can share?

All I know for sure is that I dont know for sure what happens after our body dies....I have some ideas but it's part of the great mystery of life.

Ken Bondy - 6-27-2012 at 09:15 AM

<<Ken,

Yes, I want something else. In fact, I'm pretty sure you and everyone else wants something else. Who wants nothingness and the absence of free will.>>

Igor PLEASE do not speak for me on this subject. I do NOT want something imaginary beyond the physical world. The physical world is NOT nothingness. I find belief in ANYTHING without evidence to be repulsive.

Ken Bondy - 6-27-2012 at 09:18 AM

<<Brother Ken...I am curious how you KNOW your friend isnt lying on a baja beach...just wondering if you have some inside info you can share?>>

I wish he was, Sis, but when all evidence suggests that something is not true, then you have to go with the evidence. There is simply no evidence to support a life after death, and I am very comfortable with that.

Skipjack Joe - 6-27-2012 at 09:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Well, one could make the argument that all the events that have unfolded since the Big Bang are part of a logical sequential chain of cause and effect---gravity wells turn into monster black holes and create galaxies and stars, planets form, bacteria appear, life evolves into more complex organisms...all still part of the original forces from the Big Bang. So at what point could free will possibly suddenly appear? How can we extricate ourselves from the flow of the universe and say "I choose?"



If you are taking a final exam with multiple choice questions and you choose answer "c" isn't that a choice. What proof is there that I was predetermined to choose "c".

You answer was that based on the information I had in my brain I was bound to choose "c". But if I had a mishap the night before and didn't study and had no idea what the answer was and chose "d". Was the mishap also predetermined and therefore answer "d" was predetermined?

Yes, I like the idea of the probability of events happening more than it's certainty. Although it doesn't change things very much really.

I don't know. Regarding free will it seems to me that the instigator of the free will, the conscious 'I' has to be first understood on a materialistic basis. Then you proceed to see how that "I" is controlling actions. If it is or is it just a passive screen that's watched like at a theater?

Ken Bondy - 6-27-2012 at 09:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by shari
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy

Your take on my tribute to a deceased friend is bewildering to me Igor. Declaring it to be "false" is misleading. The feelings expressed in those words were true, even though I knew Jim wasn't bouncing around the universe or flying old airplanes or lying on Baja beaches.


Brother Ken...I am curious how you KNOW your friend isnt lying on a baja beach...just wondering if you have some inside info you can share?

All I know for sure is that I dont know for sure what happens after our body dies....I have some ideas but it's part of the great mystery of life.


Can't resist elaborating on this Sis. I think belief in an afterlife is actually dangerous. If people realized that they've only got one shot at life, I think they would be kinder to each other in the one life we all have. The world would be a better place. If people knew that this is our one and only life, it is unlikely that there would be a lot of airplanes flown into buildings.

Skipjack Joe - 6-27-2012 at 09:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
<<Ken,

Yes, I want something else. In fact, I'm pretty sure you and everyone else wants something else. Who wants nothingness and the absence of free will.>>

Igor PLEASE do not speak for me on this subject. I do NOT want something imaginary beyond the physical world. The physical world is NOT nothingness. I find belief in ANYTHING without evidence to be repulsive.


Ken,

You stated earlier in this thread that you believed there was nothing after death and you were comfortable with that. How am I not speaking for you? There are 36 pages on this thread and I really don't feel like digging through it all now.

shari - 6-27-2012 at 09:38 AM

OK brother ....no evidence? I'm going to share a story with you which when it happened, it sure made me have one of those WTF moments.

When Sirenita was about 4 or maybe 5, one day out of the blue she said to me...you know momma....I chose you. I saw you down there in the panga on the lagoon and thought you would be a great mom.

Why on earth would she say that? Many women have gotten pregnant in the whale lagoon of Ojo de Liebre who were unable to conceive before...seems like there are souls "up there" waiting to come back again....but the thought of one choosing it's host was most interesting....for what it's worth.

Seems to me there is alot of information about reincarnation...stories that I guess cant be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...but still they make one think.

Skipjack Joe - 6-27-2012 at 09:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Can't resist elaborating on this Sis. I think belief in an afterlife is actually dangerous. If people realized that they've only got one shot at life, I think they would be kinder to each other in the one life we all have. The world would be a better place. If people knew that this is our one and only life, it is unlikely that there would be a lot of airplanes flown into buildings.


I heard the same argument made by Harris last night. That the 'Church' is actually does us a great disservice by bringing up eternity. We should eliminate this idea so that we can 'try harder' to enjoy life. Sort of like Zorba the Greek who pulls himself out of bed to the window and digs his fingers into it's frame as he is dying because he knows that outside the window is all that is real.

In truth Eternity is what man wants and the church is merely accomodating this desire. The lowering of importance of real life is only a corollary and is not really true of most Christians I know. The atheists make a point about how good and evil exists with or without man. But eternity is what it's all about with regards to religion, isn't it. It's the darkness that came with nightfall that drove early man to religion. And now it's Nothingness. I don't care how much sugar the atheists put on it, it's still repulsive.

And I guess that's what I find distrustful about these atheists: they have a position. They produce statements about religion that are beneficial to their way of thinking. For a realm that prides itself on objectivity there is a remarkable amount of omission of facts that doesn't support their take on things. That's what has made me distrustful, Ken. Not a wish that things were different.

[Edited on 6-27-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

wessongroup - 6-27-2012 at 09:58 AM

Speaking of thinking .. do electron's have "free will" .. taking it down to another level, so to speak :):)

Ken Bondy - 6-27-2012 at 10:25 AM

<<And I guess that's what I find distrustful about these atheists: they have a position.>>

Wow, Igor, you are ONE tough critic. You distrust the atheist authors because they have.......a POSITION??? How horrible. And some of those positions are even based upon......EVIDENCE??? Sam Harris even went to the trouble of getting a recent PhD in brain neuroscience at UCLA to support his dastardly OPINIONS about what goes on in the brain. Shame on him for seeking truth. That's certainly worthy of our distrust. And compare those evil atheists with the typical religious person, who claims with all certainty to KNOW things he/she could not possibly know - god exists, he/she loves me, he/she listens to all my prayers, will send me to something called heaven if I believe in some person named jesus, will fry me in something called hell if I don't.

Well, I'm stickin' with Harris and his nasty old POSITIONS :)

[Edited on 6-27-2012 by Ken Bondy]
 Pages:  1  ..  4    6