Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar
The Future History of the Arctic

The Future History of the Arctic

By Charles Emmerson
$19.11

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Troy Jollimore on the God Debate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 2, 2009

By Troy Jollimore

“Ever since the Enlightenment,” write John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in “God Is Back,” “there has been a schism in Western thought over the relationship between religion and modernity. Europeans, on the whole, have assumed that modernity would marginalize religion; Americans, in the main, have assumed that the two things can thrive together.”

“God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World” is, in large part, an extended argument that the Americans were right: right to think that religion and modernity were compatible and could flourish together, and right to think that the way to encourage this double flourishing was by instituting a church-state separation in order to encourage religious pluralism and diversity. The American accomplishment, as they see it, is the achievement of a robust spiritual marketplace in which free individuals can choose and pursue whatever vision of God suits them best—or, if they so prefer, choose none at all. (The book’s heavy use of the consumerist language of markets and the free choice is, incidentally, no accident; Micklethwait is editor in chief of The Economist, and Wooldridge is its Washington bureau chief.)

 

book cover

 

God Is Back

 

By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

 

Penguin Press, 416 pages

 

Buy the book

 

One might well sympathize with many aspects of this. (I certainly have nothing bad to say about the separation of church and state, although I wish the authors had acknowledged that many religious Americans are not nearly as appreciative of it as they are.) The problem with “God Is Back,” though, is that the convincing arguments run in only one direction. The authors make a fairly persuasive case that modern technology and expanded individual freedoms have encouraged the spread and vibrancy of religious belief, not only in America but also in many other parts of the world—China, Latin America, South Korea and so forth. But if modernity has indeed been good for religion, it is far less obvious that religion has been good for modernity.

In the U.S., progressive movements in favor of civil rights and social justice once had deep and pervasive religious roots, but these days the dominant religions in America are nearly always associated with counter-progressive forces that frequently take their inspiration from (and frequently try to return society to) some set of pre-modern traditions or values. The same is true today in various other parts of the world; most saliently, perhaps, in the Middle East. Religion, in all too many cases, seems to encourage parochialism and hatred of the other, as well as superstition and scientific ignorance—all human flaws that the spread of modernism and universal reason was supposed to help us overcome.

In the American context, the issue of religious resistance to science is especially troublesome. Micklethwait and Wooldridge, though, spend little of “God Is Back” on the conflict between science and religion. Perhaps they felt that the topic has been talked nearly to death—a feeling for which I have some sympathy. Or perhaps the explanation lies in their rather simplistic understanding of what would constitute “compatibility” between religion and science. In their view, to show that two beliefs, or belief systems, are compatible, it is enough to show that there are significant numbers of people who adhere to both. The mere existence of religious believers in the modern world, then—the fact that modernity did not simply wipe religion off the map—is enough for Micklethwait and Wooldridge to conclude that religion and modernity (including science) are in their sense compatible.

But this establishes nothing of any real interest; after all, people often think inconsistent and incoherent things. The interesting question is whether it makes sense, in the modern world, for a person to be religious. The correct explanation of religion’s persistence in the modern world, then, might be not that religion and modernity are actually compatible, but rather that humans are irrational enough, and capable of sufficient degrees of cognitive dissonance, to simultaneously hold incompatible beliefs. (As the biologist Jerry Coyne, writing in The New Republic, recently put it, saying that religion and modern science are compatible because some people fail to grasp their mutual exclusivity “is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers.”)

The question of whether religion has survived modernism is therefore distinct from the question of whether, rationally speaking, it ought to have done so. But this second question is one in which Micklethwait and Wooldridge very rarely display any interest. One consequence of this is that the authors’ standards for what constitutes a vindication of the legitimacy of religious belief are often startlingly low. Scientists, they write, “are demonstrating that religious experiences are ‘real’—in the sense that they are associated with changes in brain patterns.” But whoever claimed that religious experiences were not real in this sense? Every experience is associated with some sort of change in the subject’s brain patterns. (When people cast horoscopes or go to séances and play with Ouija boards, things happen in their brains too.) Yet the argument strikes the authors as impressive enough that they return to it at the end of the chapter: “It seems that religious experiences can be ‘real’ to the people who enjoy or endure them: they are connected with changes in the activities of the brain.” What a revelation!

Equally unconvincing is the authors’ claim that evidence showing an apparent link between religiosity and dopamine levels “makes it harder to dismiss religion as a mere ‘illusion,’ as Freud once put it.” I suppose what they must mean is that, if such evidence pans out, religion is no mere illusion; it is, rather, an extraordinarily useful illusion. What puzzles, though, is that their inability to provide any evidence that religious belief is actually true, and not some sort of illusion, doesn’t seem to bother them at all.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 11, 2009 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

Partly on the relationship between mythology, the books of religion, and Homer Simpson (possibly whose first name originally and allegedly came from a blind Greek bard of the same name, some say circa 850 b.c.).  Further meaning,,, The Homer of the epic poems did not actually “write” the stories but were written by later generations who wanted to preserve the fantastic tales of morality and immorality, and immortality.  His poems were consonant with the current oral tradition exactly in the way were the Jews’ Biblical stories (and mythologies) and the Islamists’ Qur’anic (the latter was dictated to a camel stable attendant who had writing skills 26 years after the mystic visions of communication with Allah).

Traditionalist Catholic Scholars believe the earth and the universe was created 5199 B.C.  Some conservative Protestant scholars understand this event was in 4004 B.C.  Both of these dates are derived from the Bible’s internal chronology, Astrophysicists understand from data compiled by the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope that the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old.

It depends on what you want to believe.  You can accept tenuous and insubstantial amalgamated writings of stories that the authorship and date of writing of which is still highly debated, or look and conclude from a stack of evidential facts that lead to reliable conclusions even though there are no “absolute” proofs such as is the nature of science. 

Let’s take the Great Deluge as an example of biblical interpretation.  There were no planet-wide floods.  According to archaeologist K. K. Hirst, early geological investigations has proved beyond any doubt a planet-wide flood as described in the Old Testament of the bible did not happen.  When that was announced there was a huge cry of outrage. Not a new reaction by the religious community to archaeologists, who fought time and time again against such religious howlings, and while keeping true to their findings among themselves and published in professional journals, they lost battles of this sort in the public arena because of the fanatical religious biblical literalists. The results were suppressed of David Randal-McIver’s excavations by the local colonial governments who wanted to believe and the world to believe that the site was Phoenician in derivation, not African, at Great Zimbabwe, an important locus of commerce in southeastern Africa. Then beautiful effigy mounds found throughout North America by Euroamerican settlers were wrongly attributed to either the “mound builders” or a lost tribe of Israel. The facts bear out that ancient texts are renditions, that is interpretations, of ancient cultures, which may be partly reflected in the archaeological records but for the most part will not be.  It is what the culture wants to believe and is not necessarily nor often the truth.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Dwight Baker the obscurantist. I tried, you failed and so no more for you.

Religion is here to stay so we must live with it and each other in harmony and soon too. The trials from the coming earth changes are already here and will get worse. We need clear heads and a central vision for all of us if enough of us will survive this century. Not even counting the two close flybys of the asteroid ‘Apophis’ on April 13 (Friday) in 2029 and 2036 which runs the real risk of colliding with earth and really messing us up.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 11, 2009 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Don’t you know that ‘toon money is called simoleons? Watch your “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” for the truth of the toon world that presses so close to our own. Where old and new myths collide and fuse into new religions in 10,000 years if there is any humanity left by then.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 11, 2009 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Homer is an animated not real person (which should be redundant)  who is on the Fox network called the “The Simpsons”. One would suppose Homer may be getting paid by Fox, but only in animated money.  Not sure, but from what I understand animated characters are not real, this is why, I believe, they are called animated characters?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 11, 2009 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Homer is an animated not real person who is on the Fox program called the Simpsons. One would suppose Homer may be getting paid by Fox, but only in animated money.  Not sure, but from what I understand animated characters are not real, this is why, I believe, they are called animated characters?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 10, 2009 at 9:48 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 10 at 8:48 pm #

TO ALL
...

Thus the three greatest questions of mankind

WHAT’S FOR DINNER?
ARE YOU GONNA EAT THAT?
YOU WANT KETCHUP WITH YOUR FRIES?

Dwight Baker

Fixed it for ya!

(and I even kept it clean…)

Report this

By Frank Goodman, Sr., April 10, 2009 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

Consider Hebrew Mythology.

http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id10.html

This link is by no means complete. Google the subject for a more comprehensive set of links.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

I enjoyed Greek mythology as a kid.  As an adult my only interest is it’s impact on real history. Places in the stories like Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns, Olympia and Athens are very real, but what actually happened there? That’s what’s interesting to me.

BTW, there’s even a flood myth in Greek myths “Cast the bones of your mother over your shoulder”.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

Sorry…I messed up on the italics.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2009 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

To anyone interested:  What is curious and intriguing about Greek mythology is that it begins with a Void much in the way that the Abrahamic religions do.  That sets the scene for me for a comparison and all the logical implications that follow from then on regardless of the pantheistic vs the monotheistic way they diverged.  They simply have parting mythologies.  If one takes a look at the western religions and the biblical/quranic stories we find god(s) and various lesser than god characters but greater than ordinary men such as angels, devils, saints, prophets, and clerics who rule ‘Those On The Ground’ so to speak.  The way the Greeks sorted it all out, that is, explained how things began and civilization proceeded, a pantheistic view, takes ideas and personifies them, also assigned a spirit to every facet of nature, called Animism.  Submission is another comparative feature of religions. 

While it might not be pertinent to the forum’s main discussion, as we often go on tangents and digressions, I think it is pleasantly diverting as we travelled our brief journey.  Ignore me if it isn’t.  I too have been a collector of mythologies and mythology books.

Almost having things right is a matter of perception.  I don’t mind being corrected when the corrector is correct, that is not exactly the case here…But all in good fun.  And yes, Norse mythology is much darker than Greek:
http://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mythology/1deities/creation/titans.htm
Even websites dedicated to subjects get it wrong:  the description of Atlas from that Mythology site: Atlas, a second-generation Titan, or elder-god, was condemned to hold up the Earth on his shoulders because he opposed Zeus…Though Titans were gods of a sort, the precursors and progenitors of our famous ones, the Olympians, Atlas, even though prior to was not as powerful a god as Zeus, his nephew or cousin.  Because there was a virgin birth and lots of incestuous wifing and husbanding (I don’t know if the gods actually had marriages in the way the last millennia and this one understands it), lineages get very fuzzy.

It can be a bit confusing but to see the “Genesis” of the ancient Greek religion, fortitude is required.  First was Chaos, the Void, neither male nor female created the Cosmos…The first god was Uranus from the virgin Gaia who was the father of Cronos, a Titan, and Iapetus, also a second-generation Titan a brother of Cronos father of Zeus, making Zeus his nephew.  Iapetus was the father of the hapless 2nd-generation Titan brothers, Menoetius, Atlas, Prometheus, and Epithemeus all committing some Olympian sin.  Zeus was not kind to any of these boys.

There are so many resources on Greek mythology.  Just to name a couple…and indubitably not clear up what it was Atlas held up.  http://www.greek-gods-and-goddesses.com/greek-god-atlas.html
Another “mythology” site has Atlas for his part in the fight between Titans and gods (the Titanomachia) was punished by Zeus to hold apart the Heavens from Earth.  You can see also at that site a photo of a Roman statue from the 2nd century B.C., called “Atlante Farnese”, in the Naples Museum (Italy), which is important because it represents for the first time the celestial sphere with all the constellations known at that time.  The Roman statue looks by its twisted posture Hellenistic rather than the calm Hellenic works of ancient Greece.  It shows the heavens rather than the sky, but the heavens in some sense is the sky an atmosphere held to the earth by gravity.  When we see, as did the ancients, the sky at night we see the heavens.  Sky, heavens the name of whatever it was Atlas shouldered is blurred even more by it also being called the firmament. 

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/greek-mythology.php?deity=ATLAS
this site also says ‘heavens’ and the Wikipedia site.

I suppose we have vetted this topic pretty well.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2009 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment

William DeMente, that is what I and many others with great minds would call a cop out.  To criticize then try to hide behind what others advised is a retreat, and is way too self-depreciating.  Repeat, in your own words, regardless of what has already been said about how to avoid conflict when one side refuses to negotiate peacefully?  I don’t know if it is what I “know” or what others with greater minds have said.  I doubt it.  Please show that you don’t just give temerarious criticisms.

Leefeller I thought perhaps the image of Atlas you remember standing on an elephant must have been one from the Ghandaran India region as images of Atlas as a Hellenistic god are to be found in India where there are a lot of elephants (not the Republican kind though).  But the images I found do not show any elephants under or beside the male figure representing Atlas.  That does not mean there wasn’t one.

http://www.greek-gods-and-goddesses.com/atlas-pictures.html
This page shows several images of statues of Atlas, but none show him standing on an elephant.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 10, 2009 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Norse mythology is much darker and pessimistic than Greek.  Odin isn’t randy like Zeus, and sacrifices an eye for wisdom and foresight.  The Gods KNOW they will eventually be defeated and evil will rule the world.  All very dark and bleak, like Norway most of the year.

But the Greek tales ARE built on the son overthrowing the father. Uranus is overthrown by Cronus, Cronus by Zeus.  Attempts are made at least twice to overthrow Zeus.  Two giant brothers come close and imprison Ares in a bronze jar.  Then there’s a later story that’s very obscure that involves Heracles, after his death, as the God of Strength being key.

And Ganymede is a beautiful youth that Zeus takes so he can bugger him for eternity.  The Moons of Jupiter are named Io, Callisto, Europa and Ganymede—Zeus’s lovers and rape victims.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 10, 2009 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

I agree. I had a book of Russian fairy tales but lost it before I could read it fully. I was one of those interested in the Greco-Roman myths first in high school then moved on to all of them. Just like dinosaurs first then all of the history of earth. Philology too is interesting since it is the etimology and history of the words that show new dimensions of language to me.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 10, 2009 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

Thanks Night-Gaunt, stories become a blur in the mind, what is most interesting, is they all seem to be interconnected with similarities in many ways.  The Norse Gods seem similar to the Greek Gods and so on.  I picture campfires burning and the story telling going on into the wee hours from the Vikings to the American Indians,  Eastern stories to Mid East, stories may have evolved over many tellings and migrations over many years.  Some rich some lame.  I have my preferences of the ones I have heard. It could be fun to discover new unheard versions in comparison to the last?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 10, 2009 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Read my post about Pascal’s Wager then tell me what you think Dwight Baker, I will not post it again. This isn’t a verbal conversation.

Also give me an example or more of those ‘scientists’ you spoke of that think themselves gods or worship humanity as a whole. Whichever you meant. Scroll down to read them again.

Personally I am beginning to think you are a very devious troll who delights in your obscurantism and verbal refuse. Prove me wrong by answering the above questions. I dare you to. I don’t think you can though.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 10, 2009 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

By the way She and ITW, thanks for the the interesting corrections to my story.  Does seem to be a tremendous amount of turning on each other in the ITW version though.  This reminds me of another story,  which had much ado about begetting,  so I may have mixed up and conjured the buggering part of my story from the begots?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 10, 2009 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

Dwight, you can read the post again, I don’t have to repost it for you—-see? Don’t treat me as a fool nor imbecile if-you-please. Just say you don’t want to answer. If asking questions of you constitute attacks on you then you have a problem.

You can’t even ask again you repeat your entire previous post! What a waste of space and time!

The Hindus had the world(hemisphere) on the back of elephants standing on a giant turtle resting on Asootee the cosmic cobra with its tail in its mouth encircling the three worlds. [See Oroboros.] Just imagine if they wanted to teach that in school as an alternate to the present cosmic theory because of “fairness” and to point out “weaknesses and strengths of the opposition?”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 10, 2009 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

She ALMOST has it right.
The Titans WERE gods—they were the third set of children that Uranus and Gaia had, the first two being the hundred-handed monsters and the cyclops.  There were originally 12 Titans—two of whom, Cronus and Rhea were, the parents of the first six so-called “gods”: Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter and Hestia.  The children of other Titans were still called Titans—Atlas, Prometheus and Epimetheus are the only ones whose names are familiar to us.

Cronus becames King after he turned on Uranus, who had imprisoned Gaia’s monster children, wounding him with a flint sickle.  But he didn’t free the monsters so when Zeus was grown, she helped him turn on HIS father, Cronus.  Zeus released the monsters from Tartarus, but when he imprisoned the Titans there who had stood against him, Gaia turned on him as well.  Prometheus, who knew the future, knew Zeus would win so he stood with Zeus and his brothers and sisters and convinced Epimetheus to join him.

Our image of Atlas holding up the world is, as She points out, incorrect—he held up the firmament—the sky.

Prometheus is in two other stories: Pandora is given to Epimetheus as a wife with a box she’s not supposed to open.  And, of course, Prometheus out of pity teaches men who are freezing how to use fire, how to cook on it, and how to trick the gods so the offal, bones and fat are offered to them while men get the meat.  For this Zeus has him chained to a rock where an eagle daily eats his liver (without the fava beans and chianti) until Heracles (or Hercules in Latin) frees him.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 10, 2009 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Atlas holding up the heavens makes much more sense then my story.  What am I remembering, a work of art depicting Atlas (holding up something) while standing on an Elephant? 

If Atlas was holding up the world it may have looked like he was delivering a pizza, because everyone knows the world was flat nor would Atlas have had to turn the pizza, because   the stars, moon and sun all revolve around the world, until the Pope proved otherwise.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 10, 2009 at 4:19 am Link to this comment

Because I have always been fascinated fan of mythology, for just a little bit of fun, here a bit is about the original Atlas.  There is a mountain range outside Marraksh, Morocco with a very high mountain peak named Mt. Atlas named after Atlas.  Atlas was not a god, but in fact was a Titan.  He was a second-generation Titan, condemned to hold up the heavens (not the Earth as wrongly thought) on his shoulders to keep it separated from the Earth because he opposed Zeus, the Big Honcho. He was said to live in the country of the Hesperides, who were his daughters. The rest is the story, ”When Hercules went after the Hesperides’ apples, Atlas told him they wouldn’t give those apples but to their father, so he would get them if only Hercules took his place for a little while. The Titan went after the golden apples and when he came back, he told Hercules he’d take them to Eurystheus himself, thus leaving him forever with that burden on his shoulders. Hercules understood he was tricked, so he decided to do the same: he told Atlas he agreed, but asked him to hold the heavens a little bit, until he puts a pillow on his shoulders, so as to feel more confortable. The Titan didn’t realized it was the same trick, so he accepted, Hercules took the golden apples and off he went.

The hero Perseus, on the way back home after killing the Medusa, asked for hospitality, but the Greek god Atlas wouldn’t let him stay, as he knew from goddess Themis that a son of Zeus would come to steal the golden apples from his garden. So Perseus took revenge, by showing him the Medusa’s head and turning him into stone. His beard and his hair became a thick forest and his head became a high mountain peak. (Herodotus is the first one to mention a mount Atlas in Northern Africa).”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 10, 2009 at 4:06 am Link to this comment

UTW—Sorry it took me so long to get back here. Jeez! I ghave no idea what I did to incur such wrath!
**********************************

What? Do you need a neon sign on a blimp over Giants Stadium to make it clearer?

You refuse to read what I wrote and continue TO TODAY to deliberately make false assertions about me, and my interpretations of Rand, good AND BAD.

How many times do I have to say this? 
How many times do I have to put it in bold HTML?
Why won’t you listen?

THAT is why I’m asking if your brain has a disconnect.  You simply refuse, and I mean REFUSE to accept what I’ve said and keep spouting this crap.

NOW do you have a clue as to what incurred such wrath??????

Report this

By KDelphi, April 9, 2009 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

ITW—On the other hand, there is someone you might agree with and enjoy reading. She is thought to be a neo-conservative, laissez-fare capitlist, and she is Jewish, so I thought you might be interested. She was actually buried with a dollar sign on her coffin, forming the letters U and S! LOL!

Her name was Alice Rosenbaum,. but she used the pen name Ayn Rand…

Report this

By William DeMente, April 9, 2009 at 11:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Shenonymous.
Re: Advice
Much greater minds than mine have offered sage advice which has been unheeded over the centuries.  At best, I would only be repeating that which you already know.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

UTW—Sorry it took me so long to get back here. Jeez! I ghave no idea what I did to incur such wrath!

I was under the impression, from your posts, that you were an admirer. What what if i do have a “disconnect in my brain”? What is in this argument for you?

I’m starting to think that you just dont like my opinions.

Why do you so stridently defend someone you dont even admire, except, “some of it”? I am sorry if youre batshit.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2009 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

ITW

“PLEASE! Give us all a break.  Nobody here is THAT dumb, not even FolkTruther”.

This comment is quite profound in the special connotation, or am I the only one who sees it?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2009 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

ITW,

It depends on if you believe in Atlas the God, one must consider he was an easy target to be buggered, in his his   position holding up the world while standing on two tottering democrat asses standing on one big fat dead Republican Elephant,  tho it is said, on his days off,  the saying “Atlas getting even” . Though, of course I may be mixing my gods they all look alike to me?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 9, 2009 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

DB:

You state something as a fact, something NOBODY here accepts as a fact (like the scientists who each believe themselves to be God—or some such absurdity) and N-G asks you for at least ONE citation showing this.

You respond with a torrent of nonsense and accusations and, of course, NOTHING to back up your outlandish assertion.

Then you heap a torrent of abuse on N-G and whine that he’s being unfair.

PLEASE! Give us all a break.  Nobody here is THAT dumb, not even FolkTruther.

BTW, in case you think N-G is my buddy, he’s not. If we agree on 50% that’s probably a lot—and the most we will agree on.

But we both agree that you not only post irrationally, you do not respond to straight-forward questions but try to avoid dealing with issues by putting up 2 or 3 maximum length posts.

Did you even TRY to prove your assertion that (somehow) I was attacking you as a Catholic, after I said I NEVER thought that?  No.

Did you ACTUALLY look at what I wrote? No.  It must have simply been like the jabbering of an animal to you, because I didn’t ape your religious diatribe.

Don’t go, DB—you are getting toooooo amusing!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 9, 2009 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

No answer to my questions. Not surprised.

Anyway when criminals are in charge they do criminal things and promote others of like mind to continue them. Bush/Cheney had done much to enhance what had gone on before starting in 1980 and carried on by both Democrat and Republican. Obama is carrying on that tradition by infusing blood into the corpse of Wall St., if not electricity, to keep it alive instead of letting it die and save those who are really dying from what they and Wall St. have done to really kill the American people. Too bad “Dr. Fankenstein”Obama is hitched to that falling star of the free marketers who still want to crash this nation’s economy so that they can usher in the Raw Deal of the predatory capitalist’s shock doctrine. No Christian charity there. But then they believe that if you are well of it is a sign of blessing from God and not? You are condemned and living in sin. Not a healthy way of looking at people is it Dwight?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 9, 2009 at 11:18 am Link to this comment

“And I beggar to differ from you on many scientist and stars gazers that yes they have defined them selves to be self-worshiped, get that most do not say worship me!!!!”Dwight Baker

I meant no disrespect by questioning your writing. But do you mean that these unnamed scientists and star gazers worship Humankind? Give me a quote of one or more that do. I doubt they are there except in your mind. But I will wait and see just in case there is one such with a massive ego and hubris to spare. People who believe and worship other things cannot compute that there is anyone who does not do it. You are just one example of it as I perceive it. I am one that has no reason nor inclination or need to do so. It is foreign to me. No gods no masters. It is just us and we need to live and work together in peace despite our differences.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 9, 2009 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 9 at 4:12 pm #

No, it was William!  A 14th century Franciscan friar whose place of origin Ockham in England gave his insight its famous name that means taking the most simple path or shortest distance to a goal,
***************************

Ah, well.  For once I admit I was wrong….Now if we can only get FolkTruther to admit he can’t spell “Alice” or “Ayn”  since he insists on spelling them “Alyce” and “Ann”...Nah…not gonna happen.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2009 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

No, it was William!  A 14th century Franciscan friar whose place of origin Ockham in England gave his insight its famous name that means taking the most simple path or shortest distance to a goal,

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 9, 2009 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt—I believe it’s ROGER of Occam, not William.  Otherwise, excellent points.

DB: Please identify where I claim you are a Catholic.  I have presumed all along that you were a Protestant Born-Again, maybe Baptist, maybe something else (I can’t keep my Protestant sects straight).  Never Catholic.

But to claim you haven’t been pushing your vision of Jesus is simply a flat-out prevarication.  You constantly refer to yourself as his “bond-servant” (which means slave, BTW).  You constantly talk about how nobody can be saved unless they are “like a second Adam”.

Also, you didn’t address a single point I made. I won’t ask why that is—I already know.

Leefeller: Is “Atlas” the buggerer or the buggeree?  Is that bad even if it’s consensual? I mean, more and more states are legalizing same-sex marriage…..

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 9, 2009 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

“Thus many of our intelligent, educated and scientific mankind today has thought of them as a God.  Self worship.  Many very surely proclaim that we mankind has arrived and there is no more for us to learn, we have it all figured out.  Is that not the case for many?”Dwight Baker

Only religionists and fools who think they know everything would say that and most real scientists and those like myself who are science minded don’t. Do you know what a ‘straw man’ argument is Dwight? First you create your antagonist, distort them and weaken them then destroy that rough likeness. Well done that is what you did with that statement! Only a closed mind is full. Only those who believe that their deity knows all and controls all & that they have the correct conduit to that esoteric knowledge think they have it all figured out. Most of those are not interested in science and believe in some kind of god. Between Occam’s Razor and Pascal’s Wager we can have some real ontological fun!

William of Occam came to the idea that the least amount of complexity in a problem produces the best result. Blaise Pascal inventor of the hypodermic syringe and other devices came to the conclusion after years of his pastor father’s badgering to abandon science and devote the next 20 years to religion and God. He turned his immense intellect to the problem of winning ‘souls’ and came to the conclusion that the benefits from believing Christianity far out weighs the time spent in worship and following its rules if it turns out to be a phantasm. Nice but self serving. If you really want to carry out Pascal’s Wager to its fullest extent you must cover all your bases. You must practice every religion that every existed or will exist just in case it is the right one. Otherwise you shall be condemned to Hell for not following it. A real problem considering there are so many extant and even more that are extinct or were secret. Good hunting Dwight, you really don’t know you are absolutely right on that do you? Did God himself appear and declare it so? I didn’t think so. Me? I’ve got better things to do in this world of flesh and messy life to help my fellow human and all that scurries and slithers and lopes on this our one and only earth—-space ship earth.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2009 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Thank you William DeMente, I don’t think any one would argue that If people refuse to coexist peacefully and insist on infringing upon the rights of others, then conflict is inevitable.  It seems self-evident.  Stipulating that profound pronouncement, again I ask what is your (even more sought) advice?  Let me help by reframing the question.  Refusal to coexist peacefully seems to be the problem and basically includes the notion of infringement on the rights of others.  How can refusal be forced into acceptance, since refusal seems to include a rather obstinate attitude? It seems a solution is more complex than the way you stated it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2009 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Somewhat interesting so called debate between Hitchens and Blackwell. Similarities in lack of substance by Blackwell seems to remind me of similarities I have seen someplace else recently?

Guess the idea is not to allow other persons to get a word in edge wise? For some freedom of speech means filibusters. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/christopher-hitchens-deba_n_184922.htmld

Report this

By William DeMente, April 9, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Shenonymous:
If people refuse to coexist peacefully and insist on infringing upon the rights of others, then conflict is inevitable.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

DB, do stay.  You are the best ranter I have ever read!  You set the bar.  I have to read your posts very carefully and that is good practice.  All views are welcome.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2009 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

Sharpey Shears, for what is worth I vote Dwight stays, I know you read our every word, just like the alleged big guy in the sky. 

We all know Dwight is annoying and a pain in the ass, but best of all he really pisses off ITW who has a fetish for the lady who wrote “Atlas Buggered” which in my twisted demented mind is really quite funny, not the book, but ITW.

Actually, it sounds as if Dwight has had a rough blogging of it, he has been kicked around and out of many other blogs, so it would be nice to give him a helping hand according to the Heretics Heritages Guide. Somewhere it mentions under the Eleven Suggestions in the Innaneness chapter,  very unclearly, “give pushy and even annoying bloggers more than two strikes”, so please let DWight make his home here and maybe I could have his shopping cart?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 9, 2009 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

ITW, I genuflect to your sagacity this morning.  It made my day and I shall be about living life to the fullest, as I always am anyway, but this just made it a tad bit sweeter.  Thank you.  Looking out over the water as I drove to work, I had a very expansive feeling that in spite of pirates it was going to be a very lovely day.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 9, 2009 at 4:13 am Link to this comment

DB:
I’ll try to say this as nicely as I can: I have no idea what you are trying to say other then you are a Christian evangelist pushing forward your own personal idiosyncratic view of Jesus, and that you presume your view is the ONLY valid view and all others must see your view as you do.  Or they are lost.

I am not a Christian and never have been.  I don’t know if Christ existed and I don’t care.  If He did, then I see his teachings, which were of being merciful and humane and forgiving to each other as regularly being dismissed and discounted by so-called Christians who focus solely on dying and the pie-in-the-sky of an imaginary after-life.

Last night we celebrated a 3200 year old tradition that ended with opening the door in case Elijah is appearing herald the coming of the Anointed One—the Moshiach.  Do I believe He is real and coming? No, but our tradition is very, very old and still very beautiful.

Nor do I believe your Jesus is that Moshiach—I see the prophecies twisted and ex post facto scripture selected to make it SEEM that He fit the prophecies.

Yet the scripture that you Christians selected as yours still describes in your Jesus a very good man, even a paragon of good sense and virtue and kindness.  As you said, He was a Jew and followed Jewish Law, which teaches how to live in THIS life, with little promise of an afterlife.

Too bad you all focus on death and heaven as a reward, rather than on life and living. Somehow all you Christians seem to think that was His message, and that Heaven and Hell are a carrot and stick for your behavior through life, rather than living a good life simply because that’s what you should do. Period.

Then again, the teachings of Moses, the Buddha, Mohammed, Jainism, Ba’Hai, Mahatma Gandhi and most other religions teach the same thing.  So why are you right and they are all wrong?  It all comes down to the Heaven thing, doesn’t it?

See, if when I die I find out there is a heaven and a hell and that people who accepted Jesus NO MATTER HOW ROTTEN THEY WERE get in, and people like me who have lived a good and moral life STILL go to hell, I’ll know God is illogical, capricious and unfair—just like the ancient gods of Greece.  After all the God of my traditional religion was a desert god to a primitive nomadic people who could not conceive of a universe where the Sun is just a minor main-stream yellow dwarf in the back alley of the outskirts or a typical spiral galaxy…

That universe, which is real, belies the idea of a God that will change His plans for the universe so that your child gets better or your enemy grows warts.

Report this

By christian96, April 8, 2009 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

By christian96, April 8 at 11:46 pm #


I’ve been reading the same comments about these
pathetic business and political leaders for the
last several weeks BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED!  What’s
the use for all the words?  I guess psychologically
it helps relieve the stress associated with anger,
frustration, anxiety, etc. but other than that
NOTHING HAS CHANGED!  Maybe, we need to start on a
smaller scale.  Instead of changing the world, perhaps we should go to the owners of our local
grocery stores and complain about the candy and
junk being pedeled to children at the checkout
counter.  Then, when there is a reduction in obsesity, diabetes, cardiac problems, etc. the
children might feel better and start taking an interest in working together to improve things in
their communities.  Instead of wearing tee-shirts
that read “save the whales” maybe we should start
wearing tee-shirts that read “SAVE THE CHILDREN!”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 8, 2009 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

ITW—I knew most of this stuff, but, havent thought about it in awhile. You know how I feel about capitalism,and, I would submit that we still sack places all thet time. And, we refuse to “trade” for almost equally obnoxious reasons that oftens starves people—it never hurts the elite. I knew about the U and S thing. If she judged socialism (and you , also) only by her experiences in the uSSR, perhaps she is understandable , as applies to herself (she seemed to think that everything did—apply to her). But, that is a little like judging the Germans by WWII and presidents by Dubya
***********************************************

I cannot argue with this paragraph—but with all writers their experience DOES help you understand their POV.  Remember: I don’t believe for one SECOND that neo-cons are Objectivst, even if they like to claim they are.  It’s like Haggard or Falwell or Robertson or DwightBaker CLAIMING to be Christian when there is NOTHING of Christ’s real teachings in them.  Phil Gram would tell you he’s a Rand fan.  And he’d be lying.

**********************************************
I was just surprised to run into a Rand admirer here. I still dont get the Rand/Democrat thing. You should be for Ron Paul. But, fine, I dont care. Its not personal to me, except, that I think it does feed into a larger idea of yours that the USSR under Stalin was actually “socialist”. But, many people from Cold War era still feel that way.(I am not trying to be insulting here, btw, about Cold War era) I dont think this next generation will do that—I hope not.
***************************************

This SHIT drive me FUCKING BATSHIT!!!!  Have you BOTHERED to read a FUCKING THING I’ve written?

I have said AGAIN AND AGAIN I am NOT a Rand admirer.  I only admire SOME things of her philosophy and have harsh criticisms of many parts of it!

KDelphi, WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT???? IS THERE A DISCONNECT IN YOUR BRAIN????

At least I know with FolkTruther he’s just being a p**** for the pure fun of it—And that I can accept.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 8, 2009 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Do I really spend that much time on myself KD, as much as you do?  Wow, sorry.  Seemed like just a facetiously funny thing to say about myself.  There is nothing like self-depreciation.  No one really needs convinced about what I say about Her (you know, Shenonymous)! People really hate it when I speak in the third person about moi.  So we thought you were outta here, anyway.  Famous last words.

Yeah I have called myself that b word a few times but not as often as you exaggerate, but then that is your way of relating to the world in every way.

They already have been “stacking” the dead in mausoleums for decades, half centuries, even more.  When is the last time you visited a cemetery?  Go see Valentino’s grave, or even Marilyn Monroe, they have been “stacked.”  Brings a whole new meaning to the world stacked, doesn’t it?  Levity rather than gravity.  Oooooh, that is so punny.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 8, 2009 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment

My turn Inherit the Wind, maybe I might be on you list of rabble rousers? Marx talked about the workers taking control of business so that they can have the fruits of their labor. Not the owners or rulers who took the lion’s share and gave a pittance for the workers who actually made it run. His conception was that once people saw just how ruthless and uncaring and inhuman pure free Capitalism was,[Once he quipped that capitalism would purchase the rope by which they would be metaphorically hanged,] the workers would revolt bring down the mavens and plutocrats of Capitalism and make a socialist-anarchist “paradise” of workers for work not owners. Hardly the iron heel dictatorships of Lenin-Stalin, Pol Pot & Mao is it?

Curiously in my reading of Nietzsche I find he believed that a person’s worth was soly due to what they were. If you are a genius you should have earned full rights and if you are blind or mentally ill then at the bottom you may be. That part I did not like. It would make for a much different society and quite a tough one to live in. I am still researching it. H. P. Lovecraft (creator of “Cthulhu” et al) had his view of a society was what he called “fascist-socialism” with the elites of society, as proven by a battery of tests to show their intellect and morality as the top of the class as leaders, not your family name. Every one has a stipend to live on and anymore you can earn is up to you in an open market, regulated of course. He later turned to the next best thing for him…the New Deal. [He lived from 1890 to 1934.]

Just as those who think Anarchism is chaos. It isn’t. It is cooperation and organization by volunteer and of a temporary nature. Limited power with no profit for it. The ideal person in charge is the one who doesn’t want it. [Bakunin, Kropotkin and Goldman are better than Ayn Rand and the Cato Institute concerning adult humans having personal sovereignty over themselves.] Even so we need a certain amount of ‘compulsion’ in civilized society to curb the primitive in us. The question is where we draw that line. If our society is unhealthy then we will produce more unhealthy people both physically and mentally.

Black and white thinking are for absolutists and tend to shave to the nearest zero which can change everything. We have been living under those who saw the world that way and see what it has wrought, Inherit the Wind! Such Aristotelian thought processes and behavior in a quantum universe produces all kinds of mischief and horrors unending.

We all have our virtues and flaws myself included so I can see where DB would see some good things about Rand. But 99%? Yikes!

“How can we have a revolution without firing squads?”-Nicholi Ilivitch Lenin

“Knowledge is a scary thing.”-Mandy (“Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy”-GABM)

“The oldest and strongest emotion of Mankind is fear.”-H.P.Lovecraft

Report this

By KDelphi, April 8, 2009 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Well, She, you have a strange way of saying youre a bitch, over and over again like we’re supposed to say, “wow!” I’m really imporessed. You also spend alot of time letting people know that you dont care what they think. Ok. I dont know why you are so angry at me about someone you dont admire.
\

ITW—Look, I certainly didnt know her. Ok, to you , she is interesting. Perhaps you admire her. It is whatever you want that you find interesting. It is just not personal for me. I didnt mean to make it so. I just have to admit that, on a so-called “liberal” (?) website, (well, I should know better by now)to find admirers of Rand that werent touting religion , LIke DWIGHT, or whtaever. (I know that she was an atheist, but, it seem that most admirers are Judeo-Christian, and, use alot of her theories as social darwinism, although they dont believe in Darwin’s theories)I am going by who I know (of) that admires her, ok?

I just read your latest post, ITW.

ITW—I knew most of this stuff, but, havent thought about it in awhile. You know how I feel about capitalism,and, I would submit that we still sack places all thet time. And, we refuse to “trade” for almost equally obnoxious reasons that oftens starves people—it never hurts the elite. I knew about the U and S thing. If she judged socialism (and you , also) only by her experiences in the uSSR, perhaps she is understandable , as applies to herself (she seemed to think that everything did—apply to her). But, that is a little like judging the Germans by WWII and presidents by Dubya

I was just surprised to run into a Rand admirer here. I still dont get the Rand/Democrat thing. You should be for Ron Paul. But, fine, I dont care. Its not personal to me, except, that I think it does feed into a larger idea of yours that the USSR under Stalin was actually “socialist”. But, many people from Cold War era still feel that way.(I am not trying to be insulting here, btw, about Cold War era) I dont think this next generation will do that—I hope not.

I think being buried at all is a waste of space (prefer cremation). But, logistics will probably make “burial”, as Judeo-Christians see it, impossible, soon, anyway.You know, the embalming, and, never decaying, etc. Unless we start burying people standing, which some places are starting to do. Or stack them. But, I dont want to get on this topic!!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 8, 2009 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Inherit, your boobery is nowhere more evident than your learning marxism from Alyce.  Nowhere on humanity’s formerly green earth does any form of socialism substitute need for merit in rewarding work. Nor is this the aim of communism when the economic problem is solved historically centuries in the future. 
***********************************

FT, that’s why you live in your la-la fantasy world—you believe crap like this.  Socialism has failed in every country it’s been tried in because it inherently DOES NOT WORK!  It is incompatible with human motives once it gets beyond the small family/clan/tribal level.  It fails to register for the SAME reason that the CEOs of failing banks can’t convince us they deserve their multi-million dollar bonuses—because some @$$hole always finds a way to line HIS pocket with someone else’s money.

The moment that the GUNS stopped being pointed at people to accept Socialism, they instantly became Capitalists….or were you hiding somewhere in the Australian Desert or on the Antarctic icepack when the USSR and the Eastern bloc collapsed?

Reaganites claim Ronnie Ray-Gun did by spending us into a huge deficit buying arms and building “Star Wars” to deify St. Ronnie. Former apparatchiks say the same thing to make excuses for why everything they believed in was a TOTAL failure.

Both are wrong.  It collapsed because it was fundamentally contradictory to human behavior and motivations which are based on survival.  The Marxist state can ONLY be maintained at the point of a gun….“Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.”—Mao Ze-Dong.

Back to Rand: You can have dollars or bullets as your medium of exchange.  Free trade or violence.  That’s it.  On that it’s black and white.  Consent or compulsion.

And, FT, old buddy, you can wriggle and shout and call me names all you want but you cannot get away from the fact that what YOU want is compulsion.  But, like all who want that, be they neo-cons, fascists, Marxists or mafiosi, you want the cover of “Consent”...“I’ll make him and offer he can’t refuse” because you don’t want to face reality.

As I said…La-La land fantasy.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 8, 2009 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

KDelphi…I didn’t know your gender—sorry for assuming…

Beyond that, I see MUCH to admire about Rand’s philosophy—and I’ve said what some of it is.  I do fundamentally think a meritocracy makes a better foundation for a society than an aristocracy.  I also believe as Rand said, that there are really only two ways to exchange goods and services among people: You either use money, or guns.  Either it’s a free bargaining exchange, or it’s a stick-up.

Throughout much of history, the stick-up was considered just fine.  Read the Iliad or the Odyssey and characters nonchalantly talk about raiding and sacking cities and towns that just happened to be there. What’s the Iliad about? It’s about the King (Agamemnon) taking a woman (Briseis) from his greatest warrior (Achilles)—a woman who was taken on such a raid. This infuriates Achilles and sets off the events of the story—one incident over one small period of time during the Trojan War.

It was the modus operandi for the Vikings and certainly for the Monguls.  Simply take the production and wealth of the people who produced it without leaving them anything in return, frequently, not even their lives.

Socialism was seen by Rand as yet another stick-up.  Her family lost everything they had built and earned to the Soviet Revolution.  Get somebody’s labor and genius for free and tell’em it’s for the greater good of their children’s children’s children’s children….while the “leaders” live in luxury they haven’t earned.

Rand TELLS us why she loves the dollar sign: It’s America’s monogram: “U” super-imposed on “S”. She tells us that America was the first nation that used the term “to make money”, understanding that wealth had to be created FIRST, before it could be spent or stolen.

Do I think her being buried with it on her coffin is weird?  Well, I guess so, but so is being buried with ANYTHING—like the lady who was buried in her Cadillac.  In fact, I think burial itself is only valid as a way to prevent the spread of disease and infection, and otherwise is a waste of land for a ritual. 

Lee Hayes’ last request was that he be buried in his compost heap, so his body would recycle—OK, I can buy that, but it’s weird, too.

Rand’s view of religion is bound up in HER retelling of The Fall when Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden.  In short, she sees it as a GOOD thing—People had to become productive, had to know good from evil, and had the Joy of Sex.  Or, as she says, Adam and Eve became human but when they were still in the Garden they were nothing but mindless, moral-less, sex-less robots. (Her view of the Parthenon is equally amusing and eye-opening!)

Rand read and rejected much of Nietzsche—and was much more a fan of Aristole and logic.

Do I think she was a vile human being and a hypocrite?  Yes. Absolutely.  But I also think she had many insights nobody short of H.L. Mencken could match, though he was far more cynical.  (And he wasn’t much of a paragon either)

I don’t know what DwightBaker admires about her, or what Limbaugh, Hannity or Coultergeist do—I think she would have been disgusted by them—she briefly worked with HUAC because she was a virulent Anti-Communist, but quickly backed away because she was disgusted with their methods and hypocrisy.  Did she influence me?  Sure!  Do I take her as The 20th Century Bible? (as Das Kapital is the 19th Century Bible) 

Hell No!  Many insightful ideas, many flaws.

Why do you all keep ignoring that? (FT does just to try to p*** me off—that’s his thing, but why the rest of you?)

Report this

By Folktruther, April 8, 2009 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous==the reason I like to annoy Inheryt is quite simple.  It’s fun.  Also I like to see what happens under various ideological conditions when an intelligent person’s mind is constricted simultanously by liberal economics, American political ideology, and Zionism.  Since the American population is also restricted, but most people are not as aarticulate or as interested in theory as Inherit.

It took me decades to unlearn the crap I was taught at Chicago. Sure, I got degrees, so what?  Did you know that according to James Galbraith, John Kenneth’s son, also an eoconomist, that 28% of the American adult popualation graduated from college.  Isn’t that horrifying, considering how most Americans think, or don’t think.  I question kids that graudate college and you wouldn’t believe what they don’t know.  And what they do know that isn’t true.  And look at people like Anarcissie who doesn’t have a degree, but who can reason.

Inherit, your boobery is nowhere more evident than your learning marxism from Alyce.  Nowhere on humanity’s formerly green earth does any form of socialism substitute need for merit in rewarding work. Nor is this the aim of communism when the economic problem is solved historically centuries in the future. 

When economic incentives are no longer sufficient to motivate work, than other social incentives must increasingly be used.  Just as the rich now often spend the last part of their careers trying to accomplish ends that don’t reward them monitarily.  Just as marx and engels did not develop classical marxism to enhance their bank balance.

Marxism thinks in terms of centuries and milleniums, not like you and Alyce, who are mired in the restricted cretinism of the time.  And Shenonymous, I did read ATLYS SHRUGGED just like I sometimes read the back of cornflake boxes.  Tolstoy she’s not.  I admit that when I got to her novel about the dollar signs, I had to stop.  Even I have some standards. 

I think KDelphi’s idea of tatooing a dollar sign on Inherit’s forehead is a good idea, possibly with a tasteful star of david inscribed.  And then we could raise his taxes.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 8, 2009 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

She—You said to ITW that you didnt understand my response to Rand…oh, why am I doing this, I just dont care about the topic. Sorry.

Sorry, I wont interrupt anymore…

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 8, 2009 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

KDelphi, you have a strange way of talking to several at one time thus blurring responses and comments.  I do recall exactly how the conversation about Rand came up.  I never said I was a fan, your mistake.  I explained her thought and said it was worth looking at.  I have no feelings at all for Milton Friedman nor care who does or does not nor Ayn Rand.  It is not Rand I am interested in as is evident in my comments.  I am interested in what she thought about the nature of reality, which is a topic I am very interested in.  Nor do I care who thinks who is a bitch.  I am one, I’ve admitted.  You should get your facts really really clear before mouthing off.  Did I say I admired Ayn Rand? No!

Report this

By KDelphi, April 8, 2009 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

She—Yes its not very coherent. Maybe you should look at how this coversation devolved into talking about Rand. DWIGHT brought it up, as to “agreeing with 99% of what ALL she said”.(He said he had looked up all she ever said, I think) I remembered a few things about her (didnt like what I knew), and replied, mostly pointing out that she was NOT Christian (I think DWIGHT is…lol), and admitted I didnt know much about her. I had no idea I would be offending such a fan club. I truly am amazed.

I feel about her the way I feel about
Milton Friedman, and, of course, i am not a philsophy major. I dont really care abou t her one way or the other. There are little cults here and there, and, talk of making a movie of her life (there is one, but, it is badly done, I think, but I dont really care), but, in academia, she is largely ignored. Therefor, to know much about her, you probably have to WANT to, and, to do it on your own.

ITW—I was not I that said that Rand was Zionist—I said that I thought she was a bitch.Whether she was a Zionist, I do not know enough to know. I think anyone who is buried with a $$ on their coffin is a bitch. How/why she changed her name is relevant, because the name is so “wierd”! Ayn!!??
I am a FEMALE, ITW. I thought Shenonymous knew that.

I notice that neo-liberals picked up on Buckley , but not Rand’s other fans like Clarence Thonmas and Rush Limbaugh—why not? I still dont know what the hell it is you admire about her, ITW—-same things Shenonymous does?> Oh, I see….. Glad she made it clear…now, I’m OUT on Ayn Rand…jeez..

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, April 8, 2009 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

Yes gawd is back and you can have him for just $27.95. All major credit cards accepted.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 8, 2009 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, a most cogent post and well-said.  I feel/think very similarly. 

And when, William DeMente, they do infringe on the rights of others, what is your advice?

Even though the word atheist is negatively defined, as indicated by the privative prefix “a,” it gives a clear expression to the idea of radical immanence of all reality.  I believe there are no distant heavens to which one would travel after death of the body.  The stigma attached to atheism of immoralism or as amoral, has been mistakenly applied.  It definitely has a moral whether systematized or not, codified or not,  that presupposes rules of interaction between individuals by agreement, a conventional agreement by individuals living within the context of a community of any size, or resizing, and ethnic composition.  Using the fabrication of a God to mediate as story-fied in holy books, is facilitated not by a hypothetical divine entity, but allows usually self-authorized clerics to make pronouncements as developed by a sanctimonious ecclesiastic class. I do not believe atheists as a group have developed a definable system of morals.  I do not think they should, which is a commentary on ethics itself, because atheists are found in many different societies.  I believe morals begin with honest self-criticism but are made real, manifest when they emerge within the context of a society.  Without a society, there is no need for morals, none at all.  The fact that religions were created in every stable society throughout the history of humankind, is ultimately interesting but not definitive of human’s own responsibility to create healthy means to interact with their fellows and with the world that provides the means for their life.  Valuing life itself seems to be the first moral and arguments for its promotion seems to me need to be offered for discussion.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 8, 2009 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Concerning Ayn Rand, the “Ayn” is pronounced “ein” which is a hard i not like “Ann.”

Shenonymous, Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist at all but was fighting the nihilism he thought was coming now that Kant had “killed” the god concept in his time as he saw it. The whole idea of the fully developed human or ubermensche and uberfem were that they guided themselves and needed no god or leader. Rather like anarchists. I am one of those mutations that do not need any kind of god or master but I am just another person. Nothing special. Luck of the draw in the DNA roulette of biological survival in the miliuex we live in. Will it be a better survival tool than the worship genes made manifest in our brains in 90% of humanity? Or will it be a way to die sooner. We are coming to a point to where we could exterminate ourselves by reaching a critical juncture of collapse but reaching the entire planet. Religion will play a prominent role in how it plays out for our civilization and species. It is in our collective hands.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 8, 2009 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Yes, ITW, we all see that FT does try to annoy you for what reason is known only to himself.  But the fact is that you fall for it on a regular basis.  He seems to take glee in it.  Rather avuncularly in a way.  I am not at all intuiting why KDelphi has the attitude he does about Rand, and in the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter.  It is not as coherent as it ought to be.  Real nswers to questions are more forthwithcoming if they are framed and said in a rational, calm, and logical way.  My guess is that “real” answers are not being sought.

From my reading of her writings, Ayn Rand was an atheist yet as truedigger3 rightly, I think, points out, Zionism is not strictly a religious attitude.  So in that case she could think Jews, and there are many atheistic Jews where Jewishness is a description of an ethnic class not only a religious class, and so is Zionism, have a right to self-determination, just as Palestinians today think they also have a right to.  It is in the details that makes all the difference.  I suppose from a comprehensive reading of her works one could glean a Rand opinion about current conservativism but prima facie, on the surface, it does not look like she would distance herself too much from them.  Since I have my own theory of Nietzsche, I do not share her view of his nihilistic philosophy although what you said about her fascination of superheroes may have presaged societies’ the world over fascination as well.  In that sense she would be considered among the hoi polloi and offer another inconsistency in her personal philosophical tenets.  I don’t think in her lifetime she was confronted intellectually well enough about her views and inconsistencies.  Superstar thinkers such as Bill Buckley ought to have talked with her directly rather than make his own facile remarks.  He was noted for those though which became part of my own criticism of him great as he was considered.  It is almost like some people did not find the Superstar Jim Morrison of the Doors as any great shakes and that their music was not so great either.

Report this

By William DeMente, April 8, 2009 at 8:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Until such a time that the deities begin appearing on Earth in this day and age, religion does not seem to be much more than a game of pretending.
Assuming that human beings are not the most intelligent life forms in this or any universe, a belief in any deity(ies) would be justified.
If we are to coexist on this planet, the different beliefs of people should be respected and tolerated as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.

Report this

By truedigger3, April 8, 2009 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

ITW,

You wrote about Ayn Rand:“Rand was not a zionist…she abhorred all religion and faith”
But zionism is not a religious movement, it is political movement. Many secular jews and some secular nonjews are zionists.
Also you wrote about her and segregation:“segregation—something Rand rarely touched on but would be anathema to her.”
If segregation is was “anathema” to her, why she
didn’t write about it?  How did you know it was “anathema to her?? Are you a mind reader?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 8, 2009 at 4:23 am Link to this comment

She:

Both KDelphi and FT are being deliberately dense…of course FT’s doing it just to annoy me, and KD’s doing it because he can’t get past his pre-conceived notions and is trying to fit things to it—like trying to make a Chevy carburetor fit on a Plymouth and then complaining that the bolt holes don’t fit so there must be something wrong with the car—and the carburetor!

Rand was not a zionist…she abhorred all religion and faith…it’s just more bullshit socialists come up with to avoid dealing with the strong parts of her argument. 

See, Rand pointed out that socialism’s replacement of “need” as the currency instead of “merit” (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need) converts all human beings into slaves and beggars.  “Ability” becomes something to exploit without reward, provided the incentive to NEVER show talent or you’ll be enslaved.
“Need” becomes the determinant of consumption.  And who decides need?  Why “the people”. And how do they do that? Via their leaders…so there’s YET AGAIN an elite that decides who gets what—and just like we see bankers “needing” $12 million dollars to decorate his office, we saw in Socialist countries leaders who “needed” dachas and limos and fancy foods.

Brandon is the source for Rand’s choices of her nom-de-plume.

Rand made numerous mistakes: One is when the “Orren Boyles” of the world loudly proclaim they are the “Hank Reardons”, Rand never thought of that—which is what we see.  Rand couldn’t imagine today’s so-called conservatives (Limbaugh, Coultergeist,etc) acting like, and standing in for her liberal “journalists”.

But her emphasis of heros, with its echos of Nietzsche and G.B.Shaw’s Supermen, combined with her personal rape fantasies (handsome, tall,lean heroes ravishing her) detracts from the message of meritocracy.

No wonder WF Buckley condemned her—in the 50’s and 60’s he was an ardent elitist in the classic sense, and a BIG defender of segregation—something Rand rarely touched on but would be anathema to her.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 8, 2009 at 1:02 am Link to this comment

It is always entertaining to disagree with you Folktruther, and we have been at it for quite a while now.  Old hands at it.  We learn more about each other with every post.  For instance, you just admitted that you are an educated man!  U of Chicago, goodness, not a minor school.  Did you finish your degree?  Not only that but you sent your child to college as well.  Yet you only denigrate the academically educated. There is something sanctimonious in that.  Wiccanism is total bs and you know it.  It provides me with much mirth. 

The Rand thing is now overblown.  She had some interesting ideas and she knew how to get them in the public domain, not what many on this forum is able to do regardless of “our” pontificating.  She is worthwhile reading and thinking about but she also had some wrong headed ones and is no one to be afraid of unless one has an extremely affected brain and influenced easily by anyone else’s ideas. 

So she wasn’t a goddess. My goodness for those who keep looking for a deity of a sort.  The “modern godless religions” sprouting up [in the 20th-21st century] is a sure sign of boredom with oneself.  Nothing new.  In the 70s it was Werner Erhard’s est, in the 80s, the birth of the NewAgers.  The 1990s brought the Psychic Friends Network and MTV Cults emerged.  What else are vapid middle class Americans to do?

And it is Ayn.  Try reading her works a bit.  Even if it generates negative thinking (which wouldn’t be too far a stretch for you, right?) What exactly do you have against Zionism?  Because I have said so, you know I am not a Jew nor a Zionist, nor an anti-Zionist. I don’t have any imaginative agenda.  I am always curious about the reasons of those who “hate” this or “hate” that.  Maybe it is a survival instinct? 

ITW:  The facts of Ayn Rand’s renaming of herself is really a negligible and distracting issue, for people change their names for various reasons.  I don’t believe she ever stated how it came about herself.  Perhaps to someone else who wrote about it. I won’t abandon my critique of her as having intriguing ideas in spite of the criticism levied against her on this forum, and elsewhere.  A reading of her writings is the only fair way to judge what she says.  I have not made any study of her to any great depth except having critically read some of her Objectivist philosophy and ideas as she expressed them here and there either in print or on television as she was an occasional visitor to talk shows. 

It is too easy to take pot shots at others with facile remarks and vacuous statements that appear for all tense and purposes as bravura, showing off and sneering.  It makes up, I guess, for a lack of real thinking and knowledge.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 7, 2009 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

ITW—I read some of them—but, same as Rand. Alot of them just dont make sense to me, so I kindve zone out. Sorry.

What was it you admired about Rand? That she made up her name from a typewriter, or that she was a Social Darwinist? Or did you post that elsewhere?

An ardent Obama supporter who is also a Libertarian. Please explain.

Even William F. Buckley said her ideas were “stillborn”. But, join Limbaugh, DWIGHT, Clarence Thomas and others. Maybe its all just tooo deep for me—-whoooo!

At least Shenonymous seems to have some recognition of what her so-called theories would imply…you still dont say what you admired about her.

I guess sopme ardent supporters of the duopoply are just prone to cults??? Are you going to have a $$ sign on your coffin? Or tattoed on your forehead?

Report this

By Folktruther, April 7, 2009 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Truthdigger 3, Ann Rand was a Zionist?  O, the mist is lifting from mine eyes.  And, Inherit, Ann’s comment that there can’t be contridictions indicates that her knowledge of mathematics was as deep as that of her philosphy.

and I may not be a prefect speller, Inherit,  but at least I know how to spell ‘Ann.’

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 7, 2009 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi:

Do you actually READ my posts or just read a little bit and make up the rest that you THINK I’m thinking.  FolkTruther’s been doing THAT for about a year…either that or he’s been draining Elijah’s cup when Elijah isn’t looking—and the surreptitiously filling it up again.  Certainly FT’s most recent post has a certain rum-soaked flavor to it. (Either that or he figured medical marijuana means you can smoke grass if you are feeling blue….)

The reason you can’t figure out why I’m an ardent Obama supporter while you clearly think I’m a neo-con can best be expressed by Rand’s own statement that it is the very nature of existence that contradictions cannot occur. When you think you have found one, check your premises.  You will find at least one is in error.

So, KDelphi: Check your premises.  You will find one or more (probably all of them) are in error.

FT, lern two spel, yoo dumby!

Report this

By Folktruther, April 7, 2009 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

KDelpi- you have to understand that Inherit was a student of liberal economics, enough to destroy the brain cells of even the strongest mind, which does not include Inherit.  that’s how he got to be such a boob.  Every time he verges on the intelligent, like his commnent on Troy, he comes back defending Alyce being buried with a dollar sign on her chest.  And now he has even infected Shenonymous!

I always though that Alyce’s name was the result of her not spelling too good, the only sympathetic thing about her.  Rand is the currency of South Africa, apartheid in her time. 

It wouldn’t surprise me, as Inherit suggests, if Rand was a big hit at the U of Chicago, my venerable pile.  they are building a 200 million dollar Milton Freedman center which the countinue to ask me to donate to.  fat chance.  They don’t have a Pinochet wing yet but give them time.

Shenonymous, you hurt me deeply by ridiculing my sacred feelings about Wiccans (or Pagans, I forget which) when their religious observances include marrying more than two people to each other.  A strong rebuke to dual chauvenism, and I always wonder how those things work out.  Can those marraiges be saved?

I’ll have you know that I am the long time chairman of the Southern California chapter to STAMP OUT PRAYER, a small by inert grouplet.  But, as I said before, I think atheism is simply a failure of imagination, the lack of creativity to invent a god, or godess, like everybody else.  But I (really) think that the modern godless religions spurting up in the 20th century is a positive development.  I feel very protective of the Wiccans ( or possibly Pagans.)

Report this

By truedigger3, April 7, 2009 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi,

I think the contradictions you see in ITW stem from
that he is first and foremost is an ardent zionist
and for him Israel always in his mind.
So, ITW is liberetarian but he didn’t vote for Ron Paul because Ron Paul called for more saner
foreign policy in the middle East and didn’t genuflect in front of AIPAC and the zionist lobby.
I think his adulation for Ayn Rand stem from that
she was a zionist and had neo-con ideas.
Many of the neo-cons either were her admirers or
from her inner circle.  Alan Greenspan was one of
her close followers and admirers. That might shed
some light on the thinking behind the current economic debacle.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Actually, I rather enjoy scrolling and scrolling past biblical diatribes, for it enforces why I prefer not to raise goats.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 7, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

ITW—and lets not forget our friend, DWIGHT< who first expressed admiration for 99% of her ..“quotes”, was it? I am NOT reading down that far in his stuff…

Report this

By KDelphi, April 7, 2009 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

I am really sick of scrolling and scrolling past these biblical diatribes, to try to read posts. I wish they would stop it.

ITW—I wish I could find the book I read it in, but, I read that she was an alcoholic. I am not condemning alcoholics   per se, especially when they are rich enough to get help with it. It seem to me you are excusing her. Now, I read that she was addicted to amphetamines. (Its just wikipedia)

Maybe it is a visceral reaction. Unless you are a big fan, I dont see why you would object to someone just not liking her. Many of her followers were far from feminist, such as Ron Paul , Rush Limbaugh, etc.

I find your admiration of her (for what?? you said you thought she was a fascist when you first read her…ever read “Blink”? You r first reactions are often correct)strange, to say the least.

I read parts of “The Passion of Ayn Rand” (should have been “appetites”) and have no desire to learan more about her. There are too many other things to read. I dont really remember much about it. I said that, right off.

I cant prove she was alcoholic. Where do you draw the line? But smoking yourself to death is not very strong either. Stop trying to paint me as sexist. Tell me what it is you admire about her and the Libertarian view, and, explain how you can vote for Obama, when Paul is runinng , i fyou are a Rand fan.

You seem to want to “believe” whatever the true left doesnt. So I have to conclude that you are a conservative, although you say things like, “People think I’m a conservative, but I’m not” Maybe it was that way with Rand. People just THOUGHT she was a fascist. Maybe both are right.

This is what some say about her (its not just me)Telegraph UK: (Sorry not more quotes, linke, but I just have this visceral reaction to people like her, and I dont want to waste time quoting her—or Limbaugh))

“What Rand offers is a sub-Nietzschean world of supermen and superwomen, where the brightest and the best effortlessly trample their way to the top and where money isn’t just a reward for getting there but a thing of beauty in itself.”

Go join the Ron Paul fan club. Rush Limbaugh references her often. Clarence Thomas is a fan.

You are supposedly a Democrat. no? Or are you a Libertarian? The way you defend Pres. Obama, I just dont see how these two ideas dont clash…maybe it gives you “cognitive distance” as Christ Matthews calls it? I dont see why she is so “personal” to you…

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 7, 2009 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

I discovered a little known fact, Norwegian Rats are extremely smart, almost equal to the mentality of a four year old human, which also mean most Republicans, this may explains many things.
*****************************

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  My four year old is a HELL of a lot smarter than most Republicans.  More mature, too, and CERTAINLY much kinder and more considerate.  (And he’s a hell of a lot cuter than any of them!)

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 7, 2009 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

LeeFella it concerned population density and psychological effects. When the rats were separated again the psychotic violence did not subside. Might explain the humans that are turning psychotic killing their families, strangers and themselves lately. Expect more to go on as the economy brings the full force of the oppression of too many in one place affects more people. Belief in God of any sort just may be overridden by this population pressure based psychosis. Just one more facet of our world as it changes around us in increasing degrees. More people are turning to more strict, militant, puritanical beliefs wanting stricter controls and fewer rights. Not a good survival strategy in my estimation.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 7, 2009 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

Typical Dwight Baker first conciliatory in his smug magnanity then sullen and abusive then off on a tangent devoid of current topic. How am I doing?

Where does the concept of a ‘god’ fit into those two long posts anyway? None but for a humanist (one can be both or any such since it is separate from religion) it certainly fits. I shall report these because they are a non sequiter in this case. Maybe you posted on the wrong blog?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2009 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

Pardon me! While eating my bagel and drinking one much appreciated cup of coffee, I could not help but overhear your conversation, especially about rats.

Sephard on another post mentioned with creditability Norwegian Rats have a tendency to fight among them selves but only under special circumstances, otherwise they live in harmony.  It seems in the Ratollie world of things, Sephard stated Norwegian Rats populations live in harmony until certain population points are exceeded, more than one rat per 1/4 mile to mile, then they ruthlessly fight each other for no apparent reason. After doing further research, skipping past the long section on the similarities of rats to Republicans, I discovered a little known fact, Norwegian Rats are extremely smart, almost equal to the mentality of a four year old human, which also mean most Republicans, this may explains many things.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 7, 2009 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Notice that as D-B’s diatribes were attacked, dissected and ridiculed for their repetitive illogic, he became more and more abusive launching outlandish charges.

Prior to that he was dismissive, insulting and “dissed” other peoples’ learning, education and study.

He tried to overpower with Jerry Falwell/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity techniques.  But they don’t work very well in blogs, do they, and folks here of ALL stripes don’t react well to that.

So he devolved into personal attacks venting his rage.

For somebody preaching Christianity and Jesus’ love he sure needs to spend a lot more time working on himself!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 7, 2009 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

K-Delfi, democratic in that all had a chance to vote and socialist in that it applied to a minority that was being voted on by the majority as to their equal rights with that majority! [Bankrolled by rich extreme Christian right wingers including Erik Prince’s mom.]

I thought her pseudonym was influenced by the Rand Corporation (Research ANd Developement) or a male name Randolf or Randall shortened. Rand translates as “Shield” or “round” or “doorway/threshold.” I never liked her selfishness and need for worshipers. I think her mind set has poisoned the Libertarian movement. Regularly a member of the Ayn Rand Institute appears on Glenn Beck’s show for what that is worth.

Dwight Baker is in his own world and seems oblivious to what the thread may be, good for him.

My hypothesis of brain function centers on the idea that the same mechanisms that allow for hero worship and religious belief are the same. Coupled with our ability to lie and to imagine are related. I admit I have neither the need or want to put anyone on a metaphysical pedestal. Which if a brain autopsy was done on my brain after death and an area to area sectional morphologic comparison with a standard believer’s brain I wonder of any differences would be found? It is interesting that 60% of scientists are like me in that area of mind. That percentage over all hasn’t changed in 40 years. It is known that humanity survives by being so multi-variant and interacting to cover all the survival bases. We are usually gregarious, except for those with brain anomalies that are emotionally intelligence impaired but are still useful to the species as a whole. The battle between conformity and individuality goes on. We need to be harmonious in our differences and not condemn or work to change them or kill them. They are our strengths in this cryptic universe. We need to move together in these dangerous times, not apart.

The ‘muckers’ or ‘run amokers’ are examples of social pressures and population stresses making manifest with certain sensative members of our society reach the breaking point. Religion i.e. group psychology might help stem such members of our society more prone to psychotic breaks an turn to nihilism and murder. See the research done on close populations and rat behavior produced homicidal behavior. Also after the rats were removed to a comfortable place the homicidal reactions did not dissipate.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2009 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

She, your philosophical dissertation are most enlightening. When I think way back to my philosophy classes. Philosophy an ability to appreciate abstract thought serves me even today, were one can find solace and most worthy reflections. A fine Food for thoughts,  like a fine wine should be bottled savored and used wisely.

ITW, a small comment, I rather enjoy your comments with other posters.  It is like sitting in a restaurant and listening to different conversations from the surrounding tables, sometime these comments conjure up dusty and long forgotten thoughts. Archived reflections so well hidden they are covered by cobwebs.

My enduring patience here on TD, has been and still seems most beneficial, if not just for the few reasons stated above.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 7, 2009 at 4:16 am Link to this comment

KDelphi, April 7 at 12:36 am #

A person who dies of alcohol and nictotine addiction is not “strong”. It doesnt take much courage to drink and smoke or drug yourself to death.

Yes, that applies to all the men you mentioned also. With Hemingway, maybe more so. Picasso, certainly. Hemingway chose a very cowardly way to die.

It becomes an excuse to go into a haze—oh, I’m so brilliant and no one understands me, thats why I have to drug myself. Bullshit.
**************************************

Two straw men here.

1) I never defend a brilliant person being a shit or narcotizing themselves.  Never have, never will, so stop implying I did.

2) You are the ONLY person I’ve ever come across to claim Rand was an alcoholic.  The BEST biography of her, “The Passion of Ayn Rand”  by Barbara Brandon, who went of from friend and acolyte to enemy (it was Brandon’s husband, Nathaniel, that Rand was f***ing) and, finally, just before Rand’s death, friends again (but not the way it had been) NEVER mentions a word about Rand being anything but a heavy, heavy smoker. 

OTOH, Brandon also makes it clear Rand’s HUSBAND, a nice but spineless fellow named Frank O’Conner, drank himself to death because he adored Rand and hated how she treated him at the same time.  He painted the original cover design for Atlas Shrugged and contributed one line to the book…“Brother, You Asked for It!”

So it was the husband of Rand, not Rand, who was the alcoholic.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2009 at 1:15 am Link to this comment

Re: DwightBaker

Your comment: “GET A REAL LIFE and try to give back to others something besides your vile anger.”

A questionable stance….. especially since, your unbridled anger has been out-rightly exposed.  In this measure, I give Shenonymous all the credit in the world to have been so BLATANTLY amicable regarding your vitriolic verbiage and false accusations.

Yet even in this, Shenonymous engaged the humble spirit, you are very deluded my friend if you believe that Shenonymous could not have torn you to pieces.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 6, 2009 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

A person who dies of alcohol and nictotine addiction is not “strong”. It doesnt take much courage to drink and smoke or drug yourself to death.

Yes, that applies to all the men you mentioned also. With Hemingway, maybe more so. Picasso, certainly. Hemingway chose a very cowardly way to die.

It becomes an excuse to go into a haze—oh, I’m so brilliant and no one understands me, thats why I have to drug myself. Bullshit.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 6, 2009 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, April 7 at 12:20 am #

ITW—You must be out of your mind. What do you consider yourself to be—a follower of Rand?? I say things about her personally, because her permiscuousness and alcoholism were, I believe, an indication of how selfish she was. I may like Hemingway’s work, but, that doesnt mean I’d want to be married to him. He was a personal asshole. Rand was a bitch. Did you know her personally or something?? Related other?If she were a man I’d call her an m-fer. You must be extemely conservative (neo?) to put any stock in her dismissed theories at all. I suppose you think Ann Coulter is a strong, brilliant woman too…

She was judgemental, hence I will judge her. If she is the “only philsopher you know”, read. Where did you go to school, if you dont mind my asking. How can you be an Obama supporter and a supporter of “Atlas Shrugged”??


Beethoven, Picasso and RAND?! I just do not understand you. The people around her were like moths—and they got burned. We are still being burned for theories of selfishness and greed like hers. Certainly people can be greedy and selfish, but, to make a career out of it, and then have people praise you as “willed” or “brilliant” because you didnt care about anyone but yourself….brains with no heart makes for a—well—bitch or m*ther*ucker.

BTW, I think that flag draped coffins are very sad. I wouldnt want one. But, it would be better than a dollar sign!! Gawd! She may have been right, though. There do seem to be more greedy basterds in the US than anywhere else. Too bad it all crashed.

So glad to see you agreeing with DWIGHT—-brilliant.
*****************************************

KDelphi—you are losing it and getting about as nutty as DwightBaker.

I am NOT a follower of Rand. Never met her. I see her flaws. I also see that SHE saw society in a way nobody else did.  You clearly don’t have ANY understanding of her underlying philosophy (see Shenon’s analysis for an UNDERSTANDING) you just have some sort of gestalt reaction to her—very much like MY reaction to Ann Coultergeist (Hey! Blindman—haven’t you noticed I ALWAYS call that neo-nazi “Coultergeist”?)

MY point, which you missed, is that while MANY artists are obnoxious, the use of the word “Bitch!” for a female has a TOTALLY different and offensive connotation, implying that one needn’t bother examining her work, after all, she’s “just a bitch!”—while you WON’T avoid examining Hemingway’s or Picasso’s work.

Insane?  I don’t think so…..How you POSSIBLY could think I would admire either Ann Coultergeist or DwightBaker? That leads one to the logical inference that SOMEBODY in this discussion is insane—but it sure ain’t old Inherit the Wind!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 6, 2009 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 6 at 9:28 pm #

ITW: Then again, I don’t know of any American philosophers other than Rand—I found philosophy majors to be the most impractical people in all academia—more so even than Creative Writing majors, so I didn’t study it. Are you saying there is something negative in the impractical?  Pure philosophy often yields the most creative pathways to the pragmatic insight into the practical cutting-through crapthinking.  When applied to the way societies think, it becomes applied philosophy, i.e., applied ethics, how people ought to behave towards one another and applied epistemology for what are the requisites for knowledge, such as what is sound evidence, and what is justified belief.

ITW’s defense of Ayn Rand is fascinating and understandable given the attractiveness of her theoretically amalgamated objective philosophy.  She must have sanctified the notion of simplicity as evidenced in pruning her last name Rosenbaum twice using the Russian slavic Cyrillic lettering in her revised first name taking the last three letters that resembles the Roman alphabet a.y.n., and then making the contraction Rand to produce her professional name.  But I think the notion of economy shows up in her philosophy as well.

Objectivism as a philosophical system, the name she constructed is a fusion of metaphysics (the study of reality beyond the natural world), epistemology (the study of knowledge), ethics (the study of moral values), and aesthetics (the study of sensory values).  Examining her philosophy I think is a worthwhile way to spend time if one is interested in sorting through perplexing ideas.  It does not mean her views ought to be accepted in totality even though that is what she demanded.  Criticisms of her philosophy, or ideology, include a strong challenge to Judeo-Christianity, which in of itself is not without merit, but her views include antithetically the right to life and individualism and anti-gay attitude provide her critics with ample reason to find fault.

I do not agree completely with her views of Objectivism because from my intuition it seems whatever is real is a blending of consciousness with an independently existing mental exterior, she thought otherwise.  I also disagree that contact by individuals with reality is independent of consciousness and can only be accessed through sensory perception.  While some provisional knowledge is gained through sense perception, it cannot be definitive because of the time element that happens from the moment of the sense perception to when the brain (that is, the mind) intuits it as having happened.  So reality is not known directly through the senses.  How one knows reality (The Truth) is always on a dependent basis.  The same goes for the other ideals known as the Good (ethics), and Beauty (aesthetics).  The insight of the real through no sensory input would be similar to the insight of mathematics where truth values are known through operational logic, a capacity for evaluation, and quantification using symbols known as numbers.  I am not saying reality can only be known that way.  Quite the contrary, I think sense perception holds an equal place in coming to terms with what there really Is.  Mainly because ultimately even an understanding of numbers can be found in perceiving to what numbers apply, that being phenomenal things in the world.  On the other hand, comparison is a mental, intellectual, non-sensing ability.  Proof otherwise is always welcome. 
*****************************************

She: a BRILLIANT understanding of both the value and flaws of Rand’s Objectivism.  But you’ve made too much of her name.  “Ayn” (rhymes with “mine”) was, according to her, some sort of Finnish (?) name.  “Rand” was simply one of two choices: “Remington” or “Rand” for her Remington-Rand brand typewriter.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 6, 2009 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

ITW—You must be out of your mind. What do you consider yourself to be—a follower of Rand?? I say things about her personally, because her permiscuousness and alcoholism were, I believe, an indication of how selfish she was. I may like Hemingway’s work, but, that doesnt mean I’d want to be married to him. He was a personal asshole. Rand was a bitch. Did you know her personally or something?? Related other?If she were a man I’d call her an m-fer. You must be extemely conservative (neo?) to put any stock in her dismissed theories at all. I suppose you think Ann Coulter is a strong, brilliant woman too…

She was judgemental, hence I will judge her. If she is the “only philsopher you know”, read. Where did you go to school, if you dont mind my asking. How can you be an Obama supporter and a supporter of “Atlas Shrugged”??


Beethoven, Picasso and RAND?! I just do not understand you. The people around her were like moths—and they got burned. We are still being burned for theories of selfishness and greed like hers. Certainly people can be greedy and selfish, but, to make a career out of it, and then have people praise you as “willed” or “brilliant” because you didnt care about anyone but yourself….brains with no heart makes for a—well—bitch or m*ther*ucker.

BTW, I think that flag draped coffins are very sad. I wouldnt want one. But, it would be better than a dollar sign!! Gawd! She may have been right, though. There do seem to be more greedy basterds in the US than anywhere else. Too bad it all crashed.

So glad to see you agreeing with DWIGHT—-brilliant.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 6, 2009 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 6 at 2:47 pm #

IN HE THE WIND

I got your number now—-you are one of the CRAZED RAT PACK CROWD from ALTERNET.

DO YOU DENY THAT?

DWIGHT
***********************************

Absolutely! You may not believe this, but I’ve NEVER, EVER even LOOKED at Alternet….I can’t tell you if it’s a dot-com or a dot-net web site.

I think you’re losing it, DB… You told me to “prove it”...prove what?  That you are another Frank Burns?  Isn’t it self-evident?

Report this

By truedigger3, April 6, 2009 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous wrote:
“truedigger3, I will be rude:  Go ‘F yourself.  If youse don’t like us, take a hike.”
___________________________________________________

I am sorry Sheno you revert to name calling and
obsceneties.  What happened to all that abstract logic and the tons of philosophy.  I didn’t hurl obsceneties and call you names . I am hurt Sheno.
If I can be of any help, please call.

Report this
Brooks's avatar

By Brooks, April 6, 2009 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

Dwight - How is this?
????? ??? ?????? ???????? ? ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????: ? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ?? ??????, ???’ ???? ?? ??? ??? ????.

OK I give up. Which is it? John 8:12 or John 9:39

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 6, 2009 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

ITW: Then again, I don’t know of any American philosophers other than Rand—I found philosophy majors to be the most impractical people in all academia—more so even than Creative Writing majors, so I didn’t study it. Are you saying there is something negative in the impractical?  Pure philosophy often yields the most creative pathways to the pragmatic insight into the practical cutting-through crapthinking.  When applied to the way societies think, it becomes applied philosophy, i.e., applied ethics, how people ought to behave towards one another and applied epistemology for what are the requisites for knowledge, such as what is sound evidence, and what is justified belief.
 
ITW’s defense of Ayn Rand is fascinating and understandable given the attractiveness of her theoretically amalgamated objective philosophy.  She must have sanctified the notion of simplicity as evidenced in pruning her last name Rosenbaum twice using the Russian slavic Cyrillic lettering in her revised first name taking the last three letters that resembles the Roman alphabet a.y.n., and then making the contraction Rand to produce her professional name.  But I think the notion of economy shows up in her philosophy as well.

Objectivism as a philosophical system, the name she constructed is a fusion of metaphysics (the study of reality beyond the natural world), epistemology (the study of knowledge), ethics (the study of moral values), and aesthetics (the study of sensory values).  Examining her philosophy I think is a worthwhile way to spend time if one is interested in sorting through perplexing ideas.  It does not mean her views ought to be accepted in totality even though that is what she demanded.  Criticisms of her philosophy, or ideology, include a strong challenge to Judeo-Christianity, which in of itself is not without merit, but her views include antithetically the right to life and individualism and anti-gay attitude provide her critics with ample reason to find fault.

I do not agree completely with her views of Objectivism because from my intuition it seems whatever is real is a blending of consciousness with an independently existing mental exterior, she thought otherwise.  I also disagree that contact by individuals with reality is independent of consciousness and can only be accessed through sensory perception.  While some provisional knowledge is gained through sense perception, it cannot be definitive because of the time element that happens from the moment of the sense perception to when the brain (that is, the mind) intuits it as having happened.  So reality is not known directly through the senses.  How one knows reality (The Truth) is always on a dependent basis.  The same goes for the other ideals known as the Good (ethics), and Beauty (aesthetics).  The insight of the real through no sensory input would be similar to the insight of mathematics where truth values are known through operational logic, a capacity for evaluation, and quantification using symbols known as numbers.  I am not saying reality can only be known that way.  Quite the contrary, I think sense perception holds an equal place in coming to terms with what there really Is.  Mainly because ultimately even an understanding of numbers can be found in perceiving to what numbers apply, that being phenomenal things in the world.  On the other hand, comparison is a mental, intellectual, non-sensing ability.  Proof otherwise is always welcome. 

That being said, how does that relate back to the existence of God and religion issue?  It seems religionists rely on the mental intuition factor and not on the scientifically verifiable sense perception of the objective world factor.  Without a blending of both, I find it impossible to believe “anything” exists, which by definition would include a God.

Report this
Brooks's avatar

By Brooks, April 6, 2009 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

Dwight - I looked up world in both hebrew and greek.
They do not look the same. So I am thinking….what were you getting at? lol

This is what I found for greek.
The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Found 7 entries matching: world
    English Translation   Original Word   Transliterated Word
1093   world   gh’  ge
165   world   aijwvn   aion
166   the world began   aijwvnioß  aionios
166   since the world began   aijwvnioß  aionios
2886   worldly   kosmikovß  kosmikos
2889   world   kovsmoß  kosmos
3625   world   oijkoumevnh   oikoumene

This is what I found for hebrew.
The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 5 entries matching: world
    English Translation   Original Word   Transliterated Word
02309   world   ldx   chedel
02465   world   dlx   cheled
05769   world   ~lw[  `owlam
0776   world   #ra   ‘erets
08398   world   lbt   tebel

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 6, 2009 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Arriving a little late, back from a hiatus from electronic existence (ala TD) to participate in real life (real being debatable), I almost fell off my computer chair in derisive laughter.  It was equal to a Jon Stewart skit.  Though I don’t think he ever claimed to be atheist, but I think he did say he was agnostic, Folktruther one of my favorite and intelligent opponents on TD, once we got past the infantile name-calling game, is giving approval to the virtues of those enrolled in that bizarre cultic diversion called Wiccanosis was truly over-the-edge funny.  Trading one supernatural being for another.  Agreed the current wiccans are rather benign and insipid and innocuous sort of like the teeniebopper goths, and ITW taking up discussion of the mixbagging of WPAH (Wiccaianism Paganism Atheism and Hedonism -  to give them all the same suffix ending thusly rendering them logically collectible as a group) is also laughable.  Through acknowledgement of the ‘grouping’ a false validity is given and promotes discussion thereof that often the imbalanced brings to a forum and lets you (‘you’ in the collective sense) fall into the trap the disturbed typically brings to life satisfying their fervent hopes, causing the most rational ones to soberly raise their eyebrows and squint their eyes.  Shall we just go with the idea that you two, FT and ITW, are pulling everyone’s leg whereas DWIGHT, with the sincerest intention, is not?  Shouldn’t DWIGHT simply be told to get a grip!?  Maybe the conversation is way past that point and on to other inanities?

The many, Night-Gaunt, appears to be lemminglike regardless of whether they are Democratic-Socialists or Right-Wing Christian Conservatives (the R-WCC), Fascist Communists or Nazis, unless they aberrantly developed an ungodly independent mind.  The tripe that happened in California, Prop 8, was engineered and paid for by the R-WCC Mormon groundfish of the religious multitudes.  The few, (GLBS) who really are many more than is imagined, are working on correcting that departure from sanity.

truedigger3, I, Shenonymous, will be the best snotty lecturer bitch there is!  (My own italicized embellishment).  Thank you for the compliment!  As you can well see, well maybe not in your sightlessness, many others have been trying to help DB with his linguistics and logic, ahs em snot alone!  And he is getting better, maybe or maybe not due to our didacticism.  He may not like me, but I am getting quite used to his rantings and he really is about the best at it that I’ve seen.  True to myself, and unlike others, truedigger3, I will be rude:  Go ‘F yourself.  If youse don’t like us, take a hike.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Night-Guant—How is Prop 8 “Democratic Socialism”??

Please explain…what was “socialist” about it?

Report this

By Doubtful, April 6, 2009 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So once again the religious feel the need to put out a publication in another vain attempt to prove that religion and science/modernity can coexist and indeed, belong together.  I assume that this book falls in line with the science council that the Pope has at his beck and call, as the church continues to change the bible and beliefs to try and fit in with mainstream society.

I understand the need, (not really), that many people have to believe in some unseen, unheard from, absentee parent of a god, but why can’t the religious just keep it to themselves?  Go forth and practice, whatever it is you practice, and leave the rest of us alone.  My life is just fine with no belief in any god, and I don’t need another attempt to try and prove that religion is necessary in today’s society.

If the religious are so weak and needy that common sense has left the building then great, but how about keeping your views and beliefs in the church or in your own home, where they belong.

But if you just can’t do that, forget trying that god and modernity are equals and coexist.  Please prove that this god of yours exists.  Forget the ridiculous arguement that “you have to have faith”.  Prove it.  Until that time, the only thing religion has brought the human race is misery, death, guilt and a hatred of others who do not fit the same mold as yourselves.

Report this

By Jonr, April 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It may be that the person sitting in the cubicle next to mine really is the returned Christ in human form, but chooses not to show it until the fullness of time.  Biblically or otherwise, can someone prove that this is NOT the case?
If not, why continue to argue about it.  God clearly exists in the minds of some folks, but not in the minds of others.  It’s not going to change soon, and there’s no point in being rude about it or in arguing.
You cannot “prove” the nonexistence of the Christian God or heaven, and more than you can prove the noexistence of Zeus or Achilles.

Humankind continues to undergo a metamorphosis, in that more and more of us every generation are developing the faculty of critical thought and actually questioning these things, and it’s unlikely this progression, once started, will suddenly stop… assuming we don’t blow ourselves up or something silly like that, which is finally looking less likely. 
Understanding our environment goes hand in hand with manipulating it, a fact we’re learning late.
In any case, people were put to death in Europe for this sort of talk not all that long ago, so we shouldn’t get cocky.  It’s going to take a while longer to get through to the other side of this particular step in our own evolution.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

No need to respond to Dwight anymore, he has his own world you don’t want to be drawn into. Pointless circular file of reiterated responses like a feed back loop. He even SHOUTS, so uncooth. Size of type nor number of words aren’t the criterion for intelligent conversation. A dictionary and thesaurus would help you better I think. I use them when needed.

Until people decide that others who do not follow their ‘truth’ can be allowed to live their own way we will have wars. Just look at pro 8 in California of that action. Democratic-Socialism at work by the many over the few for religious bigoted reasons. Disgraceful and a bad trend backward.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHT—???? You mean the poster from Texas?? Far from a “redneck”. What does TEX MEX mean, besides food…

Report this

By KDelphi, April 6, 2009 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHT—Redneck?! What kindve “crack(er)‘s that”??! (As Natl. Lampoon would say!) lol

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 6, 2009 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 6 at 4:33 pm #

MR MS IT INHERIT THE WIND

WORD COUNT IN WORD GOES LIKE THIS SO FAR 15

NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND.

I KNOW IT MUST BE HARD BUT JUST TRY HARDER

DWIGHT
************************

Nope. But if you are using “Word Count” in MS-Word then you simply prove yourself to be a pedant, who has gotten his count up by cutting and pasting the same things over and over and over again.

If you cut and paste a 10,000 word essay 14 times you haven’t written 140,000 words, you’ve still only written 10,000.  And if you copied 95% of it from other sources, then you’ve only written 500 words, which you are passing off as 140,000.

You really ought to go back and study your own bible a bit more, to learn humility and respect for others who differ from your views.  Your arrogance and over-confidence would be repulsive if it wasn’t so outlandishly inappropriate.

You remind me of Frank Burns—the one in the movie, played by Robert Duvall.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2009 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

Dogma of those who claim to know what is real and what is not usually quote from others or may have read though indoctrinations over time, little or no assimilation of thoughts or using of reason are apparent.  As nursery rhymes, they have a quaint entertaining value and possibly some historic value. When these stories become reality in the minds of the pious, those who do not believe are told to watch out?  Fear being used to make a point, is disgustingly inappropriate.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 6, 2009 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Yes Leefella, I was one of them. I don’t normally question one’s use of the language but his soliloquies (he ignores most queries for direct responses) went on and on with little discernible content till now. Even though I do wish he would of addressed my questions to him which were done in the spirit of information gathering not gratuitous attacks.

With the massive shift in general belief structure in the countries of Latin American, Asia and Africa moving Catholicism to a more aggressive, conservative, ‘primitive’ and mystic form of Christianity creating a theosophical schism of massive proportions developing in the world and it is almost gone unnoticed. We are speaking somewhere on the order of over a billion people!

One can have a Dark Age without losing some the the technology and engineering even as other areas will fall that are contentious with the reigning theosophy. Just look at those Muslim countries that use the latest tech but their social setting is no different than the 4th century A.D. The Dominionist movement here is much the same and they expressively reject Jesus and such passages as John 18:36 if not all of the “Apocalypse of John” in toto. Look up Assemblies of God and Joel’s Army as examples. Sara Palin’s connexions are marked to it. They want a corporate theocracy here and they are very close to getting it. They follow Calvin as much as they use Machiavelli as part of their ethos. Calvin was a ruthless dictator and as extreme as any Wahabi Imam. Expect things to get worse and more flagrant and violent actions to occur in the name of God, which isn’t a name anyway. Look it up. The Indo-European word ‘gheu’ which means to call the deity. We must stop it from happening here for the USA (or whatever it will be called) will be just another nuke armed fanatical nation threatening the world for converts and resources as they prepare the world to make it ready for JHVH’s return. [In their theosophy JHVH won’t return unless they have done the preparations right and not before.] Pre-millenialists that believe that if you are rich and powerful it is because their god blessed them and if not? You know that self serving mind set.

Report this

By PogueMahone, April 6, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

lastdaywatcher

Please take your bible quoting bs elsewhere.
what part of , “your god and his crappy book are all man made,” do you not understand?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 6, 2009 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 6 at 12:42 pm #

LEEFELLAR

You really know how to offend me in a red neck way my own words——I have over 140,000 words of my own words THANK YOU VERY MUCH in WORD. Those many words are all mine some are POSE some are not most are done in TEX/MEX but I have never used codes like the ONES WHO POST THE MOST use.  I find that a rude way to try and communicate sounds like some of the RAP or WHAT EVER ELSE they do these days to be secret while having their inside jokes, to chide, deride and make fun of others.  now down in LA some of the boys would say HAR THAR>>>>>>> GET THAT

GOT TO GO MORE TO DO ABOUT IMPORTANT STUFF——HAR THAR

DWIGHT

*****************************************

Make that 139,999 words….I doubt very highly DB that you have a vocabulary of 139,999 words, when total command of 3,000 is usually considered fluent in a language—and you don’t seem to be that fluent.

BTW, how would you go about counting those 139,999 words?????  Sounds VERY tedious and mistake-prone to me.  Do you count argot, buzzwords and slang?

Report this
lastdaywatchers's avatar

By lastdaywatchers, April 6, 2009 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

TruthDigger you wrote in response to my response that was directed to everybody but aim at Brooks, when I wrote

“Brook Are you saying that Paul, Peter Matthew Mark and Luke and are lying”

And then you wrote

“No, neither they nor their master were lying.
Some were seeing or imagined seeing what they were looking for, some were outright mental cases, some
were fed up with Roman cruelity and were looking for a change and latched on the new teachings etc etc etc..
Yes, the majority were really true believers but that doesn’t make what they believed in true and
real.

I hope you see how totally untenable you response is!

Because the fact of the matter is

They were lying or telling the truth, there is no other option

Because if, as you write

“Some were seeing or imagined seeing what they were looking for, some were outright mental cases, some, were fed up with Roman cruelity and were looking for a change and latched on the new teachings etc etc etc..”

That would still make them lairs because they preach someone who they seen come out of the grave, who they talk to and sat down to eat with, and then seeing him fly off into the Blue

If that did not occur they are LYING

BUT IF IT DID OCCUR WATCH OUT FOR THOSE WHO DENIES IT!!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2009 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

Criticism from Truthdigger3, may have missed several other posters who requested Baker be more diligent in his use of American English, I would add my thoughts support to them, though I did not write it, for that would be rude.

Actually Dwight has improved his ability to communicate as we can see in his response to you, may even be the first time he responded to a comment with an opinion of his own.

Report this

By truedigger3, April 6, 2009 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER,

It is very obvious form the prodigious amount of your
postings that you are using a lot of cut and paste
from your sources or many in your group are pitching in using your name.
You are hugging a lot of space here and wasting your and our time. Nobody is taking your rantings and drivel seriously.  You are barking at the wrong tree.
So, STFU and beat it to someplace else.

Report this

Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.