Comments | bec_87rb: The Art of the Public Wank

bec_87rb

The Art of the Public Wank

Feb 11, 2010 20:05

Ah, I had forgotten the pleasures of watching some guy publicly wank, and Matt McCormick drops his pants for us:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 8:15 PM ( Read more... )

stuff that amuses the hell outta me, sagan, religion, santa, wanks, atheism, peter watts, margaret atwood

Comments 63

suegypt February 12 2010, 20:54:34 UTC

Why not just say what you actually meant? You wanted to imply that people who believe in God are like children, because children are fans of Santa and dinosaurs.

Have I told you lately that i lurve you?

The older post is especially delicious, and makes me wish I could have played along, but, alas, i didn't know you then.

logic is a tool for viewing reality, it doesn't make the reality it scrutinizes

I've teed off all the atheists I know, including my hubby bec_87rb February 12 2010, 22:05:32 UTC

I love this particular guy because he is in complete dead earnest and he believes deeply in his atheism as a religion, but seems totally unaware that he has religious feelings about it. It's kind of like watching the gay-basher whom everyone else can see is a closeted homosexual in denial. *wink* See what I did there? Not any prettier when I do it, is it ( ... )

Re: I've teed off all the atheists I know, including my hubby suegypt February 12 2010, 23:27:07 UTC

Man, I thought this guy was kinda-sorta smart until i read this last link. Um.

The creation of so many receptacles/disciplines for managing one's faith rises out of the incredible diversity of individual perception of the metaphysical/inexplicable aspects of this mortal coil. Every person on this earth of a certain level of cognitive awareness may have a natural perception of this world that includes rationalizations of the mysterious and unprovable parts. What they do with it may include (*) giving it up to a dogma that explains/manages it, or (**) earnestly attempting to suss it out for themselves. In between these points of departure, and outside of them, are mashups of both (*) and (**). Into each and both categories fall atheists, theists, confused people, and sure people.

The only thing that unites us all is that none of us knows anything for sure.

Personality differences bec_87rb February 14 2010, 19:57:20 UTC

The only thing that unites us all is that none of us knows anything for sure.

Yep. And what divides us is the degree to which the universe still makes sense if we have no hope of making all of it knowable.

The more deeply-committed Christians and Atheists I meet, the more I am convinced they share an important personality trait: the need to feels the universe is ultimately knowable. That if we had enough time and resources, the mind of man would be able to comprehend everything.

It's not a weakness, just a different way to be? Like some people have more need for achievement or more tolerance for pain, etc. It also makes people who aren't as motivated look bananas to thme?

Thread 57

onesto_hotel February 13 2010, 04:18:35 UTC

Oh wow, I actually remember that previous post of yours, but I'm too ashamed to read any of the comments I wrote back then (was it really four years ago? Wow!).

Blah, I can't stand for it when atheists pull the same sort of nonsense that the overzealous Christian community already uses. Probably because I don't feel, sympathize with, or comprehend any big sort of zeal to convert people to any religion--my own atheism stems more out of a complete and total disinterest in religion then from any convinction that I am personally responsible for proving the non-existance of god. Ultimately, you find that in either case you can't actually prove anything, so you just wind up with a bunch of talking heads screaming at each other.

I don't care if there's a god or not, the only struggle I deem worth fighting for is convincing the American public that evolution is real. I'd gladly downplay my lack of religion if it could somehow convince more people that Science Is Not Bad.

suegypt February 13 2010, 12:41:57 UTC

I went back and read that post, and you were as entertaining as bec, if i may say. I think the "convincing people evolution is real" thing is tough. As someone who has no problem believing if God exists (and I believe this), it in no way negates evolution, the big bang or anything else to do with scientific explanations of the way the world was created or has developed since the beginning. They are two very different ways of telling what may be the same story.

syntax fail suegypt February 13 2010, 13:00:57 UTC

Sorry, that penultimate sentence is wobbly in a way I can't correct at the moment... brains... not... engaged...

suegypt February 15 2010, 21:59:43 UTC

There's one thing about your OP that has been bothering me, and that is the use of dinosaurs as a metaphor for childlike delusion, along with Santa and unicorns. Dinosaurs did exist, and there is scientific proof.

Jes' sayin'

One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong bec_87rb March 3 2010, 14:31:24 UTC

I was kind of curious myself as to why one would lump together Santa, Bigfoot, alien crop circles, unicorns, and dinosaurs. Other than under the title of "Fun Stuff to Think About." Or "Good Topics for Television Documentaries."

you wish - OK, maybe not YOU suegypt March 3 2010, 18:16:23 UTC

I was kind of curious myself as to why one would lump together Santa, Bigfoot, alien crop circles, unicorns, and dinosaurs

Well, i think he was trying to say that all of these things appeal to children even if they aren't real (and of course, some of them are), but when you grow up, you become an atheist. Or some such ridiculous drivel.