Billy Moyers for President
26 July 2006 by Sean
My favorite voice outta Texas, the incomparable Molly Ivins, has something to say about my favorite Christian, the incomporable Bill Moyers. Don’t you wish more Christians and more Texans were like these two?
Bill Moyers for President
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted July 25, 2006.Can Moyers win? No, but he can show the Democrats what political courage looks like.
Dear desperate Democrats, here’s what we do. We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It’s simple, cheap and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there.
The poor man who is currently our president has reached such a point of befuddlement that he thinks stem cell research is the same as taking human lives, but that 40,000 dead Iraqi civilians are progress toward democracy.
Bill Moyers has been grappling with how to fit moral issues to political issues ever since he left Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and went to work for Lyndon Johnson in the teeth of the Vietnam War. Moyers worked for years in television, seriously addressing the most difficult issues of our day. He has studied all different kinds of religions and different approaches to spirituality. He’s no Holy Joe, but he is a serious man. He opens minds — he doesn’t scare people. He includes people in, not out. And he sees through the dark search for a temporary political advantage to the clear ground of the Founders. He listens and he respects others.
Do I think Bill Moyers can win the presidency? No, that seems like a very long shot to me. The nomination? No, that seems like a very long shot to me.
Then why run him? Think, imagine, if seven or eight other Democratic candidates, all beautifully coiffed and triangulated and carefully coached to say nothing that will offend anyone, stand on stage with Bill Moyers in front of cameras for a national debate … what would happen? Bill Moyers would win, would walk away with it, just because he doesn’t triangulate or calculate or trim or try to straddle the issues. Bill Moyers doesn’t have to endorse a constitutional amendment against flag burning or whatever wedge issue du jour Republicans have come up with. He is not afraid of being called “unpatriotic.” And besides, he is a wise and a kind man who knows how to talk on TV.
It won’t take much money – -file for him in a couple of early primaries and just get him into the debates. Think about the potential Democratic candidates. Every single one of them needs spine, needs political courage. What Moyers can do is not only show them what it looks like and indeed what it is, but also how people respond to it. I’m damned if I want to go through another presidential primary with everyone trying to figure out who has the best chance to win instead of who’s right. I want to vote for somebody who’s good and brave and who should win.
One time in the Johnson years, LBJ called on Moyers to say the blessing at a dinner. “Speak up, Bill,” Lyndon roared. “I can’t hear you.” Moyers replied, “I wasn’t speaking to you, sir.” That would be the point of a run by Moyers: He doesn’t change to whom he is speaking just because some president is yelling at him.
To let Moyers know what you think of this idea, write him at P.O. Box 309, Bernardsville, NJ 07924.
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
26 July 2006, on 3:56 pm
Another article I found
10 Reasons Bill Moyers Should Be President
Edit: I should point out that I found the article to add to the discussion. Not sure either way about Moyers running for president, though I admire him very much.
26 July 2006, on 4:00 pm
There’s nothing like a real Texan to rip a “Connecticut Yankee On a Crawford Ranch” a brand new asshole. Molly is my favorite political writer but I have to disagree with her on this one. As much as I respect Bill Moyers- and maybe because I do, I wouldn’t want to put him in a scenario where he had to deal with shameless political hacks like Biden and Hillary.
Al Gore’s the one you need up there. He’s been through it and managed to keep a sense of humor about it. Technically, it would be a “re-election” campaign. Give him a true Democratic running mate like a Feingold or a Warner, keep the “handlers”, the “consultants”, and the “p.r. flacks” at least 500 yards away from him, and just let him be himself.
Here’s a thought; given the 22nd Amendment, could a two-time President run as a vice presidential candidate? In a worst case scenario, he wouldn’t be “elected” for the third time but assuming the post by law. I mean, Gore/(Bill)Clinton in ‘08! Who better to stand up to the rightwing noise machine than the one who stood up to them before and manged a high 60’s approval rating even in the midst of his impeachment?
26 July 2006, on 4:05 pm
A bit off-topic: In one of my classes in college when I went back for my Masters, the professor showed videos of the 1988 television series, The Power of Myth consisting of 6 one hour interviews between Moyers and mythologist Joseph Campbell. I highly recommend watching those if you can find them. Most universities should have copies to borrow.
26 July 2006, on 4:08 pm
Bill Moyers is a Christian? Are you sure he wouldn’t be the first to be surprised at this identification, except in the broadest and most generic sense?
I saw him in an interview with Charlie Rose shortly after Rose returned to the air, and when Rose stated he was a person of faith, Moyers seemed singularly uncomfortable and perhaps a bit bemused.
Has he identified himself as a Christian anytime recently?
26 July 2006, on 4:21 pm
If Mr. Beckman’s- Star’s link, criteria are to be taken seriously, why wouldn’t Jimmy Carter work just as well? Hell, he’s even a Nobel Prize winner. Here’s a smidgen more Molly:
“I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn’t actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.”
“I still believe in Hope – mostly because there’s no such place as Fingers Crossed, Arkansas.”*
*-Hope, Arkansas being the home of the Big Dog.
26 July 2006, on 4:28 pm
Sine, in this article- from about a month ago, Moyers describes himself as “neither wholly a believer nor wholly a skeptic.”
26 July 2006, on 4:49 pm
Bill Moyers is a Christian? Are you sure he wouldn’t be the first to be surprised at this identification, except in the broadest and most generic sense?
Sine Nomine
From all of the interviews I have seen of Moyers, even his latest interview of Salman Rushdie, he remains pretty neutral in his own personal religious or spiritual viewpoints.
I was surprised to learn that he was ordained a minister in the late 50s.
From Wikipedia:
During the academic year 1956-1957, he studied at the University of Edinburgh as a Rotary International Fellow. In 1957, he received a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. He was ordained two years later after working as a minister. He briefly accepted a lectureship in Christian ethics at Baylor University.
I also found this Bill Moyers: Let’s Get Jesus Back
26 July 2006, on 4:59 pm
Moyers’ foundation is as a Christian, yes, as Stardust points out. He has never disclaimed it, so I think it is a fair thing to say. Whether he is a True Christian™ depends on how you define it.
26 July 2006, on 5:10 pm
see #6
26 July 2006, on 5:17 pm
RDZ – Great article (link in comment #6). Thanks.
26 July 2006, on 5:22 pm
Raindogzilla, Stardust, Sean, and E. Wellesley Rush:
Thank you for your replies and links.
My understanding is that he is no advocate, neither agressively anti, but that he tends to treat Christianity in more of a Joseph Campbell mode than one of a St. Augustine.
It just struck me as strange to hear him referred to as a Christian, when he seems very tentitive about it. The introduction seemed to suggest he is in someway generally representitive.
Best regards,
S.
26 July 2006, on 5:35 pm
It just struck me as strange to hear him referred to as a Christian, when he seems very tentitive about it.
Many xians are tentative about it if they would just be honest about it. They go through the motions, but deep inside they doubt and question. It’s why religion is never enough for most and why they still seek science and medicine and look to other humans for help and guidance instead of relying 100% on prayer and faith.
26 July 2006, on 6:21 pm
In 2008, I’m looking for a candidate with the courage to stand up to the religious right– Hamas, the Party of God (the Hezb’Allah), Islamic Jihad, the Iranian Ayatollahs, along with far less violent but just as stupid organizations such as the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority.
26 July 2006, on 6:30 pm
Stardust-
There’s merit to your comment above. I doubt and question all the time, or at least on a regular basis. However, I shy from being classified or qualified as a (C)hristian. It’s becoming a worn-out word that only really seems to divide instead of help understanding. It doesn’t fit me, for a lot of different reasons. I prefer “follower of Jesus Christ”, as it indicates I haven’t reached any kind of “plateau” or have made it to home base, it just means I pick it up every day and try to follow. I’m still on the journey and always will be. I suspect it may be like that for Mr. Moyers.
P.S. what book of Bill’s should I start with, guys?
26 July 2006, on 10:24 pm
[...] The courageously-titled blog God is for Suckers asks the question, “Don’t you wish more Christians and more Texans were like these two?” [...]
27 July 2006, on 12:17 am
kidk — The Power of Myth (Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers). If you can see the videos, that would be even better.
Also, A World of Ideas : Conversations With Thoughtful Men and Women About American Life Today and the Ideas Shaping Our Future
27 July 2006, on 12:45 am
Yeah, Stardust, I’ve always recommended “The Power of Myth” to anyone wanting to see the Mythology/Religion/Literature connections.
I agree completely about checking out the related Campbell/Moyers video series [fr.1987?].
I video taped , more than once, the whole series from PBS broadcasts. Every once in awhile they used to,…and may still, re-broadcast it.
To anyone interested; you might check your local library’s video collection. Also, I recommend checking for another series consisting of Joseph Campbell’s marvelous 1987 lectures called: “Mythos”, with intros by Susan Sarandon.
I think there are 5 tapes in that series.
[Of course, DVDs are probably available by now.]
27 July 2006, on 5:07 am
The Power of Myth rocks.
27 July 2006, on 8:51 am
Hey, check that out, folks. We got called “The courageously-titled blog God is for Suckers” by The Irregular Times.
You hear that? Courageous! Anyone up for a chorus of “Onward Atheist Soldiers?”
Nah, me neither. Leave the militancy and war rhetoric to the BattleCryers and the god-botherers.
For now.
(They come knocking on my door, and they gots a whole other think comin’!)
27 July 2006, on 12:00 pm
Stardust:
In your reply of July 26th, 2006 at 5:35 pm you seem to set up a dichotomy between “science and medicine” against “100% faith and prayer.” What is your source of this antipathy between the two? And what do you mean by “100% faith and prayer?”
Also, what is the basis of your claim that “Many xians are tentative about [referring to themselves as a Christian] if they would just be honest about it. Most Christians I know are quite upfront and ready to identify themselves as such.
Best regards,
S.
27 July 2006, on 12:45 pm
What is your source of this antipathy between the two? And what do you mean by “100% faith and prayer?”
Sine Nomine — Over the years, I have observed xian behavior in the churches I have attended, and also behaviors of family members who are xians. All of these xians whom I have observed profess to “have faith” in a supernatural sky daddy and profess to “trust” this supernatural sky daddy implicitly. However, they are lying to others and themselves when they make this claim, because their “faith” stops short when catastrophe, illness or other things threaten their health, happiness and lives and they shove the “faith” off to the side and turn to science and human intervention for help because they know no gawd is going to float down from heaven and help. Also, even when a “saved” person dies, these xians behave as if they do not really believe in an afterlife at all…yet they go to church and pray in “hope” that there is. Instead of confronting those doubts and questions, they shove it aside out of guilt and fear for even questioning those religious superstitious beliefs that have been instilled via parents, church pastors and members of the xian “herd.” Even our xian-majority-society, in general, looks down upon a religious person who relies 100% on faith and gawd as if they were some kind of nutcase.
Also, what is the basis of your claim that “Many xians are tentative about [referring to themselves as a Christian] if they would just be honest about it. Most Christians I know are quite upfront and ready to identify themselves as such.
The xians I have observed and interacted with in my five decades on this planet, and as a xian myself for more than 30 years before “leaving the fold”, AND also the experience of observing and interacting with those xians in my own family, I have found that they may “profess” to be xians and go through the motions of their religion, but deep down most question their beliefs and most all of them create their own little version of fluffy-lamb xianity, or whatever floats your boat xianity, or any other type of xianity that suits them. What it really comes down to, they all were programmed to believe, to feel guilty or afraid for not believing or even questioning, etc. That is what I mean by them being “tentative”. Most are not honest even with themselves.
27 July 2006, on 2:26 pm
Stardust:
Thank you for your response.
I was hoping you would explain why you see a dichotomy between science and faith. According to the Apostle Paul, Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14). I can find no indication that doctors cannot be consulted. There is no instance that I can find where these values are in opposition to each other. The disciplines involved in science as we know it now had not been developed and was really a non-issue in those days, or a least were not central issues in this geographical area at this time. How do you come to this conclusion regarding the requisite conflict between the two, please?
You cite a number of your observations regarding the inconsistency of persons claiming to be Christians. I have noted such failings myself, but it doesn’t really address the issue of people who are tentative about describing themselves as Christians. I would be interested in what support you have for your statement “many xians are tentative about it if they would just be honest about it.” I made the observation that Mr. Moyers, regardless of his credentials, seemed to avoid identifying himself as a Christian, and you claimed most Christians behave similarly. My experience is different. What can you point to that shows that most Christians are tentative about identifying themselves as Christians?
Respectfully,
S.
27 July 2006, on 2:56 pm
What can you point to that shows that most Christians are tentative about identifying themselves as Christians?
I understand your question, however I am pointing out that even though xians may claim openly to be xians, many are tentative about what they believe. Hope that clarifies.
How do you come to this conclusion regarding the requisite conflict between the two, please?
Just look at the constant battle between creationism and evolution being taught in our schools. Many (too many) xians feel that science and religion do not mix.
27 July 2006, on 3:55 pm
From the article referred by Raindog in #6 : “Moyers, who describes himself as “neither wholly a believer nor wholly a skeptic,” thinks we can move away from pitting reason against faith and give equal weight to both in our discussions. Science can illuminate faith, and faith can inform science.”
Bill Moyers may be less obnoxious than right-wing fundies and open to discussion with the damned, but do any of us really agree with such nonsense as “give equal weight to both (faith and reason) in our discussions” or “faith can inform science”? Why don’t we, just say, give equal weight to “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” along side Darwin’s “Origins of the Species”? Or how about equal weight for “The Time Machine” by HG Wells with Einsteins “Theory of Relativity”?
Oh, and let’s see how much information faith has given science. A vaccination for polio or small pox? How about the mechanical structure of a Boeing 747? How about the spherical shape of the earth? Gee, it really hasn’t been much good at informing has it? Faith cannot inform because it has no basis in reality.
Moyers is leaning over the fence with his head dangling while his heart is still firmly in the grips of Jeebus love, as illustrated in his “Let’s Get Jesus Back” plea. If you allow that Jesus was this social advocate; this virtuous protector of women, children and the disabled; this friend of the disenfranchised… blah, blah, blah, you are seriously deluding yourself. Jesus (if he existed anywhere other than in the imaginations of foolish Christians) did absolutely nothing to solve any social injustice and promoted the god delusion, just like any evangelical preacher walking the earth today.
27 July 2006, on 4:11 pm
Stardust:
What can you point to that shows that most Christians are tentative about identifying themselves as Christians?
I understand your question, however I am pointing out that even though xians may claim openly to be xians, many are tentative about what they believe. Hope that clarifies.
Not really. It is not relevant to my original observations and leaves your original assertions unsupported. I am asking you for the support for your original assertion and you appear to be trying to change the subject and not addressing your original statement. I would be very interested in how you reached the conclusion that most Christians are tentative about identifying themselves as Christians. Perhaps we can move on to discussing the cognizant disconnect between Christians and their beliefs after you have clarified your original statement. If you, on reflection, feel you may have overstated, feel free to adjust or retract you original premise.
How do you come to this conclusion regarding the requisite conflict between the two, please?
Just look at the constant battle between creationism and evolution being taught in our schools. Many (too many) xians feel that science and religion do not mix.
I am aware of the controversy, but that does not explain why you seem to think if someone claims to be a Christian but utilizes a doctor instead of relying 100% on faith and prayer they are being inconsistent. You presented this dichotomy, which I am not aware of any basis for. Paul even recommends that Timothy take wine for stomach problems and other infirmities (1 Timothy 5:23). I would like to know why you think there is a conflict between what Christians claim and their use of medicine. Creationism vs. Evolution in the classroom seems to be a big jump from your original premise of science and medicine vs. 100% faith and prayer.
Respectfully,
S.
27 July 2006, on 4:31 pm
Lynda,
I believe you have articulated my bemusement better than I, albeit not in a style I would embrace. Of course, I demure from a good number of your opinions stated above. Nevertheless….
Seeing Mr. Moyers cited as a something of a common cause source surprised me. First of all, he equivocates in a topic that is rarely equivocated upon here. And second of all, the quiescence of his testimony makes him a strange person to be labeled “Christian” by the original blogger in light of how Christians are characterized here.
I am surprised an objection such has yours has taken so long to appear. At least you show consistency in choosing allies.
Respectfully,
S.
27 July 2006, on 5:41 pm
I am aware of the controversy, but that does not explain why you seem to think if someone claims to be a Christian but utilizes a doctor instead of relying 100% on faith and prayer they are being inconsistent.
Because, to me, that shows that someone doesn’t fully believe in what one professes to believe. They believe in medicine and science more than having faith in their god who supposedly can perform miracles, heal the sick, and so forth.
27 July 2006, on 5:50 pm
Sine Nomine – Also, the xians I have been around and the ones in my family are open about professing to being xians, however, they appear to be TENTATIVE in those beliefs (shown by their actions and ways they respond to negative life events)…not in identifying themselves as xians. Once again, I hope that clarifies what I am saying.
27 July 2006, on 6:24 pm
Stardust;
I am aware of the controversy, but that does not explain why you seem to think if someone claims to be a Christian but utilizes a doctor instead of relying 100% on faith and prayer they are being inconsistent.
Because, to me, that shows that someone doesn’t fully believe in what one professes to believe. They believe in medicine and science more than having faith in their god who supposedly can perform miracles, heal the sick, and so forth.
Thank you for your reply.
Isn’t this a strawgod? Just because He could, how does it follow that He MUST? And if there are natural means of treating an illness and you fail to use it, why would you ascribe blame to God for not healing. After all, He could clean all our hands, too, but there’s the soap and there’s the sink (and, oooo… a towel! Thank you!)
We take our medicine, we wash our hands, we cook our food, and we go to work every day. Are you suggesting there cannot be a God if He doesn’t do everything it is possible for Him to do?
Regards,
S.
27 July 2006, on 6:35 pm
Sine Nomine – Also, the xians I have been around and the ones in my family are open about professing to being xians, however, they appear to be TENTATIVE in those beliefs (shown by their actions and ways they respond to negative life events)…not in identifying themselves as xians. Once again, I hope that clarifies what I am saying.
Yes, that connects the dots for me. Thank you.
A thought about belief (well, maybe several thoughts):
If I spoke to someone who claimed to believe garden gnomes where the source of all pleasure, saw him at each of our gnomefabs, saw him carrying books about garden gnomes around with them, I would probably think him sincere. If I visited his home and found to my surprise that he had NO garden gnomes on display, not even the two I gave him for his last birthday, then I would have reason to suspect he was more interested in the gatherings of gnomephiles than in the actual “truth claims.” Oh! Wait! I see his parents have garden gnomes all over the place. Maybe he has acquired his gnome culture, rather than arrived at it through much thought.
The word for faith or belief used in the bible suggests the kind of trust you exercise when you unthinkingly sit in a chair. I trust it will not collapse under me. If I was in a room full of chairs and complained about my tired legs but resisted sitting down in any of them, you might be justified in wondering if I really believed these chairs were safe. Maybe I had a bad experience with a group of badly constructed chairs and now doubt the reliability of all chairs as a result.
Are you familiar with the parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:24-29? There are a lot of churches full of weeds these days. I am currently seeking a grainier experience myself. In Matthew 25 there are several parables that suggest there are going to be a number of people who thought they were on the inside, so to speak, but where in fact not. Look at Matthew 7:21-23 and Luke 7:46-49. James warns against being double minded.
Seems this is not a new issue, and it does not figure into the question of the credibility of the object of faith so much as the belief of the claimant.
Or so it seems to me, in so many more words than is probably necessary.
Regards,
S.
27 July 2006, on 6:37 pm
We take our medicine, we wash our hands, we cook our food, and we go to work every day. Are you suggesting there cannot be a God if He doesn’t do everything it is possible for Him to do?
Sine Nomine – Actually, this is a non-issue because this gawd you are referring to does not exist, period. There has never been one shred of evidence for this gawd except in the imaginations of those who choose to believe in him…like Santa Claus.
27 July 2006, on 7:08 pm
We take our medicine, we wash our hands, we cook our food, and we go to work every day. Are you suggesting there cannot be a God if He doesn’t do everything it is possible for Him to do?
Sine Nomine – Actually, this is a non-issue because this gawd you are referring to does not exist, period. There has never been one shred of evidence for this gawd except in the imaginations of those who choose to believe in him…like Santa Claus.
Isn’t that begging the question? It isn’t necessary for this God to exist for us to test the logic of your argument. After all, if this is a faulty premise, then, perhaps you have other faulty premises that have led to your conclusion. On the other hand, I am always happy to subject myself to the iron sharpens iron principle and test my constructs. Otherwise, I cannot discover my own fallacies.
Thanks for your time, anyway.
Regards,
S.
28 July 2006, on 12:30 am
The word for faith or belief used in the bible suggests the kind of trust you exercise when you unthinkingly sit in a chair. I trust it will not collapse under me.
Not the chair example again! I can see a chair, I can feel it’s sturdiness under my ass when I sit on it. If I started to sit and there was no chair under me I would fall to the floor or the ground. I usually look at a chair and make sure there is nothing on the chair to mess up my clothing…like a piece of dropped food or dirt or some other object. I can look at the structure of the chair and examine it and determine if it will hold me or not. I can see and feel if a chair is flimsy or sturdy. I cannot do this with your invisible silent sky daddy because this god of yours is a figment of your imagination. This god cannot be examined…cannot be seen or felt or heard. No one has yet to bring forth one shred of evidence for the existence of this god. The only “evidence” xians have for this god is an ancient book full of contradiction and wild stories which were created in the minds of “faulty” humans and written with “faulty” human hands.
28 July 2006, on 2:03 am
“Is he/she…a…GONE?” [ala Fagan in “Oliver!”]
I think I need to relieve myself…no, not that way; …just humorously!
[Just to note: “Sine Nomine” = “Without Name” in Latin...so I'm opting to using that, in the following 'word play'.]
Reading the previous exchanges between “Without Name” and Stardust, gave me the feeling of suddenly, …dream-like,…strolling through a monastery while chatting with one of the newer monks.
Pardon my side trip: or, in other words…more of my personal life bullshit!]
Actually, I spent 6 months back in 1964 on the brink of entering the priesthood at a Benedictine Monastery [in Lisle, Illinois; a temporary Catholic depression hangover resulting from JFK's death...and some post-graduate earth escaping disillusionment! I 'quasi-sobered' up after a single semester of courses in Theology, Philosophy, Latin, Greek and Roman History; and returned to my earlier undergraduat course in Agnosticism...
and some very serious drinking...and musician related carousing!
Oh, for those latter days!
OK...I'm offering y'all my "Psychic Reading" on 'Without Name':
He/She impresses me as the type of person who is very courteous, seemingly educated, but closer to the beginnings of any 'real', uninhibited, questioning of some very heavy childhood programming. Not very 'well read' outside of the usual Xtian shtick! No surprises there, for that matter. I'm guessing, He/She is, perhaps, a very conservative, 20s or early 30s, younger person, who hasn't been in the 'Wilds' too long!
Oh, yeah,...possibly a Pisces, Gemini, or Virgo? Kinda 'Virgo' in being very proper and perfectionist-like, ...but Gemini, in easily switching back and forth in some mental jousting!
Yeah, but...at the same time, I'm drawn to recognize Pisces [Sign of the Fish], in some aspect!
[Definitely, at least, in the end of the 'Piscean Age' sense! (Xtian Era)...Duh!]
That’s my SHORT reading!…”Ya’s want more, ya’s PAY!”
“So,…what’s my Psychic reading fee?…Just give according to your heart!…PayPal accepted!…Blah, blah! ”
“What’s that you say?…you’re feeling heartless?…and you think I and my reading are full of Shi-Ite?
“DAMN!…I thought, maybe, I could fool someone, at least!
However, in this kidding instance,…I think y’all are too smart to be scammed!”
“Now, where’s my little cat o’ nine tails, or even my old Bibble…for flogging myself in penance for my rash Infidel, Heathen, conduct?”
[As in Python’s “Holy Grail”, I go forth, ...chanting:
“Pie Jesu Domine!"…WHACK! [hits head with bibble!]…Repeat…”Pie…
F*ck it!…make it…Key Lime!”
Yeah, it’s getting late! Ever onward!
28 July 2006, on 2:55 am
Oh, Sine did it. He used the phrase “begging the question.” Probably the most commonly abused logical fallacy amongst our Paul Manata-type presup “friends.” Ignore this fucking clown. In fact, I just banned him. Thank you, Sine. See you at the Resurrection, fucktard.
28 July 2006, on 9:00 am
Reading the previous exchanges between “Without Name” and Stardust, gave me the feeling of suddenly, …dream-like,…strolling through a monastery while chatting with one of the newer monks.
ChuckA – LOL! I was thinking the same thing while trying to decode his “holy writ”! I could imagine the CD “Chant” playing in the background as he was writing away!
I just banned him. Thank you, Sine. See you at the Resurrection, fucktard.
Thanks Sean!
28 July 2006, on 10:09 am
You’re welcome, Star. I think we are more open than any theist site out there, but after awhile, arguing in circles (literally), can make you crazy (literally).
28 July 2006, on 3:34 pm
You know, his statement that “it isn’t necessary for this God to exist for us to test the logic of your argument” instantly made me think of the Flying Spaghetti Monster example: it isn’t necessary for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist to test the logic of the arguments for or against his existence.
I’m no philosopher and my Philosophy 101 courses are years behind me, but logically “proving” an argument “for” the existence of the FSM doesn’t automatically prove that he actually exists beyond the confines of the philosophical debate. You can define what constitutes definitive proof of his existence for yourself, and I guess if you’re content that proving the argument = proving his existence, then hey, it’s a free country.
To me, that’s what Sean calls it, a mental circle jerk; if you really want to blow my mind and get me to seriously consider the existence of the FSM, what constitutes definitive proof for me, anyway, is incontrovertible, irrefutable, reproducible hard scientific fact.