Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Bonus Blog: Adam Lambert on the AMAs
Re #22: Ya beat me to it, Cuddle. http://omg.yahoo.com/news/updated-abcs-good-morni… (The good news is, there's a picture link in the above story.) First, Elvis' pelvis, and now Adam's lips. What I love is the statement that they were "concerned" about a performance from him "this early in the morning." What, a dude can't kiss another dude before breakfast? Somebody in the midwest might choke on their pancakes? :)— November 24, 2009 12:05 p.m.
The Slightly Hodge-Podge Composition
LOL at the ESL CL pros! :D— November 24, 2009 8:33 a.m.
Defining the Infinite. It's a Problem.
Re #5: Thanks, Cuddle. "The rituals that encompass and serve as a conduit where we can encounter the mystical." That's a good word -- a "conduit." That's exactly what they are. "It may be an error to try and do what the Not Of This Worlders and others like them try to do, which is to try and bring God down into the every day realm." I think what you're trying to describe here is the transcendental approach, which is more about them "transcending" what they perceive as the physical world to achieve union with the divine. But the Gospel of Thomas, later quoted by Campbell in the above series, states that "The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the Earth, but men do not see it." Apparently, the transcendentalists haven't read Thomas. ;) "God is in the every day but we must seek God in an exalted sense, what the Opus Dei people mean when they say that "everyone is called to holiness and that ordinary life is a path to sanctity."' According to a lot of people, that's the whole point. Thomas Moore wrote in "Care of the Soul" about the soulfulness of mundane work. You and I washing dishes or monks walking a labyrinth can be the same thing -- everyday activities can be a meditation. Mental and spiritual resting/recharging often occurs during simple physical work. Less meditative and more active moments - those things we call "problems" - are for growth. According to some people, anyway. :)— November 24, 2009 8:18 a.m.
Defining the Infinite. It's a Problem.
Re #6: "You seem to be suggesting that only self-referential experience is valid in exploring religious phenomenon." Or at least culturally-referential. "You don't quote any researchers who instead of ruminating actually perform experiments." Detailing such experiences was not the point of the paper, so, no. Ken Wilber would be one example of a modern guy who does such things, and writes about them in English. "How do you explain those recent advances?" I dunno. I don't see any citations to any studies pertaining to them. "* The ability (independently relicated scores of times) to stimulate a particular area in the brain and consistently evoke a "spiritual" response in the subject." No cite, no definition of what "spiritual" is. So I have no response. "* Recent advances in explaining the evolutionary advantages to religious ritual as a social bonding mechanism that promote genetic survival." Sounds like sociological theory, to me. Those have always been around. "Seems to me that if I can show you that "spirituality" can be magnetically invoked by anyone with the right equipment, and that this brain structure has a good evolutionary explanation, then it seems that your requirement for self-referentialism in religious experience is moot." I still don't know what you mean by "spirituality," but it's a huge term that encompasses a lot of different ideas. I don't think you're going to invoke an entire worldview by means of a magnet. "Now it's very clear that religious experience can be accurately described, and a lot of it anatomically mapped out, by an outside observer." Again, whatever you think "religious experience" is, here, it must be something very specific and narrow. Which kinda proves my point. I'm really not particularly interested in debating the nature of "reality" with somebody else. There's absolutely no point to it. It's just 2 people shouting at each other in 2 entirely different languages. I believe Cuddle quoted a Mexican saying recently: "Cada cabeza es un mundo." Isn't that it, Cuddle? Every head is a world.— November 24, 2009 7:55 a.m.
For the Ladies: Best Excuse EVER.
Re #7: Sounds like the unfortunate voice of experience, there, Dude! :) I don't think ball-kicking will fly in Cali, will it? I'm pretty sure a guy out here would file charges AND sue.— November 24, 2009 7:35 a.m.
For the Ladies: Best Excuse EVER.
Re #6. Hmmmmm.... I'm feeling like a poor communicator, here. That was kinda the original idea. I was just wondering exactly how such a dialogue would go. You know, the "Bogus Breakups for Dummies" version. I might actually want to USE this someday. See, great acting is at least partially dependent on a great script. It's a scriptwriting exercise. Ridiculous enough to be absolutely hilarious to a bystander, but appealing enough to the male ego that he totally BUYS it. See whadda mean, Vern? :)— November 24, 2009 7:28 a.m.
For the Ladies: Best Excuse EVER.
Oh, hey Cuddle - After rereading your responses, I think you need to re-read the blog entry. You're missing something. Something big. ;)— November 23, 2009 10:41 p.m.
For the Ladies: Best Excuse EVER.
Refried, ya nailed it. Not specifically football, but "sports addiction." But we could have another little contest here, Cuddle (and everybody else who wants to join in). Let's say I'm the boyfriend that you're trying kick to the curb, and the above excuse is going to be your out. Gimme your best breakup bulls***. Convince me. :)— November 23, 2009 10:35 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Re #144 "See what you copy/pasted? It's not me "personallY" who discovered all this evidence against the existence of "Gods"," I'm not aware of any evidence that 'is' specifically against the existence (whatever that means) of "Gods" (whatever you understand those to be). "...and I'm far from the only person who thinks this way. I'm not believing in an alternative "unproven" premise." Of course you're not the only atheist in the world. They're all over the place. But you 'are' "believing" in the non-existence of something you call God. And you're quite insistent that this belief is correct. "I'm believing in all the evidence that points conclusively to the non-existence of any "Gods"." So you're believing in the proof of a negative? "I'm promoting independently PROVABLE theories about our origins, morality, and our place in the universe that involve no magic (or "faith") whatsoever." I'm sure they meet your burden of "proof." They don't necessarily meet mine. Nor do they disprove other theories that may also be correct. "In addition, I point out that trying to make someone prove a negative is a well-known distraction, a petty debator's trick." But you just said you believe that the non-existence of any Gods can be proved. That's proving a negative. Stunning. I'm also quite aware of what a sociopath is. We've got at least one here on the site, and possibly more. Sociopaths specifically lack 'empathy.' Not caring what others 'think' is something else altogether. And as for caring what 'you' think, I genuinely don't. I just got tired of seeing comments on the same damn thread going on ad nauseum, and had hoped that MAYBE the penny would drop if someone other than your 2 existing imaginary adversaries pointed out that you're doing nothing more than projecting zealotry onto others, when you're clearly the only zealot in the room. So you've got nothing to be flattered about.— November 23, 2009 10:29 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Re #140 From Wiki's article entitled "Argument from Ignorance:" "The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true." I don't believe that there was a claim by anyone here that something called "God" absolutely exists, just because you can't prove S/He doesn't. What's been said is that S/He MAY or MAY NOT exist, and that there's not conclusive evidence either way. This is the basic agnostic position, which lays no claim to knowledge of "truth" (whatever you want to decide THAT word means). "The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead." On the other hand, THIS is PRECISELY what YOU are doing, Fred. "Both arguments commonly share this structure[citation needed]: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true." You really should read these links all the way through before you post them, Fred. Are you really so entirely narcissistic that you can't see that these descriptions apply to YOU, and not Josh and refried? Your argument has nothing to do with logic (convinced though you remain of your supposed intellectual superiority). It's just pure emotional, reactionary, atheistic zealotry. You're coming off as downright silly. What a hissy fit! And as for anyone in this thread stating a position of agnosticism due to being afraid what theists OR atheists think? Additional reality check: Refried doesn't give a crap what anybody else thinks because he's a grownup, Josh doesn't give a crap about what anybody else thinks because he's an a-hole, and I don't give a crap what anybody else thinks for whatever reason you want to think.— November 23, 2009 9:11 p.m.