Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Like I said before, the kids singing about Obama was part of a teacher's assignment for Black History Month. If the kids had been singing a song about Muhammad Ali or ML King Jr, would Beck et alia have gotten their underwear in a bunch about it?

It was a song about Obama, not to Obama. If you continue to refer to it as some sort of paean to the Glorious Leader, you're falling for Beck's demagoguery. Kindly knock it off, please.

As for Charlie Rangel, sigh ... he was loopy when I was living on Long Island more than 30 years ago. Age has not mellowed him much. So, have at 'im.

Posted by: wheatdogg | October 8, 2009 9:51 AM

Ah, good old Glen "Not Playing With A Full" Beck.

Posted by: Scott Simmons | October 8, 2009 10:05 AM

What, exactly, did Rangel say that was loopy? I'm beginning to sense a false equivalency argument here.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 10:39 AM

Not everybody sees the similarity here that I do, but:

http://nojesusnopeas.blogspot.com/2009/10/notice-any-similarities.html

Posted by: James Sweet | October 8, 2009 10:44 AM

I'd rather have them singing "I heart Obama" than Silent Night.

Posted by: Andrea | October 8, 2009 10:50 AM

Mr. B: please provide exact words, as well as context, to back up your allegation.

Remember, it was also claimed that Gore bragged of having "invented the Internet;" but a closer look at what he actually said proves that the claims were flat-out lies to make him look loonier than he was. This is why I'm asking for specifics here; and your failure to provide them, while trying to mock my request, does not make you look credible.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 11:06 AM

Besides, eight years of Bush Jr. and a loony-right-dominated Republican party had done so much damage all over the world, that anyone who replaces them can easily be said to have "saved the world" from further catastrophe. So if you want to say Rangel's statements were loony, it's on your head to provide context and prove it.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 11:10 AM

It's amazing how terrified these people are of atheists. What do they think we're going to do, cause them to lose their sense of religious faith? I think that's exactly what they're afraid of. It's sad.

While I find that interesting Sadie, I find it even more interesting that they project their own weaknesses and biases onto whomever they despise. The "Liberal Nazi" who stops them from enforcing their own religious beliefs as the Truth™, the "greedy atheist," presented by a guy who makes 7 figures for lying about our political discourse. While there are, of course, exceptions, most of the liberals I know tend to be free speech absolutists (like Ed and many of the readers here), tend to favor rights not just for those they agree with, but for all. But if you listen to Beck, Liberals and their "Gestapo" want to shut down all but liberal secular points of view. Total bogus bullshit, but you see it over and over again. With this one he portrays atheists as materialistic gluttons. Again, most of the atheists I know are motivated by just about anything BUT money or material wealth. Most of them are educators and authors, researchers and philosophers.

But, if you listen to Beck, liberal atheists are a bunch of greedy, materialistic, dominating, thought-police. After a moment's pause you realize that he has, yet again, projected the positions held by so many of his own "freedom loving" audience members onto the object of his despair.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 8, 2009 11:36 AM

What do they think we're going to do, cause them to lose their sense of religious faith?

Precisely - in the same way they think same-sex marriage will cause the institution of heterosexual marriage to break down. That's what they claim, anyway. They're really afraid it will make it that much easier for them to give in to those nagging feelings that just won't go away...

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 8, 2009 11:41 AM

@Sadie - I don't think that they are really concerned about their own faith. I think it's more that these people are worried about other people's faith, specifically the faith of their sons and daughters. It's similar to their fears that the gays will corrupt their children, or that their pure and precious daughter will marry a black man.

Posted by: Imrryr | October 8, 2009 11:43 AM

Glenn was on the verge of tears? Geez; I hope not. He claims to have trouble with blood shooting from his eyes. Can you imagine the creep factor of that?! As vile as he is; that is the absolute last thing we need to see is to see Death By Bloody Tears.

Oh, c'mon. Not only would "Death By Bloody Tears" be a great name for a band, it would be way cool to watch Beck expire in exactly that way on national TV. Fox's ratings would be through the roof, though. It'd also be interesting to see how many minutes would pass before this was blamed on Obama.

Posted by: Dave | October 8, 2009 11:51 AM

... especially if McCain's heart had kicked out and Palin had become POTUS ...

SPOILERS for the Oct. 1, 2009 Supernatural ahead:

On the show Supernatural last week, when Dean got transported to a Hell-on-Earth five years in the future, there was a newspaper headline that said something like, "President Palin authorizes action against Houston." Even in a world where demons, werewolves, shapeshifters, djinn, angels, and vampires actually exist, it takes an apocalypse to justify electing Palin.

Posted by: Shawn Smith | October 8, 2009 12:26 PM

I still don't understand why conservatives just can't understand the concept of choice. They seem to think that if you don't force kids to pray in school, then you must forbid them from praying, and those are the only two possible scenarios. Is it really so hard to see that you can't force a kid to pray, but if they choose to pray (or sing a Christmas carol), then they are allowed to do that? I was pretty religious in high school, to the extent that I joined a voluntary prayer group that would pray in the hallways every day before classes started. No one ever gave us any trouble. Even when I was that religious, I still would have protested to forced prayer. One of the things that pushed me away from the group was that some of the other students actually wanted school-led prayer. My view at the time was that it doesn't really count if it's not voluntary and God wouldn't be fooled anyway. It just doesn't seem like such a difficult concept to grasp.

Posted by: catgirl | October 8, 2009 12:52 PM

They seem to think that if you don't force kids to pray in school, then you must forbid them from praying, and those are the only two possible scenarios.

It's Gell-Mann's Totalitarian Principle: "Everything which is not forbidden, is compulsory." The principle comes from physics, but it seems to work just as well when talking about political totalitarians.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 8, 2009 12:58 PM

...what I find baffling is how on the one hand they mock atheists as being few in numbers and insignificant, and then they turn around and blame atheists for destroying the country.

That's how scapegoating works: people don't have the guts to take on the REAL causes of their problems, so they look for alternative targets who are, OTOH, small/weak enough that they can be attacked without much risk, and, OTOH, different enough, and visible enough, that they can be portrayed as both alien and a real and ever-present threat to the order they know and want to protect -- a threat that they can attack safely and feel they've destroyed it. That's why so many people pretended Jews were the enemy, and it's why people like Beck and the rest of the radical right, are pretending gays, Pagans, feminists, and atheists are the enemy.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 1:09 PM

Catgirl has it roughly right about problems if you "force kids to pray in school" – having grown up in a country where schools hold religious assemblies including prayers led by a local minister, at my first assembly at secondary school (high school) the rector (headmaster) introduced the school chaplain, at which a hoarse voice from one of my classmates quietly said "Charles Chaplin". You can lead kids to water, but you can't make them pray.

Posted by: dave souza | October 8, 2009 1:21 PM

That helps kids learn what? To honor the president, I guess. Regardless of who he is or what he does.

Well maybe, just maybe, the teacher could tell those students about the president's accomplishments. That sounds like learning to me.

Posted by: catgirl | October 8, 2009 1:49 PM

Paul @ 32:

>>>They're lining up their sights on the next target now that gays aren't as easily stigmatized. It's all about a nebulous enemy, because they have no positive policies to put forth.

No kidding. I think I can count the total amount of atheists I've met in my life on one hand.

What Beck (and others like him) are doing is just setting up atheists as their latest scapegoat du jour, and blaming all of America's problems on them.

But it's a hollow argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, especially when one considers how many who call themselves as Christians are in US prisons for myriad crimes...which isn't to say that Christians are worse than anyone else (atheist or otherwise), but they are not better either.

Anyone who says so is simply a liar or ignorant.

Posted by: CHV | October 8, 2009 1:58 PM

Raging Bee: "That's IT?!! That's all you have to "prove" rangel is a loony? Puh-lease."

No, the point is that Rangel made looney comments, not that he is entirely unhinged. I can't speak for before he appeared on my radar screen, but those comments are still over the top.

RagingBee: "Calling Rangel a loony is just another lame, transparent attempt to distract our attention from the far worse lunacy of the Republicans. So let's cut the dumbass pretense of being "evenhanded" and stick to Beck. He has no equal on the relevant left."

I generally agree that we need to stay on focus in pointing out the large-scale lunacy of the right, but in order to do so without being sidetracked into a defensive action we have to keep our own house in order first. It's not about being "evenhanded," it's about being consistent. I don't always agree with Ed, but at least he applies his values with a single standard, and I believe that is the only way that we will be able to consistently keep the reins of power out of the hands of the truly insane on the right.

Posted by: Mystyk | October 8, 2009 2:41 PM

Mystyk: there's nothing "insonsistent" about recognizing an obvious truth: Rangel's comments arent even loony (as I already pointed out); and Glenn beck IS both a loony and a fucking liar. "Consistency" means applying a single, sensible, standard to both parties, and recognizing that, according to that standard, Republicans are noticeably different from Democrats.

Pretending one of your own party said something "loony" when he clearly didn't, is not "evenhanded" or "consistent;" nor does it help to keep power out of the hands of the other party's loons; it's just capitulation to Republican diversionary lies.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 3:11 PM

Catgirl,

I don't want students honoring the president. Full stop. I want them learning about government, but that should be as value-neutral and critical an endeavor as it can possibly be. I do not like the idea of government-mandated education telling kids what they should think of government.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 8, 2009 3:24 PM

That's exactly it, Raging Bee-- they're just kids. What do they know about whether the president is honorable or not? That's what makes it creepy.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 8, 2009 3:39 PM

Yes, being led in song by your teacher about honoring a politician is creepy. If you disagree, then consider how you'd feel if the politician in question were George W., Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Rick Santorum, Mark Sandford, whoever, and your kid is singing about how "honorable" they are.

I take the Richard Dawkins stance on this. His position is that you don't pretend that kids have authentic religious views, because they're just not capable of comprehending these things. The same is true of political views. Small children do not know whether the president is honorable any more than they know whether it's a sin to eat pork. Give them the respect of letting them make up their own minds.

Kids are routinely taught -- even by liberal parents -- to respect adults and adult work, particularly parents, teachers, cops, doctors, intended role models, etc. These are kids, remember?

Yes, that would be my point. Not all adults are respectable, including the president. It's kind of important that kids respect their parents and teachers, since those people are in charge of making sure the kids are safe and educated. But respecting any politician? Not remotely necessary. Not something anyone should be taught before they're capable of grasping what it even means.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 8, 2009 4:33 PM

RB: If by

Rangel's comments arent [sic] even loony (as I already pointed out)

you mean these remarks:

That is, at worst, the kind of exaggeration that comes standard in political speechifying and rabble-rousing. It's certainly closer to the truth than all that Republican BS about how "Government is the problem" and "tax cuts will make the economy grow."

Then what you did is simply to deny without providing any substantive evidence. It is not, contrary to your assertion, any "closer" to the truth to say that Barack Obama will save the world than any of the "Republican BS" - there is simply nothing to support the assertion, just like most of what the Republicans claim. There's no capitulation in that, and you are being dishonest to claim such. I can easily say that the Republicans are lying about X, Y, and Z and still assert that another thing said about some Democrat (or otherwise) is patently wrong in a statement he or she said.

That, back to the point, is precisely what is meant by consistency. If you care more about partisanship, then fine, but don't mischaracterize how some of us decide to treat claims by opposing parties.

Posted by: Mr. B | October 8, 2009 4:52 PM

@berbel73

In a perfect world we would care no more about Bek's rantings than we care about the rantings of a random lunatic wearing a sandwich board proclaiming the end is near.

Sadly, whereas that lunatic has no audience, Bek has a legion of brain dead zombies who believe the shit he says.

And that's what concerns us.

Posted by: JohnV | October 8, 2009 4:57 PM

berbel73, #46: I love how Mr. Beck gets such a rise out of everyone here who claim that he is a f'ing liar and an idiot. If you actually believe this to be true then why does everyone here care what he says or does?

Because lunatics and idiots believe what he says and then vote based on this misinformation; we then have to live with the results. The lunatics and idiots also end up disrupting town hall meetings and they jam the venues for sharing and disseminating information with their nonsense. At times it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion of real policies and their real effects over the shouts of the crazed lunatics. Becks lies affect us, and they affect us in a negative way.

If Beck's fans didn't bother voting, and just stayed in their own homes or attended their own picnics and parties, then you'd have a point.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 8, 2009 5:02 PM

Gretchen: of all the people you mention, only GWB was actually President. And I would not be at all surprised if some teachers had kids singing "We honor you, Mr. President" during Bush Jr's tenure. (It probably did happen then, but Beck didn't complain about it.) "Honoring" the President because he's the President has nothing to do with political or policy views, especially to kids too young to deal with the complexities of political disputes.

Small children do not know whether the president is honorable any more than they know whether it's a sin to eat pork. Give them the respect of letting them make up their own minds.

Are you kidding me? Small children don't know enough to judge that sort of thing, but you want us to "let them make up their minds?" Their minds aren't yet able to make that sort of decision, and pretending they have an adult's capacity in this regard is just plain stupid.

Small children have neither the authority nor the competence to judge adults. The guy calling on the phone and asking to speak to Mom may be a wife-beater and/or a drug-addict, but the child is simply not in a position to understand him enough to make such a judgement, and either way, he still has to answer the phone politely and pass the call to Mom. Judging the guy on the phone is Mom's and/or Dad's job, not the kid's.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 5:05 PM

berbel73, what do you have to say about the rumors that you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? I haven't seen the evidence, but there must be something to these rumors, as you have made no effort to deny them.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 8, 2009 5:06 PM

Then what you did is simply to deny without providing any substantive evidence...

The evidence is all around you, and I explicitly cited some. You're just ignoring it. What do you expect me to do -- cite hundreds of newpaper and magazine articles published over a period of decades? (And yes, the Republican BS about Gummint and taxes has been proven false, whether you like it or not.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 8, 2009 5:12 PM

live with the poor results caused by a polluted square, i.e., the byproduct of actions caused by elected officials that are stupid, corrupt, cronyies, and increasingly just plain nuts.

I love how a polluted public square gets a rise out of Michael Heath who claims that it f'ing results in the public supporting bad policies and corrupt politicians. If Michael actually believe this to be true, then why would he care how polluted the public square was?

Posted by: James Sweet | October 8, 2009 5:22 PM

Why Mr. Heath it sounds to me like you support restrictions on the first amendment.

Posted by: berbel73 | October 8, 2009 5:51 PM

James Sweet @ 59 - I can not make sense of your attempt to fisk me. Could you please clarify?

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 8, 2009 6:27 PM

Is this Beck guy a preacher or something? He doesn't seem very much like a journalist to me. Is this what passes for regular programming on paid tv these days? Seriously? People *pay* to see this?

Forgive my ignorance, sometimes I think I live under a rock. (And after seeing this guy, I sometimes wish I did.)

Oh, well. Carry on. :)

Posted by: GwentheLurker | October 8, 2009 6:56 PM

berbel73 (all blockquotes):

First how was my first comment idiotic?

Because most people are taught as young children that taking the advice of delusional, dishonest, idiots will not result in desired results. Most people are able to experience plenty of observations during their pre-adolescent years to validate this thereom. Your question comes off as disingenuous, it would only be asked by someone in a non-disingenuous manner if that person is so so far gone they don't realize that Glenn Beck is a classic example of a deluded, dishonest, idiot. The logic therefore reconciles either way, either you underestimated our BS detectors with your original question or you're so far gone yourself you can't distinguish fact from Beck's fiction. I vote for the former.

I love how when anyone comes here and questions your liberal line of thinking they are automatically an idiot, nutjob, or a liar.

I am not a liberal. Bashing Beck really has nothing to do with liberal dogma - Beck's qualities could be found in liberals as well though we don't see nearly the volume or influence by people like Beck on the Left. There are respected conservatives who despise the list of people I noted in my above comment for the qualities I attributed to them, e.g., Bruce Bartlett, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, some of the conservative bloggers at American Conservative and most recently Sen. Lindsey Graham. And yes, if you lie, you will not do well in this forum. Dissent with cogent arguments that are both honest and fairly framed are normally treated by great respect by nearly all. I've had plenty of disagreements with other posters here and rarely feel like my arguments are not respected because I do what Beck doesn't, frame my argument accurately, base it only on validated assertions, consider the best arguments of my opponents, do not rely on rhetorical or logical fallacies to make a point, and concede when I'm wrong - which I've done twice this week - and learned something both times.

While there is a preponderance of liberals here, many of us are not. Our blogger Ed Brayton is a libertarian for example. We are anti-idiocy, anti-nut-job, and anti-liars; one should expect those qualities when hanging out in a ScienceBlogs.com forum, we kind of favor reason, empirical evidence, and cogent arguments by the most well-informed. We certainly welcome dissent if its cogent, but no, zealots and idiots will not thrive here. I think the passion against these negative qualities runs at a higher temp now days because we've just experienced eight years of idiotic, nutty, dishonest policies with results that will cause damage to the national interest for decades, in spite of plenty of warnings prior to these people winning or executing their power.

And your response leads me to believe that you feel that people shouldn't have the right to voice their opinions and beliefs since they don't fall in line with your own and therefor must all be lies even with out refuting it.

Than that is a weakness in your own critical thinking skills given I neither stated or even insinuated such a position. All the people I listed have a certain set of qualities that I advocate get derided in public; all of them share one common attribute I find particularly disgusting - their arguments depend on dishonest assertions and a gullible crowd either too delusional to know they're being played or so zealous in their ideology they really don't care.

Secondly the absolute arrogance on this board is simply astounding.

When it comes to issues as simple as 2 + 2 = 4, which is the intellect required to observe that Beck depends on a gullible deluded audience, yes, arrogance will be on display when we observe a guy like Beck influencing people with rhetoric as stupid as 2 + 2 = "Obama is a racist who hates white people and wants to destroy our Constitution" (with some bitter irony thrown in on the latter position given President Bush's treatment of the Constitution).

With the vastly superior intelect here I find it amusing how often people have to resort to name calling and using foul language to make their point. It's rather pathetic really.

It would be pathetic if this was the reaction the first time people were exposed to propaganda and suckered-in. However this form of propaganda that Beck uses as been around long enough there is no longer any excuses for people to get sucked in, especially since the last eight years' results should be ample evidence on why adapation is required. The fact the very people that enabled Mr. Bush and Mr. Delay to cause great harm have become even more deluded, dishonest, and idiotic in their approach and policies will naturally be considered a risable event. Their response is not to learn adn improve, but to become more entrenched in their ignorance and delusions. The rise of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are prime examples and teabaggers circa 2009 rather than circa-2003 when the real money was being borrowed provides even more validation.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 8, 2009 7:12 PM

Michael,

I would go one step further and say that I think Mr Beck and Co. don't really believe the crap that they spew. I would hazard a guess that their motive is purely self serving, and there are plenty of people out there to drink their Coolaid, and of course buy their shit. They really are the new generation of snake oil salesmen. To put it another way, if I may take the liberty to slightly modify some Megadeth lyrics,

Shilling is my business... and business is good.

Posted by: Doug Little | October 8, 2009 8:14 PM

Wow, I just watched the clip, and Beck has to be a Poe. Is this guy some sort of uber-Colbert? He gets just about every thing wrong, the Constitution/DoI line was delivered like a B-Grade actor, it's all too perfect. I was waiting for the obligatory "Atheists make puppies cry" line, guess they couldn't fit that one in.

Posted by: Doug Little | October 8, 2009 8:32 PM

When I was in DC during the later 1980s, I attended lot of shows at the Folger Shakespeare Library Theater. At a surprising number of these shows, I was sitting next to Sen. Jesse Helms, who was a huge fan of Shakespeare.

We saw enough of each other at our day jobs that I'm sure Jesse knew who I was and that I was on the other "side," but he seemed to feel that we had a special bond as fellow Shakespeare fans. To get back on topic, I once him asked him the "Glenn Beck" question: "Do you really believe the crazy things you say to the cameras, or is it all an act?"

Jesse's answer was basically that if there is a kernal of truth to his allegation, he would run with it so long a that fitted the political narrative. He very much disliked campaigning, because this inevitably meant spinning facts to attack other people; he did so because negative politics are pragmatic, not because he thought most of the people being attacked deserved such treatment, and he was actually apologetic for some of the anti-gay statements he made. (As I have mentioned before, I was a housemate of a gay Helms staffer, and Jesse knew that he had several gays on his staff).

So there you have it: Glen Beck is less moral that Jesse Helms, and more willing to destroy someone else for career advancement. Jesse was vile at times, but even he had a sense of decency.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 8, 2009 8:59 PM

what a freak.

Posted by: caryn | October 8, 2009 9:37 PM

BTW Mr. Heath I did try and post specfic examples of the doctrines of the names that I mentioned but my post was conveniently deleted. Well I guess when you can't argue the facts you simply delete them?

Posted by: berbel73 | October 9, 2009 12:46 AM

berbel73 - the ol' 'the dog ate my homework' rebuttal - a classic! :) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | October 9, 2009 1:29 AM

CHV @ 35:

No kidding. I think I can count the total amount of atheists I've met in my life on one hand.

I guarantee you've met more atheists than that. You just didn't know it.

Posted by: Nemo | October 9, 2009 4:04 AM

I can't speak directly for Ed, but I never thought of him as particularly "left-wing" or "right-wing," but rather a pragmatist on most issues. Of course, if one believes that reality has a left-leaning bias, then perhaps Ed is a lefty.

Of course, too, it depends on what definition of "left" and "right" one uses as they have shifted, expanded, and contracted over time to suit the times or the examples.

Posted by: mercurianferret | October 9, 2009 8:19 AM

@Mr. B

"It is not, contrary to your assertion, any "closer" to the truth to say that Barack Obama will save the world than any of the "Republican BS""

It most certainly is closer to the truth if you assume Rangel was referring to the US, under Obama, finally taking some action about climate change.

My own feeling is that Obama's action is probably too little, too late, but in this context I'd see Rangel's comments as perhaps a bit hyperbolic but nonetheless reality-based.

Posted by: John Grant | October 9, 2009 9:17 AM

The post was deleted? It would have had to be here, in order to get deleted. Since Ed routinely leaves posts (including mine) that are highly insulting--especially to idiots like you--and posts that are simply regurgitated reichwing lies I think there is a simpler answer, two actually.

One, you don't know how to insert comments properly--that one is not borne out, considering that many of your obnoxious missives make it onto the thread. Two, you're a liar.

The same old tired lefty attacks, your an idiot, your a liar. Try having an original thought once in a while. As for my post in the other thread, I submitted my post smart ass and it was never put up, therefor it was deleted! As far as the content goes I had everything in there that need to be there to prove my point. The fact that it was not put up here shows that anyone with any kind of comment that goes again the leftists agenda of this blog is simply ignored regardless of the truth. You call me a liar and you call Mr. Beck a liar yet you don't back any of that up with any proof at all! When you don't like what some one tells you even when it is the truth, you resort to name calling and cursing and it shows just how simple minded you really are! I for one love it and think you should keep it up!

Posted by: berbel73 | October 9, 2009 1:24 PM

The fact that it was not put up here shows that anyone with any kind of comment that goes again the leftists agenda of this blog is simply ignored regardless of the truth.

The fact that this comment got posted, proves your assertion wrong.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 1:44 PM

But it's a hollow argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, especially when one considers how many who call themselves as Christians are in US prisons for myriad crimes...which isn't to say that Christians are worse than anyone else (atheist or otherwise), but they are not better either.

CHV,

Since when do the screaming heads of the reich wing care about reality? They've consistently made the argument that homosexuality is a choice, despite the mountains of evidence against that claim. To make matters worse they've also done everything possible to equate homosexuality to pedophilia despite the data that disproves this claim.

Why would they care that the evidence suggests that atheists are less likely to commit crime, etc., when they can blame atheists for all of the problems of our world? They already ignore the evidence that the more "religious" states have higher violent crime rates, they ignore the higher pregnancy rates, etc., so why would they pay any attention to the crime rates or incarceration rates for atheists if they disprove their preconceived belief that atheist = bad?

Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 2:26 PM

GeeorgeRic:

Really? There's actually a scientifically accurate book/program out there that supports your fantasies? You'll be happy to furnish the results of a few peer reviewed studies on it's efficacy?

"Applying Flatland's concept of contiguous dimensional worlds, Trinity, Resurrection, Judgment and soul are sensible and mechanically viable beliefs."

Wow, I think I know one thing, that's NOT the Shinola.

Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2009 3:51 PM

With the existence of 'Techie Worlds' (available at amazon.com) believers in Christianity can hold their views utilizing sound logic, clear thinking and a mechanistic view of worlds.

Isn't the fundamental principle of belief, faith? How can you have logical clear thinking faith? The whole idea of faith is that it requires a leap, a lapse of reason and logic, embracing the heart over the mind. You would have to provide some evidence for this claim.

Applying Flatland's concept of contiguous dimensional worlds, Trinity, Resurrection, Judgment and soul are sensible and mechanically viable beliefs. 'Techie Worlds' follows that rule of science by which individual details are tested for their conformity to the overarching hypothesis.

And what evidence is there to support this claim? Can resurrection be performed in a lab? Repeated under controlled conditions? Have the trinity been interviewed in a case study?

This actually looks like you quoted a post on the Friendly Atheist, or made the exact same comment there. The language is also similar to a review of the book ... coincidence?

What actual evidence do you have? Without verifiable, repeatable experiments that produce quantifiable evidence, you are still whistling in the dark as you walk past a cemetery.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 10, 2009 5:22 PM

*chuckle*

I looked up his name and found a number of posts on boards where he touts his books as responses to the problems at hand. Techie World here, To Each a Fair Share on a couple of blogs about the state of the economy.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 10, 2009 6:09 PM

Well of course what Mr. Beck says is controversial, but the key issue remains: Glenn Beck has yet to deny accusations of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990.

Posted by: Digz | October 11, 2009 12:00 PM