it is generally a good idea to listen and then to evaluate what it being said; it should be a basic life skill but one that needs practice- I certainly am aware that I regularly catch myself listening for what I want to hear. I could blame a lifetime of indoctrination by school and advertising but in saying that I would be admitting I have taken responsibility by reconizing it. I understand that such critical listening is all but illegal in Texas but I think it is a good skill to practice.
I am not a racist I have actually never heard this defensive phrase used by anyone who does not have racist thoughts- in fact I am not sure anyone is completely free of them. It is important to listen to yourself as well, speech brings hidden thoughts out in the open where we can work on them.
We must protect our Christian principles (or any other belief including athiest) ah the joy of being the minister in his pulpit looking out on the sinners but isn't this really something to be lived? If America functioned according to the words of Christ would anyone, of any faith, have complaint? And when did being a Christian stop at the pocketbook? Christ was quite specific in his instructions to his followers and in the guises he will assume to judge the hearts and not the words of those claiming in to act in his name.
We must protect our white heritage.. I don't know the fourteen words except knowing they illustrate that white supremacists have almost no grasp of European culture and aesthetic. if these are the future of the white race then I support a broad plan of ethnic cross breeding. ( I confess I have never been oppossed to this- there can be significant improvements from cross breeding)
He wants to make us European- and where does the majority of our culture originate? unless the great plates reverse in course America won't be European but there seems little danger in evaluating what might have been tested and kept in our homelands.
You'll have to Trust me- right up there with I did not have sex with that woman and one of my favorites it does not matter what I do but that I say what only I can say if a politician seeking election, and they aere always seeking election, put your crticical thinking on high. Mitt is especially amusing- Mitt you admitted lying about exactly the same thing in 2002, by the Constitution of Massachusetts you were not eligable to be Governor; you may not be a tax cheat but you certainly are a tax sneak and continued through these years when it was most needed. Like Newt you volunteer to keep people from doing what you have always done- No thanks. And loveable Bill, you looked right at me and lied. The number of examples cross both parties and all out history- I'm doing this off the cuff so you supply your own examples
God hates faggots! I assume you are British and commend you on enslaving your deity in your own image.
America has the greatest healthcare system in the world. I remain open to seeing the facts, the ones so far does not support this.
He does not believe in American exceptionalism. I hope not but I suspect he does. It does not make sense to me. I love the potential and the journey of this country but really do not see much evidence it was somehow selected beyond any other country to be the very bestust. it is our responsibility to make the attempt but history does not prove the case- often quite the opposite.
anyway- listening is more than hearing and the ears connect to the brain, not the heart. That's just a phrase- were you listening? actually the stimulation of hearing generally is given priority pathways to the amygdala posed to release powerful chemicals for fear, threats and other dangers (congratulations Rush, Sean, Glenn, Ed, Chris and your emotive ilk) so we actual hear, alert, and then listen. Its not an easy thing- we cucceed and fail everyday.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Greg Correll
Hesham A. Hassaballa
Darla Carmichael
Poor Woman
Nikki Stern
Ute Sonnenberg
Salon.com
Comments
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
My wife laughed and her coffee dripped out of her nose.
"He's getting BJs!!" says she.
"How do you know?".
"Cause nobody says "sexual RELATIONS!".
:-) / r
Thanks so much for this.
All examples are spot on.
Rated.
;-)
R
.
That seems obvious.
sorry for the mistypes and my failure to both spell and find spell check here I should get around to cleaning it up but I guess I really don't care.
When is Salon getting a copy boy and an editor?
What idiot decided that a lack of belief is a lack of thought?!! On the contrary, belief is a lack of thought. Heck you suspend thought in order to believe! I define "believe/belief" as, "accepting something as true when there is insufficient evidence to do so."
Religionists have tried for donkey's years to equate their beliefs to our lack of belief by saying that it is "just another belief." This, I suppose, is supposed to bring us down to their level as fellow believers.
Lack of belief is distinct from belief. That I lack belief in Santa Claus does not mean that I believe there is no Santa. It means that there is insufficient evidence of a Santa so that I do not accept as true any claim that there is one. I keep my mind open to any evidence anyone cares to present though - so long as it's proper evidence and not just an exposition of a set of beliefs.
@Kenneth,
This will explain.......
THE FALSE ARGUMENT OF.....
Best to you both.....
;-)
.
An atheist believes there is no God. An agnostic believes there isn't sufficient evidence. Somebody who believes there is insufficient evidence for, and allows there may be, a Santa Claus is usually institutionalized.
I only know which idiot believes he can create his own definition. If you don't believe God exists, then you believe God doesn't exist. It's pretty simple. Your belief isn't religious, even if, to the deist, it rejects their religious belief. Your belief is not a religion as it doesn't involve the elements of religion. Just because you've argued with religious idiots is no reason to accept their errant definitions.
Better that way of looking at it than trying to change the meanings of "belief" by lopping off the "that which you think is true" element.
If you arrive at a Truth without using thought to get there, you just farted.
I am an atheist. I define atheism as not believing in a god. My definition stands. I do not, nor will I ever, accept the religious definition of atheism as "believing there is no god." I do NOT "believe" there is no god. I simply have no belief in that regard whatsoever. Who are they to tell me what I believe?
To those who claim that there is a god, I ask one thing; please show me your evidence. So far what has been shown to me is completely unconvincing. I cannot accept it as sufficient to cause me to form a belief of ANY kind; neither one of belief in the existence of a god nor one of belief in the non-existence of a god. I have NO belief in this regard - I await evidence. I am an a-theist - not a differently oriented theist.
I'll bet that you have no belief in the existence of a glorkle. Does that
mean that you "believe" that a glorkle does NOT exist? Or does it simply mean that you await evidence? Does it mean that you're required to "believe" that there is no glorkle while awaiting evidence? Or can you state that you do not believe there is such a thing and will not believe that there is until shown convincing evidence of the existence of one?
What would be the position of one who had never heard of a god? Does he too, "believe there is no god?" Just as you have no belief about a glorkle. I doubt he'd have any belief about that one way or another. People are NOT, no matter how sincerely you wish it, required to have beliefs. Not of any kind.
You're expressing a belief either way. If you believe your personal definition is true, then who am I to question your belief in the truth of your non-belief belief, as least where what you believe is concerned. However, the rest of the world generally operates off a fixed meaning. It's easier to communicate that way.
kenneth,
The point is belief is a conviction that something is True. From that point the meaning can have implications attached, which is where sky picks it up, but one cannot change the essential meaning simply because they attach an implication. Belief as perceived truth is foundational.
Anyway, we're both having a little fun in the way some people have fun. Zero animosity. I'm right, of course, but that doesn't mean I don't want to bear his love child.
His claim that his definition of atheism is "universally accepted" is of course only another of his beliefs. Religionists have been trying this one on for a long, long time. Heck it even flies among some atheists who don't look at it closely.
Religionists NEED to force their definition of us onto us. They know perfectly well how silly and weak their "belief" nonsense is and how strong the argument from reason that we use is.
Frankly, I doubt that Paul actually thinks we atheists "believe there is no god" . He's just aware of the weaknesses of a belief and wants to drag us down to the level of believers.
Belief has never, to my knowledge, ever been able to discover one measly Truth of any kind. Heck it has difficulty handling the truths that religionists discover in their real life as they live it!
I suppose that, if he insists, I must accept that he believes we atheists have beliefs about his gods. Obviously he doesn't care to hear what we think about this right from the horses mouth. I wonder if I could give him apoplexy by also telling him that I have NO beliefs whatsoever - not just in matters of gods, but in anything! Yikes! I think his head just exploded......
Kenneth,
I was about to apologize for messin' up yer fine blog with this debate that Paul and I get into now and then. He starts off good as a debater until he has to start repeating himself. He'd do better to hear what I'm saying and debate that, than to continue to try to put words in my mouth so he can respond to his own concepts of whether or not I have any kind of belief, instead of responding to mine. Perhaps he does this because he is unable respond to mine.
Of course he could be aware that there is a rather nifty coup that can be pulled on an atheist who says that he "believes there is no god" and he's trying to maneuver me into a position to pull that off.
Nah....... he ain't that bright, or knowledgeable of the debates that go on about this. He should check out some of the atheist sites. He'd learn how to debate this question properly. But then he'd risk losing his beliefs........
:-)
You confuse many things. I don't address the meaning of atheism, but the meaning of belief. The foundational meaning of the word is a conviction that something is True.
I have no desire to describe your atheism as a religious belief or on a parallel with a religious belief. I don't give a good goddamn about that issue. I was clear about that, but evidently you've been so bruised by wasting time with people whose knowledge of the word belief is as skewed as yours you attach their argument to my simple disputation.
The "not bright" person here is you, sky. One would have to be dense on a nuclear shield scale to mine a position I don't remotely endorse from what I said. In fact, the word "stupid" comes to my mind. However, I'll leave it at you reading more than I wrote, and attribute your inane response to simple absence of a logical mind.
I don't care if you're an atheist any more than I care if you're a deist any more than I care if you're a Rastafarian neo-Marxist hedonistic washing machine repairman. I don't come close to approaching any issue other than your quite wrong definition of the word "belief."
To recap, I explain the meaning of belief. You attach an implication to the meaning and then attach an argument to my simple statement. You then begin arguing with the strawman you created. You then, ironically, accuse me of not being too bright.
I'd say you made several leaps of logic, but it's more like you have repeatedly tripped over logic because you can't see what you don't posses. I hope you enjoyed having a shrill, baseless argument with yourself, but you should stop short of needing glasses.
You're not nearly the Big Brain you like to think...or believe...you are.
Can't stand the heat, son? To accuse me of creating a straw man just to hide your straw man is laughable. And you couldn't resist an ad hominem or two as well, could ya?
So, if you can't answer my arguments, then why not keep your honour and admit defeat like a man?
I guess I'll have to leave this discussion now since I refuse to engage with one who has to start name calling in an effort to turn aside the reasoned arguments he can't seem to handle.
Say "Hi" to Santa and the fairies at the end of the garden, for me, will ya? And the glorkle sends his best regards.....;-)
.
I can take you any day of the week. You showed nothing here but that you will argue the issue you want to argue in spite of the topic.
Ad hominem would be if my response was to attack you personally instead of disputing your thoughts. I effectively described how you choose a single definition of belief and argue "as if" it negates any other use of the word, including the fundamental meaning that applies to all connotative uses of the word. Crying ad hominem is one of the first last resorts of the poor thinker.
As to insults in this exchange, that began with:
"@Paul,
What idiot decided that a lack of belief is a lack of thought?!! "
No idiot decided that. It is a fact of logic, which is not a result of a decision, but a consequence of reality. You may refer to my fart analogy. Unless you strained to release it, it came about without thought. Post-release, you can know the fart is true by empirical evidence. You may then, without fear of violating any rules of reason or grammar, say: "I believe I farted!"
Well, *you* can say that, but evidently only if you believe the religious nature of flatulence is true. This would make for some interesting scenes at the side altar and threaten the livelihood of votive candle makers.
I simply corrected your errant narrowing of the meaning of belief to one connotative meaning. In response, you appended assertions I did not present and began your rote recitation of a flawed argument that you're evidently proud of crafting. I responded to only the thoughts you offered. That's because I don't argue like a lummox.
Now I don't know who taught you yours a reasonable response, or that you're presenting a logical argument, but if they're still available, you should seek them out and beat the ever-lovin' crap outta them.
I don't answer your arguments as you wanted because they would be responses to assertions I didn't make. I did respond by explaining why I dismissed them as superfluous drivel. If I had responded by changing my simple correction to fit the strawman you created I would be condemned to the same low level of argumentative ineptness.
You defeat your own arguments, sky. I destroyed your belief that belief is necessarily religious in nature. From that point forward you were arguing with yourself. I can't blame you for that, as that guy couldn't argue his way out of a wet toilet paper trap.
You lost on points. Badly. No contest and no challenge. I'll take your lachrymose retreat as an admission of defeat evident to others, though in your case subliminal.
As a PS--I find it revealing and funny that your whiny retreat is the same wounded paw-lifting drivel practiced by the moronic right-wingers.
This is done, but anytime you want some more, you know where to find me. You would do well to avoid that.
I think, in reading, that neither of you can be considered to lack intelligence and both enjoy an argument. Luckily I still enjoy both wine and sex-the former with a more refined palatte, the later with greater dependence on intellectual foreplay.