tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post9174653604603089687..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open Thread for #679Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46604172530031966492010-11-27T14:11:26.570-06:002010-11-27T14:11:26.570-06:00I can agree with you on some of the 9-11 claims an...I can agree with you on some of the 9-11 claims and conspiracies regarding Zeitgeist parts 2, 3 & addendum but, I cannot agree with hardly anything you've said about ZG part 1. I've done my own research long before the Zeitgeist movie was ever heard of and your claims are wrong - embarrassingly wrong and you're embarrassing all atheists by repeating the nonsense I've seen in your youtube video #634. The comments there by 'Hercules2345' proved that.<br /><br />I notice that most here at the atheist experience consistently commit the fallacy of 'guilt by association' by conflating part 1/Acharya S with everything else. Acharya S had nothing to do with parts 2 or 3. She has consistently substantiated part 1 when it has come from her own work and I've yet to see anyone here go to her website or videos or forum or read any of her books or even make any attempt to contact her at all. So, the anti-Acharya S position here is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. As an atheist, I find your website & videos regarding ZG1 & Acharya S a monumental disappointment that isn't any better than fundy Xians. Take that as constructive criticism. <br /><br />If you have any interest in being honest invite her on your show via the phone or something but, it would be wise if you knew her work first or you will look like a dumb-ass. Or do a show on her mythicist position. <br /><br />Read Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions at her Freethought Nation forum. <br /><br />Read this FAQ & you'll see why atheists should not be SMEARING her: "Do atheists disagree with Acharya's basic premise?"<br /><br />Search for the "Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence" thread and the post "The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)"<br /><br />CiaoVincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02571004784757870370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10951504409682762232010-11-12T10:07:46.406-06:002010-11-12T10:07:46.406-06:00(post part 2)
It's actually easy to draw para...(post part 2)<br /><br />It's actually easy to draw parallels between the CM hypothesis and the Al Queada hypothesis for 911. In both cases we have an organization that routinely performs the kinds of feats attributed to them. For Al Queada, it's terrorist acts, for the Romans it is that they had a bureaucracy for creating and administering religions through the cults of the Caesars. The second parallel is that there are undisputed historical links between the events and the proposed perpetrators. We have put Al Queada people in the plane cockpits and we know Titus was at Jerusalem. A third parallel is that both groups claimed responsibilty. Understanding this will probably require people to read CM but if you want to cut to the chase read chapter 8, "Until All is Fulfilled," to see how Josephus has events and characters in his history (which after all is official Flavian propaganda, undisputably) fulfill the prophecies of Jesus of the gospels. I don't believe there can be any other reasonable explanation than that the Flavians invented Christianity as a replacement theology for militant messianic judaism, and that they wanted to claim credit for doing so. <br /><br />To read that chapter you just have to go to esnips dot com and search "atwill caesar." If you register (it's free) you can download the whole book. Atwill doesn't object because it's out of print now anyhow.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40519003300862215562010-11-12T10:05:45.185-06:002010-11-12T10:05:45.185-06:00My post never made it up, but it somehow got sent ...My post never made it up, but it somehow got sent to me nonetheless through the notification system, so here it is:<br /><br />Martin, this is after all a conspiracy theory thread, albeit on an atheism blog.<br /><br />Snaylor's post illustrates a point I would ike to make. That is, it is clear beyond a doubt that there was a 911 conspiracy, in the sense that multiple airliners didn't just fly themselves into nearby buildings in NYC coincidentally and independently. Obviously somebody coordinated the events. So there was a conspiracy, the only question is how to characterize it. There are reasonable and much less reasonable and less supported explanations that have been offered about how the conspiracy happened and who was involved (and for the record I want to say that I see no substantial reason not to accept that there's an organization called Al Queida and that they're responsible). But it is often overlooked that the problem with conspiracy theories is not the conspiracy, it's the nature of it. There are crazy conspiracy theories and reasonable ones, and the reasonable ones are perfectly well accepted by most people.<br /><br />Which brings me back to the Caesar's Messiah hypothesis that the christian religion was deliberately created with malice aforethough by the particular people who are known to have executed the encirclement and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple "predicted" by "Jesus," and at exactly the time it was promised. It seems clear to me that this hypothesis is in the realm of the perfectly reasonable conspiracies. Indeed it is a conspiracy but so is any act of government, which it was if Atwill has it right. We can know that it did happen that way because there is a historical written record that can't be reasonably interpreted any other way (that is, the mutual references between Josephus and the gospels and vice versa) and the nonexistense of any directly refuting evidence, and a vast amount of corroborating and circumstantial evidence. Plus, the alternative theory, that christianity arose innocently, was always unlikely itself and is contradicted by evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that show an indigenous religion that is only the militant messianic Judaism the Romans wanted to replace, not actual christianity. The messiah of the DSS is nothing like Jesus the Christ. <br /><br />(end of post part 1)Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86359863586697437662010-11-12T10:02:35.670-06:002010-11-12T10:02:35.670-06:00My post never made it up, but it somehow got sent ...My post never made it up, but it somehow got sent to me nonetheless through the notification system, so here it is:<br /><br />Martin, this is after all a conspiracy theory thread, albeit on an atheism blog.<br /><br />Snaylor's post illustrates a point I would ike to make. That is, it is clear beyond a doubt that there was a 911 conspiracy, in the sense that multiple airliners didn't just fly themselves into nearby buildings in NYC coincidentally and independently. Obviously somebody coordinated the events. So there was a conspiracy, the only question is how to characterize it. There are reasonable and much less reasonable and less supported explanations that have been offered about how the conspiracy happened and who was involved (and for the record I want to say that I see no substantial reason not to accept that there's an organization called Al Queida and that they're responsible). But it is often overlooked that the problem with conspiracy theories is not the conspiracy, it's the nature of it. There are crazy conspiracy theories and reasonable ones, and the reasonable ones are perfectly well accepted by most people.<br /><br />Which brings me back to the Caesar's Messiah hypothesis that the christian religion was deliberately created with malice aforethough by the particular people who are known to have executed the encirclement and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple "predicted" by "Jesus," and at exactly the time it was promised. It seems clear to me that this hypothesis is in the realm of the perfectly reasonable conspiracies. Indeed it is a conspiracy but so is any act of government, which it was if Atwill has it right. We can know that it did happen that way because there is a historical written record that can't be reasonably interpreted any other way (that is, the mutual references between Josephus and the gospels and vice versa) and the nonexistense of any directly refuting evidence, and a vast amount of corroborating and circumstantial evidence. Plus, the alternative theory, that christianity arose innocently, was always unlikely itself and is contradicted by evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that show an indigenous religion that is only the militant messianic Judaism the Romans wanted to replace, not actual christianity. The messiah of the DSS is nothing like Jesus the Christ. <br /><br />It's actually easy to draw parallels between the CM hypothesis and the Al Queada hypothesis for 911. In both cases we have an organization that routinely performs the kinds of feats attributed to them. For Al Queada, it's terrorist acts, for the Romans it is that they had a bureaucracy for creating and administering religions through the cults of the Caesars. The second parallel is that there are undisputed historical links between the events and the proposed perpetrators. We have put Al Queada people in the plane cockpits and we know Titus was at Jerusalem. A third parallel is that both groups claimed responsibilty. Understanding this will probably require people to read CM but if you want to cut to the chase read chapter 8, "Until All is Fulfilled," to see how Josephus has events and characters in his history (which after all is official Flavian propaganda, undisputably) fulfill the prophecies of Jesus of the gospels. I don't believe there can be any other reasonable explanation than that the Flavians invented Christianity as a replacement theology for militant messianic judaism, and that they wanted to claim credit for doing so. <br /><br />To read that chapter you just have to go to esnips dot com and search "atwill caesar." If you register (it's free) you can download the whole book. Atwill doesn't object because it's out of print now anyhow.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69933729939628667862010-11-10T09:11:21.546-06:002010-11-10T09:11:21.546-06:00Knew of not new of, apologies.Knew of not new of, apologies.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50440781830041970882010-11-10T09:09:54.613-06:002010-11-10T09:09:54.613-06:00Dammit there was a long and well-reasoned post pri...Dammit there was a long and well-reasoned post prior to the link post! I will try to reconstitute it later. In the meantime, I recommend going right to chapter 8, "Until All is Fulfilled," to understand how Josephus refers to the gospels. This proves that the Flavians new of the gospels, and were claiming that Titus Flavius was fulfilling Jesus' prophecies, as of course he indisputably did.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11334169960287934462010-11-10T09:04:14.415-06:002010-11-10T09:04:14.415-06:00I hope my previous comment made it up. I got an e...I hope my previous comment made it up. I got an error message. This is supposed to be just a follow up with a link, not just a spam link.<br /><br />http://www.esnips.com/doc/b67761f4-ecd2-423a-93a0-0ff2b9eb6149/Joseph-Atwill---Caesars-Messiah---The-Roman-Conspiracy-to-Invent-JesusQuantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86976790556144562802010-11-10T09:00:44.575-06:002010-11-10T09:00:44.575-06:00Martin, this is after all a conspiracy theory thre...Martin, this is after all a conspiracy theory thread, albeit on an atheism blog.<br /><br />Snaylor's post illustrates a point I would ike to make. That is, it is clear beyond a doubt that there was a 911 conspiracy, in the sense that multiple airliners didn't just fly themselves into nearby buildings in NYC coincidentally and independently. Obviously somebody coordinated the events. So there was a conspiracy, the only question is how to characterize it. There are reasonable and much less reasonable and less supported explanations that have been offered about how the conspiracy happened and who was involved (and for the record I want to say that I see no substantial reason not to accept that there's an organization called Al Queida and that they're responsible). But it is often overlooked that the problem with conspiracy theories is not the conspiracy, it's the nature of it. There are crazy conspiracy theories and reasonable ones, and the reasonable ones are perfectly well accepted by most people.<br /><br />Which brings me back to the Caesar's Messiah hypothesis that the christian religion was deliberately created with malice aforethough by the particular people who are known to have executed the encirclement and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple "predicted" by "Jesus," and at exactly the time it was promised. It seems clear to me that this hypothesis is in the realm of the perfectly reasonable conspiracies. Indeed it is a conspiracy but so is any act of government, which it was if Atwill has it right. We can know that it did happen that way because there is a historical written record that can't be reasonably interpreted any other way (that is, the mutual references between Josephus and the gospels and vice versa) and the nonexistense of any directly refuting evidence, and a vast amount of corroborating and circumstantial evidence. Plus, the alternative theory, that christianity arose innocently, was always unlikely itself and is contradicted by evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that show an indigenous religion that is only the militant messianic Judaism the Romans wanted to replace, not actual christianity. The messiah of the DSS is nothing like Jesus the Christ. <br /><br />It's actually easy to draw parallels between the CM hypothesis and the Al Queada hypothesis for 911. In both cases we have an organization that routinely performs the kinds of feats attributed to them. For Al Queada, it's terrorist acts, for the Romans it is that they had a bureaucracy for creating and administering religions through the cults of the Caesars. The second parallel is that there are undisputed historical links between the events and the proposed perpetrators. We have put Al Queada people in the plane cockpits and we know Titus was at Jerusalem. A third parallel is that both groups claimed responsibilty. Understanding this will probably require people to read CM but if you want to cut to the chase read chapter 8, "Until All is Fulfilled," to see how Josephus has events and characters in his history (which after all is official Flavian propaganda, undisputably) fulfill the prophecies of Jesus of the gospels. I don't believe there can be any other reasonable explanation than that the Flavians invented Christianity as a replacement theology for militant messianic judaism, and that they wanted to claim credit for doing so. <br /><br />To read that chapter you just have to go to esnips dot com and search "atwill caesar." If you register (it's free) you can download the whole book. Atwill doesn't object because it's out of print now anyhow.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37627439733624917172010-11-08T14:12:43.630-06:002010-11-08T14:12:43.630-06:00This is an atheism blog, and though I suppose they...This is an atheism blog, and though I suppose they're related under the general topical umbrella of "skepticism," we'd rather not get into 9/11 conspiracy theories here. Thanks.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61032561020932680832010-11-08T13:34:32.872-06:002010-11-08T13:34:32.872-06:00While i don't always agree with the attitudes ...While i don't always agree with the attitudes and on the show, I think your program has a lot of value in trying to come to rational mutual understandings. I am an atheist and also what you would probably refer to as a 9ll Truther though I simply suggest looking at all the information will lead to the conclusion that a new and proper inestigation of all the things left out of the official theory needs to be done to get the things that were missed and are often left out of the common explaination. I would suggest any one who is up for the challange to look at the King Street Mural Van video available on youtube. This is the live NYFD conversation on 9/ll reporting a van stopped which had a Plane Flying into NY city and exploding painted on the side driven by foreign nationals who fled the van (but were caught). The van itself is described to have exploded (to what degree I'm not sure). Rational thinking would lead anyone to assume that a van full of explosives in NY on 9/ll which had the days attacks painted on the side most likely had something to do with the attacks 9description of the Van available at the 5:00 mark of the King Street Mural Van video). Once you get to this point and then recognize how many CIA and government whistleblowers are speaking out about foreknowledge of 9/ll as well as the over l300 architects and engineers who are risking their reputations to stand behind the push to do a new and proper investigation of the 3 towers, as well as the coutless amazing coincidences and incredible happeings on 9ll, you should rationaly conclude that at the very least, revisiting the informaton in a proper independent investigation is worthwhile.<br />Please open your mind to the very real possibility that you do not know the full story as to what happened on 9/ll or who carried it out so we can move forward and try and hold people, whoever they are, accountable.snaylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18012657335137261766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70140140509727646882010-11-06T21:10:08.505-05:002010-11-06T21:10:08.505-05:00I would like to add that I long ago started a disc...I would like to add that I long ago started a discussion about CM on the Iron Chariots discussion board, and it's currently on the front page of general discussion, since I recently updated it with the information that the book can be downloaded for free from esnips. And also my rebuttal of the Richard Price that many people seem to mistakenly think is somehow devastating to the CM thesis. Really he raises no substantive objections. He is simply happy with the old explanations that Christianity arose innocently and genuinely. That is not impossible but seems more unlikely to me than that some people with power and motivation for doing it did it deliberately. Circumstantially, there are many apparent links and similarities between the RCC then and now and the Roman cults of the Caesars.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4249860208410701242010-11-06T21:02:06.226-05:002010-11-06T21:02:06.226-05:00I just got around to listening to the show today.
...I just got around to listening to the show today.<br /><br />I was not really expecting it, but I was wondering if there would be any discussion of the book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus," by Joseph Atwill. Ha ha that is about a different Caesar, Titus Flavius, who fulfilled Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem being encircled and laid low, to the letter and just on time. <br /><br />The idea that the Flavians invented Christianity has been around for a while and is not implausible on its face. I would say it passes all the tests that were provided for rejecting a conspiracy theory. It is really more of an act of government, at that point. But Atwill goes further than previous conjecturors, arguing that not only did the Flavians do the dirty deed, they wanted posterity to appreciate their feat. So, they made it clear by having their propagandist, "Josephus," write a history of the Jewish war that refers to the canonical gospels, and in a way that gets the message across that they were trying to subvert militant messianic Judaism.<br /><br />I like to think that I'm one of the least gullible people around, but I'm convinced that there can be no doubt that Christianity is a deliberate invention of the Roman Flavians. <br /><br />I think this is a very important fact that should be exploited more in the battle against dangerous magical thinking.Quantum Skeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17540964211124616979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37458201789226608362010-11-02T22:42:46.225-05:002010-11-02T22:42:46.225-05:00I just love Tracie's disarming smile and wild ...I just love Tracie's disarming smile and wild head of hair. She fixates your stare and makes you think something is going on behind the camera. I guess it must be a fairly surreal thing to do just sitting looking at yourself on a screen and trying to be serious. My dream team is Tracie and Martin whose unfortunately infrequent hilarious takes on the absurdity of misguided ideas are right up there with the best. I loved that comment he made sometime back about someone's foolishness being comparable to a 'great big swinging dick' ...he timed it beautifully hahahahaRic Bowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12328483887825516879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51869519887553693022010-10-26T04:54:32.543-05:002010-10-26T04:54:32.543-05:00@Ing Dude, get a grip. Elitism has a place in the...@Ing Dude, get a grip. Elitism has a place in the picture when you want elite pilots and elite firemen and so forth. But all you are being elite at is being a douchebag.<br /><br />I don't think cesar is a nimrod, although he does get stuck in the rut sometimes, and some of his notions are simply logically flawed. My point was that I got a lot more value out of listening to cesar talk, than from reading your negative ass posts.<br /><br />Chill the fuck out.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14791359210633134794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6794474416708675662010-10-25T19:46:26.103-05:002010-10-25T19:46:26.103-05:00I have to defend the hosts, again. I don't kn...I have to defend the hosts, again. I don't know about other Unis but at my Alma biochem is a class that requires at least three years of prerequisite classes in order to qualify to take it. Caeser is talking about a subject that is real higher ed in a specialized hard science, it's reasonable to ask with him getting stuff so wrong if he's ever really studied any of the subjects (he has not).<br /><br />Part of my reaction is because I know Caeser is a repeat caller. I remember watching the show when he was a Ray Comfort parrot, and it seems to me that response to his stupid apologetics have just caused him to go out and pick up some lame misunderstandings of science to try to prop up and hide the usual Curt Cameron bullshit. Experience tells that Caeser is not knowledgeable or bright when it comes to science.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90557784478335964842010-10-25T09:24:07.475-05:002010-10-25T09:24:07.475-05:00Sharon, it is not an ad hominem. It would be if th...Sharon, it is not an ad hominem. It would be if they said "we think your arguments are wrong based on your lack of education". That's not what was said. It was more along the lines of "your arguments are wrong because of x, y, and z. How did you come up with them? What's your education?" At least, I think that was the intention, but it was rather prone to misinterpretation.Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16843595449252682522010-10-25T08:48:42.306-05:002010-10-25T08:48:42.306-05:00Plain Simple, I would have to agree with you. Some...Plain Simple, I would have to agree with you. Sometimes they meant "The Argument from Ignorance"; but at one point they talked about his educational background, which would be an <i>ad hominen.</i><br />It is a very narrow fence - is it an ad hominem to question how someone is qualified to dispute the accepted scientific principles of 99% of the biologists & organic chemists on the planet; or is that just a personal attack putdown?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15389476095618700931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22487367422877855632010-10-24T22:40:26.966-05:002010-10-24T22:40:26.966-05:00@Sharon: I don't think the commenters in here ...@Sharon: I don't think the commenters in here confused the argument from ignorance with general ignorance. The comments were about Tracie or Jen asking for Cesar's educational background followed by what could be interpreted (even though it might not have been intented that way) by a derogatory reaction to his answer.Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14513890946333695322010-10-24T19:39:38.435-05:002010-10-24T19:39:38.435-05:00Guys, Tracie & Jen weren't calling Cesar i...Guys, Tracie & Jen weren't calling Cesar ignorant - they said he was using "The Argument from Ignorance" which is a logical fallacy like "the God of the Gaps". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). When Cesar says "I don't believe or can't see how the laws of chemistry could create a complex structure like the cell", he is basing his opinion on his personal ignorance of the laws of organic chemistry. Unfortunately the ladies weren't very clear when they used the term.<br />Also, it would have been better if only one of them "lead" the debate with Cesar. Matt often passes the question off to his co-host to answer, then adds his own comments at the end of the call. It is easier on the caller and easier to keep track of the flow of the debate when the back & forth is between two people, not three.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15389476095618700931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53692214158762337552010-10-24T12:09:53.775-05:002010-10-24T12:09:53.775-05:00@Johannthecabbie: "I do not like the implicat...@Johannthecabbie: "I do not like the implication that I am prejudiced. I am not making any negative stereotypes against the Latino community. I did resort to generalizations, but I said nothing prejudicial."<br /><br />Good, I'm glad you don't like the implication that you're prejudiced. So inspect your argument to see if there is really no prejudice in there. I didn't say negative prejudice, but prejudice. To quote Wikipedia (and please let's not get into discussions about the validity of Wikipedia or the role dictionaries play; I'm just quoting it because it saves me the time of explaining what I want to say in my own words):<br /><br />"A prejudice is a prejudgment: i.e. an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy. The word prejudice is most commonly used to refer to a preconceived judgment toward a people or a person because of race, social class, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, political beliefs, religion, sexual orientation or other personal characteristics. It also means beliefs without knowledge of the facts[1] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."[2]"<br /><br />With the possible exception of that last sentence, I'd say that's pretty much the nail on the head if it comes to describing your statement.Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52134315774305732132010-10-23T06:09:47.667-05:002010-10-23T06:09:47.667-05:00@Ing
"Thanks for the implication that I don&#...@Ing<br />"Thanks for the implication that I don't work hard and just sit on my ass all day at my job. Way to assume you're better than me because I'm just one of those lazy elitists who have a dun der education."<br /><br />I have said nothing to imply that I consider you to be lazy. Nor do I assume that I am better than you. I am not in the habit of thinking myself better than others. It is rude and arrogant.<br /><br />"You're worship of the working man and demonization of skilled labor is noted." I am not demonizing people, either white collar or blue. BTW, skilled labor fits in the blue collar category, as does the working man.<br /><br />I'll try to be very clear, because you seem to have trouble understanding my point. I have nothing against education. On the contrary, I believe education is important, and I am often dismayed by the woeful ignorance of the American people. Though I only have a layman's knowledge of science myself, I have great respect for scientists and admiration for science in general. I have said nothing to decry education or scientific knowledge.<br /><br />My main point is that calling Ceaser stupid because of his lack of education or knowledge is wrong. He may be ignorant, but he is not stupid. Stupid and ignorant are not the same. They are different. Calling Ceaser stupid is an ad hominen attack.<br /><br />And, I consider educated people who look down on the uneducated to be elitist. That does not mean that I consider all educated people to be elitist. Only those who think their advanced degrees make them better than others. And, that includes you.Johann the Cabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00227501431470145684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90594681604199424232010-10-23T06:08:03.303-05:002010-10-23T06:08:03.303-05:00@Ing
"This insistence that Caeser was knowled...@Ing<br />"This insistence that Caeser was knowledgeable" I do not recall anyone calling Ceaser knowledgeable. I did say that his understanding is better than most Americans, but we all agree that his level of understanding is lacking. I'm just pointing out that lack of knowledge does not equate with lack of intelligence. A lack of knowledge does not make one stupid or moronic. It means one is ignorant. I presume, considering your education, that you are capable of understanding the difference.<br /><br />What anti-education anti-intellectual line of discussion are you referring to? I have seen no comments that are anti-intellectual or anti-education. Perhaps I missed them, or perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.<br /><br />"Yeah you know some drop outs who are smarter than some college grads...Therefore all education is worthless and makes no difference." What? That's quite a leap.<br /><br />"Oh and John the Cabbie?" Um, that's Johann the Cabbie.<br /><br />"Thanks for the implication that I don't work hard and just sit on my ass all day at my job. Way to assume you're better than me because I'm just one of those lazy elitists who have a dun der education."<br /><br />I have said nothing to imply that I consider you to be lazy. Nor do I assume that I am better than you. I am not in the habit of thinking myself better than others. It is rude and arrogant.<br /><br />"You're worship of the working man and demonization of skilled labor is noted." I am not demonizing people, either white collar or blue. BTW, skilled labor fits in the blue collar category, as does the working man.<br /><br />I'll try to be very clear, because you seem to have trouble understanding my point. I have nothing against education. On the contrary, I believe education is important, and I am often dismayed by the woeful ignorance of the American people. Though I only have a layman's knowledge of science myself, I have great respect for scientists and admiration for science in general. I have said nothing to decry education or scientific knowledge.<br /><br />My main point is that calling Ceaser stupid because of his lack of education or knowledge is wrong. He may be ignorant, but he is not stupid. Stupid and ignorant are not the same. They are different. Calling Ceaser stupid is an ad hominen attack.<br /><br />And, I consider educated people who look down on the uneducated to be elitist. That does not mean that I consider all educated people to be elitist. Only those who think their advanced degrees make them better than others. And, that includes you.Johann the Cabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00227501431470145684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1800680800935031202010-10-23T06:06:41.402-05:002010-10-23T06:06:41.402-05:00@Plain Simple
"And anyway, it is besides the ...@Plain Simple<br />"And anyway, it is besides the whole point. What does it have to do with whether or not Caesar is intelligent? And what does that in turn have to do with the validity of his arguments?"<br />True. I was trying to defend the uneducated, which in New York is often poor and working class. Perhaps I should have chosen my phrasing better.<br /><br />I do not like the implication that I am prejudiced. I am not making any negative stereotypes against the Latino community. I did resort to generalizations, but I said nothing prejudicial.<br /><br />@Ing<br />"This insistence that Caeser was knowledgeable" I do not recall anyone calling Ceaser knowledgeable. I did say that his understanding is better than most Americans, but we all agree that his level of understanding is lacking. I'm just pointing out that lack of knowledge does not equate with lack of intelligence. A lack of knowledge does not make one stupid or moronic. It means one is ignorant. I presume, considering your education, that you are capable of understanding the difference.<br /><br />What anti-education anti-intellectual line of discussion are you referring to? I have seen no comments that are anti-intellectual or anti-education. Perhaps I missed them, or perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.<br /><br />"Yeah you know some drop outs who are smarter than some college grads...Therefore all education is worthless and makes no difference." What? That's quite a leap.<br /><br />"Oh and John the Cabbie?" Um, that's Johann the Cabbie.<br /><br />"Thanks for the implication that I don't work hard and just sit on my ass all day at my job. Way to assume you're better than me because I'm just one of those lazy elitists who have a dun der education."<br /><br />I have said nothing to imply that I consider you to be lazy. Nor do I assume that I am better than you. I am not in the habit of thinking myself better than others. It is rude and arrogant.<br /><br />"You're worship of the working man and demonization of skilled labor is noted." I am not demonizing people, either white collar or blue. BTW, skilled labor fits in the blue collar category, as does the working man.<br /><br />I'll try to be very clear, because you seem to have trouble understanding my point. I have nothing against education. On the contrary, I believe education is important, and I am often dismayed by the woeful ignorance of the American people. Though I only have a layman's knowledge of science myself, I have great respect for scientists and admiration for science in general. I have said nothing to decry education or scientific knowledge.<br /><br />My main point is that calling Ceaser stupid because of his lack of education or knowledge is wrong. He may be ignorant, but he is not stupid. Stupid and ignorant are not the same. They are different. Calling Ceaser stupid is an ad hominen attack.<br /><br />And, I consider educated people who look down on the uneducated to be elitist. That does not mean that I consider all educated people to be elitist. Only those who think their advanced degrees make them better than others. And, that includes you.Johann the Cabbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00227501431470145684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47968911585349048272010-10-22T17:52:26.770-05:002010-10-22T17:52:26.770-05:00Oh and John the Cabbie? Thanks for the implicatio...Oh and John the Cabbie? Thanks for the implication that I don't work hard and just sit on my ass all day at my job. Way to assume you're better than me because I'm just one of those lazy elitists who have a dun der education. I work. I work hard at my job. You're worship of the working man and demonization of skilled labor is noted. <br /><br />But again hey what do I know? I just you know, know the topic Caeser was butchering and was rude in calling him a moron, so therefore I clearly have nothing to say.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23138182759830575502010-10-22T17:43:25.032-05:002010-10-22T17:43:25.032-05:00@Phil
Would you let an unlicensed doctor operate ...@Phil<br /><br />Would you let an unlicensed doctor operate on you? This anti-education anti-intellectual line of discussion is troubling. <br /><br />Yeah you know some drop outs who are smarter than some college grads...Therefore all education is worthless and makes no difference. Seriously, the fact that you know some exceptional people is no more of a point than that i know drop outs who are too dumb to eat.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.com