book review: friedrich nietzsche, beyond good and evil

things i found interesting in friedrich nietzsche's book beyond good and evil:

page xv

In Beyond Good and Evil he maintains that original Christianity represents 'an ongoing suicide of reason' (p.44; 46), ascribing it to an Oriental slave revolt against Roman antiquity. Like Freud after him, Nietzsche considered religion a 'neurosis' (p. 45; 47); it involves an unnatural self-denial and sacrifice. In one of his most interesting observations, Nietzsche compares the history of 'religious cruelty' to a ladder with three important rungs: the first entails the sacrifice of one's loved ones to the deity; the second demands the sacrifice of one's own instincts or inner nature; and the final rung, which we are now coming to know, involves the sacrifice of God himself for the worship of 'stone, stupidity, heaviness, fate, nothingness' (p. 50; 55). Nietzsche here suggests that our modern penchant for science or nihilism, as atheistic as it appears at first glance, is merely a replacement for religious belief.

page xvi

Nietzsche is not unaware of the advantages that religion has brought to human society,
even as it has debased human nature. It has helped humankind to endure an otherwise intolerable existence and has assisted us in constructing a viable social order by demanding that we love each other. But religion also has other essential socializing functions. For a particular group of people Nietzsche mentions the Brahmans by name--religion provides a spirituality that permits them to remove themselves from the mundane and crude world surrounding them. For those who are destined to be rulers it is one means for overcoming resistance in their subjects, since it forms a common bond with ordinary people and pacifies them into obedience. It also serves as a pedagogical and disciplinary device for the ascending classes, teaching them a certain abnegation that ennobles their spirit and allows them to rise above the common rabble. Finally, for the vast masses, religion provides a solace for their suffering and the meaninglessness of their existence, 'something that justifies their everyday lives, all the baseness, all the semi-animal poverty of their souls' (p. 55;61). In general, however, Nietzsche's attitude towards religion is that it represents a stage of human development that must be overcome. Christianity, in particular, has led to a 'degeneration of the European race' (p. 56; 62), and the persistence of Christian belief is a sign that the human being has not developed into a creature that is strong enough to achieve the type of self-contained nobility of spirit Nietzsche envisions.

page xvii

The Jews, he asserts, 'brought about that tour de force of a reversal of values' (p. 83; 195); they negated a noble order in which richness, excess, cruelty, and sensuality were validated, and substituted for it a value system in which poverty, godliness, timidity, and spirituality hold sway. This 'slave revolt in morals' (p. 83; 195) disdains as evil the beast of prey and the man of prey, for Nietzsche the 'most healthy of all tropical plants and brutes' (pp. 834; 197), while affirming abstinence, pity, and a tolerance for suffering. The institution of the Judaeo-Christian 'herd' morality has made modern Europe possible even as it has meant an impoverishment of possibilities and human potential. Nietzsche reasons that there have always been rulers and subjects, and he recognizes that a morality preaching docile obedience is a necessity for the masses.

page xix

He [the free spirit] will rid himself of moralities that preach equality, democracy, the general welfare, and utilitarian values, and affirm instead the natural hierarchy Nietzsche captures repeatedly in the term Rangordnung.

page xx

More problematically Nietzsche propagates a human being that will not feel compassion with the oppressed and the unfortunate in society, and that will not seek to do away with suffering, including his own suffering. Rather, the pity this future man feels will involve the disdain for the manner in which the human race has made itself small and petty, and he will nourish suffering as the aid to 'depth, mystery, mask, spirit, cleverness, greatness' (p. 117; 225). In a controversial aphorism Nietzsche even ventures a reconsideration of cruelty as an essential part of human nature. All higher culture, all great tragedy, everything sublime, all knowledge, he contends, are ultimately based on cruelty, either towards ourselves or towards others. ... The task Nietzsche assigns his free spirits is 'to return man to nature; to master the many conceited and gushing interpretations and secondary meanings that have heretofore been scribbled and painted over that eternal original text homo natura'(p. 123; 230). In terms of present values Nietzsche's free spirit will thus prove to be an 'immoralist' who affirms life and aspires to the heights of culture and creativity.

page 7

We do not object to a judgement just because it is false; ... The question is rather to what extent the judgement furthers life, preserves life, preserves the species, perhaps even cultivates the species; ... Admitting untruth as a condition of life ... and a philosophy that dares this has already placed itself beyond good and evil.

this review is ongoing (not finished)...

ragnar redbeard's real(istic) beatitudes

here are my "picks" from redbeard's beatitudes from might is right:

Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the Earth.
Blessed are the powerful for they shall be reverenced among men.
Blessed are the bold for they shall be masters of the world.
Blessed are the iron-handed, the unfit shall flee before them.
Blessed are the destroyers of false hope, they are the true Messiahs.
Blessed are they who believe in nothing, never shall it terrorize their minds.

Cursed are the believers in good and evil for they are frightened by shadows.
Cursed are the God-adorers, they shall be shorn sheep.
Cursed are the haters of battle, subjugation is their portion.
Cursed are the humble, for they shall be trodden under hoofs.
Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the yoke.
Cursed are the feeble for they shall be blotted out.
Cursed are the poor in spirit, they shall be spat upon.

if you're looking for truth, redbeard's beatitudes are at least true. jesus' are wishful thinking, claimed to be true, when they dont represent reality, thus they are lies (or empty metaphorical promises, not intended to be fulfilled here in this life--how convenient), in my eyes =) there's a theory that jesus was invented by josephus flavius to keep the jews under rome's control. jesus' teachings would do just that, e.g. "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the humble", "if a man asks for your shirt give him your coat", etc.
historicity of jesus

caesar's messiah (this book is really interesting. i have it if you want to borrow it.)

jesus also fits the profile of a mythological hero. on Lord Raglan's scale of 1-22 of common traits for a mythological hero, jesus ranks around 19. it is said that no real, historical figure has ever scored above a 7 (alexander the great == not a mythological hero).
see also this lord raglan's hero page and jesus' hero explanation

see also:
jesus myth theory
jesus christ and comparative mythology

i originally posted all of this on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/notes/nick-humphrey/the-realistic-beatitudes/10150277538262292

why the mormons always list a new leader's accomplishments before he speaks for the first time

while growing up in the lds cult i was always bothered by the bragging about the new leader or "important" guest speaker being presented to the congregation, how the person introducing him would always read through a long list of accomplishments/bragging points about all the education and positions he's held, etc. i always knew of somebody in my ward who was most likely way more humble and "spiritually qualified" to help and teach others, but who hadnt accomplished a lot in the worldly sense when compared to this businessman in a nice suit. it bothered me that the church leaders put such an emphasis on worldly achievements of their leaders.

i remember saying to myself every single time this happened: "why do they do this? what does this have to do with anything about the gospel?"

today i was reading The Essential Guide to Rhetoric
and found the answer to my lifelong question =)

page 38

ETHOS
Argument is not the only dimension of persuasive proof. You might sometimes hear what sound like strong arguments, yet be inclined to doubt them. To accept someone’s argument is, in a sense, to trust that person, so audiences make judgments about the speaker. Audiences ask questions (such as “What kind of person is this?") to evaluate the speaker and decide if she is credible and whether to change their mind about the topic at hand. This is the same as asking, “What kind of ethos does this person have?” When audiences wonder about the speaker’s ethos, they are considering his credibility (believability) and trustworthiness.

By telling the people in church the "impressive" info about the new leader/guest speaker, they are establishing the credibility of that person, which increases the chances that the people will trust him and believe what he says. It's a simple, well-known, rhetoric tactic.

if what the speaker was going to say was really true, and the "holy ghost" really existed, then creating ethos to strengthen your message (argument) would just be a waste of time and effort.

the equinox volume 3 number 10 book review

to apply for the OTO here in norway i was told to read the equinox vol. III no. 10. i had already the book of the law and didnt really get anything out of it. i like the idea of pursuing/testing religion/mysticism using the scientific method, but it's hard for me to get past a couple of things i read in the first chapter "the master therion":

page 16

The climax of their dealings with him came in the weeks immediately
preceding and following the Spring Equinox of 1924 E.V. At this time
he lay sick unto death. He was entirely alone; for They would even
permit the presence of those few whom They had themselves appointed to
aid him in this final initiation. In this last ordeal the earthly part
of him was dissolved in water; the water was vaporized into air; the
air was rarified utterly, until he was free to make the last effort,
and to pass into the vast caverns of the Threshold which guards the
Realm of Fire. Now naught human may come through those immensities. So
in that Fire he was consumed wholly, and as pure Spirit alone did he
return, little by little, during the months that followed, into the
body and mind that had perished in that great ordeal of which he can
say no more than: I died.

But these six months being accomplished, a certain Virgin came forth
at the bidding of the Secret Chiefs, at whose touch he resumed contact
with his human life.

Her he conveyed swiftly to the Desert of the Sahara, that in silent
communion with her Soul he might become aware of the intimate nature
of his Work for the Masters; for she was verily a symbol of the Virgin
Bride, whose redemption is the mystery of the Perpetuation of the
Godhead.

do thelemites really believe this? aleister crowley was vaporized, died, then brought back to the flesh by a virgin? come-the-fuck-on.

the next thing that bothered me was something in the oath:

page 18

that i will interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul

how completely unscientific. after reading these two things i haven't had the motivation to read on. maybe i will, maybe i wont.

thelema's the equinox volume 1 number 2 book review

this is my review of equinox 1.2

page 4

joseph smith is mentioned in a list of incompatible forms of faith =)

Faith has been proposed as a remedy. But we perceive many incompatible forms of Faith founded on Authority—The Vedas, The Quran, The Bible; Buddha, Christ, Joseph Smith

this appeals to me:

5. There is only one Rock which Scepticism cannot shake;
the Rock of Experience.
6. We have therefore endeavoured to eliminate from the
conditions of acquiring Spiritual Experience its dogmatic,
theological, accidental, climatic and other inessential elements.
7. We require the employment of a strictly scientific
method. The mind of the seeker must be unbiased: all
prejudice and other sources of error must be perceived as such
and extirpated.
8. We have therefore devised a Syncretic-Eclectic Method
combining the essentials of all methods, rejecting all their
trammels, to attack the Problem, through exact experiments
and not by guesses.

page 5

1. There is no hope in physical life, since death of the
individual, the race, and ultimately the planet, ends all.
2. There is no hope in reason, since it contradicts itself,
and is in any case no more than a reflection upon the facts of
physical life.
...
4. There is no hope in Faith, for there are many warring
Faiths, all equally positive.

2. We are Men of Science, ever eagerly acquiring
pertinent facts.
3. We are Sceptics, ever eagerly examining those facts.
4. We are Philosophers, ever eagerly classifying and coordinating those well-criticised facts.
5. We are Epicureans, ever eagerly enjoying the
unification of those facts.
6. We are Philanthropists, ever eagerly transmitting our
knowledge of those facts to others.
7. Further, we are Syncretists, taking truth from all
systems, ancient and modern; and Eclectics, ruthlessly
discarding the inessential factors in any one system, however
perfect.

page 6

3. Mysticism, being based on pure experience, is always a
vital force; but owing to the lack of trained observation, has
always been a mass of error. Spiritual Experience, interpreted
in the terms of Intellect, is distorted; just as sunrise shows the
grass green and the sea blue. Both were invisible until sunrise;
yet the diversity of colour is not in the sun, but in the objects
on which its light falls, and their contradiction does not prove
the sun to be an illusion.
4. We shall correct Mysticism (or Illuminism) by Science,
and explain Science by Illuminism.

1. We have one method, that of Science.

page 13

2. In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths;
of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and
many other things that may or may not exist.
It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing
certain things, certain results will follow; students are
earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them.
3. The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly
these:
(a) A widening of the horizon of the mind.
(b) An improvement of the control of the mind.

exmormon review: "New Harmony: Spirit will help young adults who wander"

my review of jerry earl johnston's (aka "locke" from "Lost") article New Harmony: Spirit will help young adults who wander

"When people go AWOL from the church"

AWOL == absence without leave. interesting choice of words. as if people need permission to leave =) "my experience" is that many people do feel the church is controlling their lives.

"we think it may be a social problem, or an intellectual problem"

typical mormon pride. are we to interpret this as "people who leave are intellectually deficient"? my reason for leaving was a combination of the control factor and intellectual aspects of contradictory church teachings and church teachings compared with reality and science. my bishop was trying to tell me and my wife what we could and couldnt do in the bedroom. most mormons will reply "he was wrong, the church has no official doctrine on that, etc", but the first presidency released a letter which contradicts this reply: "Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982".

Second, I had no use for people in authority. I saw them as people who wanted me to behave a certain way because somebody had made them behave that way. A classic child of the '60s, I trusted no one over 30.

this is a straw man argument. of course we need people in authority. what we *dont need* is people falsely claiming authority--telling people they will be burned if they dont pay money to the church, telling people they should feel guilty and ashamed because of their normal, healthy sexual desires, telling consenting adults how, when and who they can and cant have sex with, telling people they have to do this and that (a long list of things), otherwise they are not "worthy"/acceptable/good, etc.

"It usually takes an individual, not an institution."

this is yet another straw man argument--no mention of the *essential* converting "power" of the "holy ghost"? =) if jerry earl had grown up in the church, been praying and reading scriptures then the "holy ghost" would have had ample time to "tell him the truth of all things".

exmormon review: "Friday Minute: 10 member-missionary tips"

i only evaluated the first 5 points of Friday Minute: 10 member-missionary tips:

"Understanding how the public views us can improve our responses to gospel questions."

because the holy ghost which will tell you "the truth of all things" apparently isn't enough.

"I joined the church at 18 because a wonderful member-missionary understood that friendship is an extension of Christ’s way of life"

i.e. a well known principle of social psychology (for some reason he left out the part about the "holy ghost").

"Ditch the lingo"

i wholeheartedly agree.

"'men changed' instead of 'apostasy'"

just like "speaking as a man" or "only stating his opinion" or "that wasn't official church doctrine" instead of "wrong".

"Trust. When we earn our friends’ trust, they will trust our message"

provide full historical financial disclosure. only then i think you can begin to talk about trust.

"When the trainer retrieved his dog, I recognized him as an investigator... God loved him enough to send that dog to our garage so that we might bear a second witness"

this is called a post hoc fallacy. "A" happened, then "B", therefore "A" caused "B".

"God loved him enough"

stating *belief* as fact.

richard dawkins' response to pascal's wager

i think the key points dawkins makes in his book the god delusion are:

* one is not just betting on one god, there have been hundreds/thousands of gods throughout homo sapien history. if you bet on yahweh and baal turns out to be "the god", then you're also screwed.

pascal's wager doesn't "work" in a polytheistic scenario.

* you can't fake belief. if an omniscient god actually existed, those who really don't/can't believe, but only say they do, wouldn't be able to fool him.

my comments on the victor stenger vs william lane craig debate

part 1

they're using the word "god" as if it is something/someone everybody agrees on about who/what he/it is...its easy to disprove god of the old testament at least: simply disprove the scientific claims made by YHWH through his prophets or his own mouth, e.g.:

1) first human offspring was Cain (genesis 4:1) approximately 6000-7000 years ago.

2) global flood during noah's life


part 2

0:15 is william lane craig's mind already made up? yes. hypocrite =)

at first it sounded like he was saying this in an accusatory manner, but i found out later that he just talks like this....really tiring.



part 3

08:09 "if dr stenger wants us to believe atheism instead, then he must first tear down all 6 of the reasons i presented..."

did you submit these 6 reasons to dr stenger before the debate or should he just do it on the fly? if on the fly, would you submit to the same challenge from dr stenger? =)

01:54 craig: "there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone". i think an atheist person being raped can objectively disagree.



part 5

0:45 "NONE of these scientists would NOT believe if they were presented with sufficient evidence" <-- yes, the difference between scientists and theists. well put. part 6

he keeps harping on about the resurrection as if it is some provable/undeniable fact. jeez. i like how most atheists "argue" so calmly, while most theists seem to take an aggresive and "loud" stance, it is tiring to listen to this craig...

07:24 "there is abundant evidence of god's actions in the world. in fact what i would say is the very existence of the universe itself is abundant evidence for the existence of god...the origin of the universe out of absolutely nothing"

hmm, i'm pretty sure craig is referring to the big bang, a scientific "revelation" and is nowhere a part of biblical scripture. religion hijacking science, trying to prove science wrong, with science. genesis only alludes to the creation of earth and stars, ie MW

ironic how the american flag is placed next to craig's podium instead of stenger's =)

craig is complaining about assertions from stenger, well, 06:38 craig: "if god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist". an assertion. "objective values do exist". also an assertion.



part 7

it seems like stenger could have just left it at the cyclical universe model, there was no cause to the universe, it has always existed, just expanding and contracting, big banging and big crunching =)


part 8

01:29-01:51 whammy =)
stenger points out that in genesis, the earth was created BEFORE the sun ( 01:29-01:51 ).

genesis 1:1-3
"
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
"

the very first verses of the old testament are at odds with science!



part 9

03:27 craig: "the bible teaches that god's moral law is instinctively written on the heart of every individual, so that we have an instinctual moral knowledge that we ought to love our children rather than torture them and abuse them"

stenger already showed that there is no objective morality: different religions have different versions of morality

03:53 craig: "if you dont have a god as a transcendent anchor or basis for morality, then moral values are purely ephemeral byproducts of socio-biological evolution"

since there ARE NO objective morals, we simply reverse what you just said to prove that there IS NO transcendent god.

04:55 moderator: "how do we know, objectively, that we're being objective?"
craig: "i dont think any of us are totally objective, uh, that is one of the few (nervous laugh) insights of post-modernists, i think, i dont think they have many good insights, but one of them would be that all of us are historically conditioned, we're midstream so to speak, and therefore the search for pristine objectivity, and neutral point of view, view from nowhere is really impossible"

ok, you just killed the objective morality assertion

stenger makes a good point about "covariance": morality is not the same from all points of view



part 10

00:24 craig: "any thing that exists has to have a reason why it exists, either in an external cause or in the necessity of its own nature"

does god exist? if so, then what was the external cause for gods existence (i dont understand what he means by "in the necessity of its own nature"). what was the external cause of the external cause of gods existence? ad infinitum.

if god doesnt need an external cause for its existence, then why should the universe? why should anything at all require it?

01:48 craig: "now dr stenger also says 'but you dont need to believe in the big bang theory, there could have been some pre-existing universe, a cyclic universe, but notice how he admits you must have an equally plausible model, but the fact is that these cyclical models are not equally plausible with the standard big bang model"

no, stenger says in part 7 at 04:56 "the universe need not have *begun* with the big bang...there are many prominent physicists and cosmologists who publish papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the big bang appeared naturally out of a pre-existing universe that need not itself had a beginning. one such recent example is a cyclic universe". since cyclic models (e.g. steinhardt-turok, baum-frampton) *incorporate* the big bang and additionally provide an explanation for the big bang's appearence, they are equally plausible models, if not more plausible, supported by the fact that it is an active field of academic inquiry.

04:45 craig: "as for the moral argument, dr stenger agrees, there is no evidence for objective morality. if you agree with me however that things like racism, the holocaust, rape, child abuse are really objectively wrong, then you will agree with me that god exists."

first of all, dr. "twister of words" craig, stenger DOESNT AGREE that there is no evidence for objective morality, he DISAGREES with you and has shown that there IS NO evidence for objective morality, while you maintain that objective morality is "instinctively written on the heart of every individual" as stated in part 9 starting at 03:27.

secondly, even if stenger might agree with you on these points, others DONT! not everyone does. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY, thus, by your own reasoning, THERE IS NO GOD.

05:35 craig: "you've got to believe that a contingently existing universe inexplicably exists for absolutely no reason at all"

not sure what he means by "contingently existing", but why does god exist then?

"you've got to believe in a logically incoherent model of the origin of the universe which no other scientist in the world accepts"

what model is this? certainly not a model stenger made proposed himself, so what about its author? i'm sure the author(s) of a cyclical universe model (e.g. steinhardt-turok, baum-frampton) believe it to be plausible along with the peers who have reviewed it and allowed it to be published?

"or else you've got to believe in an infinite number of randomly ordered parallel universes without any evidence for their existence"

stenger never proposed any model consisting of parallel universes

"fourth you've got to believe there's no moral difference between a mother who loves and nurtures her children and a sexual predator who preys upon them"

again, it's already established that there is no objective morality, and some people *will* (and do) find a difference here and others will not

"five, you've got to believe on the basis of your own authority that the majority of the world's historians who have studied the life of jesus are mistaken about the historicity of the empty tomb"

so what? christians claim that all non-christians are mistaken about the the right way to be saved (jesus).

"six, you've got to believe that everyone who claims to have a personal experience of god is deluded"

again, christians claim that all non-christians who dont have a personal experience of god are deluded or deceived by the devil. and atheists could simply respond "no, not deluded, simply human, simply wired to believe in the supernatural/unseen"

"and still leaves you without any solid case for atheism"

like i've said before, disproving scientific claims made by the bible is a great place to start. also theists are the ones who bear the burden of proof of their claims of the unevident and invisible.

08:12 stenger: "in each of these cases we can give a plausible, natural explanation that violates no known principles of science and requires no divine action. dr craig does not succeed in proving that these natural explanations are wrong. he tries to argue that they're implausible, but in fact everything i've talked about is consistent with all the knowledge we have in science and in perfect agreement with existing experimental and theoretical facts. so i dont think dr craig succeeds in proving that god exists."



part 11

05:27 stenger: "finally, an all good, all powerful, all knowing god, if one existed, he would have the power to comfort a child dying an excruciating death from leukemia. he chooses not to do so. is there a person in this room who would not ease that child's suffering, given the power? i would do it. jesus christ could appear before me and tell me not to do it because it has some ultimate purpose, but i would STILL DO IT! even if i faced eternal damnation, i would DO IT."

the bible unearthed - movie review - important quotes

here's my ongoing (unfinished) review of the amazing video "the bible unearthed"

Part 1. The Patriarchs

00:28:43 -- it now appears to be well accepted there was no migration in the direction of canaan at the time that the bible situates abrahams voyage

00:34:35 -- what can we say about the arrival of the philistines? latest 13th century BCE, but probably around 1150-1200 BCE

00:36:40 -- according to acheological evidence, the camel couldnt have been domesticated as a beast of burden before the first millenium BCE

religulous, by bill maher - movie review - favorite quotes

this will be an ongoing post until i've gone through the whole movie, but i am going to start listing my favorite points and quotes from this wonderful movie (Bill Maher == BM):

*********
00:11:00
*********

BM: So, Dr. Collins, you are a brilliant, brilliant scientist, the head of the Human Genome Project. Now here's what's so puzzling is that you are the one scientist--

[subtext: 93% of scientists in the american national academy of sciences are atheist or agnostic]

the one famous scientist anyway--who's also religious. Explain that to me.

Dr. Francis Collins (DFC): I would argue that if you look at the evidence, the historical evidence of Christ's existence is overwhelming.

BM: What evidence? I mean, I've never even heard anyone propose that there's evidence.

DFC: When I read the New Testament, it reads to me as the record of eyewitnesses who put down what they saw.

BM: You know they weren't eyewitnesses.

DFC: They were close to that.

BM: No.

DFC: Within a couple of decades of eyewitnesses.

BM: Okay. Would that stand up in a laboratory as absolute foolproof evidence that something happened?

DFC: You are setting up a standard for proof that I think would really be an almost impossible standard to meet.

*********
00:12:58
*********

BM: I'm surprised that things that are very important to the story, like the virgin birth, isn't in all four of them.

DFC: Wouldn't you really expect that kind of discordance when you're thinking about the way in which these documents came into being?

BM: But you'd think if you were one of Christ's biographers, that would be sort of an important thing not to leave out. "Oh, God, he was also born of a virgin."

BM: They don't notice the virgin birth. You know, I think that is something if you were any sort of reporter you'd put into the story. What editor looks at the facts and goes, "Yeah, but take out the thing about the virgin birth. That's not interesting."

*********
00:15:35
*********

BM: Reverend. Is that what I call you?

Jeremiah Cummings (JC): No, just call me... doctor.

BM: Doctor?

[subtext: Jeremiah Cummings is not a doctor.]

JC: Yeah.

[subtext: he does not have a degree...of any kind.]

*********
00:16:06
*********

JC: teddy pendergrass, who led the song, he was ordained a minister when he was 10 years old.

BM: what do you think it says about religion and how serious it is, when you can be a minister when you're 10?

*********
00:20:22
*********

BM:
Sodom and Gomorrah.

Apparently, it was a pretty wicked place.

How wicked?

Well let's just say that what happened in Gomorrah, stayed in Gomorrah.

That is until God got wind of it, so he sent two angels to investigate.

Now the angels went to the house of the one godly man in town-- Lot.

And the townspeople tried to rape them.

Now Lot, not wanting his town to get the reputation as the kind of place that would rape angels, offered up to the mob his own daughters to rape.

And he was the good guy in town.


*********
00:22:48
*********

Pastor John Westcott (Exchange Ministries) (JW): But I will be honest with you. The reality's a lot of people come here and go right back into whatever they came from.

BM: Because they're gay!

JW: I believe that it's sin.

BM: Excuse me, but don't you have it, no pun intended, ass-backwards?

JW: Meaning?

BM: Meaning homosexuality is something that occurs in nature.

...

JW: Nobody's born gay. There's no scientific or--


BM: Really? Have you ever met Little Richard?

...

JW: There's no scientific data that proves that anyone is--there's no gay gene.

***WHAT BILL MAHER SHOULD HAVE SAID HERE: there's no heterosexual gene either =)***

...

BM: All of the proscriptions against homosexuality come from the Old Testament. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. And if it's so important, why didn't he ever bring it up?

JW: We could pick lots of little things that he didn't specifically talk about.

BM: But this is a big thing.

...

BM: But what is your explanation for the millions and millions of people around the world who are leading homosexual lives...

JW: Well, it's not millions.

BM: ...have no interest in anyone of the opposite sex? Are they all faking just to piss off Jesus?

JW: They didn't choose this. They didn't desire it.

BM: Right, they were born gay.

JW: No, they weren't born that way. It's because of the insecurity within theirselves.

BM: It takes a lot of security to walk out of the house with assless chaps.

JW: They're not happy, most of them.

BM: They're called gay. They took the word. Some of them look positively thrilled.

JW: No, they are people who are really not complete in who they are as men or women.

BM: That's a pretty big judgment for a Christian.

JW: It's not a judgment.

BM: That's not a judgment? That you are sitting here telling these people who you don't even know that they're incomplete because they're not like you?

JW: I mean, it's not the people you suspect that are gay, that are gay.

BM: People like the Reverend Ted Haggard... "Moral purity is better than immorality." ...who kept meeting homosexual prostitutes in a hotel room and having gay sex with speed.


*********
00:29:06
*********

Steve Burg, Ex Jew for Jesus (SB): God is not that busy where He can't spend time listening to you when you really want to talk to Him, anytime.

BM: If Santa Claus can hit every house in the world in one night--

SB: I don't believe in Santa Claus.

BM: Of course not, that's ridiculous. That's one man flying all around the world and dropping presents down a chimney. That's ridiculous. One man hearing everybody murmur to him at the same time, that I get.

*********
00:29:55
*********

BM: You're 100% sure that after you die, you'll go to a better place.

SB: I know I'll be with God. l'll be with Jesus.

BM: And that's a better place.

SB: Even if it was in a garbage can, which I know it won't be, but even if it was, just the fact that i'm with Jesus, to me, is good.

BM: it's a better place.

SB: it's a better place.

BM: Then why don't you kill yourself?

SB: Because God still has a mission for me here.

BM: Oh, I see.

SB: i'm thinking of Jonah. God sent Jonah on a mission.

BM: When did the part of the story come when Jonah lived in the whale?

SB: It was a great fish.

BM: It's one of my favorite nonsense stories, Jonah living inside of the whale. And their answer unfailingly is ''The Bible doesn't say whale. It says big fish.'' Oh, yeah, big fish, that makes--i'm sorry I was obsessing on that it was a whale. it's a big fish. Of course you could live for three days in a big fish.


*********
00:32:33
*********

BM: How did this country get to be a Christian nation? I've read a lot of quotes from all the Founding Fathers. There are a lot of quotes that explicitly say we're not a Christian nation:
"lighthouses are more useful than churches." -- benjamin franklin
"this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!" -- john adams
"christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." -- thomas jefferson

Ray Suarez (RS): well, and Jefferson's a particularly interesting case.

BM: Didn't he write his own Bible which divorced the New Testament from what he considered the unnecessary magic, bells and whistles?

RS: He took the Gospels, took out all of Jesus's miracles and took out all of Jesus's statements that claimed divinity, and put out a new book called ''The Faith and Moral Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.'' We tend to lionize these guys and think of them all as the 12 Apostles plus the Founding Fathers, like they're in the same club or something. When in fact, these men understood very well that there was a difference between being Christian and being American.

BM: Right.

RS: In Jefferson's age, fewer people went to church less often.

Guy in BM's van (GBMV): Do you think that there are a lot of people who feel the way you do, but are afraid to speak out?

BM: Absolutely. Are you kidding? Yes, I think it is the great untapped minority in this country. In the last survey, I think it was 16% of Americans who now say they are absolutely unaffiliated with any religion, don't want to be in a religion, just don't go near me with religion. 16% of the population is a huge minority. It's bigger than Jews, blacks, homosexuals, NRA members, lots of people you could name who have lobbies that get everything they want or are at least are in the debate.


*********
00:34:27
*********

BM: So you've described yourself as an Evangelical Christian. You did a campaign ad where you said the most important lessons in life are in this book right here, meaning the Bible. Everyone in politics likes to brag that they're a person of faith. Why is faith good?

Mark Pryor, US Senator, Democrat (MP): Faith has a way of softening people. For example, if you look at the teachings of Jesus, he's very forgiving.

BM: He also said, "If a man doesn't abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."

MP: Right. So? i do think, 'cause i'm a Christian, that Jesus is the way to be reconciled. And I do believe the actual literacy of that story. We'll let God sort out all the details of that on Judgment Day.

BM: What about the 10 Commandments? So many politicians talk about the 10 Commandments. Are they really the 10 most important moral--

MP: Are these the 10 suggestions? The 10 recommendations?

BM: But it's not really a wise list of 10. The first four are all about just worshipping God and basically that he's a jealous God, and he doesn't want you to have any other gods. The only two that are really laws are don't steal and don't kill. Why is this the wisest group of 10? lt doesn't include child abuse. lt doesn't include don't torture. lt doesn't include a lot of things-- rape--that I think if we were making a list today, we would probably include.

MP: Society is so different today and our culture is so radically different today.

BM: That's what i'm asking. We're in a different culture. Can you think of anything else that we still cleave to from the Bronze Age?

MP: Well...

human beings like to be deceived - "how to think about weird things" book review

first off, the book how to think about weird things gets a million stars from me. every human being should read this book.

i have been thinking recently about something i read there, it was a quote about how people actually like to be deceived, but there was no explanation or example given and then i realized that the biggest example is in movies (and also books). a good movie is one where you think you know who the bad guy is and then you find out you're wrong. people also like to watch magic shows, card tricks, etc. but sometimes we hate being deceived: finding out your spouse/partner is having an affair =)

update 20100813:
i was reading fooled by randomness by nassim taleb and found this which supports this idea of liking to be deceived, e.g. through literature/entertainment:

The book is the synthesis of, on one hand, the no-nonsense
mathematical trader (self-styled "practitioner of uncertainty") who
spent his life trying to resist being fooled by randomness and trick the
emotions associated with uncertainty and, on the other, the aesthetically
obsessed, literature-loving human being willing to be fooled by any form
of nonsense that is polished, refined, original, and tasteful. I am not
capable of avoiding being the fool of randomness; what l can do is
confine it to where it brings some aesthetic gratification.

led by the hand of christ a woman's journey to paradise-and back book review

disclaimer: i havent read the book led by the hand of christ, i have merely read its description, but the concept of the persons life after death experience is what i am reviewing.

i had a near-death experience when i was shot as a teenager and having been raised mormon i remember seeing god and jesus as 2 separate beings, talking about me from a distance. i am now in my 30's and have found out that the LDS church is not true and have left. the LDS church is one of the few (if not only, although i hate definitives like that) that teach that god and jesus are 2 separate physical beings. this leads me to believe that we see what we want to see when we die or nearly die. it has even been said that we are not "really" dead until after something like 5 or 6 hours after being pronounced clinically dead. so a "life after death" experience really might not be what we think it is after all. that which someone experiences before those 5-6 hours after "death" cannot really be taken as "proof" of the "real" post-mortem state.

update 20100531
heres a recent interesting article similar to what i propose:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1282598/Near-death-experiences-explained-Scientists-believe-gasp-dying-brain.html

the portable atheist book review

im currently reading the chapter "why there almost certainly is no god" and got an "aha" experience about the upside down map, with the south pole on top: north has no monopoly on "up"

my book review of the pendulum kit by sig lonegren

i just had a very interesting experience with my own modified version of the three coins exercise on page 27:
i took three 10 cent euro coins and placed them in a triangle formation. one coin was dated 1999, another 2000 and the third 2002. the point of the experiment was to find the coin that had the 2002 date on it.

not knowing which coin was where i told the pendulum to oscillate between the 2 coins that did not have the date 2002 on them. this experiment should then ideally only require one round to find the 2002 coin. it should be the coin that the pendulum does *not* oscillate to.

experiment 1:
it oscillated between 2 coins. when i looked at the 3rd coin, it did not have the date 2002 on it. it should have been the 2002 coin. i decided to try again only this time with the 2 remaining coins and repeated the same command, so i placed the pendulum at the point where the 3rd coin was previously and asked the pendulum to now oscillate towards the coin that did not have the date 2002 on it. this time it oscillated towards the coin that did not have the date 2002 on it. i.e. the first round it gave the wrong answer and the second round it gave the correct answer.

experiment 2:
this time i decided to do the exact same thing only treat the first answer which was "wrong" as the right answer (ultimately picking out the coin with the 2002 date on it using the pendulum). i got the same result this time as well. the first answer was wrong and the second answer was right.

run 3:
i got the exact same result, a third time in a row! the 2002 coin was among the first 2 coins and the second round, it was the coin that the pendulum *didnt* oscillate towards.

wrong first, right the second time. what an interesting pattern! it repeated itself 3 times in a row, 100% effective.

update: i just tried the same thing again and the same pattern emerged for the 4th consecutive time! false the first time and true the second time =)

wow, very interesting. i continued reading in the book and it says on page 28:

put the coin on the table heads up, and hold your pendulum over it. it will go from the search position into your yes response. now turn the coin over, and see how your pendulum goes into a no response. (these responses could be reversed -- it doesnt matter.)

how funny =) thats exactly what i just experienced.

update: now i just tried the "heads up" exercise on page 28. i got the "wrong" answer 7 times out of 10. according to the book this is statistically important. (the 10 cent euro coin had the year 2000 on it). although, i didnt do the experiment 100% correctly because the book says to have a friend who records whether it landed heads or tails and to not let you know the results before the end. i had to keep track of the results myself, so i could see how well the pendulum was responding. ill have to try it again later, with a friend.


update 20100504

pendulum exercises:

1. flip the coin then divine without looking at the result.
year 2000 coin. is it heads up?
3 correct out of 10

2. divine before the coin is tossed.
year 2000 coin. will it be heads up?
6 correct out of 10

3. divine before the coin is tossed. arm resting on thigh. previously arm was held in the air.
year 2000 coin. will it be heads up?
7 correct out of 10

4. coin toss, call it on the back of my hand. no pendulum. only intuition.
7 correct out of 10

5. divine before the coin is tossed. arm resting on thigh. previously arm was held in the air.
year 2000 coin. will it be heads up? is this answer the truth?
1 correct out of 5
this is the closest extreme!


on my plane ride home from holland last night i did an experiment with playing cards:
i put the cards A, 2, and 3 of spades face down and shuffled so i didnt know which was which and placed them on my lap.
i held the pendulum over each one asking "is this the ace of spades?" until i got a yes, asking after every question "is this the truth?"
i did this test 2 times and found the ace both times!


update 20100505

i repeated the playing card test today using the same cards.
round 1: it answered correctly the first card i placed the pendulum over, but i decided this time to check the other ones just in case and the second card i chose the pendulum oscillated stronger so i figured it was that one, but i turned it over and it was the 3.
i then turned the first card over that i got a yes on and it was the ace =)

then things got weird.
round 2: i felt drawn to a specific card so i put the pendulum over it and asked if it was the ace and followed up with the truth question, confirming that "no" this wasnt the ace. i turned the card over and it was the ace.
i decided to try again, the third round, this time taking a "no" as a "yes"

round 3: i again felt drawn to a specific card and ran the test. i got no and it was the ace.

round 4: exact same as round 3.

conclusion: i was drawn towards a specific card and it was the ace, the first card i asked about, every time, irrespective of yes or no. and from round 3-4 it seemed as if my subconscious went into negative mode and knew that i would pick the card i got a "no" on (since thats what i did in round 2) so it gave me "no" on the correct card instead of a "yes".

the mind is a tricky thing =)


"find the hidden object"/triangulation exercise on page 33:
i had someone hide something for me in a room and both times (i did the test twice) i didnt find it using the pendulum.


update 20100506
100-0 scale exercise
i asked about sig's book, how it rates as a beginners pendulum book from 0-100, 100 best and i got about 95-100 =)


update 20100507
i did the A 2 3 exercise again and found the ace on the first try.
then i gave the 3 cards to my coworker and told him to mix them up without showing me and i found the ace on the first try!

then he suggested i try with 5 cards and find a different number. i did this 2 times and failed both times.


update 20100508
i dowsed for winning lotto numbers for norsk tipping lotto tonight and got 4 correct out of 7. one of the other numbers i got was 1 off from one of the 3 additional numbers drawn. i made my own "fan" map/chart like the 0-100 chart in sigs book, but for numbers 1-34.


update 20100516
page 48
i just did the zodiac chart dowsing experience and got the following results:
* how is my love life? profound sensitivity (totally matches my personality, and this is something im working on controlling a little better)
* what makes me happy? being understood (im not sure that this is very accurate, it is important to me, but i think what really makes me happy is learning and obtaining my desires and seeing that my family is happy)
* what would be a good career (change) for me now? the pendulum went to "go to zodiac page 62", which them immediately pointed to sagittarius, so i went to that page and it gave me "philosopher" (which i think would totally fit me!)
* what health issues do i need to be aware of? forgetfulness (i at least have a very selective memory =)

but then sig writes immediately after the test these interesting words:

while it is always nice to hear something that confirms what you already know, i urge that you pay most attention to the answer(s) that dont make immediate sense. they are important and should be kept in mind during subsequent readings.

then sig suggests on page 49 that you can dowse your partners love life to see if there is anything you can do to help the relationship, and i got "soul unions"

my experiences with pendulum divination

i have a great little book called pendulum power (PP) that i started reading yesterday. i highly recommend it. it is packed with good practical information and instruction, has a good history of pendulum divination, stories, experiences and best of all the authors advise the student to take a scientific approach to its use. (i guess im also going to make this post a PP book review =)

i have 2 different pendulums:
* a crystal in the shape of a teardrop, its plastic and hangs from a piece of plastic fishing line
* a small brass colored metal one in the shape of a round (spinning) top or right-side-up onion with an extended point at the bottom hanging from a piece of thread. this one i purchased: the pendulum kit


i started testing my pendulum kit pendulum about 2 weeks ago (late march, early april) i think, before i started reading PP. my approach was simple:
1. dont think of the answer, dont want a particular answer
2. hold the pendulum up against my forhead while bending over so that my hand wouldnt move (it was pressed against my forehead)

experiment 1: ask questions i knew the answers to. every question i asked was answered correctly.

experiment 2: i went through a series of 34 numbers for a lotto drawing and needed 7 numbers. it answered yes on 7 different numbers, no less. 3 of them were right (1 of the 3 was an extra number. there are 2 extra numbers drawn, so a total of 9), 2 of them were 1 off and 1 of them was reversed (32 instead of 23). 1 of the numbers was also the jackpot number that needs to be drawn in order to release the jackpot.

experiment 3: i asked last night (20100417) if a relative of mine who is pregnant would have a boy and it answered yes. we'll see what happens =)

i read several interesting things in PP today:

page 12

Bovis theorized that the earth has positive magnetic currents running north to south and negative magnetic currents running east to west. ... And as Bovis claimed, adamantly, subtle currents affected all structures on the surface of the earth. He found that any body placed in a north-south axis would become more or less polarized. His researched showed that human bodies were curiously affected by these magnetic lines of force.

this made me think of how i sleep. i have been sleeping in an east-west direction for the past 2-3 years. i think ill try and switch to sleeping in a north-south to see if i can gain any positive effects. the funny this is that the 2 happiest people in our family have beds facing north-south!

vibratory currents, he discovered, emanated from the open eyes of each and every one of us.

i would really like to read more about his findings/tests/results if anybody knows where i can look? i have always wondered how we as humans, many times, can feel that someone is looking at us and this would be a possible explanation =) very interesting.


page 13

[in Paris] is an active old shop called the Maison de Radiesthesie. ... stocking the shelves with every book, pamphlet, and leaflet available on the pendulum. ... The shop also houses an incredible array of pendulums in every shape, substance, and size imaginable.

would be really cool to visit this shop! (flickr picture set) =) i think if i were to visit though i would have to do so without a credit card =)

---
20100422
---
simple ideomotor effect experiment

i taped the end of my pendulum string on the edge of a table, with just enough string hanging out so i could hold on to it. now it was impossible for me to physically move the pendulum. i tried doing it with my mind and it wouldnt move. when i hold the pendulum freely (not taped to the table) it moves (although i cannot see my self moving it and im trying to hold my hand still as possible).

i see the use of the pendulum as a good way to communicate with my subconcious/higher self (who for all i know can also retrieve information from the universe/other sources), so even if the moving of the pendulum is the ideomotor effect, the result, i believe, is the same.
---

page 65

i did the experiment about asking which planet energies i am currently deficient in and i got "deficient" on:
moon -  i have a very selective memory; i dont like getting into habits/routines because i enjoy freedom; i would like to get better contact with my subconcious mind
sun - maybe i dont quite know what my purpose is in life right now
uranus - i feel like i am quite original, but i also like to use what works (not big on buying new clothes), maybe i need to get more modern in how i dress? and maybe i need to be even more myself around people; do and say what i really think


---
20100423
---
the ideomotor + aura effect

i was talking to HH today about my study of the pendulum and about the ideomotor effect and how it is crazy that even though im sure that it is me somehow moving the pendulum, that i cant see my hand moving. then he suggested that maybe the human aura/energy also helps, since it supposedly radiates a little outside of our physical body. i wonder how i could test this?


---
20100425
---
the pendulum telepathy experiment
last night i was reading on page 69 about how joseph and greg used telepathy to get steve to call them about something important. at the end of the chapter they write:

we hope that others will experiment along these lines so that new data can be added to this most important New Age science.

 so decided to try it =) i found a picture of my wife (it was even over 10 years old) and put it on my lap and held the pendulum over it and started the think the words "call me tonight instead of just sending an sms". the pendulum started to move around in the positive motion and then stopped like after 30 seconds only and then stood completely still for about 2-3 minutes while i continued to think those words. i did it also (implementing a scrying tip from carrol poke runyon) without blinking the entire time. my wife sent me an sms (i told her earlier to send me an sms when she got back to her hotel room safely) and i went to bed thinking i needed maybe to just practice some more. i told my wife the next day what i had tried to do and she told me she had actually thought about calling me last night =) so my telepathic message went through after all!

the case for christ review

im watching the video "the case for christ" by lee strobel.

* scholars believe jesus was born around 7 - 4 BC. wow, ive never heard that before. interesting.

Q. what other literary works are there that were written the same time as the gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john in the new testament?

according to the film, the oldest copies/sources of the new testament are:
* codex sinaiticus (AD 330-350)
*codex vaticanus
* papyrus fragment from john 18 (AD 125)


Q. homers iliad is the bible of the greeks?

Q. quotations from the early church fathers? what books/manuscripts are they referring to?

Q. what is the manuscript name for josephus' history of the jews (AD 93)?

the black pullet book review

im only about a fourth of the way through, but on pp 22-24 there is a really cool version of the creation of the world/universe. a little book, but really interesting so far!

update 20100411: i finished this book while on vacation in italy a couple of days ago. i found it quite interesting. i hope to get some time to "try it out".

lon milo duquette's my life with the spirits - my book review

lon's autobiography, my life with the spirits, is witty, funny, humble and full of interesting stories and first hand experiences with magick. i couldnt and didnt want to put it down! i read it in two consecutive nights. i think if i were to pick the one greatest thing i learned from this book was his account of his first goetic evocation where he was giving the entity a deadline and felt that the entity was trying to change lon's mind to stretch the deadline and not make it so short and when he realized it he got angry and shouted and commanded the entity to stop and to obey his deadline. i recognize myself in that situation and thought "i can do the same thing", banish all doubt and creators of doubt. i control what i want. i control my mind. there are other things i learned from this book too. i definitely recommend it to everyone who isnt an omnipotent magickian (everyone) =)
i have not been so enraptured in a book since highschool, reading my double digit collection of dean r koontz novels (i dont read novels anymore).

the case for a creator

in the movie the case for a creator there is something im having a hard time grasping:
they propose that darwinism cannot be true because:
a) if you put everything needed for life into a test tube, you cant generate life
b) the cambrian explosion, lack of evidence in the fossil record (but this has nothing to do with this post)

Q. how can they then propose that the universe had a beginning, that all matter in the universe came from nothing (the singularity theory) when they just proposed that life on earth couldnt have come from nothing?

god would have to exist outside of the universe then.

update: i watched more and yes they said exactly what i was thinking, they are proposing god exists outside of the universe and that he created it out of nothing.

this goes against the conservation of energy. singularity theorists would have to change their theory and say that god created the universe out of something else, but not from nothing.

but then i found this page, evidence for the big bang where it says that it is not a contradiction.

update 20100331113500:
i finally finished watching the whole video. probably the biggest thing i got out of the video was that most (all?) information we can find on earth can be traced back to some form of intelligence that created it, so what does that imply about information contained in dna? good food for thought.

one thing i didnt like about the video was lee strobel's assumption that since there might be a god, then christianity is true. he said something as a fact in the movie which i thought was pretty ridiculous: "god himself is invisible, he is a spirit..." (~ 55:20)
where the *heck* did this come from? strobel goes from investigating the case for a creator to then concluding that god does exist, god is a *he* AND he is invisible and is a spirit? pretty unscientific conclusion to an otherwise interesting semi-scientific investigation.