"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.


Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Sunday, June 11, 2006

The (liberal)Girl Next Door: The Gloves Are Off

FROM LINK: ~ The Gloves Are Off

Christians are destroying the fabric of our society. Just listen to Ann Coulter spew her hatred toward the widows of 9/11, Pat Robertson call for the assassination of a foreign leader, Jerry Falwell blame feminists and gays for 9/11 and it becomes very clear that Christian activists are using God to spread hate and create divisions that serve their narrow personal agendas at the expense of American society.



Anonymous Jeff said...

Coulter has a point. The other two are looney toons.

11/6/06 9:00 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Also, let's try to remember that at this time in history, it is Muslims that are committing the majority of terrorist attacks throughout the world. When concern over the fabric of society being destroyed is felt, let's try to keep focus on the real issues. Not a few eccentric loudmouths.

11/6/06 9:13 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Coulter is such an accomplished liar she has either grown a dick or the gender reassignemnt surgery was successful.

11/6/06 11:18 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: jeff>> "Also, let's try to remember that at this time in history, it is Muslims that are committing the majority of terrorist attacks throughout the world."

I see, so because we have elements in one religion who are obvious lunatics, we should parade and support another group of obvious religious lunatics?

What I do see, Jeff, is that logic is not your strong point.

11/6/06 11:21 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"Coulter is such an accomplished liar she has either grown a dick or the gender reassignemnt surgery was successful."

Are you implying that men are liars?

11/6/06 1:11 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

I thought it was obvious that it wasn't an implication.

11/6/06 4:53 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

See, now we're getting somewhere. I'm starting to get a much clearer picture of you, bb. It is obvious to me that you have been mistreated by one or more males in your life, and this has left you extremely jaded. Perhaps an overly religious father? As hatred of religion and males seems to be the defining characteristics, my deductions follow along those lines....
If you don't want to talk about these personal issues further, I apologize and will drop the subject...

12/6/06 6:30 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

No. I was not mistreated by any male role models.

I was fortunate enough to have had very positive and encouraging male role models who made me understand that my voice has as much intrinsic value as anyone elses regardless of gender.

If you read what I said, I claimed that men are liars. Not a terribly hard claim to support. And a claim that most honest men ) would agree with me about.

The purpose of this blog is to discuss religious beliefs and politics. In the future, try and keep on topic.

This is not a forum for you to express your unqualified opinion concerning my psychological state.

In a nutshell, I am not interested in how you "feel" about my intellectual position.

In closing, I just think YOU are a dickhead, not EVERY male on the planet.

12/6/06 10:17 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"In a nutshell, I am not interested in how you "feel" about my intellectual position."

Actually, I feel you are very smart.

13/6/06 12:20 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Your "feelings" are of no interest to me.

13/6/06 2:02 am  
Blogger Procrastinatrix said...


Up to your old tricks again?

13/6/06 4:16 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...


13/6/06 9:00 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Procrastin'hate'rix! Still got that 'chip' on your shoulder, I see....

14/6/06 12:01 am  
Blogger Procrastinatrix said...

Just for wanking trolls with nothing better to do than to antagonise people. Is no one is paying attention to you on Canadian blogs anymore forcing you to get your jollies bugging people on the other side of the world?

Not all Canadians are idiots as Jeff would have you think Beep Beep.My advice to you Beep Beep is to ignore Jeff and he will eventually go away. He trolled my blog for a while. While its fun to debate religion, his posts are generally reductio ad absurdum and a waste of time. Responding will only make it fun for him.

14/6/06 1:23 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Procrastin'hate'rix, grow up.

14/6/06 9:44 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion," Coulter writes in what may be her most controversial book yet. "Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'"

~Ann Coulter

16/6/06 12:12 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Coulter has the same language problem as you do. She makes up her own meanings for words, and then creates a strawman argument. Basically, the woman isn't very bright.

Religion: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

16/6/06 12:59 am  
Blogger Procrastinatrix said...

Jeffie, you didn't ACTUALLY quote Ann Coulter did you? Ann Coulter is hardly an "expert" on anything, except glib one liners and offending people. She is so obviously in a constant state of starvation that her brain is functioning minimally on ketone bodies which is likely the biological mechanism underlying her inherent stupidity.

I hope you are not using Mr. Coulter as a model of christianity, cuz except for the fact that he/she thinks evolution is stupid (because she is afraid of what her brain can't comprehend) and is against abortions (which Beep Beep has pointed out that perhaps God ISN'T), and thinks liberals are godless, doesn't mean she's going to heaven. I mean, you actually have to be a good person and help people, being charitable and giving, along with accepting Jesus, to be a christian worthy of heaven, right? Or is christianity really much easier than that, with the only requirement being lipservice to God, as is the case with Mann, er, Ann?

If I am wrong about God and religion, then I will likely being seeing her in hell where I will be burning eternally. Except that in my life, I helped a few people.

16/6/06 3:47 am  
Blogger Alan said...

Wow, I have been away from my blogging for too long. Ignorant trolls are so entertaining.

Bravo! Keep ripping him a new one! It is amazing how Jeff knows the minds of all Liberals isn't it? He and Ann must be psychotic, I mean psychic.

16/6/06 10:17 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

People like Jeff and Ann like to make up their own meanings for words. This is one of the basic problems.

The psychological effect of this is that everything they believe in must be holy, good and right and consequently, the other people (no mtter what they believe in) must be inherently evil, bad and incorrect.

It is the classical case of the "you are either with us or against us fallacy" which the neo-conservatives have used so effectively against the sheep.

That particular fallacy is a fallacy of distraction where 2 choices are given and the pretence is that what ONLY exists is those choices.

Religious people trot out the logical fallacy of "heaven or hellfire" with monotonous gay abandon. Even the old fashioned catholics must have recognised this as a logical error as they provided purgatory, limbo as further possibilities.

(Of course none of them dare to mention the other possibility that their religion might be total crap.)

Jeff's favourite logical fallacy is the strawman argument.

This is where he misrepresents the person's position, to try and create a position that is easier to refute. Or he misrepresents the person's position and then expects me to refute his misrepresentation of my position.

So, have fun trying to misrepesent this dictionary definition of "liberalism" Jeff.


1.The state or quality of being liberal.

2. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
3.An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
5. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

I want you to read that definition of liberalism very carefully Jeff and write a 1000 word essay explaining how the concept of liberalism lead to the modern government of the US.

No playing troll on other people's blogs until you have finished.

16/6/06 12:05 pm  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"People like Jeff and Ann like to make up their own meanings for words. This is one of the basic problems."

Uh oh.....

"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."

16/6/06 11:38 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

The obvious retort is "Only in America." It doesn't apply in the rest of the world which is sane.

But it was a nice attempt at a strawman argument.

Now show me where "liberalism" has been decreed to be a religion.

17/6/06 1:56 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"Now show me where "liberalism" has been decreed to be a religion."

I just did: "The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being."

17/6/06 6:56 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

So, how does it feel knowing you are a 'religious' person just like I am?

17/6/06 6:58 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE Jeff: As I said, show me where "liberalism" is viewed as a religion and you can't because there is no Supreme Court ruling in the US or anywhere else which views it as such.

A quick reminder, "atheism", "secular humanism" and "liberalism" are not equal in meaning.

You fail to appreciate the fact that the gentleman who wanted to start an atheist group in prison, felt that his first amendment rights had been denied.

So for the purposes of fulfilling his first amendment rights, atheism was viewed as a religion.
(But only in the US, not here. :)

I am not defined as relgious even if I am an atheist, because I don't live in the US. I am not sure if you have noticed Jeffie, but the majority of the world's population lives outside of bumfuck Kansas.

With your interpretation of what constitutes a religion, ritualised anal masturbation with an Ann Coulter figurine is a religion.

Or trolling on people's blogs while performing the above action, is a religion.

The problem with ensuring the first amendment rights of atheists is that the first amendment should read, " freedom OF and FROM religion."

There is NO freedom if it is only the freedom to be religious.

17/6/06 11:22 am  
Anonymous Jeff said...

"As I said, show me where "liberalism" is viewed as a religion and you can't because there is no Supreme Court ruling in the US or anywhere else which views it as such."

Show me a court ruling in the US or anywhere else that views Zoroastrianism as a religion?
You say you can't? Then it's your opinion against mine as to whether Zoroastrianism is indeed a religion or not....and it is my opinion and Coulter's opinion that Liberalism is a religion....and perhaps any martian landers.

"If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law."

18/6/06 1:51 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE Jeff: Do you want to play the game that everything is just an opinion and that any opinion has as much veracity/weight or truthfulness as the next?

If this is indeed the game you wish to play, it is a waste of time, not only for yourself but for me as well.

If all is just an opinion, then your posting that "secular humanism is now categorised as a religion" is irrelevant.

If anything and everything can be viewed as a religion. There is no need to call them religions in the first place. What value does it confer upon anything if everything is a religion?

The fact is, everything is NOT a religion. You fail to recognise the obvious differences between something which may figuratively have "religious-like" qualities and something which is LITERALLY a religion.

Something like "capitalism" for example can be practised "religiously" in a figurative sense. If something is for all intents and purposes practised religiously, it means it may share similar aspects but NOT technically or literally be a religion.

I think it would be patently ridiculous to consider capitalism or liberalism to be technically religions. Though both dynamics could be practised religiously.

"LY" being the suffix which means "like". So like a religion, but not a religion.

And I totally disagree with Coulter's quote. She hasn't thought it out very well at all.

Because if a martian landed in America, what she would see would be millions of people exchanging goods and services for little plastic cards and pieces of paper.

According to your definition that ANYTHING can be a religion, the martian would then confer that the nation's state religion,is CAPITALISM.

Afterall, capitalism is the "religion" that the other religions spend the majority of their time worshipping.

18/6/06 3:16 pm  
Blogger zzymurgy said...

I am a man, but I am not a liar. That was a lie (but this isn't)

23/6/06 2:25 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home