|
|
How did you like the show?
Report a problem
Reviews:
| Review this podcast |
| Review this podcast |
Episodes
- Religious Proof
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:23:16 -0400
If you have ever participated in a discussion about religion on the internet, you have heard it many times, a religious believer claiming that they have proof of their particular god. As much as you may try to explain the nature of proof to these people, they will never understand what you are trying to tell them.
The problem asking religious people for proof of their particular religious beliefs is that they will use evidence of natural or historical events as spiritual evidence that their invisible god performed some miracle or handed out some retribution.
They will show you that a village was destroyed by fire, and expect you to believe that it was the hand of their invisible god that caused the fire.
They will show you evidence of a flood and expect you to believe that the flood was caused by the invisible hand of their god.
They will tell you about someone who recovered from cancer and expect you to believe that it was the invisible hand of their god that put the cancer into remission.
They will tell you about a car accident where a friend or family member 'should have died' and expect you to believe that it was the invisible hand of god that saved this person from death.
The problem in this situation is that they really do have faith in their beliefs. They believe them in full. When they try to prove it to you, they try to prove it from within their preconceived notion that god is 100% actually factually true. Their arguments are based in their religious beliefs. There is no way for them to prove it to a non-believer because to them, their god exists as much as water exists. They really do feel something and to them, the only explanation for that feeling is their god. They cannot step outside of this box because they totally believe that their particular god is as much a part of this world as you or I.
It is futile to try and have a discussion with these people about the nature of their god or the verification of their beliefs. They believe it because it feels right to them, and nothing will shake them from that position. You can try and explain why physical evidence of natural disasters does not in any way prove or provide evidence for the existence of their god, but it will make absolutely zero difference to them. They have bought it hook, line, and sinker. You might as well just cut the line and hope you don't get another catfish on the next cast. ;0) - 05/11/2005 edition of The BlueRepper Show
(19mb)
Wed, 11 May 2005 16:24:55 -0400
No, you are not seeing things, there is actually a 2nd edition of The BlueRepper Show!
In this show:
- Rush Limbaugh pissing on the "Sanctity of Marriage"
- Legislators and parents push to regulate Cable and Satellite
- Florida Republican County Commissioner sues over misstatement
It's a fun filled romp into the world of morality! Pull up a chair and let the geetar playin begin! Yeeeeeehaw!!
- Texas Taliban Takes Aim at Cheerleaders
Wed, 11 May 2005 11:37:42 -0400
The Moral Majority at it again folks.
"AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) -- Texas lawmakers sent a message to the state's high school cheerleaders Wednesday: no more booty-shaking at the game.
The state's House of Representatives voted 85-55 to approve a bill that would forbid sexy cheers and give the Texas Education Agency authority to punish schools that allow "overtly sexually suggestive" routines at football games and other events."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/05/cheerleaders.law.reut/
This is some ridiculous crap. Texas schools are ranked 47th in the Nation, and they are concerned about cheerleading?
This is exactly the kind of crap that you voted into office. Many of you were swayed by the "Stay the course" bull feces of the Bush campaign, but in reality, this is the kind of grabage that you voted for. You knew that they were fundamentalist whackjobs, yet you voted for them out of fear. Good for you!
Coming to a school near you:
- Jesus Bean Auction
Tue, 10 May 2005 11:19:36 -0400 - The Premiere of The BlueRepper Show (18mb)
Mon, 09 May 2005 15:40:03 -0400
That's right folks, this is the grand debut of The BlueRepper Show.
What is the BlueRepper Show you ask? Basically it is packed full of the same ranting and raving that you have grown to love here on the BlueRepper Blog.
Only now you get to hear my voice and not only that, but there are magical gnomes too!
So sit back with a hot cup of coffee and settle in for The BlueRepper Show!
(There aren't really any magical gnomes. It would be cool if there were though!)
- A Scourge Upon Our Nation - Part II
Fri, 06 May 2005 06:45:00 -0400
Most of these Fundamentalists claim to base their beliefs in a literal interpretation of the bible. However, anyone who has ever taken the time to examine their idealogical stances and the causes that they promote can see that they merely pick and choose certain parts of the bible that support their own personal prejudices. It is rather convenient for them to take some parts of the bible literally while ignoring others altogether. This is the delusional aspect of their belief system that I mentioned earlier. Their sermons are based in personal prejudice and nothing that even remotely resembles a sound factual basis. They are dead-set against gays, for instance, but they do not believe in stoning adultresses. Condemnation of both homosexual activity and adultery is present in the old testament, and the penalty for adultery is for the woman to be stoned to death. Rather curiously, they only believe that the passages against homosexuality should be taken literally, while the punishment for adultery is not to be afforded the same literal importance.
The unconsidered and irrational manner in which they form their opinions on the political issues of the day is not only illogical, but it is dangerous for those of us who actually take the time to consider our positions and their logical ramifications. I personally believe that we are at the top of a cycle. I think that the pendulum has swung very far to the dogmatic religious right, and is now starting it's way back in the other direction. I hope that this is the case, but who knows what could happen if another attack on the scale of 9/11 were to occur at this time. An event of that nature might push the pendulum even further to the right, into a terrible realm of hatred and fanaticism.
Many Americans like to believe that catastrophic changes in the political fabric of a society are relegated to foreign nations or even to the past. This is not the case. We are humans and as with all human societies, ours is vulnerable to the rabid desires of fanaticism and fundamentalism. These scourges upon our society will always be with us. It is in times of great stress and national peril that they rear their ugly head and try to regain the ground that they have lost in times of relative peace and prosperity.
We must not allow these terrible forces of bitter hatred to rule over us all. We must not respond timidly to the howling of these cold winds. We must stand up to these forces of mental terror and declare that as Americans, as humans on the planet Earth, that we will not be torn asunder by their maniacal agendas. We must stand our ground and never let them intimidate us from defending the foundations that keep what we have left of a free society from eroding into nothing more than another Fundamentlist Religious Regime.
© 2005 Michael Repper - A Scourge Upon Our Nation - Part I
Thu, 05 May 2005 06:36:00 -0400
In the past 5 years we have watched our nation undergo a dramatic change. It seems more and more that every time one turns on the television and watches what passes for news in this country, we see yet another Fundamentalist on television foaming at the mouth about the latest sin that will lead to the downfall of our society. Every month it seems that there has to be some new 'moral battle' for these psychophants to declare against the rest of society. Unfortunately for all of us, many of these are the same ones who have already established themselves as TV Evangelists, and so their audience is by default much larger than those religious leaders who are less about ratings and donations than they are about teaching the principles of their faith to a relatively small congregation.
The delusional emotional pulpit that these leaders use to rant and rave seem eerily similar to those used at many points throughout history to foist autocratic regimes and horrible attrocities on the people of a nation or encourage them to do so to another nation or people. In this case it has just been sanitized, given a TV slot, and peddled in nice membership-based package, all the while with their hands out for donations. It's an effective tool for growing their member lists and fattening their wallets.
But there is more to it than that. These people are dangerous. They do not consider the meaning or the implications of their hate-filled sermons. They show no regard for their fellow man. The only thing that is important to these Fundamentalist firebrands is that they impart enough emotional excitement into their flock as to encourage attendance, donations, and worst of all, political influence.
The problem with this is not the fact that these people get out and vote, voting is something which should be encouraged in a democracy. The problem is that these leaders do not base their demands in logic and reason, they base them in a rage-filled emotional cesspool.
© 2005 Michael Repper
To be Continued... - Republican War with Iran?
Wed, 04 May 2005 06:20:00 -0400
Much has been made of a possible war with Iran as of late. The speculation is that Bush and company would launch an attack on Iran as part of the War on Terror. Many people assert that the Bush Administration is planning this invasion and slowly trying to get the American people 'buttered up' for such an invasion in the near future.
I don't know...
I think Bush and company are a bunch of screwups who could give a crap about what is best for Americans, but do you think Bush would do something that absolutely outrageously stupid?
Americans would NOT support a war with Iran. Bush and the Republicans would quickly lose nearly every bit of popular support. Their support would be reduced to only the most hardcore Republican supporters.
The troops are already overextended. They are already being required to serve 2 or 3 tours in Iraq.
Starting a war with Iran would be political suicide for the Republican party and I don't think the leaders or the contributors with the big money behind the scenes want that to happen.
I think they are nice and comfortable where they are. I think they sold the people that needed to be sold, the things that they needed to be sold so that the Republicans could hold power for another term. I don't think they want to upset the huge number of Americans that would be outraged by an invasion of Iran.
There would have to be a draft to have a full scale invasion of a country like Iran while maintaining our operations and bases in Iraq. I really don't think the Republican party is willing to lose all of the influence that they have purchased with Americans over the past 4 years. - Attack of the Symbolists, Part II
Tue, 03 May 2005 06:55:00 -0400
It matters not how much time you spend reasoning with the symbolists. Their brains are quite simply not equipped to handle such critical thinking. Their brains have been naturally selected over the course of our evolution to be followers, not thinkers or leaders. This is why no amount of explanation or demonstration can get a point of fact across to these people once they have made their minds up on a particular issue. They have formed a deeply intimate emotional bond with the symbolism and parables that led them to make that decision. They have developed an emotional attachment to their beliefs and the particular village shamans who instructed them to believe the way that they do. They have developed strong nuerological reinforcements for these emotional decisions that trump any sort of logic or reason that could ever be presented to them. I think that the only thing that can shake these people from these types of beliefs, albeit very rarely, is some sort of catastrophic event in their lives, however, that is actually more likely to strengthen those emotional pathways in their brain even more. They are likely to fall back on the only thing that has brought them a sense of comfort and reliability in their modern lives, this emotional mechanism of faith in symbols and parables.
We must participate in this worldly dispute with our hands tied behind our backs. Our most formidable weapons, logic and reason, mean nothing to these symbolists. Especially in the face of their strongly reinforced emotional beliefs. They consistently want to turn any and all exchanges into emotional battles repleat with banners, parables, and human idols. They want to bring us down to their level. In a later article I will discuss one aspect of this in particular, and that is their desire to turn science into nothing more than another religion for the purposes of our political and social exchanges. They are quite happy to rely upon science when they are in need of technology or medical care, but when it comes down to a debate over a particular issue, they want it to become nothing more than another mass of symbolists under a banner for them to attack.
We mustn't allow this to happen. We must stick to our guns, so to speak, and continue to present reasoned logical answers to the problems that we are confronted with in our modern societies. If not, we have temporarily devolved to their level and allowed them to reduce our superior tactics to so much emotional rubbish that is incapable of being differentiated from the rest of the mental litter on the battlefield after any particular engagement.
© 2005 Michael Repper - Attack of the Symbolists, Part I
Mon, 02 May 2005 10:53:58 -0400
I think that for the longest time in our history, symbols and parables were the most effective way to transmit information and technology. There weren't any peer-reviewed journals, there weren't any scientific boards.
There were a few people in each village who sat around in a tent or a cave and made decisions for everyone else. Then they applied those decisions to the masses with symbolism and story telling.
While these techniques have their flaws, they were very effective at producing certain results: Adherence and Allegiance.
You don't need complex discussions to wave a banner. You don't need to debate to follow a decree from the village elders. All you need to do is look for the symbolism and listen for the parable. Then you know how you are expected to function in your village society.
I think these traits have been naturally selected as valuable in our primitive past. They allowed a whole village of humans to unite for one cause, no matter what. If the village was attacked, raise the flag and lead them into battle. It is a fairly simple system that would work quite well in such a setting. The village granddaddy says no chewing of tobacco leaf on the equinox? Send the evil equinox leaf chewers away! They broke the rules.
Yet there always had to be those village elders who would sit back and think things through. The ones who controlled the symbol-followers. They would consider the problems that may or may not arise and apply their decisions through the aforementioned mechanisms. So these thinkers were not lost, but many of them may have been destroyed by the other thinkers who saw them as a threat within the confines of the village system. It was advantageous in such a setting to have a small group of thinkers and a vastly larger group of followers who would execute the commands of the thinkers like so many lines of computer code.
This is most unfortunate for those of us who think for ourselves. For we always are and always will be pitted against a majority of symbolists who want no more than to wait for the latest lines of code to process so that they can go on with their daily lives, content in the fact that they are letting someone else do the thinking for them. However, this black and white symbolicm fails us in our modern complex societies, and can lead to truely horrific results if the symbolists are being led by a particularly cruel or wreckless village elder.
© 2005 Michael Repper
To be continued...
