MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 month ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 4 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
Hits of the Day
Wild theories and empty seats at CPAC-style conference for the MAGA set
By artappraiser on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 1:03am |Talk of QAnon, George Soros and ‘retarded’ reporters at the American Priority Conference.
By Ben Schreckinger @ Politico.com, Dec. 7
conference in Washington on Thursday.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
At the first-ever Conservative Political Action Conference in 1974, California Gov. Ronald Reagan addressed a ragtag group of conservative insurgents by quoting John Stuart Mill and nobly declaring, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”
At the first-ever American Priority Conference on Friday morning, Anthony Scaramucci — who served a brief stint as the Trump White House’s communications director — addressed a married couple from Virginia, telling them that the author of the fantastical Internet conspiracy theory QAnon has “been dead accurate about so many things,” adding: “When you find out who he is, you’re not going to believe it.”
American Priority, which brings together an impressive roster of right-wing social media agitators and Trump world notables at a Washington, D.C., hotel, was envisioned as a Trumpist answer to CPAC. In reality, the three-day conference, which convened on Thursday, has been rife with conspiracy theorists, logistical snafus and empty seats.
It may also be the future of Republican politics [....]
URL:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/07/american-priority-conference-trump-1052214
- Add new comment
- 6231 reads
Comments
Takes a good religious cultist to see this, and he is one and he's right:
Political Cults Are America’s New Religions
They are filling the empty space in our lives left by the decline of organized faiths.
BY ANDREW SULLIVAN @ NYMag.com, Dec. 7
by artappraiser on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 1:48am
I really hate when people define religion so broadly that almost anything can be called a religion. There are human behaviors that can be found in any area of thought or practice including religions. That doesn't make all those pursuits religions. It's fine if one is using the word religion as a metaphor but that's not really how Sullivan seems to be using it.
I disagree and have problems with every paragraph in the article. Too many for me to have time to address them all. He profoundly misunderstands or mis-states atheism. It's not a faith or a belief. It's nothing more than a state of finding no convincing evidence of the existence of god. He misunderstands the practice of yoga separate from the religious context or it's philosophy. Meditation or mindfulness can be nothing more than exercises to strengthen and school the thinking processes just as hatha yoga can be nothing more than exercises to strengthen the body. He seems to ascribe to Christianity what I see as the result of secularism limiting the power and expression of it. When he claims, "Christianity is the only monotheism that seeks no sway over Caesar" he's ignoring the long history of the Papacy which did seek and often succeeded to have sway over "Caesar." And the secular forces that brought about the separation of church and state.
There have been cultish figures in the political realm long before the decline of organized faiths. At least a significant minority of people seem to seek out charismatic leaders in religion, the political world, even at times in the corporate world. That people tend to follow charismatic individuals doesn't make any group of followers religions.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 3:16am
He profoundly misunderstands or mis-states atheism. It's not a faith or a belief. It's nothing more than a state of finding no convincing evidence of the existence of god.
I define atheism differently [I think correctly] than merely understanding that there is no convincing evidence of god. [Here I switch from the idea of convincing evidence to that of positive or objective evidence.] That lack of evidence in that direction is the furthest in one direction of one of the two ends on the spectrum of belief that is properly called agnosticism. Agnosticism does not go further because it recognizes that god cannot be objectively disproved by evidence either. That is the other end of the spectrum of agnosticism. To go beyond these two end points in either direction we must do so relying on faith. Atheism is a positive belief that there is no god, it is not neutral on the subject. Ultimately that belief can only be founded on faith, just like a believers faith, since the existence of god cannot be proven one way or the other.
Very broadly speaking, to make the point, beliefs based on faith are religious beliefs. I am an agnostic who would bet the house and give long odds that the atheists are right.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 10:48am
Religion is basically the belief in one or more human-like puppetmasters with some kind of superpowers pulling all the strings of existence. It's pretty hard to not notice we have no apparent competent entity in such matters - atrocities easily outnumber blessings or positive events by 100x, and occasionally we get some huckster who can pull a flower out of his palm. What, God went mute for 1400 or 2000 or 2600 years? Not very sporting of him/her.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 12:13pm
Science and rational thought does not require one to remain agnostic on all subjects. It's sufficient to say there is no evidence to back up the claim. There is no evidence that flying horses exist despite the many references to them in numerous books. Logic doesn't require me to remain agnostic as to their existence simply because it has never been proven they don't exist. When science put forth an explanation for the movement of the planets it never disproved the theory that the invisible hand of god was pushing them around. Science doesn't demand I continue to entertain the supposition until it is disproven. In fact there was never a reason to entertain the supposition that planets moved because god was pushing them. Not knowing how something happens does not require us to remain agnostic when confronted with a theory which has no evidence to support it. Every scientific explanation for the world had prescientific explanations that were not disproven and many are so fantastical they can never be disproven. Science typically rejects numerous theories about everything with little consideration simply because there is no evidence to support them. You know this and you act upon it in your daily life and in your intellectual pursuits. You accept science and rational thought to explain the world to the limits of your intelligence and education and reject the theories that have no evidence to support them but yet have not been disproven. You are not agnostic about the vast majority of the conclusions of science despite the many competing theories that haven't been disproven.. Yet for some reason you proclaim agnosticism as to the existence of a superhuman being without any evidence of it's existence.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 12:55pm
Well, I did see a documentary on Santa, and every year Rudoph's on TV pulling that sleigh - what other proof do you need?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 12:57pm
It's sufficient to say that it has never been proven that Santa doesn't exist therefore I must remain agnostic on the question.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 1:34pm
Good to know you're open & scientific. Not everyone's so methodical.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 1:56pm
I think you must reach conclusions to a level of certainty much easier than I do. Regardless, the examples of unbelievable things which have not been disproven are most often covered by the fact that we have provable answers [that in most cases we believe on faith in, for instance, the relevant science] that negate those ideas.
Yet for some reason you proclaim agnosticism as to the existence of a superhuman being without any evidence of it's existence.
That is half right. I think you probably misstated what you intended to say. I am not agnostic despite no evidence of his existence, I am agnostic because there is no evidence that can prove his existence or disprove it. The belief in the existence of god without any evidence cannot be proven and so requires faith but the non-existence of god, atheism, cannot be proven either so holding that belief is also a matter of faith even if it is also what common sense would lead a person to believe is probably true.
Theism, atheism, and agnosticism all mean different things.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 2:04pm
Long before science had an explanation for the movement of the planets people of rational thought rejected the notion that the invisible hand of god pushed them around. There was no provable answer to replace it yet they rejected it any way. They rejected the notion because there was no evidence of an invisible hand. You seem to think the foundation of science and rational thought is neutrality. It is not. You seem to think science and rational thought considers all hypothesis viable until proven false. They are not. The foundation of science and rational thought is evidence. When a question is asked science looks at the competing hypothesis and looks for evidence. It rejects those with no evidence to support them. It does not remain neutral. It doesn't expend the effort to prove all hypothesis that have no evidence false. It simply rejects them. It doesn't reject them out of faith. It rejects them because there is no evidence to entertain them.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 3:15pm
Occam's Razor chooses the most likely, least difficult to explain, while completely rejecting the absurd.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 3:34pm
We are apparently talking past each other. I am trying not to talk past you.
No, I do not believe that and have not said that. I believe that it is a very viable hypothesis that god does not exist. I also think that just like the existence of god cannot be proven his non-existence cannot be proven either.
One more time. Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are terms that are in reference to the belief in god. They each have their distinct meaning. We are not talking about whether the earth is flat or spherical or any other subject to which we can conceivabley gather definitive evidense. Theism believes without any proof that there exists a god or gods. Atheism believes with an exact same amount of proof, zero, that there is no such thing as god. Both of these positions ultimately depend on faith rather than fact or evidence. They cannot both be true. They cannot both be false. One is true. We cannot know which is which but only believe what we believe, and to believe without proof is to believe based on faith. The belief that we cannot know which is which is called agnosticism. An agnostic can have a strong feeling as to which is true. I would guess that almost all agnostics are quite sceptical of theism but there is a reason that there is a word for agnosticism, it describes a philisophical position which is neither theism or atheism.
Maybe it would clear up our different views if you would define agnosticism as you understand it.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 4:07pm
"I also think that just like the existence of god cannot be proven his non-existence cannot be proven either." - and the non-existence of pink rabbits piloting spaceships in the far reaches of the galaxy cannot be proven either. Should we give equal time to bunny theology? Should we hold it up as a still equally valid undecided question of the universe to eternally ponder while we look up at the stars? Atheism means getting off the pot of "I can't make up my mind" relativism. Sure, there might be some metaphysical unknowns at work in the universe that are worth contemplating and trying to explain, but we should be pretty able to crap on the idea of a beneficient but jealous man-behind-the-curtain Wizard of Oz type controlling the minutest elements of existence. But hey, some people think Star Trek is realistic as well.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 4:27pm
Can we agree that the words “atheist” and “theist” refer to the disbelief or belief in a “god” and are not concerned with wabbits anywhere of any color. I am not proselytizing for the acceptance of the position defined by any of the three words being discussed. I am talking about the meanings of those three words. We all agree what theist and atheist mean. In the hope of better understanding of each other, maybe even of nuanced differences of opinion, I hope OK gives his definition of agnostic and I extend my request to you too; How do you define agnostic and the difference between the meaning of that word and the meanings of the other two?
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 5:07pm
I don't see how it helps to state that agnosticism means the belief that the nature and existence of god is not known or knowable. A complete and total lack of evidence is sufficient evidence in science and rational thought to reject a hypothesis. You can claim that a complete and total lack of evidence for the existence of flying horses isn't enough for you to know whether or not they exist. But that agnosticism about the existence of flying horses is not supported by science or rational thought. I can state that the complete and total lack of evidence of the existence of flying horses convinces me they do not exist. That isn't a faith based belief. It's a rational conclusion that rational people will come to based on a complete and total lack of evidence and fully supported by the scientific method and rational thought. Agnosticism is not required in the face of a total lack of evidence.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 5:36pm
You believe that a hypothesis must be proven false to be rejected and if it is rejected simply because of a lack of evidence that is a faith based decision. I don't subscribe to that belief nor is that how science works. A hypothesis does not need to be proven false to be rejected. Many hypothesis are rejected due to a lack of evidence to support them. I don't care whether you refuse to reject the hypothesis that god exists because it can not be disproved. I care that you claim that science must disprove a hypothesis before it can be rejected and if it does so that rejection is a faith based belief. That is a gross misunderstanding of the practice of science, logic, and rational thought. Once again, many hypothesis are rejected due to lack of evidence. Science rejects the hypothesis that god exists because there is no evidence of it's existence. Lack of evidence is enough to reject a hypothesis. It is not a faith based decision.
There is no evidence that flying horses exist but there is also no evidence that proves they don't exist. Flying horses could only be in unexplored areas of the Amazon. Or they could fly so high they are in heaven. They could be invisible. They could have unexplained properties that make them undetectable to scientific instruments. The non existence of flying horses can not be proved. That doesn't mean science must be agnostic about their existence nor does it mean that coming to a rational conclusion that flying horses do not exist is a faith based belief. A complete and total lack of evidence is enough to come to a rational conclusion that flying horses do not exist.
A complete and total lack of evidence that gremlins exist is enough to conclude they do not exist despite the movie. One does not need to prove they don't exist to come to that conclusion. It's not a faith based belief. It's a rational conclusion based on the total lack of evidence.
The complete and total lack of evidence of the existence of a jabberwocky is enough to conclude they don't exist despite the Lewis Carroll poem. One does not need to prove they don't exist. It's not a faith based belief. It's a rational conclusion based on the total lack of evidence.
A complete and total lack of evidence of an invisible hand of god pushing planets around is enough to conclude an invisible hand doesn't exist despite the claim of many Christian theologians. One doesn't need to prove there is no invisible hand. It's not a faith based decision. It's a rational conclusion based on the total lack of evidence.
You can claim to be the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson. Science is not obligated to be agnostic about your claim. A complete and total lack of evidence is enough to reject that claim. It's not a faith based decision to state that you are not the reincarnation of Jefferson. Science does not need to disprove what is essentially not disprovable. It's a rational conclusion based on a total lack of evidence.
Believe what you like but do not claim that a total lack of evidence is insufficient to come to a rational conclusion. In science and rational thought it is incumbent on the person proposing the hypothesis to offer evidence to support their flights of fancy. Agnosticism is not required. A complete and total lack of evidence to support a hypothesis is enough to reject it.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 5:20pm
I would put reincarnation in a different category since we can theorize mechanisms by which it exists, and tests to try to prove it, and unlike flying horses we could potentially see a reincarnate without recognizing it as such. That doesn't mean its likely or not - just a differnt category of knowability.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 5:49pm
I agree about the different categories of what can be known, just like religious beliefs and science, but I would like to hear a theory about how reincarnation could exist that did not require a mystical, therefore unprovable, belief.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 7:48pm
Consciousness or "life" could be a unit of electromagnetic or gravitational or other type of energy. (we finally measured gravitational waves the last 2 years, despite having theorized about them for some time).
While we could propose that energy floating around, we could also posit a mother having certain packet of energy that she automatically shares with her embryo. To do this she might combine her own energy with available free-floating energy as a type of energy seed-and-egg duo. The successful linking of internal and external energy might be the point of new embryo's life the way fertilization marks physical conception. At death this energy can be released to float elsewhere, maintaining free-floating E-M memory and cognition until attracted by another new developing embryo. This could be species neutral, or have an energy genetic signature that fuses the same type of energy/control pattern system as befits that species or genus or higher order.
I made this up in 5 minutes, but I can think of ways to test in nature, simulate in a lab, etc. - imperfectly od course, but not randomly or unknowably. We might posit what a free-floating energy gamete would physically entail, and try to detect these. We could try to measure energy changes in the embryo, say during lab cloning. We could try to define the supposed mechanism of signapping (a typo that could mean signalling + kidnapping) and attraction of a compatible energy system for bonding. We know more about complex electromagnetic fields for plants now that involves signalling that somehow attracts insects, so this idea isn't completely whacko, but that doesn't mean it's valid or likely or true.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/09/2018 - 1:21am
This fellow
He had good reason to delve into this.
I mean, he went poof 4 years after he wrote it.
The quantum theory of reincarnation
by Roger Ebert
July 25, 2009
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 12/09/2018 - 3:42am
As they say, String Theory is a field unburdened by ever having to have made a prediction, much less a right one.
I thought my little bit of gibberish was simpler - Occam would approve - it didn't require new fields of physics nor invented deities, and could be understood by anyone who's used a magnet.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/09/2018 - 4:00am
A complete and total lack of evidence is sufficient evidence in science and rational thought to reject a hypothesis.
You continue to offer irrelevant examples from the material world such as your comments about flying horses and other examples that have nothing to do with religious belief. Again; theism and atheism refer to a belief in god, positive or negative. They refer to a different realm from worldly phenomena which is the realm of science and the truth of god one way or another cannot be studied scientifically. Therefore comparisons to scientific conclusions or even obvious beliefs based on known science about material things are totally meaningless as to whether the deists or the atheists are correct. Science cannot answer that question. Therefore, if either a belief in god or a denial of his existence depends on evidentiary proof the question will never be answered definitively by science. If a person believes something that cannot be proven that person has taken a leap of faith.
A complete and total lack of evidence is sufficient evidence in science and rational thought to reject a hypothesis.
A theist believes in god and correctly says that you cannot prove that god does not exist. An atheist says that god does not exist and you cannot prove that he does. They are both right as to proof based on science. An agnostic says that because neither can be proved that the belief in either is based on faith. I said way earlier that I would bet the atheists are right but that I cannot prove it and neither can science. Science has no authoritative voice one way or the other as to the existence of god. Science is not legitimately in the discussion of religion or mystical beliefs. Belief in the supernatural cannot be verified OR disproved by science.
This sort of discussion requires an attempt at precise language to convey meaning and insure that what is intended to be said is what is heard. That is why I asked both you and PP to give your definition of “agnostic” since you reject mine. So far neither has done so. Talk of flying horses is a deflection.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 7:43pm
You claim my examples are irrelevant but do not offer evidence as to why. The hypothesis that flying horses exists is exactly the same as the hypothesis that god exists. Your error is that you think the belief that god exists without any evidence is the same as the belief that god does not exist because there is no evidence. The former is irrational and faith based the latter is rational and evidence based. These are the type of distinctions science makes all the time. Making these determinations is what science does. There are innumerable hypothesis that can not disproved. Science does not remain agnostic about them. In science a complete lack of evidence of existence is considered evidentiary proof of non existence. You accept that lack of evidence as proof of the non existence of flying horses, the invisible hand of god pushing planets, the non existence of gremlins etc. but not as evidence of the existence of god. You are simply wrong. You misunderstand logic and the accepted rules of evidence in scientific inquiry.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 8:34pm
Agnosticism is a very commonly used term nowadays by laymen and philosophers alike. I have had the intellectual honesty in this debate to define my terms and respond on point to your [religious?] reliance on science to answer a question completely out of the realm of science. Go back to my first comment. Why won't you give your definition of agnosticism and why you think my understanding of agnosticism cannot be justified since that is central to our different stands? I may be wrong but I am not "simply" wrong. Knowing that I might be wrong in denying the existence of god even though I am highly confident that the atheists are correct, as I said clearly a long time ago, is why I correctly call myself an agnostic. There is no need for another misplaced horse story.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 9:21pm
This is the second time you've accused me of not giving you "my" definition of agnostic after I gave you "my" definition of agnostic. Reread the thread and pay more attention. "My" definition of agnostic is the same as the dictionary definition of agnostic. I don't create personal definitions of words. I use the dictionary definition of words. I like language and the subtle differences of synonyms and am very careful in my word choices. I will on occasion discuss the connotation of words but when I do that I clearly state that.
I don't give a fuck what ever your personal definition of a word might be. Since there are dictionaries your personal definition is irrelevant and having them a sign of ignorance. One of the first things science has done in every field of inquiry was to create a vocabulary for that field with clear definitions of words. For example while the question, Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable may be a puzzle to someone without a knowledge of botany it has a very easy very clear scientific answer. At it's root the question is, Are you ignorant or knowledgeable of Botanical Science.
There are accepted rules of evidence in scientific inquiry. You are clearly ignorant of that protocol. In science as in any rational inquiry and even the legal system one does not need to prove every hypothesis wrong to reject it. In scientific inquiry one can simply show there is no evidence to support a hypothesis to dismiss someone's wild flights of fancy. This seems obvious to me and to anyone else working in the fields of science. That you don't know this merely illustrates your ignorance of the scientific method and rational thought and analysis.
There are no questions outside the purview of rational analysis and therefore science. Some questions are complex and difficult to answer, others simple and easy. If not for the pernicious influence of religion the question, Does god exist? is easily answered. There is no evidence for the existence of god therefore god does not exist. A complete and total lack of evidence is sufficient in science to dismiss any hypothesis. We can re-evaluate that answer if some evidence is produced.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 11:15pm
I looked for the instance you claim where you gave either your or the dictionary’s definition of agnosticism. I couldn’t find it. How about you copy from the thread and paste it in your next reply, shouldn't’t take but a minute .
According to Niel deGgrasse Tyson the central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing. Because of this both are incompatible as currently practiced and the debate of compatibility or incompatibility will be eternal. Tyson is just one person but he is a respected scientist among many who agree.
There is a difference between a hypothesis being rejected and one being proven false. A hypothesis can be considered to be an educated guess. Whether the hypothesis is believed to be a good one worth investigating or is dismissed out of hand does not speak definitively to its ultimate correctness or falsity. I believe Darwin’s hypothesis was roundly rejected by most of the scientists of the day until evidence was gathered to substantiate it. Conversely, a hypothesis may be widely accepted and then proven false. According to the book Cadillac Desert, it was widely hypothesized in the 1800’s and believed by many that “rain would follow the plow”. That meant that as people populated the desert that moisture would follow and the desert would bloom. Hasn’t worked out so far.
Empirical evidence acquired by observation or experimentation is a central part of the scientific method. I know that much about how scientific inquiry works. Can you show me empirical evidence that god does not exist. Of course not. Science cannot work that way in a field of mystical belief. Of course not seeing evidence of his existence can lead you to believe, like I do, that he probably doesn’t exist but science, which requires evidence to establish a scientific “proof” does not, because it cannot, prove that god does not exist.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 12/09/2018 - 12:19am
I don't see how it helps to state that agnosticism means the belief that the nature and existence of god is not known or knowable. by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 3:36pm
by ocean-kat on Sun, 12/09/2018 - 12:29am
If you say so but it looks to me that you are not giving a dictionary definition but just saying that it does no good to state what I stated from the beginning. I do not see any declaration that your definition of agnosticism means the belief that the nature and existence of god is not known or knowable but if that is what you now claim to believe then I am glad we have come to agree.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 12/09/2018 - 12:53am