Very clever! Love it! I will also say that I was a spelling bee champ in elementary school. At this point in life, I find myself questioning how to spell things a lot more. For one, I’ve been reading my students’ misspellings for many years, and I have been learning Spanish. Combine those two things, and humility kicks in. As you said, though, I’m a bit surprised to see such comments on a site such as this!
I flogged myself good last night though for my mistake, and I’m sure that will make the spelling police feel at ease!
Cartoon caption in Dec.25 New Yorker - page 95:
“Everything about her spelled trouble, but it was dark, and I thought it spelled ‘truffles.’”
Unsmoked. Maybe you’ve read it, but I’m reading Brain & Belief: An Exploration of the Human Soul. Great atheist, scientific reading.
Haven’t read it. Will have a look.
Check out Half.com if you haven’t already heard of it. Next on the list is The God Delusion, which I’ve noticed people on this site have read. The book I mentioned goes through the history of religion, and the impact each had on the others. Then it explains the machinations of the brain; then it goes into how the ancients defined religion through the use of plants and their hallucinagenic properties, esp. mushrooms. From their experiences with flight through these plants, the concept of the soul developed. I think anyone on this site would enjoy this book.
Dollars to doughnuts, diver, a book with a garish cover like this
does not contain much in the way of science. This is not going to be a book aimed at a society that values true logical thought. Into the bargain, it boasts a subtitle that contains the word “soul” and is not about someone like James Brown or Marvin Gaye. You people crack me up.
They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. This is true, but you at least know how much money you’re going to waste on it.
Forgive me for appearing to mock your typographical error. It was the only aspect of the aforementioned post that was interesting enough to engage.
[quote author=“unsmoked”]You’d think Spelling Police would be the last thing you’d find in a forum like this.
Well, clearly, this was not about spelling, but about typography, and even you seemed to realize this at first. With material that is otherwise utterly vacuous, we have to have fun somehow. I have no interest in forcing people to use correct spelling. I’m just trying to have some fun out here in a vacuum devoid of rigorous thought. Why can you not play along? So the Christian Church is practicing witchcraft. The tribunal (SCOTUS) is populated by witches in the majority. The government of the United States has found a means of letting the minority rule. Where does that leave you? Biding your time? You what-the-bleep-do-we-know morons have abdicated from any responsibility for this sad state of affairs, because down deep, you hate rigorous thought as much as the fundies do.
[quote author=“msdiver”]Really, I hope I don’t have to scrutinize every word or comma I write here in order to prove my intellect is worthy.
No, msdiver, you do not. But in order to prove your intellect is worthy, you must at least produce some ideas. For some people, school is never out. For others, school is something to forget.
I mean: “Ban together”. This is hilarious, in a relentlessly political climate such as a religion forum. And then you have the abject humorlessness to go back nearly 24 hours later and correct your typo. Absurd! Even the “capital”-“capitol” pun was just for fun. It’s an interesting play on words, even if its original author, who takes pride in his own wit in general, made it unwittingly. People need to become more sanguine about their own eventual and inevitable witlessness a few years more down the line. Geez. Get a sense of humor yourself, man!
As you said, “the only thing of interest in my post” blah, blah, blah, well, that’s pretty much how I feel about some of yours, but that’s not to assign any type of blame on you. It’s more like seeing things from a like perspective or not.
As for the book cover, I agree that the use of the word “soul” diminishes people’s desire to get to the worthy information inside, and I understand that many people would not be interested in the history of religion and religious ideas or especially in reading about the machinations of the human brain or how the use of plant drugs in ancient times influenced the concepts of the afterlife & dualistic nature of our lives, body & sould, or how these “visions” influenced the development of all religious books and commonly held notions today. However, my post was not intended only for you.I did not expect that people who were not interested in a book they had not read would waste their time trying to prove their intelligence or knowledge of books, though clearly no knowledge of interpersonal skills, to respond to me with the hopes that I would some how see myself through their limited eyes as what? foolish, ignorant, stupid, frivilous??? whatever you sought from me, it wasn’t kindhearted or respectful. What bothers me more about your comment is that you also seek to steer others away from a book you haven’t even read.
Here’s the thing, I came to this site hoping to read about other people’s ideas on Sam Harris’ book, not to bother myself with cantakerous people who think intelligence is a matter of the mastery of rhetoric. I’ve learned a great deal more from rather simple-minded people, like my mentally retarded daughter, than I have from people who thought they were the masters of the universe because someone was foolish enough to tell them their IQ’s in junior high school.
Whatever your purpose for responding as you did, I am not clear, but the type of person you are is very clear to me. If I were a born again christian, I’d copy and paste your nasty dialogue and posted it on my site as proof to my brethren that athiests are bad people.
If I have misread your tone or intent, then you have my heartfelt apology, but my message here is for anyone who feels the need to belittle others who come to this site to discuss ideas about the books and the subject matter. As for the petty comments of those who seeminly came to this site for the same reasons I did, I’m not interested, and since they are directed “to” me, I politely ask that you keep your opinions to yourself.
Read this again, in case you missed it the first time:
So the Christian Church is practicing witchcraft. The tribunal (SCOTUS) is populated by witches in the majority. The government of the United States has found a means of letting the minority rule. Where does that leave you? Biding your time? You what-the-bleep-do-we-know morons have abdicated from any responsibility for this sad state of affairs, because down deep, you hate rigorous thought as much as the fundies do.
Most people do not consider it kindhearted of someone to shake them awake on short rest. You would not consider it cruel if it was an earthquake that did the job, or if someone awakened you in order for you to escape from a fire. Context is everything when you first wake up. I am noticing more and more frequently that many demands for civility are made by those who have nothing else of substance to argue.
cantankerous people who think intelligence is a matter of the mastery of rhetoric
More power to you to learn from your mentally-retarded daughter. To mention it in a public forum is to play a sentiment card that you hope will bring others on your side. It was a superfluous gesture, and purely and simply a rhetorical ploy. I do not depend on having a circle of supporters here. I argue my points on their own merits. Some members of the forum choose to ignore me. There seem to be few filtering rules enforced here besides rejecting obscenities and vulgarities in ad hominem language.
I politely ask that you keep your opinions to yourself.
Good luck with this one on an internet forum. See above, on “ignoring”.
By the way, the possessive pronoun “its” is written without an apostrophe. And thank the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for me for sending us Mitt Romney.
As a teacher, I’ve had many years to observe the habits of a bully; you diplay them very well.
1) You try to “poison the well,” so that people must choose a side. You say mentioned my daugter was a ploy; to me it has to do with exposure to various people and conditions in life that open our hearts and minds to others unlike ourselves. I also travel the world which broadened my perspective as well.
Anway, the bully has taken a side against someone who threatens him in some convuluted way that a rational person cannot quite understand, and now s/he expects everyone else in the “room” to choose a side. If they don’t choose his/her side, they face being ostracized as well.
2) You mentioned that I corrected my error 24 hrs. later. The bully scrutinizes his victim quite closely. S/he looks for the Achille’s heal in order to prove to his followers as well as the victim’s followers that his perspective and judgement about the victim are valid. Of course, the bully also does this to deflect any close attention to his actions. (See Animal Farm).
3) The bully’s ultimate goal is to leave his/her victim in a deathlike state, to compare it to a Greek tragedy. Either the victim leaves the “class or school” and with the absence. the notion that the bully has succeeded, hence, s/he is very powerful, has power over others’ behaviors and minds. To the bully’s limited mind, this is the ultimate sign of success and the basis for his/her self-esteem.
If this does not work, and the victim stays, s/he must accept being scrutinized and attacked with more and more venom. It is difficult to know in each individual case, just how far the bully will go, but they will never leave their victims alone until they have done all they can to alienate and isolate them to show the “class” that they are in charge.
In this case, you selfishly try to demonstrate your “wisdom” at the expense of Sam Harris, since each of us is here because of his book, and what we say reflects upon him. Given that, I really think it’s best if you and I put each other on ignore. I have no reason to want to argue about nonsense and your personal feelings about me on this forum.
[quote author=“msdiver”]As a teacher, I’ve had many years to observe the habits of a bully; you diplay them very well.
No one’s in charge here. Except maybe the forum moderator. Darlin’, I’m just trying to introduce you to some of the features of internet discourse. You (and everyone else) has the option of ignoring me. I am one of the sorts of people that you will encounter online. Try to buck up.
Then it explains the machinations of the brain; then it goes into how the ancients defined religion through the use of plants and their hallucinagenic properties, esp. mushrooms. From their experiences with flight through these plants, the concept of the soul developed. I think anyone on this site would enjoy this book.
I don’t think so. See boldface.
You’re a high-school English teacher. Hallucinogenic. This is not about spelling, but about understanding etymology in English. This is something that should be of concern to you. So should the nature of discourse, which is fundamentally about ideas, and only secondarily about rhetoric.
It is pretty much given that intellectually agressive persons cannot obtain the degree in education necessary for a teaching certificate. A generation of teachers like you (with some private what-the-bleep and deeply anti-intellectual mentality) have left the population of the US cognitively unable to assess the sinister objectives of politicians like Bush. But everyone wants to blame it on television.
As another example: I’ve heard that if you are given the Book of Mormon, read it, and reject it (as God’s truth etc.) you will go to hell. Could a superstitious person not suffer acute anxiety, or worse, by being hexed like this by someone they consider an authority?
This is not correct. Mormonism is one forgiving religion. You have to have read the book, prayed about it, committed your life to it, absorbed the doctrines, and had powerful manifestations of the spirit attesting to you that Mormonism is true. Even then you won’t go to a bonefide hell for rejecting it. You’ll go to a lesser kingdom of god (there are three)so marvelously better than earthlife that if you were to see it in a vision, you’d kill yourself to get there right this second. Joseph Smith’s words, not mine.
That said, you can only imagine how wonderful the top kingdom of god is supposed to be. Hell, in Mormonism, is largely a function of woe and general regret and mental anguish for not being able to be with god and Jesus and your loved ones for the rest of your existence in eternity… which of course is supposedly never ending.
OH! almost forgot. There is a special hell place called outer darkness that is supposed to be worse than this lowest kingdom mentioned above. It’s where true evil goes to “weep and wail and gnash their teeth” in misery for eternity.
I am not sure I would qualify for that spot. I think you have to have actually seen Jesus while you are still alive and then reject him to qualify. BUT. On one hand I did “know” that Jesus was Lord and Mormonism was his church beyond a shadow of doubt… on the other hand, now that I see how many other religions claim Jesus as their own I can’t see god blaming me for departing. It’s damned crazy! I am like, dude! god! how in the hell was I supposed to know the only real and true church was Mormonism?? They all claimed they were true and there was no way to know which was telling the damned truth! You suck god—you SUCK for being so tricky! and confusing!
But if god exists, and is Mormon, and has to throw me there for rejecting Mormonism the way I do, knowing what I know about it, he’d surely have a tough time sending me to outer darkness since I am such a wonderful dad and husband. Maybe it’s the guys who enjoy killing cats for sport, use frogs for baseball batting practice, or laugh in movie theatres when the hero dies who goes there. But hmm. what if they are good dads too. I am so confused now.
Always glad to clarify the Mormonistic approach to this life.
I flogged myself good last night though
**beavis laugh** .... uh…. he said flogged
[quote author=“Noggin”]You’ll go to a lesser kingdom of god (there are three)
According to a joke I heard years ago, Catholicism taught that non-Catholic Christians go to “doggie heaven.”
[quote author=“msdiver”]Check out Half.com if you haven’t already heard of it. Next on the list is The God Delusion, which I’ve noticed people on this site have read. The book I mentioned goes through the history of religion, and the impact each had on the others. Then it explains the machinations of the brain; then it goes into how the ancients defined religion through the use of plants and their hallucinagenic properties, esp. mushrooms. From their experiences with flight through these plants, the concept of the soul developed. I think anyone on this site would enjoy this book.
Sounds like an interesting book, although I’d take a good part of it as theorizing (nothing wrong with that, just keeping in mind that it ain’t necessarily so, or ain’t necessarily all so). Youse also gotta ask yerself da quesion, whazzit all about Alfie, do da drugs jist get em high, or does dey open da door/window to da real pi in da sky?
One catch in that term is that it can have a variety of meanings. Saw a good dvd last night, Copying Beethoven, that had some relevence to that. For logical thought, though, you don’t want to just be a Vulcan. Each area of human activity has its own logic. When we usually say logic, we mean something like propositonal logic/syllogistic, but there is a logic to music; a narrative logic to fiction, and so on. So in that light, what does true logical thought mean?