Comments on Negreanu's recent blog?

[vhawk01]

Damn, was hoping this wouldn't get moved. There were some people posting in this thread that never come to SMP.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

"Wow, I can google and find fringe groups as well but I will just list an objective source and let the reader determine if the criticisms override her accomplishments."

Then if I ever decide to google fringe groups I'll look you up. Unfortunately the information provided was not generated or published by "fringe groups" (not that if they were that fact would automatically discount the information...recall that Iran Contra was first reported by a "fringe group").

The sad thing is, so many people have this starry-eyed image of MT based on soapy "documentaries" and flaccid, make-nice reporting. The reality of her clinics was/is much different, but clowns such as yourself will cling to her aprons to the bitter end and beyond.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
The sad thing is, so many people have this starry-eyed image of MT based on soapy "documentaries" and flaccid, make-nice reporting. The reality of her clinics was/is much different, but clowns such as yourself will cling to her aprons to the bitter end and beyond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except there's no "beyond".

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't care how you rationalize it, Christianity is the target du jour of today's secular society. While you say there is no imminent danger, that could very well change tomorrow, or maybe next year. Doesn't matter, because it will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cary,

Every year that the New England Patriots run up to the Super Bowl, they start complaining that they are not getting enough respect from the media. What they do is find the one blowhard on whatever talk show in East Nowhereville, the guy who said that they are "overrated", and then they post his comments on the bulletin board and rage about him forever. And they say the media hates them. Your claims of persecution remind me of that.

Yes there are idiot secularists. They are small in number. There are idiots everywhere. It is not a trend.

[LSE_Ginger]

[ QUOTE ]

I welcome the absolutes that the Bible brings. It doesn't leave me groping through life having to "lean" on whatever philosophies I end up scraping together along the way. It allows for principles that are not "up for debate" because they are tied to an omniscient Creator rather than a humanistic, agenda diven indoctrination. I choose to put my faith here, others don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, the Bible bringing absolutes? Have you read the thing? Now I will admit that I havent gone from cover to cover, but I went to a Catholic school from 4-18 (although I managed to remain true to my own beliefs no matter what tactics they tried) and we spent a lot of time talking about it. First of all, without taking into question those who wrote the thing, there is a marked difference between the Old and the New testament, from "I will smite you" and "Eye for an Eye" to the "I will forgive you" and "Turn the other cheek". The evolution of this change can be tracked with the changing of several sociological factors, including the fact that there were more of us, living in closer proximity, and so the "Eye for an Eye" thing was getting messy.

Secondly, when you do start to take into account who wrote the Bible and why, you can clearly see some of the modern day media tricks involved. Lots of people got together to decide what to include, what to leave out and what to change. Changing Mary Magdalene from a apostle to a whore for instance, due to the prejudice against women.

Now I know you went on to say you dont take in the preachy crap anymore, and realise that you cant always trust humans to teach the word of God properly. Well guess what, every word you read, all of your "rigid" rules were written, or at the very least "filtered" through man.

The Bible, and Christianity itself, has lasted so long, and is so wide spread, because of its ability to adapt to the sociological changes around us. The God of the Old Testament would have killed us all by now, The God of the New Testament would forgive us but but still be a bit irritated, and then you have the branches of modern day Christianity, with your Born Agains e.t.c. Not to mention the breaking off of the protestant movement and the churches spawned from that.

My point is, that "wishy washy" humanistic values are at least as constant as Christianity. There are the core beliefs of "be nice" but everything else is up for change.

And also, to say that because I dont believe in God means that I dont have a set of rules is a little silly, as is the assumption that because I am an atheist it means that I take longer to come to the same conclusions that a chilled out, (if not a little preachy) man did a couple of thousand years ago; PLAY NICE CHILDREN.

K

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I welcome the absolutes that the Bible brings. It doesn't leave me groping through life having to "lean" on whatever philosophies I end up scraping together along the way. It allows for principles that are not "up for debate" because they are tied to an omniscient Creator rather than a humanistic, agenda diven indoctrination. I choose to put my faith here, others don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, the Bible bringing absolutes? Have you read the thing? Now I will admit that I havent gone from cover to cover, but I went to a Catholic school from 4-18 (although I managed to remain true to my own beliefs no matter what tactics they tried) and we spent a lot of time talking about it. First of all, without taking into question those who wrote the thing, there is a marked difference between the Old and the New testament, from "I will smite you" and "Eye for an Eye" to the "I will forgive you" and "Turn the other cheek". The evolution of this change can be tracked with the changing of several sociological factors, including the fact that there were more of us, living in closer proximity, and so the "Eye for an Eye" thing was getting messy.

Secondly, when you do start to take into account who wrote the Bible and why, you can clearly see some of the modern day media tricks involved. Lots of people got together to decide what to include, what to leave out and what to change. Changing Mary Magdalene from a apostle to a whore for instance, due to the prejudice against women.

Now I know you went on to say you dont take in the preachy crap anymore, and realise that you cant always trust humans to teach the word of God properly. Well guess what, every word you read, all of your "rigid" rules were written, or at the very least "filtered" through man.

The Bible, and Christianity itself, has lasted so long, and is so wide spread, because of its ability to adapt to the sociological changes around us. The God of the Old Testament would have killed us all by now, The God of the New Testament would forgive us but but still be a bit irritated, and then you have the branches of modern day Christianity, with your Born Agains e.t.c. Not to mention the breaking off of the protestant movement and the churches spawned from that.

My point is, that "wishy washy" humanistic values are at least as constant as Christianity. There are the core beliefs of "be nice" but everything else is up for change.

And also, to say that because I dont believe in God means that I dont have a set of rules is a little silly, as is the assumption that because I am an atheist it means that I take longer to come to the same conclusions that a chilled out, (if not a little preachy) man did a couple of thousand years ago; PLAY NICE CHILDREN.

K

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like a deeply fulfilled, non-bitter, truly happy young person.

[Morrek]

[ QUOTE ]
This is silly...

As much as we argue for reason and logic for making our decisions as to why being good can be attributed to anything other than God, we can also find the same amount of example that do just the same. It really just comes down to a matter of personal preference. This is where this entire thread seems to lie. Both sides seem to care more about being able believe whatever they choose and not have the other, dissenting sides, criticize them for doing so.

I can't prove God exist.
I can't prove God does not.

until someone does
this debate will never end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to do this we first have to define what we mean with the word "God". I did a quick search in dictionary.com, which gave me this(among others):

"Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle." linky

So, consider the possibility that the word God, and the word life, are essentially the same thing. Consider the possibility that God not only created life, but that life IS God, made manifest. What would this change what we know about God?

Everyone knows what's true about life, but not everyone knows what's true about God. What's true about life is that nothing stands outside of life. Nothing exists without life, and life does not exist if nothing exists. You are the expression of life itself. So is everything around you. Even so-called inanimate objects are found, when examined under a microscope, to consist of particles constantly in motion. These particles and their movements are all part of life. Indeed, everything in the observable universe is life, in some form.

The existence of life is confirmed by life itself. Life is self-referencing, self-confirming, self-sustaining, and self-evident. Life is the evidence of the existence of life.

Not only does everyone know these things, everyone agrees with them. But, what happens when we insert the word "God" in the places were "life" appears?

Nothing exists without God, and God does not exist if nothing exists. You are the expression of God itself. So is everything around you. Even so-called inanimate objects are found, when examined under a microscope, to consist of particles constantly in motion. These particles and their movements are all part of God. Indeed, everything in the observable universe is God, in some form.

The existence of God is confirmed by God itself. God is self-referencing, self-confirming, self-sustaining, and self-evident. God is the evidence of the existence of God.


Could this be true? If it is, we seem to have misunderstood God during the past few thousand years. If so, what would it change in todays society?

Do we need more evidence of the existence of life, than life itself? No. And what does life want? Nothing. Life simply is.

Life is an energy, a power, to be used. And it is being used, freely, by all. It has no expectations, no desires, no demands, no requirements, no need to be worshipped, and no need to punish those who fail to worship it. Life is a singular and unemotional reality. Life is the creator, and it's that which has been created.

Life is the source of life, and it's "that which has been sourced". Life produces life, and life informs life about life through the process of life itself.

Life is, in a few words, the Alpha and the Omega, the All in All. There is nothing that IS that It is not.

If this is not the definition of God, then what is?

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with his most recent entry.

Is it that horrible to have religious beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in this day and age.
Let me list the things you can't make fun of in today's world with of course their exceptions.

Ethnicity - You cannot make fun of any group based upon their ethnicity, with the exception of caucasians.

Sexuality / Gender - You cannot make fun of females, homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals etc. with the exception of straight males. Specifically fathers, they are today's Steppin Fetchit, the bumbling stereotype that appears in almost every t.v. commercial, and sitcom.

Disabilities - You cannot make fun of the blind, the deaf, those with physical deformities, the mentally challenged, but you can continue to verbally attack and discriminate against the obese.

Religion - You cannot make fun of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc, but Christianity is the exception. You poke fun at Christians, and their God / Savior you are exempt from lawsuits, anti-defamation leagues etc.

I hope this clears it up for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

From this post, and its subversive complaining, it is apparent to me that you are a fat white guy, with religious beliefs who is straight.