patrick.net

Tenouncetrout says "Their beliefs are not up for debate..."

They are very much up for debate if the intended goal is to replace all world religions with a Gaya/Luciferian govt-sanctioned world religion that's being pumped by the central bankers who use the United Nations as their propaganda tool. The central bankers' many minions are well-paid to make sure this is a "debate" in which people MUST choose sides. The winner will win via paid-for fabricated and manipulated public consensus opinion on TV and in the newspaper. Or even on blog forums such as this one.

Harry Potter. The popularity of Wicca. Avatar and Gaya. Prince Charles with his own nature special on TV. Al Gore and his green training. News media that regularly takes a crap on all major world religions, especially Catholicism and Islam which are direct threats to the planned Gaya/Luciferian world religion. Buddhist groups in the US that embrace "sustainable development." Luciferian groups sprouting up all over, and working feverishly to indoctrinate Buddhists.

Propaganda so smooth that most people reading this don't have a clue. If it's truth, it's fiction. That's how it is these days.

All fiction. In fact, please ignore my post entirely. I am a tinfoil nutter conspiracy freak who should be shot dead in the streets. A total waste of a human being. A relic that has been forgotten. A speck of dust in your intellectual wind that howls for a planned future.

Where can I sign up to join this global world religion? Do I get to wear a special hat?

Kevin says

Where can I sign up to join this global world religion?

You are already a member - you have to "opt out" if you want to quit and stop paying dues.

Kevin says

Do I get to wear a special hat?

Yes, here it is

Sorry couldn't help myself...

Milarepa says

Luciferian

Yes, it's always satan behind the pagan nature lovers. Let's all use up the planet as fast as possible, and then we will be rewarded in heaven.

Milarepa says

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.

If it turns out to be false, wouldn't it be that we were deceived by the data ?

I think it would be cool if you could work the reptilian alien thing into your story. Hey, it's pretty hard to prove that the Bushs aren't alien shapeshifters. Somehow working 9/11 in would be good too.

I definitely like the self deprecating disclaimers at the end.

Kevin says

Where can I sign up to join this global world religion? Do I get to wear a special hat?

My first stop would be the Club of Budapest's (another UN consultant) World Wisdom Council --
http://www.clubofbudapest.org/

Mission
The World Wisdom Council (WWC) has been convened by the Club of Budapest in cooperation with the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality in the conviction that the paramount requirement in this age of discontinuity and transformation is to recognize that, through the development of a new dimension of consciousness, the world can be constructively changed by women and men wherever they live and whatever their interests and lot in life.

The task of the Council is to build on the power and creativity innate in all people by:

â—¦bringing to the attention of the widest layers of the public both the dangers and the opportunities inherent in the human condition in its global dimension;
â—¦identifying priority areas where individual and cooperative action is needed in order to reinforce progress toward peace and sustainability, locally as well as globally;
â—¦offering guidance for developing the individual and collective wisdom that empowers action capable of bringing about constructive change in the local and the global economic, social, and ecological environment.

The World Wisdom Council realizes that there is already a growing range of initiatives aligned with its mission. In consequence it is taking as one of its highest priorities the formation of networks, partnerships, and collaborations in the interest of mobilizing the forces required for constructive transformation on a global scale.

The World Wisdom Council is politically, socially, and culturally non-partisan, championing the joint interest of all humans and all life on this planet, informing people so that they can move toward a world where they can live in peace with each other and in harmony with nature.

Second stop: the pro-Luciferian Lucis Trust (a leading UN NGO) --
http://www.lucistrust.org/

Third stop: the Earth Charter Initiative --
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/

All nutters, most certainly. Hand me the tinfoil roll so I can make a grandiose hat. Sourced facts do not survive in a world of consensus opinion. Why bother going against the grain? It's futile. I am a complete fake. Sweep me under the carpet and forget about me. Mock me into oblivion. I am the person you hated most in high school. Will you do me the honors and torture me to death like a small animal being run over by a car? I think you will feel much better about your day after doing so.

Go on, you can do it. We're counting on you.

EightBall says

Kevin says

Where can I sign up to join this global world religion?

You are already a member - you have to “opt out” if you want to quit and stop paying dues.
Kevin says

Do I get to wear a special hat?

Yes, here it is

Sorry couldn’t help myself…

I vote for you. You win top honors as Mockery Master. I am very proud of you.
Can you virtually beat me with an iron bar? That's extra credit.

If you're happy and you're brainwashed, clap your hands!

(clap clap)

marcus says

Milarepa says

Luciferian

Yes, it’s always satan behind the pagan nature lovers. Let’s all use up the planet as fast as possible, and then we will be rewarded in heaven.
Milarepa says

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.

If it turns out to be false, wouldn’t it be that we were deceived by the data ?
I think it would be cool if you could work the reptilian alien thing into your story. Hey, it’s pretty hard to prove that the Bushs aren’t alien shapeshifters. Somehow working 9/11 in would be good too.
I definitely like the self deprecating disclaimers at the end.

Yes, you most obviously are superior to me in every way imaginable. I am honored to share the same thinking space as you. I am sorry I sourced my insignificant opinions, which was really the wrong thing to do.

Will you accept my sincerest apologies? Think of my very stupid posts as a release from logic. A sudden profound realization that the majority rules. I am with you, if you will allow me to survive in your world. Can I be a popular kid, too? Please? Will you even consider this?

c5521763 says

Can you virtually beat me with an iron bar?

That's a feat I'd like to see. How would one go about this virtual beating? And, speaking of conspiracies, is there enough tin foil to go around - and who holds the tin foil? Is it like an airplane, where you put your own hat on first and then tend to the lesser, weaker around you?

c5521763 says

Sourced facts do not survive in a world of consensus opinion. Why bother going against the grain

Please share your sourced facts. I'm all ears. But, here's how you do it. State the fact first in your own words. Then provide the link to the source.

You are just as bad--you mock everyone else because they aren't in the know like you. Well, here's your chance. Present your case--write a couple of paragraphs explaining what is going on, then provide your sources. If I remember correctly, you said you did a great deal of research to uncover some amazing goings on. Instead of mocking us, why not tell the world what you found??

tatupu70 says

c5521763 says

Sourced facts do not survive in a world of consensus opinion. Why bother going against the grain

Please share your sourced facts. I’m all ears. But, here’s how you do it. State the fact first in your own words. Then provide the link to the source.
You are just as bad–you mock everyone else because they aren’t in the know like you. Well, here’s your chance. Present your case–write a couple of paragraphs explaining what is going on, then provide your sources. If I remember correctly, you said you did a great deal of research to uncover some amazing goings on. Instead of mocking us, why not tell the world what you found??

You're doing wonderfully! I mean, I already supplied facts (see above). And now I haven't because you claimed it as your own. How powerful you are.

"Be not fond of the dull smoke-colored light from hell."
~The Tibetan Book of the Dead

"Lucifer means "light-bearer" (from the words lucem ferre). The Sufi teacher Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan taught that 'Luciferian Light' is Light that has become dislocated from the Divine Source and is thus associated with the seductive false light of the lower ego, which lures humankind into self-centered delusion. Here Lucifer represents what the Sufis term the 'Nafs', the ego."
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Milarepa--

You are doing wonderfully as well. Instead of simply sharing the facts, you use the tried and true "I've already supplied them" implying that you are too lazy to write them again.

But, of course, you aren't too lazy to write another 2 paragraphs. I guess you have selective laziness...

Okay, so it sounds like we're all in agreement that religion has played a huge part in the intellectual decline of the US.

Anybody been to the Creation Museum yet?

You need only look at the history of the Creationists to see they are idiots.

People in search of some sort of framework that will soft-peddle their shamanism to the weak-minded.

Classic example is "Of Pandas and People" a book which attempts to make their nonsense sound believable while failing miserably to poke holes in real science. Early drafts said "creationist" but after they figured out the "Creation" thing wasn't selling, they came up with "Intelligent Design". Then a simple search and replace of "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and pop out the book. However this led to awkwardness like "creationist" being converted to the telltale "intelligent designist".

P.S. Milarepa, it's spelled Gaia not Gaya.

Thats great. He's so heroic. And blond, why is he blond? I've always though there'd be less Christians if Jesus had been ugly...

This is how it starts:

On a side note, anybody read "The Physics of Santa Claus":

http://www.comedycorner.org/5.html

Milarepa humbled says

I am honored to share the same thinking space as you. I am sorry I sourced my insignificant opinions, which was really the wrong thing to do.

No, no, it was I who was wrong to have taken any issue with your opinions. Please forgive me and pray that God can forgive me for implying that stories of our reward in heaven might be motivated by something other than the best interests of future generations. Please bear no ill will, that I might not feel a continued shame over my thoughtless and inconsiderate sharing of comments that might be construed as a contradiction of yours.

Milarepa says

Harry Potter. The popularity of Wicca. Avatar and Gaya. Prince Charles with his own nature special on TV. Al Gore and his green training. News media that regularly takes a crap on all major world religions, especially Catholicism and Islam which are direct threats to the planned Gaya/Luciferian world religion.

You may right. But, question master: If and when spiritual growth and evolution were ever to occur, with new spiritual traditions that were inspired by the divine, ones with more evolved age appropriate (21st centrury) views, how will we know that it is not a Luciferian conspiracy ?

Or is that impossible ?

ps: you may refer to me as "grasshopper" if you wish.

marcus says

ps: you may refer to me as “grasshopper” if you wish.

Pebble Snatcher! New name!

Milarepa humbled says

I vote for you. You win top honors as Mockery Master. I am very proud of you.
Can you virtually beat me with an iron bar? That’s extra credit.

If you’re happy and you’re brainwashed, clap your hands!

(clap clap)

Wow. Gone for a day and a new angry person appears. Don't worry about Kevin - he wears big boy pants unlike you and probably understands that the picture was a FREAKING JOKE! Life is too short to be that angry.

I was kind of looking forward to what rendition of myself Kevin would respond with - I don't really look like the guy riding the dinosaur.

EightBall says

- I don’t really look like the guy riding the dinosaur

I'm thinking that you're black, obese and have a white "8" on your belly. And I like the way you roll!

My former gf was quite religious and at times I found it very frustrating when discussing science with her. One of the main difficulties we had was basic terms during communication. For example, she once asked me if I 'believed' in alien beings. I told her that no, I didn't 'believe' in aliens, but I theorized that by mere mathematical probability given the vastness of the universe life most likely exists on other worlds. She couldn't grasp the difference between belief and mathematical probability. She wants to believe we've been visited by little green men, but there is no credible evidence of this. It seems that any debates we entered into regarding science all seemed to break down to me believing in science (vs believing what the bible says). Interestingly enough, given that she is a type 1 diabetic, her very survival depends on science. I once tried to explain the difference between religious faith and science. Religion (at least Christianity anyway) is rigid and totally based on faith- faith in what the bible says, faith that God exists, faith that the clergyman provide valid interpretation of the dogma. It is unquestionable. You must believe- it is the central tenant in Christianity above even emulating the moral teachings of the savior himself. There is no allowance for challenging the religious viewpoint. Science on the other hand is built on welcoming challenge. The scientist developes a theory ( an educated guess) and sets out to prove it. Sometimes he has success and other times he doesn't. When he successfully proves his theory he publishes the results in some widely read scientific journal. As other scientists read and evaluate his theory and results, questions may arise with regard to his methods for testing his theory and decide to run their own tests to attempt to disprove or futher clarify the results. It's not personal, it's the scientific method, and that's the reason why science advances. When enough scientists test a theory and the theory holds up only then is it generally accepted as fact. But even then, if someone comes up with an alternate theory, they are free to and encouraged to challenge the accepted fact. Unfortunately, this explanation seemed lost on her probably because this just didn't fit in with her 'belief' system. I would consider myself a Christian atheist even though that may sound like a contradiction in terms. I think there was a guy named Jesus Christ and that he did wonderful things and showed how to care for and love your fellow man. It is wonderful philosophy on morals. So I try to live and emulate these morals; however, I don't believe or see any evidence of the supernatural. It is a nice notion that some benevolent supernatural being loves and looks after us, but I see no evidence of that. Sadly, I think there is much evidence that none exists. If God looks out for us why are little children raped and killed every day, why does he let so many people suffer? Yes yes, God works in mysterious ways. Mysterious way indeed. Sorry, but I'm just not impressed. That being said, I think religion has its place. I think learning a moral code based on love and selflessness is a good thing. And if people want to believe in the carrot and stick approach of heaven and hell motivates them to live a moral life, great. But not everyone needs the promise of utopian afterlife in order to be a good person in this life. I personally believe if religion put alot more emphisis on moral behavior instead of unwavering faith, religion and science could coexist quite nicely, and maybe, just maybe we could have a kinder, gentler society.

Early Christianity had a fair amount in common with Buddhism.

Kindness...

Tolerance...

Brotherhood...

Love...

a ruthless realism acknowledging that life is what it is...here on earth...here and now...The Kingdom of God meaning goodness is right here or it should be... I am what I am becoming",

I can respect the core of that, while I reject much of what was tacked on later.

"Believe in what He (Jesus) tried to teach without the rigmarole...Piety is not what the lessons bring to people, its the mistakes they bring to the lessons" - John, 'The Man from Earth (2007)'

deanrite says

My former gf was quite religious and at times I found it very frustrating when discussing science with her.

You should have tried speaking in paragraphs.

Yeah, I think you have something there vincinte. I think early on clergy recognized the inherent savagery of humans toward one another and felt it necessary to find some way to reign in mankind's brutality. It seems the promise of eternal punishment in the afterlife might give those bent on mayhem some pause for thought. And so hell became one of the principles to keep the faithful on the straight and narrow. Funny how it didn't take long for this concept to be employed as a powerful tool in bringing political power to the church in dealing with enemies. Fight in the name of God, go to heaven, those non-believers will go to hell even if the faithful have to kill them. Even now this is done in one way or another, though not always in a violent manner. One example is the big fight over california's prop 8. Churches call to arms (or wallets moreover) to defeat the perceived sinful was a rousing success- financially that is. That's why I would like to see chuches taxed, with deductions for doing good works- caring for the poor, helping the sick, and so on. Isn't this what Jesus would be doing? Spreading the word should be secondary, especially as it is employed today- looking to find converts to fatten the kitty. Seeing some of these very wealthy televangelists spout political propaganda from the pulpit seems a bit unethical to me. Perhaps some of the faithful should consider something Jesus once said- beware of false prophets, for when you reach the gates of heaven, I will not know them.

deanrite says

Yeah, I think you have something there vincinte. I think early on clergy recognized the inherent savagery of humans toward one another and felt it necessary to find some way to reign in mankind’s brutality. It seems the promise of eternal punishment in the afterlife might give those bent on mayhem some pause for thought. And so hell became one of the principles to keep the faithful on the straight and narrow. Funny how it didn’t take long for this concept to be employed as a powerful tool in bringing political power to the church in dealing with enemies. Fight in the name of God, go to heaven, those non-believers will go to hell even if the faithful have to kill them. Even now this is done in one way or another, though not always in a violent manner. One example is the big fight over california’s prop 8. Churches call to arms (or wallets moreover) to defeat the perceived sinful was a rousing success- financially that is. That’s why I would like to see chuches taxed, with deductions for doing good works- caring for the poor, helping the sick, and so on. Isn’t this what Jesus would be doing? Spreading the word should be secondary, especially as it is employed today- looking to find converts to fatten the kitty. Seeing some of these very wealthy televangelists spout political propaganda from the pulpit seems a bit unethical to me. Perhaps some of the faithful should consider something Jesus once said- beware of false prophets, for when you reach the gates of heaven, I will not know them.

No, you're missing the point. If you were to use multiple paragraphs it'd be easier to read your posts. I stopped reading after the first sentence.

Just tryin' to help.

Kevin says

deanrite says

My former gf was quite religious and at times I found it very frustrating when discussing science with her.

You should have tried speaking in paragraphs.

So angry... are you aware at how angry you are? Your anger and need to mock for me means that your anger has clouded your opinion and that your opinion is therefore utter nonsense.

Could you please make an attempt at communicating without being so very angry through the use of mockery?

Nelson says

your anger has clouded your opinion and that your opinion is therefore utter nonsense.

Nelson, I just read your three comments so far. You're setting quite the example of how to keep ones emotions out of their comments. Compared to you, Kevin is about as emotional as "Data" on Star Trek (Next Generation), a reference that may be lost on you as you probably aren't the sci fi type.

Care to share with us who your past patrick.net incarnations were ?

Nelson says

Kevin says

deanrite says

My former gf was quite religious and at times I found it very frustrating when discussing science with her.

You should have tried speaking in paragraphs.

So angry… are you aware at how angry you are? Your anger and need to mock for me means that your anger has clouded your opinion and that your opinion is therefore utter nonsense.
Could you please make an attempt at communicating without being so very angry through the use of mockery?

I'm not angry. My eyes just glaze over when someone writes a few thousand words without a single line break.

Similarly, my eyes glaze over when people write rambling, incoherent responses to things that bear little relation to the original discussion.

marcus says

Nelson says

your anger has clouded your opinion and that your opinion is therefore utter nonsense.

Nelson, I just read your three comments so far. You’re setting quite the example of how to keep ones emotions out of their comments. Compared to you, Kevin is about as emotional as “Data” on Star Trek (Next Generation), a reference that may be lost on you as you probably aren’t the sci fi type.
Care to share with us who your past patrick.net incarnations were ?

Your opinion is of no consequence. You have little significance.

Yes yes, I know separate paragraphs. I'm perfectly capable of writing with paragraphs, but the reason why I don't is because i use an iPhone. For some reason when commenting, the size of the font changes when I press return so I am unable so see what I am writing because it is obscured by the keyboard. If you want to read it you'll just have to mentally break it up- or not.

My main point is that science is a very rational process and it doesn't really work all that well when someone of faith tries to make the data conform to their belief system.

Nelson says

You have little significance

You sound like a fortune cookie, and I nominate you for db Troll of the month.

Nelson says

So angry… are you aware at how angry you are? Your anger and need to mock for me means that your anger has clouded your opinion and that your opinion is therefore utter nonsense.
Could you please make an attempt at communicating without being so very angry through the use of mockery?

Actually, nelson, I read no anger & mockery in Kevin's response. For some of us, it's difficult to catch a point when it's in a paragraph of 623 words. Kevin- and I in turn - mentioned that it would be easier to understand deanrite's message if it were to be broken up into paragraphs. Now that we know it's not possible for him to do so, we have a choice to make. I'll probably read them as best I can because I'm interested in what he has to say.

Thank you for your concern in this matter. It's nice that you care so much.

Perhaps she's taking it on faith that there's 623 words. Otherwise, note that its science that has allowed the word count operation.

theoakman says

The scientific community doesn't do themselves any favors by holding up a theory like "global warming" to be equivalent in legitimacy to Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Any rational scientist still understands the difference between a theory and a law.

It's called The Theory of Gravity for a reason. It is a theory. And a theory is NOT a guess. A theory is a framework that makes various testable predictions. Once something is a theory, it always is a theory even if it is proved or disproved. After all, it can always be tested again. That is the whole point of the Scientific Method.

Kevin says

Something I've noticed a lot as I've gotten older is that american society has become increasingly hostile towards science and technology.

America has always been hostile to math and science with a very brief exception during the 1950s and 1960s when America was in an arms and space race with the Soviet Union. During that brief period, the government, scared shitless that Communism might be appealing to the disenfranchised masses of poor and middle class, used science and the space race to ferment nationalism. And it is only because of that propaganda effort that America is known at all for having had a brief culture of scientific advancement.

[Side Note: The government today is scared shitless that Socialism might be appealing to the disenfranchised masses of poor and middle class. However, without a competitor, the government has no reason to pay anything more than lip service to science and science education.]

However, during the vast history of the United States, it has been a backwards and illiterate nation. The Scopes Monkey Trial is a perfect example of this. But with a few exceptions like the space race, the race to build a nuclear bomb, and other arms races, America has never had a culture that promoted math, science, and engineering.

America was lucky that despite this fact, a small fraction of a percentage of the population build the home computer and the Internet. However, given the nature of outsourcing the development of this technologies to China and India, I doubt America will keep it lead in Information Technology, if it hasn't already lost the lead.

I want to see the other half of the picture and find out why she needs that towel.

Kevin says

It wasn't always like this. We used to actually have engineers and scientists as role models.

Like Edison and Ford? I think of them more as celebrities rather than role models. Self promotion was good for business.

Far fewer celebrity industrialists came on the scene during and after the depression.

Nearly all innovations and patents are now credited to corporations and not to the people who developed them.

The only scientist who quickly comes to mind as a role model is Jonas Salk.

I would definitely put Richard Feynman down as a worthy role-model. Having read his lectures, and biographical works, I would say that he is easily someone that could appeal to a lot of young people. The guy was brilliant, and really encouraged thinking and discovering things for one's self while still making it entertaining to learn.

I'd also put Carl Sagan up there, but I suspect that a lot of younger folks would find him to be a little "odd" in his passion for science. Still, the guy worked hard to bring things to an understandable level for the public.

bmwman91 says

Richard Feynman

bmwman91 says

Carl Sagan

Those are good choices.

I should have addressed Kevin's point more directly rather than nit-pick on the role model issue.

I'm not sure that we are actually becoming more hostile to science and technology itself. The nerd-heros of such action shows as Bones or the CSI shows just the Tontos of the modern world. There's not nearly so much gunplay on the medical shows such as House.

But we have a strange, almost worshipful, attitude about the rich and famous. And the chance of some corporate or university employed scientist becoming a rich celebrity are now just about zilch.

Kevin says

But the hero is never the guy who builds technology. It's always that guy's boss or child. More often than not, the technology maker is the bad guy.

Ironman was the only good guy who could afford it.