Roger Ebert on new agers and creationists

[salvorhardin]

New Age beliefs are the Creationism of the Progressives. I move in circles where most people would find it absurd to believe that humans didn't evolve from prehistoric ancestors, yet many of these same people quite happily believe in astrology, psychics, reincarnation, the Tarot deck, the i Ching, and sooth-saying. Palmistry and phrenology have pretty much blown over.

If you were attending a dinner party of community leaders in Dallas, Atlanta, Omaha or Colorado Springs and the conversation turned to religion, a chill might fall on the room if you confessed yourself an atheist. Yet at a dinner party of the nicest and brightest in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and (especially) Los Angeles, if the hostess began to confide about past lives, her Sign and yours, and her healing crystals, it might not go over so well if you confessed you thought she was full of it.

New Age beliefs have largely stolen the stage from traditional religion in progressive circles. At dinner in my environs I rarely hear anyone share that they have been born again in Jesus. They may well have been, but they keep it to themselves.

They were raised to avoid religion and politics at dinner parties with strangers. Yet they assure everyone they are "a typical Gemini," were royalty in a previous lifetime, have a personal spirit guide, and have been told they will develop a serious disease but will recover from it. I rarely hear anyone share that they were a toilet cleaner in a previous lifetime and have a year to live at the most.

More: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/new_agers_and_creationists_sho.html

[Blecht]

1. Ebert is a treasure

I've been following him for more than 30 years -- he has gotten much better with age.

His health isn't the best -- I hope he can hang on a bit longer.

[salvorhardin]

7. Oh, me too

I don't remember when I first started watching Siskel and Ebert but it was really early in the 80s. When the web came around he was one of the first voices I sought out online. Even when I've disagreed with him, I've always found his viewpoint interesting.

[nemo137]

2. I enjoy me some Ebert.

[Zhade]

3. Nice! Strike at the woo from all sides and it may eventually die.

Is E an atheist?

[salvorhardin]

5. He doesn't accept that label

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. . .

My opinions have been challenged. I had to defend what I believed. I did some more reading. I discovered fractals and Strange Attractors. I wrote an entry about the way I believe in God, which is to say that I do not. Not, at least, in the God that most people mean when they say God. I grant you that if the universe was Caused, there might have been a Causer. But that entity, or force, must by definition be outside space and time; beyond all categories of thought, or non-thought; transcending existence, or non-existence. What is the utility of arguing our "beliefs" about it? What about the awesome possibility that there was no Cause? What if everything...just happened?


I was told that I was an atheist. Or an agnostic. Or a deist. I refused all labels. It is too easy for others to pin one on me, and believe they understand me. I am still working on understanding myself.

Go gentle into that good night By Roger Ebert on May 2, 2009 11:27 AM
Ref: http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Roger_Ebert

But obviously he's not a believer.

[DeSwiss]

326. I've never seen this before....

...and yet it is almost precisely my own view.

[omega minimo]

4. Cliches and bullshit. It's a New Age whether you like it or not. Roger that.

[cali]

18. your post certainly is bullshit

about as silly and non-responsive as it could possibly be.

[omega minimo]

84. Intelligent people making bigoted assumptions based on cliches/BS. Explain that.

Expecting "responsive" discussion with these people, in the face of their bigotry and behavior WOULD be silly.

[rd_kent]

128. What does that mean?

[Touchdown]

133. This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius... The Age of Aquariuuuuuuuuus.

Actually it isn't. The cut over from Pisces to Aquarius doesn't happen for another 150-250 years.

...If you believe such constellation sights in the Spring Equinox on the equator, are significant in human behavior.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. He is such a clear, rational thinker...

I treasure him!

K&R

[omega minimo]

8. Then why is he pretending that hokey cliches are the totality of New Age progressive ideas?

Nobody like hokey, whether it's hippy dippy or stupid costumes at the Democratic convention.

This innuendo that New Age thinkers are the Fundies of the Left is a pet vanity of Sciencists who may present themselves every bit as rabid, one note, irrational, fanatical and intolerant as any Fundie Christian. Point that out and they become even more vicious and rabid.

Some New Agers may be hokey hippy dippy but they ain't NOTHING like that.

The real mystery is how intelligent people insist on pretending that the entire body of information, tradtions and thought, is hokum, when it includes so many various cultures, ideas and -- sorry, Fundies -- interconnectedness with science as well.

[Codeine]

11. Hokey cliches are not the totality of New Age thinking.

There's also irrational nonsense, half-baked bullshit, incomprehensible gobbledygook, paranoia, ignorance, borderline illiteracy, superstition, mystical rubbish, full-blown mythology, conspiracism of the worst sort, religious fervor, and a generous helping of woo-woo word salad to top it all off.

[omega minimo]

15. What did they do to you, Codeine?

:grouphug:

[OneGrassRoot]

19. You just described DU....

far from a woo-woo wonderland. ;)

"There's also irrational nonsense, half-baked bullshit, incomprehensible gobbledygook, paranoia, ignorance, borderline illiteracy, superstition, mystical rubbish, full-blown mythology, conspiracism of the worst sort, religious fervor, and a generous helping of woo-woo word salad to top it all off."

Meh, I think all this stuff is more a matter of tolerance.

Supposed "new agers" are, in general, viewed as being more tolerant of most belief systems, or lack of one, such as atheism. There is very much a "to each his/her own" approach to life in that sphere, as long as it's respectful.

If people get tense in social situations when organized religion and atheism are brought up it's usually because those groups are viewed, in general, as being less tolerant of others' paths. I think that is mirrored here at DU frequently.

I'm cool with all of it as long as no one tries to push it on me. :) Whatever gets you through the day and helps you be the best human you can possibly be. It's the belittling of others' choices (and outright condemnation) as far as spirituality -- or lack thereof -- that gives many of these labels a bad name, IMHO.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

25. From my dealings with New Age belief

it is mostly if not all, irrational nonsense. A few years ago I became steeped in this stuff even going as far as joining the Theosophical Society and devouring any half baked tome which now years later seem even more unbelievable than Christianity.

The Theosophical Society was started in the late 1800's by a Russian "psychic" named Helena Blavatsky and is the genesis of the New Age movement. Her claim was that there were perfected human beings called Mahatmas who resided in the Himalayas who quoted books to her and she wrote using automatic writing.

Her inane theories on the evolution and the creation of the universe would make even the most hardcore Evangelical look perfectly sane, the more oblique the theory the more plausible it was in this group. I later read that Blavatsky was often quoted that "starting a religion was the best way to get over on people", fortunately there are only about 10,000 members worldwide at this point. But you can thank Blavatsky and her followers for bring us such gems as western reincarnation, the resurgance of astrology etc.

What a steaming pile of shit it all is.

[omega minimo]

74. and your experience is the only valid one

[spiritual_gunfighter]

81. yes n/t

[omega minimo]

85. and you are answering for that person because ......

[Qutzupalotl]

232. Actually, western reincarnation was there before.

No pun intended. :)

Most biblical references to reincarnation were excised by the Second Council of Constantinople under Justinian in 553. Apart from a few oblique references, they were successful. Today, most Christians believe in one single life, or if they accept reincarnation, think they're being heretical for believing it.

However, this interesting pair of references remains:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
—Malachi 4:5

"but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased...." Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.
—Matthew 17:12-13

In other words, Jesus said that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.

[DeSwiss]

327. Good point....

...and good catch. There's also this one:

—John 3:3-8
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[uberllama42]

297. That was brutal

and, in my experience, totally accurate.

[rd_kent]

131. Please provide evidence that any "new age" thininging is any more plausible than standard religion.

Otherwise, you all belong in the same category.

[omega minimo]

200. I don't know what you consider "new age" or whether you know history.

Ebert is mocking the cliches and hokiness of "New Age." Is that all you think it is?

Or are you aware that "new age" thininging" may be much broader than jokes about Shirley McClaine?

[rd_kent]

227. I'm open minded. Enlighten me.

Just be sure to provide evidence of your claims. Thats all I ask.

[omega minimo]

234. Really

[rd_kent]

236. Really. Enlighten me.

I am 100% serious.

[omega minimo]

237. LOL

:rofl: That was funny.

[rd_kent]

241. So, no matter what I post or what I ask, you just laugh?

OK, have a nice day.

[omega minimo]

243. Having observed the attitude in your previous posts to me in this thread

why would I believe you are "open minded"?

[rd_kent]

248. All I can do is ask.

If you are not interested, well, ok.

[omega minimo]

269. Ask before you needle.

[rd_kent]

299. Screw you. I did not needle.

I asked (as did others) very pointed questions and you failed to respond in kind. Your posts have no moral hig ground from which to accuse me of "needling", and if anything I accuse you of obfuscating.

Case in point, here we are, several posts after my request (again) for you to teach me something about "new age" beleifs that may get me to see it from a different perspective, and you STILL keep dodging.

You, minimo, are disingenuous at best and unless you proceed with meaningful dialog, all of my assertions about you are correct.

As I stated repeatedly, I will gladly retract everything if you would only enlighten me so I may see your position from your point of view. That way, we can take this discussion BEYOND petty name calling. Are you "New Age" enough for that?

[omega minimo]

306. I am not disingenuous

I know who and what I'm dealing with here.

You may not have intended to needle, but needle you did, by poking -- not "asking" -- with what resembled the arrogance of the haters, when I don't know who you are. It's a thing here. A game for them. If you aren't one, that's great.

What I've learned from this and other discussions -- and why I don't throw up single items to be ripped to shreds by hyenas -- is the breadth and depth of what many of the "rational thinkers" don't know, culturally, historically, scientifically. They have some bogeyman that serves as their Goldstein -- anything and everything could set off the Two Minutes Hate. Some prefer not to know what they're talking about, attacking and making every attempt to prevent others from discussing; whether in terms of spirituality, culture, health, or any other aspect.

It's absurd to argue over what Roger Ebert thinks, except this accusation of fundamentalism against "new agers" was posted to reinforce that notion here and piss on the "woo."

The self styled "rational thinkers" react with hostility and viciousness (like rabid fundies) when it's pointed out that their close minded, overbearing, cliche behavior resembles fundamentalism.

Wonder what they're afraid of.

[rd_kent]

318. Afraid? Hardly.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain it to me. I know what I THINK it is, but you seem to think I dont know what it is at all, so explain it to me. Im not afraid to hear it. Are you afraid to defend it?

[omega minimo]

321. .

:bounce: :bounce:

[Zhade]

275. That's because woos HAVE no evidence. There is none to back up their beliefs.

Exactly like religion.

[rd_kent]

300. Thats what I see as well, but I cannot get any of them to give me a reason to change my mind.

Especially omega minimo, who only dances around the question and accuses me of needling him.

[omega minimo]

308. What would you like evidence of?

[omega minimo]

307. Evidence of what?

Everything you ignore? Everything you call "woo" without being specific? That's a tall order.

[Codeine]

9. "New Age beliefs are the Creationism of the Progressives."

That sums it all up marvelously. Succinct perfection, Mr. Ebert! :)

[omega minimo]

10. Reductionism is the Creationism of the Progressives

[Codeine]

12. I know it frightens you

that the universe may not be the mystical realm of unicorns and fairies and chemtrails that you always hoped, but I'm sure you'll learn to cope.

[omega minimo]

13. Ah, you're AFRAID are you?

[Zhade]

276. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! AFRAID??? Of nonexistent bullshit?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toots]

30. It always amazes me how someone can claim they know everything there is to know about the Universe

I call bullshit on your supposed superiority attitude. I think you only think you know so damn much, and the reality is you really know almost nothing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. Classical straw man.

"These and these allegations are bullshit" is NOT the same as "I know everything".

And you know that.

[Odin2005]

29. An understanding of emergent systems requires a reductionistic base.

You can't start coming to truly understand the workings of emergent phenomena until you understand the processes underlying them

[omega minimo]

71. The people/cultures who have studied the nature of reality for millennia agree with you.

And you would call them, their culture, their science and their descendants "woo"

"... to truly understand the workings of emergent phenomena until you understand the processes underlying them"

[Odin2005]

136. Hey, I meditate, I don't think ALL eastern stuff is "woo".

But when scientists studied the neurophysiology and neuropsychology of Buddhist meditation practices it all started making a lot of sense. But Buddhist practices (as distinct from traditional superstitions and Mahayana Buddhist saint veneration) are generally the exception, mainly because Buddhism (at least Theravada Buddhism) is philosophically agnostic and existentialistic. Theravada Buddhist philosophy is a psychologically-based intellectual tradition obscured in South Asian religious terminology, making it seem far more "woo-ish" than it actually is. And Psychology is a very young science, unlike Physics, which makes a big difference in things like this.

[omega minimo]

160. "Hey, I meditate, I don't think ALL eastern stuff is "woo"."

Part of the problem here is the undefined use of the catchall term as code for the haters to pile on.

[Odin2005]

179. I define it as claims that are unfalsifiable, or rationalize away falsifications.

[omega minimo]

181. Without defining who or what you're talking about when shorthanding that to "woo"

[anigbrowl]

42. unsurprisingly, you provide no argument to back up this statement...

...a statement that makes no sense, because reductionism is a problem-solving technique, not a belief system. We have another technique for dealing with multiple disparate pieces of information and knitting them into a whole: it's called calculus.

[omega minimo]

73. in response to a similar statement. unsurprisingly, I have no need to provide you with anything.

[anigbrowl]

147. I can see you don't really get this whole rational discourse thing.

Usually an assertion is followed up with some justification, the merits of which can then be debated. It appears you have mistaken the soundbite for the substantive argument...but then, that's the entire problem with new age thinking: it doesn't open itself to critical examination. It's a real pity: while I think there may well be something to claims of ESP or other psychic abilities, based on my own experience, the resistance of most advocates to controlled studies and rigorous experimental protocols obstructs any serious progress and has made it politically toxic area to research.

[omega minimo]

156. with you?

:rofl:

[anigbrowl]

165. Rational arguments stand on their own, no matter who they take place between

Your smiley is cute, but nowhere in this thread do you provide any evidence to back up your expressed support for new age beliefs. Until you do, I'm with Ebert in considering them as nothing more than feel-good pablum. What contribution have new agers made to the store of human knowledge - and by knowledge, I mean something you can use in a consistent manner to achieve a specific outcome, like explaining a natural phenomenon or solving a problem in a reliable way.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

16. I can hear a collective gasp through the intertubes when I say Karma doesn't exist.

.. yes, on DU.

[WhiteTara]

17. good luck with that.

[Touchdown]

125. Luck? Got tangible proof of that?

;)

[Lance_Boyle]

32. I know it exists on slashdot, but aside from that probably the only Karma

you'll find anywhere in the real world would be twirling about a pole, gyrating nekkidly. Alongside Destiny.

[ZombieHorde]

295. I have read three very different definitions of karma.

1) New Age/Wiccan books I read: Do bad things, bad things will happen to you; do good things, good things will happen to you.

2) Some Tibetan Buddhist books I read: Good karma is actions which encourage enlightenment, bad karma is actions which discourage enlightenment.

3) Some Zen Buddhist books I read: Karma is a single word for the phrase "the laws of causation," and is used to refer to things which cause thought. There is no good or bad karma.

#1 I don't believe in.

#2 Depends on one's definition of enlightenment I guess.

#3 I do believe thoughts have causes, so this definition seems to be describing something I believe in.

Most people I have encountered seem to use definition #1 though, so I agree karma does not exist.

[SidDithers]

20. As Penn Jilette once said...

It's newage, rhymes with sewage.

Thanks for posting.

Sid

[omega minimo]

80. Isn't Penn Jilette a conservative asshole?

[Codeine]

83. On some issues.

On others quite liberal. Like most people he's complicated.

[omega minimo]

94. "Like most people he's complicated."

Everyone except everyone you toss in the catchall "woo"

[Codeine]

97. Even woos are complicated.

You can be a vibrant, complex, charming individual while still being a total dipshit regarding the nature of reality.

[omega minimo]

107. It takes "a total dipshit" to presume they know what others think of the nature of reality

and lump then into one category.

THAT's why the sciencists are more like the Fundies than they care to admit.

They think woos" are "evil" and "dangerous" and scary.

[Codeine]

114. Not evil, dangerous, or scary.

Just dumb as a box of hair.

[Starry Messenger]

21. I love Ebert.

Some days I think most of California is New Age. Usually it's harmless and I just nod and smile. The business side of it is pretty cynical though. A lot of hucksters.

[OneGrassRoot]

23. That is certainly true....

Anything that targets helping people, "seekers," feel better -- on any level -- is a potential magnet for hucksters, be it all the Christian merchandise, classes, etc.; all the fad diets; the huge self-help industry. Marketing of spirituality is certainly not immune to that and may be even more vulnerable.

[trotsky]

22. Ebert gets it.

Does he read DU? Sure seems like it. If he does, I'm sure he gets bashed frequently along with the rest of us who ask questions.

[dustbunnie]

24. I want to wrap Mr. Ebert up in just the biggest Piscean sun/Libra rising/Scorpion moon

hug, ever! Loved his scathing review of the Ben Stein propaganda flick too.

Excellent way to start the morning.

[snagglepuss]

26. k & r

thanks for posting

[rucky]

27. I see it as more of a parlor game.

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

28. He is absolutely right. WTF happened to Reason?

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Rational or not, no New Ager has ever come after my rights

or claimed that they were more of a human being than me, or that their family was more beloved of the divine than mine. No New Ager has ever knocked on my door to slander me to my face as other religions do. They have never organized against a minority, spent millions to oppress others, as the other faiths do.
Given the choice of the New Age or the Old Bigots, I'll take the New Age, Rog.

[SidDithers]

34. New agers and the religious are both magical thinkers...

they're two shades of the same colour, not opposites.

Sid

[liberal_at_heart]

60. As long as they're not trying to take your rights away why does it bother you?

Why does every group have to redicule the other? I don't have a problem with people having the freedom to believe what they want as long as they're not trying to take anyone's freedoms away. I'm not new age, but I don't have a problem with them believing what they want to believe. I'm not atheist either but I don't have a problem with atheists believing what they believe or don't believe. I am Buddhist but I tend to follow Buddhism for its practical teachings rather than its mystical teachings, but I don't have a problem with those Buddhists who do follow the mystical teachings. My husband and I are raising our daughter who is atheist to not be afraid to believe what she believes and not to be afraid to express what she believes but we are also teaching her to be respectful of others. Something some people may not have the courtesy to show her but that we hope she will show others.

[omega minimo]

88. and you live in a pinball universe where everything is black and white, right?

Lumping all those individuals together is like saying everyone on DU agrees on everything. We're all Democrats! We're all DUers! See how fundamentalist that sounds?

[Touchdown]

152. Pinball=Black and white?

I see color. Why do you use that reference? Is it a woo thing, like saying Easy Off in the Blu Ray thread?

[PVnRT]

177. Maybe it was black and white to Tommy

He's blind, but I hear he's aces at pinball.

[Bunny]

51. The new agers don't bother me, either, and in fact some of their thinking

falls in line with my own spiritual beliefs.

I don't understand why Roger even tried to compare them to right-wing fundies. What was the point? If he or anyone else wants to think they're kooky that's fine, but they're also harmless. I'll take Shirley MacLaine over Rick Santorum any day.

[Beetwasher]

57. I'm Willing To Give That They Are Probably Not As Dangerous

But that magical thinking non-thought process IS dangerous no matter how it implements itself. The creationist bible thumbers are merely a more dangerous manifestation of a similar thought structure. One that almost always ultimately leads to dangerous manifestations.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

258. Oh, they absolutely can be dangerous.

http://whatstheharm.net/

[omega minimo]

271. Wow, who knew how dangerous Feng Shui could be?

The real question is what motivates people to be so ______ -- is it paranoid? -- to try to associate all sorts of harm with one set of unconventional topics, when equal harm could be associated with conventional topics. Is the conventional harm "better" in some way?

When that doctor leaves a sponge in your chest and sews ya up, it probably doesn't matter if it's sea or sytnhetic.

[Zhade]

280. It's not the specific belief. It's the acceptance of unsupported assertions.

One such example? "Iraq has WMD."

A million dead Iraqis later, just how well did accepting that unsupported assertion work out?

[DeSwiss]

328. Where the hell.....

...is just plain religion on those lists? How can they leave out the damned Catholics and all the torture and killing they do? I call bullshit on that website.

[dana_b]

138. true that!

I think that's the jist of what most of us believe - do and believe what you want, but leave me and mine the fuck alone!

[woo me with science]

257. http://whatstheharm.net/

Much of the crap on this website is tied to New Age beliefs. They absolutely can harm people.

http://whatstheharm.net/

[dmallind]

365. Sure about that?

What about claims of being or having "indigo children"? Isn't that a claim that they are a more advanced/better human than you?

[dysfunctional press]

33. you GO, roger!

new agers are some of the most pathetic morans going...it's almost like every generation has to outdo the last when it comes to bullshit spirituality(but then- is there any other kind?)

[salguine]

35. Why is it that everyone who thinks they were reincarnated thinks they were

unquestionably something splendid in the former life? They were always royalty, or someone famous and spectacular. No one says "In my previous life I was degraded daily as a domestic servant for some rich asshole" or "In my last life I pumped shit from one tank to another at a sewage treatment plant."

[timtom]

36. And, how many Cleopatra's have you run across in you life?

I count about 5 or six.

[Posteritatis]

99. I was present when two of them were in the same room once

That was hilarious. Couple of wooheads each screaming that the other was an imposer (sic).

[ZombieHorde]

296. Tibetan Buddhists believe one person can reincarnate as more than one person.

So one person can die and be born as three people.

I am not saying this is true, just a little theological trivia.

[Veruca Salt]

38. According to my mum

apparently when I was a kid I told them I was eaten by a tiger in a past life and from the descriptions of this story, as retold to me years later, I lived in a village in Africa. Truth? Pffft, overactive imagination of a child if you ask me. But there's at least one 'past life' story for you that doesn't involve delusions of grandeur and royalty.

[Dream Girl]

43. No Tigers in Africa though...

[Lisa0825]

64. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ieoeja]

66. The tiger was a lion in its past life.

[Posteritatis]

106. And the lion was a gazelle mocked by the rest of the herd

"I'll show them," he always said.

He took it too far, though, and later came back as a reindeer someplace.

[Touchdown]

155. And the Gazelle/lion was reincarnated into an evil scientist

THOSE FOOLS!

[eShirl]

161. Ah, but there used to be

sabre tooth tigers in Africa a million years ago.. maybe contemporaneous with homo erectus??

[Veruca Salt]

256. And one never tries to reason with a creationist-new-ager

it's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. I've learned to just smile, nod and :eyes:

My only bright spot with mum is that she doesn't buy into the earth being only 6,000 years old... or was it 4,000? I can't keep up with their crap anymore.

[Orrex]

298. Not anymore.

They've all been reincarnated as lions.

[Marr]

250. Perhaps you were an extra in a Monte Python sketch in a past life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkFhafk26A

A tiger? In Africa? :P

[Veruca Salt]

255. Being an extra in a Monty Python sketch would be way waaaay

better than royalty that's for sure!

I'm more partial to zebra's myself: http://www.holylemon.com/Only-In-Kenya--f71.html ;)

[Posteritatis]

102. I've seen a few who claimed to be peasants or the like

My awareness of this stuff's probably off-spec though, since I spent a while moderating a 25,000-user neopagan forum. ;)

The past-lifers who aren't a known figure like Cleopatra ("which one?" "uh...") were usually moderately glamorous, wholly ahistorical peasants ("I was a poor shipwright..."), though. They were usually in what the person thought of as a glamorous time though - ancient Greece, Egypt (over and over), one Renaissance European society or another, eighteenth-century France, nineteenth-century Britain, etc.

I also find it fascinating that they're usually only from cultures the pastlifer would normally be familiar with. Your typical North American one is never, say, Assyrian or Jomol or Vinca or the like.

My #2 personal favorite - #1 is tied between the two "Cleopatras" who met each other and flipped out - was one claiming to have been Billy the Kid's wife, while also claiming to have been born in 1875. Oops.

[laughingliberal]

120. I know this is a favorite talking point for those who would ridicule the reincarnationists and

comedians. However, I must honestly point out that I know a lot of people who believe in reincarnation who do not believe they were royalty of someone famous and spectacular. In fact, most of the reincarnationists I know do not believe that. But, it makes a nice broad with which to paint believers in this particular belief.

[Shallah Kali]

198. I *was* an abused domestic servant in a past life

Lots and lots of abused miserable short lives of near starvation and exploitation. anyone how has memories or has seriously delved into the possible past lives find it is very rare to have fabulous past lives. More often it is lifetime after lifetime of grinding poverty as peasant types with early miserable deaths. The one thing I agree with you and ebert is that all the Cleopatra claimers are full of stuff and nonsense.

[Zhade]

281. You seriously believe that delusion?

I weep for humanity's chances of survival when magical thinking rules the day.

[darkstar3]

372. Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm smiley. n/t

[Romulox]

37. You know what I'm in the mood for? A lecture on theology from Roger Ebert!

Unrec for more god bothering.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. It's not 'god bothering'

It's about the lack of evidence or reason for things like astrology, reincarnation, 'crystal healing' and other nonsense. It's not theology. Even if you haven't read the article, that's pretty clear from the excerpt in the OP.

[Romulox]

46. I am not interested in Roger Ebert's views on the afterlife, spirituality full stop.

He decries the influence of this stuff on our political discourse, but, as I mentioned, I find his lecture on the validity of metaphysical phenomenon just as interesting as one from a crystal-fetishist, which is to say, not at all.

[Codeine]

44. Whoa.

You totally didn't get the OP at all.

[Romulox]

47. On the contrary, you didn't understand my response. nt

[Codeine]

48. Fair enough.

Not the first time I've been completely off base. :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. Ooops, thanks for reminding me, if not for you I would have forgotten to rec. -nt

[Touchdown]

159. Oh' you just hate him because he panned Star Trek: Nemesis.

:evilgrin:

[NNN0LHI]

39. kick to read later

[Maat]

41. Eff you, Roger.

Your opinion means nothing to me.

[mysticalchick]

45. Agreed

And yes, clearly my screen name gives away my biases. It's my path to walk as Ebert's is his. And in the end, it's between me and God anyway so what does it matter to another? I'm the only one accountable for my actions in the hereafter.

[salvorhardin]

49. So you'd be OK if Obama consulted an astrologer about what to do with healthcare reform?

How about if the Pentagon based a decision about whether or not to attack Iran on remote viewing?

or the TSA used the I Ching to determine whom to detain for further questioning at airports?

What if EPA used dowsing to make decisions about the effect of pollutants on water supplies?

[mysticalchick]

61. Do you really want me to answer that?

I don't think you'd like my response.

[mysticalchick]

62. FTR

Yes, I'd be perfectly happy for him to do that along with all the other methods he uses. The world might be a better place if more of that were relied upon.

Hate on, baby.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. Hate isn't good for anything. A facepalm, though, is in order.

Wow. Just wow.

[mysticalchick]

65. :-)

Nice montage. (Sprinkles fairy dust in your general direction)

[rd_kent]

145. Please, its called littering.

[ieoeja]

67. Not if the Reagan administration was any proof!

[salvorhardin]

72. I'm not trying to "hate on" you

I'm trying to determine where you draw the line between ridiculous and credible.

What do you consider to be so lacking in evidence that you think it's a poor basis for making rational decisions?

Tarot cards?
Phrenology?
Reading entrails?
Bible codes?
Numerology?

Where do you personally draw the line?

[mysticalchick]

112. Here's my thought ...

... I have a very strong intuitive side and rely on it to make many decisions in my life. Am I advocating this for everyone? No. It works for me and has pretty much all my life. Those methods you mention are really just tangible ways (IMO) to access that intutive information.

There are some very well known astrologers who specialize in forcasting things of a political nature and it's very interesting to see how much things jibe with what's been said (specific things, even). Again, if it doesn't resonate with you, then by all means find something that does.

My husband, for example, is "logic man" and he said to me the other night that he sees how certain things line up for me when I am strongly in my intutive side. He says, however, that until he can experience it himself, he remains dubious. That's fine by me. That's his path and I am as supportive of him following it as he is of me.

And that's what it comes down to for me. I try to be respectful of the path a person has taken whether it resonates with me or not. It's their path, their choices. If someone wants things validated by what they can touch, feel, taste, see etc, and that makes them feel secure, that's just fine by me.

Re-reading all that, I guess I'd answer your question thusly: you are really the only one that can determine if something is credible to you. Like my husband said, he might not believe in the "woo-woo" even if he were to experience something himself. That's his choice.

Make sense at all? I appreciate you asking these questions with sincerity. And I hope I've responded in a like fashion.

[salvorhardin]

129. Intuition is fine

And nobody is 100% rational. We're humans after all. But I assume you don't think Creationism/ID should be taught alongside science. So why should we give progressives a pass on any unevidenced beliefs they might have?

[GoneOffShore]

158. Do you really expect an answer?

As someone posted a long time ago about ID(iots) - "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Same with the woo followers.
And further - 'I respect all the differences but if you believe any of it you're a moron. To me, its just people talking about their imaginary friend at length'
Dylan Moran

[omega minimo]

184. "So why should we give progressives a pass on any unevidenced beliefs they might have?"

What does that mean? Who is "we"? What "progressives"? What "pass"?

You mean the right to hold opinions and have discussions without being harassed and badgered?

What "unevidenced beliefs"? Are you the Thought Police?

[jberryhill]

226. Ahem....

You don't have your pass?

How did you get in here?

[omega minimo]

240. The Hall Monitors were busy

kicking the shit out of some people who don't get the flu shot.

[Odin2005]

146. Intuition is a source of ideas, it does not prove the ideas.

Intuition is a vital source of ideas and inspiration in many areas, but to assume that intuitions are "magically" self-justified is the thing I have an issue with. One must always think about making attempts to disprove them stuck in the back of one's head, to be self-critical of one's own ideas.

[OneGrassRoot]

217. I nice balance of paying attention to one's intuition....

evaluating it against other known factors, but not summarily dismissing it would be a wise way to walk through life, IMHO.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

221. Exactly!

:hi:

[Zhade]

284. "It works for me" -- that's called confirmation bias. Look it up.

NT!

[Zhade]

283. Wow. You're delusional.

None of that bullshit has any evidence to support its alleged efficacy. And you know it.

[rd_kent]

144. If you say yes to ANY of that, then you are right.

If you say yes to any of it, then you must also say yes to Obama praying for guidance, or Bush talking to god for answers, right?

[dana_b]

142. are those options so much worse than what they do now

by consulting with corporations and criminals? How about those who confer with or "talk to God" to make their decisions? Is that any less insane??

[Name removed]

122. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

141. my non-god is just a real as your make-believe god

But you are right, what you say to the voices in your head is your business.

[Zhade]

282. Wow. Where did the kind-hearted Maat I've always seen here go?

Did he touch a nerve?

[alarimer]

50. New Agers, Anti-vaxxers and Deepak Chopra ARE just like creationists.

Completely unencumbered by reason.

[nemo137]

266. and the anti-vaxxers especially actually are putting people at risk.

http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html

eta: additional information.

[fascisthunter]

52. what rights have New Agers tried taking away fromAmerican Citizens

bad comparison

[EOTE]

55. True, there is a difference between silly and dangerous. NT.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. Irrationality is ALWAYS dangerous. I agree the left-wing variety tends to be less so, though. -nt

[comrade snarky]

116. They don't have the power or numbers of the christian conservatives

If they did I'm quite sure there would be a list. Once you know "Right" and "Truth" as some of our very own DUers do it's hard not to use political power to *encourage* others into the correct way of thinking. It's for their own good after all. Roger Ebert is entirely correct, basing policy on magical thinking is dangerous from any direction.

Now if you want to talk about damage done and harm caused by new age thinking there's a whole lot to choose among, from crackpot medical theories to fear mongering\profiteering. Dead people who paid $10,000 to sit in a sweat lodge made of plastic may be a good place to start.

Or if you prefer, railing against vaccines and blowing up the moon are always popular.

[fascisthunter]

119. Something tells me they don't fight for power like right wingers do

if they did, we wouldn't be talking about hypotheticals in regards to New Agers. So far, his comparison is based on opinions and prejudice.

[comrade snarky]

153. Swap the percentages of population

Christian vs New Ager and there would more than enough crazy to have a new age Mike Huckabee and a Pat Buchanan. Hell, I'd expect a new age Family to have a house on C street.

I'm an atheist but if this country were %90 atheist I'd expect to see atheist extremists wanting to use the power of government to advance their ideas and crush opposition. Theology doesn't matter.

What Ebert is saying (if you read the article) is that basing public policy decisions on creationist theology or literal readings of (parts of) Leviticus is no better or smarter than basing it on astrology or belief in past life karma.

Both should be avoided.

I agree.

[OneGrassRoot]

220. While I don't believe in any "church"....

I include any spiritual path in my desire to always have a separate of church and state.

I don't think the analogy fits at all with Bible thumpers who want their religion to literally be the law of the land.

Most who resonate with what some label a metaphysical or new age approach to life are, in general, very tolerant of others' choices and have no desire whatsoever to impose them on others in any way.

[comrade snarky]

246. I've personally run into a few

Who would be more than happy to enforce their version of truth on any who dared question them.

Only benevolently of course. With all the best intentions for the poor souls who aren't as spiritually evolved as they are.

Part of being human I'm afraid, and if "new age" were the majority it would attract all the more of that type. See, the point I'm trying to make is that as much as we'd all like to believe that no one who shares similar views would ever abuse those ideals in pursuit of power or wealth... it can happen, and does. All the time.

For example, I've had people tell me (I'm not implying you, by the way) that polytheists are inherently more peaceful and accepting of others than monotheists because polytheists worship multiple gods. Polytheism, they say, leads to more flexibility and less anger.

I think the Norse or the Assyrians would have something to say about that idea. Probably something disturbingly pointy that ends in a messy floor.

[OneGrassRoot]

251. Yep, that being human thing can turn nasty in unexpected ways....

I understand your concern. Thanks for sharing it respectfully.

I do so love your "comrade snarky" screen name! :)

:hi:

[comrade snarky]

260. Thanks!

I can be kinda mockey sometimes but I try to keep it to the deserving. :toast:


Much as I love the name I cant take the credit, it's from a Chuck Palahniuk book.

[Touchdown]

167. I have a tech support supervisor that refuses to work with Sagittariuses

Inquisitions start off as small snowballs...

I don't have a distinct personality, or a unique perspective to him. Everything I do or say is because I'm a Virgo.:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

170. oh brother...

are you serious with that argument?

Be afraid, man, they'll kill you with powers of zen. What an idiotic and down right disengenous comparison. When this group starts doing a quarter of the shit the Creationists do, then talk shit about them all you want.

[Touchdown]

172. Ok, so irrationality does have limits. It just depends on the type of irrationality.

Ancient astrology worshippers never sacrificed virgins on a solstice to bring good luck. Nice to know.
Hitler really wasn't obsessed with finding the lost continent of Atlantis to prove the Deutschers are actually descendants of of Atlanteans, or used an ancient pagan symbol as a logo for the Nazi party.

I must be reading the wrong history books.

We just got cigarette smoke out of the restaurants. I can now look forward to smelling incense in them soon.

[FloriTexan]

187. We are all made up of all signs

and their meanings to some degree. No one is simply a Sag or a Pisces. Its really very interesting to learn about and your chart can explain a lot about why you think the way you do. My chart taught me more about who I am and why I do the things I do more so than prophesize.

[LostInAnomie]

53. Absolutely right.

They should get no more respect on here than creationists telling us that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil.

[GoneOffShore]

174. You've got it.

And the woo defenders are out in all their indigo-child splendor - sounding like persecuted xtians. Trying to defend the indefensible all in the name of "faith" and "belief" and "tolerance".

You don't get to vote on science.

[Beetwasher]

54. Love Ebert! Rec Rec Rec Rec!!!!

Man oh man do I know what he's talking about.

[shadesofgray]

68. What an ignorant and glib comparison.

Creationists can be very dangerous. They try to force everyone else to believe what they believe.

New agers can be annoying, but I've never seen one try to shove their beliefs down anybody's throat.

Equating the two is idiotic.

[salvorhardin]

75. What if a new ager was elected to Congress and voted based on their beliefs?

Would that be as bad as, worse than or more justifiable to you than a fundamentalist Christian (of which there are several already in office) voting based on their beliefs?

[omega minimo]

78. You have an absurdly reductionist and simplistic view of what your "new ager" bogeyman is.

:wow:

[shadesofgray]

87. Yeah, there is such a HUGE likelihood of THAT.

New agers are ALL about agitating to force people to hang crystals, get their fortunes told, have past life regressions, etc. etc.

Why, you can hardly take a walk without coming across one of their sign-carrying demonstrations. And they are getting new agers elected all over in order to get school text books changed.

New agers are JUST like creationists, all right.

And in case you couldn't tell, the above was total sarcasm.

[salvorhardin]

91. What about homeopathy in the UK?

[shadesofgray]

105. the UK? Land of UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE?

Anything they do in the UK is fine by me!

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. And where, sadly, public money goes to homeopathy

thanks largely to the influence of the rather stupid royal family.

[Touchdown]

171. Even the wizard teachers in Harry Potter don't take the divination teacher seriously.

The crystal ball reader is the best part of the series.

I imagine if a New Ager got elected to congress, they would be laughed at.

[omega minimo]

76. "Equating the two is idiotic."

Well put.

Perhaps Mr. Ebert feels put upon by his hokey Hollywood celebrity hosts as he scarfs down their dinner and sucks up their wine.

[shadesofgray]

89. I wish I knew where he was coming from...because all he is doing is letting the

creationists off the hook by making them look whacky instead of dangerous.

[omega minimo]

93. good point

[salvorhardin]

98. Why do you think the Creationists are dangerous?

[shadesofgray]

110. Dude, I'm putting you on ignore. I've already explained my feelings and I'm not going to keep

justifying myself. Not worth the trouble.

[Zhade]

286. Anti-vaxxers. Snake-oil salesmen selling bullshit cancer cures. Sweat-lodge "healing".

Oh yes, that woo can KILL. Maybe not in the same numbers, but that's a difference in degree -- not kind.

[Silent3]

323. Who said "danger" is the only relevant scale for comparison?

New agers and Fundamentalist Christians perhaps don't tend to dress the same way either, but I hardly think Ebert was trying to make a full up-and-down equivalence of every aspect of these two groups.

What I think he's talking about mainly are areas of discussion that are often considered off limits from criticism, and things people are willing to share about themselves under the assumption that they're talking to a sympathetic and accepting audience.

The correspondence isn't perfect, but I think there's certainly is a valid parallel for Ebert to point out between how right wingers respond to, say, talk of being saved by Jesus, and criticism of that, and how lefties respond to talk of, say, past life regressions, and criticism of that.

[darkstar3]

373. +1. n/t

[Owl]

69. K&R!!

[jmondine]

70. I've never heard a new ager try to force astrology and tarot to be taught in public schools

There may be some out there, but generally new-agers are harmless.

[salvorhardin]

77. What about when they're in positions of power and start basing their decisions on their beliefs?

That's the comparison Ebert is drawing. What they believe doesn't really matter, unless they are in a position to affect our lives based on their beliefs,

[omega minimo]

79. and you're terrified of these "new agers" as opposed to any other people with beliefs because ....

[liberal_at_heart]

86. This is the same logic that Christians use against atheists and Muslims

OOOOh, you can't trust THEM. They're not like US. Christians would never elect an atheist into a position of political power because they don't trust them. This kind of logic just doesn't work whether you're talking about atheist politicians, Christian politicians, Muslim politicians, or new age politicians.

[salvorhardin]

96. You wouldn't want me operating on you

I don't have the skill or the training.

So why would you want someone deciding whether to allow homeopathy or crystal healing in your health care package who doesn't have a good enough knowledge of science to understand that neither of those two things are effective medicine?

[liberal_at_heart]

101. I see where this is going

I'm not going to get into a twenty post back and forth with you on homeopathy. I will say this though. If you don't believe in homeopathy that is your decision. If you don't want homeopathy then don't get it. No one is forcing you, but if you are willing to deny those people who are believe in homeopathy the freedom to seek it out then you are no better than the Christian right fundies who deny freedoms to women and gays.

[salvorhardin]

104. Is there any practice that you find incredible?

Substitute that into my argument for homeopathy.

For instance, many DUers were outraged (rightfully so) at the Stupak Amendment. What if it had been a Scientologist's amendment forbidding federal money to be used to pay for psychiatric treatment?

[laughingliberal]

Oh, I think we've done well enough in denying help for mental illness in this country

without help from the Scientologists.

[Zhade]

287. Fact: homeopathy doesn't work. Never has. Never will. And deep down, you know it.

NT!

[jmondine]

118. Well, as long as they're not a Sagittarius who draws the Tower card while Mercury is in retro

[Libertas1776]

82. K&R!

I love Roger. I really hope he is recovering well.

[JoeyT]

90. Actually there's as much woo on the right as there ever was on the left

You just never hear quite as much about it.

Antivaxxers seem split about evenly.
Dan Burton (R-IN) is a good example.
Faithful Word Baptist Church is another.
From Faithful Word: "We do not allow any of our children to be vaccinated. This decision was not based on emotion, but on studying the issue in depth over the course of several months."
They go on to claim vaccines are government pushed population control. Apparently to kill off Christians. And something about the mark of the beast and the apocalypse. It's pretty hard to follow the train of thought with crazy people.
Those wrasslers and NASCAR drivers aren't exactly screaming liberals either.

In fact, I'd go so far as to argue the Tea Baggers are the ugly twin to the New Agers. Instead of "If it makes you feel fulfilled" they use "If it makes you angry" and both end the sentence with something that amounts to "facts be damned.".

[salvorhardin]

117. Yes, that's Ebert's point exactly

Both progressives and conservatives believe in patently ridiculous ideas. Nobody should get a pass on their beliefs because they happen to be one of our ideological brethren.

[Prophet 451]

95. This is so weird to me

One thing I have never and probably will never understand about Americans is the need to worry about the spiritual beliefs of others. So there are a lot of New Agers in progressive circles. Who cares? I don't share their beliefs but the New Agers don't try and take away people's rights, politicise their faith or vice versa. They neither pick my pocket nor break my arm.

Here (Britain), religion is very much a private matter. That's not to say that faith is unusual, many people hold their faith very deeply but it's regarded as a matter which should be kept between the individual and their chosen deity. It's extremely rare for faith to come up in our public dialogue and for the most part, the Church of England limits it's political input to matters which directly affect them (although Rowan Williams, current head of the C of E, did write an op-ed condemning the greed which led to the financial implosion). Of the three current national party leaders, one is nominally a Christian, one is openly athiest and I have no idea about Cameron. Michael Howard, stalwart of Tory Cabinets and briefly Tory leader, was Jewish but the first I knew about it was when he commentated in an interview after his retirement that he was occupying his time by getting involved with his local synagogue. When the tabloids ran the story that Blair was considering a conversion to Catholicism, the public reaction was largely outrage directed at the tabloids for poking their nose into such an intensely personal matter.

So long as my neighbour's beliefs don't require me to believe them, I don't care what they believe.

[salvorhardin]

100. Your neighbors' beliefs about homeopathy requires your taxes...

Your neighbors' beliefs about homeopathy requires your taxes to pay for medical treatment that has no scientific evidence to suggest it works and has a solid body of controlled studies to show that it doesn't.

That is just one example, from the UK, where unevidenced beliefs do affect you personally. Of course, you might believe in homeopathy so you're fine with it.

[Prophet 451]

103. Can you give me a link?

I hadn't heard about that. If the NHS is using my tax money for homeopathy, it's time to mail my MP again.

[salvorhardin]

108. Sure. Just google NHS and homeopathy and you'll find plenty

Here's one to start:

Homeopathy, which many doctors argue has an effect only in the mind of the believer, cost the cash-strapped NHS £12m over three years, according to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Homeopathic treatments have been described as "biologically implausible" by the UK's only professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst of Exeter University. They are highly diluted solutions that may contain no discernible trace of the original ingredients. In 2005, The Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journals, published a major review of homeopathy and concluded its cures were no better than placebos. Some doctors have since called for the NHS to stop funding it.

But a response to a freedom of information request by More4 News revealed that the NHS is spending millions on what Professor Ernst and others say are the equivalent of sugar pills. The total cost to the NHS of homeopathic treatment between 2005 and 2008 was £11.89m.

Over the three years, there were 68,647 treatment "episodes" – each episode is treatment for one patient but some patients may have been treated more than once. The average cost per episode was £173, which breaks down to £151 for each outpatient treated and £3,066 for each inpatient.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/10/complementary-medicine-nhs-more4

[Prophet 451]

109. *headdesk*

Thanks. Yep, time to mail the MP again (we've got a pretty decent one here).

[salvorhardin]

113. You see, that's Ebert's point

Everybody believes in something that somebody else finds ridiculous. Everybody has irrational beliefs. The fact that somebody believes it something irrational or scientifically unproven isn't the problem. The problem comes in when policy decisions and lives are affected by those beliefs. Yes, Creationists want to stifle science education in the U.S. because it contradicts and endangers their religious beliefs. But plenty of progressives also have scientifically unproven beliefs that they would be happy to get enacted into law or policy. In that regard, some progressives can be just as bad as Creationists.

[omega minimo]

111. Looks like you have some serious judgmentalism to get over to get the concept of health care for all

maybe even safe and legal abortion.

In a system of health care for all, it's none of your business to judge others -- or their choices. It's their right to have them. Nuff said.

[Codeine]

121. It is their right to have health care.

Not to have every bit of unmitigated bullshit that some half-cracked douchebag claims is "health care." Society should pay for scientifically-proven, verifiable, tested treatments and technologies, not for fraudulent snake oils and airy-fairy mystical shit.

[omega minimo]

126. You have answered that your experience is the only one that matters above

yet you do not respect the experience of others who may wish to live and treat their bodies with effective and proven methods differently than you do.

One difference in the alternative/integrative health model is the emphasis on prevention. Hard to count all the people who are NOT ill because of preventative methods that don't meet you checklist. All those who stay healthy that "society" doesn't have to pay for.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. Not 'proven' - that's the whole point

Homeopathy has never been proven, and its practioners generally think it's 'unfair' to expect it to undergo tests that proper medicine has to.

And homeopathy, by the very nature of its claims, is a reactive, not preventative, 'treatment' - you have to know a symptom so that you can match it with something that you think would produce that symptom (if you actually gave it, rather than shaken water or sugar pills) to the patient. That's what the 'homeo' bit means in the word.

[omega minimo]

154. so intent on topdogging, you misread my comment. touche.

[rd_kent]

164. Why do you fail to see the true point, over and over?

[omega minimo]

186. "The true point." The One True Point! And WE know what it IS!! Bow down to the One True Point!!

[rd_kent]

188. More obfuscation from you. How typical.

[omega minimo]

191. Remove the mote from thine own eye.

[rd_kent]

194. You still have yet to answer. Why?

Is it because you can not prove any of what you said in the several posts about your beliefs? Is it because your beliefs are just as far-fetched as any religion? Or is it because you just like to spew nonsense?

[omega minimo]

202. Is this stock false accusation on one of the Randi site handbook lists or something?

:wtf: are you talking about? Don't answer -- clearly you think you have some right to DEMAND something and homey don't play dat. :evilfrown:

[rd_kent]

224. Keep dodging.

[Silent3]

319. Maybe there's a rare case here or there...

...that I haven't spotted yet, but I don't think I've EVER seen you answer a tough question from anyone who disagrees with you in any thread.

You merely seek out a way to classify that person as objectionable, having a bad attitude, as not worth talking, no point in talking to... and you'll go on and on and on and on like that, either in many separate but brief snarky remarks, or occasionally in longer form, without ever sparing a word to address a tough question.

Everything that you think is wrong with the questioner, nothing about the question.

Ever consider stooping now and then to give one of these terrible people, who won't listen to you are who aren't worth your time, an answer anyway, just for the hell of it? To maybe demonstrate to people on the sidelines that you do have an answer or two instead of a lot of bluster and evasion?

[omega minimo]

337. Yes, when possible, I do.

Overall, will they allow that space?

No.

[Silent3]

343. You must need a LOT of space.

And have a very strange sense of the word "allow".

You can apparently evade difficult questions and go on endlessly about the faults of "rationalists" given the tiniest opening. One has to wonder why substantive response requires rolling out the red carpet for you, but your ranting is cheerfully provided without any obvious signs that it will be welcome.

[omega minimo]

347. Define "tough question"

An honest answer to what might be considered a "tough question" quickly devolves -- in one, maybe two posts -- into a feeding frenzy of all the prepackaged attitudes that will rip it to shreds. One trick is to attack whatever word or term it is -- doesn't matter what it is -- it's the wrong word and sends the discussion (one post long) completely off track, while the "questioner" projects and applies all his pent up Randi-isms on that one thing.

Look here, I did try to discuss with someone and keep those posts volleying past 1; I used the (what I hoped was a neutral, comprehensible) term "those studies of consciousness." The poster was fine with replying and countering my point, as if he knew what that term meant. Then, when he realized he didn't -- or something -- was insistent that I define it for him. So what was he protesting, what was he projecting against?

Most of the people who would engage in such discussion have given up or gone away, so the tactics have succeeded in that sense.

The history of attempting discussion shows that the most vicious of attackers later claim they are merely "questioning" -- and you in your eloquent way insinuate that showing basic courtesy = "rolling out the red carpet for you."

There is no basic courtesy because the self styled "rational thinkers" have decided that anything they don't condone is wrong and doesn't deserve discussion. That's not my opinion, that's theirs.

They consider certain verboten topics "dangerous" and get themselves quite worked up about, self righteously inflicting their vitriol with impunity.

Another misrepresentation: I am not "ranting" here. I am pointing out that it would be foolish to try to go further in discussion in a thread that sets up "new agers" as absurd targets of ridicule.

I am also pointing out it is inconsistent and not rational, to use buzz words for a wide range of study and information, use it to censor others and never specify what (editorial) you're really talking about.

I pointed out that for Ebert -- or anyone here -- to pretend that "new ager" cliches about hokey fluff and Hollywood parties are all there is to it, it not rational. It's a mistake. It's a convenience. It's a way to prevent discussion -- to throw everything unfamiliar in one catchall and throw it out, unexamined.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but that IS a discussion.

[Zhade]

288. Fear, probably. It sucks to realize one's entire philosophy is utter nonsense.

I know -- I used to be a (in-name-only, beliefs-never-stuck) christian.

[omega minimo]

360. The accusation is full of shit

Please don't pile on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

207. When you say "touche", that means you're acknowledging I've scored a point

which is nice to know, though the rest of your post seems to say you think I haven't. So I can't tell what you're trying to say.

In what way did I misread your comment?

[rd_kent]

163. PLease cite examples of these "effective and proven" methods.

[rd_kent]

162. What is judgmental about questioning the use of public money to support

personal choices, especially when those choices are not grounded in reality?

[Touchdown]

176. "Nuff Said" Gawd, how I truly wish that were true with you.

n/t

[Romulox]

130. Her neighbor's beliefs about Hagen Daz also requires her taxes...

Why do you feel you have a right to dictate to a person as to one aspect of their lives, but not another? Where is the line that you've drawn? :hi:

[laughingliberal]

134. I don't believe in homeopathy but if that's the worst thing my tax dollars ever get spent for I'm

okay with that.

[Romulox]

127. +1,000,000. nt

[laughingliberal]

135. Bravo! nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. Private, apart from the Anglican bishops who get automatic seats in the House of Lords

And the faith schools which get public money. And yes, Cameron does go to church, but feels guilty he doesn't go more often: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8360863.stm

[Prophet 451]

166. The Lords is a work in progress

The Lords Spiritual are still there because Blair's Labour party never got around to following up on their partial reform in 1999 (which removed the majority of the hereditary peers).

The faith schools: Yes, some faith schools get public money. However, firstly, they're not limited to any particular denomination and secondly, they don't teach creationism (for example). Faith schools still have to teach the curriculum set by the government which includes the teaching of evolution (at an age-appropriate level, naturally). They can't opt out of teaching evolution or, say, sex ed.

Looks like another reason not to vote for Cameron then.

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. And Labour is still contemplating leaving the bishops in there

If there is any non-elected element, then the bishops stay as part of it:

• the reformed second chamber should be 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected;

• the Bishops should not retain reserved places in a 100 per cent elected House, but may do so in a House with an appointed element;

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21358

As for not teaching creationism - well, there's controversy about some schools like the Vardy ones doing just that. And some faith schools are moaning about the sex education (which is about to become compulsory, at the age of 15 (!) ) :

Shahid Akmal, the chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain’s education committee, said the organisation, which represents more than 400 Islamic organisations in the UK, would mount a legal challenge to the new curriculum.

He said the statutory framework of the sex education programme contravened the right of children to be taught according to their parents’ tradition.

“It is always better for the parents to talk to children about sex rather than the school, over which the parents have no control,” said Mr Akmal.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091113/FOREIGN/711129870/1002

I love how the children have a 'right' to be told how they are taught in that guy's mind. What he means is he wants a 'right' for parents to veto what their children are taught.

[Confusious]

261. All your wakadooles emigrated here

Thanks for that... anything we can do for you? Salt and lemon juice on a wound maybe?

:)

[Prophet 451]

334. Sorry about that

But you did inflict Madonna on us, I think we're even.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. I'm glad the moon bombing people are seeing this thread.

Fuckin' morons.

[omega minimo]

123. You guys got nuthin but cliches, a bigoted slur, applied to a shifting target, never fully defined

or thought through, examined, justified. If it was, the blanket application of stereotypical views would be seen for the fundamentalist-thinking hoax that it is. OOOOOoooohhhhh THe Other!!! Look out!! They're coming to get you!! You and your buddies better jump that guy in the tie dye shirt. Get him before he gets you. Do I smell INCENSE?

You're in the thrall of the debunkers who never add anything to discussion but only try to reduce everything to the most simplistic and stupid terms.

Intelligent people who pride their research and rationalization capabilities will not fall for it.

Woo you.

[Zhade]

289. It's not bigotry to point out that newage is unsupported bullshit, and you're NOT persecuted.

NT!

[darkstar3]

374. The target is quite simple,

it is irrational belief. Whether you believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel's Teapot, or the efficacy of crystal healing, the difference is minimal. Irrational belief in the completely unsubstantiated should be discouraged, lest we find ourselves leaving science behind because we already have all of the answers.

As for your fundamentalist slur..."you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Lilith Velkor]

132. That's rich coming from a 12 Stepper.

Mote, beam, et cetera.

[liberal_at_heart]

139. oh we can't have an alcoholic politician

If they're in the throws of their addiction they may make us all drink alcohol and if they are reformed they may ban all alcohol in the entire country. OOOOOh, the boogeyman is out to get us all. We can't allow anyone who is different from us in a position of power. lol. This is rich isn't it?

[Ignis]

249. Oh, ouch.

A great point, though. I'd buy this argument coming from a Rational Recovered, but a 12-Stepper? Seems a bit hypocritical.

[FloriTexan]

140. What if....

What if there is a God, possibly even a Christian God or just a higher being and that when this God created the universe, he arranged all the planets in the heavens in such a way that there movements and alignments could be interpreted by lower beings. We are definately affected by their movements. As a former Southern Baptist who has been positively exposed to astrology, I have always wondered if this could be. What if? Who really knows. If you are lucky enough to have accurate birth times, dates and locations, and a well-cast chart, you may find yourself wondering the same.

Just saying.

:think:

[Codeine]

149. Only if you're an idiot.

The stars are big globs of plasma an unimaginable distance away. They have fuck-all to do with your day-to-day life.

[FloriTexan]

180. Before you call me an idiot....if that's what your doing...

You should first realize that astrology is not about stars that are unimaginable distances away. Its about one star (our sun) and the other planets in our imaginable solar system. Why the name calling?! I was just sharing a speculation. Have a nice day okay.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

151. What if....

you are completely wrong?

Just saying.

[FloriTexan]

175. I wasn't even saying I was right ;)

[comrade snarky]

168. What if the world were created by god

To be my personal play toy and all of you exist only to please me to the extent to which you are capable.

I'm not saying that's true but what if it is? Then god wants you to make me happy. Have you tried to make me happy? If not give it whirl and you may feel a deep sense of fulfillment the likes of which you've never experienced before.

I mean what if? Who knows? If anything is possible anything can be true. Right?

:edited for tpyo

[Zhade]

290. Uh, given the utter lack of ANY corroborating evidence, the question is irrelevant.

It's akin to asking "what if the moon IS made of green cheese?" when we, in fact, know otherwise.

[BurtWorm]

302. If all that is the case, then i have no respect for such a trivial-minded god

The godless universe is a much more bracingly awesome place.

[Silent3]

324. And what if the planets aren't set up that way?

How do you gauge the difference between the likelihood of the two different possibilities? A little thing call "evidence".

"Try it yourself and see" is a terrible, confirmation-bias laden way to evaluation many things, especially things open to broad interpretation. The experiment has been done more than once where a room full of people are given an "individualized" astrological chart, each thinking the chart was made just for them based on their personal data, and you can get 90-95% of the people saying this detailed personal chart is a good match for themselves.

The joke is, of course, that everyone is looking at exactly the same chart, and there's nothing personalized about any of them.

[Beacho]

148. While New Age Hokum doesn't affect public policy *yet*

Well except for the Homeopathy funded by the British healt system, as noted above.

It does provide a breeding ground for hucksters, con men, and ideas that can be dangerous on an individual or community level.

Anti-Vaccination boneheads *do* push their agenda into the public sphere, spreading ignorance and fear which cause people to make decisions that not only affect themselves and their children but the people around them. So called 'alternative medicine' of the woo-woo New Agers is the fetid swamp from where this bullshit originates. At least in it's modern form.

[FloriTexan]

182. Just as

some religions and their followers push their agenda into the public sphere, spreading ignorance and fear which cause people to make decisions that not only affect themselves and their chidlren but the people aroudn them. Many "believers" of these woo-woo religions is the fetid swamp from where this bullshit orginates. Not only in its modern form but also in its ancient forms.

[Beacho]

I think we're in agreement

I wasn't trying to downplay the bullshit that stems from 'traditional religion'. To me it all stems from the same source. If you forced me to pick which one is worse, I'd have to go with the more established religious traditions as a matter of course. One doesn't excuse the other though

[anigbrowl]

157. Religious and new age beliefs overlap more in practice than some would like to admit

Here's a recent case from Ireland about people buning out their eyeballs from staring at the sun in hope of some vision to do with the Virgin Mary: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9227818

And here's the world authority on the ancient practice of 'sungazing'; http://solarhealing.com/

these are just different manifestations of similar primitive superstition. Neither is malicious, believers in both sets of ideas sincerely believe that they will get closer to some spiritual truth by transcending the normal messages of their body. An even dafter example is here: http://www.healingtherapies.info/Sungazing.htm

And for the sake of sanity, the necessary debunking information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field

[comrade snarky]

173. No.... no... I refuse to believe

There are people stupid enough to think it's a good idea to stare directly into the sun.

I mean how have they been feeding themselves all those years? No, no, it's a fake. It must be a fake!

For the LOVE OF GOD TELL ME THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!

<squatting in the corner rocking gently>

[Touchdown]

190. The Judeo-christian religion has a tie with astrological beliefs.

Jesus was born on Dec 25th. That day is when the sun is lowest on the horizon, and the constellation Virgo is visible in the night sky. He was born of a virgin. He is the new sun god of the age of Pisces, which became prominent around 120 B.C. Jesus' symbol is the fish... the symbol of Pisces. Jesus fed 5000 people with two fish.

an Age ago began the age of Aires, turning over from the age of Taurus. When Moses came down from the mountain with the laws, he saw the people built a golden calf... a symbol of Taurus, the dying age. The symbol of the hebrews is the ram's horn. The Ram is the symbol of Aires, the new age in the day of Moses.

Horus, the Taurus Sun God of Egypt, was born of a virgin, on Dec 25th, and he wore a bull's head when he did battle.

We're still at the end stages of the Age of Pisces. In about 150 years, expect Jesus to be replaced by a new Sun God, one who carries a pitcher of water instead of fish.

[FloriTexan]

201. You're brave...

I think you just made some heads explode somewhere ;)

[ArbustoBuster]

253. The dates don't match your theory.

The Age of Taurus ended in the early nineteenth century BC. (1900 - 1850 BC). The Exodus and Moses (presuming they happened/existed) are dated to the middle fifteenth century BC (around 1450 BC). So that date is off by over 400 years.

The Age of Pisces (the current age) ends in the late twenty-seventh century, just before 2700. So your prediction of 150 years is off by about 550 years.

None of this implies that astrology is correct, of course. (It has been repeatedly shown in experiments to be bunk.) But if you're going to use astrological terms, at least get them right.

[Touchdown]

272. Actually the times of the shift over are debated hotly amongst astrologers.

I used the general populoar notion of the turnover at 2150 AD. Now, Pisces is a very large constellation, so the dabate is that it will last much longer than the other ages did, or will, since Aquarius is a smaller constellation.

In my google searches, some have said that Aquarius took over in 1922, others say not until 2700, as you say, and it varies in between the two. Few can agree, but 2150 seems the most popular. They all agree that societal behavior is influenced by the personalities assigned to the ages/constellations/gods/zodiac signs, and claim that Aquarius is pulling us toward it (with technological advances) from Pisces (religious devotion)... which seems all too convenient. 2250 years beyond 2150 or 2700 (It doesn't really matter) Aquarius will give way to Capricorn, but the astrologers have no predictions for mankind when we enter into the Age of Capricorn. Only what already happened with the last 4 and Aquarius.

They always have a get out card to play. They say the ages last "roughly" 2250 years. Even though astrologers claim exactness, when pressed, there really is no consensus as to when one age gives way to another. In absolute scientific terms, Pisces has to disappear from the sky at the equator in the spring equinox in order for an "Astronomical" change of ages. Your date is closer to the truth, because Pisces is a long constellation.

As far as the timeline of the exodus having anything to do with the age changeover, it's not really important. The adoption of the Ram's horn and forgetting the bull is the point. In your timeline, Aries was still in it's early stages of life, visible at the Equator every spring equinox.

It is fascinating... in a Harry Potter sort of way.

[ArbustoBuster]

292. You're not helping your case, here.

Astrologers don't get to define when the ages start. Astronomers do. Trying to fudge that shows that astrologers make crap up whenever they're called on their BS.

The precession of the equinoxes (which is what the astrologers for some reason call "Ages") is a well-understood astronomical effect caused by the earth's axis slowly "turning" like a spinning top's does.

The bit about the ram and the fish and such is just magical thinking. Saying that the timing of the Exodus isn't important when you were the one who said this was tied to Moses makes me think that you're making things up just like the astrologers do. Or you're pulling my leg, in which case you definitely got me. :)

[Touchdown]

345. I know about precession, but you don't know about my case.

It is bullshit. I thought you would see that in my other posts here. This was in GD before it was moved here. I don't come into this forum because I'm an atheist. I don't really think I would be welcome here.

Not trying to pull your leg, just pointing out what absurdities there are in religion and relations to astronomical phenomena.

You are applying science in an effort to argue a belief system I don't have. I'm merely repeating what I've learned from the astrological websites, who don't hesitate to point out that Jesus' story has some awfully convenient similarities to their "timeline".

I wasn't saying that Exodus or it's time wasn't important, what is important is the artifacts, symbols and trappings of the Exodus and wandering times of the Hebrews which bear the imagery of the astrological age they were in. When Aires started is irrelevant to religionists. The actual solstices vary year by year. Religionists like structure (Otherwise how are they going to get the gullible to follow their tenets, if they keep changing them on them?), so the solstice to them is always Dec 25th.

See?

[ArbustoBuster]

361. As an atheist, too, I have something to add.

Don't try to argue things using the terminology of religion or woo. We atheists almost never get it right, since their terms always have some kind of subtext that one only learns if one is inside the cult or one studies it for years.

And I've completely lost track of what you were trying to say. If you were trying to make up an imaginary coherent-sounding argument like a theist or astrologer would use, you're always going to run into roadblocks because there's no coherent logic behind their beliefs. (And I can't imagine why you wanted to try to make up that imaginary argument, since it would only serve to annoy the theists, in my experience, and in the end would create more heat than light.)

If you're trying to say that the Christians really do have these astrological basis behind their beliefs and symbols, then frankly you're completely wrong. The ram and the fish symbology of Judaism and Christianity and such have nothing to do with astrology and never have.

As to the thread being in this subforum, I initially saw this thread in GD, and followed it there (with a level of bemusement, since the woo-arguers are pretty much dodging any question tossed at them).

[Touchdown]

362. Your first sentence is good advice, but the rest?

I cannot help what you are able to keep track of. I have repeatedly said that I am repeating what I have learned from personal interactions with people who are into Astrology & Zodiac lore, as well as what I have read from astrology sites, and specifically Precession Aeon theories on the internet. I felt no need to embellish anything to drive an annoyance home. Yours and my mere existence as questioners are annoyance enough for them, as is Roger Ebert. I will admit that what I wrote in my first post was from memory, which is why your advice is a good lesson for me.

As to your assertion that Christianity or Judaism have no links to astrology and never have, I'm not convinced you can be sure of that. There are those that assert it, and they believe it. My repeating it does not invalidate those beliefs which are, in the end, just as plausible as the tenets of the Torah/Bible. As all religions bear similarities with one another in some shape or form, it is only logical that some co-option of tenets, themes, rites, customs, behaviors, beliefs, and yes, imagery to have taken place over the centuries.

[tblue37]

259. Jesus wasn't "born" on Dec. 25. That was chosen by the early Church as his birthdate because it

was the time of the ancient Roman winter solstice festival. One reason Christinity spread so successfully is that the missionaries coopted the beliefs of the people they were converting. For example, many "saints" are actually the gods of the religion Christianity displaced in a given land. Example: the Irish St. Brigitt, who is actually a Celtic goddess. Since fire was sacred to the goddess the iconographic emblem for St. Brigitt is fire.

[Touchdown]

273. And where did that winter solstice come from?

Astrology. Jesus, Horus, and I'm sure many more sun gods were co-opted to be born on Dec 25th, of virgins, who died and were brought back to life after 3 days... the exact 3 days it takes the sun to start rising again from Dec 21st (Lowest point) to the 25th (the first day the sun is higher).

Yes, they co-opted the customs of the times, but the basic tenet of Christianity is that...

Jesus was born of a virgin. Virgo is in the sky on Dec 25th.
Virgo has a belt of 3 stars, which are called by astrologers "wise men".
Jesus is represented by a fish symbol. Pisces is the current dying age, and is the fish symbol.
Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 fish. Pisces is two fish.
Dec 21st, the Sun is at it's lowest point on the horizon. It stays there, or "dead" for 3 days. Then it rises, or is resurrected, on Dec 25th, the first day it's higher than the 21st.
.....
Jesus was executed, laid dead for 3 days and resurrected on the 3rd.

Sicne I'm an atheist, and don't believe Jesus actually existed, then accuracy in birthdates of mythilogical beings is in my opinion an exercise in mental masturbation. The point, through co-option or not, he replaced the other sun gods the pagans worshipped, when the Christians took over.

[muriel_volestrangler]

293. No, the winter solstice comes from the inclination of the earth's axis

and was noticed by loads of prehistoric cultures, not just the Babylonians who made up astrology.

You say "Virgo is in the sky on Dec 25th". Loads of constellations are in the sky on Dec 25th over the Middle East. Every single constellation in the zodiac, for a start (though some are there during the day; Virgo, however, doesn't have a special position in the sky then; it's not the constellation the sun is in then, nor is it the constellation opposite the sun).

'Virgo has a belt of 3 stars, which are called by astrologers "wise men"'. Really? Link, please. Or are you thinking of Orion?

'Jesus is represented by a fish symbol'. True, but that's because of a Greek acrostic, and didn't develop in the Bible, but a bit of time afterwards. Jesus is also heavivly represented as a lamb. And as a shepherd. And that's in the Bible. So you need to explain those with your astrology theroy - they're far more 'basic tenets' of Christianity than the fish thing.

'Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 fish. Pisces is two fish.' He also used 5 loaves. So where is the loaf explanation in astrology? Sometimes, a coincidence is just a coincidence. He turned water into wine. Where's the astrology in that? He sent a load of pigs into the Sea of Galilee to drown. Where's the astrology in that? Cherry-picking one bible story as if it proves something is no argument. If you want to point to one gospel story, you have to explain all the equivalent stories too.

'Dec 21st, the Sun is at it's lowest point on the horizon. It stays there, or "dead" for 3 days. Then it rises, or is resurrected, on Dec 25th, the first day it's higher than the 21st.'. This is just rubbish. The Sun doesn't 'stay' anywhere. It's at its lowest on Dec 21st (or sometimes Dec 22nd), but the declination will keep changing, all the time. Its path is a curve - there's no point at which it's flat, or suddenly starts rising. And the 'resurrection' of Jesus in the bible takes place on a Sunday morning, 2 days after the crucifixion ('first day' = the day he was killed, second day = the Saturday (Jewish Sabbath), 'third day' = Sunday). If they were making some point about a resurrection, they'd go from Dec 21st to Dec 23rd. Or they'd have written the bible story so that he was resurrected on the fifth day, if they'd fixed Dec 21st and Dec 25th in the religion you're claiming they took things from. Anyway, the Christmas story is about birth, while the Easter story is about resurrection - 2 different things.

[Touchdown]

333. You just pointed out the absurdity of astrology, and IMO Christianity for me.

I never said what I wrote was scientifically accurate, or precise. You must've gleaned that from my words. Much of that first post was from memory of reading about this a year ago. I didn't believe it then, and I still don't.

I think both are BS.

Jews like bread with their meals. There's your answer. It's just as plausible as talking snakes, virgins who have babies and a volume of water large enough to cover the 26000 ft of Mt Everest in 40 days... also Virgo carries stalks of wheat.

And you are right. 3 Kings is on Orion's Belt... the biblical kings followed Virgo and Sirius to find Bethleham. I got my constellations mixed up.

The point is, is that it is all bunk. I never meant to make sense, or be accurate. Ask an astrogolist if you want to interrogate them. I'm an atheist, and you proved my point of it's absurdity very well with what you wrote.:hi:

[Odin2005]

329. I've read that sungazing is a common beahvior in Schizophrenics.

[Blue Owl]

178. Interesting take...

A good deal of critical thinking is usually found in Roger Ebert's writings!

Miss his show, and Gene Siskel too (RIP)...

[liberal_at_heart]

183. I find it ironic

That those who say that religion redicules, persecutes, discriminates, and oppresses those who are non-religious practice the same redicluing, persecution, discrimination, and oppression that they accuse others of. Why is it okay for non religious people to redicule and discriminate if it is not okay for religious people to do it?

[Beetwasher]

185. Persecution? Discrimination? Oppression?

:rofl:

Where the fuck is this happening???

Ok, I'll give you "redicule" since I don't know what the fuck that is anyway.

Nothing wrong with a little ridicule though.

[liberal_at_heart]

189. Never mind this thread is useless and full of people who only

want to cause trouble and insult anyone who is different than they are. I will just put this thread on ignore and move on.

[Beetwasher]

192. Sorry You're Insulted Because We Question Your Cherished Beliefs

Don't post them on the internets if you don't want your beliefs critiqued.

[omega minimo]

197. There it is. The claim of "question...." "critique..." Oh Please. With the claims of being

"rational" it's all a bit much. What a farce. The entire premise of the article and OP was a mockery, to reinforce the prejudice here and rally the haters.

[Beetwasher]

199. Is That What Your Crystals Are Humming To You?

Poor poor you. Stuck defending nonsense and upset people call you on your bullshit.

[omega minimo]

205. Is that what you'd like to think?

:wow: :freak:

[Beetwasher]

209. Let Me Consult My Psychic And Get Back To You

n/t

[rd_kent]

301. Then prove Ebert WRONG! Give us something, FFS.

[omega minimo]

314. He is using the hokey Hollywood cliches to represent a wide range of what could be called "new age"

That's wrong.

Pretending that's all there is to it.

That's wrong.

Unquestioned acceptance of his premise, without any specifics beyond some blonde jokes...

That's wrong.

[rd_kent]

317. So what IS "new age" and why should it be taken seriously?

[omega minimo]

320. Good question.

Once we get past the stereotypes and prejudices, that would be an interesting discussion to have.

Suffice to say, it includes a whole range of things, not limited to the hokey or cliche, that might interest anyone who wants to explore cultures, history, science, consciousness, health, dreams, creativity, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.....

Too broad for a catchall or a pat answer or evidence-on-demand.

[rd_kent]

331. sweet jesus on a stck, minimo, you are a true piece of work.

In 18 responses to you, you have failed 18 times to provide anything of substance. What are you afraid of?

[omega minimo]

335. I'm afraid

that post is a falsehood.

[rd_kent]

341. You should go on Dancing with the Stars, because you sure know how to dance around a question.

I'm done with you, as you have no intent of having a meaningful discussion. Thank you for verifying that you are not one thats wants meaningfun discussion and are to be ignored.

Have a nice day.

[omega minimo]

346. When "a meaningful discussion" is possible

without the taunts and attacks and jibes (you've already told me "screw you") we may have it.

It would be foolish to think is the time or place, given the OP (a set up to taunt and ridicule "new agers"), the thread posts and the usual suspects.

[rd_kent]

352. You keep yourself open and ripe for ridicule because you FAIL to defend your position.

Yours is the same as proclaiming that the sky is green and when anyone says you are crazy, its blue, you say I know you are but what am I? Your a wingnut. Have a nice day.

[omega minimo]

353. What position?

I haven't failed to defend anything I've said in this thread.

I have failed to meet your expectations of what I should say to suit you. So "your a wingnut."

I have failed to offer a up a position that will be instantly chewed apart by pirhanas.

Too bad that bothers you.

[rd_kent]

354. "What position"? EXACTLY!

I haven't failed to defend anything I've said in this thread. yes, you have. every post is a dodge.


I have failed to offer a up a position that will be instantly chewed apart by piranhas. If any position you offer can be "chewed apart by piranhas" then you should rethink your position as it must be very, very weak.


If you think new age thinking has ANY merit and should be taken seriously, then explain why it has merit and should be taken seriously. Otherwise, it has no merit and will not be taken seriously, just like you.

[omega minimo]

356. EXACTLY

you haven't read all my posts.


I don't reply on demand, so you haven't gotten what you wanted. Your accusations are false.

[rd_kent]

364. The evidence is right there, for all of us to see, that you dodge every question

So, again, I bid you good day.

[darkstar3]

375. So where is the substance?

I certainly don't see it as a I read through this thread in its entirety for my first time. You have a LOT of anger toward other posters, and you're claiming that people are simply making a false argument by lumping all "hollywood" woo in with "New Age", but I haven't seen a single post from you so far that details a new age belief, whether hokey or otherwise.

How's about you have a coke and smile and STFU for a while, and when you've calmed down, come back and educate us?

[omega minimo]

196. Every. Single. Time.

:toast:

[comrade snarky]

204. Now that's persecution!

mocking = lions

Bless you in your martyrdom! I shall remember your halfhearted defense of your own words always!

[Name removed]

195. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

193. it's not.

[mitchum]

229. Fuck that...and the borrowed donkey you rode in on

[laughingliberal]

239. Step away from the donkey. He's done nothing to you nt

[darkstar3]

376. Ridicule is an American right.

As for persecution, discrimination, and oppression?
:spray:

[mitchum]

206. It's all horseshit...except for Lucifer worship, of course

[sendero]

208. The difference is.

.... that people who believe in astrology generally don't commit genocide against those who don't.

[LostInAnomie]

210. People who believe in Astrology and other New Age crap...

... aren't in the position to commit genocide. That doesn't mean that if they had enough followers they wouldn't.

[omega minimo]

211. Yes the ultimate goal of all that consciousness raising and healthy living is to commit genocide

:wow: :freak: :crazy:

[laughingliberal]

214. ROFL! Yes, I certainly had that in mind when I began to contemplate the connectness of all things nt

[omega minimo]

216. The Golden Rule -- Get the Muthas before they Get You!!

:crazy:

[laughingliberal]

231. That's the Golden Rule? Damn! I'm always the last to know...

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

233. Yeah there's a version in the language of every

anti-religion on the planet. Have you seen the poster?

[LostInAnomie]

215. Christians believe their ultimate goal is to bring peace and love for their fellow man to the world.

That doesn't mean they aren't capable of atrocities on a widespread level.

Power corrupts. People with unshakable and irrational beliefs tend to be corrupted most easily.

[laughingliberal]

218. Actually, there are elements of the Christian church which believe no such thing

Spending a little time within a fundamentalist,non-denominational, Christian church a few years back brought home the message quite clearly that they do NOT believe they must bring peace and love to their fellow man. Many of them believe they are only required to 'love' those who are fellow believers. I actually heard one teacher in a Bible study say, "Let's get this straight. God does not love everybody. He loves His children. He hates all those other people."

[LostInAnomie]

222. Fine. If you look into almost every religion you can find motives that seem benevolent...

... or innocuous. Their whole belief set is based on some form of revelation or claim to some kind of specific knowledge that they cannot possibly know or prove. New Age belief is no different and is no less likely to be twisted into something malicious once they gain numbers and power.

Some people on here find it impossible to believe that Astrologists might act in a prejudicial way against certain signs, or that people that believe in crap like "The Secret" aren't capable of using their beliefs to cause harm to others. It would be laughable if there weren't so many sincere believers here on DU.

[laughingliberal]

225. I pretty much hang my hat on that 1st amendment thingie

and don't give a tinker's damn what anyone else believes. I vote for candidates based on policies and stands with which I agree. Their religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, hairstyle, etc... is of no concern to me.

I have lived for what feels like a very long time. I have had periods of believing in certain spiritual things and periods of not believing in anything. Times I believed there was no God, times I believed there was, times I hoped there was and times I hoped there was not. None of it ever influenced my beliefs on public policy. People seek meaning in whatever ways they can. As long as they are not imposing those beliefs on me or limiting my freedom to choose mine, I have no quarrel with them.

[omega minimo]

219. In the New Age, Roger, the "unshakable and irrational belief" systems are the ones

addicted to only that idea of power.

That is not the only idea of power. The insistence that studies of consciousness are "irrational beliefs" is what is dangerous and fascistic, based on fear, susceptible to the corruption you speak of.

[LostInAnomie]

228. Those "studies of consciousness" perfectly fit the description of irrational belief.

Just like the Law of Attraction, and the belief that our birth sign plays any factor in our personality or actions. They are based on nothing but unfounded belief.

Feel free to explain how studies of consciousness merit respect though.

[omega minimo]

235. No one on the thread has been able to explain how all studies of consciousness are lumped together

in one big mass, as you have just done. How can you possibly make a statment like that, without specifying what you're talking about.

:shrug:


"Feel free to explain how studies of consciousness merit respect though."

Again, that kind of willful ignorance is just stunning and impossible to address.

[LostInAnomie]

238. Here's an idea. Why don't you explain exactly what you mean by "studies of consciousness"...

... and why we should respect them? My guess is you can't.

[omega minimo]

242. Obviously you already think you know, or you wouldn't have made that claim.

Good night, LIA. This is going nowhere fast. :hi:

[Confusious]

264. Opp, bomb out

Run away. No explanations forthcoming.

[omega minimo]

274. "Those "studies of consciousness" perfectly fit ...." is quite definitive, isn't it?

Buncha BS.

[LostInAnomie]

277. Yes, your studies of consciousness are a "buncha BS".

Don't forget, that was your original term. You cannot define them. You refuse to explain anything about them because you know they well be glaringly ridiculous. Is it any wonder that people mock New Age crap?

[omega minimo]

279. You act certain you know and then act mad because you don't know --- okay

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7143791&mesg_id=7149654

That's just fine except none of this shit reflects well on the "rational" thinking capacity claimed by the "woo" haters.

[LostInAnomie]

285. How many times are you going to dodge the question in this thread?

I think anything pushed by a guru, claims to put you in tune with the universe, claims to open your mind, claims to help you attain an undefinable level of consciousness, is based on the Laws of Attraction, Astrology, Homeopathy, magic crystals, magic dust, Earth energy, qi, chi, or any other untestable, unprovable, unfalsifiable concept is a load of shit.

You on the other hand are too afraid to say what you actually believe. You are content to dodge the question, attack rational thinking, and refuse to actually state any real defense of your woo fantasies. And, from the look at how the woos have been eviscerated in this thread, I think the rational thinkers are holding up pretty well.

[omega minimo]

303. Thank you for being more specific

I'm not afraid. After your helpful list, though, I'm more convinced that the "rational thinkers" attitudes are largely based on ignorance (including of history, cultures and the history of science) and their attacks are largely based on using catchall phrases, to put everything under the sun they don't approve of on the defensive, without being specific or even knowing what they're talking about.

The onus is on the haters. Attacking with the catchall "Woo" or lumping too much information/culture/history in with hokey, "new ager" cliches is BS. I don't answer to it or for it.

[BurtWorm]

305. I don't think it's just rationalists who are guilty of what you're talking about.

I mean guilty of throwing all these ideas into one untasty soup called New Age or woo. After all, even you who are defending it know exactly what sorts of ideas are being talked about.

[omega minimo]

309. No I don't. How could I?

First, it's rarely, if ever, specified.

Second, if anything specific is brought up in response to these sort of demands, it is ripped to shreds. The game here really is to prevent or subvert any discussion.

So, the convenience of having "woo" on the defensive, the onus on "evidence," without any specifics being discussed, perpetuates the notion in the detractors minds that we "all" know what we mean. Oh really? I wonder how many of them would agree on specifics.

I didn't get the memo. I don't depend on Randi or debunker's checklists for my opinions. IMHO the topic of what the detractors might consider "new ager" is too broad to make any assumptions about what people are thinking.

I questioned this article and Ebert pretending that some hokey Hollywood cliches are all there is to "new age."

[BurtWorm]

310. If you didn't get the memo, how do you know what they mean by 'woo?'

You must have some idea becuase you're working rather hard to defend it, whatever "it" is.

[omega minimo]

311. Nice try.

:crazy:

[BurtWorm]

312. It's a serious question, of course.

And it is enough to drive one crazy, I suppose.

[omega minimo]

313. No it's not, it's a reversal

A tactic. An avoidance of replying to my post.

[BurtWorm]

315. I replied to your post by agreeing that throwing all of this quantity x into this soup called woo

is problematic. I know what people mean by "woo," though, and you do as well. There's something in that quantity x, derisively called woo, that skeptics are moved to attack and you are moved to defend. For me (a skeptic) it's what I would call mushy magical thinking. What is it for you as, presumably, a non-skeptic?

[omega minimo]

316. I am "moved to defend" the right to open discussion without the "mushy magical thinking"

of those who irrationally use cliches, catchphrases and fundamentalist talking points to attack and shout down other DUers.

"Woo" is nothing to me, but a slur. It is meaningless and intentionally insulting.

[BurtWorm]

322. 'Insulting' implies you take it personally. Why would you take it personally?

I'm just guessing that something you believe in has previously been called "woo." Something that you practice or follow or have some affection for.

I could try to open my own mind a bit by changing my definitions. I don't use the term 'woo' by the way. But I do know what people mean by it, as I said. But instead of calling it "mushy magical thinking," I could refer to it instead as a compendium of non-theological beliefs (or extra-, para- or epi- -theological beliefs--in other words, beliefs that don't appeal to god, gods or the holy) in supernatural or otherworldly explanations for naturally observed phenomena. In other words, someone with New Age beliefs is someone who believes in things like qi and astrology, which are not accepted by those with a strictly natural view of the universe (or with a strictly theological view, necessarily).

Is that more or less what you're talking about?

[omega minimo]

339. These are "naturally observed phenomena."

[BurtWorm]

344. Misinterpreted "naturally observed phenomena."

[omega minimo]

348. Misinterpreted how?

[BurtWorm]

350. Astrology, for example.

The natural phenomena observed are the same astronomy is concerned with: the movements of stars and planets in the heavens. Astrology, however, is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of those movements--which are actually only apparent movements relative to the position of the earth. Astrology is based on the false premise that the stars' movement has an impact on events on this planet. In fact, while the stars are moving, they're not doing so in quite the way astrologists originally thought they were. They're not actually on a single plane, roughly the same distance from the earth as any other star or planet, but are all billions of billions of miles apart. The most sophisticated astrologists of today no doubt argue that those stars' absolute positions relative to earth are immaterial to the fundamental truth that their positions have an influence on what happens on earth, but the whole craft they practice is firmly rooted in that original mistake. When Copernicus opened the door on the best interpretation of the natural celestial phenomenona, he simultaneously yanked the rug out from under astrology.

[omega minimo]

355. From what I've seen here

In general, the argument on DU against astrology is very limited to a mechanistic view. AFAIK, the variety of astrologers or adherents don't believe "that their positions have an influence on what happens on earth" in a mechanistic or direct sense, that your argument (regarding the depth of field and its implications, for one thing) seems hinged on.

With me so far? Did that make sense?

"Astrology, however, is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of those movements--which are actually only apparent movements relative to the position of the earth. Astrology is based on the false premise that the stars' movement has an impact on events on this planet."

If people here think that that is what astrology is about, maybe think again. This idea appears in various threads and suggests not only that some people think others see the universe in a mechanistic way --- but that that's how they see it. This is a surprise, given what science over the past 100 or so years has shown about the nature of the universe.

There was an excellent post here this year, by someone whose name I can't recall, about his views on -- and use of -- astrology as an aspect of psychology. It was too good for me to try to paraphrase.

Astronomy is based on astrology, from the time that they were the same science, one grounded in and emerging from the other. There's no shame IMHO in sharing those roots; in considering the ways that humans studied their planet and skies way back when. When we're standing on their shoulders, it might be a good idea not to "yank the rug out."

"... but the whole craft they practice is firmly rooted in that original mistake." Says who?

If astrology were completely mechanistic and limited to an inside-the-sky-dome system, you might be right. Like a lot of what people lump together as "new age," there's more to it than that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

366. If astrology is no longer 'mechanistic', why does it retain an obsession with angles?

Retograde motion is the angular movement of a planet against the (effectively fixed) stars. Why do astrologers, and people interested in astrology, go on about it so much, and concern themselves with its dates? I'll tell you: because they're still obsessed with the mechanistic aspect of astrology.

And the entire basis of astrology is still mechanistic. It's all about the angles the lines of sight to planets and stars form with each other, the horizon, and other points, at certain times. Take that away, and astrology doesn't have anything left to talk about.

[omega minimo]

369. "No longer"?

AFAIK. astrplogy never had the truncated, literally limited point of view, that reductionists apparently insist it has.

"Take that away, and" detractors "have anything left to talk about."

As I said, there's more to it than that.

How could the multicultural, current/ancient science of studying our place in the universe be considered so one-dimensional and flat? That's just silly.

[BurtWorm]

367. "astrology as an aspect of psychology"

You mean what concerns astrologists most is the similarity of personalities born around the same time of year, whether or not this alleged similarity is due to the positions of stars relative to where each person born under a certain sign is at the time of his or her birth? So all this star talk about signs and houses and star charts is irrelevant to the real "work" of astrology?

[omega minimo]

368. "It was too good for me to try to paraphrase"

"There was an excellent post here this year, by someone whose name I can't recall, about his views on -- and use of -- astrology as an aspect of psychology. It was too good for me to try to paraphrase."

I didn't attempt to paraphrase him. You are tyring to paraphrase me, somthing I didn't say at all.

This is not going to work. The detractors are ready to smack anything down, it doesn't matter what it is -- so convinced of their superiority and dominance in the field of ideas. They will control it by any means necessary. Even use the same tactics, tendencies and thought processes, that they criticize in others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

370. It doesn't sound 'excellent' to me, at all

It sounds like the person either didn't understand what astrology is about, or was trying to pretend it wasn't connected with the position of planets. But astrology is about the movements of planets through designated sections of the sky, as seen from certain positions on Earth.

Of course, if you could find it, we could decide ourselves whether it's 'excellent'. But your description of it sounds like the person made a desperate attempt to hide from from the foolishness at the heart of astrology.

If you are saying that astrologers never talking about charts, planets, 'houses', oppositions, aspects and so on, then you appear to have misread the word 'astrology' for something completely different, all this time.

Why don't you try to describe in your own words what you think astrology is? Do you think, for instance, that it involves stars, as the name states?

[BurtWorm]

371. I was hoping to jog your memory about what made that analysis so good.

You apparently got out of it at least that it was more "an aspect of psychology" than mechanistic determinism. What could that mean besides something to do with personality?

[Confusious]

263. Power is only a means

It starts with "my beliefs are the right way to live" to "others should live as I do" to "I will make you live as I do" to "If you don't want to live as I do, then you won't live." Anyone is capable, even New Agers and to deny that is to live in a world where it may happen again.

[omega minimo]

268. No

To PROJECT "that is to live in a world where it may happen again."

[Confusious]

262. With some of the attitudes around here

Of some of those people who have "consciousness raising and healthy living" superior lifestyles, and try to make everyone else like them, Yea I could see that ( genocide )

[RagAss]

212. Read and Learn !

http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/nonsense.html

[DavidDvorkin]

213. Is a translation of that into English available somewhere?

[RagAss]

244. LOL....you'll get used to him....keep reading.

[MilesColtrane]

223. Aaaand, another promising thread with a good OP turns into a fecal fling fest.

Where's the banhammer when you really need it?

[RagAss]

245. LOL...Fecal Madness on DU ....what a surprise.

[donco6]

230. He needs to get out more.

I never hear that crap in any of the circles I move in. And I travel a lot.

[MilesColtrane]

270. Well, he is a friend of Oprah.

I'm sure that accounts for some of what he's talking about.

[G_j]

247. Fun reading.. but he's off

in that creationists are part of a belief system that wants to convert you, and save you from going to hell. Most are perfectly
comfortable to decide that you are damned, and in league with Satan.

I doubt if he is attending dinner parties with those people.

[johnnie]

252. Funny

Many of the New age beliefs have been around long before Christ.

[KG]

254. so he doesn't dig new-age-ism stuff. yada. but the comparison to the creationists is bogus.

last time i checked, new agers weren't trying to get their beliefs taught in public schools.

[Confusious]

265. Not really

He's not talking about what they do, he's equating belief systems

Nonsense = Nonsense.

[rd_kent]

332. Not yet, anyway.

The point is, why should ANY unprovable belief system be taught in public schools?

[petronius]

267. This thread has made me a believer! In what, I'm not quite sure - but I was a bit

down all day and this was the perfect pick-me-up. Obviously, some power wants me to be happy... :rofl:

[onager]

278. I know what you mean. Years ago, in a tragic Zeppelin accident...

...I lost my asshole. But in this thread I've found several possible replacements.

Being a card-carrying skeptic and Fundamentalist Atheist, I mostly agree with Ebert.

Having just spent several years in Egypt, though, I really wish we could lasso one of those Cleopatra reincarnations. According to ancient historians, the real Cleopatra VII was the only member of her family (the Ptolemies) to learn the ancient Egyptian language. That would be a major breakthrough in the study of history.

Of course, most woo claims would be major breakthroughs in physics, science, medicine, etc. etc. if they only worked. But they don't.

[comrade snarky]

291. Cleopatra gets a bum rap

Depending on who you listen to she spoke 6 or 7 languages, studied medicine, philosophy, art and literature. According to Plutarch she was irresistible because of her skills in conversation and diplomacy. She navigated a precarious trail through the years that began the Roman Empire consolidating her power and influence.

Just surviving childhood as one of Ptolemy’s many many children was an achievement. They tended to die in odd circumstances, with a brother or sister smiling quietly nearby.

And what do we remember her for today? She was pretty.

[onager]

336. Ptolemies reloaded - weak men, strong women...

Thanks for the comments, especially: "...with a brother or sister smiling quietly nearby."

:rofl:

Or just about any other relative. The Ptolemies were blessed (or cursed) with a long line of amazing, aggressive women. Just to confuse us, they all seem to have been named Arsinoe, Berenike or Cleopatra.

e.g., Arsinoe Alpha was the original wife of Ptolemy II. She was killed by his sister, Arsinoe Beta (and that second-place nomenclature must have annoyed the crap out of her). Arsinoe Beta then married her brother, giving him his personal nickname, Ptolemy II Philadelphus - "sister-lover."

And thanks for the bust. I loved living in Alexandria. The Graeco-Roman Museum there has a beautiful statue of Cleopatra dressed as the goddess Isis for an Egyptian religious ritual. She is wearing an enigmatic Sphinx-like smile that seems to say: "I know this is complete bullshit, but it helps me keep the damn country together."

Final Rant - I love to read the Fifteenth Idyll of Theocritus, written in Alexandria circa 250 BCE. It always makes me think: These people were just like us!.

It's a humdrum story about two upper-middle-class Greek women, Gorgo and Praxinoe, going out to the Festival of Adonis with their maid. The crowds are so thick they get lost and annoyed. A horse tramples on the maid's foot.

And these women don't take any crap. This passage is an epic STFU...

A STRANGER.---You weariful women, do cease your endless cooing talk! They bore one to death with their eternal broad vowels!

GORGO.---Indeed! And where may this person come from? What is it to you if we are chatterboxes! Give orders to your own servants, sir.

Do you pretend to command ladies of Syracuse? If you must know, we are Corinthians by descent, like Bellerophon himself, and we speak Peloponnesian. Dorian women may lawfully speak Doric, I presume?

[ZombieHorde]

294. I think creationism is like flat Earth beliefs, while New Age is like believing in heaven or

demons. One denies current science, while the other is silly.

[Jim__]

304. What comes after postmodernism?

Maybe a better question is: where did postmodernism come from? I think it comes from the isolationism and emptiness of modern life. Nietzsche, a forerunner of postmodernism, touched on this when he talked about Dionysius, the god of wine, ritual madness, and ecstasy, versus Apollo, in Nietzsche's eyes the god of disembodied reason. Since Descartes, we have separated the body and mind (reason), and in modernity, we have emphasized the importance of reason. In modern industrial life, family life, culture, bodily pleasures are devalued. In today's corporate culture, people are treated as assets available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Is New Age an answer to this? I don't know much about New Age, but my understanding is that it is about individual and spiritual values. It recognizes the whole person. That could be a reaction to the deadening boredom of modernity.

Is there a better answer than New Age out there? People may be accepting New Age concepts because they're a thousand times better than other available modern concepts; and it's the most prominent alternative to modernity.

[salvorhardin]

330. "In modern industrial life, family life, culture, bodily pleasures are devalued."

Is that really true? Let's take a look at each one.

Is family life devalued? A bit of a mixed message here I think. Politicians, religion, and even popular culture (just look at movies and TV) seem to place a very high value on family life. On the other hand, current economic realities seem to make that idealized family life incredibly hard to achieve.

Is culture devalued? I think you have to ask, "Which culture?" Traditional, Judeo-Christian, white, culture? Hell yeah, that's being challenged on a number of fronts and for good measure. An influx of Asian and Hispanic immigrants has also further weakened our cultural hegemony. Yet in its place, I see a newer, more dynamic heterodox culture springing up that's by and large color blind and celebrates the good in all contributing cultures.

Is bodily pleasure devalued? You wouldn't know it by looking at popular culture. One of the things religious conservatives repeatedly scream about is the hyper-sexualization of popular culture. Furthermore, everywhere you turn you see ads for nonpharmaceutical drugs everywhere (alcohol, tobacco). It's true that cannabis and other ways of getting "high" are still demonized but even here we seem to be seeing a cultural shift, at least on cannabis. And look at the success of various food entertainment media (Food Network, magazines, websites) and chain themed restaurants (Cheesecake Factory, Olive Garden, etc.). Also, advertising on everything from food to beauty products to pharmaceutical drugs seems to emphasize bodily pleasure, or at least bodily comfort. I don't know. I think this one's a complete non-starter.

[Jim__]

340. Yes, your answer confirms what I am saying.

Certainly some politicians preach "family values." But is a slogan. Its success as a slogan shows how much people relate to the idea. But the very same politicians who preach family values vote against things like family leave laws, labor laws that protect a person's right to have some family time. They vote against universal health care because they are paid by corporations to oppose it. The verbal homage paid to "family values" shows how much people are longing for them. The lack of any real action taken in support of these values, shows that they are actually devalued.

No, you are not speaking of the same cultural values that I am. Multiculturalism degenerates into a fight over language and dress, aspects of culture, but aspects of culture that are always present and the fight is over their manifestation. The values I am talking about are more in terms of art, literature, music. One reflection of the decline in these values is the number of people who major in these areas in college. While the number was always somewhat low, it has been halved in the last 30 years or so; while the number of business majors has nearly doubled. People don't study these subjects because they are not valued in our society. Traditional values are sacrificed to the demands of corporate values.

Hyper sexualization is more of a sign of the decline of the value of bodily pleasure. Make-up, lingerie, and bulimic bodies are not reflections of a high value being placed on bodily pleasure. Think of a Rubens beauty as compared to the female form that is considered beautiful today. Restaurants deliberately designed to rush people through their meals are not signs of a value attached to bodily pleasure. I am talking about the fight between Dionysian pleasure, earthiness, vs Apollonian pleasure, mental pleasure. The pleasures that can be attained through physical exertion - yes we have sports, but for 99% of the population, they are spectator sports; we have exercise, but its usually rushed through in the sterile environment of an indoor gym; rather than, say, a hike in the mountains.

Again, postmodernism and, I believe, New Age are a reflection of people rejecting the sterility of life today and searching for a life with more meaning.

[uberllama42]

325. It doesn't feel good to be accused of being a fundie, does it?

Look at how some of the New-Age-believing posters in this thread have reacted to Ebert's description. I guess they know how we skeptics feel when a request for evidence is answered with an accusation of fundamentalism.

[omega minimo]

338. how does he get away with this?

'And if a candidate counts among close friends and advisors anyone in communication with the spirit world, that candidate should not be elected President."


Rilly? Like even the conventional and Christian leaders of this nation who "counts among close friends and advisors anyone in communication with the spirit world"

[rd_kent]

342. I think thats the point.

[omega minimo]

349. Not all conventional religious or Christians are "creationists" or "fundies"

So what is the comparison here? Only certain people with connections to the spirit world should be president while others should not?

[rd_kent]

351. No, I think he is trying to point out the absurdity of ANY beleif system that cannot prove its claim

Whether its christianity, wiccan, new age, etc.

[omega minimo]

357. the reference was to who may or may not serve as President.

[rd_kent]

358. zzz. dance, dance, dance....

[omega minimo]

359. excuse me?

that was an attempt to draw you back to the topic.

You have no shown your true colors. Thank you.

[darkstar3]

377. Anybody talking to God on a two-way radio

needs to be sent to the nearest asylum post-haste, and that includes people who are high up in presidential cabinets, houses of congress, and even state leaders.

If an invisible man is talking to you, I don't think you should be allowed to lead people.

To clarify: I have no problem with Christians who pray leading this country, as praying is their First Amendment right and they're not doing me any particular disservice. It's the ones that think God LITERALLY answers them back that scare the ever-living-fuck out of me.

[omega minimo]

363. okay for some and not others

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x27721

[Deep13]

378. LOL. Damn straight!. nt