Post #5 Response to Phillip's blog

Sorry for the delay in posting as I have been busy trying to get people to read the blog. To plagiarise wherever I originally heard this, if you like what you see then tell your friends otherwise tell your enemies. I will be writing an interpretation of Post #4 soon, but this one felt more urgent.

Phillip left me a comment to check out his blog. I did and this is my response, posted under in the comments for the 'Living in the Now' post.

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your post. I like your site but obviously I disagree with your positions. Admittedly I haven't read through your site extensively yet but it appears as though you are using scientific principles fallaciously.

In your post ‘Intuition’, you seem to be referring to something different to the intuition that I understand. Intuition is direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. From a quick search on Google, the ‘alpha state’ you spoke of seems to only be referenced by spiritualists, etc, (sorry to lump you all together if that's not how you describe yourself) so can you refer to what scientists you speak of that study this alpha state?

Your post, ‘Intellectual Thinking’, regarding racism was fairly off the mark. To paraphrase: what is the difference b/w nose-ism and racism? Racism can is generated by hate and/or intolerance. It goes beyond "childish remarks" when adults discriminate against another for their race. Racist remarks are often deliberately derogatory.

Racism can lead to violence, nose-ism doesn't. We can relate racism to slavery and treating people as second-class citizens. If you don't understand the difference between racism and nose-ism, you should perhaps stop what you are doing and think about the effects of racism. They may be 'just words' but they express these intolerances and if they become part of everyday speech then it is accepting racism.

In, ‘Everything Happens for a Reason’, you also refer to atheism fallaciously. It is not an "atheistic idea" that a good god would not allow bad things to happen, this is just one of many arguments against the existence of such a god. It is not attributed to atheism since atheism is solely the denial of any god or gods existing.

You go on to argue that this idea is simplistic, yet the next sentence you write says "there is simply life". Perhaps the words 'good' and 'bad' should be defined here since you seem to think that events cannot be described this way.

I would describe bad events as those that cause suffering. So if an earthquake causes mass destruction of some city buildings and things but no one is hurt, then I could grant that it may not be a 'bad' thing. If the earthquake causes thousands of deaths and the loss of people’s homes then that is a bad thing. Now, in reality, what about the thousands of communities that suffer everyday because of famine and disease, where they will continue to suffer because the resources aren't available to them. That is bad.

Okay, so I just read this sentence and you have lost any respect from me that you might have had. "Sometimes if they (children) have no respect for their father, who may be weak rather than abusive, they identify more with their feminine side and become transvestites." That is completely moronic. Can you base that on any statistics or studies? Are you then saying that being a transvestite is a damaging thing?

Then you go on with this, "The contra-sexual relationships in a family shape our view of ourselves, and the relationships we form with others. This issue is ignored in the debate over same-sex couples or single parent families."

This is ignored because it is not an issue. Nothing that we know of makes someone gay. Nothing that we know of makes being gay a bad thing. In fact, in terms of harm, there is nothing that makes having a same sex partner bad except for what they have to deal with from bigots and their asinine opinions.

Who are you to say that a same-sex couple is in some way inferior to a heterosexual couple? Based on what you say here, heterosexual couples do a pretty good enough job of fucking up kids lives. Are you also dismissing the ability of single-parent families to raise children?

None of your opinions are backed up with any case studies and I am dismissing them as nothing more than assumptions and stereotypes. Sometimes children who are raised by an abusive father do carry over such aggression, but not always as your opinions perhaps suggest.

That's all I'm going to offer now, as I no longer find your opinions worth any interest.