Glenn Beck Show Discussion – September 28, 2010

AWESOME show today! MUST WATCH. Very very good. In fact it reminded me of 2010 Glenn Beck hunting down Van Jones.

Loved it! Enjoy!

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

81 thoughts on “Glenn Beck Show Discussion – September 28, 2010


  2. Another great show. Glenn connects the DOTS better than anyone. This November 2nd will be like the Battle of Midway. I have attached a great video, please past it around. Thanks.

  3. They did it…

    The communists FINALLY got one of their own elected President of the United States.

    After watching this September 28, 2010 Glenn Beck FOX television program that coherently reveals BHObama’s circle of marxist-communist-progressive friends, nobody will ever doubt that the communists got one of their own elected president of the United State in the month of November, 2008.

    As Glenn mentioned on his radio program this morning, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, Karl Marx was… a freeloader… a sponge… a leech… who used other people’s free will donations to finance his writing efforts… AGAINST private property and capitalism.

    Is that DUMB, or what?

    I don’t remember where this quote is from but it is the essence of the “idiotology” of marxism-communism-progressivism…

    >> “the elimination of private property is the essence of communism.”

    I affectionately call the marxist ideology the marxist “idiotology” because only an idiot would write what Marx wrote in the “Communist Manifesto” and “Capital” (Das Kapital) and think that controlling the means of production and also eliminating private property was good for society.

    Also, only fellow traveler idiots would conclude that “workers of the world unite” was a slogan portending peace and freedom after the elimination of the “right of property” and the “property of rights.”

    Now we know what BHObama meant when he said “… we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    By looking at his circle of friends, it seems that BHObama is a “true believer” in the communist idiotology of a “collectivist commune democracy” as superior to the founding principles of America which promoted the “individualist constitutional republic” that is foundational to private property rights… i.e., the “property of rights” that are INALIENABLE as foundational to the “right of property” and wealth accumulation under law.

    I must mention the Jamie Glazov book, “United In Hate.” It coherently ties together the anti-capitalist communist idiotology and the anti-capitalist AND anti-democracy Islamic idiotology.

    Here are some quotes from the 2009 hardback cover. Published in 2009, it must have been in the research and final writing stage in 2008, BEFORE BHObama’s election and BEFORE Glenn Beck started educating America about the “progressive” communists and marxists.

    From the cover…

    “United in Hate crystallizes the danger that a Barack Obama administration, if tilted too far left, presents to American security and global freedom.

    “As history shows, leftist beliefs have spawned mass carnage and misery. … .

    “In United in Hate, Dr. Jamie Glazov presents startling new insights into the toxic beliefs and torturously contorted thought processes of the leftists who lust to destroy the very freedoms that allow them to exist.

    “Glazov explains the Left’s love for and deification of totalitarian ideologies, from Marxism to radical Islam, with clarity and candor.

    “- Why does the leftist believer reach out in solidarity to the most gay-hating, woman-hating and minority-hating force on earth?

    “- Why does the ‘progressive’ heap adulation upon regimes under which he himself would be annihilated?

    “- Why do radical feminists, who supposedly value women’s rights, ignore the suffering of millions of women living under Islamic genter apartheid?

    “In this groundbreaking examination, Dr. Glazov at last reveals the vile and morbid forces that impel so-called ‘progressives’ to embrace not just murderous ideologies such as Marxism and radical Islam, but the systematic elimination of all those standing the way of their new utopia.”

    What do you think… is “they FINALLY got one” too strong?

    I don’t think so.

    They did it…

    The communists FINALLY got one of their own elected President of the United States.

    Now, for the kicker.

    When Glenn Beck has even one program about the anti-capitalist communist insurgency and ties it together coherently as Jamie Glazove does in his book “United In Hate” with the anti-capitalist AND anti-democracy Islamic insurgency… that will be the beginning of the end for Beck on FOX and on TV.

    Remember, that largest stock holder in FOX after Rupert Murdock is a Saudi Prince… who is TIGHT… TIGHT… TIGHT… with Rupert’s son.

    STOP! Islamization Of America

  4. So let me get this straight.Glenn announces a rally,well with in his rights,and we are supposed to get on our knees ingratitude,beseeching the man in the sky’s blessing.But then some socialist/unionist/communist/progressive/mad hatter groups,well within their rights,announce a rally and all of a sudden we need to go chicken little,acting like we will wake up in Leninist Russia.So let them have their rally and their say.People will see the foolishness that is socialism.Christian/mormon nationalists have a rally,the leftwing has their.It all evens out and both says get a say.But let me ask you this when you wake up on Oct 3 will any of your rights have been lost? Will the Constutition still be law? Will your family be in a FEMA relocation camp? Will Glenn still be able to broadcast his shows?

    And as for skipping the word Creator in the Declaration why is it such an issue? The Declaration while beautiful worded is nothing more then a piece of propaganda.Perhaps the most brilliant ever produced by man.All it ever did and could do is tell the American people and our Army in the field what we were for figthing for and what we expected for country.It had no legal bearing and it didn’t convince King Louis XVI or any other nation that we were ready or fit to be free.It would take the Battles of Saratoga and some sly dipolmacy by Silas Deane,Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais,and Benjamin Franklin to do that.Remember as the Declaration was being written the largest British army at the time was laying of New York,ready to launch a crushing and almost fatal blow to our Army.Independence was only tangible after Yorktown and even then the munities in the various Lines and the Newburgh Conspiracy almost undid.It was the Treaty of Paris,Article 1 that made independence real and everlasting.So instead of getting bent out of shape about a word why not worry I don’t about something more important like fixing the economy or finding someone who can win the 2012 election so we only have four years of Pres. Obama and not eight.

    And a good read for the true story of how Silas Deane,Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais,and the Chevalier d’Eon secured French arms,officers,and ammo for the Contintental Army read Unlikely Allies by Joel Richard Paul

    1. Do you not get it? It isn’t just some progressive/socialist/communist groups…the lead group is Organizing for America..OBAMAS GROUP. Your President of the United States has an organization that is openly stating it stands arm-in-arm with socialists and communists..and apparently that isn’t important to you?

      BTW, dunno where you’ve been, the constitution isn’t law, many of my rights have been lost…time to wake up.

      1. My President? He is your’s too.We only get to pick and choose who our President is every four years.But always nice to be assume to be a socialist/communist/muslim because I try to reason things out logically.And no it isn’t any more important then 10% of all of Glenn’s earnings go to the mormon church.So until Obama’s “group” starts injuring me or the rights I fought for then,no more exercising a First Amendment Right won’t bother me.And could you please list which rights you’ve list since Pres Obama has been in office.I live in the same country and no one has taken any of my rights away.

        1. I agree with Rich. O’man is your president, not my president. I did not vote for him and I do not agree his agendas, a lot of Americans feels the same way like I do, not because of his skin color, but I am not white either, but we knew at heart who and what he is up to. Obama your president, is a BIG FRAUD, plain and simple.

          1. First,if you want to say you believe and respect the Constitutition then you have to accept that Obama is our president till 2013.If he is not your president who is? You need to remember,we are a nation of laws,not men.If you don’t like him then help get the vote out in two years with a canidate who can defeat him and who knows,maybe you’ll win the election.And when have I said I voted for Obama? I voted by absentee since I was in Iraq,for McCain because I couldn’t vote for someone like Obama.And why mention his skin color? I’ve never seen it on a previous post on any blog entry on this site,so why start that strawman on here? Now is Obama…a fool? Someone who is trying to get policies passed into law that could only fail,of cause he is.But is he a crypto-communist/socialist/christian/muslim/nazi? Socialist I can buy into judging by his upbringing and schooling.But if you vote in Nov and then in 2012 the mistakes can be fix.Didn’t vote Reagan into office after the failed policies of Carter? Yes and look what we did.We fixed the economy,got people working,producing.We rebulit the military and defeated the Soviet Union in less then ten years.I donlt understand why in the past 2 years we have lost that hope for a shining city on the hill that Reagan loved to talk about.Thats why for better or worse at the moment I support Palin to run.She is like Reagan in the since that she has kept and promoted the faith that America is and always will be the last best hope for mankind.For me seeing how people have lost their faith in America must be like how a christian see’s their best friend lose faith in Jesus.It’s depressing but I could never give up on America.We’ve been through worse and we have come out of it and we will make it out of this.There is no quick fix to what is happening so instead of belly-itching about the commies under the bed,the nazis in the closets,lay down the ground work to take back the White House.Solutions not self pity will get us out of this morass we are in.

            1. Mickey, I’ll give you credit for one thing, you’re a compendium of contrasts (I mean that as a compliment). Just about the time I think you’re on one side of the fence, you come out with statements like you just made here. I like how you approach things from a multiplicity of angles, but you drive me mad in the process! ; )

              I was frankly surprised that you mentioned Reagan and Palin, but hey, I won’t knock it. At least we agree on one thing, we have to restore the faith in America as being that “shining city on the hill.” While I have strong disagreements with you on many issues, this one we can unite in.

              1. Like I said,I’m a freethinking conservative.I try not to get box in my ideas.As for Reagan,I grew up in a Navy family on a Naval base in the 80’s so I saw firsthand how he fix and restored 😉 our country and our pride as Americans.It was one of those moments in your childhood that you don’t forget.And as for Sarah I braved a snowstrom here in Colorado to meet her and get her book signed.She was very nice and I must say extremly beautiful.I had the chance to talk to her parents for like 5-10 min and they are very down to earth people.It was like talking to your aunt and uncle you hadn’t seen in a while.I can’t say i agree with her hundred,I think Reagan said if you agree with me eighty percent of the time you are my friend,but right now she is the only one I see that still believes in the America that Reagan believed in.I’d be more then happy to support a Palin-West ticket,that’d drive the Dems up the wall.

                Oh and you should see my brother and I debate politics.He’s a big union guy and one minute I’ll agree with him and the next he is pulling out his hair because of what I said.

                1. That’s the America I believe in as well. It was a sad realization for me around 2005/06 when they reported on CBS radio (I listen to traffic reports here in the Bay Area – driving on the freeway can be a drag!) that American optimism was at its lowest since the Viet Nam war, and then it spiraled all the way down to the depression era. The ecomony was tanking at the same time. I remember telling my wife that this was the end of the Reagan era. What makes me more sad is that it was a sitting Republican president who was responsible. I’m no George Bush fan. When I see the signs & shirts that say, “miss me yet?” I say Hell no!

                  My old man was a Navy man too. I clearly remember the lack of respect America held for its military (a hold-over from Nam). Reagan truly transformed this and made it honorable to serve in the armed forces. I remember my Grandfather had an 8×10 of Reagan posted proudly in the front of his store (Everybody had to see it). I still have a few old Reagan presidential buttions.

                  I had the privilege of seeing Air Force One flying Reagan to his resting place. I was flying to Phoenix on business, and the captain informed us and we all crained our necks to see him fly by. There was a somber quiet on the plane for several minutes after that. I thought that spoke alot about the character of this ordinary man who became an extra-ordinary president.

                  I do like Palin’s message, although I don’t think she’s presidential material, and I’m not sure she could beat Obama (Not sure who can right now) at this point (although given the option of Obama or her, I’d vote for her!).

                  I’d like to think that our generation will see another president who can inspire America again in the right way like Reagan did.

                2. Ah so you do see what I am saying.Yes the last few years of Pres Bush’s admin had me starting to doubt wheater we were on the right course anymore then Sen Obama was elected and I knew that we had lost sight of the Reagan legacy.We got to selfcentered with our own righteousness and lost sight of the bigger picture.So yes I do hope we find a new Reagan,be it a Palin,West,some one unknown.America hasn’t lost it’s honor or greatness.I think part of the problem is we’ve become a quick-fix culture and we don’t want to wait,we want our problems fixed now.But the only way to do that is start letting the Republican Party know they lost our faith and trust and they need to get it together.The left never seems to have trouble finding people to stay on mesage and target.Maybe we could learn from them.Two,three years is a plenty of time to find the right people to get us back on track.Don’t forget Reagan just didn’t show up a day before the 1980 election and say vote for me.He had been out there speaking,talking,engaging since at least 1964.We have to keep plugging away.The majority of the people in this country think things are going the wrong way,so we have a starting point already.We need to just find the people with solutions not recriminations but this guy is a nazi and that guy is a communist.We need to have candidates and speakers who will go out there and say the Democracts have these ideas and then lay out how they won’t work and how our solutions will work and restore us to where we were not to long ago.If we speak the truth about our ideas and solutions the people will listen.Common sense and dare I hope,will win out over fear and fingerpointing.It’s well past time to quit bickering.We have seen in 18 months that Pres Obama’s agenda is failing.It’s time to engage the Dems/libs/progressives in the arena of ideas.Didn’t Madison,Hamilton,and Jay write the Federalist Papers to engage the people of New York,to show them that the Constutition was the only workable solution we had to government? Let’s learn from the past so we can move forward.We have the time,but if all we do is use it on fingrepointing and witchhunts then we surely will lose again in 2012.So maybe we are at a pivot point.The point where we drop the name calling and juvenile antics and start presenting ideas and solutions to the people of this country.It won’t be easy,but after 230 years of history why let it stop us now?

            2. Mickey, I am sorry If I misunderstood your point before. I do believe that it is Obama that do not believe and respect the constitution, and want to change it because for him, it’s flawed. As we all know, a lot of time those lawmakers and those that are supposedly law enforcer are the ones that breaks the law. I am a law abiding citizen and the president don’t, so he is not my president. I still have my faith and hope, so you can be sure that when November comes I will be out there to vote for real conservatives and in 2012 if Sarah runs, she can count on me. VOTE DEMS OUT!

              1. Clearly.But what crimes has the President committed? Bad judgement? Thats not a high crime or Carter would’ve been impeached.As for supposed “law enforcers” if any are caught breaking the law they should and will be brought in front of a court of law.It’s way America could never have the police fall under lets say the SS as the Kripo and Orpo did in Germany or the Interior Ministry like it did in the USSR.We police our police and through we fail at times I’d rather deal with an American cop then say a Belarussian cop.And if you still believe in America,get off the Art Bell-type conspiracy theories and blame game and as my generation would say rock the vote.Who knows,get enough people to vote and maybe things will change.It’s worked before.

          1. So conservatives who don’t buy into the party are now commies? Discourse like this is way the conservative moment is mocked and looked down upon by the left.The right in this country is doing a far better job of dividing each other then the left could do in a hundred years.

            1. Thanks for posting the links for people that missed it. There are a lot of people without access to cable tv and Fox should be thankful that it’s available on the internet. I always dl the shows as soon as they are available because you never know when they will be removed

              1. Anytime.Glenn has his right to say his peace,so I don’t see why Fox is so quick to take the vids down.I’m just surprised Scoop doesn’t know the links currently here aren’t working.Must be to busy trying to find a way to move back up the fantasy football standings.Snarky snark

    2. Offtopic and the other thread ran out of space, but you seem much more informed about history than even most professors I’ve had.What do you know of Robert G. Ingersoll? Everything I’ve read about the man (trying to get some of his books) so far is amazing and it seems a travesty that William Jennings Bryan is the orator textbooks talk about instead.

      EDIT: Don’t you love that Beck is now working ideas from that hack Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book into his monologues?

      1. I’ve read a little about him years ago when I got on reading history about the Victorian Age.And no TR wasn’t a horrible president.But I know he was in the Cav during the Civil War,was friends with Whitman,and had views on women,sufferage,blacks,and religion that prevented him from running for national office.Find a book called Reckless Decade,can’t remember who wrote it off the top of my head,but it’s a good book about the 1890’s and if i remember right he is mentioned more then a few times in it.

        1. Yeah, he was part of the half-breeds wing of the republican party and probably one most prominent figure in whats called “the Golden Age of Freethought.”

          The half-breeds being the ones who worked to end nepotistic patronage in government funds and helped establish a merit system for government employees as opposed to the bureaucratic monstrosity they are today.

          “The Plumed Knight” speech, in my opinion, is infinitely better than the lauded “Cross of Gold” tripe.

          I’ll have to give a look at the book you talk about, I have a list of books I have to read about 2 pages long it seems, some course work, some personal curiosity.

          1. TR was big in the movement to reform the government.First with the Civil Service reforms under Pres Harrison and then when he was president of the Police Board of NYC.Where he had much success reforming and changing the culture of one of the most corrupt government agencies to ever exist in an American history.Reform is what made the Republicans drive TR from the party,they wanted to keep the good old boy system and well someone like TR didn’t play games.

            My wife hates when we go book shopping.I bring my list of books I want to buy and it takes me forever to choose one.If you got some loose change, Ron Chernow’s new Washington bio comes out next week.If it’s half as good as the bio he wrote about Hamilton I probably won’t sleep for a week.

        2. Yeah, he was part of the half-breeds wing of the republican party and probably one most prominent figure in whats called “the Golden Age of Freethought.”

          The half-breeds being the ones who worked to end nepotistic patronage in government funds and helped establish a merit system for government employees as opposed to the bureaucratic monstrosity they are today.

          “The Plumed Knight” speech, in my opinion, is infinitely better than the lauded “Cross of Gold” tripe.

          I’ll have to give a look at the book you talk about, I have a list of books I have to read about 2 pages long it seems, some course work, some personal curiosity.

    3. Everyone who swallows Beck’s load about “If rights don’t come from god, then they come from men, and men can take them” (explain to me how that is “not religion”) needs to watch this video.Michael Shermer + Judge Napolitano. They’re both awesome.

      I don’t know a single person who is non-religious that is also not a progressive that says rights come from governments. Glenn is arguing a big scary non sequitur in this case, big surprise.

      1. Considering Beck has often quoted the line in the Declaration “endowed by their creator” and Jefferson’s use of the term “Nature’s God”,Beck, being a religous man, the term “God” and it’s use by him is not really that hard to fathom. The reason being,in religion, the term “God” is interchangeable with “Creator” call it a Freudian slip.Being as the question of whether or not God exists has been argued ad nauseum here, I won’t delve into that particular argument,especially as you already know where I stand on the topic of Faith.

        As to your question of “explain to me how that is “not religion” “, I would begin by first defining religion, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”. To the best of my knowledge there is no set of religious beliefs that specifically venerate “Nature’s God” or “The Creator”,nor is there,again to the best of my knowledge, no set of ritual practices or tenets of belief for the deliberately ambiguous statement in the Declaration. So by that definition the interpretation of the line “endowed by their creator,with certain inalienable rights” is not religion,but a statement of belief of the origin of those rights. I would also add that their is not a single commenter on this site that has never used a non sequitur, we have all been guilty of it in the heat of debate at one point or another. The statement in the Declaration,was to establish the point of belief of the Founders that those rights were immutable and beyond man’s or government’s right to deny, and in the minds of the majority of men at that time,whom was more unassailable than “their Creator”? In that view it is not religion,but is representative of man’s struggle to express the superiority of those rights.

        1. Deism has no clergy, no scripture and no rituals but they believe in a creator deity/entity/mechanism which set up the universe and the laws of the natural sciences. After that “creation” (whether it’s the big bang or some other means believed by the Deist) Deism holds that the creator does not interfere the universe.

          Deism has no organization like seen in the Theisms around the world, but it is still a religious stance or belief.

          If you don’t consider Deism to be a religion, would you then accept “metaphysical,” it’s mostly the same thing.

          I agree with your last 2 sentences, that does not square with Beck’s invocation of the excerpt of the Declaration. He is very obviously using a subjective interpretation of it and arguing it as objective. He then labels anyone who does not click their heels and salute as wanting GOVERNMENT of all things to establish Rights.

          It’s either god or government, Mr. Beck? That’s a false dichotomy.

          1. You could,sorta maybe argue for the Jefferson bible.Teaches nothing but Jesus’s morals and his philisophy and excludes all the trappings of mystery and revelation.So personally as a Deist in the Tom Paine mode I can see believing in Jefferson’s bible and not having to get stuck in the whole church thing.

            May Minerva bless your home

          2. I am familiar with Deism, I looked at it for along time when I was searching my own soul as to what I believed,still not quite there yet it’s a work in progress. I could accept the metaphysical description of Deism as it doesn’t really fit with the accepted definition of a religion,however it does hold to some religious concepts by acknowledging a Creator or God. But no my own views do not exactly square with Beck’s I do my own research, but I’m not afraid to look at what he brings to the table,and make my own decisions. My own take on Jefferson is that he had his quirks to be certain and is not an easy one to pigeon hole as to his theology. I think what he was trying to do with his bible was to emphasize the morals that are an intrinsic part of what Christianity is supposed to be,while removing them from the theology as to be acceptable to all men, that’s my hypothesis on Jefferson’s bible anyway. With Beck,I think he is struggling with a concept and having trouble expressing it. What I see with him is that he sees the country has lost it’s moral bearings and in trying to express that he falls back on the moral foundation he knows,his faith. Many people of faith do this because religion is where they learned about morals.However for myself, I do not see morals as exclusive to religion,as to where the concept of moral behavior comes from, well that could be a philosophic endeavor that could overwhelm this thread and the site as well. So in that vein I would say that Beck is not saying God or Government nor his he calling for God in Government, but I feel he is calling for us to find our personal moral bearings,and for him and many others although not all, is found in religious faith. Hope that makes sense,my mind sometimes starts racing to grasp several different concepts at times. 🙂

            1. You know I respect and appreciate your take on these things, but when it comes to Beck, I’ve been seeing/hearing too much from him that falls neatly into the “atheists are immoral by definition” school of thought.

              Given the opportunity I don’t see it as a great leap for him to oversimplify and strawman Nietzsche again and then claim all of us are followers of his philosophy.

              Maybe I’m still just pissed off and offended beyond words at how yesterday on his radio show, he, in a roundabout way, called atheists the moral equivalent of “heroine addicts, ex-cons, thugs and felons,” and that if his daughter were dating one, he would have to sit her down and get her mind right because it would be indicative of a grave lapse in judgment. All that purely because of a lack of a belief in something unprovable.

              I hardly ever use this word, but that, along with a LOT of other things where he lays the blame purely at the feet of the godless and their irreligiosity, makes him a bigot. We’re “the wrong kind of people.”

              Beck is firmly within the “without a diety, there is no morality,” camp.


            2. Also, I still have my notes from my term paper about the Jefferson Bible if you would like to understand the man and his take on religious more intimately.

              He had a god, this is undeniable, but he was not a Christian any more than he was an Epicurean, or how some people are Platonist (a philosophy he held in great contempt).

              1. Well not sure which article at the link you were pointing towards, I read the transcript where they were talking about the religion survey and honestly I’m not at all surprised by the results of it. As to the subject of Nietzsche,well suffice it to say he is a touchy subject in Christian circles, but very few Atheists that I know share his take on Christianity. That said I don’t subscribe to Beck’s views 100% and I’ve heard him contradict himself on more than one occasion,however I do find a great deal of what he presents interesting and intriguing.I don’t believe that someone’s view on one subject that I happen to disagree with,invalidates all their views on all subjects or that because we disagree that it makes that person evil or a degenerate,it only makes them someone with a different point of view.
                I’d be very interested in taking a look at your notes,as far as Plato goes though,he gives me a headache lol.

                1. Bah, link went wrong

                  Glenn Beck: Groups attending counter 8/28 rally

                  Thats the one, everything from the start up to where Pat first speaks in the transcript.

                  I like some of Nietzsche and I find it to be a grave disservice to Philosophy that so many people avoid him all together because of the parable of the madman. That said, I only like some of his work.

                  I’m assuming you know that Thomas Jefferson was a friend with Joseph Priestley, discoverer of Oxygen and founder of the Unitarian Church in England and author of “An History of the Corruptions of Christianity.”

                  Jefferson read this book and wrote to Priestley for the first time to express his admiration, this was also part of his inspiration for the Jefferson Bible, which is why he discussed the execution of the process with Priestley…

                  “. . . I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy. . .This view would purposely omit the question of divinity, and even his inpiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines had to encounter, not having been commited to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much understood and presented in a very paradoxical shape. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers. His character and doctrines have recieved still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions and precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust. . .”
                  Letter to Joseph Priestly April 9th, 1803

                  He only mentioned the project to a handful of people because in his opinion, religion was something to be kept as private between the individual and his/her deity as possible.

                  “Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.” Page 10 of the Jefferson Bible

                  “It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the right of independent opinion by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself.” Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21st 1803

                  Those people were Benjamin Rush, John Adams, Charles Thompson and Joseph Priestley.

                  In a letter to Thompson about the book:
                  “It is a document in proof that I am a REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists who call ME infidel and THEMSELVES Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return to earth, would not recognize one features.” January 9th 1816

                  To further clarify the point, I’ll point to this from the same letter to Benjamin Rush listed further up this post.
                  “I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.”
                  “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.”

                  There is a letter between Jefferson and William small in which he refers to himself as an Epicurean in the same way he calls himself a Christian in these letters.

                  He felt that the mysticism and magic in the bible and the doctrines derived from them in organized religion, as well as organized religion itself, were a corruption of the real world and applicable moral and ethical teachings of Jesus himself.

                  In my opinion, his edits made to the gospels may well have been a purifying of them from his perspective.

                  The specific attributes and nature of his deity are not given in any of the letters about the book or the book itself. This is why I say that the farthest we can take the religious faith of Jefferson is Deism.

                  This may also be why we never hear of Jefferson on Beck’s show anymore in preference of other founders who made public proclamations of their faith.

                2. Kind of like how Tom Paine fell down the memory hole.And at that Divine Destiny event on 8/27 Barton pull out some obscure book attacking Paine’s “Age of Reason”

                3. Exactly, after I and others started doing everything humanly possible to get the word out that Barton is patently dishonest on top of his horrible scholarship.

                  I went to the “American Revival” event in Orlando, I wanted to see Judge Napolitano and I didn’t know that “faith” would permeate EVERY minute of the rest of the event.

                  At that event, Barton actually claimed that Thomas Paine wrote in a letter to the French advocating the “teaching of creation science in schools”, without citing the date, place, or to whom it was addressed. Not to mention “creation science” IS A TERM FROM THE 60s!

                  The man is a modern day and much LESS impressive incarnation of Sir Richard Owen. The man is a politically motivated charlatan who blatantly lies through his teeth every time he is given the opportunity to talk and threatens to redefine the “Gish Gallop” to be renamed after himself he commits such egregiously fallacious argumentation all in the not-so-secret advancement of his religion.

                  The question I would love to ask that repulsive little man is that if he has to lie so much to advance his truth, how is it in ANY WAY the truth at all?

                4. As for Barton I wonder what Jesus would have to say him trafficing in lies.Nothing I’m sure.You ever see the youtube videos Chris Rodda made taking his “history” to task?

                  Slightly off topic…See if you can find Elihu Palmer’s “The Principles of Nature, or A Development of the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery among the Human Species” It’s condsiered the American “Age of Reason”.It was written by a blind former Presbyterian preacher from Connecticut,what a great state,that was so affected by Paine’s writing he started two Deist newspapers and set up a few Temples of Reason,started the Deistical Society of New York in 1796,and wrote a dozen essays on Deism/Reason.

                  “when both rights and reason are under several kinds of open and covert attack, the life and writing of Thomas Paine will always be part of the arsenal on which we shall need to depend.” Christphoer Hitchens

                5. One of the many many reasons I admire Christopher Hitchens and have felt sorrow at his plight surpassed only that when I thought my father might have been dying.

                  It sounds like Elihu Palmer paved the way for the Golden Age of Freethought…

                  See if this quote by Ingersoll reminds you of one by Paine I’m thinking of.
                  “Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.”

                  The many excerpts from him in regards to rights and liberties are fantastic as well, given that he was an outspoken agnostic, I wonder if he was just lying about all that, and his abolitionism, and support for women’s suffrage…Yeah right.

                  He was awesome.

                6. Memory isn’t what it used to be,but if I dug through my Paine I’d find it.You’d could spend all day quoting and with each quote see how far ahead of his times he was.For an uneducated staymaker his brain was never at ease.It’s to bad Edmund Burke attacked him like he did.Burke was a great thinker too,but his attacks on Paine were a little base. Twain once said about Paine “”It took a brave man before the Civil War to confess he had read the Age of Reason…I read it first when I was a cub pilot, read it with fear and hesitation, but marveling at its fearlessness and wonderful power.”

                  And it’s sad about Hitch and his cancer.Hopefully he will beat it.Who’d want to live in a world without Hitch?

                7. If I can’t watch another debate of Dinesh D’Souza getting hitch-slapped, life isn’t worth living.

                  “Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” -Thomas Paine

                  Ironically, Robert G. Ingersoll was also a friend of Mark Twain too. The sentiments espoused by Paine and Ingersoll are remarkably similar.

                  That horrible radio host Mark Levin (he needs to stick to law) has slandered Paine multiple times in the past, with mis-characterizations of Age of Reason being the centerpiece.

                8. Paine’s creed of belief from the Age of Reason,sometimes the obivous answer is the right one.Ingersoll and Twain were buddies eh? Hmm might have to read up on that.Twain opened my eyes to satire,plus he wrote a good deal of his books while living in Connecticut.

                  Levin isn’t bad at times,but he does tend to go off at times.Wasn’t he defending O’Donnell a few weeks ago? Oh want a new O’Donnel update?

                  I watched that debate on youtube last year,was amazing.I’ve never understood D’Souza but seems Glenn is buying what he is selling.

                9. Yeah, D’Souza is another one of those people, like Barton, who has a LOT more insider connections than is disclosed on the outset of any discussion.

                  I’ll just give 2 of the amusing ones since I’m sure you can find any others if you so choose to look. The man dated both Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter.

                  He’s debated with Hitch a few times, Dan Barker a couple times and even Michael Shermer 3 times. He debates from a script, his points have been cogently rebutted but he still never changes his script and his inaccurate assertions, again, making him either lazy or dishonest.

                  I’m afraid to ask, but whats the update about O’Donnell, I’ve spent the whole night arguing with people in this site on the Evolution thread involving Limbaugh, so I doubt what you have to share is any more disheartening about humanity.

                  Yeah, I’m waiting for a couple of Ingersoll’s books in the mail, can’t remember the title of one of them, but the other is Some Mistakes of Moses, which comes highly recommended as funny as well as a good thought provoking read.

                  My problem with Levin was his characterization of Age of Reason as an anti-Christianity hit piece. If I’m not mistaken doesn’t he take each of the 3 major monotheisms to task in the book?

                10. That part where he’s talking about the book “The Godless Constitution,” is one of the first strings of easily refuted lies of his I took apart for my family members that were falling for his spell.

                  The only things he got right about the book, AT ALL, would be the title and that it was written by 2 Cornell professors.

                11. Like I said, I think he’s secretly campaigning to have the “Gish Gallop” renamed in his honor.

                  All that nonsense of “no sourcing, no citations!” was a load of crap, to put it plainly. Anyone who could be so bothered to look up the book on AMAZON.COM would get a handy little list over the over 30 sources cited by the book.

                  The part that he quote-mines about doing away with the practicing of sourcing or whatever is just that, quote-mining. It’s only part of what is said in the back of the book and it’s out of context, I know this because in Orlando he put that part of the book on the overhead and I actually read (‘god’ forbid) past what he wanted to quote.

                  What they are mischaracterizing is the practice of Common Knowledge.

                  Someone who claims as much scholarly excellence as himself wouldn’t make such a glaring error that even a plebeian such as my self could call out in less than 4seconds of thought. He’s either a horrible scholar or an outright liar.

                  Given what we’ve seen from all the other wonderful examples of humanity on display in the Religious Apologist Hall of Fame, such as convicted tax fraudster Kent Hovind, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think he’s a liar.

                12. But he doesn’t need to do research,god does it for him.It’s rather distrubing that the Daughters of the American Revolution once gave him a major award.Makes me wonder who is in charge over.But question with boldness right?

                  “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences…. If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.”

                13. Small wonder why Beck cuts that quote from Jefferson in half, and the half he uses he alters the wording.”God forbid” there be any consolation in that quote for the potential outcome resulting in godlessness.That’s disappointing to hear about the Daughters of the Revolution, my mother and her sister are both members.

                14. She’s a bit on the liberal side.He work on christainty in the military is not something I agree with.Maybe it’s because in the units I was in religion was pretty much confined to each person and the chaplains we had pretty straightlaced and decent guys.But her work on Barton’s frauds are fun to watch.Unless I guess you want to buy into christian nationalism.

                15. Haha, I assumed she was on the left when I heard a “teabagger” reference, but I have no special aversion to stepping outside the echo chamber. Most people on this website consider me pretty liberal anyway, even though the “liberals” call me a nazi, so yeah…

                  I haven’t gotten to her position on religion in the military, but I do know that Hitchens wrote a column about it and how there were reports of chaplains in Afghanistan instructing their “flock” of soldiers with stacks of bibles next to them to go out and spread the “good news” (aka gospel) to the poor lost souls who have not heard the word yet.

                  I don’t have a problem with a religion sending along a clergy member with soldiers who need the counseling or fellowship or w/e. I do have a problem with my tax dollars funding evangelism of any religion without my say-so, though. Especially when it feeds into AQ propaganda that the US are modern day Crusaders.

                16. I never saw any chaplains going out of their way to convert soldiers or the locals in Iraq.I’m not saying it can’t or doesn’t happen.People are not perfect and do dumb things.Our chaplains were good guys and busted their butts trying to get people to send us care packages while were in Iraq.Couple of times their were a little to successful.So hopefully no chaplain of wheather christian,muslim,etc etc is opening preaching and trying to convert soldiers.

                  She’s a bit leftist,yeah but her work on Barton seems from what I’ve seen so far to be unbiased.Maybe she’s,god forbid,a leftie that knowss how to write and read history,but leave politics at door.It’d be nice to see more conservative historians do that.

                17. Oh, what are you talking about, the conservative historians don’t work their political biases into their work, they just give the “god’s” honest truth of it! it it just so happens to coincide perfectly with their political and religious activism goals, then so be it! /sarc

                18. You mean like O’Donnell? “God continued to strengthen and empower us when, you know, his strength is perfected in our weakness,” explained the Senate hopeful to Jennifer Wishon at the Christian Broadcasting Network. “Because you see that if it weren’t for faith, when all logic said it’s time to quit, we pursued, we marched on, because we knew God was not releasing us to quit.”

                19. Lol, that kind of sentiment, she’s not at the level of where it sets off alarms in my head though.

                  I start to worry when they phrase it in a way that brings to mind the idea of a “grand commission” or whatever the term is to go forth and establish god’s law and convert the world.

                  Arguments in support putting prayer back in schools, or couching legislation in biblical reasoning are the 2 common ones, Barton expands it into a territory all his own.

                  So far with O’Donnell that quote just sounds like she’s finding inspiration to carry on an uphill battle. She uses god, I’m just plain stubborn, whatever works for the person in this case.

                20. I guess you could see it in that light,but I think she seriously believes god will pull out an upset for her in November.I can only imagine what she will say when she is defeated.

                  Barton agenda is completly illogical.His attempts to return America to some sorta of christian republic that never exsisted should bother anyone who can reason.It’s why I call it christian nationalism.I don’t see how you can call the Founders brilliant farsighted people and then go and claim that god won the War of Independence and that god was behind the Constutition.How could they have had free will to make the choices they did if god had already done everything for them? Besides does this make King George III,the British and Hessian armies and the American Indians,not to mention the free blacks that fought for the British agents of the devil? And if god didn’t write the Articles of Confederation,who did?

                21. She’ll say that he works in mysterious ways, of course. I wonder if she is a secret Calvinist, since that anticipation of a god delivered victory would negate free will. Unless she thinks God will pull an ACORN for her and flood the ballot box with forged votes.

                  And you need to stop demanding intellectual consistency from “Christian nationalists,” these are the people who think the founders actually wrote the pledge of allegiance and put “god” in it. They think they put god on the money. They ignore the Treaty of Tripoli. They ignore the words of Madison, the Father of the Constitution. They ignore that WE WERE LOSING the war in the beginning (if we had god on our side, shouldn’t it have been a landslide?)

                  But then again, Glenn believes the garden of eden was in Missouri, the native Americans were Israelites and that America is the 2nd promised land. This is why Moses and the religious history revisionism regarding Moses and the pilgrims is so important to him. Ignoring the likelihood of course that Moses never existed.

                22. Interesting,one could almost draw the conclusion that Jefferson felt that Christianity had been adulterated and that he was attempting to distill it to a purer form than what it had become. I’ve seen the Rush letter you mention in your notes. So I would tend to agree with your conclusions, although faithwise I think barring the discovery of some writing of his confirming his faith,that part of his life will probably remain an enigma as it probably should. I read the story on Beck’s site and I can see how you could draw a roundabout conclusion to your opinion on that, it could be viewed as a very religious Father’s concern over his daughter’s soul as well, but that is just an observation on my part,not an endorsement of his position. Thanks for sharing your work on Jefferson,well done.

                23. Tone and inflection in his voice as he said it probably helped along my drawing that conclusion of his intent.

                  My main wonder after that is what his daughter would say in response to that. Does he really see her as so week, or her faith so shakily grounded that she would be dominated simply by spending a lifetime with someone who thinks differently?

                  He harps regularly about the persecution of Mormons in the past by our government and by other Christian denominations and calls Penn of Penn & Teller a religious bigot (though he still trots him out as his SOLE and TOKEN “atheist friend”) and calls other people to cast a critical eye at his religion bigots. Then the hypocrite turns around like that?

                  I wonder what his reaction would be if his daughter was dating my (hypothetical) son who was atheist, and then I sat him down to get his mind right about dating one of those “diehard Mormons” and she was consequently dumped the next day…

                  On lighter notes though, I’m glad we agree in what can be concluded about Jefferson, and it’s always my pleasure. He’s easily my favorite founder so I love any chance there is to talk about him.

      2. It is NOT natural…

        Michael Shermer is a fellow American who simply happens to be an atheist and humanist who does not believe in a creator of his body, soul and spirit… the totality of which allows him to have a “mind” with which to think, muse and communicate.

        That means simply that without physical “stuff” called a body, Shermer would not have physical “stuff” called a brain, and without the physical “stuff” called brain, Shermer would not be able to think, muse and communicate his thoughts audibly and in written form.

        Who Shermer “is” by natural birth, i.e. “nature” and the “law” of nature precedes the articulated laws written and codified by vote by the bureaucrats of ANY state.

        THAT is natural law.

        The U.N. human rights of man drivel is NOT natural law. It is man made “natural rights’ and being man made, they can be taken away.

        You don’t believe that statement?

        Well, just consider the Cairo Declaration that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists are pushing for to counter the U.N. man made human rights that are a hinderance to the Islamic attempt to subjugate Dar al-Harb (… see Wikipedia) and to STOP! criticism of Islam… under threat of legal sanctions.

        Notice that I did not include the word “God” in articulating who Shermer “is” and “nature” and “law” of nature.

        It is NOT natural…

        … for the law of the state to strip Shermer of his “natural” rights… whether or not Shermer believes he was intelligently designed by a creator who is called “Elohim” (God) and whose biblical name is “Yahweh” and whose son was named after him, “Yahshua”… Yah’s salvation.

        Your personl human “rights” do not come to you from your neighbor… or your government.

        If you were to form a government in the next few minutes, would you form that government to “give” you natural born human rights or to “protect” your natural born human rights?

        Notice, again, that the Elohim whose name is Yahweh is not mentioned in your “natural born human rights” statement.

        From my perch, it looks that Glenn Beck is right on the mark… hitting the nail on the head, true and deep… his plumb line is on the center of the bubble… bulls eye… etc.

        STOP! Islamization Of America

        1. Ok, there’s a lot in there so let me try and break some of it down.No offense, but that part about the “physical ‘stuff'” and the body seems like a tautology. A = A; Obviously Lol.Glad to see you’re a Physicalist though, when it comes to Philosophy of the Mind. A lot of people contend that “mind” and “brain” are 2 completely separate entities.Atheist and Evolution are not synonymous. There are atheists who do not accept evolution and most of the people who accept evolution in the world are Theists. That said, the purely “by chance” characterization of it is a gross over simplification. Oh, I see, maybe you aren’t necessarily a Physicalist.Offtopic: Are you a Dualist, like Descartes?Back on topic: Shermer and I are both, at LEAST physicalists with regards to the mind, our position is that all we can evidence is that the “mind,” amorphous concept that people make it out to me, is nothing more than your brain and the operating of it.Given that, all one has to do is look into the biological evolution of a brain in the taxonomic lineage. Animals had brains long before we came around, afterall, we had to get them from somewhere. The same goes for eyes, the heart, the circulatory system. The only difference between OUR brains and the brains of other animals is that ours is larger and more complicated.Now, if by “mind’ you mean the dualist concept of a nonphysical entity/mechanism that houses your personality and causes your brain to enact your decisions, that’s more complicated. The best I can do is point you to some Philosophy books about the Philosophy of the Mind or to Psychiatrists to learn about the developing field of Evolutionary Psychology.I’m not entirely sure but I think you may be operating on a misapprehension of what his, and my, stance on Natural Laws are.Nothing you said about the illegitimacy of the UN or tyrannical oppressive governments is in opposition to myself or Shermer, we agree emphatically with you, that our human rights come from our very nature as intelligent, self-aware, feeling, independent and FREE (born that way anyway) INDIVIDUALS.I think what Shermer meant by the statement that our rights can be taken away is that the EXERCISE of our rights can be taken away. That is indisputable, history and our government demonstrate that.My problem with Glenn is he takes “Nature’s God,” and “their Creator” and attributes the statement his subjective reading of it (meaning it is HIS conception of a THEISTIC and MORMON god). He then makes the leap from that to say that if it is not a personal metaphysical entity which gives us our rights, then it is government. That is a blatant non sequitur and it ignores people like Shermer and myself, there’s more of us than you think.

          1. It is what it is…

            Yours, danieltumser, is one of the better point-counterpoint responses in a long time.

            Since there are so many profitable directions an origins topic can go, I will limit myself to only one point, the origin of “mind.”

            The question is, where did “mind” come from?

            Either “mind” (… not THE individual person’s mind, but simply “mind”) came from somewhere, someone, somehow, sometime, or it did not.

            My science question to Shermer and other atheists is, from what… where… how… when… did “mind” evolve?

            According to Dawkins and the rest of the gang, who knows… but we’ll find out eventually… in time.

            And, even though it appears designed, it wasn’t.

            The issue is not macro evolution, but micro evolution, survival of the fittest and upward movement of all that IS visible to us/science and what is NOT visible to us/science.

            “Mind” falls into the category of what is NOT visible.

            Since there was no prior “mind” from which “mind” could evolve, what is the evolutionist’s understanding about the origin of what is not visible to us/science… yet it exists?

            How do we “know” that “mind” exists?
            Well, let me “think” about it.
            Ahh, thinking “proves” that “mind” exists.
            It’s not science, but it works for me.

            But, of course, you’ll agree, that is too easy.

            The issue is “origin” of “mind” and not if it exists.

            That exercise was simply to focus on what all agree is present but NOT visible so that we can segue to the heart of the question of the origin of that part of being human that could NOT exist if the physical “stuff” call brain (… body) did not also exist… at the SAME time.

            What is called body and mind are definitely “… 2 completely separate entities” just as the eye ball and “seeing” in the mind are distinct but not separate.

            So also, mind and body (…brain) are distinct but not separate.

            Without the eyeball (cornea… iris… rods and cones… retina… optic nerve…) transmitting light to the mind where seeing takes place, there is no seeing in the mind.

            The mind “seeing” what is made visible to it by the light that is transmitted by the eyeball corresponds to mind “thinking” about what is transmitted by the physical but NOT visible senses… seeing… hearing… smelling… feeling… thinking.

            And, without mind “thinking” there is no “knowing” that mind is thinking about anything.

            This is the last frontier of science because DNA does not inform us/science about the “origin” of thought in mind. DNA can not takes us/science there.

            However, the main non-science reason that science will never go there is because the presuppositions of atheistic evolutionists will not allow them to even consider that an intelligent designer united “mind and body” AND designed them to be distinct but not separate.

            The union of mind and body as “one entity” is the atheistic evolutionists “faith statement” because science can not and will never empirically prove that the part of being human that is NOT visible is also one with… part of… the same as… the brain (body) which IS visible.

            Evolutionists say, as you said above in your “faith statement,” that body and mind are one entity and “nothing more than your brain and the operating of it.”

            Intelligent designers say, in our “faith statement,” that body and mind are 2 separate entities, designed and put into operation at the same instant, not by chance survival of the fittest over time.

            So, here we are.

            Neither can be empirically “proved” by science… or faith.

            THAT is why the theory of evolution about origins is STILL a theory and will always remain a theory, and why intelligent design as a theory of origins will always remain a theory.

            Neither can be “proved” by science or faith.

            THAT is why both theories should be published in government science text books and taught in government schools.

            – – – – – – – – –

            PS. The other things you mentioned such as Descartes, physicalist, dualist, philosophy of mind, evolutionary psychology, atheist and evolutionist not being synonymous, etc., do not take us anywhere.

            Thanks for the link to Brain Evolution and Development:The Selection of Neurons and Synapses.

            Since I have not read it yet, I’ll bet you a billion bucks that the conclusion is that the human brain is, to use a biblical phrase “… fearfully and wonderfully made”… and that’s about it.

            It will not go into the last frontier where no man has gone before… and never will, because it can not get beyond the “”faith statement” that body and mind are one entity and “nothing more than your brain and the operating of it.”

            STOP! Islamization Of America

            1. Well before we can argue about the origins of the “mind” we have to clarify first what it is we’re talking about or else we’ll probably just end up talking past each other.

              In my perspective, the “mind” is just a nebulous concept given to the functioning of our brains and the firing of neurons in it. If by “mind” you mean what Descartes meant, then we are already at a dead end because it is impossible to even prove the existence of the mind-body dualism concept.

              From this I’ll just operate from the assumption that we’re both Physicalists.

              You leap around numerous fields of study back and forth so this is going to take some time for me to unpack and address.
              You talk about evolution as though it has some innate goal of bigger, faster, stronger and smarter. “upward movement,” This is not the case, all natural selection is about is the organism better adapted to local environmental attrition is the one that survives, and those adaptive traits are what persist in the populations.

              The misconception of it as “RAWR! I’m stronger, I can kick your butt, so I will!” like the world is the Thunderdome is what leads to bastardizations of the science into social concepts of Social Darwinism.

              Macro and Micro evolution are 2 archaic concepts that are not in use by anymore except by those who try and argue against it and want to make a distinction about what they WILL accept. In truth the same mechanism that causes “microevolution” is the exact same thing that leads eventually to Speciation “macroevolution.”
              Just for the record, every time I see the word “mind,” I’m going to substitute the word “brain” or “consciousness.”

              Consciousness is not yet fully understood by Neuroscience
              The part where you talk about “how do we know the mind exists,” again sounds like Descarts attempts at epistemological proofs to refute skepticism.

              What you briefly describe is the Cogito Ergo Sum argument. You’re right, that’s not science, that is Philosophy. Do you see how you are overlapping separate academic studies?
              From what I can see you and I have 2 irreconcilable Ontologies when it comes to the Philosophy of the mind.

              The effects of our brain and consciousness can, and have been observed in things like MRIs and the multiple other tests we have that actually let us observe a working brain.

              As I said, I am a physicalist, the “mind” to me is nothing more than the firing of neurons and what we perceive as consciousness arises from this neural activity. To me, the “mind” is the brain.

              If you wish to understand consciousness you will have to speak to neuroscientists and psychiatrists, because that is not something I know much about.

              What I can say however is that there is a correlation between the progressive size and complexity of brains in animals (ourselves included since we are animals) and the level of self-awareness and capacity for thought, learning and education. I do not see this as coincidence.

              Dawkins and Sam Harris do not by default rule out the idea of design out of a disdain or prejudice for religion. It is ruled out because the idea of design, in every case it has been argued, is supernatural, it comes from metaphysics ultimately, and THAT is the part that is banned by the practice of science itself, not just Dawkins and Harris.

              Science relies on Methodological Naturalism, I could swear we’ve been over this before. In short, for science to apply, a naturalistic explanation for something, no matter how unlikely, is more likely than a supernatural explanation.

              Evolution will always remain a theory for the same reason that GRAVITY is still a theory. The same reason is why Atoms are still theory, and Cells. Germs and Plate tectonics are both still theory as well.

              They will never be anything other than theories because that goes against the rules of science. A theory is an EXPLANATION of facts and laws within a field of study. If you were to ask Evolution to become a “fact” in science, the request is absurd, it makes no sense, it would be asking Evolution to become something it is not, nor ever will be.

              Intelligent Design is NOT a theory because it achieves none of the requisite features of what it takes to be considered a theory in this sense. If you mean as “conjecture,” then sure, ID is a theory, but then Evolution would not be.

              What is the mechanism posited by ID? A designer, where is the evidence to support the claim, WHAT is the designer? Oh, it’s supernatural, guess what, you just disqualified yourself from the Scientific Arena.

              The case of ID gets even worse than that, if you ask for evidence, all you EVER get is a purported LACK of an evidence of Evolution. Anyone with half a brain can realize that one explanations not addressing a point IS NOT positive evidence to be made for an alternative.

              The ID argument is essentially “this doesn’t explain X, so plug in our completely unevidenced and UNFALSIFIABLE creator entity.” No, I’m sorry, but that’s against the rules of Science, thanks for playing.

              And even worse than that, 99.9999999999999% of the time, the supposedly unexplained “X” is in fact explained in detail by Evolutionary biology.

              This leads into the fact that Physicalism is not a faith statement at it’s core. The only evidenced explanation for consciousness is that it is at least reducible to our brains themselves. If you drive a railroad spike or two through someones brain, their consciousness is either ceased or altered.

              The dualists who posit a non-physical mind STILL HAVE YET to solve the “problem of interaction” for their argument.

              Occam’s Razor is your friend, better than a Shick Quattro any day of the week.

              1. That won’t work…

                You said,

                >>”Just for the record, every time I see the word “mind,” I’m going to substitute the word “brain” or “consciousness.”

                No, do not “substitute” mind for brain or consciousness.

                That won’t work because that is a point of contention that neither evolutionists or intelligent designers can “prove” empirically.

                Stick with “mind” as distinct from “brain” and “consciousness” because my point is that “mind” is “conscious” of thinking while “brain” is alive but NOT conscious of it’s own existence.

                >>”Consciousness is not yet fully understood by Neuroscience”

                See my PS. below about the author to whom you linked above. His quote is from his later book, copyright date of 2000.

                Consciousness has NEVER been been understood and it NEVER will be understood… as long as “mind” and “body” are said to be one entity and not 2 separate entities.

                STOP! Islamization Of America

                1. Sorry friend, but I’m not a dualist, that is the part that is irreconcilable between us.

                  Your assertion that we will never understand consciousness is unfounded as well. Just a few hundred years ago, the uneducated thought the earth was flat. Until Einstein people still believed in the Ether Theory. For millennia people thought the earth was the center of the universe.

                  For me to make the leap to believing the unevidenced assertion that the “mind” is somehow distinct from what we DO know about how the brain works would be the same as believing in a “soul.” I see no reason, by way of Occam’s razor for the demand of that distinction other than an emotionally ingrained desire for it to be the case. That’s not how I operate.

                2. Understanding is still “unfulfilled”…We will never understand consciousness as long as mind and body are thought of as one entity.I merely adduced the author you linked to previously because he stated that so far, it is not understood… how the “… brain gives rise to … consciousness.””the ambitious goal of understanding “how the human brain gives rise “to intelligent behavior, “thought, and “consciousness “remains largely unfulfilled.”My point is that his “faith statement” that the brain “gives rise to consciousness” is countered by the intelligent design “faith statement” that “mind” is distinct from “brain” but not separate.Touche.ArtSTOP! Islamization Of America

          2. PS.

            From Gary Cziko, the author of “Without Miracles,” the link which you posted, and the author of “The Things We Do,” I just found this sentence that is relevant to my previous “faith statement” comment.

            It is from his page found here

            and his PDF here

            The Things We Do
            Using the Lessons of Bernard and Darwin
            to Understand the What, How, and Why of Our Behavior

            Gary Cziko
            ©2000 MIT Press & Gary Cziko

            Page 2

            “And although expectations were great in the 1970s as psychologists, linguists, philosophers, anthropologists, neuroscientists, and computer scientists joined forces to create the new field of cognitive science,

            “the ambitious goal of understanding
            “how the human brain gives rise
            “to intelligent behavior,
            “thought, and
            “remains largely unfulfilled.”

            The “brain gives rise to intelligent behavior, thought, and consciousness” is a statement of faith.

            He is making my point about the “faith statement” of atheistic evolutionists and concurs with your “faith statement” that body and mind are one entity and “nothing more than your brain and the operating of it.”

            The “brain gives rise to intelligent behavior, thought, and consciousness” is a statement of faith that STILL “remains largely unfulfilled” since his book was published in 2000.

            My point is that it wil NEVER be fulfilled because of the “faith statement” about the body and mind being “one entity” and also that the physical “stuff” called brain is doing the “thinking” in the mind.

            From my intelligent designer perch, it seems more accurate to phrase it this way…

            > “mind” is doing the thinking
            > and it could not “think”
            > if there were no physical “place”
            > in the “stuff” called brain
            > for “mind” to “be.”

            My point is that the physical “stuff” called brain can NOT think any more than the physical “stuff” called fingernail can think.

            While visible physical “stuff” called brain is definitely alive, it is NOT conscious… but the NOT visible “mind” IS conscious.

            However, for both evolutionists and intelligent designers, the ultimate point of standoff is that both theories are a matter of faith about that which is NOT visible… yet it exists.

            STOP! Islamization Of America

            1. You are either (consciously or subconsciously) ignoring how science works and the dividing lines between scientific disciplines, and the difference between natural sciences and Philosophy.orYou are dishonestly representing the other side of the argument in order to make your case seem equally valid by asserting that they are both invalid.Whichever the case is, I don’t care, this argument constitutes a waste of time, and I try to keep those to a minimum.Good day.

              1. Nice try…

                Ah, we get to the end so quickly.

                I am disregarding the use of the “dishonestly” word to focus on the rest of the sentence.

                >> “or
                >> “You are … [mis] representing the other side of the argument in order to make your case seem equally valid by asserting that they are both invalid.”

                If my case seems “equally valid” it is because it is. Not just because I made my case well.

                The word “invalid” that you adduced is a misrepresentation of my main point… both are theories and “faith statements” and both are NOT provable by ANY hypothesis of science… or faith.

                Both not “provable” does not mean both are “invalid.” It means that both are not “provable.”

                It is a “faith statement” to say that mind is nothing more that synapse gap chemicals passing information from one synapse gap to another.

                That is not a science statement. That is a “faith statement.”

                STOP! Islamization Of America

                1. Only one qualifies as a theory under the rules of Science, and only one of them is a “faith statement” as evident to anyone with the intellectual honesty to learn exactly what it is that is required of both.

                  What you call a “faith statement” on my part is nothing more than a null hypothesis conclusion drawn from what it is that we currently know about the mind. If/When we understand it better, my position will be amended to more accurately correspond with what is supported empirically.

                  This is not the case with you, you will hold to your position regardless of what can or cannot be demonstrated, which is part of what makes your idea a faith statements and inadmissible as a scientific hypothesis.

                2. The point of no return…

                  It seems that no more points are being adduced for point-counterpoint discussion.

                  >>”This is not the case with you… .”

                  I present my case well, but my “faith statement” is not sufficient to counter your “faith statement” that mind and body are nothing more than chemicals being passed along from one synapse gap to another… until “thought” rises in the brain because “mind” is only chemicals.

                  Ok, I get it.

                  However, that is not persuasive and not convincing because that is not a science statement.

                  That is a faith statement about what mind “is.”

                  The origin of mind would have been the next stepping stone to understanding the origin of consciousness.

                  Think about it.

                  STOP! Islamization Of America

  5. Excellent show in exposing the true purpose of this upcoming rally.

    It’s sad to see our Nation going through such turmoil by “fringes” of group who want to destroy this beautiful country. Honestly, I believe they are scared, as such to even counter a rally of 8/28. It will be interesting how the media will play this out. I’m sure the headlines will submit “hundreds of thousands” attended the One Nation rally. Peacefully. But, no mention of the sponsors of the rally.

    This evening on Hannity’s show, he had Frank Luntz with a group of folks in Florida. It was amazing of the ignorance of the people of not knowing what they voted for. Someone in the group mentioned that what BHO campaigned on and he delivered on those campaign promises – the voter approved. It’s unbelievable how some still have their heads in the sand and ingesting the kool-aide by the gallons. They have no concept of the financial ruin and what the future holds for everyone in the USA, including them. I guess they live in this fantasy world that the government will solve all their problems. However, being gullible is no excuse for ignorance – which should send warning bells to everyone to look forward to our future generation and what they are about – frankly it’s scary. But, I blame mostly the family unit. This is where it all starts. The family is the nucleus and these younger adults have been left to their own devices; they are selfish and are only thinking of the “me” society. They have no concept what it is to work hard for a living. The enjoyment they have received and are still receiving today is an utter failure that was perpetuated by their family. We’re to blame for not instilling the values and the importance of these values. You wait and see, they will be like those in Europe, when the government can’t deliver on those freebies, rioting will ensue. This is why it’s important we get involve. Not only in voting, but watching the policies that are being proposed to all of us. It looks like history is repeating itself.
    By the way, I received my book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza. I’ve read other books by D’Souza. His analysis or theses are great. He brings a different perspective and takes it to the next level. For instant, in Chapter 1, he made a good point of BHO and how BHO doesn’t or can’t associate himself as an African American. He has no ties to our African American brothers. It never occurred to me to think about this.
    I’m sure once I continue to read the book, many other light bulbs will light up.

    1. My wife and I were watching the same show. We were laughing at Luntz’s group for how ignorant they were. Have you noticed it seems as if the really dumb are largely liberal. And the really smart elite are also libs. It is, for the most part, the ‘middle’ that we conservatives abide in.

      I love Dinesh D’Souza. I loved his book “What’s so Great about America” and “What’s So Great about Christianity.”

  6. Great show…

    I wrote down many of the websites to check out. I believe what Beck is saying, but would like to check it out for myself…

    I would love to get the video of the stick figures, that was great…

    Thanks for posting again….:)

      1. I like the intention of that little short, but Microsoft is a bad example if you want to espouse the virtues of capitalism.

        Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs engaged a lot of unethical practices to start themselves off.

        That said, Bill Gates (a dreaded ATHEIST, gasp!) is a very admirable person today, giving to and operating the largest transparently run charity in the world.

    1. The phone rang and Tim from Texas notified Glenn he saw the number when Beck showed the bottom of the phone. Glenn talks to Tim at end of part 4 of the July 22nd show.

Comments are closed.