Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Crack is very interesting read. He is determined to live in a ruthless reality, and a personal fight against Deception. He notes that Deception morphs into a new variations/forms every few months, but targets the same "lost" people all of the time.
I can't keep track of whether the captions are above or below the picture.It's a constant reappraisal reading it.
Deception, there are plenty of lost people here. Get busy.
"never once..."I quibble with this one. Had he added, "that I have seen or heard" that might make it accurate and probable. But, I read that and I read pretty unoriginal thoughts. Not that they're not his own thoughts, but that I've heard those same exact words coming out of a lot of Christians, and no few pastors, the last ten years or more. There's a huge understanding, within the church, of these things and there's a lot of questions and conversations about what it means. Sadly though the folks best at making their message public are precisely the ones who are doing it as sales or for power or such. There's all kinds of people who aren't in it for the power or the influence or to make notches on their religious text of choice. But, such people also don't have power or influence or are pushy enough to try to force some change. One group of Christians like this have tended to gather around the label "emerging church". But, within that there's still folks who are about power and influence and such--but at least that's not considered a positive trait. What's interesting about some the key original religious leaders is that they're a lot more blase about followers. Jesus said what he had to say, people followed him, and if they thought it too hard they walked away. He just watched them walk away. No army, no force, no "please, please". Just offered his bit of wisdom about how to live life and people could follow or not follow as they wanted. If they wanted to listen, he had more to teach. People in religious power, who don't have too much faith, try to overcome their lack of faith by asserting themselves.
"Buddha" without the "boo" is "duh", is it not?
You cannot power-drive another person into accepting a viewpoint. You cannot insist, persuade, cajole, debate. It just doesn't work. Its only when you stop pressurizing others or trying to control how they see things that they are able to consider what you are telling them with any degree of impartially.It takes a lot of self restraint, (and could relieve some high blood pressure – is he gonna blow a gasket?). "Frothy emotional appeal seldom suffices," a friend of mine likes to say.
You were probably a chubby little baby that looked like Buddha. That is all. Maybe didn't cry very much so appeared stoic, and possibly even *gasp* cheerful waaaaaaaaaaaaay back then.
Great rant, great graphics (they didn't always make sense with the words, but still evocative). He sounds like an over-passionate 19 year old who hasn't learned enough to realize how much he doesn't know with his trite tired declarations pretending to originality, like the photo-negative of a liberal arts student with a Chomsky tome in her backpack.But load of crap though it may be, still a good rant.
Crack,If you were born and lived in some hidden tribe in the Amazon, you would be free of it all. The search for truth may be shortest by simply sailing around the lies. Regardless, I am glad your fighting for those afraid to turn the rudder.
More like Zarathustra without the thirst.
All that linking finally paid off. Kudos, crack!!luv, knox
That's how I'm gonna increase my profile views.
I’m with knox on this one.You know how it is. There you are, just kind of doing your own thing . . . minding your own business . . . not bothering anyone . . .And then . . .When you least expect it . . .SUDDENLY BISSAGE!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!
Yeah, pretty much agree.Sort of amused at the notion that The Buddha was interested in power.Anyone go through a phase where they were controlled by their parents, through indirect means of doing exactly the opposite of what their parents would want?
Traditionalguy,Thanks. It's funny how Christians can hear me (I was recently invited on an online Christian radio broadcast for what was a great interview) while even atheists will attack.I feel like a canary in a coalmine: I know what I see is real, though others may express it differently or partially. I'm like this taxi driver: Seeing what those in cultish thinking - insecure about fitting in, or being thrown out - miss. As this article states, the cost can be heavy, and I've suffered them. And, as this video shows, the reaction can be harsh (I can't believe this commercial was such an accurate picture of how the Nazis got started).rhhardin,The captions are below the photos.Paddy O,Just because Christians hold an idea doesn't make them wrong. I agree with them about abortion and NewAge: Just murder and evil, dressed up smartly. And there was no Jesus. Laura(southernxyl),Nope. Accepting a belief system is what reduces you to "duh". (Haven't you noticed, if you question Buddhists long enough, they always say "It's a mystery"?) My thinking on a bumper sticker: "Stop Believing In Believing."k*thy,So let's let the killing continue until killers become sick of themselves. Fine, as long as you allow the right to kill them as well - I'm not against it, but the laws are - which favors the bad guys. No reason for self restraint under such circumstances. Chip Ahoy,Agreed. But you're leaving out my ex-wife's reaction, the "spiritual" believer's reactions, the reaction to "The One", etc. I think you're refusing to accept me as a reliable messenger. You're cynical and looking for a way out. It's cheap, if you ask me. tim maguire,No, the words and the graphics don't always match up, but evoke a reaction. That's art.And I know there's stuff I don't know. The thing is, I encounter few people who give group-think a thought - regarding themselves. Survivors of People's Temple say they don't want to think it could happen to them. It's easy for a Buddhist to say, if someone isn't going for their schtick, that they have problems, rather than asking why they follow cliche'd aphorisms from an illiterate who never saw a computer or stoplight. An intelligent 10 year old, today, knows more but adults are acting like "Both speech and silence transgress" is so-fucking-deep. Sorry, but I haven't dropped acid in years but, even then, I was able to see through that.I hate Chomsky.bagoh20,I ain't on no "search for truth". It's those who can't see who are lost searching. Bono: "But I steeeel haven't fouuund what I'm looking fooor!" Second, that's saying "Look out for Number One", which is Buddhism at it's worst. If you accept life as suffering then stay away from my 401k. You're a loser with a built in fuck-up-o-meter. Michael Jordan ain't "Michael Jordan" because he accepted - he rose above. It's believing nonsense that's destroying this country. We're becoming losers.Cabbage,I got to look up Zarathustra.knox,Yea, I knew somebody was gonna say that. And when I say Luv I mean Luv, L-U-V. ;)Bissage,Yea, buddy!!!blake,Sorry, Buds, but I wasn't a child rebelling against my parents (I didn't meet my moms until I was 40 - and I knew I was an atheist by 10) nor am I at war with God (There is no God.) but someone fascinated, and repulsed, by the simple-mindedness regarding these subjects. My ex-wife killed three people, based on beliefs. That so many adults would ignore where this shit fails intellectually, as well as the MAJOR down-sides (like murder) in 2009, in order to feel community, is gross to me. And attempts at oversimplification are no defense. As far as I'm concerned, we should be ashamed at what mental pygmies we've become.
Ever notice that most critics of religion know almost nothing about it?People have been thinking about religion for thousands of years, and there are a lot of really deep theologies out there. I hear questions and statements from atheists that are akin to what I wondered in Sunday school as a child. This post was no different.It's too bad most critics reinvent the wheel and make the same arguments that have been answered thousands of times.You don't have to agree with a religion. At least give it enough respect to actually, you know, understand it. Otherwise you fall into the trap that you are smarter just because you're an atheist. No, not necessarily.I like the modern Western tradition of keeping religion out of positions of power. I think that's better for everyone. It's better government (more freedom of conscience) and religion (less entanglement with day to day life.) Religion is how things should be and what we should strive for. Government and politics is the art of the possible.On a practical level I probably agree with Crack Emcee on a lot of things. I'd certainly rather live in a place where I can believe what I want and speak what I want. He's also right that people typically don't apply rational thought to a lot of things that they should. Faith is no substitute for what we can see empirically. It's for what we can't see that religion has a role.I don't agree with the bigotry against people who believe in something that isn't empirical. There's a lot of bigotry out there. It doesn't make you stupid to be religious. Western Europe was one of the few places where the Church wasn't an arm of the State, even in the Middle Ages. It is a unique religion both in its popularity and it's compatibility with modernity. How many theocracies are there in the entire world? Yet there's all this hate and fear of religion. When people have to bring up events that happened centuries ago (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) you can tell there's not much there there.Even the Islamic radicals are losing. Might be time to reevaluate just how dangerous religion is.
TCMC, I didn't say you were rebelling against your parents. "Rebelling" isn't really the word I'd use, anyway.But your rant reminds me of someone who's so opposed to the idea of being controlled, he doesn't see he's still being defined by his opposition to something.Not saying that's you; just saying that's what that rant sounded like.Here's a fun thought: Power and control aren't really bad things. Human organization pretty much requires both. Sometimes you're the boss, sometimes you're the grunt.You've seem to have decided that these endeavors are evil when they're based on theism or spirituality. History suggests otherwise.
"Your rant reminds me of someone who's so opposed to the idea of being controlled, he doesn't see he's still being defined by his opposition to something."So? What's wrong with being "defined" that way? And I served in the military, so it can't be power and control I'm against, can it? Basically, you've got it all backwards:Theism and spirituality are (not only non-existent but) evil because they're expressed through power and control. Believers can deny it all they want but, as their explanations of spirituality-based murders, etc., prove, they're not the most helpful bunch when it comes to investigating their beliefs and the behaviors that spring from them.
So, you're cool if I associate atheists with the behaviors of the crazy and evil people who adhere to it?I mean, you do realize that the drive to erase man's soul is a favorite among totalitarian dictators, right? If man has no soul, there's no issue with killing him. He's just a piece of meat.I'm not saying that all atheists/materialists believe this (though I'm at a loss to figure out the basis on which they value Man over any other organism or inert matter), but do you really want to duel crazies in support of your point?
Post a Comment