tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post6584948424815423093..comments2023-10-30T08:04:07.321-06:00Comments on Demonpuppy's Wicked Awesome Art Blog: This Sunday: Hail the Cosmic Kitty!Bretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-28417271071797163292011-11-19T09:54:58.650-07:002011-11-19T09:54:58.650-07:00LOL! I love it!
"I will not correct all you...LOL! I love it! <br /><br />"I will not correct all your faulty statements"<br /><br />" I can't correct them and so this why I don't have to try.' Got it!<br /><br />Unreliable means it doesn't work, maybe sometimes it does but sometimes it doesn't. I don't know what do YOU do when that happens? I toss it and get something that does work.<br /><br />And again, we might be using the same evidence, I just don't toss out whatever I don't want to hear, OR what doesn't work with my preconceived ideas. <br /><br />So why should I bother listening that YOUR religion is true as opposed to any others? They all have the same evidence... zero.<br /><br />The Pope and his gay lover, more on the Nazis and a new book on the evolution of the eye!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-57110659171760208922011-11-19T05:27:42.452-07:002011-11-19T05:27:42.452-07:00I said I was done with this thread. I will not co...I said I was done with this thread. I will not correct all your faulty statements, but I will answer your one genuine question.<br /><br />Why does science work? Christians are for science. Wasn't it a Christian who came up with the scientific method? Empirical science is testable and repeatable. <br /><br />Unreliable does not mean broken. My car is unreliable, I still drive it. Observation is unreliable on its own, like you said you must also look at historical evidence.<br /><br />So your statements help support pretty much all I stated, and your type of questions show you are starting to understand how many of our arguments are just a misapplication of a shared incomplete pool of knowledge.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-78698038922185071392011-11-17T09:01:02.674-07:002011-11-17T09:01:02.674-07:00Oh now I see what yo're doing Steve! Because y...Oh now I see what yo're doing Steve! Because you think the ID guys actually practice science! They are universally said to be wrong by other scientists but because you FEEL they are right because they agree with your belief then everyone else must be wrong and thus science is unreliable because it doesn't agree with you! This is not the case, they are purposefully ignoring evidence, and this has even been proven in a court of law. <br /><br />See, yes human can and do sometimes taint what they see, that is why science is tested over and over again. If you keep coming up with the same answer, you can not deny it's reality. 1+1 always equals 2.<br /><br />No Steve you are again purposefully not listening. WE can not prove macro evolution happens by observation, it takes too long so we can't see a species split (this may change in the future of course.) But we can and do see species evolve via small steps, like the pepper moths and fruit flies ect. This has been tested and retested it's a proven fact. DNA confirms this, which is also tested and retested. Multiple lines of evidence, then if you add the fossil evidence and again we can use some of the DNA we've recovered to show relationships. Neanderthals were not humans, different genome, but they were related to us distantly the DNA shows when the split happened and its confirmed by fossile evidence. Fossils and DNA confirm this. These are testable and repeatable. Sure humans can read into things but the beauty of science is that it's constantly tested so if there is something that gets by some studies eventually it will get found out and corrected. Religion can not say that. <br /><br />So, by your logic, if science isn't reliable than how on earth can I trust a book written 2-3,000 years ago? Why does your religious book win out over actual testing? Makes no sense. Then of course you have to consider all the other religions who claim they are real as well. You seem to have no problem dismissing them yet they have the same evidence you do.<br /><br />Science is the best tool we currently have to explain how things work, if it didn't work your butt would be sitting in a rock hut with a thatched roof. No computers, no medicine, no TV. That's ALL science. So tell me Steve, if it's all 'tainted' by human feelings why does it work? Why does your car drive? If science is not reliable then only some cars should work, some phones, some computers. But it's funny they keep making ones that run, and run better and better. As we learn more we improve our science skills and thus scientific observations become facts. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-84365314552238009352011-11-17T05:53:13.461-07:002011-11-17T05:53:13.461-07:00Oops, I left out one chief point, and then I am do...Oops, I left out one chief point, and then I am done with this thread.<br /><br />The little ice kitty reminded me.<br /><br /> You started this thread to show human observation is not always reliable. That would fit nicely with the idea of why any process (including science) which is dependent at least partly on human observation is not purely reliable.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-43930751956588787662011-11-17T05:44:16.733-07:002011-11-17T05:44:16.733-07:00Again, you aren’t speaking a different language; y...Again, you aren’t speaking a different language; you are being inconsistent, perhaps slightly illogical. <br /><br />We just agreed much of what you believe about Evolution and how you choose to see the world is not based off of testing, but deducing. Progressive micro evolution (which most people in science call macro evolution) is not observed or tested, it is deduced. Deduction is not a sterile process. So what you said is true in nature but can not be applied uniformly as you have attempted. There is no universal test which has been observed. The truth is many scientists have come up with different deductions, not the same. You tend to ignore those who don’t agree with your position…and that leads right back to why deducing is not conclusive evidence of truth. We all would like empirical evidence for how life got here, but we have to work with what we actually have.<br /><br />Remember we kind of went through that whole thing of if there is a test, tell me what I need so I can repeat it? And you said that is wrong, it is by looking at the historical facts we “prove” evolution and I was wrong (ignorant) for insisting on empirical testable evidence for evolution. So now you are kind of flip flopping and saying there is no test, but since we can test it and get the same results, it is true. See the inconsistency? Different types of “testing” empirical (the scientific method) and deductive-different types of results, different methods.<br /><br />Remember also at the heart of Christianity is the belief God is not explaining Himself, or his methods to us. We get an invitation into a relationship and know him as a person, not a topic; not like Algebra, but like a close friend. He seeks to build relationship. There is information involved in relationships to be sure (it is of a secondary importance), but that is not the core of a relationship. Being known and knowing, involves the heart as much if not more than the brain.<br /><br />Is it the word heart that troubles you? Too much of a Hallmark sentiment. Perhaps understanding it as being closely related to the will. It is that part of you which as you stated would refuse to follow God even after you had it logically proven to you that a moral God existed. You have illustrated the point, even if you do not accept it.<br /><br />You don’t follow the Queen because you do not live in her territory. You live in God’s territory, where he allows you to choose or not to choose to follow Him. You can choose to be a rule breaker, but you also must accept the consequences for your actions.<br /><br />And finally I would also remind you that at the foundation of Christianity is not a God who functions only at a logic level, but at a love level. It was illogical for Christ to sacrifice himself for those who hate him. Logic was to let them be and let them die his enemies. Love compelled Him to seek and save those who would accept Him. Love is the only thing which explains God’s actions and also why it is how we must learn to relate to Him. Love puts the focus on Him, if it was only head knowledge people would focus on acquiring only head knowledge rather than pursuing the deeper stronger work of building a relationship.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-28507621400632790922011-11-16T14:53:52.268-07:002011-11-16T14:53:52.268-07:00Steve,
No your argument is pointless, if all type...Steve,<br /><br />No your argument is pointless, if all types of people test it and come up with the same results.<br /><br />"Ummm...Yeah, you said it not me."<br /><br />And you seem to not get the difference. If there are new facts that prove say, your god, exists, I won't deny his existence. I simply won't bow down and follow him. If he allows free will he'll have no say in the matter. If he exists I simply won't do what he says or obey his rules. I don't listen to the Queen of England, I know she exists but I don't obey her rules same thing.<br /><br />Am I speaking a different language lately? <br /><br />Best,<br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-26051283764940556852011-11-16T14:37:30.669-07:002011-11-16T14:37:30.669-07:00"Your argument only works for philosophy and ..."Your argument only works for philosophy and religion."-Brett<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />My argument is only applicable when people are involved. The history of science tells us we never discover in a social vacuum.<br /><br />"I would not go back to a religion even if facts come to life an support a deity on moral grounds...If you are a rational person you will change your mind if new facts are presented."-Brett<br /><br />Ummm...Yeah, you said it not me.<br /><br />-Stevestevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-85308767581433810422011-11-16T09:36:50.350-07:002011-11-16T09:36:50.350-07:00Anthony,
Ummm…. yeah, I fail to see how having mo...Anthony,<br /><br />Ummm…. yeah, I fail to see how having more than one reason invalidates anything. And you remember wrong. I never had problems with religious folks in my area… or any area. I left religion based on my study of paleontology and paleo anthropology. I would not go back to a religion even if facts come to life an support a deity on moral grounds. You can disagree all you like but that means nothing as your facts are incorrect and disagreeing with why I do things assumes you know what I'm thinking.. trust me, I've actually be very restrained in the comments.<br /><br />If you are a rational person you will change your mind if new facts are presented. <br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />See all that you just said is the OPPOSITE of science. Yes people can and do taint what they see, but you need to put your person views aside, sometimes it's not possible to do this but that is why science is done the way it is. It's repeatable to anyone, all the time. Because your feel things differently is irrelevant. You drop a large ball and a small ball they will still fall at the same speed regardless to how you feel about it. Your argument only works for philosophy and religion.<br /><br /><br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-61316661530502321852011-11-16T07:35:58.564-07:002011-11-16T07:35:58.564-07:00Brett,
This heart thing seems to have you confuse...Brett,<br /><br />This heart thing seems to have you confused as well. But I’m using it as you often accuse me of being a Christian only because I was raised that way. The heart and the emotions have no effect on actual reality. The whole Ayn Rand thing A is A (one of the few things she got right). Facts are or are not, our perception and our will does not change them (except for possibly quantum mechanics-which I am not going to go into!).<br /><br /> Our hearts do alter our perceptions is what I was stating, not the truth of a matter.<br /><br /> Imagine a game between the Cardinals and the Bears, the Bears win and the Cardinals lose. The fact of the game is a reality, but the reaction of the teams and the fans is all based on their heart. Their perception of it is a good game isn’t based on the fact as much on the condition of their hearts. So when I agree with social scientists and say our environment effects our perceptions of reality I am not being foolish. No the heart does not determine truth, but the condition of the heart is a factor in perceiving truth. To put it another way, your personal internal truth alters your perception of external impersonal truth. And that is a fact.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-80593956612578486352011-11-16T07:23:09.583-07:002011-11-16T07:23:09.583-07:00So some might ask why I continue to debate this wi...So some might ask why I continue to debate this with Brett, as Anthony has.<br /><br />Brett is smart, perhaps more intelligent than I, so I am confident that it is not time wasted when presenting reasoned proofs for my faith.<br /><br />Brett and I share many interests, and we seldom argue on the phone when we talk-except about why the Godfather 1 and 2 are good films. You wouldn’t believe it from this blog, but we get along quite well outside the realm of religion.<br /><br />Many of Brett’s arguments and weapons against the Christian faith are either based on misunderstandings or sometimes a minor peripheral matter which is not essential or shared by all Christians.<br /><br />Brett is highly critical of the Creation story, so are many Christians who do not prescribe to a literal 6 day Creation account. It is not a hindrance to the Christian faith. You can be an evolutionist in the sense of the empirical science and still be a Christian. <br /><br />There are also Christians who are theistic evolutionists who accept the empirical scientific evidence as well as the historical deductive evolutionary evidence as it is taught today. It is when you move from applied science into philosophy where all Christians agree with each other and disagree with materialists-God is real, God is the creator of the Universe, and the Universe looks designed because it is. Brett and I agree on most of the empirical science, it is when it leaves what is testable and knowable by the scientific method (testable, observable, falsifiable, repeatable) that we disagree.<br /><br />It is important to note much of what is accepted today as fact can not be proven by the scientific method. Much of science is dependent upon this. What we know of stars and distant stellar bodies is all inference. You can’t put a star in a lab or repeat the conditions necessary to create a galaxy in a lab, but we can infer by observation some properties, and form theories. So in evolution, as with most of science, singular events can not be proven or disproved by empirical science. They can be sound theories, and even scientifically be accepted as a fact. <br /><br />It is when the scientific term “fact” and the layman’s use of the word “fact” gets confused or interchangeably used conversations turn into disagreements. A scientific fact still may be false when it comes to reality. Science is a field of study, not a definition of reality. Science is always lower and less than reality; no one believes reality expands as science increases. So science humbly has to admit it can be wrong (and frequently is) and it is not the yardstick for reality. For this reason a good scientist would never insist scientific facts are all true for reality. Some are, some may not be, but for scientific discovery they are “proven” and useful, but to say they are the boundaries for reality that is a philosophical misapplication of applied science.<br /><br />Any philosophical claims move from the natural world into the metaphysical, the areas of faith, beliefs, and religion. Brett does not believe there is anything beyond the physical realm, that the material world is all there is. This is a popular belief but untestable and improvable unless you apply circular reasoning.<br /><br />This is why you can understand evolutionary theory, even use it as a fact in the science realm, because of its great explanatory power; but at the end of the day say evolution and science are incapable of fully describing and explaining reality and so I can be scientific and spiritual. It isn’t a cop out, and it isn’t bad science, it is just incompatible with the world view known as Materialism.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-34809403178618594412011-11-15T11:54:27.962-07:002011-11-15T11:54:27.962-07:00@ Brett
Never thought your comments were irration...@ Brett<br /><br />Never thought your comments were irrational, just a bit difficult to read because of the "free for all" nature. I don't mind reading your points it's moreso as a suggestion as a fellow blogger to maybe offer a bit more clarity. Feel free to give me any pointers if you ever peruse any site I write for.<br /><br />you marry the topics which is your choice. I respectfully disagree. If your reasons for not following religion were purely based on scientific findings I could see myself understanding how why you feel the way you do, but if I remember correctly you once admitted that you initially began looking to science after suffering some bad experiences due to the practices of the religious folks in your area. I feel like the experiences with these people nurtured your interest in the science of disproving the existence of a deity.<br /><br />Only person who could make a person change their mind is the person in question. Anything else is a lesson in 'futility' so I'll just wish you the best and hope you aim to live your life as a good person. <br /><br />@ Steve<br /><br />I'm in the city! Not familiar with the guy but that's mostly by choice. I have my reasons as to why I don't read into these articles but I do appreciate the intent.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-90531212622336479022011-11-15T09:30:12.737-07:002011-11-15T09:30:12.737-07:00Anthony,
Just because I might use more aggressive...Anthony,<br /><br />Just because I might use more aggressive language doesn't mean it's not rational. I do sometimes argue from a moral ground, but thats tempered with logic as well. <br /><br />You can personally think what you like, but they aren't. If evolution disproves the genesis account then how would that be a separate argument? It's not. It's evidence against it, and evidence is what I'm looking for.<br /><br />And a conversation naturally moves and changes, but basically it comes down to no evidence, so Steve moves to his 'heart' which is basically the same thing to me as no evidence. And tries a different approach. <br /><br />No he won't convince me, nor will any religious leader. Some scientific evidence would, but I still wouldn't worship a deity…. ever.<br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />Yes you can, they are called humans;) I can compare their DNA to that of say a dog and they would be different. But the humans would all group with humans.<br /><br />I am familiar with the works of Behe and the others, the problem is it's all be proven false, so why should I argue about it, why should it get time? <br /><br />I'm not wrong about 'Macro' evolution, the term means nothing. It's simply the creationists attempts at science. That's not how evolution works, you simply can't seem to get that. Macro is really just lots of micro evolution. As I have said over and over again. Which is what you just said… yet you expect to get a dog from a cat in the matter of years… which is why it can't be shown in the lab, but small changes can and have. I went on the aggressive, because you were trying to use a trick, that you know isn't true. That is annoying and transparent.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-7341626391117329962011-11-14T15:48:10.790-07:002011-11-14T15:48:10.790-07:00Anthony where in NY are you from? I miss the bi...Anthony where in NY are you from? I miss the big apple! Freak'n best mix of restaurants in a single block.<br /><br />Are you familiar with Tim Keller the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, New York?<br /><br />He describes the misunderstandings which spring up in discussing religion and evolution much better than I.<br /><br />If interested you could check this pdf out:<br /><br />http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf<br /><br />Scan down to mid page 4 where he starts discussing Sam Harris and the Grand Theory of Everything. I think that is where we often get tripped up on this blog.<br /><br />-stevestevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-72757458961041883692011-11-14T15:21:49.342-07:002011-11-14T15:21:49.342-07:00@ Steve
I like your approach. I do. I just don...@ Steve<br /><br />I like your approach. I do. I just don't think it's a universally effective approach. Brett is a prime example of a person where this approach is futile. You often get caught up in arguing sciences rather than the ultimate goal of whether "it's good" or "it's not good" to follow organized religion. <br /><br />There are too many tangents and too much opportunity to lose sight of the conversation and instead relish any pyrrhic victories achieved in the conversation.<br /><br />After a while you have to step back and think "what am I truly trying to achieve?". Are you trying to prove one philosopher is better than another or are you trying to understand someone's point of view?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-82982817925237598262011-11-14T15:11:04.136-07:002011-11-14T15:11:04.136-07:00To be fair you really can’t lump all people togeth...To be fair you really can’t lump all people together by race, sex, or beliefs. When evaluating people it is always important to look at how they individually treat those who disagree with them. Are they fair? Patient? Kind? Are they out on a witch hunt? Are they trying to humiliate and defend their egos? Do they villify and create inaccurate caricatures? It isn’t just what you say, it is also how you say it. Now I have a sarcastic and cynical sense of humor, I try not to over do it on injecting a few good natured sarcastic pokes, but I also don’t try to pretend I’m an emotionless Vulcan. I like a good debate, but it isn’t personal-I’m not attacking Brett as a person. I try to disagree without being a jerk, Brett is pretty good about letting me know if I’ve crossed the line.<br /><br />You always want to do as Brett suggest and not only know your own position, or only read articles or websites of those who agree with you. You want to look at the best and brightest from both camps. This is why it gets a bit frustrating when I want to discuss the work of Michael Behe, William Dembski, William Lane Craig, or any of the other people I get information from and Brett is only familiar with say Ken Hamm and says all you creationists are the same; or worse, he only knows how to repeat the arguments of others, then you often get especially with Behe’s work, people repeating the same empty counter arguments which show they never understood the science in the first place. Or if someone acts like all of academia is lined up in agreement against the religious zealots; scientists disagree with each other; it isn't religion vs. science. It gets boring to discuss something with people who don’t care enough to understand what the actual counter argument is. I don’t agree with Brett but I usually without distortion can repeat what he believes.<br /><br />In every discussion it is important to understand what the other side is saying. For instance Brett totally mis defined Macro evolution. He stated a false definition and then went onto attack his false understanding of macroevolution. Brett is attacking something neither of us believes, you see how that would create a bit of a disconnect and create room for an argument rather than discussion?<br /><br />Macro-evolution is seeing progressive minor modification which when tracked shows evidence of an increased adaptability as well as an increase in complexity. Not major evolutionary jumps in a single generation or simple speciation. I guess it lines up more with the Modern Synthesis school of thought.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735856522366561444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-49743547496546229312011-11-14T15:08:33.971-07:002011-11-14T15:08:33.971-07:00@ Brett
I disagree about the "argue from yo...@ Brett <br /><br />I disagree about the "argue from your heart" line. I think you occasionally argue from your heart because you sometimes get irritated, mostly @ Steve, and it is reflected in a comment. <br /><br />I, personally, think topics about "evolution" and topics about "religious zealots" are separate conversations. I think the Texan religious zealots have issues of moral, ethical, and superiority complexes that are a big problem for most people.<br /><br />It's one thing to be religious and another thing to be an @sshole.<br /><br />Loving God/Monster who dooms - sounds like the jekyll and hyde I see in my own parents.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-15451129171389806792011-11-14T14:43:23.729-07:002011-11-14T14:43:23.729-07:00Anthony,
That's called backing up your argume...Anthony,<br /><br />That's called backing up your argument;) I'm not arguing from my 'heart' I'm using evidence and logic to show that religion isn't true. Evolution is what put the final nail in the religious coffin for me (take the pun as you will.)<br /><br />Well evolution and logic are different than morals an ethics... feelings if you will, so on logic grounds, there is no evidence from science that god exists, even the evidence for Jesus is very scrappy and could go either way. It's a simple disconnect, like if you had to choose to save one person or a thousand you would choose the thousand. Morals are different would you choose the love of you life over a plane of strangers?. I reject religion because while some see a loving god, I see a monster who dooms people for an eternity for a small crime, who orders his followers to kill men, women AND children and who demands you worship him. I find that morally repugnant. I can move between the two easily, lots of practice, but I stay mostly on the logic side.<br /><br />Generally it's a free for all, but just quote what you want if there is something specific that needs clarification:) <br /><br />I don't get flack from the religious in my area, well sometimes the mormons at the local grocery store;) This area is pretty religious, I really don't interact with the local people much.. mostly because we have nothing in common, it being Texas;)<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-7659825306532471012011-11-14T14:22:39.155-07:002011-11-14T14:22:39.155-07:00Thanks Brett. I know your busy so I dont want to k...Thanks Brett. I know your busy so I dont want to keep you from churning out pages of TT. <br /><br />I feel like you're trying to express why you choose to be an atheist and you are using science to reinforce arguments of evolution to coincide with your choices. Your view is very personal to you and that isn't easily interpreted. I sometimes think when I read your posts that Evolution is 1 topic you discuss and "why i'm an atheist" is another topic. <br /><br />You probably disagree and I could see why. It's personal so how do you divorce the two from a single person's perspective? Why you're an atheist and evolution could go hand in hand in certain conversations.<br /><br />I think there's a difference between the two for you.<br /><br />P.S. I read your posts about religion and often choose not to comment. My apprehension is because it's probably hard to discern one conversation from another and I feel I pick up enmity from other folks you talk to in a single comment thread.<br /><br />If I do comment it's mostly out of empathy because I still feel like you're a person who doesn't deserve the flack you get/witness from the religious nuts in your area.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-21067220412434983702011-11-14T13:59:50.187-07:002011-11-14T13:59:50.187-07:00Hi Chris!
Anthony,
That is what was implied, I&#...Hi Chris!<br /><br />Anthony,<br /><br />That is what was implied, I've heard it before. I know I'm not much of a writer, in fact, I dislike writing. But SOMEONE needs to speak up, even an 'artist' (I don't like the term since it's too broad.) With my limited fan base, I have a larger chance of actually reaching people than your average Joe, why not use it? Again, no one if forcing anyone to read these posts.<br /><br />So, what message do YOU think I'm sending? I've noticed that people now seem to read into things and then not read into others. So what do you think I'm saying? <br /><br />Chris seems to get it, so maybe it's not me or him but something you can't quite wrap your head around? You can ask questions:)<br /><br />I use my 'art' to make money or have fun. I don't use it to express myself... that might be cool for others. just not something I do. I think it might piss off more people if I even attempted to do it. Plus comics takes up an incredible amount of time, I have no time for 'art' right now.<br /><br />You don't seem to get that the analogy was not what you thought it was. You can't compare the two, as one is a CHOICE, following a religion and the other is something you are born with, in this case being of African decent. It might have made you unhappy but it has nothing to do with anything here. This is about religion not race. For the record, there are differences amongst the races, we are different, but that's what makes evolution so fricken cool! Basically all races are subspecies of Africans. Science showed us that, not the religions that try and make Africans subhuman. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-34768637709839241962011-11-14T13:43:52.820-07:002011-11-14T13:43:52.820-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-14212046524492601452011-11-14T13:40:22.568-07:002011-11-14T13:40:22.568-07:00@ Brett
I didn't mean to tell you to "sh...@ Brett<br /><br />I didn't mean to tell you to "shut up". I think you mistook me as being snarky. Sorry, the monotone world we live in when communicating solely by text.<br /><br />The point I meant with bringing in art is that I don't believe your posts are expressing what you try to convey. I was just talking about art. Again, I just wasn't sure if you used art to express yourself or not. If you think written word if your best method of expression then that's fine. some people play guitar, some people paint, other people go online and write blog posts. <br /><br />the black and white thing? a bad experience can lead to stereotypes. If you don't get what I mean, that's fine. It's almost always taboo subject to bring up so I understand if you get defensive. You take what you want from it but if you don't take anything that's because you choose not to.<br /><br />Wish you the best...<br /><br />AnthonyAnthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-35351290577874696692011-11-14T11:48:30.408-07:002011-11-14T11:48:30.408-07:00Oh and I didn't realize I was signed in under ...Oh and I didn't realize I was signed in under a different name. This is Fatboy73/Chris in case there was confusionGodless and Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18143735606460398744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-79019297551634496512011-11-14T11:46:05.138-07:002011-11-14T11:46:05.138-07:00Would you believe it's fair to lump all black ...<i>Would you believe it's fair to lump all black people together as far as her fear?</i><br /><br /><br />I know Brett can and probably will answer his own question, but I ad to say something about this one. And mean this in the nicest way possible,<br />But are really serious?<br />That is horrible analogy. Blacks,whites,reds and every other color on earth are PEOPLE, individuals with there own distinct backgrounds,thoughts and ideas, there is no parallel to religion. Religions all have a central doctrine that ties everything together. Sure you going to have different ideas about said doctrine and that is where different sects come from but the majority of people in a religion believe the dogma, THAT is why they can mostly be lumped together. Religion has a central doctrine or Dogma...People are individuals and don't necessarily have a central doctrine binding everyone together. See the difference?Godless and Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18143735606460398744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-76718440503197957292011-11-14T11:41:00.536-07:002011-11-14T11:41:00.536-07:00Thanks Godless and Free!
Anthony,
First off, it&...Thanks Godless and Free!<br /><br />Anthony,<br /><br />First off, it's not my religion, I don't have a religion. I'm angry because Steve keeps insisting his 'logic' is better than actual logic. He makes little digs and eventually I get exasperated because his arguments gets really... well bad. <br /><br />You're getting ire because you basically just told me to shut up and that my opinion is best left unheard on my own blog. Your trying to oppress me by guilting me to be quiet. As I said if you don't want to read about it don't read these posts. I will not be nice if pressed and I will get agressive to prove a point. I believe that's mentioned on the opening page of the blog.<br /><br />You can disagree all you want but there is no evidence that supports any one religion over another. If they are all false then they all get lumped together. I do understand that most Catholics accept evolution... and that most Jews do as well, but you all believe in the same god, the same 'evidence' for his existence so you get lumped, saves time.<br /><br />That's not the same thing, apples and oranges. You CHOOSE to follow a religion you can't choose to be black. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />BrettBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12168403050889835504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68327275018045829.post-46868523270993175782011-11-14T11:22:23.521-07:002011-11-14T11:22:23.521-07:00@ Brett
Idunno. You seem angry. I only suggesting...@ Brett<br /><br />Idunno. You seem angry. I only suggesting drawing because well... I've been drawing since I was 9, (I'm 28 now), and I've been a practicing artist since that time. I guess it was improper to assume that you are an "expressive" artist. I often find that expression comes in many forms and I don't know how you approach "art" as to whether it being a form of expression for you or just a way to generate income. If you only draw to make money and occasionally show your appreciation of all things in the Speed Force that's fine. I love it actually! I was just making a suggestion to you as I would any person I knew who had a background as being an "artist" whether it's illustration, poetry, written word, or whatever.<br /><br />I feel as if I'm getting some of the "Steve" enmity you have mainly cus I spoke "at the wrong time".<br /><br />Also, I mentioned in the past that a lot of your posts are very specific to your region. As a New Yorker we have very different views and well... just different lifestyles. Your blog reaches people on a much broader scale than your region and it's not always clear that you're being specific to a certain area. <br /><br />I disagree with the idea that it's fair to lump all religion together in this posts' context. I understand your point that you feel all religion to be untrue and your method of "lumping" them together in that aspect but the difference with me is that I never presumed you were up to debate. I'd find it insulting if I were you.<br /><br />I wanna ask your opinion about something. don't answer if you don't want to:<br /><br />Someone I met in my youth had a healthy apprehension toward me. It was at a camp. She wouldn't much talk to me, and never smiled in my direction but was very cordial to my friend Colin. When inquiring with people in her "circle" as to whether she had a problem with me they explained that her younger had just been group raped by a group of young African American men and as a result she "doesn't like black people" as a result of the trauma her sister suffered. Would you believe it's fair to lump all black people together as far as her fear?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322099275058499363noreply@blogger.com