a self-esteem punk

You guys in Britain have managed to walk upright? Were you planning on sharing that with the colonies any time soon? Do you know how hard it is to field a quality football team when you're running around on all fours?

Seriously, though. The problem with the religious right is that they don't read the parts of the bible that talk about the evil things they do.

Vexing or oppressing a stranger=Death

Can't have that part mentioned, because then you couldn't bomb and enslave all those resource rich nations full of those pesky dark people.
They did manage to see the 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' buried right near there. Of course, they interpreted witch to mean any single person, generally female, who owned land or had something worth stealing, and was in some way different.

I'm tired. Lack the focus to actually rant. Will find link for previous similar rant later, if so desired.

I think I called Mother Teresa histories greatest monster.
She was a good catholic, that one.

wwm.

From:

say what you like about MT - she could DVDA like a pro.

From:

dvda? Is quite late here, not real swift at the moment.

wwm.

From:

Double Vaginal, Double Anal

From:

Can't say I've ever seen thaat, even in porn. I'm not even sure how that would be possible.

Anyways, still coherent enough to cut and paste, so this is my thought on MT, starting talking to a frind about the new pope:

I don't like the Church. At all. Any of them. I have a great deal of respect for John Paul II, for the work he did in his lifetime, and for the fighting to maintain the ideals of catholicism. That doesn't change the fact I disagree with many of the policies he supported.

I have the same feelings for Mother Teresa. She was the perfect Catholic. Her work getting prostitutes in one of the poorest areas in the world to stop using condoms was one of the vilest things any human has ever done. The death, sickness, and hardships she caused with her lifes work rival what the great Dictators of the 20th century did.

She should be Sainted for her unquestioning Faith and service for her church. I mean that. Few people have that level of commitment in the face of the horrors they have helped to create.

wwm.

From:

drreagan.livejournal.com

Is it possible to do that in any way that isn't like a pro? I'd imagine it quite tricky!

From:

I'm still waiting for some sort of proof that it's even possible.

wwm.

From:

gaius-octavian.livejournal.com

Jesus loves you anyway :-)

From:

doktor242.livejournal.com

Jesus Jones? They're still around, you know.

From:

sirjustice.livejournal.com

amen to that brother lol

From:

the_axel

Intelligent Design is the Wicca of the evolution debate.

No it isn't.
It's a way for American religious nutters to get religion [1] onto the curriculum of schools.

Because of the separation of church & state over there, teaching God is a no-no.

Intelligent Design is generic creationism - rather than Jehovah building everything in 6 days or Purusha being sacrificied and turned into butter &c., somebody or something designed & built everything the way it is now at some point in the past.

& everyone who pushes it is a fundamentalist evangelical Christian - AFAIK, most religions can deal with metaphor.

It is the opposite of Wicca cause it has a clear & insidious political motivation & goal.

[1] Rather than the academic study of religion.

From:

doktor242.livejournal.com

you're on point today. good show sir.

From:

revdj.livejournal.com

Fucking wordsmith deathboy, I love you.

From:

I suppose my argument is "how does one define 'intelegent design'?" Are we going by the wacky 6-days-and-one-nap-later-the-universe-was-made idea, or are we saying that creatures do change and advance but with a helping hand?

The former is right-out, there's no possible way I will ever adhere to a strict, fundamentalist idea based on a book written by the hand of man. Until God himself steps down and delivers a text to man that we can read without our eyes bleeding or our brains exploding I cannot go word-for-word on the bible.

The later, however, is a far harder matter to dismiss. I will elaborate:

Current evolutionary theory holds that at some point in time, by naught but chance, a couple chemical acids happened to bend in such a way that they fit together and could then multiple themselves simply by taking materials around them and twisting them in turn. They became replicators. Other replicators somehow came to be, either by twisting a different way by accident when being made by the first set or simply being made independently. These replicators instead devoured those beside them and then spat out new forms of themselves. We now had competition, these little acids exploding through the vast oceans of the still-too-hot world. They got more and more complex, making single celled organisms that fought with biological wips and disolving agents.

Then, something strange happened. One organism tried to eat another and, instead, formed a union wiht it. We now had ribosomes, and these now multicelled organisms began to become even more advanced and exotic until they turned into things like fish, birds, koalas, emus, and that guy who parked too close to your car and dinged your door.

Now, all of this exists on a serious of mind-bogglingly tenous chances. Slim shots that not even Vegas could predict the odds are.

How could the chance re-arrangement of acids form into a mulitcellular superorgamism capable of higherlevel functions not dependent on a single cell? That could shed cells and maintain function? That could develope art, divergent language, and killer synth lines?

To say there isn't at least the chance of something bigger than us helping us along is mathmatically insane.

From:

no, it isn't.

in an infinite (or finite but fucking mindbogglingly vast) universe, the chance of life occurring isn't so small.

just because it's a tiny chance and oh, hello, here we are... doesn't mean anything intervened in the slightest.

you know how unlikely it is for a given sperm to latch with an egg, to make the exact human that is you?

mathematically insane, no? but here you are.

I don't need a whackjob deity concept to know that sometimes the dice do fall on snake-eyes.

From:

yea, it is mathmatically insane. You're talking about adhearing to a concept who's best attempt at explaining the big "why" is that two conflicting planes of existance that were purely 2D in aspect somehow collided to create a 3D dimension which is bound by the interaction between mass and time (both of which were created in the initial collision) and then formed by pure miracle everything we know.

THAT is a miracle. THAT is wackjob concept. The idea that something far larger than us exists not only fall better to occam's razor but also gives some hop that perhaps all things are not chance. The best theories of science, which by the way fail after only a generation or two now that we've learned that everything we thought was constant (time, gravity, etc) are actually in severe flux and need stroooong re-evaluation, tell us that quite literally anything is possible. That Kafka was right and one day you just might wake up as a cockroach.

And if you wish to believe that anything isn't possible, ask yourself what happens when we collide with another 2D reality? If it happened once it can happen again.

I prefer to believe that something far bigger might just be out there, making those dicerolls a lot less frightening. I believe in science, I do not believe that all things are decided, all things written out before me... but I can't look out at the world and say that all these things that are a statistical near-impossiblity that contradict our best theories (see: platapus, jellyfish, and most notably the bombardier beetle which gets a bit over-represented in the literature).

I'm not saying that you have to subscribe to any theology. I will not stand and tell you that your damned for not believing the way I do. But on a purly logical sense, to try to believe that something so complex could possibly hold together is virtually impossible.

I'll give another example:

I go drinking with a guy from Fermi Lab here in Illinois. You may recognize the name from Enrico Fermi, father of the atomic bomb. Fermi Lab does some rather crazy things, including the project my friend is involved in where they're firing neutrinos at Wisconsin (our neighboring state to the north).

The experiment is taking place quite far underground in an abandonned salt mine. You can find information about it at their general site.

Now, if you're not familiar with nutrinos, we know nothing about them. We know they exist, but they can't even be properly explained. In fact, they may not have mass (and try to wrap you head around an OBJECT existing and NOT HAVING MASS... it hurts my head just thinking about it.) These things don't seem to have a gravity of their own around them, as we can't properly measure an effect they have on neighboring elements that would suggest they do. Even light is said to have mass in that whole "both a partical and a wave" thing. We're not even sure if Neutrinos are effected by gravity.

So I talked to him about it, asked him what the hell they were doing playing with particals they didn't understand. That were so powerful if one were fired from the sun it would take almost the entire distance between the sun and the earth filled with lead to stop it.

He answered my qustion with a story about Chris Monroe at National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado in 1996 and an experiment they did to prove the feasability of the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment; that one object can exist in two states at the exact same time. In this experiment of Monroe's an atom of beryllium was converted into an ion and pummled with lazers, pulled apart, and placed back together in a state that should not be able to exist... and yet it did. This experiment has held up to harsh scrutiny, especially considering it's based on a theory despised by Einstein himself. But the fact remains that in laboratories we can create things that should not exist, my friend said. In fact, they play with things that may not exist at all.

From:

That daily scientists are playing with things that disprove our own concepts on reality, and that him firing a stream of atomic particals up at the boundry between our nation and the next isn't so bad.

When man can contradict his best guesses as to how the world works, it seems that something far larger than anything we can possibly comprehend is at work.

From:

all I see here is that you want to be able to entertain the idea of something greater, because of a feeling, and because it appeals to your sense of how the universe works, and so you do.

sorry, man, I can't see anything in what you've said that points towards ID being any more than the wishful thinking I previously considered it.

From:

I'm not saying you have to believe in it, but you do have to alot for the posability of a higher power. To state that you can follow science, that says that there must be a form of matter that makes up for 90% of all things to allow for the planets to spin the way they do and follow a path around a centeral point and not fly off into space... to believe in something that can allow for things that cannot be defined and must accept our faith... a collection of beliefs that uses a numerical value (i) that by definition does not exist in order to prove theories that are essential to our notion of the way things work... and to NOT believe in the chance there's something out there helping things work right?

That doesn't make sense to me.

I'll not say that I'm right and your wrong, but I can't see how you can claim with absolution one thing over another when both are equally flawed.

From:

sure, I accept the possibility of many things. I accept the possibility that we're all a dream in the mind of a sleeping turtle. I can't prove or disprove it and it matters precious little to me if it's true or not, so I don't afford it any of my precious headspace.

on that level I even accept the possibility that the christian god, exactly as described, flowing white beard and all *could* exist. Though where his heaven is, I don't know.

even if there were some creator that set this universe, or just (say) this world into action - so what? we have no interaction with him/her/it, we can't prove or disprove him/her/its existence, it's futile to even entertain the notion except for the one reason that everyone seems to: it gives 'em a warm fluffy feeling inside to think we're not just alone, the products of chance and science, spinning through a universe with no point, destined for a final and inevitable death in which it all becomes null and void.

Science doesn't ask us to have faith in things, science recognises that for some models to be used or continue to be useful, we must acknowledge flaws in the the model, categorise them and work around them. This is just good, clear thinking. Sometimes, you can't grok a rule in its totality, you know exceptions exist, or that there's an unknown cause for a predictable, measurable behaviour, but can't fathom the missing thing, but can happily work with the system you have without knowing absolutely everything.

That's not big, magical, hard to understand or even new. When man didn't know why the moon and sun obeyed their courses, but could still predict them and use that knowledge to their advantage, that wasn't an indicator that there must be gods pushing 'em about the heavens. They THOUGHT it was, like you think that because we haven't got some mythical unified theory of Everything that must somehow point to the existence of a creator.

Just because we don't know everything yet, and yet we're smart enough to work around the holes in our knowledge temporarily does not, in any way, logically imply a superior force. It just means we don't have all the answers yet.

(i) is not some magical freak of reality, proof that the universe is not what we think it is, it's just a novel way of abusing our usual number-modelling system in a useful and occasionally beautiful way. Again, no god here.

Both are not equally flawed, because science has leapt us from a flat earth to literally touching the stars and we ain't finished yet. Religion, however, was an attempt to answer the question "what's out there in the scary dark?" - and it failed even at that.

If you believe both are equally flawed, try replacing big chunks of your life that depend on science, with faith and see how well you get on.

in fact, please don't, because it wouldn't be pretty.

From:

I should state that it's not my intention to "convert" you, but simply to point out that concessions must be made for differing view points.

"Both are not equally flawed, because science has leapt us from a flat earth to literally touching the stars and we ain't finished yet. Religion, however, was an attempt to answer the question "what's out there in the scary dark?" - and it failed even at that."

I beg to differ. They are both equally flawed and equally beautiful. The simple fact is that science and religion, though opposing forces, are inexorably tied. Science needs religion (or at least memes) in order to further itself because it has no driving force on its own. The greatest advancements are virtually all attributed to times of competition, of one meme against another. It's just that we look down on the cause rather than the tool.

Is a gun any less guilty than the man who pointed it at a person and pulled a trigger?

We can argue that the intention does not lie in the object because the object has no consciousness, no ability to form moral decisions. But the object is a tool and serves only one purpose: to kill. In that there is an implied evil. And science very, very, VERY fucking much has an applied evil tacked onto it as a modifier.

Because science is a tool, and tools are nothing more than objects a person or group of similar people use give themselves an advantage over another person or set. Creatures developed tools and abilities not to protect themselves, no creature ever advanced to be defensive, but for offensive capablilties. We develope weapons, cars, spaceships, vaccines, what-have-you in the hopes that our having them will mean we get more territory, we get more food, and we get more reproduction rights.

Is science to blame? Perhaps, perhaps not. While I adore science and read it avidly, I abhor the complete lack of morality implied within it. There is nothing in the basis of science that suggests peace, that suggests forgiveness, or that suggests even the do-and-do-not nature of it. It is an incomplete dogma in that it provides for ritual and meaning, but without guidance or suggestion to use. While this is in someways good as it allows for free expression and for experimentation and further development, it is a horrible irresponsible thing to place such power in the hands of creatures whose most base instinct is to fuck-over anythign different than itself.

Religion has a shakey track record, obviously, but is it really the dogma itself that is at fault? Any major religion created in the past few thousand years has had, as it's end result, the betterment of those who followed it in mind. While conditions were added for holy wars by those who wanted them (and every major religion has gotten to where it is by murder millions of "non-believers", let's not just say christianity and point a scolding finger at one side of the crusades).

It has never been science's goal to tell people how to get along. Hell, it's normally science's goal to help people not get along more effectivly. It is, however, the teachings of any religion that we should find peace within ourselves and with eachother. Yes, leaders pervert that message.... A LOT... and this is a terrible, terrible thing. But science has done as much perverting of it's own (see: current studies with giving mice human nerve and cerbral cell tissue).

But we are more forgiving of one than the other. We are more understanding when science developes a bomb to destroy a town full of people in an instant and less understanding towards actions made by people a thousand years ago. Actions aided by science. We are proud of the men we put on the moon, but not the science developed by Von Braun and other nazis that got them there. The vast majority of what we use in everyday life was created in order to destroy something, but we love it... so many people had to die for our understanding of science, maybe close to as many people as were killed in the last world war (see: german experimentation on jews and gyspsies, japanese experimentation on the chinese and russians, british colonialists disection of living native americans, american experimentation on soldiers with lsd, etc etc etc etc etc).

From:

I see no reason in "Fucking religious cattle, I despise you" in that it's a blanket statement posed at (perhaps only a few these days) people who are honestly trying to better themselves. Who believe that by following a practice, whatever it is be it judiasm, christianity, islam, taoism, budhism, etc that they are better people. Not better than those who surround them, not elite, but made better in that they try to be good and try to be honest and understanding. I cannot fault a dogma of any kind that hopes to make humans more humane.

That has never been science's aim, it is religion's.

Does this make religion better? On a moral front, perhaps, if followed properly. But in terms of bettering human life? I can't say. I think the world would be infinatly worse off without one or the other. But I'd give up my television, my car, my polio vaccine... everything... I'd give it all up if it meant that people could behave and get along the way that any major book says they should. I would give up all the electric gadgets I love so much if it meant that we could all be more moral and loving towards one another.

From:

I'm not even having this conversation any more.

I think it's safe to say that we don't harbour anything like the same beliefs, and I can state fairly categorically that mine are not compatible with yours, nor do I wish to waste more time in pointless debate.

I abhore religion. It is anathema to me. I try to tolerate people of faith on a piecemeal basis, and with varying degrees of success, but generally, I don't want religion anywhere near me, my life, or the people and things that I love.

From:

than we'll call it an end at that. I'm sorry to upset you, I assure you I harbor no ill-will towards you however you feel. I'll never tell you to accept my beliefs, it was simply an attempt to get you to admit the chance these things may be right just as I accept they may be wrong.

From:

'appreciated. no rancour on my side, but that's largely why I'm stopping now - I have, in the past, seen and explored the alternative points of view, but my life has led me very, very far away from religion.

From: