Jesus sucks.

God,I am so impressed with your vocabulary skills, pess! Germaine? How's this for religion: waking up every morning thanking Jesus Christ the bomb hasn't dropped. Like, from somewhere in the Mid East, because it's coming y'all.

I'm indifferent on the religious angle...I tend to gloss over or ignore those comments completely anyway. No it's the bullshit spewing wingnuts that are the real purposefully disruptive kind. As I don't equate the right to free speech to intentionally lying your ass off on a daily basis.

...from somewhere in the Mid East...

Like... ISRAEL???

All one has to do is look at who the world sees as being the nuclear terrorist right now, Mal. All those articles discussing the US threat to Iran - whether real or implied makes no difference. It's no different than if I were to follow the NRA advice and haul around a Colt on my hip - that is just as much a threat to those around me as aiming a nuke at someone, even if it isn't ignited.

We have the Bomb, we've used the Bomb, and George is seen as being willing to do so again. He already is as much a terrorist as he claims Ahmadinejad wants to become.

"No it's the bullshit spewing wingnuts that are the real purposefully disruptive kind. As I don't equate the right to free speech to intentionally lying your ass off on a daily basis."

Emal couldn't agree more. With freedom comes responsbility. This blog has allowed people to continually lie, continually disrupt, and continually attack, and all in the name of freedom. Like their leeder, there are no repercussions for their actions and we are forced to tolerate such bloggers. Here's the amusing part, I am told to stay on topic. What irony.

As far as religion, I have no problem with a discussion, when appropriate, on the viewpoints of the people here. What I do have a problem with are people are people like Bill, who are allowed, week after week, to post some bullshit. As all topics, there are two sides. An intelligent discussion about religion always brings something to learn by both side of the issue. However, I get very tired of being told that I am some poor misguided, crazy person because I do believe in God. For the posters here, not all of us are right-wing nut cases.
I am sure if I degraded you for not believing, I would be attacked from all sides.

We have the Bomb, we've used the Bomb, and George is seen as being willing to do so again. He already is as much a terrorist as he claims Ahmadinejad wants to become.

Pess: very true. We are rapidly becoming global nutbars.

Disruptive contentions of personal shortcomings?

I think that is how the regulars (War of God, etc) make sure that the threads don't stay on topic and elevate to any reasonable standard of dialogue.

In other words... it's not those who disagree with the main ideology of Steve Soto and gang, it's those who agree who are first to start throwing around the insults.

C H Truth, you know damn well that if you and others presented honest and truthful dialoque, the responses here might be very different.

Like I said yesterday, there are plenty of us who don't need the Bible to know not to do the things that are being done by our government in the name of religion. I just don't need a daily dose of brimstone, hellfire and damnation with a side of misogyny, a la scout. It does not matter what the topic, he always manages to relate everything to his patricular thesis of how the corpratocracy has destroyed this country because they do not fear God and how women need to be ladies, staying at home, raising babies and submitting to their men. I don't come to this web site to be called a whore because I happen to have a job and no kids.

truth you deserve nothing but insults..you sling bullshit around freely and expect us to tolerate it..your name is an oxymoron and you an asswipe...

Pessimist, we should probably just state outright that this is a tribunal about whether scout, or probably I, should be banned, rather than a discussion of how off topic the conversation is "allowed" to get. I think everyone might get a little leery of commenting if they're constantly wondering whether a comment to another commenter might be construed as OT or not. I readily admit I go off topic all the time, as does most everyone here, so yes, I can be considered a troll in that respect. I fully understand how truly mean I can be, so if you want to ban me on those grounds, I'll oblige without a problem.

My beef with scout isn't about his constant turning of every subject into an opportunity to witness the "good news" to the masses (which at one point, he admitted was his goal here). Still,if you've followed his comments over time, you'll have noticed that his philosopy is that the world is run by evil corporations that can never do good until they run things according to "true" biblical law, no matter the topic under discussion. Well, isn't that what Falwell has said? Would he be considered a troll? Ask scout if he thinks we deserved to have the twin towers knocked down because of lack of true believers, and see how many paragraphs it takes for him to agree to Falwell's assertions.

What I object strenuously to about scout is his offhand expressions of contempt for gays, his preferred term being "homosexual/pedophile," and his outright loathing for women, or as he put it "the perversion of women in authority" which may be why he calls any woman under discussion "whore." It is degrading, and it is troll-like, and it offends me, and I'm not easily offended. This is a pattern of conduct that, in any other forum would be considered spew from a right wing troll. He's been called on it by others besides me, and has not changed his attitude a whit.

As for my riff on mucky, so sue me. He was being a prick as always and deserves what he gets.

Now I'm late for work, so I'd better fly.

Ahh.. religion... the great divider. Its a shame that I have to remind myself on a regular basis that its the religion that I have problems with and not its followers.

On topic, off topic, only matters if its interesting.

I am sure if I degraded you for not believing, I would be attacked from all sides.

Posted by Judith at April 13, 2006 05:35 AM

Judith: do not let yourself be upset. You are a very good person, and nobody can change that.

Good shot, Ann. Thank you for expressing yourself.

Tempus

Please give me freedom from religion, not just freedom of religion. Aside from basic prohibitions against killing and stealing, and loving thy neighbor as thyself, the rest of it is pretty much irrelavent to me, and should be kept to oneself. Whenever anyone starts spewing religious dogma at me, I become quickly uninterested. Religiousity is just fine, as long as you keep it to yourslf.

Jesus still sucks.

That's great Steve.

Anyway...

It's not that I object to Scout, or anyone else, expressing religion in their comments. It's scout's disdain for women that I am really bothered by. The guy creeps me out and I can't imagine going through life thinking the way he does but it's his right to hold whatever beliefs he wants. But I'll take every opportunity I get to reject such lunacy.

I have participated a couple times in ostensibly political discussions in which some posters introduced specifically religious-based arguments.
There followed much consternation and derision.

I really am trying to respect both sides of social and political issues, and I appreciate that views are strongly held.

I am not personally opposed to examining religious ideas in the political context--especially now, since religion as an element of conflict worldwide is so apparent. In the past--when swords and arrows were doing all the damage---it might have been easier to dismiss the local nature of political/religious conflict. But it's global and immediate and connected today, and there are nuclear, chemical and bio-toxic triggers pull. I don't see how to exclude the arguments of religious people and I don't imagine we really want to.

It seems we want to have a more thoughtful exhange of ideas and debate. Some other blogs vote to exclude or include participants. I hate that, but if Left Coaster believes partisans are arguing only by shouting and name-calling, there doesn't seem to be much choice. And if partisans feel somebody puts "stupid" arguments, I can't say I have seen much reservation on anybody's part to tag it so.

However---as a mere occasional visitor and contributor to this site---don't see how things are so terribly out of order. Compared to other blogs, the dialogues here seem reasonably civil.

If the blog wants to become a simple chat room for inside information, jokes and good-fellowship---well, make it chat room. I think that would be a loss, but that is the other way to go.

Plain and simple, scout at times sounds like a complete...loon. It offends a lot of people on this thread. His rants on corporate satanism, misogynism, hatred of homosexuals and his constant referral to the history of religion, (which is usually wrong), are way over board compared to any other poster here.
I've seen his paragraphs without religion, or hatred for women. They can be concise and to the point. That is acceptable.

As far as muck goes, he deserves the dog pile! After all, he is our pet troll, as long as he keeps himslef clean and stops insulting our intelligence.

Who doesn't appreciate snarky, flippant one liners?

Change that dog's diet.
==============

bbtb: Good shot!!

Tempus

I see these people on TV send Pat Robertson money and he prays for them and miraculously boils and tumors and back aches and terrible menstrual cramps go away. Jesus doesn't even HAVE a PO Box! Where would you send HIM money to get rid of a boil? HMMM?!?! Take that Jesus! There's a word for someone without an address: homeless. And we know homeless people suck, especially Louisiana homeless people, just ask George Bush. So, get an address Jesus, or you you suck!

You guys get a load of Billmon's post April 11? Blasting the media's total uninterest in reporting the bunker busting nuking of Iran? Folks are calling into to local radio stations, terrified, finally saying what I've been saying for years: this mother fucker Bush can steal two elections, he can do anything he wants to and get away with it. Also, Rove is behind the Night of the Generals. Not for a minute do I believe these ass-saving officers are disgusted over Rummy's actions. If they were officers and gentlemen, they wouldn't have bent over in the first place!

Steve,

Do you write for SNL?

Dogmatic, incessant, proselytizers don't belong here. That is not the purpose of the blog. It is detracting, and as others have noted, often hateful and insulting. There are blogs for that, if that is your bag, which is fine. Just do it where you are invited or wanted.

Conversely, occasional and RELEVANT references to religion of any type should be welcome, in my view.

and Jesus does not suck! His religious ballistic, shove it down your throat, roast in hell, turn or burn, holier than thou, preachy, in your face, hate other groups, use the bible to justify their own predjudice and bigotry followers (the fucking fake Christians) do SUCK!

Cyt, njy yr blty t btflly plc thghts t ppr. Ys, mk n scrt f pntng twrd th trth f th Bbl. ndd, f wrkd fr whrmngr, lk Bsh, wld tll hm p frnt tht srvd Jhvh. wld d dntclly wth whr lk, vn, Hllry. (n ncnt tms, rlrs klld t gt ths typ f cnslr: thy wntd smn thy cld trst, thy ddn’t wnt sm dt tllng thm wht thy thght th rlr wntd t hr. D y s?) ls, ny tht dny th sprtl Trth f th Bbl s sprtl ‘whr,’ nd ths tht lv fls gspls f ths whrs r ‘whrmngrs.’ ncnt whrsh hypcrts trd t cvr thr dd sprtl vls f dcy wth pprng prpr, mch s n rnt srcphgs, bt whch s flld wth th crrptn f dth. B dvsd tht r mdrns pblcly flnt thr lv f dth by glrfyng ll spcts f scl dgrdtn. Tht s, pblc dsply f thr dprvty rflcts thr dd nnr slf.

Pls nt tht d nt pnt fngrs t nyn. dn’t lk t y, nn r thrs nd try t tll thm bt thr vl ntr. Hwvr, cnstntly pnt t tht r vry ntr s vl. My ntr s s vl s vry ns. sspct tht th mnd f dm ws t lst s pwrfl s ny mdrn lp-tp cmptr; mdrn mn s rtrdd whn cmprd t pst mn; th rslt s tht mnstrm thnkng mbrcs th fls blf tht r bsc ntr s ‘gd.’ n 13,000 yrs f hmn hstry y wll nt fnd n cltr tht blvd n ths glrfctn f dprvty, (mn; thy nvntd gd-lk mn, bt stll wr flwd). Lk t r thrd; lthgh rvld nt n prsn, ws dspsd, vn by ths wh wld blv thmslvs t b ‘tlrnt,’ r, ‘gd,’ r, dr Lrd, ‘lvng!’ nyhw, nc tr Chrstnty ws dstryd, th nw rlgn f ‘sclr hmnsm’ prppd ts ntn f mn’s bsc gdnss s sbsttt t th Trth. Pls nt tht ths s pr Blshvk thry. Mrx cldn’t g nywhr wth mn’s bsc ntr bng dprvd. S h mbrcd Rss’s cncpt f mn’s bsc ntr s ‘gd.’ Ths s hw w gt cmmnsm nd ll ‘lbrl’ ds tht fld t s th Bbl s n nsgn. ndd, mdrn rgnzd chrchs wr vctms t ths fls gspl s wll, (thy blv tht mn hs ngh ‘gd’ t fnd Gd wtht hlp; ths s ttlly wtht Bblcl mrt).

Pls rmmbr tht rtnly nnhlt rgnzd ‘Chrstn’ rlgn. Th lk f Flwll, nd hs ‘Chrstn’ chrt f nt-Chrstsm, hdng bhnd th Bbl, r nthr bstn f dcptn nd cnfsn rmpnt thrght hmn hstry f th pst 13,000 yrs. Thr s vrtlly zr dffrnc btwn r tsd Bbylnn cltrs nd th stff tht gs n wthn th mdrn chrch sb-cltr. nd ths s th rslt f r pst crprt plcs tht ld t th frgmnttn f th scl nstttn f rlgn.

‘Msgmy,’ htrd f mrrg, nd ‘msgyny,’ htrd f wmn, s mst dfntly nt m. ’v bn mrrd t th sm wmn fr vr 30 yrs. nd lv wmn; wmn mks mn cmplt. Nvrthlss, rlzd tht ws wrng t prmt wmn s ql t mn whn yngr. s ws nrvlng th Trth f th Bbl, rlzd tht Jhvh md s wth n nhrnt chn-f-cmmnd: Chrst, mn, wf, nd thn chldrn. ’m rnnng lng, bt th rsn wmn hv hgh mtnl pk s t gv thm th blty t kck btt t mny lvls drng vrydy lvng strsss. Mthrs r cnstntly djstng t dvlpng chldrn. t tks lt f mtnl sprkng nd slf-dscpln t mt ch dy wth nw dvlpmnts. Th dwn sd t wmn’s mtnlsm cms t n th pblc rlm. Thy mbrc vry sngl ‘nw’ ntn, nd rn frm ny thrtnng prck: f n ‘mtn’ ln! ’m rnnng lng, bt rmmbr nt t tk nythng sy prsnlly. m wrtng t th nstttnlzd lvl; tht s, th mnd-st, prdgm lvl f bx-thnkng.

Pss, s y lrdy knw, blgs r prbbly th lst bstn f tr dmcrcy, nd tht n prd whn th mnstrmrs dn’t knw th dfntn f ‘dmcrcy.’ Thnks gn fr bng thr.

Btbb - "Who doesn't appreciate snarky, flippant one liners?"

Bendito, who usually posts . . you guessed it, one-liners. I can't label them snarky, more like hate speech. All while maintaining that wholier-than thou and educated to boot mentality that George Will cultivates so well.

As such - I consider him George and Ann Coulter's bastard love child. And a fun troll because he drops in, shits, and walks back out leaving us to our topic of main discussion.

Scout . . someone said somthing about Thorazine yesterday about Scout and his lucid vs. demented periods . . thing is, it's entirely appropriate. Scout makes perfect sense one moment then flips out the next ranting on one of his religiously induced beliefs. If anyone has been a poster child of 'distorted' - my wife's favorite euphamism for whacked - it's Scout. As such, I have to question our safety.

Scout also makes me extremely reluctant to talk about Methodist-ism (to which I'm born and wedded to) and Deism, my compromise betwixt Christianity and some semblance of a non-distorted reality. I don't wish to push everyone's patience.

And both Coyote and I are pretty guilty for being friendly trolls. Eh. But we do contribute from time-to-time.

Mal - "Folks are calling into to local radio stations, terrified, finally saying what I've been saying for years: this mother fucker Bush can steal two elections, he can do anything he wants to and get away with it."

I read that Billmon post too and I'm still digesting it - because if there's anything we should be doing as bloggers or internet participants, its pushing those thoughts the Billmon articulated so damn well. I know Coyote made a note of linking to it on Low & Left, but I haven't looked in on ths discussion since last night. I've lost my access to L&L during the day this last week because the firewall was updated with new information - we apparently say fuck too often. (Now you know why I haven't posted too much in the last week.)

What "wild speculation" is all about.

So whaddya do? Stomp on their ants?
========================

Thanks, scout, for proving my position.

oppressmenot, you said it better than I could or did. Oaklander, too.

Mal, I share your urgency about the renewed terror of leaders threatening nuclear war yet again, especially since it's our "leader" doing the threatening.

idio - The horror! A post without "fook" is like a day without...uh...fooking. (will that get past the firewall?) On your other point, I have to say I really believe scout is a schizophrenic, I've dealt with them before and am familiar with writing patterns. In which case, I should be taken to task for being mean to a disabled person. I admitted I was a meanie, and yes, I do feel bad about it.

Judith, pessimist did apologize in that earlier thread after I questioned his shortness with you. And although I don't believe in gods (or humans, for that matter) I try not to be offensive to other people's beliefs; I know I fail sometimes, and if I've ever offended you, that's not my wish.

Dogmatic, incessant, proselytizers don't belong here. That is not the purpose of the blog. It is detracting, and as others have noted, often hateful and insulting. There are blogs for that, if that is your bag, which is fine. Just do it where you are invited or wanted.

I think that's what beliefnet is all about.

Conversely, occasional and RELEVANT references to religion of any type should be welcome, in my view.

Completely agree.

Scout: you are getting stranger all the time. Please place your head in the toilet, where it belongs. I have nothing but sympathy for your wife of thirty years. I do not understand how she could put up with you.

tempus - maybe 'cos she's mummified in a chair in the basement, speaking to norman, I mean scout, through esp?

shit, there I go again being mean...

Iamcoyote: I don't know, but nothing would surprise me with this psycho.

More horror has been brought to suffer humanity in the name of religion than any thing else.

Not border disputes; not passion; not drugs; and not even empire.

Religion is (in my view) a very dangerous force.

I don't get to read this blog often enough, and I have posted very infrequently. I have encountered scout and muckdog and others occasionally. I take it this discussion refers to a suggestion that the despicable scout and some others might be banned. I have no opinion on that. Even if scout's name doesn't appear in my comment window, I can identify his post after about 10 words, and can know to skip to the next commenter.

One plea: Don't title posts like this "First Amendment Zone". Don't refer to free speech and "constitutionally guaranteed rights" when talking about posting or posters on internet blogs. The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with scout's, or anyone's, ability to post on Steve Soto's blog. Perhaps you think that banning posters has something to do with tolerance, comity, diversity, fairness, or practicality, but it has nothing to do with constitutional rights. No one has a constitutional right to post on anyone else's blog, and banishment of scout, a outcome devoutly to be wished for, does not offend the First Amendment.

Nice point Merle, but the amendment only codified a principle of intellectual discourse.
==========================

"Nice point Merle, but the amendment only codified a principle of intellectual discourse."

Well, that's my point. If it's about a principle of intellectual discourse, let's say so. "Constitutional rights" talk in this context ends up trivializing those rights and aggrandizing the weirdness that is scout-speak.

I got your point, and I like it, nonetheless, my point was that 'free speech' can be referred to in the context of internet blogging.
===================================

kim's here, check please!

And then again, the First only guarantees freedom of speech in public, not in private. Are blogs public or private? Is the internet public?
======================

I'll freely call a technical on that yellow spine card from the spitter above.
=============================

oh, bbtb, that was funny!

Merle, hear, hear. I've made that point on other blogs as well, when the trolls have tried to tout the 1st amendment. Blogs are little dictatorships, by necessity, and we've been graciously allowed to participate in this one. Pessimist has kindly opened the discussion to the community for input, but he has the ultimate right to decide how his threads will be conducted. Being the crank that I am, I tend to push the outside of the annoyance envelope much of the time, but I understand what Pessimist, and Steve Soto and the others say goes.

Goddam it, we were doing so well ignoring kim, too.

Scout: Pess, as you already know, blogs are probably the last bastion of true democracy, and that in a period when the mainstreamers don’t know the definition of ‘democracy.’ Thanks again for being there.

Amen, Brother Scout. I think the powers that be here, who God allows to run this blog, should grant you the right to create blog posts right along side Soto, Pmist and Errorposte.

Judith: C H Truth, you know damn well that if you and others presented honest and truthful dialoque, the responses here might be very different.

Judith, it depends on what your definition of "honest and truthful" is. Try a wiki lookup.

CH Truth In other words... it's not those who disagree with the main ideology of Steve Soto and gang, it's those who agree who are first to start throwing around the insults.

Ya think?!?!??!?!?!

My opening salvo today is that I think Democrat Steve Westly might make a fine governor for CA. Arnold has had his ideas shot down, and I think his tank is empty. Angiledes is a little tax happy, and I think if he wins the primary, then Arnold will cruise to victory in November. Westly might have a shot.

I knew if I sqeaked loudly enough you'd bring the herd around, My Best Friend.
===============================

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion

Seems to me that if the "goal" is to disrupt the flow of discussion, then it is up to the people who wish to follow the thread and stay on topic and go with the flow to ignore the bait.

I know, I know. I too am extremely offended by the anti-women remarks and the twisting of religion.

It is very difficult to avoid the baiting when it comes to incessant lies and misinformation and downright attacks on women and homosexuals. When someone uses a book of prose to twist their arguments I find it very hard to take them seriously.

This is my opinion, but I have heard it shared by many scholars, the bible is a fucking metaphor - it is not fact. It was written by people and people are fallible and have personal agendas, even people from 2000 years ago.

My greatest prejudice is against religious freaks. I know, I am working on it. It is not very tolerant. But, if someone claims to be "Christian" I think that they should follow the teachings of Christ, which as I understand it, are Love and tolerance. If these are the teachings of the religion that these people are supposed to be practicing, then their actions and their words are contrary and I feel it in my right to point that out. To me, it is more lies and more hypocrisy.

Now, when the thread does not have shit to do with the "bible" or "religion" it has been hijacked and we go straight back to the goal of the troll: disrupt the flow of discussion.

I too can scroll right past the posts of the freaks, and I most often do, but I also feel entitled to point out when I have been attacked - which, as a woman, I take personally.

Perhaps I should not, and I should rise above the lies and twisted thinking, sometimes, though, I feel it irresponsible to allow misinformation, hatred, biggotry and intolerance to stay written without combating it.

Personally I feel that organized religion is one of the most dangerous things ever to happen to this world. Faith, Love, Tolerance - these are good, but these are twisted and people take things out of context and people kill over their one true religion. I see persons who do not align themselves with a particular church far more religious in their actions than those who allow the preacherman to tell them how to think, act and vote.

As for religion and politics - there need be a wall and it need be the strongest and thickest and without any bricks removed. The intention was that support of anyone particular religion would by default prejudice against another religion.

Church leaders supported Hitler and the Nazi movement. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I go by people's actions not by their self-imposed labels of how good they are because of what 'religion' they are.

Duckbog: Bluest LA will violaesce for the Barbarian.
================================

It may even blush for Bush.
================

Well, I guess we were done anyhow, we'll leave you two kids to sniff each other's butts, then, shall we? Mucky, one word - jailbait.

When your smeller leaves, you're just doggone.
============================

There, you see? Just as civil as you please!

I ain't sniffin' anyone's butt but I know shit when I sees it and "Also, any that deny the spiritual Truth of the Bible is a spiritual ‘whore,’ and those that love false gospels of these whores are ‘whoremongers.’"
is some kinda bullshit that I don't think deserves to be seen outside some freak's church sessions if he's lucky enough to have found a congregation who believes that claptrap.

Bravo Sharon!

I've found when debating the relative merits of religion it's easier just to say "Jesus sucks". The only mongers worth dealing with are fish.

Thanks, gtash, I forgot to include your comments in my thanks, but I do appreciate your humor. As Jolly Sapper said above "On topic, off topic, only matters if its interesting." I'll add fun as well.

Just a few comments on this "religious thread"...
First Anjha your right ...."organized religion is one of the most dangerous things ever to happen to this world."
But people -- like you (and others) tend to form opinions what one "religion" believes or "follows" based upon "sound bytes" or ramblings of one or more people .... rather than "learning of it from the horses mouth so to speak". For example you say ...."teachings of Christ, which as I understand it, are Love and tolerance." While the "historical Jesus" did teach and display LOVE .... he was not very tolerant. Check out everything he had to say (and did)to the "religious leaders" of his day -- that was not tolerant.
We all (including myself) need to watch the assumptions we make about someone else's belief system...if we have not specifically studied it. Sound-bytes really do not allow a full understanding of that belief system.
But again ...."organized religion " is down right dangerous....as history shows.

KJS, you're correct. It is not so much 'sound bytes' that I am speaking of. It is my methodology of smorgasboarding my own personal practices. I have 'studied' many different philosophies and religions. I pick and choose that which rings true for me. That is where I get the "Love and Tolerance" - but I was not there and I do not attend church and am not indoctrinated with any formal teachings.

I read. I pick what my gut tells me is a truth.

My beliefs are eclectic and most closely follow Native American and Pagan tradition of being in tune with Nature. Even these I do not follow in any ritualistic sense.

I simply attempt to align myself with what sits well in my gut. I believe that, excepting sociopaths, every human and probably every creature is born with a sense of connectedness and an understanding of what is right and wrong. Even morals, however, can be different among people - to someone it may be OK to step on a bug, to others not. I won't step on a bug outside, but if I feel a spider is going to get me in my house I will kill it. See - morals flux. But I do not feel that any external teachings are necessary to 'instill' moral values.

I feel the opposite. I believe that dogma and indoctrination destroys what is naturally there from birth. It destroys and makes question a child's truth sensor. A child knows that murder is wrong. They just know it. Then a religious leader tells them that murder is OK in the name of 'god'. That kind of shit will fuck people up.

That is what I am opposed to.

I believe that, excepting sociopaths, every human and probably every creature is born with a sense of connectedness and an understanding of what is right and wrong. Even morals, however, can be different among people - to someone it may be OK to step on a bug, to others not. I won't step on a bug outside, but if I feel a spider is going to get me in my house I will kill it. See - morals flux. But I do not feel that any external teachings are necessary to 'instill' moral values.

I don't agree with you there. I think a sense of correctness and right/wrong has no place in human nature. It is all learned from the day we are born. What you identify as "morals flux" occurs as a result of the often minute differences in each of our individual life experiences. Everything that we observe in our lives constitutes an external teaching. The fact that you have an aversion to killing bugs while many others do not is a result of something or things that you learned over the course of your life. Sociopaths have some internal defect that prevents them from internalizing these external influences.

We are animals. No different than any other animal until we begin to be "indoctrinated", if you like the term, by external influences.

I have already admitted to being an infernal optimist.

I do not believe in "original sin" and I do not believe that "people are inherently bad".

I believe that people are inherently good and that we are designed to go with the flow of Nature. Yes, I believe that our instincts are that of survival: eating and procreation and preservation. But I do not believe that our base instincts are necessarily in conflict with our inherent morals.

I believe that "community" coincides with survival. That humans will come together and work together to survive more so than selfishly live only for themselves. As a matter of intellect humans understand that working together for common good increases survival rather than going it alone. Humans understand that working with Nature to cultivate the earth and respect the earth leads to more survival and long-term survival than does raping the earth.

If a person has any ability to think about the long-term then they inherently understand community and the necessity of community for survival. This will override animal instinct.

I believe that people are inherently good...

But "good" is a social construct. There is no "good" or "bad" in Nature.

I believe that "community" coincides with survival. That humans will come together and work together to survive more so than selfishly live only for themselves. As a matter of intellect humans understand that working together for common good increases survival rather than going it alone.

The survival instinct is strong in all animals. Our advanced intellect has allowed us to figure out, for quite selfish reasons many would maintain, that we can help ourselves survive by working with others as opposed to working against them. But there are those who learn a much different lesson. They learn that they must fight for everything they can get for themselves. How one goes about affecting ones survival depends upon what one has learned.

If a person has any ability to think about the long-term then they inherently understand community and the necessity of community for survival. This will override animal instinct.

But there are animal populations that understand the importance of community. And animals do think long term. Animals store food for times when food will not be available. That's the most obvious example of that. But none of it has anything to do with concepts of good or bad. The instinct to survival is itself the strongest of animal instincts. Advanced human intellect has resulted in a myriad of ways that humans have sought to ensure their survival. Living in community, organized religious belief systems and concepts of "good" and "bad" are all elements in what we have developed toward that end.

to kim at 9:29 a.m.:

At the risk being pedantic (duh!), I have to point out that it is incorrect to say the First amendment protects speech in public and not speech in private. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of speech from interference by the state ("Congress shall make no law...") If a blogger bans a poster or places restrictions on speech in any way, that is private action and triggers no First Amendment issue. Granting that blogs are "public" because they are open to all on the internet, bloggers nevertheless are not State (government) actors.

I'll shut up now.

Except to say... what I find most distressing is the idea that I have to respect speech that is otherwise repulsive or inane or mendacious just because the speaker professes religious faith. I'm tired of deferring to religionists.

How one goes about affecting ones survival depends upon what one has learned.

Game theory, anyone?

Game theory, anyone?

Personally I think mutton is best rubbed down with a mixture of garlic, coriander, chili powder, black pepper, salt and olive oil and grilled over an open fire.

Damn sign in/sign out crap.

That was me.

It can't be off topic on an open thread, can it?

Well, lookee here. I got an email from Louise Slaughter, that has a link to her blog about "legislative effort to curb insider trading in Congress."

So I was wrong when I wrote they were criminals for insider trading. It's legal if you're president, er, a congresscritter or senator. That stinks.

Stopping Insider Trading in Congress ...

Merle: Yeah. Duh.

Snark: Any thoughts on why community works less well the larger the number?
==================================

kim, Because your that one added person that makes it too large.

Judith: do not let yourself be upset. You are a very good person, and nobody can change that.

Tempus, thanks. I like to think so anyway. However, I do get bent out of shape occasionally

SOS, even mucky wouldn't play with that idiot, that should tell you something. Recall dipshit; do you really want to do that again?

snark, I'm with you on the question of inherent morality. It's a learned response. Sociopaths like mucky and crappy and Bush have learned how to pretend morality to get along in the world, if they followed their real instincts, they would end up in jail, and that's what they don't want. Instead, they use their lack of empathy to be more ruthless in whatever they've chosen to do, which makes it easier to get what they want out of life. I'd be willing to bet a lot of CEOs are undiagnosed sociopaths, who have stepped over a lot of people to amass a lot of money. Unless they break the law, they're never diagnosed, because they see nothing wrong in their disdain for anyone's needs but their own. That's why ann is so often frustrated with mucky's lack of empathy. I really wish humans were inherently good, Anjha, but I just don't believe it, and research suggests it isn't likely.

But "good" is a social construct. There is no "good" or "bad" in Nature.

********
Snark, this is an interesting statement. You have made several good points.

I would have to say that even some of the great scientists recognized that there was an order to science and to Nature beyond the explainable.

Yes, good and bad are social constructs - but there is an order and a reason and definate design to everything that occurs. Forest fires are 'bad' because they destroy things says the people whose homes were destroyed or the animals who lost their lives, but they are 'good' because they clean out the dead undergrowth and break open the seeds of the new trees so that the cycle can continue.

Everything that I wrote, all of my beliefs, stem from core beliefs that I have. So my writings are from bias and are not 'fact' but instead are experience based: you are correct on that point. However, much of my experience I believe to be innate rather than learned.

I believe in Divine order and I believe in Chaos Theory.

If I were "Christian" I would say that "God" creates this Divine order (but then I might also say all kinds of wacky shit like original sin, etc.) If I were a Deist, I would say that the Deity creates all of this Divine order. If I were a practicing Native American, I would say Great Spirit. So forth and so on. As an Athiest I would say that everything can be explained via science and fact and what cannot is "unproven" and therefore does not exist.

However, I am some kind of Agnostic. As I said, my beliefs are eclectic, so therefore, all of my opinions on all of this are based on that. I have a ton of bizarre beliefs that can't be categorized into any on particular faith or religion or philosophy.

So - all of my arguments came from that place.

What I can say is what I have witnessed and what I remember.

I always knew of a greater consciousness and a greater order. This was not 'taught' where I grew up and was not witnessed; it was felt. I have also seen this in my child. He knew of the existence of some great order, also not taught or indoctrinated.

I do believe that many people are born with this and express it when they are given the freedom. Boxing in Spirituality based on one particular dogma or teaching via a church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever, squashes the Natural instinct that people have towards this.

I believe that all religion was created to explain the unexplainable (the god's made the lightening come...) and to control people (if you do x, y, z you'll be in trouble with god).

I believe that connection with Nature and higher consciousness are Natural occurences.

The instinct to survival is itself the strongest of animal instincts. Advanced human intellect has resulted in a myriad of ways that humans have sought to ensure their survival. Living in community, organized religious belief systems and concepts of "good" and "bad" are all elements in what we have developed toward that end.

Posted by snark at April 13, 2006 01:06 PM

Snark, I want to believe that "community" is based on human empathy and the Natural inclination towards common good. The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

That is how I approach my "theories" - based on what I want to believe.

Trust me, I am not naive and I am no stranger to the awfulness and evilness and great horror that can come from people and their actions. I understand cruelty.

I have a whole lot of theories on where that comes from as well. However, I do not "blame" the devil or sin or whatever other label that people put on abhorrent behavior to take away personal responsibility. I do not believe that people are victims. Especially not victims to some external 'evil' force.

I truly believe that people are capable of rising above whatever selfishness and past cruel behavior that they have participated in and become Loving and productive members of society.

Spitball: Interesting thesis with some empirical data. Ask Opie.
======================================

Couple of quick things

Feingold will be in Austin, TX on Tuesday. I would love to go, unfortunately that's a bit far away for me. Hopefully someone will read this who can attend.

LCV needs people to sign these letters to demand that the EPA not lower clean air standards. Some people like to breathe, can't imagine why.

It's my opinion that the perversion of religion is it's doomed attempt to organize spirituality.
==============================

Thus Spake Zarathustra.

I always knew of a greater consciousness and a greater order. This was not 'taught' where I grew up and was not witnessed; it was felt. I have also seen this in my child. He knew of the existence of some great order, also not taught or indoctrinated.

I'm not trying to trivialize your beliefs Anjha. I hope you don't think that.

Simply offering an opposing viewpoint.

Where you see inherent knowledge I see a very complex human brain being put to use to try and make sense of a complex world. You might not consciously see it happening but your child is exposed to all sorts of external stimuli that influence the development of who we are and what we think. It does not have to be as overt as a preacher reading verse from a Bible. You speak about a great order. Well that's what our brain does. It puts things in order. I have a sense that what many perceive as some force external to themselves is in fact a higher level of intelligence within their own brain that they feel is somehow foreign because they can't understand it. I believe that the "idiot savant"
phenomenon is related to this. Their disfunctional brains have a very limited ability to deal with a very limited set of stimuli. So focused that to average people it is incomprehensible how they do the things they do. I think our sense of something beyond ourselves eminates from that level of our brain. However minimally we may utilize it. I like to think of it as a piece of computer software that operates in the background without concsious input from you while you go on with your daily life.

Complex systems break down more easily than simpler ones because there are more opportunities for something to go wrong in a complex system.

"Judith, pessimist did apologize in that earlier thread after I questioned his shortness with you. And although I don't believe in gods (or humans, for that matter) I try not to be offensive to other people's beliefs; I know I fail sometimes, and if I've ever offended you, that's not my wish."

Iamcoyote, you have never offended me, as that doesn't appear to be your nature (as long as you are not a troll LOL). I guess my problem is with people who state something as fact, when it is really their opinion or some delusional wish. For instance, Bill will tell us that the Bible is a hoax. He has absolutely no proof of that (although I understand that McCain does). I also have a problem with people who lump us all into one steaming pot of lunacy.

Today, it is nearly impossible to not incorporate religion into a discussion, but remember it is religion, not God. You can thank Karl Rove for that.

"I have a whole lot of theories on where that comes from as well. However, I do not "blame" the devil or sin or whatever other label that people put on abhorrent behavior to take away personal responsibility. I do not believe that people are victims. Especially not victims to some external 'evil' force."

Anjha, absolutely right. Life = choices. It's just that simple. No one is a victim when it comes to evil. It is a choice to follow evil. Bush is a good example.

"But people -- like you (and others) tend to form opinions what one "religion" believes or "follows" based upon "sound bytes" or ramblings of one or more people .... rather than "learning of it from the horses mouth so to speak". For example you say ...."teachings of Christ, which as I understand it, are Love and tolerance." While the "historical Jesus" did teach and display LOVE .... he was not very tolerant. Check out everything he had to say (and did)to the "religious leaders" of his day -- that was not tolerant.
We all (including myself) need to watch the assumptions we make about someone else's belief system...if we have not specifically studied it. Sound-bytes really do not allow a full understanding of that belief system.
But again ...."organized religion " is down right dangerous....as history shows."

KJS, thank you so much for saying what I could not have said better. The same warnings to the early churches are as applicable today as centuries ago. Christ had only one message for mankind and that message was love. It's that simple. As in all things in life, there are always those who subvert the true meaning of the message.

I'm not trying to trivialize your beliefs Anjha. I hope you don't think that.

Simply offering an opposing viewpoint.

sez Snark

No you weren't and I did not take it that way.

You are being civil and having a true discussion. You know, "this is how I feel/think and this is how you feel/think". Rational and civil and not demanding that your way of thought is the only right way.

Because you have spoken to me in this way I have listened and thought about what you have had to say.

You have not changed how I deeply feel but you have offered me a different perspective on some of my beliefs. I know that I am completely idealistic. Too many years of being cynical and believing the worst about everything has led me to become idealistic. One must have some hope or what is the purpose?...

Which completely proves your point that Spiritual beliefs are a way of mind-fucking ourselves so that we can survive in this twisted and intolerable world.

Ah..."Whatever gets you through the night."

Complex systems break down more easily than simpler ones because there are more opportunities for something to go wrong in a complex system.

Posted by snark at April 13, 2006 06:56 PM

Completely explains increased prescribing of psych meds.

"Whatever gets you through the night, it's alright, it's alright."

Judith

If your still checking in on this thread, I apologize if I hurt your feelings earlier.

Posted by pessimist at April 11, 2006 08:43 PM

ACCEPTED.

Anjha,

Hope you're still scrolling down here.

I have no reason to be anything but civil. I have a hard time understanding why anyone comes here with the intent to instigate conflict rather than to simply engage in an honest exchange of ideas. I have no agenda here. I respond in kind to how people present themselves on these threads.

As far as beliefs go I'm a Roman Catholic. But I'm not so narrowminded or uninquisative that I can't advance an idea that calls into question my own personal beliefs in the interest of engaging in a converstation that could be mutually beneficial to all participants. It helps me clarify my own beliefs. I'm not threatened by ideas that conflict with my own. And I know that my ideas are not the be all and end all. We all have much to learn from each other and it's a shame when people are too close minded to accept that.

Cheers.

As far as beliefs go I'm a Roman Catholic. sez Snark

Now that is funny!

I was reading your arguments as tho you were an Athiest.

Perhaps just playing Devil's Advocate?! (HA)

I too like to discuss to explore my beliefs. As I told someone when I first started posting here, and battling trolls, that I just did not understand why I could not discuss opposing views with these people civilly, why I could not have a rational discussion. I do with my friends in person. None of my friends have exactly the same views as me on everything - as they should not.

It was really mind blowing to me that I was unable to have that type of discussion with the trolls.

That is what you and I were able to do.

Thank you.

Anjha

Perhaps just playing Devil's Advocate?! (HA)

Less playing devil's advocate than being comfortable enough with who I am and what I believe to explore alternatives.

My pleasure.