COVID-19 [Note #1]

I'm not likely to create a series of thoughts on this matter.  I am however likely to note a thing or two in the future, directly or not, regarding this matter. 

I am worried about the future.  Not because I think things will get that bad due to coronavirus disease, but rather, I suspect a general period of stagnation.  Fear on one hand and disruption on the other as thousands die.  Our ill-prepared system is shown to be as it is.  Our experts and government officials over-estimating risks to ensure they limit those risk factors.  People then rejecting the inflated risks and so creating the risk factors that can lead to worsening problems.  Many try to lower risk as much as possible, others ignore advice, jobs at risk, future hopes placed on hold, but for a cause that is not unfair.  A likelihood is normality returns within months, or months longer if handled poorly.  Yet, with much debate on the matter of how to handle the situation, the question of how the cope is much contested.  A pondered question by some is would the cost of mass illness even be as bad as the concerns, or should those with health issues be isolated while the rest keep calm and carry on.  But how can you Isolate such people when society mingles.  And many don't know what they do or do not have.  Health concerns and unseen problems conspiring to up the toll.  Equally, if on matters of carers, if they are expected to be the plague doctors of the modern-day, then how can they limit risk unless we all limit together??  No easy answers, no simple tricks, but in a year's time some will laugh about this.  And, indeed, Some are laughing now.  Is this wisdom or folly, no person may say until the passage is scribbled into the history books.  I suspect that it would not be as bad as some suggest, yet a trivial matter it is not. 

argument over race, was I wrong?? [please explain why, I am interested.]

Maybe as I wrote my previous blog I was on a mental high from listening to a few science podcasts, but I'm very much open to learning more.  I dare say I've made a few errors, but I tend to learn from my mistakes. 

Feel free to comment, I will probably rely

Race in a nutshell.

In essence there are no races between humans.  

 

Race used to be the tribe down the river, then the next region or nation, later the next people with common looks, then the next continent or wherever difference is great for the recent bigot.

Now it's a world away, as genetic commonality means that scientifically an alien from another world with no shared history is the true alien or race apart from why evolving Earthlings.

Turns out the idea of race at a real level due to our shared heritage is best argued as not between people but between separate abiogenesis and evolution.  Alternatively, the Darwinian version is one regarding species and not ethnic type, survival of race of people being far from scientific reasoning. Ethnicity being very grey, with every one of you being a mongrel, and so at best race is a belief based on data before modern knowledge, such as genetics. 

 

 So, as I said, there are no races between humans.  Or so it would be, if not for common ignorance and ideology based reasoning, the unequality in various cases, and so race beyond reason is a continuing irrationality.  

The moon is made of cheese. ;)

The title isn't serious, nor is anyone of sound mind claiming this to be true, yet, it is the kind of claim that one could keep alive by moving the goal posts.  If anything the idea of the moon being made of cheese is a joke about the power of ignorance and what things may look like to simple minds.

When we talk of god, heaven, or any such idea, it is easy enough to say without canonical reasoning that the trouble must be that we haven't disproved god as much as one idea of god.  We can go to the extreme of examining the stories of every holy book and the idea of god(s), and when we test what we can the faithful can always move god beyond our ability to test.  Long ago it was normal to image the gods walking the hills and mountains, meeting on the highest mountains, such as Olympus, and when we conquered these high places the gods became kings of the sky.  As modern science kicked in the ability to test the skies and the vastness of space pushed the room for god to an every greater extent, until, at some point, god is no longer in our universe, or not visible in our dimension.  The process is one that the god of the Israelites is now the god of the gaps. 

To the ignorant and thought-reformed, the idea of a small universe, a young earth, etc.  Isn't hard to accept, from a point of ignorant faith it is easy to imagine a god unseen watching mankind and helping the flock.  It isn't unlike the stories we tell to children, the idea that fairies live in the garden, that pixies look after the forests, or giants live in the sky and are reached by climbing magic bean stalks.  Or, the moon is made of cheese, a fun idea added into children stories and cartoons, and because it looks a bit like a kind of cheese with pits and holes.  We troll our off-spring in this way, giving the kinder an inspired imagination in their earliest years. 

The link between ideas of god and the cheese based moon is to not understand where we come from via a natural selection process and cheese comes from cow.  The outspoken theist and outspoken child may well speak with the honest belief that this is so, one at 44 years and the other at 4 years.  The arguments used would stem from the ideas they have, every step back they make would require them to deny or change view to the nearest safe position, thus, in a fashion, they are alike. 

To give an example, when addressing the theist you may point out the universe is not geocentric, they will likely disagree and agree, the universe seems to be not geocentric.  But if the universe is centred on us then how could you truly refute it if it is at a cosmic level if not as far as our star system nor our galaxy.  So we both aren't the centre yet are the focus of the universe.  The argument moves the centric view while making it more concrete to the faithful via a leap of faith and imagination. 

The child's view of a moon of fermented curds might make similar moves, denial can't last in children on such issues for long, adsorption is the logical step, thus, they would incorporate the ideas or adapt them to fit their model of reality.  Literal cheese or otherwise may as well be cheese since it is so far that we cannot touch it, but then mankind has visited the moon, and so a staggering realisation can take place.  The obvious takes place, they learn or remain foolishly uninformed, the latter kind is most like the devout religious person.  In which case faith or trust in an idea is coupled with imagination, and when one ponders possibility and not literal philosophy one can create universes of near nonsense.  In an extreme case we could dream up a character that thinks the cheese of the moon is to refer to the feminine energies of both the moon and cheese being aligned, or indeed an idea of other worldly cheese, a food of the gods.  Such people would find themselves in padded cells in adulthood, yet to those innocent youths the idea of the lunar emmental is believable, and only because you have no yet developed your rational faculties. 

So, what the hell am I talking about?  I'm using an odd example of the moon being made of cheese and the comparison to irrational beliefs to express that one should outgrow the unrealistic over time, yet the idea of religion often linger for a lifetime.  At which point the health answer is not to move the goal posts and suggest multi-dimensional forces, but instead to recognise that you do not know the answer.  In cases of the moon and god, we can accept the evidence and need not jump to any conclusions.  Even if we have way of making our mistaken views seem to be less irrational as we mess with the perimeters.  Final clarification, to make claims of knowledge when you know little is to know almost nothings, to warp reality to your beliefs prove nothing at all. 


[A bit random, I know.]

'Open Minded' redefined by the devout??? [incomplete thoughts]

 I am a self-critical freethinker, I doubt myself and our world, our culture and the swaying branches of humanity.  What I do not do is claim this makes me superior, nor indeed should anyone think because they try to be critical and seek after truth with a rational outlook that they are.  We are open to new ideas and willing to accept change.  We are not made greater or super human by this, we need not beg the ego.  It seems that any New Agers or self-made neo-pagan may talk in terms that we find somewhat familiar, they sketch in the reason into their faith, they use terms such as 'rational' and 'logical' from time to time.  The whole vale of this is to pose the idea that a belief held to be true via faith is true and should be accepted as rational because it is argued with some fair tact and serious sounding language.  If this is so then the green grosser of word salad is master above academic and doubter alike.  This is not so.  To say you have science because you have one study is in error, to ignore data that doesn't fit your beliefs is more than a fools blunder, and to claim that you are open minded as you preach is a joke of epic proportions.

The simple truth is that I am very open minded, and this is because I care what's true.   I am very concerned that to a great many people to be 'open minded' is to be a blind devotee.   It is considered perfectly normal in everyday society to not see the differences between questioning and showing aggression towards an idea, the pondering person may be unsure or have better data.  And, all too often, the question falls on deaf ears and it is seen as being closed minded.  This is considered normal with many people, if you ask a hard question to those who are insistent that they are open minded then what chance do you have in expressing another opinion.  It seems that the devout have the open minds while we who have no set belief, nothing set in stone, we are the closed minded, the negative Nancy or doubting Thomas. 

So, what might we find if we follow this train of thought, where may these tracks lead us if we consider the open minded one is the devout one?  It could lead far beyond the moderate beliefs that are common in the spiritual movement.  If we turn the spiritual gurus logic back upon him will we find the most open minded people join ISIS or knock door to door giving out the Watch Tower magazine?  At any guess, I doubt the logic that the believing psychic or healers are open to honest discussion, and much of my attempt pan this out.  What can be said is that in comparison, as far as beliefs and intellectual freedom, the average spiritual person is far more liberated than an extremist.  Although this is not the factor in question. 

We need to ask simply what is meant by having 'an open mind', to be 'open minded' is said to be open to the truth by many, open to the argument by others, yet others say accepting.  And people wonder why a famous quote says we should have an open mind, but not so open out brain falls out of our head.  Too many spiritual people acceptance is the fundamental point, so maybe they risk losing their minds. 

What is true to you may vary, the facts do matter, not that the big picture is always clear, and we should accept facts and sound theories while being flexible enough to accept new data.  In my opinion, being open minded is more than being swayed by any argument that you consider to be comforting.  Perhaps that's why new age and relating ideas do so well, you get a great deal for every little effort, and people to enjoy a bargain.  If I am told of a thing that is said to be true and I trust the person telling me and I like the idea you can imagine how easy it would be to accept it.  Much like alternative medicine, an accepting person gets results because they take onboard the idea, and the reality need not exist as long as the psychological benefits yield fruit.  This is the road of self-deception, it seems good and kind of works, thus I take to it as if glued to the belief and hold it as practically or literally holy.  The illusion that comes for free is that what you trust in is correct and no accept this is open-minded. 

[not completed]

Predictions

 No, Edgar Cayce did not predict much of note, unless you use the same tricks as the fans of Nostradamus. If you make things fit from a prediction or a few words that may be predictive you are not finding where it fits, you're making it fit.

 

 

 

It is the same reasoning that creates movements like the Christian-scientists, creation-science, koranic-science, etc. You take what you believe and make it fit reality, BUT it is not reality that fits your beliefs. You build the illusion, bridge gaps, endow the system with the ability to not be totally disproven.  Religion and spirituality are similar to science in one way, it adapts based on undeniable facts. The fundamental difference is science changes to learn from reality and spirituality changes just enough to allow itself to continue without being a totally refuted collection of poorly thought out opinions.

Predictions are commonly based on the idea of a number of changes, good or bad, give that a century or many more years and you'll have many hits.  Some say Cayce predicted the end of communism, he did, but he claims ALL systems will fall with a rising of a spiritual age of enlightenment, so no cigar for Edgar.  He predicted an alliance between the west and the USSR around the beginning of WW2, just like many analysts did, so no cigar again! He predicted a united world and renewed spirituality, so much for that. Oh, and he said dumb shit about energy, reality, the past, highers beings, and he was wrong. Best of all, well in my view, he claimed Atlantis would be discovered, so once again no cigar.

I don't know he was a conman but that isn't important to the issue that concerns me, the fact that he and many other heroes of modern new agers were nothing but mystics with as much or little to offer as the local priest.

The Least Spooky Video Ever! Proof Clouds Exist. Dry Parody Of Every Cloud UFO Video

I guess this is random.

Dragonfly

I was walking yesterday on the strawberry line, not far from Winscombe, I later got to Crooks Peak. However, when I was on my way I came across a resting Dragonfly, I thought I'd share it with you guys. 

Islam is a religion of peace?

 The Religion Of Peace.

Who am I kidding, I am not going to do that blog, the liberal apologetic blog in which the excuses are on display. 

Islam is a religion of peace much like Onision the famous Youtube sh!thead is a banana, we are not dealing with a religion of peace, we have a religion with many divides and the fact your doctor is Muslim means almost nothing. 

The whining liberal who claims Islam is peace claims because his dentist is peaceful that Islam in all forms is peace, and IS must not be Muslim.  This is a sickening delusion, and a kind of not true Scotsman fallacy against IS.  IS are an evil group by any modern standard, but they follow the Koran and Hadith teachings to the letter, they kill Muslims but many Muslim groups kill rivals, you may as well say Shiites aren't Muslim if IS is not Islamic. 

The liberals who are fooled by extremism are also those who get fooled by people who set up sharia gangs and demand extra protection and rights, people who at best represent a tiny number of western Muslims, but mobilise like they speak for a whole region of London.  The liberals think they are just like their doctor or dentist or local shop keeper, while the noisy extremist in the west is radicalising young men who may even go as far as carrying out acts of terror or joining IS in Syria. 

We see Muslims with differing views who are either peaceful or they are not, and the violent ones are supported by a wide number of Muslims on a global level.  My recent points on Pakistani violence says only part of the story[see the earlier blog].  

I want to touch on this from time to time to remind you that the trouble world is troubled by many factors, not least Muslim Extremism. 

Is Teal Swan the worst kind of new ager?

Is Teal Swan the worst kind of new ager?


She has promoted bad medical health, anti-medication and anti-vaccine beliefs, big pharma conspiracies, and claims we create diseases and cancers and say sun lotion is just a scam, so yes, she is the kind of new ager that you should not follow blindly.  

Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Government Censorship, and Murder.

Pakistani government is blacking out the trouble with its blasphemy laws again, news stories pulled, etc. a story about the way the law is being used to oppress the Hindus and Christians, surprise surprise the Pakistani government it at it again, censoring the stories, not least that of attacks by angry mobs against those who say simple things like 'Islam isn't correct' or 'Muhammad isn't a prophet'.  Needless to say, Pakistani Freethinkers are as endangered if not more so than other opinions on god and religion.

 This image shows the kind of anti-Christian hatred that the government effectively enforces with the blasphemy law, but the average citizen is willing to take up arms himself to kill the infidel.
Murder cases may not be solved, angry mobs that can number hundreds or event thousands of people have attacked average Pakistanis and destroyed livelihoods and places of worship.


We have seen over the years a large number of attacks in the press, although, much of the media doesn't care or fears offending people. indeed, a Shiite Muslim protest a few years ago was turned into a blood bath by young Sunni Muslim Pakistanis who followed the orders of the religious leader, since much of Muslim violence is internalised, between types of Islam. I could add to this concerning censorship the troubles with honour killings, in which, young women are killed for the crime of caring for the wrong person or fleeing arranged marriages. 

This image is of Pakistanis burning flags after the Charlie Hebdo
attacks, and I could literally find thousands of such cases, and often violence is expressed to local Christians for the crime of having the most populous western religion.  The ignorant masses that are controlled by religious leaders who refuse to let Pakistan develop beyond it's dangerous devotion to fundamental views of Islam.  
  
Sadly, this trend of Pakistani violence isn't a question of the odd attack, it's a matter of a nation that is torn between extremism and civilisation, and sadly the homeland of the Taliban has more than it's fair share of dangerous extremists. 

Ranting over something Left.

I’m not a fanatic for people who deceive their flock, often this means I am a part-time critic of religions, however, in this case, a want to confer with you concerns over the modern left. the role of the left by history, in its basic form, is to assist in helping the people towards greater equality, a noble idea, however beyond the templates of socialism and relating ideologies we find a diverse series of belief systems. They blur together in the modern era, after the failure of communism and relating projects, and the old left is a dead movement, not that we are free of the walking dead. Old men and young inspired people, ideologically speakers and passionate subordinates.
Blind faith is for such zombies, the certainty of one’s beliefs is a delusional way of thinking that often permeates the newly political, the student for all his or her study is a malleable person, credulous when faced by intelligent authorities. Sadly, most of the modern left is generated from the inspired middle-class student, not from the average working man or woman, since they have unions ad lives, whereas the student convert is driven like any fanatic to be an active part of the change they consider to be justified.
The troubling thing that I find to be more common than not is ignorance covered by knowledge, where the person believes they know something no great inquiry is seen as necessary. Simply, the person who is given enough reasonable answers need not imagine that the answers they have are imperfect, and they needn’t believe they need to look beyond their limited worldview.
What I have experience of the left is thus, the claims thick and fast, the sources selected and biassed, and to doubt the gospel of the devout lefty is to be as countered to him as the vilest ultra-conservative with fascistic tendencies. The facts they have are often good enough to state as fair, they fail because the claims upon the facts are the foundation they lay, and from any radical left or right view, the centre parties all look the same. As looking at two people far away you may not see clearly they are two and distinct, although they stand close to each other. Piling such points over each other while discussing can be very hard to debate, let alone rebuke, this is the plan, just like the street preacher who opens his mouth far more than he dares use his ears for fear of hearing that which is not godly. They may suggest you must read a book by Noam Chomsky or another great author, even if this Labour movement member before you is saying this not to truly inform you, but to bend you. When faced with a horrid wind even the strongest of trees may lean or break under its assault. And, if you don’t swallow the claims, if you have your own solid ground for discussion, nd you bring it to bear, you must be the enemy. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four it was the hatred towards Emmanuel Goldstein and his collaborators that got the blood flowing for loyal Oceanians as they chanted hatred, real world extreme socialists are often as full of bile. In fact, the anger they feel towards the outsiders, the moderates, the conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who isn’t a double plus duck speaking supporter of big brother is counter to the truth of IngSoc.
I am happy to say most socialist are not in those ranks, they do not cling to the roles that party lines would impose, they’d rather have a life while supporting social reform and protection of rights. As a result, the average socialist is not only none party-aligned, he or she is a liberal and to a great or lesser degree a centre ground voter. And given the correct politician is more than willing to vote conservative or for a party like UKIP. You can even find videos of the British Nationalist Party members saying they’re socialist, I think they fail to understand what brand of socialism they belong to, not that I need to explain their error to an informed reader.
The Orwellian element is not felt in the liberalism in the Labour Party, which has for a long time been liberal, or at its height a social democratic party, although, the Labour Movement in its many forms isn’t so unblemished. And, it is that movement that is infested by an irrational and unrealistic political philosophy, this perspective is the previously noted one that resonates with the youthful and newly politicised. Naturally, this type of person, pseudo-activist and all, is preached to by old masters, including professors and authors who love the idea of social so much that they promote Marxism while reaping every benefit of a wealthy capitalist society. It is easy enough once most of our troubles are removed to dream up new ones, woo the young women by claiming that feminism is needed now more than ever, to recruit non-conformists by focusing on the cracks in society, to suggest racism is still a vast issue by slanting the issues. Meanwhile, the first world issues of such people lead them towards imposing their politics, including abusing respectfulness, political correctness, to impose their own ideology.
Political correctness is often not to have a tolerance, as we look to the left or right we find rivals, and if we observe the authoritarian groups we find they are willing to impose their politics upon people in the name of ending hatred. A step to the left or right and we find methods of avoiding saying what is truly happening, hiding behind a barking or quacking of mindless terms, duckspeak. Duckspeak is what it is in the Nineteen Eight-Four world to be one who speaks without a use of the higher faculties, simply speaking. Many political conformists are duckspeakers, they use buzzwords and repeat points, they think in a limited way that means they selected data to fit their world view.
Why do smart people believe crazy things?
Because they’re smart enough to find ways of rationalising things.
When faced with selected data saying racism is as bad as ever, the first thing you do shouldn’t be stop looking at the facts, nor should it be fall in line and reading more of the highly biassed sources you may be in lockstep with. Black Lives Matter is an example, a political cult on a practical level, lying through their teeth, and they gather a flock who use their sources like it’s been given down from heaven. I could list off a bunch of groups that fit that kind of bill on the left, many are good by focusing on real issues, however when they take a minor first world problem or hypothetical issue and create a problem for serious activists. While you are busy draining feminist and anti-racist activism towards first world issues there’s a whole world with greater problems than some character types in some computer games, or, the catcalls a girl dressed like a whore gets in Harlem, NY.
With devout socialists in Britain, these people who speak as if we live in the height of the great depression in a mining town, with people on the poverty line and lucky to have steady work. However, in this era it’s not about having enough food or coal for the fire, it’s about people who are getting money and mismanage it, and so selecting sources is normal practice to say the reason why family X needed to go to the food bank is due to the corporate elite and the corporate influenced government, which isn’t utterly wrong. Family X may be a good example, but not representative, not that this matters, all that is required is convincing arguments to sway you, and it’s called evidence. Pseudo-news then? selecting surveys, picking bias stories in the press, and creating other such ways of swaying the under thinking person who should know better, but probably doesn’t.

Patreon, donations, etc.

  At what point is a thing you do a scam, and not a fair system for fund raising?

It is an odd thing that donations are seen as scams by a kind of default by some, yet others don't care if you lie for every penny you have, I don't think the point is the money as much as the why.  Why are you paid, what services are offered, do you do as you say you will, such as with Anita Sarkeesian who gets kickstarted with a load of cash, and what is even more sickening than getting load of money for a cheap series is she doesn't even do what she said she will do.  I call that a scam, a con trick, and she is doing it again.

In my case, I don't want or need much, just enough money to make my blogs and youtube vlogs a secondary employment, or maybe first, not that I need great sums to get that, once I get that I can then focus on this work far more.  Editing material, researching groups, writing scripts, thinking up new and interesting ideas.

A while ago I said I didn't want to do the whole patreon thing, I felt it wasn't the best thing at the time, what with so many YouTubers and bloggers using money making methods then becoming attention whores.  So I went off the idea for months, but then thought I'd turn my Patreon account back to being a creator account.  Within a week, I got two patrons, and it may only be ten pounds per month at this time, but if it gets up to a hundred per week then I can focus on this much more.

Okay, understand that I'm not going to get into drama battles with big YouTubers, I don't want that, I'm not going to hunt views all the time, but I will accept topics of interest from my friends.  Most people who know me on youtube, facebook, and elsewhere, will know that I'm willing to engage new topics, I don't see the point in being too mainstream, why should I do a video about what everyone is bitching about today?  So ask, and if it's interesting or a worthy cause then I will probably look into something, and do a blog or a video on the topic.

So this isn't a sellout, I am not pretty enough to go mainstream, and I really hate acting like a parrot for whatever Youtubers are ranting about this week.  So accepting friendly donations, but I'm staying the way I am.





my patreon


 Feel free to donate if you feel like you can afford it and like my work here and on youtube. 

Milo And His Roman Catholic Faith

who wants to bet that Milo-bots will comment before they watch it all, just as progressives will do much the same. 

Delusional Faith - 10 Reasons I'm Not Psychic!

So yeah, i'm kind of crazy, but religious indoctrination isn't a great way to be sane! 

Atheist Inequality And Amos Yee. [Rant] #FreeAmosYee

Response To EoF comment/question [28/5/2016]

well, I wrote of them before, and I can only add what I will.  They're not as nuts as some atheistic/sceptical groups, they do seem to be 'first world issues' types, in the sense that they focus on what they know, where they are, the west.  So Jessica talks on New Age quackery, indeed posts this kind of stuff on facebook, her critiques.  Diego talks good game, although tends to get to complex for some questions, meaning that which of what is said is lost in translation.  

'First World Issues' are those that are minor next to wider concerns, it can be said that much of the Atheistic barking in the west is just that, and much of the 'Social Justice' fanatics are simply part of the same problem in some cases.  In fact, since I don't like to edit my thoughts, I will correct by saying that SJWs are worse, Atheists can be easily offended, as can theists of every stripe, and in the scale of things EoF isn't that bad. 

Diego seems like an intelligent man, Jessica seems to have some good ideas too, as do others, I'm a maybe light weight in the old research department myself, but to be honest I don't get a lot of information from them in person, via skype.  In fact, by reading up on them I've found more. 

I find that they have some interesting, if unclear ideas of examining your beliefs, meme-ish concepts, well thought out by Diego, yet not my cup of Java.  I'm perhaps too old fashioned with my own philosophy, or I have a fundamental disagreement that I can't quite explain.

I am of a school of thought that insists that for one to know what one means, it can be expressed in simplistic terms, or at least the impression of the complex can be given by simplistic ideas.  And I don't mean you need to condescend to me and the average Joe.  I mean that one's beliefs should be explainable without sounding like a person who loves to speak too much, or one who has a thesauras on hand with every topic of discussion.  Maybe this is harsh?

I should say that both Jessica and Diego seem like nice people, but I don't think they help themselves by sounding like they have a case of verbal diarrhea.  My own case is far from passing solids, yet I can happily explain logical facts in simple terms, not that Jessica is the complex one as far as language.

 

We agree that many gurus are deluded persons of little merit, we agree that religion doesn't really help a society, and ideology is the problem, but in a free society there will be those who are fond of religion or politicial beliefs.  I may have missed the point? 

They seem to oppose religious thinking, yet wish to use techniques that are not unlike the thought reform methods of spirituality.  Or so it can seem?

Memes can only carry you so far with this, sceptical memes that have an End of Fear symbol or watermark is not changing anything, and selling a few books is doing little too. 

And what are they concerned about?  oh, right, ideology. 
I don't think you can break people out of ideology in general, ideologies can be surpassed no doubt, but when you have a series of ideas and engage in your own ideological methods, aren't you then part of the limitation of belief?

it seems to me that EoF project is like many groups, not like joining a secularist party, nor a humanist discussion forum, but rather an ideology of anti-ideology.  So what's so bad about that?  not too much, to be fair, but you can tell why their critics call them a cult.  The Lost symbols don't calm down the mad dogs, or fundamentalist Christians as they prefer to be known. 

If we agree ideologies aren't all bad, which I think they[Jess and Diego] would, then the real question is where do we draw the line in the dirt, to whom to we declare out defiance? 

Well, a good start in what is a bad ideology is obviously that which does real world harm, this level we can call 'A', and it refers to actual physical or mental harm, and don't be tempted to add more than you need to this first type, stretching definitions, like 'harm', isn't very clever.  


Then to 'B', what is the lesser of evils?  rare harm, mild harm, mostly not direct, and thus we can throw many ideologies in this category. 

Now we arrive at a safe 'C', what fits this, safe and non-demanding beliefs of any kind. 

'C' is akin to a club, open religion, personal religion, etc.  Whereas 'B' has more power and control, it's fair to say that many churches as somewhat safe in this way. 

It's not the end of the world if a fundamentalist believes in dumb things, as long as no harm is done.  Even if some harm maybe done by the brainwashing of children and the limits you set in place for your own view of reality. 

'A' is the extreme case, add here any who kill, torture, etc.  so personal religions in rares cases of mental illness and belief coupled, but more the dangerous beliefs that many ideologies have, or have had in the past. 

A religious fascist may well pick mt pocket and break my leg, the number of gods, or lack thereof, is not as important as how they act on their beliefs and what is claimed within their ideology. 

As you should to be able to guess, I think the 'A's deserve being regulated based on their conduct, the 'B's too, yet they are safe to have in society, and 'C's are none of our concern.

Safe beliefs are just the mediocre[C], the less safe[B] are worth keeping an eye on, and the dangerous extremists[A] are by definition unable to accept and live within a free society. 

The Extremists are not a powerful western faction, the somewhat harmful are often largely regulated against in a balanced society, so at best we can be trongly critical of some such groups where they act out, or try to ban things such as critics. 

I don't think ideology as a topic is clear enough, dangerous cults is a worthy issue, and saying learn to move on from beliefs may have a minor level of merit.  Although, I think most people move forward themselves, self-help methods or trying to counter presumptions does little.  

psychologically helpful ideas may help, even if that market is saturated.  You may see a meme of a young buddhist boy in Asia, what do you think of?  meditation, peace?  well why not indoctrination?
Okay, it is a point, but why not anything.  Note the indoctrnation exists, and that ideas can bring peace, or meditation is a tool to make yourself think in different ways.  it's an obvious point, and I don't think asking what you think of first is the best thing, nor is suggesting we should think brainwashed is the first thing to come to mind when seeing a young buddhist boy in a meme-like image. 

It is also a question of what ideology is at play, I mean was it is like, not just that it's buddhist-like, but is it harmful, since some brands of buddhism are quite reasonable.  I don't think generalising is helpful in every case. 

I could go on, and I may do in the future, for now I want to make clear...

 I see little reason in moving beyond whatwe need do, we can defend the right to believe and help increase education, in which case religion is a choice, and mostly not my business. 


[some of the points here are minor side issues and not so much primary concerns, although where we draw the line in a free society is.  ]

Christopher Hitchen, and some criticism.

Response to a Christian fanatic about Christopher Hitchens, the response is from under a video on youtube about Islam and Muhammad, in which Hitchens refutes much of Islam's foundations, as you may expect many of the comments under the video are from Bigots, racists, Muslim Fanatics, and Chrstian nutbars, here I respond to one who such criticism of Hitchens. 

 

Some People makes slightly silly claims, some of those are directed towards authors, oddly they seek out the videos related to them, and add poorly thought out Youtube comments, in this case Mr. A*** makes a point about Christopher Hitchens, he claims, “This man is virtually an illiterate. Whose claim to fame is an unresearched book. He was a hack writer in Vanity Fair magazine and left no legacy worth the mention. Good riddance.” Criticism of this kind may seem pointless, it largely is, since the person only uses a few facts and ignore the criticised person's career, in this case I respond by pointing out he was an imperfect, if quite good journalist, author of various books on various topics.

“He was a journalist with some notable errors in his writing, or over simplifications, and yet, he strikes many topics very well, expressing concern over some very mistaken beliefs. I personally don't think the judgement upon the man, Hitchens, is best expressed as he was simply a hack and left no legacy, the fact that he material is still in book stores disproves the legacy point, the hack claim is subjective at best.”

“He wrote on George Orwell, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, in a number of books, as well a many articles that were sometimes far from serious, or to be taken as fully serious. Such as the duty he was given to argue that women aren't funny, he also did some things like breaking antiqued New York laws, such as riding through central part with your feet of the peddles, and a story on male waxing. Journalists aren't always serious, when they are they can express well some very good points, Hitchens was good at this, and changed his position on many topics, showing that he was a fair journalist, and a freethinker.”

“So fair, even if he was a heavy drinker and smoker, and god seemed to give him the most obvious death anyone could imagine, a cancer that was the same as his father's, and related to smoking and drinking, and I dare say his weight didn't help either. It seems that he made a good impact over his life, even if some wealth and a little fame was only true for his last decade."