patrick.net

Kiss Country plays Delilah in the evenings, and she has a cool program, very spiritual.

But, Kiss Country does not play enough Waylon, Merle, Willy, George Jones, Marty Robbins, Coe, Lefty, Cash, Straight, Loretta, Tammy, or Moe Bandy. In my opinion.

The best new talent is Jamey Johnson.

CaptainShuddup says

Is it that you like the music, or is an excuse to don the boots and hat?

You got me. Here's a shot of me with my posse.

CaptainShuddup says

There's no way in hell you're listening to the words.

Isn't every country songs are about drinking after you wife left you and stole your truck and your dog ran away, or your dog left you and stole your wife and your truck ran away?

If you want deep lyrics, listen to old Simon and Garfunkel songs.

That said, I like

http://www.youtube.com/embed/y7A-Vq2CslM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/asxrMSVrJ08

http://www.youtube.com/embed/FuuBjOaFODs
The generic rebellion song. Insert cause here.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/MnQcExGaEvk

And although, I might not admit it in public...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/byQIPdHMpjc

And pure generous...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/lf4__-xWq8w

CaptainShuddup says

Imagine came out in the 80's, the Hippies morphed into Yuppies by then. There's no damn Hippies with a Manhattan condo on Central park.

Captain, Captain, I think you need to check your facts. Again.

I think once can afford clean new clothes, you're no longer a hippie.
Even if you choose to live a dishevel appearance.
At that point you're just a rich slob, with long hair.

CaptainShuddup says

I think once can afford clean new clothes, you're no longer a hippie.

Even if you choose to live a dishevel appearance.

At that point you're just a rich slob, with long hair.

You are confusing hippies with wookies.

CaptainShuddup says

I think once can afford clean new clothes, you're no longer a hippie.

Even if you choose to live a dishevel appearance.

At that point you're just a rich slob, with long hair.

Remind us all again when Imagine was released.

Bigsby says

Remind us all again when Imagine was released.

CaptainShuddup says

Imagine came out in the 80's

Well, it was release in the 1980s. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the the release in the 80s was not the first release. I think the question here is when was the first release.

leo707 says

Well, it was release in the 1980s. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the the release in the 80s was not the first release. I think the question here is when was the first release.

Obviously the time it CAME OUT is rather a long way off where Captain thinks it is, but there's no surprise in that.

Bigsby says

Obviously the time it CAME OUT is rather a long way off where Captain thinks it is, but there's no surprise in that.

Ah, haha, yeah.

You will never catch me accusing Shaddup of being too through with the fact checking of his/her posts. On second thought, of doing any fact checking.

leo707 says

You will never catch me accusing Shaddup of being too through with the fact checking of his/her posts. On second thought, of doing any fact checking.

First of all, the Republican Party is "not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers". I don't know why you have a problem with that. The Republican Party is about wining in a fictional world, you know like Middle Earth from Lord of the Rings. And Obama is Lord Sauron.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/1ot9JtiHhiU

Please note that the original video is creepier, but I'm going to post it anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/DbYtqAWDF2U

In any case, when Imagine was released is irrelevant. Captain's point was that all the hippies became yuppies and the album Imagine reflects the yuppy lifestyle rather than hippie lifestyle. Given what John Lennon looked like and how he lived at the time, I think that Captain's point is pretty much wrong regardless of when the album was released.

I stand corrected, Imagine was released in 1971.
I was thinking it was on double fantasy.
Dan8267 says

Given what John Lennon looked like and how he lived at the time, I think that Captain's point is pretty much wrong regardless of when the album was released.

No it's just diminished.

leo707 says

CaptainShuddup says

I think once can afford clean new clothes, you're no longer a hippie.

Even if you choose to live a dishevel appearance.

At that point you're just a rich slob, with long hair.

You are confusing hippies with wookies.

Wookies don't smell as bad.

Imagine no fanatical ideologies.

freak80 says

Imagine no fanatical ideologies.

You first have to imagine no God. It's a wonderful feeling.

I think it's that people don't like to be told the basis of their being is factually incorrect and when irrefutable facts are presented to them they disregard them and it makes their false convictions stronger.

This applies to the 2 biggest taboo subjects for whites in the US, race and religion.

http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-everyone-else-is-wrong/

Thanks for posting this insight which may shed some light, but it cannot explain by itself the whole issue.

For example, while some religious people react the same way to atheists and romantic rejection, others do not. Usually, those with the most doubts about their faith are more likely to proselytize; it would be interesting to test whether they also react worse to atheists, and to test whether people with low self esteem react worse to romantic rejection. I suspect both of those hypotheses are probably true, but I haven't seen any data.

Fear is another variable. Our "allies" in Pakistan, where even being associated with a blasphemer can get you killed, are simply terrified:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/06/166922/unexpected-support-for-christian.html

In that context, the reaction to a blasphemer is not only "you have rejected me romantically" but also "any association with you might get me murdered!" Cultures of fear tend to breed fanaticism independently of religion, as North Korea illustrates: North Koreans appear ridiculously devoted to their Despotic Leader, whoever the latest one is. Fear and religion are also connected intrinsically, as people are more likely to turn to religion when afraid; anything that causes them doubt (like the existence of non-believers) may heighten their fear.

curious2 says

Cultures of fear tend to breed fanaticism independently of religion, as North Korea illustrates: North Koreans appear ridiculously devoted to their Despotic Leader, whoever the latest one is.

Removal of "religion" from a society does not remove the innate desire of some humans to believe in the supernatural. Often personality cults fill the vacuum when religion is "forcibly" removed. These cults often dip into spiritual and supernatural.

FYI, North Korea is not the greatest example of a religion free society because they actually have Juche as the official religion. Their leaders are "Heaven Born", "Heaven Sent", etc. Many supernatural powers are attributed to the "great leader". Did you know that Kim Jong-il did not defecate or urinate like the rest of us disgusting slobs? You know all that shit people say about Chuck Norris? Yeah, Juche tells those kind of stories about the North Korean leaders and people believe it.

While he does not inspire the same level of fanaticism Che Guevara is a good example of a larger than life figurehead.

leo707 says

Removal of "religion" from a society does not remove the innate desire of some humans to believe in the supernatural.

No, but it is a first step. Plus astrology hasn't influenced national policy since Nancy Reagan.

Dan8267 says

Plus astrology hasn't influenced national policy since Nancy Reagan.

Ah, hahaha good call-back.

Cloud says

How would the atheists activists here remove the religious from society if they were given the power of God and say the US military?

We've seen what other atheists have done. WWPAD do? What would Patrick's atheists do?

Why do I get the feeling this sort of post says a lot more about you and your thinking than that of atheists?

Cloud says

Don't know anything about your feelings other than you use them instead to form an opinion.

I am simply curious as to what an American atheist activist would do if they controlled our government.

On would think from reading Dan's hysterics and spew, that our country is being over run by the Taliban.

This country is hugely tolerant of all religions, including the atheist one.

Cloud, Cloud, Cloud, atheism is not a religion as you should know, and if you don't, then you should really refrain from posting on the topic. And how the hell should anybody know what an atheist would do in power? Presumably that would entirely depend on what their views on economics and social issues was. You know a lot of leaders in Europe are and have been atheist. I haven't noticed prisons set up to house Christians or the like. In fact, I'd say the level of general tolerance is pretty high in Europe, and there's also rather a lot less fundamentalist Christian tub-thumping that goes on compared to the US. Just my opinion of course.

Bigsby wrote: "Cloud, Cloud, Cloud, atheism is not a religion as you should know, and if you don't, then you should really refrain from posting on the topic."

1) Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
2) In an infinite universe, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of someone or something.
3) Therefore atheists take the nonexistence of a deistic entity (and usually the supernatural too) as an article of faith, choosing to believe in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."(to quote Paul of the New Testament)

This inconvenient truth has really annoyed a lot of atheists, and given rise to such ridiculous flailings as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Do a google search, it's a church!

Aside from this definition, a religion also is defined by prosetylizaton, of which this entire thread is a glaring example of atheists putting their faith on display in the hopes of convincing someone to adopt their belief system and worldview.

Quigley says

1) Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
2) In an infinite universe, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of someone or something.
3) Therefore atheists take the nonexistence of a deistic entity (and usually the supernatural too) as an article of faith, choosing to believe in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."(to quote Paul of the New Testament)

This inconvenient truth has really annoyed a lot of atheists, and given rise to such ridiculous flailings as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Do a google search, it's a church!

Aside from this definition, a religion also is defined by prosetylizaton, of which this entire thread is a glaring example of atheists putting their faith on display in the hopes of convincing someone to adopt their belief system and worldview.

Oh, dear. If you want to so torture the word religion to make it fit the idea that atheism is a religion, then knock yourself out. Atheism is just a word to describe a lack of belief in God. How can a lack of belief in something be a religion? Is not smoking a habit?

Cloud says

Wow, well said Quig.

Still am asking any atheist on this site to "show me love."

Why?

Cloud says

Why what Bigsby, use your brain, not your feelings.

Follow the bouncing ball:

Why I said "well said Quig" or why do I want an atheist to hand over "love?"

Both

Cloud says

By the way Quig, the great and hugely unknown Dawkins and I have debated via e-mails before.

Although a hermit crab compared to the giants of science, and who will not be remembered, I have to him some respect in his willingness to debate.

You have to laugh.

Cloud says

How would the atheists activists here remove the religious from society if they were given the power of God and say the US military?

By promoting literacy, math/science/history education, and adding logic back as a subject in K-12.

Of course, the crazy-ass religious right can only see military solutions to further their political agenda. That's why they can't imagine that their opposition has other means.

Cloud says

Wow, well said Quig.

Still am asking any atheist on this site to "show me love."

Yep, it's just like romantic rejection. Isn't it.

I don't think anyone could show Cloud love, not even his mother. It's impossible to love someone so loathsome.

Cloud says

the power of God and say the US military

This goes directly to the issue of hate. I am trying to remember which philosopher observed first that the less evidence there is to settle a debate, the more likely it becomes to produce heated argument, hatred, and violence. To borrow a metaphor from physics, less light results in more heat.

As others have written above, in an infinite universe, evidence of nonexistence is rather difficult to find. At the same time, direct evidence to support any particular religion is similarly difficult to find, and besides their many contradictions support Dawkins' summary that a believer disbelieves in all gods but one, while a nonbeliever simply takes that same process one step further. That simple difference shouldn't ordinarily result in hatred, but it does, for multiple reasons. One is the unavailability of evidence.

The OP video adds another likely reason that I had never seen suggested anywhere else, but that is in addition to the more basic reason that people are more likely to resort to hostility and force when evidence and reason fail. The fundamental hypocrisy of "god and guns" is, if you really believe you have an omnipotent god on your side, then a gun would be totally unnecessary. In this regard, America's military budget is a measure of Americans' disbelief that an omnipotent god is really on our side. Alas, pointing out logic in such situations may get you shot, especially by one of our Pakistani "allies" who don't share the American enthusiasm for debate. For much of human history, force was the way to settle debates over any subject beyond the limits of knowledge: build up hatred and organize violence to kill the other side, then the argument is over.

curious2 says

I am trying to remember which philosopher observed first that the less evidence there is to settle a debate, the more likely it becomes to produce heated argument, hatred, and violence.

What does that philosopher say about the election debates where there is plenty of evidence but the right just chooses to ignore facts and make shit up?

Dan8267 says

the right just chooses to ignore facts

"None so blind as those that will not see." That proverb was popularized by a minister, illustrating perhaps unintentionally that people see only what they expected to see, whether it's there or not, and then accuse others of not looking. To the willfully blind, there can never be any facts contrary to what they already believe.

The point is that this is a debate that not only can't be settled, but SHOULDN'T be! As curious2 said, the only way to settle a debate about something that there is no conclusive evidence to justify either side is with force and violence. I hope we can all agree that this method lacks civility, reason, and humanity. Not only that, but the lack of debate makes us all poorer for it. We need people who question as much as we need people who believe. There is wisdom in both sides worldview, but it is lost when represented by fanatics who wish to "end the debate."
Yes, it is impossible to prove the existence of a God or gods that don't hold still long enough for those with the proper certifications to get them to the dissection table. No, this does not equate with proof of nonexistence. A god, by definition, would be as far beyond humanity as we are from a lowly ant. Understanding this deity would be about as much use as an ant trying to comprehend the Internet.
As far as differing faiths, well, have you heard the story about the three blind men and the elephant? It goes like this: they were each allowed to encounter the beast which was new to them. The first felt the trunk and said, "an elephant is like a snake!". The second felt the leg and said, "no, an elephant is clearly like a tree trunk! The third felt its tail and said, "you are both incorrect, an elephant is like a rope!" Each was right, in a small part. Each was also wrong. So it goes with the religions of men as they attempt to describe the nature of the Divine.
All have pieces of the Truth, but all are also wrong, guilty of the arrogance of defining that which transcends human definition.

Quigley says

The point is that this is a debate that not only can't be settled, but SHOULDN'T be! As curious2 said, the only way to settle a debate about something that there is no conclusive evidence to justify either side is with force and violence.

I don't need evidence for a prior issues like the square root of two being irrational. I can use proofs. The existence of an entity that has the properties of the monotheistic god can and has been disproved many times using proofs by contradiction.

Cloud says

Wow, well said Quig.

Still am asking any atheist on this site to "show me love."

We don't burn witches at the stake.
We don't stone women to death.
We don't kill our children because God says so.
We don't believe in slavery.
Please do not show us more of your love.

Cloud, the only one who can show you love is this robot.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qobhDJ_vEOc

Quigley says

1) Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
2) In an infinite universe, it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of someone or something.
3) Therefore atheists take the nonexistence of a deistic entity (and usually the supernatural too) as an article of faith, choosing to believe in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."(to quote Paul of the New Testament)

... every con artist wants you to believe them without evidence, "In things hoped for, of things unseen".

Tell me where you grew up, and I'll be uncannily accurate as to what your religion is. Religion is mythology, cultural BS. Another truth: The less educated and accomplished you are, the more likely you're religious. This applies both individually and by culture.

Cloud says

Does love exist? You use the word. You use the word hate. Hand it over atheist.

Yes love exists. You just won't find it with a cruel God or anyone who starves millions of babies. Even Satan has more compassion.
I suggest you stop reading fairy tales that say the earth is 6,000 years old.

Raw says

Yes love exists. You just won't find it with a cruel God or anyone who starves millions of babies. Even Satan has more compassion.

"Moses, what do you mean they didn't kill all but the virgin women? They left some boys and old men and old women alive?! Tell them to go back there and kill 'em all, for I am the Prince of Peace and God is Love."

"Elisha, don't worry dude, I'll send a she-bear to kill those kids who made fun of your bald head. After all, YAHWEH is Justice!"

I read it in a book.

Cloud says

Give me the list of just 10 Great Men who are or were atheists, just 10 Thunder. Ought to be easy right?

And we aren't talking about Oxford Dons who push around 21 year old college students. I am talking about Giants like Churchill, or Farrady, Pascal, George Washington....

I'm waiting...keep googling, you're gonna have to google. Good luck.

That's a very silly comment Cloud. Even for you.