Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Joseph Porter, KCB]

Federal judge just struck down Utah's ban on gay marriage, and the Salt Lake County DA is advising the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=14 ... featured-1

[Brive1987]

Steersman,

I believe Mussolini also made the trains run on time.

Ohh, we are talking about religious fascism? Sorry. My bad.

[Brive1987]

Every wonder why western society is so finely-tuned for religion?

[another lurker]

Every wonder why western society is so finely-tuned for religion?

Ever wonder why cups are so finely tuned for kittehs?

http://www.faziarizvi.net/tea/wp-conten ... eamugs.jpg

[Brive1987]

Every wonder why western society is so finely-tuned for religion?

Ever wonder why cups are so finely tuned for kittehs?

http://www.faziarizvi.net/tea/wp-conten ... eamugs.jpg

My mouth is finely tuned for chinese. Food.

[BarnOwl]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

Funny how they wrap him up with a cord, like a rodeo steer. Was waiting for one of them to throw an arm up to stop the clock. :mrgreen:

[Steersman]

Steersman,

I believe Mussolini also made the trains run on time.

Ohh, we are talking about religious fascism? Sorry. My bad.

Actually I’d heard that that was mostly PR with little substance – they weren’t all that effective in that regard either.

But I figured that someone would take that position, not least because there’s some justification for it.

However, one might respond with an argument analogous to the one from various evolutionists – from time immemorial – that while 5% of a modern eye may not be all that useful, it is substantially more so than one of 2% - particularly when one’s predators are at the latter level as well. Likewise with the Catholic Church in particular: while there are many “crimes” one can lay at their doorstep, I think that that period of time was a remarkably savage and brutal one in many ways, and that, in consequence, they were similar, even if only for the sake of survival – the Crusades for example.

But the question is whether there is some redeeming element, some wheat in amongst the chaff. And while I think their “vision” is badly flawed in many ways – primarily the literalism, I think one can argue that elements of it are more credible that many elements afforded by an atheist one.

[VickyCaramel]

Quite a good post, all things considered. And I quite agree that many atheists – and I think it is quite important to note the difference between that qualification and your apparently rather categorical condemnation of all atheists – are rather dogmatic and not particularly credible in their belief in the non-historicity of even a mortal Jesus, and likewise about the existence of “God” – a concept that seems to cover rather more than what they are prepared to consider.

However, while I quite agree that “religion” has contributed substantially in many ways to the advancement of civilization – such as it is, and that a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting,[snip].

Do you really believe this or were you just being diplomatic?

Not quite sure what your “this” is referring to, but it was partly a question of being somewhat diplomatic, and because I do believe that there is some justification for the argument that “religion has contributed substantially to the advancement of civilization”.

For instance, you may wish to read Richard Tarnas’ The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View. He is apparently as atheist as they come, but he still provides a substantial amount of evidence that the Catholic Church was in fact instrumental in the dissemination of knowledge, particularly from about 500 AD to about 1400 AD. They were happy to promote learning when it was touted as “knowing the mind of god” – various universities got their starts from that belief, but they shut things down – “tighter than a bull’s ass in fly-time”, so to speak – once what was learned called into question central elements of dogma. But one has to, I think, be honest about all of the entries on both sides of the ledger – so to speak.

As for the “concept that seems to cover rather more than what they are prepared to consider”, you might want to take a look at the article on “panentheism” which seems to encompass some plausible ideas that have informed many religions, from Sufism to Buddhism. Seems to me that the problematic aspect of “strong atheism” is that it is asserting the non-existence of something without proof – intrinsically antithetical to skepticism – when there are many definitions to the concept over and above the Abrahamic, anthropological one it seems to focus on.

I think civilization made the best of a bad lot so to speak. I would say that civilization continued in spite of religion rather than thanks to it. We had 2000 years of Christianity, and during that time Christianity has worked every angle and adopted anything marginally useful, so it would be amazing if they hadn't managed at least the occasional triumph. But that was least of my concerns.

I note that you agree "many atheists" (your emphasis), and I can't say that I agree with the strength of this. Don't get me wrong, some of the worst flame wars I have had have been with atheists saying completely dumb things, but I don't think the numbers warrant a 'many'.

On the subject of being a strong atheist, I think I am as strong as it gets. I tip my hat as a courtesy, but I am always careful to point out that we can't prove a negative. However, I see absolutely no reason to consider supernatural causes for anything until I see a shred of evidence pointing me in that direction, and so far there have been none. And in short, as they usually describe their deity as being infinitely magical, I consider the odds to be infinitely unlikely. I rarely come across another atheist as willing to state this position quite as forcefully and pretty much all but a the occasional kid will carefully explain they are agnostic atheists.

On the subject of the historicity of Jesus, recently I am seeing in the places I choose to go be obnoxious to Christians, many of the atheists attacking the historicity of Jesus, but again they state they are agnostic, they attack the evidence for Jesus, and they don't start waffling on about some crap they saw on Zeitgeist. It is far more likely they are using Carrier and Price for their information.

I do think that a vocal minority of us are playing to the crowd, being very aggressive and frankly taking the piss out of Christian beliefs. I certainly never have any intention of converting the person I am arguing with. But I am not sure it is 'many' and I don't think the positions we take are dogmatic. I certainly don't think that arguments made against the historicity of Jesus are incredible. In fact, it is not that unusual to hear a discussion about the strengths of the arguments between atheists.

Anyway, it seems to me that you were agreeing that many atheists held unreasonable positions and I have not seen that to be the case. I certainly agree that theists find our positions to be unreasonable, offensive and incredible.

[Apples]

In 1989, we had Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing to hilariously and poignantly send up race relations in the US.

In 2013, we've got #Imnotyourasiansidekick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she ... nsidekick/

For some reason, this perky little Korean chick has united the social justice race oppression horde like no twatterer before her. Supposedly, she's all about Asian-American feminism, though afaict the hashtag is a general "we're oppressed" rave for social justice warriors everywhere.

Here's a brief BBC clip.

[youtube]JIiv1tLsoOU[/youtube]

If you watched to the end, you will have heard her say that among her favorite tweets on the hashtag is one from a Chinese girl whose white boyfriend asked her to teach him how to say something "sexy" in Chinese. So she taught him how to say "I have an STD." Hawhawhaw that is so original. In fact, as Park says, she thought it was a "really funny way to combat white supremacy (*goofy laugh*)."

White supremacy, eh? I do not think that term means what you think it means, grasshopper.

Park's examples of oppression she has faced are truly heartbreaking. In kindergarten kids made slanty-eyes at her. She had an eating disorder, she doesn't play the violin :violin:, people expected her to be smart :mrgreen:, Asian people are fetishized. :violin: :violin: Oh - and she felt pressure to "wear color contacts" and "Northface and Ugg boots."

From the washpo article:

I think a lot of white people have a visceral reaction to the fact that they belong to a structural whiteness. But I think it shows us something really important, which is that fraction of discomfort is nothing compared to a lifetime of being racialized and put in a subordinate class of people in the U.S., so when it comes to that and I compare the two I really don’t feel bad at all.

I know, right? Just look at the numbers - Asian-Americans have a median family income of only $68,000, a poverty rate of 12.8%, 50% have a college degree, only 21% have a graduate or professional degree. I mean, if that's not an example of a subordinate class of people, I don't know what is.

Oops. The overall US median family income is only $50,000, the poverty rate is around 15%, 29% have a college degree, and 11% have a graduate or professional degree.

Well gosh - would you look at that - per this wikichart, looks like Asian-Americans are the most privileged class of people, economically, in the United States:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Income.png

I honestly couldn't tell you why this seems to have turned into the biggest racial hoedown I've ever seen on Twitter, but I'll just leave you with this:

Onward me go, indeed.

[James Caruthers]

David Silverman thinks he can please both sides of the schism by this move. He's not even wrong.

Sort of like when he shows up on Fox News to shout at the dumbass christians, because he thinks someone in the Fox News audience is going to agree with him and see atheists as reasonable people. :lol:

Does he honestly think repeated Fox News appearances make atheists look good?

I was listening to him on The Thinking Atheistand he says that he always gets more donations and letters of support after appearing on fox.

Yeah, and now that we know how many pretend victims make up the US and EU atheist population, I have an idea why. Back when I was watching all those shitty Fox News segments about atheism, it was easy to let people like Silverman get to me with their rhetoric about atheists rights going away and shit. Aside from the church/state separation battle, atheists (in my area especially) in the US and EU have very little to bitch about. Fox News is in its own little bubble, a bubble occupied primarily by old fucks who are going to die soon. They'll become more moderate as their base disappears, although they'll probably always be as crazy as ever.

I'm guessing he thinks that his appearances on Fox makes him look good in the eyes of other US atheists? He's probably is right in thinking that too, considering that there's a few Fox clips with him on youtube that've gotten quite a few views, with plenty of comments in the spirit of "ROFL Silverman pwned those idiot christians so good! HAHA!!".

Silverman strikes me as a person who's doing things primarily for himself rather than for the sake of any "movement". I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of him so far, to me he just seems like someone who's in it for his own career, or popularity, or whatever you want to call it.

Yeah, I think he goes on Fox primarily to grow his brand. Pwning a Fox News host is easy as fuck, but it's all business for them. O'Reilly loves having Silverman on, because it allows him to pander to HIS base by TV pwning Silverman (read: talking over Silverman.) O'Reilly's core audience doesn't watch youtube clips of debates, and certainly not atheist debates. Each walks away with what they want. Silverman gets to be big with the internet atheists on YouTube, and O'Reilly gets to stuff Silverman with straw and knock him down on national TV.

I seriously doubt O'Reilly even believes 99% of what he says. He's an IRL troll. The best way to prove this is watch a ton of clips of O'Reilly. Write down his ideological positions. Watch more clips. Notice something? His positions keep shifting. His ideological stance is whatever FOX needs it to be for maximum viewer outrage/interest.

Going on Fox is like going on 4chan and asking them to dox you, and then running screaming and crying to twitter about how the mean trolls on 4chan doxxed you. I know that atheists will tend to side with Silverman because he's an atheist, and it's pretty damn hard to fuck up a church/state separation position when your opponent is Fox News, but c'mon. The guy knows what he's doing.

I don't hate him, I just kinda wonder what good any of his "activism" is doing atheists who aren't named Dave Silverman.

[BarnOwl]

Greta has a (re)post about why atheists should celebrate the holiday season:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... olidays-2/

One of the reasons, which apparently requires no explanation, is "Presents!" But doesn't it make baby PeeZus cry when atheists are materialistic and greedy?

<--- Kind of a Bah, humbug! type who likes cold and dark winter days.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Get ready for the outrage, someone has made a threat of violence in the comments of Rebecca Watsons last Patreon video.

http://i.imgur.com/WuSKJsm.jpg
]

But Gerald -- if Becca were your sister, all that jacking off you do to her videos would be extra creepy.

[Joseph Porter, KCB]

In 1989, we had Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing to hilariously and poignantly send up race relations in the US.

In 2013, we've got #Imnotyourasiansidekick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she ... nsidekick/

For some reason, this perky little Korean chick has united the social justice race oppression horde like no twatterer before her. Supposedly, she's all about Asian-American feminism, though afaict the hashtag is a general "we're oppressed" rave for social justice warriors everywhere.

Here's a brief BBC clip.

[youtube]JIiv1tLsoOU[/youtube]

If you watched to the end, you will have heard her say that among her favorite tweets on the hashtag is one from a Chinese girl whose white boyfriend asked her to teach him how to say something "sexy" in Chinese. So she taught him how to say "I have an STD." Hawhawhaw that is so original. In fact, as Park says, she thought it was a "really funny way to combat white supremacy (*goofy laugh*)."

White supremacy, eh? I do not think that term means what you think it means, grasshopper.

Park's examples of oppression she has faced are truly heartbreaking. In kindergarten kids made slanty-eyes at her. She had an eating disorder, she doesn't play the violin :violin:, people expected her to be smart :mrgreen:, Asian people are fetishized. :violin: :violin: Oh - and she felt pressure to "wear color contacts" and "Northface and Ugg boots."

From the washpo article:

I think a lot of white people have a visceral reaction to the fact that they belong to a structural whiteness. But I think it shows us something really important, which is that fraction of discomfort is nothing compared to a lifetime of being racialized and put in a subordinate class of people in the U.S., so when it comes to that and I compare the two I really don’t feel bad at all.

I know, right? Just look at the numbers - Asian-Americans have a median family income of only $68,000, a poverty rate of 12.8%, 50% have a college degree, only 21% have a graduate or professional degree. I mean, if that's not an example of a subordinate class of people, I don't know what is.

Oops. The overall US median family income is only $50,000, the poverty rate is around 15%, 29% have a college degree, and 11% have a graduate or professional degree.

Well gosh - would you look at that - per this wikichart, looks like Asian-Americans are the most privileged class of people, economically, in the United States:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Income.png

I honestly couldn't tell you why this seems to have turned into the biggest racial hoedown I've ever seen on Twitter, but I'll just leave you with this:

Onward me go, indeed.

So the visual when she says Asians are fetishized is a Korean "K-Pop" band, a Korean musical style that while emulating Western pop music, is a wholly Korean creation.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

Funny how they wrap him up with a cord, like a rodeo steer. Was waiting for one of them to throw an arm up to stop the clock. :mrgreen:

Too bad nobody had a rubber band to slap around his nuts.

[dogen]

In 1989, we had Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing to hilariously and poignantly send up race relations in the US.

In 2013, we've got #Imnotyourasiansidekick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she ... nsidekick/

For some reason, this perky little Korean chick has united the social justice race oppression horde like no twatterer before her. Supposedly, she's all about Asian-American feminism, though afaict the hashtag is a general "we're oppressed" rave for social justice warriors everywhere.

(snipped for brevity).

A recent column on the Guardian discusses Ms Park:

#NotYourAsianSidekick is a civil rights movement for Asian American women

The hashtag responds to the multiple oppressions of Asian American women: patriarchy, and racism in white feminism

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-feminism

The author of the column, Yoonj Kim, has this to say:

I get it. After my last time in Seoul, I decided I would never go back – barring deportation or a major crisis. When I was there this spring, my uncle and I got into a huge fight over our clashing values. As an Asian man who grew up in post-second world war South Korea, he has immensely patriarchal values, whereas I'm an Asian American woman who believes anyone supporting women's rights is a feminist. The argument erupted when I dared question his decision in front of relatives – I had merely pointed out a faster route we could take. The issue wasn't that I knew a better alternative, but that I had even pointed something out in the first place, in front of other people. The cherry on top was that I was a woman contradicting a man.

The comments below were fun -- a lot of people calling out Kim for criticizing American patriarchy when this anecdote clearly reflects more on Korean cultural values. Encouragingly, there seems to be a growing number of commentators in Comment Is Free (Guardian's comment section) who are pushing back at the recent spate of SJW shite that Graun columnists are churning out. Yes, I'm talking 'bout you, Jill Filopovic, you smug little ewok.

[Sunder]

I don't need to go to conferences to learn how to be an atheist or how to proselytize (I don't want to proselytize)

It's not my thing either but it's still something I'm glad other people are doing. I read Boghossian's book on what he calls Street Epistemology and it has applications well beyond just spreading atheism (the title is sadly very narrowly focused).

My biggest problem with the FTB crowd is that they're NOT going out there and trying to change anyone's thinking or promote better ways of examining the world. They're just engaging in a protracted cold war with all of modern society that doesn't conform 100% to their ideals, but they're never going to get off their ass and do more than harass people online about it.

They think people who agree with them only 98% of the time are subhuman filth. How are they going to go out and convert anyone?

[Dick Strawkins]

So the visual when she says Asians are fetishized is a Korean "K-Pop" band, a Korean musical style that while emulating Western pop music, is a wholly Korean creation.

I don't think that was a K-pop band.
K-pop girl bands tend to have far more members than shown in that clip, which seemed to be from a cosplay event.

Avicenna was complaining about this hashtag campaign the other day because it ignored the fact that South Asians were totally ignored in favor of East Asians.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

[VickyCaramel]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

Funny how they wrap him up with a cord, like a rodeo steer. Was waiting for one of them to throw an arm up to stop the clock. :mrgreen:

Too bad nobody had a rubber band to slap around his nuts.

I have to wonder if I am only person who watched that and thought that the contents of the guy's wallet were probably not worth fighting over. Grabbing what it is best to assume was a loaded gun, making it get waved around a carriage full of people risking an innocent bystander, man, woman or child getting killed?

Having said that, once it started, I would have stomped on the fucker's head.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Onward me go, indeed.

I really hope she was jokingly making a pun on stereotypical Asian accents and bad use of complex English grammar ...

Because otherwise, one reason she suffers oppression and discrimination is that she isn't literate in English

[DeepInsideYourMind]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

People like eating fish, they don't much like taxes, and they are gullible fools who will follow any cult with enough woo woo

[Really?]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

Men suck. Why did THEY have to grab the spotlight instead of standing aside and letting the women do the job and get the glory?

Patriarchal assholes.

[dogen]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

The birds are scrounging?

[youtube]6JaosRfPhEU[/youtube]

[Brive1987]

Steersman,

I believe Mussolini also made the trains run on time.

Ohh, we are talking about religious fascism? Sorry. My bad.

Actually I’d heard that that was mostly PR with little substance – they weren’t all that effective in that regard either.

But I figured that someone would take that position, not least because there’s some justification for it.

However, one might respond with an argument analogous to the one from various evolutionists – from time immemorial – that while 5% of a modern eye may not be all that useful, it is substantially more so than one of 2% - particularly when one’s predators are at the latter level as well. Likewise with the Catholic Church in particular: while there are many “crimes” one can lay at their doorstep, I think that that period of time was a remarkably savage and brutal one in many ways, and that, in consequence, they were similar, even if only for the sake of survival – the Crusades for example.

But the question is whether there is some redeeming element, some wheat in amongst the chaff. And while I think their “vision” is badly flawed in many ways – primarily the literalism, I think one can argue that elements of it are more credible that many elements afforded by an atheist one.

There is always the risk of appearing to appease the larger crime by acknowledging the stands of wheat sticking up out of the shit. The wheat, whether it be train timetables (yes I knew the 'on time' thing was a broader descriptor used to explain a perceived overall improvement in efficiency) culture or whatever is a distraction. Personally I believe without the church another "something" would have filled the void and human invention would still win out. And of course the churches " crimes" didn't stop at the crusades.

[Joseph Porter, KCB]

So the visual when she says Asians are fetishized is a Korean "K-Pop" band, a Korean musical style that while emulating Western pop music, is a wholly Korean creation.

I don't think that was a K-pop band.
K-pop girl bands tend to have far more members than shown in that clip, which seemed to be from a cosplay event.

Avicenna was complaining about this hashtag campaign the other day because it ignored the fact that South Asians were totally ignored in favor of East Asians.

I'm not a K-pop expert.

The blindness of the Gruniad column: "raised in the more equal and diverse US, I found Korea sooo misogynist! But the US is really bad, because advertisers want diverse models, which leaves me out of luck when they already have an Asian model! Why can't they have two Asian models and no whites?? Sure, that would be fetishism, but it would be a paycheque for me!"

[Mykeru]

Meanwhile:

LiveLeak.com Armed robber terrorizes passengers aboard Seattle bus.png

Perp pulls gun, guy grabs gun, other guys tackle perp, women run away, except one who remains in a managerial position.

Men suck. Why did THEY have to grab the spotlight instead of standing aside and letting the women do the job and get the glory?

Patriarchal assholes.

Why didn't they stop struggling for the gun and stand aside when the poor women said she wanted to get her stuff?

Priorities, misogynistic assholes, priorities.

[ERV]

What fresh hell is this?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bb9Rce3CYAAKyN3.jpg:large
There is no god.



Eye-wash video-- Did someone say K-pop?
[youtube]M-d8EYwmdWA[/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

... why was Poppy picking her ears and nose and wtf? It made me sick.

Vegans need a snack sometimes, too.

[Brive1987]

Did PZ just say that angry snark and overblown point scoring was a no no if he didn't find it funny?

That’s…unpleasant. It’s threatening. It is allowing a fundamentalist creationist claim the moral high ground.
You know what it isn’t, though?
Funny.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

I can understand tone trolling from Steers and Aneris. But do we need it from PZ himself? By his own new rule most of his opus has just been flooshed.

And Steers, I know he once posted a useful science article somewhere, but allow me to sweep the wheat stalk away with the wall of shit by saying: "PZ, you are an arsehole".

[Brive1987]

Ha, most of the comments are predictable Baa-ram-ewes, however a few poor lost lambs are wandering in circles asking "umm but isn't what was said true??"

PZ trollz ewes.

[Aneris]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

I don't quite understand the desire of non-believers to find something noteworthy in this character. He is certainly not more interesting than Confucius whose teachings probably (armchair idea) wafted over from the far east. He lived about 500 years earlier!

Humanism
Humanism is at the core in Confucianism. A simple way to appreciate Confucian thought is to consider it as being based on varying levels of honesty, and a simple way to understand Confucian thought is to examine the world by using the logic of humanity. In practice, the primary foundation and function of Confucianism is as an ethical philosophy to be practiced by all the members of a society.[17] Confucian ethics is characterized by the promotion of virtues, encompassed by the Five Constants, or the Wuchang (五常), extrapolated by Confucian scholars during the Han Dynasty.[18] The Five Constants are:[18]

Rén (仁, Humaneness)
Yì (義, Righteousness or Justice)
Lǐ (禮, Propriety or Etiquette)
Zhì (智, Knowledge)
Xìn (信, Integrity).
These are accompanied by the classical Sìzì (四字) that singles out four virtues, one of which is included among the Five Constants:

Zhōng (忠, Loyalty)
Xiào (孝, Filial piety)
Jié (節, Continency)
Yì (義, Righteousness).
There are still many other elements, such as Chéng (誠, honesty), Shù (恕, kindness and forgiveness), Lián (廉, honesty and cleanness), Chǐ (恥, shame, judge and sense of right and wrong), Yǒng (勇, bravery), Wēn (溫, kind and gentle), Liáng (良, good, kindhearted), Gōng (恭, respectful, reverent), Jiǎn (儉, frugal), Ràng (讓, modestly, self-effacing). Among all elements, Ren and Yi are fundamental.

Ren
Main article: Ren (Confucianism)
Ren (Chinese: 仁; pinyin: rén) is one of the basic virtues promoted by Confucius, and is an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals. Confucius' concept of humaneness is probably best expressed in the Confucian version of the ethic of reciprocity, or the Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."[19] In another instance, Confucius defined Ren as to "love others."

Forget about Jesus. Really.

[Brive1987]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

I don't quite understand the desire of non-believers to find something noteworthy in this character. He is certainly not more interesting than Confucius whose teachings probably (armchair idea) wafted over from the far east. He lived about 500 years earlier!

Humanism
Humanism is at the core in Confucianism. A simple way to appreciate Confucian thought is to consider it as being based on varying levels of honesty, and a simple way to understand Confucian thought is to examine the world by using the logic of humanity. In practice, the primary foundation and function of Confucianism is as an ethical philosophy to be practiced by all the members of a society.[17] Confucian ethics is characterized by the promotion of virtues, encompassed by the Five Constants, or the Wuchang (五常), extrapolated by Confucian scholars during the Han Dynasty.[18] The Five Constants are:[18]

Rén (仁, Humaneness)
Yì (義, Righteousness or Justice)
Lǐ (禮, Propriety or Etiquette)
Zhì (智, Knowledge)
Xìn (信, Integrity).
These are accompanied by the classical Sìzì (四字) that singles out four virtues, one of which is included among the Five Constants:

Zhōng (忠, Loyalty)
Xiào (孝, Filial piety)
Jié (節, Continency)
Yì (義, Righteousness).
There are still many other elements, such as Chéng (誠, honesty), Shù (恕, kindness and forgiveness), Lián (廉, honesty and cleanness), Chǐ (恥, shame, judge and sense of right and wrong), Yǒng (勇, bravery), Wēn (溫, kind and gentle), Liáng (良, good, kindhearted), Gōng (恭, respectful, reverent), Jiǎn (儉, frugal), Ràng (讓, modestly, self-effacing). Among all elements, Ren and Yi are fundamental.

Ren
Main article: Ren (Confucianism)
Ren (Chinese: 仁; pinyin: rén) is one of the basic virtues promoted by Confucius, and is an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals. Confucius' concept of humaneness is probably best expressed in the Confucian version of the ethic of reciprocity, or the Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."[19] In another instance, Confucius defined Ren as to "love others."

Forget about Jesus. Really.

Christianity is an onion of ideas. If you self select you can come-up with a story that is outwardly attractive. Nobody wants to be seen to be killing off this kitten.

[James Caruthers]

Zen, Buddhism and Confucianism all have more to offer than Christianity. Especially Zen. Confucianism has that whole "respect for elders" doctrine that seems a bit excessive in places.

[Aneris]

Zen, Buddhism and Confucianism all have more to offer than Christianity. Especially Zen. Confucianism has that whole "respect for elders" doctrine that seems a bit excessive in places.

Yes, I am sure there is some more to pick in this 2500 year old teachings, but compared to Abrahmitic bronze age religions, it seems vastly superior. I come to think that almost everything was better than the monotheisms. History seems to have gone very dark the moment they took over, and gone brighter the moment people rediscovered the renaissance. What would a world look like when Confuzianism or buddhism had travelled further?

[Steersman]

Zen, Buddhism and Confucianism all have more to offer than Christianity. Especially Zen. Confucianism has that whole "respect for elders" doctrine that seems a bit excessive in places.

I don't know about that; seems a fine idea to me that you might want to consider in some depth.

And while you're at it, get off of my lawn! ;-)

[Steersman]

Zen, Buddhism and Confucianism all have more to offer than Christianity. Especially Zen. Confucianism has that whole "respect for elders" doctrine that seems a bit excessive in places.

Yes, I am sure there is some more to pick in this 2500 year old teachings, but compared to Abrahmitic bronze age religions, it seems vastly superior. I come to think that almost everything was better than the monotheisms. History seems to have gone very dark the moment they took over, and gone brighter the moment people rediscovered the renaissance. What would a world look like when Confuzianism or buddhism had travelled further?

Maybe. While I’ve argued, at some length on Hoffmann’s blog, that the Catholic Church should be expending some effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, one might also note that in the biology of wheat, it seems that even the chaff has some utility. Likewise with Christianity – one might reasonably argue that it wouldn’t have carried whatever benefits it posseses as far as it has if some of the “chaff” hadn’t been there to protect the "wheat", the message – so to speak.

[Steersman]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

Don’t know for sure, but this seems like a pretty reasonable set of precepts for starters:

When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus replies: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37–39). Other ethical teachings of Jesus include loving one's enemies, refraining from hatred and lust, and turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:21–44)

In the gospels, the approximately thirty parables form about one third of Jesus' recorded teachings.

And even the “ethic of reciprocity” that Aneris quoted in the context of Confucianism was apparently something that was central to Jesus’ teachings, and which has arguably been disseminated to a wider audience as a result of Christianity.

[Sunder]

History seems to have gone very dark the moment they took over, and gone brighter the moment people rediscovered the renaissance.

I'd really place most of the blame on the fall of Roman Republicanism. The book Why Nations Fail has an excellent segment on the transition to empire. But beyond that without imperial rule you have no Constantine and thus no papacy.

[VickyCaramel]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

Don’t know for sure, but this seems like a pretty reasonable set of precepts for starters:

When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus replies: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37–39). Other ethical teachings of Jesus include loving one's enemies, refraining from hatred and lust, and turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:21–44)

In the gospels, the approximately thirty parables form about one third of Jesus' recorded teachings.

And even the “ethic of reciprocity” that Aneris quoted in the context of Confucianism was apparently something that was central to Jesus’ teachings, and which has arguably been disseminated to a wider audience as a result of Christianity.

The ethic of reciprocity, I would argue was central to most feudal and tribal societies, and was closely linked to reputation which was linked to ancestor worship. Christianity, partly became popular because it did away with this hard work. You didn't need to maintain a good reputation for honesty or generosity for yourself or your family name, everything could be forgiven. And all you needed was Jesus.

I'm not sure either system was perfect, we have to make some educated guesses about pre-christian cultures, but despite Christian doctrine, Christians have never been particularly good at practicing what Jesus preached.

[Brive1987]

http://i.imgur.com/UKyFbfK.jpg

New patron video. http://www.patreon.com/share?hid=155139

RW appears to be in a death-lock with PZ.

+ She posts a "lets get the salvos" video just before their Christmas that helps the poor.

+ PZ then posts a story about a Christian punching a salvo officer

RW now posts a video on said punch as an excuse to ramble about how much fun Xmas is. You know, with all the presents she won't be getting this year.

Take outs?

At 1:23. She says that because the punch in the arm "didn't draw blood" we can laugh at the assault -mainly 'cause it was a blue on blue.

At 1.48 she minimised the assault to "physically confront someone" - so she retains 'permission' to mock.

The rest is boilerplate secular Xmas snark. Apart from her wonderful argument (4.02) that 'when religion imposes on the secular world it comes off second best'. One bit of evidence is thorsday to Thursday. I assume this was a weak cross promotional effort. But yeh, America is dandy in the way it secularises everything it touches. Not.

Finally she thanks all her patreons who participated in the google hangout. You would think she could have mentioned the three neck-beards by name?

Check her face at 6:17 when she says that future hangouts will be "a lot of fun". Dissemble much?

Of more interest. Her topics so far have been:

Salvos + Xmas
Salvos
Thanksgiving
Bigfoot
Sylvia
Sagan
Genetic testing
Baboon heart.

Nary a feminist thought to be found.

This suggests three things:

1. She is an ideological coward
2. The backlash has a measurable positive outcome
3. $$$$$ - follow the SGU lead

[Brive1987]

More Watson crap

More "secret patreon only" videos which I haven't yet had a chance to watch:

Interview between Watson and Julia Bourke for secular women.


Watson fixing her boyfriends car while filming herself with her iPad. I kid you not.


Amazing the contrasting styles when the PR autobot isn't there to control the environment.

[Mykeru]

I have to wonder if I am only person who watched that and thought that the contents of the guy's wallet were probably not worth fighting over. Grabbing what it is best to assume was a loaded gun, making it get waved around a carriage full of people risking an innocent bystander, man, woman or child getting killed?

Having said that, once it started, I would have stomped on the fucker's head.

Well, if you can immediately calculate cost-benefit analysis when someone pulls a gun on you, you are one cool customer. Most people just react in one way or another. It's not well-thought out, it's damn near a reflex. I tend to think both success and the death favor the bold.

You may think he endangered other people in the car, but you are assuming the guy with the gun was a rational actor. For all you know he could have taken the wallet and then shot the guy, then the person sitting next to him. Not like there's a tacit agreement that giving up your wallet, or whatever, is any guarantee. He took a risk, but he also asserted control over what happened to him, rather than passively giving himself up to the kindness of some guy with a gun sticking random people up.

Also, the dude with the gun didn't get the wallet, didn't get to shoot anyone, didn't get to get out of the situation, got a nice beat-down and won't be asking people to guess his intentions for about 5-15 years dining on $1.50 a day. Unless, of course, he's a two-time loser, in which case he'll be locked up until he reaches room temperature.

[Mykeru]

More Watson crap

More "secret patreon only" videos which I haven't yet had a chance to watch:

Interview between Watson and Julia Bourke for secular women.


Watson fixing her boyfriends car while filming herself with her iPad. I kid you not.


Amazing the contrasting styles when the PR autobot isn't there to control the environment.

Patreon, so it's just making the same old crappy videos but now people are throwing cash at you for it?

Man, I have to get in on that action.

[Mykeru]

I actually watched Watson's car repair crap. She claims she's a genius for managing to swap out a turn signal relay switch. She is. Her genius is in padding out a repair that should take thirty seconds into three whole minutes.

Also, fucking Google. I'm so tired of having to jump through hoops to log into YouTube as "MykeruMedia".

[another lurker]

So I was perusing The Raw Story and I came across this interesting little article...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... w+Story%29

Apparently, people say mean things about cats because misogyny

While all sorts of people have pets of both types, cats are associated with not just women, but single, childless women. A lot of what people are doing when they insist that you cat doesn’t really love you and you must be fooling yourself is a kind of mansplaining: Silly cat ladies, who think that their cats love them! It fits into this larger narrative about how women are dumb and needy and cling to cats, unlike sure-footed, bright men who pick a pet they know loves them: dogs. (Never mind that men have cats and women have dogs, too. There’s no doubt that these pet choices are imagined as gendered in the public imagination. I get at least 10 people a week sending me “clever” jokes about how I must be a lonely woman who only has cats for comfort.)

Amanda Marcotte has really outdone herself this time. The bonus, she links to a R. Watson article...

I think anyone could be an SJW. Just read the news, and blame Teh Patriarchy for everything, as the Pit has been saying, for months...

http://sarahgignac.com/wp-content/uploa ... -today.jpg

[Brive1987]

More Watson crap

More "secret patreon only" videos which I haven't yet had a chance to watch:

Interview between Watson and Julia Bourke for secular women.


Watson fixing her boyfriends car while filming herself with her iPad. I kid you not.


Amazing the contrasting styles when the PR autobot isn't there to control the environment.

Patreon, so it's just making the same old crappy videos but now people are throwing cash at you for it?

Man, I have to get in on that action.

Good idea - but cross promote.

Put notices on YouTube, setup your web page to redirect, add old videos to Patreon, setup bullshit rewards, promise the world (or at least 1 new video) if only someone would sling you a dime, beg vacula for airtime, offer your services to other podcasts and most important of all - create a new mock drama to get SJW SM kick in.

You can't be half a whore. :popcorn:

[Mykeru]

Put notices on YouTube, setup your web page to redirect, add old videos to Patreon, setup bullshit rewards, promise the world (or at least 1 new video) if only someone would sling you a dime, beg vacula for airtime, offer your services to other podcasts and most important of all - create a new mock drama to get SJW SM kick in.

You can't be half a whore. :popcorn:

Actually, what I was thinking was doing more of less straight-up skeptical videos that are content based. I'm ass-deep in the Dyatlov Pass incident, just finished reading a book "The Dyatlov Pass Keeps Its Secrets" which is good common-sense stuff and based on the work of people in a Russian language forum http://hibinafiles.mybb.ru. It seems to need a decent treatment as the topic has become fodder for UFO cranks, conspiracy theorists and Brian Dunning's lazy-assed podcast.

First I have to get through by back-log of half-finished FTB stuff. I will think of Patreon and horned sex toys when I'm down eating Italian for Xmas.

The sad thing about Watson is that she produces such crap that her Patreon is basically a charity where people give her money and she does a half-hearted monkey dance.

[ianfc]

Maybe the heretic nullifidian urgently needs to be re-educated

33
nullifidian

18 December 2013 at 9:45 pm (UTC -6)

#27 michaelbusch:

Trivializing suicide is a very harmful thing to do.

And I can’t think of anything more trivializing of suicide, not to mention patronizing, than to use it as a excuse to sanctimoniously saddle up your high horse. Speaking as someone who has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress and has tried to kill himself three times, I was able to take PZ’s post in the proper spirit, and I do not need someone like you to act offended on my behalf. When I’m offended, I’m quite capable of expressing my disgust personally. If you failed to see anyone taking PZ on for his egregiously offensive misstep, it might be because most of us, including those with psychiatric disorders, weren’t offended.

. And when did the SJL need an excuse to sanctimoniously saddle up their high horses.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-727874

[Brive1987]

Dyatlov Pass is really interesting.

You probably have these already?

http://s001.radikal.ru/i196/1002/a8/9513e9e08557.jpg
Good typo map

http://www.aquiziam.com/dyatlov_pass_2.html
Good site

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=75
Good discussion

http://www.ermaktravel.com/Europe/Russi ... Syakhl.htm
Site

[Brive1987]

Typo = topo. Man I crack myself up.

[Brive1987]

Re Dyatlov.

I don't get how or why the party would "run" so far in impossible conditions straight down a slope. I mean at some point pretty soon the cold and lack of shoes and snow would outweigh the initial adrenalin of 'whatever' spooked them. And no I don't think it was a yeti.

[another lurker]

The Mad Trapper of Rat River is also pretty interesting. The man suffered from scoliosis, had one foot longer than the other, and managed to evade the RCMP for 3 days, over a distance of 85 miles, in blizzard/-30 conditions, and even succeeded in climbing a 7,000 foot peak that experienced mountain climbers found to be challenging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Joh ... riminal%29


His identity is still a mystery. He appeared out of nowhere, fucked shit up, then died. Considering what he achieved, he almost sounds superhuman. When the cops found him he was skin and bone - from burning 10,000 calories a day. Un-fucking-believable what he was able to achieve.

The Charles Bronson movie "Death Hunt" was loosely based on the story.

[Steersman]

More Watson crap

More "secret patreon only" videos which I haven't yet had a chance to watch:

Interview between Watson and Julia Bourke for secular women.


Watson fixing her boyfriends car while filming herself with her iPad. I kid you not.


Amazing the contrasting styles when the PR autobot isn't there to control the environment.

Patreon, so it's just making the same old crappy videos but now people are throwing cash at you for it?

Man, I have to get in on that action.

Good idea - but cross promote.

Put notices on YouTube, setup your web page to redirect, add old videos to Patreon, setup bullshit rewards, promise the world (or at least 1 new video) if only someone would sling you a dime, beg vacula for airtime, offer your services to other podcasts and most important of all - create a new mock drama to get SJW SM kick in.

You can't be half a whore. :popcorn:

You have something against “whores”? You may wish to take a look at The Honest Courtesan’s site for a different perspective.

Throw stones at Watson for not delivering the goods – if that is the case. But if she has done so then it hardly seems cricket to take a shot at her for taking money for doing so. And, in passing, to take one at an entire group of people who, based on the number of repeat customers and size of the market, seem to provide a service that is apparently in some demand, and of more than passing value.

[Aneris]

So I was perusing The Raw Story and I came across this interesting little article...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... w+Story%29

Apparently, people say mean things about cats because misogyny

While all sorts of people have pets of both types, cats are associated with not just women, but single, childless women. A lot of what people are doing when they insist that you cat doesn’t really love you and you must be fooling yourself is a kind of mansplaining: Silly cat ladies, who think that their cats love them! It fits into this larger narrative about how women are dumb and needy and cling to cats, unlike sure-footed, bright men who pick a pet they know loves them: dogs. (Never mind that men have cats and women have dogs, too. There’s no doubt that these pet choices are imagined as gendered in the public imagination. I get at least 10 people a week sending me “clever” jokes about how I must be a lonely woman who only has cats for comfort.)

Amanda Marcotte has really outdone herself this time. The bonus, she links to a R. Watson article...

I think anyone could be an SJW. Just read the news, and blame Teh Patriarchy for everything, as the Pit has been saying, for months...

http://sarahgignac.com/wp-content/uploa ... -today.jpg

OMG. Will this be the downfall of the Social Justice League? After all, PZ Myers seems to dislike cates, which makes him a misogynist now.

[Brive1987]

The Mad Trapper of Rat River is also pretty interesting. The man suffered from scoliosis, had one foot longer than the other, and managed to evade the RCMP for 3 days, over a distance of 85 miles, in blizzard/-30 conditions, and even succeeded in climbing a 7,000 foot peak that experienced mountain climbers found to be challenging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Joh ... riminal%29


His identity is still a mystery. He appeared out of nowhere, fucked shit up, then died. Considering what he achieved, he almost sounds superhuman. When the cops found him he was skin and bone - from burning 10,000 calories a day. Un-fucking-believable what he was able to achieve.

The Charles Bronson movie "Death Hunt" was loosely based on the story.

Thanks, interesting article. Way to go tramping 90Ks to hassle a mad hermit clearly craving solitude. Hassle him, kick in his door and blow up his hut. Why not.

'Cause that couldn't end badly, could it?

[Steersman]

<snip>
Do you really believe this or were you just being diplomatic?

Not quite sure what your “this” is referring to, but it was partly a question of being somewhat diplomatic, and because I do believe that there is some justification for the argument that “religion has contributed substantially to the advancement of civilization”.

I note that you agree "many atheists" (your emphasis), and I can't say that I agree with the strength of this. Don't get me wrong, some of the worst flame wars I have had have been with atheists saying completely dumb things, but I don't think the numbers warrant a 'many'.

That was largely for Hoffmann’s benefit since, as mentioned, it looked like he was throwing stones at all atheists. Although I don’t think that that is entirely the case as he’s expressed some admiration for Hitchens, and for “atheism” in broad terms, but I thought it important to emphasize the difference.

But I don’t know how many is “many” – the definition includes “a large indefinite number”, “the majority of the people”, and “numerous” – all of which seems to cover quite a spectrum. But you may wish to take a look at this post from Massimo Pigliucci who takes PZM to task for some “intemperate” language and dogmaticism in PZ’s demagogic brand of “atheism”, as well as suggesting PZ is only one of a rather large and problematic cohort. His conclusion:

I am often told by my non-activist friends (pretty much all of whom are agnostics or atheists themselves) that the problem with the new atheism is that it looks a lot like the mirror image of the sort of fundamentalist rage that we all so justly abhor. I always shrugged at this accusation as being overblown and missing the point, after all we — unlike them — are on the side of reason and true human compassion. Now I’m not so sure.

Maybe some justification for the contention that “atheism” has a bit of a PR problem.

On the subject of being a strong atheist, I think I am as strong as it gets. I tip my hat as a courtesy, but I am always careful to point out that we can't prove a negative.

Agreed. Part of my point. Although I also like to point out that there have been some 10,000 to 100,000 anthropomorphic “gawds” who have come down the pike over tens if not hundreds of millennia, and have disappeared into the “dustbin of history” – to coin a phrase. Just on the basis of probability alone, it seems quite easy to justify putting Jehovah and Allah on it as well. Not “proof”, but a very high degree of probability.

However, I see absolutely no reason to consider supernatural causes for anything until I see a shred of evidence pointing me in that direction, and so far there have been none. And in short, as they usually describe their deity as being infinitely magical, I consider the odds to be infinitely unlikely.

Aye, there’s the rub, or at least part of the problem, that even many atheists insist on thinking that all conceptions of “gawd” are claimed to be literally true; basically playing the game on “their” turf. I’m certainly not arguing for any “supernatural deity” – whatever is, is. The questions are what is encompassed by that verb, and whether there’s any utility in the abstractions that seem to be part of other conceptions such as panentheism. I think there is, particularly in relation to the question of consciousness, but that’s only a hypothesis, a conjecture, an intimation.

I certainly don't think that arguments made against the historicity of Jesus are incredible. In fact, it is not that unusual to hear a discussion about the strengths of the arguments between atheists.

Certainly an interesting question, although a bit of a time-consuming one, something that I have in rapidly diminishing quantities – to coin another phrase, “knowing one is to be hung in a forthnight tends to sharpen one’s sense of worthwhile uses of one’s time” (needs some work). But I don’t find the concept of some “dude” named Jesus in first-century Palestine who happened to be a somewhat deluded itinerant preacher who got crucified for his troubles all that hard to believe. Particularly when that seems to be more or less the consensus among various scholars:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher or rabbi from Galilee who preached his message orally, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

The problems tend to mushroom when the religious insist on trying to tie that to supernatural events like “The Resurrection!!!”, and when A-class dickheads like Myers try to deny some credible history in service of their demagoguery.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

Don’t know for sure, but this seems like a pretty reasonable set of precepts for starters:

When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus replies: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37–39). Other ethical teachings of Jesus include loving one's enemies, refraining from hatred and lust, and turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:21–44)

In the gospels, the approximately thirty parables form about one third of Jesus' recorded teachings.

And even the “ethic of reciprocity” that Aneris quoted in the context of Confucianism was apparently something that was central to Jesus’ teachings, and which has arguably been disseminated to a wider audience as a result of Christianity.

Here's THE central message to Jesus' teaching:

I am a god. You can trust me on this one, because I'm a god. So follow me. Or no heaven for you.

That's repeated over and fucking over in the Gospels, with just a sprinkling of some touchy-feely concepts that'd already been bouncing around the hellenic world for a few centuries. But also with some doozies like: you must never, ever divorce -- except if your wife is a whore, then fine; try not to beat your slaves too hard; if you feel the urge to cut your dick off, go for it; don't ever take oaths; don't forget to pack two coats and two pairs of sandals on a road trip.

The parables contain zero useful moral lessons -- just confident predictions that the movement will grow.

In short, Jesus, real or fabricated, offers not one single new concept, not one unique insight, to philosophy. His 'life coaching' advice is pedantic. Jesus is a bust.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Do you really believe this or were you just being diplomatic?

Not quite sure what your “this” is referring to, but it was partly a question of being somewhat diplomatic, and because I do believe that there is some justification for the argument that “religion has contributed substantially to the advancement of civilization”.

I note that you agree "many atheists" (your emphasis), and I can't say that I agree with the strength of this. Don't get me wrong, some of the worst flame wars I have had have been with atheists saying completely dumb things, but I don't think the numbers warrant a 'many'.

That was largely for Hoffmann’s benefit since, as mentioned, it looked like he was throwing stones at all atheists. Although I don’t think that that is entirely the case as he’s expressed some admiration for Hitchens, and for “atheism” in broad terms, but I thought it important to emphasize the difference.

But I don’t know how many is “many” – the definition includes “a large indefinite number”, “the majority of the people”, and “numerous” – all of which seems to cover quite a spectrum. But you may wish to take a look at this post from Massimo Pigliucci who takes PZM to task for some “intemperate” language and dogmaticism in PZ’s demagogic brand of “atheism”, as well as suggesting PZ is only one of a rather large and problematic cohort. His conclusion:

I am often told by my non-activist friends (pretty much all of whom are agnostics or atheists themselves) that the problem with the new atheism is that it looks a lot like the mirror image of the sort of fundamentalist rage that we all so justly abhor. I always shrugged at this accusation as being overblown and missing the point, after all we — unlike them — are on the side of reason and true human compassion. Now I’m not so sure.

Maybe some justification for the contention that “atheism” has a bit of a PR problem.

On the subject of being a strong atheist, I think I am as strong as it gets. I tip my hat as a courtesy, but I am always careful to point out that we can't prove a negative.

Agreed. Part of my point. Although I also like to point out that there have been some 10,000 to 100,000 anthropomorphic “gawds” who have come down the pike over tens if not hundreds of millennia, and have disappeared into the “dustbin of history” – to coin a phrase. Just on the basis of probability alone, it seems quite easy to justify putting Jehovah and Allah on it as well. Not “proof”, but a very high degree of probability.

However, I see absolutely no reason to consider supernatural causes for anything until I see a shred of evidence pointing me in that direction, and so far there have been none. And in short, as they usually describe their deity as being infinitely magical, I consider the odds to be infinitely unlikely.

Aye, there’s the rub, or at least part of the problem, that even many atheists insist on thinking that all conceptions of “gawd” are claimed to be literally true; basically playing the game on “their” turf. I’m certainly not arguing for any “supernatural deity” – whatever is, is. The questions are what is encompassed by that verb, and whether there’s any utility in the abstractions that seem to be part of other conceptions such as panentheism. I think there is, particularly in relation to the question of consciousness, but that’s only a hypothesis, a conjecture, an intimation.

I certainly don't think that arguments made against the historicity of Jesus are incredible. In fact, it is not that unusual to hear a discussion about the strengths of the arguments between atheists.

Certainly an interesting question, although a bit of a time-consuming one, something that I have in rapidly diminishing quantities – to coin another phrase, “knowing one is to be hung in a forthnight tends to sharpen one’s sense of worthwhile uses of one’s time” (needs some work). But I don’t find the concept of some “dude” named Jesus in first-century Palestine who happened to be a somewhat deluded itinerant preacher who got crucified for his troubles all that hard to believe. Particularly when that seems to be more or less the consensus among various scholars:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher or rabbi from Galilee who preached his message orally, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

The problems tend to mushroom when the religious insist on trying to tie that to supernatural events like “The Resurrection!!!”, and when A-class dickheads like Myers try to deny some credible history in service of their demagoguery.

[ROBOKiTTY]

I know, right? Just look at the numbers - Asian-Americans have a median family income of only $68,000, a poverty rate of 12.8%, 50% have a college degree, only 21% have a graduate or professional degree. I mean, if that's not an example of a subordinate class of people, I don't know what is.

Oops. The overall US median family income is only $50,000, the poverty rate is around 15%, 29% have a college degree, and 11% have a graduate or professional degree.

Well gosh - would you look at that - per this wikichart, looks like Asian-Americans are the most privileged class of people, economically, in the United States:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Income.png

I honestly couldn't tell you why this seems to have turned into the biggest racial hoedown I've ever seen on Twitter, but I'll just leave you with this:

Onward me go, indeed.

One does have to keep in mind that (East-)Asian-Americans are amongst the most self-selected demographics in North America. The vast majority of East Asians in North America are either first-generation immigrants or children of first-generation immigrants. That means their families were already rich enough to fly over and immigrate (and get accepted) in the first place. Outside of the rare refugees and illegal immigrants, you aren't going to see an Asian family start out poor in North America very often.

So the demographic already starts out dominated by a highly selected elite. Add to that stereotypical -- but nonetheless true compared to other cultures -- East Asian work ethics, which places extreme value on academic excellence and material success to the detriment of mental health, social activities, and personal welfare; it becomes no wonder that East Asians are so overrepresented in elite schools and universities.

But of course, not all East Asians can live up to that standard, especially amongst those who have been raised in North America and exposed to the principles of individuality. The East Asian work ethic is extremely dehumanizing; one's intrinsic value is determined by one's success at school and then at work, but academic excellence does not readily translate into material success in life, not when social life and mental health are so often neglected.

You don't hear about it often, but Asian underachievers amongst the elite have it rough, both in Asia and North America.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Here's THE central message to Jesus' teaching:

I am a god. You can trust me on this one, because I'm a god. So follow me. Or no heaven for you.

That's repeated over and fucking over in the Gospels, with just a sprinkling of some touchy-feely concepts that'd already been bouncing around the hellenic world for a few centuries.

But Jesus didn't write the gospels. Nor do I think he actually claimed to be god or divine.