Tales from The Land of Davids Fevered Imagination.

In a recent thread our good friend and constant companion, David, made some assertions about his first encounter with Brock here on SEB. Now most of the assertions that David makes are the sort that are… difficult… to verify one way or the other. Assertions like his supposedly in-depth study of philosophy at the age of 14 which rivaled what others might be exposed to in college or how he’s presented his views on the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution to PhD level biologists (and avowed Evolutionists) who had no recourse but to admit he had managed to stump them. But every so often he slips up and makes a mistake and hands us something we can actually look into to see how much truth there is to his claim. A recent response from David to Brock provides us with one such occasion:

Brock, the reason I have written the things I have to you is in response to the never ending personal attacks you have made on me. It has nothing to do with your sexual preference. If you will remember our first encounter was over the gay marriageӔ topic. You were abusive, obnoxious, and clearly asserting your sexual preference. You were abusive, obnoxious, and clearly asserting your sexual preference. But I see that once again, you all are allowed to have opinions about other people, but if I have one, I have to PROVE I FEEL that way.

Look, I’ve never complained about the attacks (as I’ve been accused of doing) but I’ve pointed it out on occasion to show reason for my responses. But here you are, actually whining about me giving you relatively minor rebukes after what you’ve written about me. If you cant take it, stop dishing it out. If you know anything about Christians at all, you know that if you ask, I’m literally bound to forgive you.

Now here we have several rather easy to check on assertions that we can verify with just a little effort so let’s dig in and see what we can come up with, shall we? Let’s put David’s recollection of the facts to the test!

David first showed up at SEB on June 20, 2003 @ 12:12PM and has made roughly 151 comments to date, though it feels like infinitely more at times. Brock first showed up on June 29, 2003 @ 12:50 AM and has made around 368 comments.

OK, so let’s break this down starting with the easiest assertions to verify such as…

    If you will remember our first encounter was over the gay “marriage” topic.

The first comment made by Brock that contained any direct mention of David was in an entry on July 22, 2003 @ 10:13 PM that originally dealt with a news item about four teens who group hugged after killing a former friend and had nothing to do with gay marriage. This is an entry that David had already spent quite a bit of time in arguing about the existence of God and how foolish we all were. This is the famous entry wherein David embarked on his dissertation of the Proof of God at my request only to have me shut him down once he fell back on the old Argument from Design tact. This thread is also where David first directly addresses Brock on July 27, 2003 05:08 PM. Again, nothing in the thread has anything to do with gay marriage.

Now let’s take a look at a couple of related assertions…

    Brock, the reason I have written the things I have to you is in response to the never ending personal attacks you have made on me… You were abusive, obnoxious, and clearly asserting your sexual preference.

This one is a little tricker seeing as what constitutes a personal attack is rather subjective, but let’s see what we can see. Brock’s first comment which addressed David actually addressed all of us who were participating in the thread and it read:

    Gheeesh, with you guys its god or nothing. David, you need to stop trying to talk down to everyone. I believe we will/do exist as aware energy after physical life, and time is an artificial construct, so we are in the next place being the next thing now. I dont believe there is created or maintained by a god, but by all aware energy equally. DonҒt expect me to try to prove that though. I dont believe proving there is possible while focused on here. David, where would you be without the Bible? Les and Eric, where would you be without Scientific American? WeҒll all retain our same beliefs regardless of what the others say.

Nothing in there about his sexual preference nor is it clearly abusive or obnoxious. If you stretch things a bit you could say that Brock telling David to stop talking down to everyone might be considered a personal attack, but if you go look at the thread it’s pretty clear that David was talking down to everyone. He took on a rather haughty air of self-superiority early on and hasn’t let it go ever since. Granted at the start it wasn’t anywhere near as bad as it has grown to be, but it certainly foreshadows what’s to come. Continuing…

    Since then, you have seldom posted a civil response to anything I’ve written.

Again, rather subjective. All told there are around 50 comments in which Brock directly refers to David by name, though undoubtedly there are some where indirect references is at least implied. In the second comment Brock made to David he says the following:

    “It seems to me, David, you are reading too much and feeling too little. No offense intended, and I hope you read this as well meant, if you can.”

Hardly what I’d call uncivil. In fact, the first really critical statements about David that I can find from Brock are the following:

    This is a most transparent self-serving, prideful thing to undertake. I at least will not believe for one moment that your desire for my, or anyone’s soul’s safety, is the reason for you “talking” here. Plain and simple, you want to be perceived as wise, as patient, as reasonable and as “saved” as a person could hope to be. You want to magnify your own worth, as it were. That has been glaringly obvious in most everything you have written here. Though you talk of pride as though it is evil, your words suggest you have much pride in your own intellect and deeds. While pride in one’s self is not a bad thing, denial of another’s rights to have pride in his or her accomplishments and reasoning ability is.

Followed by…

    If you can see any parallels in the above example of Christian method and your own writings and apparent beliefs, I commend you. If not then I’ll just say to you what you said to readers “…it leads me to believe that you must be either inexplicably stupid, or deliberately avoiding the truth.”

And with…

    And isn’t it fortuitous that you know for certain what God thinks is uniquely good, while the rest of us struggle constantly to represent goodness, commonly doubting our ability to measure up. You place yourself far above many by minimizing someone else’s right to seek a personal understanding of good, whether it be defined by God, one’s parents or others or one’s self. I speak back to you not because I understand better what is ultimately right, but because you represent everything I hate about the search for higher awareness. You have the answers, the book and the “creator of all” on your team. You certainly can’t blame us for having a speck of doubt concerning your right to “lord” it over others.

All in the same comment. Critical? Surely, but not obnoxious, abusive or uncivil. There’s quite a few comments from Brock for awhile that don’t say anything particularly negative about David other than to ask newcomers who argue in a similar style “Have you met David?” Brock doesn’t really lay into David until the Eric’s entry from February 23rd of this year on efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages. Considering Brock’s sexual orientation this is likely to be an emotional subject for him yet his first response to a comment from David is again not what I would consider abusive or obnoxious:

    I have no problem whatsoever with you speaking in public David, but from your first paragraph to you last, you lied, much as randall does. You aren’t looking at the issue with unbiased perceptions and you have lots of issues with how you perceive homosexuality and union.

    Be a close-minded, ill informed bigot, I don’t care, but when you speak, don’t be surprised if someone expects you to back up your words with exact and current facts and logical arguments.

With regards to David’s assertion that Brock was “clearly asserting” his sexual preference in their exchanges I think it’s safe to say that anyone who actually looks at the exchange that took place will see that Brock doesn’t bring up his orientation and it is, in fact, David who first raises the possibility that Brock might be gay:

    I never hid how I felt about homosexuality. I came right out at the beginning of my post and said I think it’s wrong and would be interested in hearing why anyone thinks it’s right. I don’t think this is a minor issue at all, or I’d not bother to respond, particularly to your petty insults. Your emotion and accusations betray to me a strong stake in this matter and a projection of your own reality. Why don’t you come clean?

I like that bit about “petty insults” he tossed in there as there weren’t any I could see in the previous part of the thread. In Brock’s follow up he confirms his orientation with the following statement:

    To those who feel that gay marriage is wrong, that homosexuality is an abomination, that gays are perverted, and have said as much either by using those words or intimating it through scriptural citation, you deserve whatever name I’ve called you, and more besides. If you think I’m going to remain silent while you spread hate using your schizophrenic religion’s tenets, think again. I’ve had it with “innocent” personas using religion to tell me I’m fucked-up damaged goods. Don’t tell me you love me and call me perverted. Don’t say you care while spreading messages of exclusion. Don’t use your God to justify your desire to judge, to hate, to pity, to deny me the certainty of being correctly and therefore, appropriately human.

At this point this is probably the most critical Brock had ever been of anyone on SEB and his comment isn’t addressed to David in particular, though certainly David is included in the intended audience. Meanwhile David has already settled into his now long familiar mantra about how Brock “spews insults and calls it tolerance” which he repeats in this thread. For the rest of this thread until I closed it Brock makes no more direct or indirect comments to David of any kind.

As an observation I’ve noticed that David likes to say that many of us on SEB keep claiming to be ultra-tolerant, but in my memory I don’t remember too many of us making such claims on a regular basis. But what would I know? Not like I can look it up…

Speaking of looking it up, I’m going to go through the comments I have from Brock to David and list all of the ones I can see that I would consider even remotely insulting:

  • David you are such a proud prick!
  • I’m sorry, but your bullshit gets old quickly.
  • I don’t think you’ve fooled a single person here into believing you’re a well intentioned guy. Ok, maybe David or brian believe this, but they’ll believe anything.
  • If you’re afraid you’re going to be tempted to go gay I can understand how you would think the rest of humanity might falter as well – after all you know best.
  • Only David could make an asinine remark like this and think he was helping his argument for Christianity or think he was coming across as moderately informed. David, dude, you seriously need to get a clue about so many things!
  • I doubt you’ve ever had an insight David. You can twist things to make them work for you, but that doesn’t count as insightful. Try again – you still have a million clues to get. 
  • Apparently you, David and randall are that arrogant!
  • I think poor nowiser should be worried. He’s impressing David and randall and guys like them. He’s one step away from being rendered ineffectual , even counter-productive, if he keeps this up. You’ve got to figure out what you’re doing, nowiser – then stop doing it!
  • You have shown early on that you’re just as rigidly indoctrinated as David. Neither of you present concern and tolerance very well at all. Matter of fact, most of us here appear to be better Christians than either of you, even though we don’t believe in a god or his son, who expect us to represent love and acceptance of others. We do the technically difficult stuff better. All you guys do is pretend you have outlooks of worth to the world.
  • That’s why I’m convinced you guys really worship the devil, furthering hate and subjugation like you have passion for it. You’re an embarrassment to Christianity – which is an embarrassment to itself. That’s being quite embarrassing!
  • It might seem that we’ve been discriminating against you David, but we haven’t.
  • David, once again you’ve demonstrated just how pigheaded and small minded you can be.
  • I’m glad David’s here! He makes me think there’s lots of work to do and he focuses me. Though he’s likely the most deserving here of the description pseudo-intellectual, he still manages to say something interesting now and then.
  • Hey David, I just thought it was a damn good line.
    I’m laughing like you want me too, then you gotta go and hurt my feelings. Now you’re making me cry. You monster! Don’t worry. I usually only feel insulted when I value someone’s opinions. I haven’t read many of yours that I like, but thanks for trying to cheer me up.

  • You really have your head up your ass, dude.
  • I had you pegged from the beginning when I called you a bigot.
  • I find you bombastic and pretentious and hardly worthy to teach great truths to others.
  • David still doesn’t understand that the only person he can decree a Christian or non-Christian is himself and even then he’s probably called it badly.
  • David, I invite you to put your shit where your mouth is and look back a few months for posts I’ve made.

Let’s see… 19 possibilities of which many of them you have to be pretty thin skinned to consider abusive and obnoxious. Over 50 some odd comments to David and perhaps 19 or so that, admittedly in my opinion, fit the definition of insulting. Overall looking at the database extract it seems to me that Brock has, by and large, attempted to remain civil overall and engage David with a minimum of personal attacks contrary to David’s claims. Hell, I’ve been more active at making personal attacks on David than Brock ever has and I’ve expressed much more of a lack of respect for David to boot. He should be bitching about how I’m uncivil and obnoxious towards him as I’m much more guilty of it than Brock has ever been. It leaves one to wonder what it is about Brock that makes David feel so put upon. Could it be that Brock’s sexual orientation bother’s David more than he claims it does and thus heightens any perceived slight coming from “the queer guy?” Who knows? It’s clear that David’s perceptions of who is actually more negative towards him is severely distorted.

I’m not even going to try and list all of the insulting statements David has made about others, let alone Brock, in his comments to date. It’s already close to 2AM and I should be in bed. I wanted to go over his assertions that he’s never complained about being attacked, as he puts it, as well as his claim that his rebukes were “relatively minor” in comparison to what Brock has said about him, but I’m going to regret this in the morning already. I think I’ve done an adequate job of showing that David’s recollection is pretty shitty, or questionable at best, and that he doth protest too much. But don’t take my word for it, there’s a perfectly good search function built into SEB and you can look this stuff up for yourself and draw your own conclusions. David should know better than to make easily verifiable claims without checking into them for himself beforehand. Now as to why I did all of this…

In all honesty I wasn’t terribly impressed with Brock when he first showed up at SEB. Not that he was particularly unpleasant or anything like that, but his early comments just didn’t really engage me all that much in part because he was trying very hard not to offend anyone and came across as a bit, well, wishy-washy. Since then he’s turned out to be one of my favorite regulars and has not only developed his commenting style into a much more assertive approach, but he’s responsible for some of my all-time favorite bits of comedic writings here at SEB.

In comparison David normally doesn’t bother me too much and I’ll give him some credit for keeping things lively around here, but occasionally I get a little tired of him bitching about how mean everyone is to him and how he’s not allowed to express his opinions like everyone else does and he’s so put upon and so on. His tendency to accuse others of the sins he’s guilty of himself while denying he’s guilty of those sins just irks me to no end. So when he got all up in Brock’s face with his latest missive I felt I owed it to Brock and the rest of you to show you just how full of shit David really is. This is why I find it very hard to accept anything that David has to say as being remotely credible. If he were to tell me the sun will rise in the east tomorrow I’d be very tempted to stay up and make sure for myself because he’s just so full of shit most of the time. He’s either redefining the rules of the game, or using his own unique definitions for words, or engaging in the very activities he whines at others about. Here’s one more “Bonus Round” example for you taken from the same thread that started this whole entry. In a reply to Nunya who had provided David with a number of links to various collections of Biblical Contradictions he had the following to say:

    Nunyabiz, I’m not going to go disagree with a bunch of sites I already know I disagree with. If you’ve got a contradiction that you think you can back up, then lay it out. Otherwise, once again, you are letting someone else do your thinking for you. I’m talking to you, and I’m pretty sure this is for the last time. If you cant defend a point of one of your arguments personally (something I’ve yet to see you do, but have tried many times to get you to do) then I’m really not interested in reading anything else you have to write..

But has David always felt this way? Not really, here’s a gem from all the way back in his early days…

    I’m not saying I did the research myself, but I’m tired of having the validity of my arguments attacked because they don’t like the source of the information, without ever actually examining the truth or falsehood of the data.

Pretty fucking funny, eh? When other’s don’t like his sources he bitches about it, but it’s OK for him to write off other people when they use their outside sources. OK, I’ve gone on with this for long enough and there’s probably only three people total who even give a shit about this, but I feel better for having done it.

Though I’m definitely going to regret it come 6:30 A.M.

28 thoughts on “Tales from The Land of Davids Fevered Imagination.

  1. Wow, Les, THANK-YOU! I knew I’d been here a while and that I had said a couple of things worth the virtual ink on this cyber page, but I’m proudest of my battles with David and people not unlike him. His beliefs, methods of argument and biases seem to represent, in one individual, nearly every religious personality I’ve ever met. We’re so lucky to have him here!

    But I’ve never had a thread starter here dedicated to me. I wish everyone could experience the way that has made me feel. You really gave me a compliment with, and specific compliments within, this post. Sorry I kept you up with this so late, though.

    I’m glad I’ve made you laugh. I’m confident that, in nearly every case, I intended to do so. The other times, if they came to pass, bother me in the least ways. Everyone should be seen as foolish now and then: It helps keep our egos in check. 

    And I’m pleased we have the ability to speak here. Many blog writers don’t even want others mucking up their carefully designed expositions - That you invite and enjoy feedback says a lot that is positive about you. This site is truly one of a kind and easily one of the very best on the net. That’s why I’m still here!

    So now that you’ve made me famous, you’ll excuse me, I’m sure, to go sign a few autographs.

     

  2. Elwedriddsche, yeah that occurred to me after I had posted it, but I figured, what the hell…

    Brock, I don’t know how famous I’ve made you. Infamous perhaps, but famous? I didn’t say anything that I didn’t honestly think is true about you, or David for that matter, but thank you for the kind words just the same.

  3. These days you could have been “Googling” for practically anything. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve entered search criteria and gotten SEB listed as a resource.

    We’re ALL gonna be famous I tell you!

    - I could be a commercial for SEB -:

    {Fade-in to actor sitting at a table in a small restaurant. He looks up from his menu and directly into the camera}

    Actor: You know something. I used to be wishy-washy! People would come up to me all the time and say ‘Brock, I like you, but you’re so wishy-washy!’ and I would hang my head, embarrassed.

    But then I found Stupid Evil Bastard!

    I began to read the site and then I started commenting. Since then I’ve turned out to be one of the regulars and I’ve developed my commenting style into a much more assertive approach. No longer am I wishy-washy! There I’ve utilized some of the most enduring stock comments like “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck’ and ‘Stop Trolling!’ and ‘I know what you think you said, but that isn’t how it came across’ and even ‘Dave, you ignorant slut!’

    Why the opportunities I’ve had to use “LOL” alone would astound you. I’ve even ‘come out’ there, and they don’t care what I am - Most of them like me for the worth of what I say.

    So if you often see yourself as trying too hard not to offend others but you’d like to be engaging, and you aren’t a wiz with punctuation and grammatical style, come on over to SEB. They’re used to those shortcomings and simply want to know how you think. Besides, you need the debating practice. Am I right? LOL, yes I KNOW I am. Good! So I’ll see you there?”

    Actor (to waiter): “Yes, I’ll have the cheese and pate’ sampler to start. Oh, and could you change my silverware please.”

    (Looking back to camera) Actor: “See! The communication skills you’ll hone at SEB will serve you throughout your life. Go on! Get on over to Stupid Evil Bastard, ya bastard! Though, if the only thing you have to wear is a chip on your shoulder, I

  4. Oh man! And this is why I love Brock! Oh that was great!

    Hmmm. I wonder if Eric’d be willing to do a little flash animation? Get Brock to record voice for it. Hmmmmm…

  5. Could we change the guy in the restaurant to a guitar strumming fetus singing the commercial ala the Quizno’s rats?

    Come to our site!
    It is a bastards site!
    We do debate…
    about religion and Iraq, about Gee Dubya and gay marriage!

    We got a pepper bar!

    Sorry, it really is time for bed…

  6. Okay, I know I am committing the great sin of double posting but an idea came to me in the shower where most of my good ideas come to me (except the idea to taste the shampoo, that one sucked).

    How about some of the crazier posts read by the different posters around here ala those horrible Direct TV testimonials, like Brock reading the “u r n idi0t!…” post (you know the one Les). They could end it just like the commercial by saying “This is a real letter (or maybe post in this case)” and ad some sort of snarky barb ending with offstage laughter and applause just like in those truly awful ads. I really hate those ads but it might be fun to parody them.

  7. I like the idea. Let’s do it. I’m sure I could convince a few people to record some sound bites. Not like there isn’t plenty of source material around here to use.

  8. Well I’ll throw my 3 cents in just for the hell of it.
    I don’t blame poor deluded David for his ignorance as iv said before I truly pity such individuals and there are MANY just like him. Several hundred Million to be exact which is to me at least a very scary thought.
    David is what I call a byproduct of social control institutions namely religious that prey on gullibility & ignorance to maintain control of the masses in order to keep known false religious beliefs alive & well.

    David & the millions just like him show behavior that is largely a function of individual perception, a combination of learned material, the individual’s environment and the physiology of the individual.
    Perception is the overriding determinant of human behavior. As a learning machine, the human animal will exhibit behavior that reflects not only what it has learned, but FAILED to learn.  Human behavior reflects delusion and ignorance as well as one’s factual knowledge.  The delusion and ignorance of the individual is largely a function of socialization, reflecting a society’s beliefs and norms.

    Throughout human history, man has made continuing progress in gaining real knowledge about the Earth environment and the nature of existence, the laws and functions of nature etc. this knowledge has almost without exception been the result of individuals that have shed these “beliefs” in magic or the “Supernatural” either completely or in part.  However, during this same period, little progress has been made in terms of human social systems.  Human societies are fundamentally the same as they have always been, based on the same premises as formulated by the earliest social groups, those of our stone age ancestors.  All human social control institutions are based on a belief in the supernatural, accepting neither the real nature of existence nor that of the human animal.

    While man has gained the technology to engineer his and her own future, moving out into space, building environments as needed, human populations are still maintained as chattel of the controlling institutions.  They are largely controlled by manipulated perception and maintained at levels of delusion and ignorance that will insure continued control by the authoritarian institutions.

    We are born into ancient systems of social control that maintain primitive ideas and systems of belief, distorting popular perception and suppressing behavior and information that would threaten these concepts and the institutions that function to maintain them.  Every society expends the larger half of its energy and resources in the continued indoctrination of people, the continuous propaganda and rhetoric, necessary to maintain institutional control, and in the routine activities of these institutions. Just imagine if all this effort were put into REALITY.

    The governing systems of every society on Earth are still authoritarian, imposing arbitrary control upon populations.  Such governing systems are not oriented to factual reality.  Each and every one of them is based upon, and maintains, large amounts of cultural delusion, primitive concepts and systems of belief that is instilled in populations and functions as control by decompensating the individual and increasingly suppressing any behavior not in line with institutional agendas. This can be seen quite clearly today if you just look at various Christian propaganda such as The Christian Coalition, also just look at what these institutions desperately try to impose upon society like denying Evolution in schools in favor of the pure unabated ignorance of Creationism, they will rewrite history when ever possible to hide past atrocities or to bolster their own self worth, a clear example of this is well, when is the last time you have talked to ANY Christian that admits to the fact that many of the founding fathers of the USA were indeed Deist or agnostic & this is without a doubt a secular nation. I would imagine there has to some somewhere but I have as yet met one, they invariably will all blindly follow Christian lies over factual reality every time. This brainwashing is what the David’s of the world emerge from & the brains own protective function “Cognitive Dissonance” keeps them there firmly entrenched in their delusions.

    Although there are mountains of evidence to the contrary and zero evidence in support of the cultural delusions and beliefs, they are never the less maintained within every society.  By instilling belief, the individual will stand obediently to be shorn of autonomy and the ability to make his or her own decisions, while supporting the oppressor.  Such is the power of belief, when used to distort and control perception.

    The thing that makes this most difficult is that the individual has been made a “believer” and will reflexively defend every delusion, rejecting factual information in the area of a belief. Cultural delusions will have been the main reason for the ignorance in the first place.  Ultimately, it is only the individual who can effectively change or rescue ones self. It is only the individual who can accept or reject the necessary information.

    Human populations have ever been maintained at high levels of delusion and reciprocal ignorance.  At this point in time, every culture propagates and instills large amounts of delusion. The individual is made to be a believer, to accept and to support the premises and systems of the culture. The citizen becomes a ‘blind operative’ of the system, largely unaware of the role he or she is playing and becoming a tool in the service of institutional agendas.

    In this relationship, the individual is lead blindly, deferring reason and judgment to authority and standing obediently to be sheared of freedom and the ability to make determinations. The individual sacrifices self for the benefit of the institution, dementing the one’s own children in the process. Religion just becomes a vicious mind fuck circle.

    This form of control ties individual behavior to the arbitrary motivations of the leadership, not the principles and requirements for human effectiveness and long term survival and progress for the species. This form of control (of governing), largely adrift from factual reality, has little ability or motivation to address the real problems within societies and a rapidly changing Earth environment. Nor, is it directed toward nurturing a rational human being. Its predominant drive is toward the maintenance, and growth of institutional power and domain, controlling and exploiting a population. Our governments busy themselves with symptomatic problems and the creation of diversions, carefully avoiding an examination of premises and the real nature of things.  The fundamental cultural pathogen, common to all cultures, is the maintenance of one of the earliest human concepts, a belief in magic or the supernatural.
    Science for lack of a better word has shown this “belief” to be Bullshit.

    Through the scientific method of those of us that have either shed or if fortunate just never been indoctrinated into primitive ignorance, we know that life evolved on Earth through many species before the emergence of a humanoid form of animal. As it’s intelligence increased, so did it’s cognizance of environment and its ability to manipulate its environment in terms of symbols, conception, reasoning and language.

        The basis of intelligence is the ability to conceptualize and discriminate. Brains are the outgrowth of simpler systems for sensing and adjusting to the environment. In other words, the brain has evolved as a mechanism for interfacing with the environment.
    The human brain displays the progression of its development. The more primitive brain systems and brain stem are internal, the cognitive and reasoning functions having developed upon this. The cortex, where inductive reasoning occurs, the highest level of reasoning and the latest development, is the outermost layer of the brain. The brain is an organic computer, coprocessing in a multitude of ways, and is the site of personality, or “soul”, if you will.

    As intelligent life emerges, there are far more concerns and questions than for which there is knowledge. In the absence of knowledge, intelligent life fills the voids with perception. This perception, in the beginning, bears little relationship to factual reality, especially in terms of the fundamental nature of things and how things work. As language and the ability to communicate perception develops, highly delusional cognitive systems come into place, further degraded by any deliberate insertion of false concepts.

    The primitive humanoid cannot understand the forces of nature and the unpredictability of fortune. It sees it’s own and other’s ability to affect changes through “force” and thinks there must be greater unseen powers affecting those areas outside of individual control. The fabrication of “gods” will be common to any emerging intelligent life form. Social control begins in terms of force and authoritarianism. All social systems function to maintain control ultimately by force, although the emerging intelligent life form quickly learns that behavior will follow “belief”.

    Eventually, belief becomes the main means of controlling behavior consistent with the agendas of human institutions, force being brought to bear when indoctrination, dogma and coercion fails. Thus we have barbaric events in human history such as “The Crusades”  “The Inquisition” Genocide and so on,  This form of control is authoritarianism. It is arbitrary, determinations being by made by the authority, to any extent possible or desired. Human history is largely a repeating story of a struggle for power by competing authorities. In such systems, rationality and solutions to problems remain relatively incidental to social control processes.

    All social control institutions, predominately religion and government, are fundamentally authoritarian, focused primarily on maintaining and increasing control over populations. Such control, being arbitrary, is eventually destructive to a population and the species, resulting in divergent beliefs, conflict and parasitical behavior destructive of the host environment. Remember we are an animal and the host environment is the Earth for which we stand.

    At the present stage of human development, populations continue to be controlled largely by belief and religious propaganda. The institutions maintain the cultural delusions, generation after generation. Even in the most advanced technological society, the fundamental premises remain those of ancient peoples, concepts highly divergent from “factual reality” and insuring pathological levels of reciprocal ignorance. In order to maintain a belief, the reciprocal reality must be rejected. This phenomenon can be witnessed every time you try and have any intelligent conversation with ANY highly or fundamentally religious individual. Any information that is perceived as a threat to a presently held belief will trigger an emotional aversion to it, usually causing an avoidance of such information.

    The fundamental conceptual pathology is that of a “god” model of the universe, where all creation, energy and control is IMPOSED from beyond nature, the supernatural, essentially a belief in magic. This corruption of our most fundamental concepts,  involving the nature of existence, distorts virtually all subsequent human thought. Belief generates the greatest barrier to learning and is the primary reason for the low mentality levels of the masses. Human populations are kept buffered at levels of belief, ignorance and dependency that will not present a threat to authoritarian institutional control.

    This can be seen by just examining that basic facts, in general the higher your education the less likely you are of falling for the god model of the universe, college grads have much lower percentages of religious fundamentalist than do those stopping at the high school level, in general the higher your IQ the less likely you are to fall for religious bullshit that clearly has no basis in factual reality.

    http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

    Yeah I know it’s a link, but it’s a link to factual information gathered over about 80 years through many studies, some very extensive which collaborate each other. So believe what you will but facts is facts.

    Authoritarian social control has brought humanity to its present most dangerous condition, an explosive mixture of over-population, mass ignorance, anger, frustration and power mongering, where the technological ability to destroy a planet comes under the control of people with essentially the mind-set of savages.

    This is the scary part, we have scientist which have for years broken out of that primitive ignorance that society in general tries to impose upon them, this is why we have the technological advances we do today most are harmless, many very helpful such as medications etc. but there are also the areas of science that have brought into light very destructive forces such as all the various WMD be they Chemical, Biological, Nuclear created by those on a higher level of Consciousness , which is handed to what amounts to humans with no more base intelligence than that poor deluded human several thousand years ago whom perceived that thunder storm that just rumbled though his campsite as a sign of some supernatural godman that’s pissed & hurling thunderbolts at him for reasons he can only imagine.

    Think not? How many times have you heard religious individuals blame things be they good or bad on some supernatural force that’s beyond our control?

    If its good then of course “god” did it don’t matter what it is God had a hand in it somehow.

    If its bad then the devil did it.

    None of this has of course ANY basis in factual reality, there is not one single shred of evidence that any so called supernatural being of your choosing is real, yet like that poor deluded ancient human 1000s of years ago shaking out in the rain wondering what he did to deserve the wrath of the gods, the poor deluded human today has not evolved past that ignorant mind-set. Its a cultural delusion passed on generation to generation.

    The belief in a soul and an afterlife is a part of this system of control, any delusion paving the way for further delusion. There is naturally high motivation to believe in an afterlife, no one likes the idea of dying. This provides high, natural motivation to maintain the “God model of existence”.

    Religion, wherever it exists, is truly a social pathology, an instituted disease. It suppresses individual mentality, blocking one from any and all reciprocal reality, instilling the ‘mother’ of all learning disorders.

    Ok that was 98 cents worth I guess

  9. Well, if nothing else, at least I don’t have to feel I’m the only person around here afflicted with being overly verbose…

  10. It sticks just fine, David. What really amuses me is that every thing you accuse me of here, that I have no desire to know the truth, that I only go so far as will support my arguments and so on is stuff I have heard said about you time and time again by just about anyone who’s bothered to comment on your replies. There’s practically a drinking game based on how many times you resort to the Argument from Authority alone, but we’re worried we’d get alcohol poisoning if we played it. You carry on about Brock and I and others being insulting and obnoxious when, in your own special way, you’re just as guilty of that crime. Your love of cheap shots is only matched by your own over-inflated ego and simply because you don’t use naughty words doesn’t mean you’re not being insulting.

    The sad thing is you won’t (or can’t) own up to a single one of your own personal failings preferring instead to project them onto others and present yourself as the only rational person here despite how irrational most of the claims and arguments you make happen to be. The tone of your replies are almost consistently smug and condescending. You keep trying to put yourself above such petty discourse such as this by claiming you don’t really care what we here think of you, but it’s clear from the amount of time you’ve spent in your reply here that you are, quite literally, lying either to us or yourself about how much it bothers you. I especially loved:

    because you cannot conquer the facts.

    Which is so very true about you and you don’t even realize it. I don’t need to be better rested to come closer to the truth as every fact I stated in this thread is verifiable by anyone who wants to dig through the entries here in the archives and the parts of my statements that aren’t factual are clearly my personal opinions about you, Brock and the nature of the situation.

    You’re an asshole, David. Pure and simple. Whether you feel that to be true or not is irrelevant as it’s my personal opinion about you and how you’ve behaved ever since day one. I’ve heard from plenty of people who agree with that assessment as well. Your supporters, on the other hand, have been remarkably absent.

  11. People like to think that they have the truth, even when they know they do not. It seems that folks in that position get more angry and desperate the more you box them into a corner with the actual truth

    Much as I hate to alienate anyone who says of me that “I think for myself,”  I have to say that, recently, I’ve begun to think that your statement, here, could be applied to you, yourself, David.  Don’t worry, I’m not going to start spouting about beams and motes, just making an observation.

    Much as I enjoy discussing CS Lewis’ philosophy, or considering irreducible complexity [micro or macro, I’m not picky], I still think that many of the arguments that you presented are logically flawed.  And I’ve tried to point out why, although I think my tendency to make jokes has sometimes undermined the seriousness of my intent.

    I don’t think the reason that many of your ideas have been rejected, here, is because of a predisposition on the part of the readers.  I think the truth is that many of those ideas are deeply flawed.

    You said I can only hope some of these folks I

  12. My, my, David—that’s gotta be at LEAST a 20-hand horse you’ve got there.  Nice steed.

  13. As usual, GM manages to say the most by saying the least.

    Nowiser, what game and which server? I want in on that action.

  14. Usually, it’s UT2004, Team Deathmatch, on the Atari West main server.

    But today, my connection is shite—I’m ping 140ms to my freaking -gateway-.

    Looks like I’ll be playing off-line today.  S’Ok, though.  If I want to win, I’ll switch the bots to “adept.”  If I want to get my ass handed to me, I’ll set them for “masterful.”

    Ooooh.  “masterful.”  It’s like porn, only you get to blow shit up!

  15. Hehe Brock and David still going strong, it reminds me of some of the ding dongs I had with the saved one.

    I used to be a christian myself, well I was terrorised into being one by my parents anyway. From what I remember of the christian mentality, it always looked like David was trying to earn some brownie points from the god with a ‘G’.

    Public exclamations of faith or something like that, and of course if you are ridiculed and scorned for them then all the better as it gives you a power up on the saintly-o-meter.

    People who go on about ‘the way(tm)’ always make me chuckle, of course there is only one way, the irony is that they seem to think it’s the same way for everyone.

  16. You desire that there be no God, so that you need only justify your behavior to yourself. Truth seekers welcome revelation with open arms. People like you will fight to the death to avoid hearing it.

    I find it both hilarious and disturbing when brainwashed religious zealots which have in reality ZERO evidence of the tripe they “believe” continually try and turn the tables on us “Free Thinkers” “Atheist” “Agnostics” by saying we are the ones *avoiding truth* and will fight to the death to justify our ignorance.

    Sorry there David that distinction is saved for religious zealots.
    This can be proven like such, I can list a site that has all the information any SANE non-brainwashed individual could read through, comprehend the information, check the information by cross referencing other sources, then come back and say OK I have to admit there are MANY valid points there that clearly give credence, leaving serious doubt about both Christianity & Jesus.

    http://www.jesusmyth.homestead.com/index.html

    Now a “Believer” a religious zealot will look at that site and see nothing but blasphemy and lies and the only “cross referencing” you would do would be opening a Bible. LOL

    You will refute every last word even though it is Archeological FACT complete with hard tangible artifacts & text.
    In other words like I stated above “the fundamental premises remain those of ancient peoples, concepts highly divergent from

  17. I meant it when I said we are lucky to have David here and though it may seem that I’m against him, I’m not so much against him as I am averse to the regimented, safe and satisfied mind-set his viewpoints often represent. But he has taken the brunt of our counter arguments and put-downs more often than many would, and yet still be here. I respect him for that.

    Love is a feeling Christians profess to have for those they consider lost and unenlightened. Love is the greatest emotion they claim to understand, though their actions and considerations often demonstrate otherwise. Love is the supposed cornerstone of the faith, but the faith seems to generate precious little in the way of loving allowances.

    Do I suspect David is homophobic? Yes, and I also suspect he doesn’t even realize it. It’s possible to think you love a mate and beat him or her senseless on a regular basis. It is all too common for some to lie incessantly to those they love and call it consideration. Christians often propose and attempt to implement that which is best for others, negating personal rights and deserved opportunities in the process. But this isn’t love in action - at least not love for another. It’s more a demonstration of passion for self and all too often, this is the “love” Christians manifest.

    David gets my back up as easily as anyone I can think of. But while that is happening, I am forced to consider why he has an effect on me. I begin to understand how he perceives the world, and how that perception can affect me in positive or negative ways.

    David is not a distraction to us. He is an interactive representative of the world we live in. He’s the other person we must comprehend and attempt to communicate with, so that our hopes, uber values and base perceptions can be revealed and demonstrated. He’s the immediate chance we have to correspond with someone who is not so much the enemy, as he is the friend we haven’t met yet.

    Thanks for being here David. I really mean that!

  18. *grin* I knew I was setting myself up for that! I apologize if my post came across sounding like a Hallmark Greetings card - When you care enough to “say” the very best!

    Somehow, I’ll get my reputation back.

    LOL, I nearly typed in my email address as @hallmark.com

    Maybe I should get off and watch some Fox news. That always puts me back in a foul mood.

  19. It’s nice of you to allow me the benefit of the doubt David, and yes it absolutely could be taken as disingenuous. However, it was not! I do respect that you are willing to suffer the myriad disagreements with your positions and still come here.

    I’ve come down on you when I thought you were diminishing and dismissing subjects that I have a personal stake in. That is why you received so much flak from me on the gay marriage subject.

    I could never agree to not disagree with you publicly, either. You are a spokesman for your causes and I am a spokesman for mine. The rub is that each of our causes more often deal with the same subject matter.

    When you say homosexuality is wrong and use your quasi-religion to justify saying so, you are directly insulting me! From that position we are bound to be at odds. What often follows is my incredible desire to educate you.

  20. Yeah, I figured David wouldn’t be able to resist that post from Brock. He’s becoming more and more predictable.

  21. I read this article that states that not only is the bible not against homosexuality but that it supports same sex marriage.

    Here is an excerpt from the article:

    Discrimination directed at sexual minorities derives its moral justification from supposed biblical condemnation. For nearly three decades, however, credible scholars and theologians have systematically and repeatedly debunked and refuted the antigay interpretations of the “Terror Texts” found in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. According to Ezekiel, Sodom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.