for Religion as a Noble Lie12/14/2005 c1 tofujunky
"While I bring up honest points, the burden rests on the essayist to prove his points, not me."
I agree, but you're demanding evidence that there is no God or Santa Claus. How does one go about disproving the unprovable or unproven assumptions? I say when in doubt, apply Occam's Razor.
And yes, I do recognize the circular reasoning in this essay. But if you look at the many different religions practiced around the world, doesn't it reveal that lies were and are certainly told and shared?
"No. However, proving negatives is rather difficult, if possible at all."
People who say this are the ones most likely to believe the most outrageous myths and ludicrous lies.
"That’s not an argument"
No, it's not. It's my way of asking "So what was your point again?"
"that’s a non sequitur. Belief that a person exist doesn’t prove their philosophy or claims."
Exactly. Children are not told the story of Saint Nicholas, rather they're fed the story of the mystical being that is Santa Claus. Makes you wonder which other figures have we made superhuman and godlike.
"Oreos were first introduced in the 1904 World's Fair, so I’m sure you meant the Eucharist."
No, I really meant Oreos. Upon arrival to the the first Council of Nicaea, God rewarded St. Nick a packet of sandwich cookies (later known as Oreos) to dunk in his fresh cup of goat's milk, or so I've been told.
"Tu Quoque? Are you going to argue that the Watergate break in justifies the bad methodology of documentary makers next?"
What? As you can see, I didn't disagree with you. I simply provided another example of using sources that are, as you say, completely bogus.
"The controlling shareholder of FNC has duel citizenship in Australia and America, and is a private citizen. While the jury is out as to whether or not it is a privately held propaganda organ…the analogy is too weak to be valid."
Damn, I honestly didn't expect anyone to take that Fox News comment seriously. Kinda took the significance away from the Iraqi Press issue, didn't it? D'oh.
-tofujunky
"While I bring up honest points, the burden rests on the essayist to prove his points, not me."
I agree, but you're demanding evidence that there is no God or Santa Claus. How does one go about disproving the unprovable or unproven assumptions? I say when in doubt, apply Occam's Razor.
And yes, I do recognize the circular reasoning in this essay. But if you look at the many different religions practiced around the world, doesn't it reveal that lies were and are certainly told and shared?
"No. However, proving negatives is rather difficult, if possible at all."
People who say this are the ones most likely to believe the most outrageous myths and ludicrous lies.
"That’s not an argument"
No, it's not. It's my way of asking "So what was your point again?"
"that’s a non sequitur. Belief that a person exist doesn’t prove their philosophy or claims."
Exactly. Children are not told the story of Saint Nicholas, rather they're fed the story of the mystical being that is Santa Claus. Makes you wonder which other figures have we made superhuman and godlike.
"Oreos were first introduced in the 1904 World's Fair, so I’m sure you meant the Eucharist."
No, I really meant Oreos. Upon arrival to the the first Council of Nicaea, God rewarded St. Nick a packet of sandwich cookies (later known as Oreos) to dunk in his fresh cup of goat's milk, or so I've been told.
"Tu Quoque? Are you going to argue that the Watergate break in justifies the bad methodology of documentary makers next?"
What? As you can see, I didn't disagree with you. I simply provided another example of using sources that are, as you say, completely bogus.
"The controlling shareholder of FNC has duel citizenship in Australia and America, and is a private citizen. While the jury is out as to whether or not it is a privately held propaganda organ…the analogy is too weak to be valid."
Damn, I honestly didn't expect anyone to take that Fox News comment seriously. Kinda took the significance away from the Iraqi Press issue, didn't it? D'oh.
-tofujunky
12/14/2005 c1 Some Typewriter Lol
“Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.”
While I bring up honest points, the burden rests on the essayist to prove his points, not me.
“So there is a fat white guy in the North Pole who breeds flying reindeers?”
No. However, proving negatives is rather difficult, if possible at all.
“So did Buddha. Do you believe in reincarnation and nirvana?”
That’s not an argument, that’s a non sequitur. Belief that a person exist doesn’t prove their philosophy or claims.
“He had his first oreos with a glass of milk there, or so I've been told.”
Oreos were first introduced in the 1904 World's Fair, so I’m sure you meant the Eucharist.
“Or using George Bush's justifications to explain the War on Iraq.”
Tu Quoque? Are you going to argue that the Watergate break in justifies the bad methodology of documentary makers next?
“So if one must cite something credible let it be a government information organ operated by the right-wing Conservative Party from the US. Say Fox News or anything from the Iraqi Press.”
That’s a hyperbolic statement, and a false analogy. FOX News (they capitalize all of fox, for some reason) does not belong to the United States government, while the BBC is under the complete control of the United Kingdom. The controlling shareholder of FNC has duel citizenship in Australia and America, and is a private citizen. While the jury is out as to whether or not it is a privately held propaganda organ…the analogy is too weak to be valid.
“Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.”
While I bring up honest points, the burden rests on the essayist to prove his points, not me.
“So there is a fat white guy in the North Pole who breeds flying reindeers?”
No. However, proving negatives is rather difficult, if possible at all.
“So did Buddha. Do you believe in reincarnation and nirvana?”
That’s not an argument, that’s a non sequitur. Belief that a person exist doesn’t prove their philosophy or claims.
“He had his first oreos with a glass of milk there, or so I've been told.”
Oreos were first introduced in the 1904 World's Fair, so I’m sure you meant the Eucharist.
“Or using George Bush's justifications to explain the War on Iraq.”
Tu Quoque? Are you going to argue that the Watergate break in justifies the bad methodology of documentary makers next?
“So if one must cite something credible let it be a government information organ operated by the right-wing Conservative Party from the US. Say Fox News or anything from the Iraqi Press.”
That’s a hyperbolic statement, and a false analogy. FOX News (they capitalize all of fox, for some reason) does not belong to the United States government, while the BBC is under the complete control of the United Kingdom. The controlling shareholder of FNC has duel citizenship in Australia and America, and is a private citizen. While the jury is out as to whether or not it is a privately held propaganda organ…the analogy is too weak to be valid.
12/14/2005 c1 
57tofujunky
Memes such as life after death or of Santa Claus coming down the chimney with gifts are undeniably appealing, making them far more influential and persuasive than the alternatives.
Hey, if it keeps your kids from annoying the shit out me, I say lie your fucking butt off.
But it does get a bit scary when Bush goes around convincing others that he communicates with God. Such scams deserve praise, though.
"Neither you nor Strauss bothered to offer proofs that a super being creator doesn’t exist" - Typewriter King
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
"nor did either of you disprove St. Nick."
So there is a fat white guy in the North Pole who breeds flying reindeers?
"In fact, Saint Nicholas did exist."
So did Buddha. Do you believe in reincarnation and nirvana?
"Nick attended the first Council of Nicaea."
He had his first oreos with a glass of milk there, or so I've been told.
"This is analogous to using Fahrenheit 9/11 to explain George Bush’s political platform"
Or using George Bush's justifications to explain the War on Iraq.
"This may sound like an ad hominem, but when someone cites the BBC as an authoritative source, it must be noted that it is a government information (propaganda) organ operated by the left-wing Labour Party."
So if one must cite something credible let it be a government information organ operated by the right-wing Conservative Party from the US. Say Fox News or anything from the Iraqi Press.
-tofujunky
57tofujunkyMemes such as life after death or of Santa Claus coming down the chimney with gifts are undeniably appealing, making them far more influential and persuasive than the alternatives.
Hey, if it keeps your kids from annoying the shit out me, I say lie your fucking butt off.
But it does get a bit scary when Bush goes around convincing others that he communicates with God. Such scams deserve praise, though.
"Neither you nor Strauss bothered to offer proofs that a super being creator doesn’t exist" - Typewriter King
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
"nor did either of you disprove St. Nick."
So there is a fat white guy in the North Pole who breeds flying reindeers?
"In fact, Saint Nicholas did exist."
So did Buddha. Do you believe in reincarnation and nirvana?
"Nick attended the first Council of Nicaea."
He had his first oreos with a glass of milk there, or so I've been told.
"This is analogous to using Fahrenheit 9/11 to explain George Bush’s political platform"
Or using George Bush's justifications to explain the War on Iraq.
"This may sound like an ad hominem, but when someone cites the BBC as an authoritative source, it must be noted that it is a government information (propaganda) organ operated by the left-wing Labour Party."
So if one must cite something credible let it be a government information organ operated by the right-wing Conservative Party from the US. Say Fox News or anything from the Iraqi Press.
-tofujunky
12/13/2005 c2 27Typewriter King
Hayek would consider both Strauss and you guilty of the “fatal conceit” for the assumptions you’ve made, and he’d be correct. Neither you nor Strauss bothered to offer proofs that a super being creator doesn’t exist, nor did either of you disprove St. Nick. In fact, Saint Nicholas did exist. He lived in the Eastern Roman Empire three centuries after the death of Christ, who also really lived. Nick attended the first Council of Nicaea.
Then there’s the matter of using a crappy BBC documentary to dictate to us what neoconservatism is. This is analogous to using Fahrenheit 9/11 to explain George Bush’s political platform in that your source is completely bogus. I guess one couldn’t expect better from someone that would cite a crappy movie about the Iliad to explain what religion is.
This may sound like an ad hominem, but when someone cites the BBC as an authoritative source, it must be noted that it is a government information (propaganda) organ operated by the left-wing Labour Party.
The documentary lies over and over again. It claims the CIA lied about Soviet training and arming of terrorists, even though it should be factually indisputable that the Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon came directly from the Soviet Union. The film-maker slanders the B Team, a select group of bright fellows from the private sector brought in to second-guess professional analysis, as somehow part of a dark conspiracy. In reality, the only problem with them was that they weren’t selected to be intellectually diverse, and when put together, became subject to groupthink. No dark Illuminati stuff there.
Al Qaeda is not a figment of our imagination, either. People are overly paranoid about the threat they pose, that’s a given, and yes, politicians exploit all sorts of fears to gain powers. However, the neocons and the Islamists are not collaborating at all. No evidence has ever been submitted proving a transfer of resources from American conservatives to any warriors of Islam. Only convoluted motives exists, and you’re using that to “prove” a crime was committed. This just doesn’t fly. You see, the motives for power exist for everyone, for we can all be tempted. You wish you had the power to change certain things, as do I, as does John Doe. Despite that, I know I haven’t taken part in a conspiracy lately, but by continuing to beg the question, you may sway many to believe I instigated the Madrid or London bombings. The film simply isn’t credible once one accounts for all the flaws.
Anyway, I’m glad to see you’re writing semi-intellectually. You can do better, I know it.
27Typewriter KingHayek would consider both Strauss and you guilty of the “fatal conceit” for the assumptions you’ve made, and he’d be correct. Neither you nor Strauss bothered to offer proofs that a super being creator doesn’t exist, nor did either of you disprove St. Nick. In fact, Saint Nicholas did exist. He lived in the Eastern Roman Empire three centuries after the death of Christ, who also really lived. Nick attended the first Council of Nicaea.
Then there’s the matter of using a crappy BBC documentary to dictate to us what neoconservatism is. This is analogous to using Fahrenheit 9/11 to explain George Bush’s political platform in that your source is completely bogus. I guess one couldn’t expect better from someone that would cite a crappy movie about the Iliad to explain what religion is.
This may sound like an ad hominem, but when someone cites the BBC as an authoritative source, it must be noted that it is a government information (propaganda) organ operated by the left-wing Labour Party.
The documentary lies over and over again. It claims the CIA lied about Soviet training and arming of terrorists, even though it should be factually indisputable that the Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon came directly from the Soviet Union. The film-maker slanders the B Team, a select group of bright fellows from the private sector brought in to second-guess professional analysis, as somehow part of a dark conspiracy. In reality, the only problem with them was that they weren’t selected to be intellectually diverse, and when put together, became subject to groupthink. No dark Illuminati stuff there.
Al Qaeda is not a figment of our imagination, either. People are overly paranoid about the threat they pose, that’s a given, and yes, politicians exploit all sorts of fears to gain powers. However, the neocons and the Islamists are not collaborating at all. No evidence has ever been submitted proving a transfer of resources from American conservatives to any warriors of Islam. Only convoluted motives exists, and you’re using that to “prove” a crime was committed. This just doesn’t fly. You see, the motives for power exist for everyone, for we can all be tempted. You wish you had the power to change certain things, as do I, as does John Doe. Despite that, I know I haven’t taken part in a conspiracy lately, but by continuing to beg the question, you may sway many to believe I instigated the Madrid or London bombings. The film simply isn’t credible once one accounts for all the flaws.
Anyway, I’m glad to see you’re writing semi-intellectually. You can do better, I know it.
12/9/2005 c1 Typewriter King
As a chairman of the Illuminati, I'm alarmed you're letting the secret out.
We're the only thing keeping this state-and the world- from becoming like the Weimar Republic, Baby!
As a chairman of the Illuminati, I'm alarmed you're letting the secret out.
We're the only thing keeping this state-and the world- from becoming like the Weimar Republic, Baby!
12/9/2005 c1 6Anya Tempest
Although I don't agree with it - I thought this essay was fairly well written.
It had a nice steady pace and quite an objective tone. It's good that you named the sources too.
The only thing I would say is that you could ave tried to make it a little longer and more in depth, but it was a nice short read.
6Anya TempestAlthough I don't agree with it - I thought this essay was fairly well written.
It had a nice steady pace and quite an objective tone. It's good that you named the sources too.
The only thing I would say is that you could ave tried to make it a little longer and more in depth, but it was a nice short read.