I am Thankful for Crossfit

Perfect!

I made it through thanksgiving...

I ate soo many veggies and some turkey... But no bread, no coffee and no desert.

Got my pushies in too.

I'm ashamed to say I skipped my turkey day workout-gobble gobble(and I'm not talking about the turkey). I'll be hitting it hard on this "rest day". I'd like to hit Fran but something tells me I'll be seeing her real soon on the WOD!

I bet Jesus did Crossfit...Happy Turkey day!

M/35/150lb

Nate as RX'd. 19 Rounds

Rd 1-5 4:27
Rd 6-10 5:24
Rd 11-15 5:32
Rd 16-19 4:28

Watch it!
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=47264404

Beautiful Turkey Day In Tahoe, gobble gobble! Tahoe Tornado

I turned into the Purple Bitch from Willi Wonkas Chocolate Factory. Too much to eat.

#6 nice job, you make it look easy. interesting muscle ups....

I'm going to puke. So stuffed. Can't move. Can't breathe. Glad it's over. Once in a while, you gotta do it.

Happy thansgving everyone.

Dan D.
www.CrossFitStickers.com

Wow,you never know when you'll get your fifteen minutes of fame.... a pic on the main site, cool :>)

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

The article said "liberals encouraged Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime loans."

He meant to say Bush encouraged Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime loans. Bush isn't a liberal, even though disgruntled and defeated conservatives are now trying to characterize him as such.

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

Franklin Raines, the head of Fannie Mae at the time, also responded to Bush’s “Challenge” in a letter, stating:

June 13, 2002
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As America’s largest source of private capital for affordable housing, Fannie Mae applauds your call for “broader homeownership, especially for minorities.” We accept your challenge to the private sector to join in partnership to address America’s housing needs. And we are proud to step up to your challenge by launching an even greater commitment of private capital and creative strategies to expand minority homeownership.

full letter can be found below:

http://www.novoco.com/homeownership/resource_files/reports/Fannie_Mae_letter_Bush.pdf

Also google "America's Home Ownership Challenge"
and read the Whitehouse Press releases from 2001/2002 regarding this issue.

nice . a day off. . tried to stay away from the pies !! . friend of mine met pukie yesterday. got it on tape. GO CROSSFIT !!

Great post Joe.

Awesome picture!

Are there any CF affiliates in South Africa? I live in Durban and would love to get a bit of guidance on some of the lifts...

Awesome rest day picture. I was lucky enough to go on a work trip that turned into a bodyboarding trip to Cape Town a few months ago and it was incredible. If anyone ever gets the chance to go to South Africa take it! There is so much to see and do and so many active adventures to take part in. Plus if you surf or bodyboard the waves are insane!

Comment #11 Joe. Sure you can put President Bush on the list but don't forget to add Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, ACORN, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd. The list goes on. And according to the author, Franlin Raines cooked the books to put $50 million in his pockets while he was CEO at Fannie.

Bottom line is both sides suck and it would be nice to start over and clean up the corruption.

#11- Joe

Bush encouraged more broad home ownership, it is true, however, the problem started with Clinton. The forceable issuance of mortgages to people that will never be able to pay them off goes against the laws of economics like Superman goes against the laws of gravity. What liberal politicians fail to realize is that some people aren't meant to do well in life, just like some kids aren't meant to play sports. You have to let some people fail in order to let the society as a whole go forward. People aren't created equal, regardless of what sounds good on TV. Paris Hilton, regardless of her stupidity, will always have an easier life than Joe Schmucatelly from inner city Detroit, regardless of his brains, brawn, or other traits. This is a fact of life that people must start to understand. Redistributing the wealth, forced home ownership, and universal healthcare will drag America further into the moral abyss that it is already entering. Those are unsustainable programs. The reason the Soviet Union failed before we did is because of Socialism. Marx and Engels outlined an unsustainable economic system because of the nature of man.

The housing crisis goes way farther back than President Bush or President Clinton, however, Bill had much more to do with it than George. In order to fix this problem, politicians need to stop worrying about power and start worrying about the greater good. However, that requires a love of liberty and not a love of power, which, regretfully, most politicians lack.

#17 Rob,

Read the constitution dude, our fore fathers believed that "all men are created equal." Paris Hilton, does well in society not because she is somehow more of a panther in the survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world that we live in, but because we elevate her to that status because of her looks. I don't think that she is better than Joe Schmucatelly who works two jobs to provide for his family, do you? Sometimes success isn't measured in dollar signs bro.
I am all about not giving person A's money to person B just because person B doesn't want to go out and kill something and bring it home like so many of us already do. And I agree with you that we need to take a harder look at who we issue mortgages to but saying that some people are "just better" than others is what people that have lived on welfare for a generation are banking on you thinking.

Always with the moral abyss! Isn't it bad enough that the news networks are filled with this regurgitated political dialogue? Need we read about it on hallowed blogspace? This blame game isn't going to put $X Billion back in the treasury is it?

I'm with Rob #11 -

Clearly the credit and housing crisis is a direct result of Liberalness. Work hard, do the CF WOD, pay the bills - thats the real American way.

Some people just do not want to be Americans. And contrary to poular opinion Mr Pres-elect, there are some states, communities, fitness groups, who are more Americna than others, duh.

People are deff not created equal. Show my any Liberal who can do Fran in under 3 minutes - nuff said.

oops...Declaration of Independence, pardon!

Thanks to all of our troops and heroes who have fallen.

I made it through thanksgiving...

I ate soo many veggies and some turkey... But no bread, no coffee and no desert.

Got my pushies in too.

This American experiment will only succeed through the toils and sacrifice of those who call themselves Americans. I'm sick of people asking what their country is doing for them when they should be clawing tooth and nail to make a contribution to the greater good. To reach out for anything more than a hand getting back onto your feet is solidly UN-American. We established this representative democracy on this side of the Atlantic because we wanted to do things a different way than our ancestors. Having been raised to believe that you get out what you put into something, I can't stand the thought of living in a quasi-socialist America. I'd sooner resign my commission than watch this great nation go down the tubes in uniform.

#17: "All men are created equal" is taken from the opening line of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It fully reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Crossfit is a constantly evolving program dedicated to educating and informing people on methods to achieve elite fitness. These boards used to be a way for people interested in conversing and promoting this genre of ideas. Now it's as much a forum for anything but; whether it be politics, economics, why things are 'bad', ways to fix em etc..
I for one would be thankful to see a reversion to the natural intent of a message board on a fitness site.

I understand and appreciate the fact that everyone has a right to be heard. We're inundated with politics, economics, global dysfunction etc.. in every other medium. It would be nice to have a break.

I anticipate a thorough verbal backlash, even to be called un American and all of those incredibly well thought out, media driven quips. For those of you who do, thank you for proving my point.
3-2-1 Go.

How the heck did that happen?? Damn blackberry.

“the trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They’re too greedy.” That is true.

All men are created equal and should be given the same rights and opportunities. Some will do better than others but please let that decision be made during that individuals life, not before his/hers first breath.

Who´s to blame? 1. The Ppl who loans money to ppl with no job and no money. Simply because they have the OPPORTUNITY to do so, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!
2. Ppl who loan money they can not possibly pay back. (Though I saw a documentary about a couple who both (man and woman) had intellectual handicap (cerebral palsy or sth like that) and a sub-prime loan they clearly did not understand the concepts of. What kind of ppl gives sub-prime loans to handicapped who has no capability to understand such things?)
3. Politicians of various kinds and colours. But despite all mistakes, noone is FORCED to do these things above. Banks, other financial institutions and people in general should have known and done better.
Not to forget all the economic "journalists" who always tell us what to do and what to believe - WHAT THE HELL HAVE THEY BEEN UP TO FOR THE LAST DECADE???

hands up who can't tell the difference between Liberalism and Socialism?

The free market doctrine espoused by Bush et al. is Liberalism. Supporting the right to bear arms is social liberalism.

State handouts(bailouts) for people in trouble is socialism; be they individuals losing their jobs due to the economic downturn and having their homes repossessed because they can't keep up with the mortgage, or investment banks that claim they need the money or they'll take everyone else down with them.

Capitalism is a Liberal ideology.

I am glad for the rest day. My abs are sore from Nate on Wed...

There are a great many things that this Administration has done right and wrong. Wrongly supporting the GSEs of Fannie and Freddy are not among the wrongs...

Here is a synopsis of the facts from the Administration's side:

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

I am so glad its a rest day. i have the worse food hangover i hve ever had. War Eagle!

All men are created equal before the law. This is the point Jefferson was making. He himself was a lifelong racist, who saw Indians potentially becoming a part of our body politic, but never envisioned the same for African Americans.

If you think even for a moment, the only way to make all men equal in outcome--not opportunity, or status before the Law--is to tear down the excellent, and generate a universal mediocrity, as has been done in Cuba, North Korea, and to a lesser extent China. China has succeeded to the extent that it has successfully raised itself from Communism to mere Fascism, which is frankly a more benign doctrine, offering, as it does, at least some opportunity for advancement outside the Party apparatus. (It's worth noting there that Mao killed more people than the Nazis did).

With respect to Fannie Mae, Obama got a LOT of money from them. Here is a listing of the top recipients: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

Fannie Mae, effectively, is an investor in black neighborhoods. They underwrite bad loans no matter what. Had Bush been successful in getting their capitalization requirements increased, their ability to buy new loans would have diminished proportionately.

Democrats didn't want this. Their constituencies didn't want this, as they were getting easy money for homes they couldn't afford.

No doubt many middle class folks made poor decisions as well, in a pervasive atmosphere of greed, and keeping up with the Joneses. However, I think this article does a good job of making clear that the foundational objection of Democrats to increased oversight of an entity which the Federal Government was (as has been made clear) underwriting, was that it would have reduced drastically what amounted to pork barrel projects in their districts.

If you combine this with repeated objections to either regulating or adding competitino to the Credit Rating Agencies, something like 60-70% of the blame can be laid at the feet of Democrats.

Republicans are not innocent either, and certainly a large part of the blame has to placed at the feet of greedy banks, and shareholders. But from a regulatory perspective, I think Bush did what he could, and he failed.

#11, Joe,

Here are some additional culprits:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html

18 and 25:

I know the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The line "All Men are Created Equal" doesn't imply social standing or easiness of life. "All Men are created equal" refers to the rights that everyone has. Paris and Joe will always have the same rights, but she will just have an easier life because of her social standing. Jay, I never said that Paris Hilton was better, in fact I deplore her and change the channel every single time she crosses the frame. I said that she will have an easier go of it than Joe will. She is a stupid, moronic, deplorable human... but Joe is much better. Doesn't mean her life isn't easier though.

Last week my schedule was off by a day so yesterday was going to be a rest day. We had turkey dinner at 3 and spent the rest of the day lazing around the house watching ourselves get fatter. By 7 though I was ready for some action. I pulled up the sight and saw "Nate". I have a hard time ignoring the hero WOD's; they gave us the ultimate sacrifice so the least I can do is get off my ass and honor their memory. I went to the garage, set up my rings (never travel with out them) and dug out one of my old dumbells (thank you dad for keeping them all these years). So here I was about 4 hours after turkey dinner, my equipment spread across the floor, and staring Nate right in the eye. I had managed to get my two brothers to agree to watch me do the WOD which I'm pretty sure they didn't think was too tough. You see one of them is a farmer full time so he naturally thinks he is excellent physical condition from the amount of manual labor he does. The other brother, the oldest, is an avid runner. He did a 10k yesterday morning in 43 and change and has done 2 halves and 1 full marathon. I've been preaching xfit to them both for almost a year now but they just don't get it. They remain convinced that their own methods are better and have always refused to try anything new. Today however, I had a captive audience. It was a holiday, they were there, and I knew they had nothing better to do so I made them watch (tried to get them to join but that was a lost cause).

20 mins of:
2 MU
4 HSPU
8 DB Swings (60lbs - was the biggest DB I had)

Previous PR 15.66 rds at 55lbs. This time, 16 full rounds!

As I lay there afterwards barely able to move, my lungs grasping for air, and swimming in a pool of my own sweat, the oldest brother (the runner) extended his hand and simply said, "you know, I think you may be onto something." The other brother (farmer) just told me I was f-ing crazy and walked away.

At least I got to one of them! If only I can get him to try a WOD with me on SAT I think he'll be convinced. Bring it on coach, we need a tough one!

So i know today was a rest day but i got all excited reading about active hip yesterday and decided to go for some 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 squats....was great, did 130k,135k,140k,145k(pr),150k(new pr!)failed 155 twice but filmed it and my depth was impeccable and they werent far off....Thanks Coach Rip :0) 10k on pr, more to come!!

Where are all the original Crossfit guys and gals? I would love to see more vidio of their current WOD performances. Did they burn out? I've been doing Crossfit for years and it would motivate me to see more of the folks I started with.

Male/26yrs/6'0"/170lbs

Ab set:
KTE 30X3
GHSU 30X3
Oblique V-ups 25X3 (each side)
Ab mat Sit-ups, with tilt 30X3

Bowl of oatmeal and a car ride home from the FD then...

Fran

21-15-9
95lb Thrusters
Pull-ups

3:30 (last times 3:27, 3:55 and 3:23)

I am so disappointed with my time on this one. Right now my Pull-ups have never been better and I completely crumbled on the thrusters.

21's went un-broken then the 15's torn me apart, 6, 5, 4 and even the 9's were miserable 5 and 4. The pull-ups went without a hitch which means my time would've been extra slow if I would've done regular pull-ups. This is a major setback.

Hopefully Fran comes up tomorrow cause it's either going to kill me or I'm going to kill it. No two ways about it.

I'm going spinning with my wife. I've never done it, looking forward to it.

I did nate today. I was hand shoveling snow for 7 hrs. on WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, SO I WAS TO SORE TO LIFT MY ARMS.
m/175/42

I did 9 rds
8 pull ups/8dips per rd
seated 40lb db presses 4 reps
70 lb weight for kettlebell 8 reps

Happy Thanksgiving you CrossBorder CrossFitters --

wrt to the reading, my only question is what new "opportunities" the current bailout package and associated legislation are going to present :-)

Crossfit Total

Squat: 200 (up 5lbs)
Press: 145 (up 10lbs)
DL: 255(up 10lbs)

600lbs

Didn't know that Crossfit became a political Blog.

Did Nate today as the gym was closed yesterday.
13rds + 2 MU, used 1.5 Pod so my back would not explode.
3-2-1 Go.

Ran about a 10k yesterday

Today- every min on the min for 30 min, 15 DL at 100#

with a few skipped, total was 419 DL's in 30 min. This is the only workout I do with gloves as no point in trashing hands. Today was a PR as I usually get to 405 DL's.

Erin

dave castro is the shiznit.

his programming lectures are awesome. glad to see part 5.

erin- that DL workout looks effin brutal. good job.

Decided to do Nate today for Nate and for Gaucoin, much respect!

15 rounds + 2 MU's + asking random girl out in the street = still no weekend plans

Yesterday I did 'Angie' but I added on 100 75 lbs push presses. My left shoulder feels pretty sore today so I just went for a quick run

1.5 miles = 9:43

m/38/190/70"

CF Lorton WOD:

AMRAP 20:
2 x press
4 x push press
6 x push jerk all @ 95#
8 24" box jumps
10 KB swings (1.5 pood)

7 rounds plus presses. low back wrecked fm Mr Joshua

Billy, you rock bro! friggin awesome picture.

Sorry I didn't get to hang out with you and Lysa while you were in town. We'll catch up next time. I got to get up to your neck of the woods.

m21/160/5'9
deadlift pr;345
im posting here beacause i am a cycle behind. I just attempted mr joshua. In my third round 10th rep of deadlift 250 and my lower back just died i can bearly bend over to tie my shoes at the moment..
my form was good but i think my muscles just gave out...anybody ever over work their lower back.. pls email me with adivice or info thanks Ben..

I made Mr. Joshua up today.
First time, it's a good work out.

Can't get the article for some reason. ...

2 new PR's

5k - 26:37 (PR by about 2 min - thx interval trg!)

Cindy - 17 rds + 5 pullups. May have been 18+5 but if you lose count, it's your own fault - Sorry Charlie.

m/40/5'7"/200

#5...
YES HE DID!

"Nate", details there.

7 rounds + 8p8d + 4HSPU

made up Mr Joshua too.

Probably not the best wod to do when legs are still sore. Know I could've ran faster and lifted heavier. Have enough carbs in me from yesterday to explode so what the heck, did it anyway.

29:10
ghd's-full ext.
155# deadlift-no bouncing/ unbroken
400m runs outside(more like jogs)

Working a few days behind...
AM
Crossfit Endurance Run: 2 x 1000m / 1k with 2 min recoveries…. NO PENALTIES. All out sprints.
PM
Mr. Joshua: 100% as Rx'd 34:56.

2nd full week of CFE + Crossfit...getting my wind back. I am in luv with Crossfit endurance.

Hey, I know that guy in the pic! Nice Billy!

Post Turkey workout:

-run 400m
-10 thrusters w/ 100 lbs
-10 burpees

x3 = 34:23

Burpees kill me...

The article for today states:

"Many people, especially liberal politicians, have blamed the disaster on the deregulation of the last 30 years. But they do so in order to avoid the blame’s falling where it should—squarely on their own shoulders. For the same politicians now loudly proclaiming that deregulation caused the problem are the ones who fought tooth and nail to prevent increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie—the source of so much political money, their mother’s milk.

Herbert Hoover famously remarked that “the trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They’re too greedy.” That is true. But another and equal trouble with capitalism is politicians. Like the rest of us, they are made of all-too-human clay and can be easily blinded to reality by naked self-interest, at a cost we are only now beginning to fathom."

_______________________________________________

-Just goes to show, plain old human greed is the cause of our current economic troubles. And before anyone of us throws the first stone, let him or her that has never been greedy throw the first one.

The same holds true of our physical fitness endeavors. Many of us are not satisfied with attaining a high level of physical fitness, so we beat our bodies to dust, then cry when it breaks.

What America needs is a return to the morals and discipline taught by Jesus Christ. We need to teach our children to fear God. We need to spank them good, when they are bad. Good physical punishment makes for a morally straight person.

Hate to quote Chomsky on this board 'cause I know I'll get slammed, but I think he put it most concicely:
- "Markets have inherent and well-known inefficiencies. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. That is particularly true for financial institutions.
Their task is to take risks, calculating potential costs for themselves. But they do not take into account the consequences of their losses for the economy as a whole. Hence the financial market "underprices risk"."

Clearly, as evidenced by the recent financial crisis, the human costs of a higly deregulated free market system are too high. Markets tend to privatize profits while socializing risk. I understand very well that free markets are the best vehicle for generating wealth and political freedom in society. However, a free-market libertarian approach is not the optimal solution.

The danger is in following fundamentalist idealogies. Just as fundametalist egalitarian societies were shown to be innefective by the examples of the failed communist regimes, fundamentalist free-market systems are equally ineffective in different ways.

There is a middle path - we learned about the fallacy of false dichotomies last rest day, and this is a perfect example. Democratic systems exist, while not perferct, that foster free markets that can efficiently generate wealth, while still taking care of citizens that are made dependant, for whatever reason, on the good will of their community - Canada, Scandanavia, etc.

Moderatists Unite!

@Gar

Jesus Christ!

Seriously, Christians, a little over 200 years ago you controlled the entire western world. Religion was completely intertwined with government. You had probably a Millenium to make the world a better place using your Christianity. Basically, you failed and secularism has brought us to where we are today. In just over 200 years we are experiencing a level of equality, freedom, humanity, and justice that always seemed to evade a world run by religion.

I'm sorry, but finding Jesus is not the answer to all of our problems, or all of anyones problems. Maybe it might be a good cure for loneliness to have an imaginary friend. Maybe it's a good cure for low self esteem. At least Jesus always loves you. I don't know. I know religion helps people in many ways. The problem is that it isn't a cure for everything.

I think we just need a cultural shift. In most of asia they have savings rates in the double digits. Here we have a negative savings rate. That is just a cultural difference. There has been a positive feedback loop of greed ever since the 80s, and someone needs to break that. We can't prop up our economy by borrowing money anymore. This is true on the federal level down to the personal level.

The Japanese don't have Jesus, and they do not have a culture of debt and irresponsibility. We don't need him either, maybe just a little leadership. Bush didn't help. What did he tell us to do after 9/11, go buy stuff? wtf. Hopefully Obama influences our habits for the good. Good leadership can be a powerful thing.

Jackson Browne Solo Acoustic Volume 1 and 2 (vol. 1 is better)

I highly recommend putting this on and drinking a glass of wine. The world seems so much more...I don't know...tranquil maybe?

Baby if you can see me
Out across this wilderness
There's just one thing
I was hoping you might guess
Baby you can free me
All in the power of your sweet tenderness

Pairs wonderfully with a 2005 Mondavi Caberbet Sauvignon in case you were wondering :-)

maybe a little harsh but i think you've got the right idea jared

Clean and Jerk 30 reps, 175#
(Games rules)

21:00

Way to slow.

did CFB WOD of 12,15,9 od 225 Deadlifts with 800 meter run after each round

time was 13:04

God Bless and Semper Fidelis

23m 190

erged and ran this morning.

CF Milford special:

12 2pood swings
3 rope climbs
7 tire flips
400m run

5 rounds in 22:00, runs were pathetic in the late rounds, swings unbroken, rope climbs were brutal, tire was pretty damn heavy. great workout

that's because i love crossfit because during that minutes there is no politic no religion just ourselfs giving the best trying to get better wod by wod I LOVE CROSSFIT

www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

M/155/5'9"/22

500m row sprints X 10

Time- 28:30 ish

needed some cardio for today

Made up for missing Nate yesterday.
subbed 10 burpees for muscleups (resting my strained lat and peck for a week)
4 HSPU my first hard and need work
8 kettlebell swings 65lb dumbell highest in this gym 5 rounds in 20 min I did an extra for good measure

Off-topic question, but why is CrossFit so unconcerned with the grip and hand position in pull-ups and push-ups? I have been reading the FAQ and watching the demo videos, and they all basically say that it doesn't matter. However, wouldn't using a different pull-up grip, such as overhand or underhand, use different muscles? Or a wider or closer push-up position use different muscles as well? Thanks

Had a carbed-up make-up today - did Nate... got 11 rounds... not super, but a testimial to following the website WOD's cause 2 months ago I got 7 rounds with lots of modified Muscle Ups... this time no misses on the MU's... results going through the roof since submitting to the website WOD's and becoming a slave to technique since the Denver Level 1 Cert - thanks guys!

#62: whatever Obama is, we won't ever have to accuse him of being Christian, will we? With Jerry Wright as a Pastor and Alinsky as a model, I think Jesus was the last thing on his mind.

With respect to Chomsky, his entire enterprise can be understood as the generation of factually unrooted abstractions which, when misunderstood and misapplied, support the erosion of our Constitutional Republic. After 9/11, he went around telling everyone it was our fault.

No doubt he can rationalize these things to the satisfaction of our intellectual elite, but that's about as hard as talking winos into another drink.

Mike Perry commo check. If you are out there Tom Gamblin from 1/75 RGR 83-86 commo check.

Thanks Freddy, you were missed! Lysa and I had a blast at One World last weekend. Everyone there is excellent and the vibe there is very cool, you should be proud of what you and Brad and everyone else has accomplished there. Please say hello to Will for us... Whenever you or Brad, or anyone else from One World are in the Seattle area be sure to shoot me an email or call, we'll workout at Olympic Crossfit and make sure that you have a great time :>)

Hey Justin, I'm sorry that we missed you and your lady, we'll link up soon and get a workout in :>) Joy is Kickin' @ss at Olympic, she makes us proud!

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

#62 Jared,

Interesting opinion Jared. Jesus Christ is a living resurrected person, not a religion. He did not come to bring peace on earth, rather division (His words). Those who place their faith in Him will be persecuted by those who don't.

Faith in Christ was never mean to make the world a better place. The world is what it is. Jesus Christ is God. Faith in Him does not guarantee the world will be better, just the opposite, Jesus Christ said that all who desire to live like Him will suffer.

So what does faith in Christ get you? It sets you Free from the wrath of God that is coming. It sets you free from the Hell we all deserve.

Jared M Johnson, #62:

Well said. I have my own reasons for my disagreement with Christianity-- and organized religion on the whole-- but I don't think I'd ever considered it that way before. Thanks.

And don't bother debating with Gar. I've tried to have a discussion with him before and discovered that he's quite happy in his mental slavery. That's not to say that he's a bad guy, just intellectually stubborn and inflexible. It works to his charm, though.

By what basis do you atheists believe that a world without Christianity would be better? Upon what foundation does your faith rest that you are the ones who are "emancipated"?

Do you have empirical evidence that atheists as a group are happier than Christians? The evidence I've seen says the contrary. Atheists suffer from depression and suicide at higher rates.

If you value "truth" as a value above all others, upon what basis does your faith in the existence of matter rest? None of quantum theory supports that conjecture currently. Certainly not the billiard ball materialism of the 19th Century.

Our nation was clearly, unambiguously founded by highly religious men (with Jefferson one notable exception; he was also by far the biggest hypocrite of the Founding Fathers). Washington himself said repeatedly--as did Adams--that our future rested soundly on the virtue that religion fostered.

And--again empirically--what evidence do you have that children will grow into morally sound adults if they are never taught a moral system, in school, on TV, or by their busy parents? Can anyone honestly say that our current fiscal crisis is not in large measure a result of businesses and individuals rejecting traditional values of thrift and frugality? Or that much of that rejection stems from a desire to "live" as much as possible, since we have only this world to look forward to, in the eyes of many?

Why forego now, what we want, when it all ends in "a slow ride in the hearse", as Brooks and Dunn put it?

I have yet to meet an atheist out and about attacking religion who had the slightest shred of an idea what they wanted instead. They talk about science as if it could be conflated with Reason, and as if Reason couldn't lead as easily back to the murderous racial Darwinism of the Nazis as anything else.

If you must attack religion, think it through. Figure out something to replace it with. Nietzche supported mass murder. The French Revolutionaries created first the Terror, then the Napoleonic Age, which killed some 4 million people.

The Wars of Religion--all of them, from the beginning of history--cannot begin to approach the body count of "rational" atheistic regimes.

I meant to return to the topic, then got distracted.

I wanted to comment that the policies in place created, supposedly, to ease the burden of the poor are going to work, now, to make them much heavier.

We now know, from this article, that "redlining" was invented by Roosevelt's administration. First, this practice kept loans away even from qualified applicants. As such, it was an unhelpful restriction on free markets that acted in a de facto racist way.

Then, banks were forced to make loans in those neighborhoods, as a sort of Affirmative Action. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required to accept these loans.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were backed by the government, but they were able to get money at lower rates than other banks--due to this guarantee--and they were allowed to keep much lower reserves in hand. This last because Democrats wanted to keep the gravy train rolling, and repeatedly rebuffed Bush when he tried to introduce reasonable, industry standard, business practices into them. They were de facto federal entities. They should have been forced to be much less generous with what we can now see was taxpayer money.

Now, as we see the full results of many thousands of loans that would not have been made if they banks making them did not know they could sell them to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac no matter what, it can be said that once again Democrat policies are achieving an unintended effect.

Where they sought to increase home ownership, they are causing widespread defaults. Where they wanted to alleviate poverty, they are going to increase it massively.

This "Blame Bush" thing can only go so far. The internet, so far, is still a realm of free speech, and there are a lot of angry people out there. Obama can't hope to meet more than a fraction of the promises he made, most of them implicitly contained in his generic platitude "Change you can believe in".

Perhaps I am a fool, but I see the potential for the final collapse in the naive belief that doing what feels good even approaches doing what IS good as a means of living.

#79 Barry Cooper,
Well said.

#78 Nick Wise
Mental slavery? Never thought of it that way before, but that is actually a scriptural accurate statement. So how have you been Nick? Did ya have a good holiday? Peace to you brother.

John 8:34-36:
"Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. NKJV

Very Prophetic Column. Scary to think about it. I have mixed emotions whether it means we should have more control or less control

Barry:

"By what basis do you atheists believe that a world without Christianity would be better? Upon what foundation does your faith rest that you are the ones who are "emancipated"?"

When have we said Christianity in particular? And when have we said that the world would be better without religion *as a whole*? What we take issue with is the facet of religion which encourages one to accept Scripture and teaching without any critical analysis (using either reasoning or science) to ascertain its truth, which (apart from leading people into making decisions in life based upon false premises) makes people unable - or unwilling - to be flexible in their thoughts in such a way as to allow them to change their views depending on new evidence or new arguments. Now, if we are to progress as people, and as a society – morally, politically, and intellectually – then people in society need to be open to reasoned debate and change. Without this, society would become stagnant, people could not form healthy relationships through discussion and debate, and, doubtlessly, many of the old problems relating to superstition and prejudice would return.

It is upon this basis – whereby views can change, and things can be discussed using the only proven methods of reaching an objective conclusion (science and reason); where people are willing to accept that their views may be wrong, and must be changed accordingly; where these things are encouraged – that we believe we are “emancipated”.

Also, realise this, for it is important: we do not argue that every atheist is capable of those things, nor that every religious person is incapable of them. However, both history (as pointed out before) and personal experience tell me that atheists tend to possess these qualities more often than religious people, who, I have found, tend not accept the bases of rational argument or science if they contradicts their beliefs, however absurd or superstitious those beliefs are.

“Do you have empirical evidence that atheists as a group are happier than Christians? The evidence I've seen says the contrary. Atheists suffer from depression and suicide at higher rates.”

Explain to me, please, when we claimed that atheism made people happier, and then, how that statement is at all relevant?

“If you value "truth" as a value above all others, upon what basis does your faith in the existence of matter rest? None of quantum theory supports that conjecture currently. Certainly not the billiard ball materialism of the 19th Century.”

Nor did we say that we espouse determinism…

Belief in matter is simply practicality; perhaps we should all be solipsists?

“Our nation was clearly, unambiguously founded by highly religious men (with Jefferson one notable exception; he was also by far the biggest hypocrite of the Founding Fathers). Washington himself said repeatedly--as did Adams--that our future rested soundly on the virtue that religion fostered.”

On the *virtues* - not on religion itself. There are ways to foster those virtues without the mental rigidity religion can bring.

“And--again empirically--what evidence do you have that children will grow into morally sound adults if they are never taught a moral system, in school, on TV, or by their busy parents?”

Did we say we were against the teaching of moral systems? You are implying that moral systems are necessarily religious, but that is not the case. Plenty of moral systems have been devised (Aristotle, Kant, Hume…) which can act in isolation from religion, and, wonderfully, can be debated and discussed so as to allow children not only to know them, but to understand them, and see their potential flaws and shortcomings; thus making them less “mentally enslaved” than if they simply had a moral system they were taught and accepted without a reason via religion.

Having tried to argue about ethics with a number religious people of my age, I have found that they are unable to justify and defend their views – is this what you desire in terms of moral soundness?

“Why forego now, what we want, when it all ends in "a slow ride in the hearse", as Brooks and Dunn put it?”

Because, unsurprisingly, perhaps what we want isn’t paramount.

“I have yet to meet an atheist out and about attacking religion who had the slightest shred of an idea what they wanted instead. They talk about science as if it could be conflated with Reason, and as if Reason couldn't lead as easily back to the murderous racial Darwinism of the Nazis as anything else.”

No, we do not conflate science with reasoning – we would simply utilise them both. Generally speaking, one gives us knowledge of the external world, the other, of ourselves – these are both important, no?

If reasoning so easily leads in so many directions, then, pray tell me, what is the point of having rational debate?

As for what I would like to see instead: people who are well-informed, critical, rational and scientific, who for the most part do not hold unjustified beliefs, who are able to understand the purpose and underlying structures of their arguments, who are able to debate with each other, and able to change their views as a result of that debate, in order for progress to be achieved both in people themselves and in society as a whole.

The inflexibility of most religious doctrines, and their encouraging of people not to think critically, opposes this; hence, our problem with religion.

Remember, it is not religion, or belief in God that we take issue with, but particular aspects of it that are now an inherent part of most religions.

Then again, perhaps what I would prefer as a replacement – basically, education and properly utilised freedom of speech – is not what we should be looking for. I’d be happy to debate that with you.

Only fools say in their hearts,
"There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
-Ps 14:1
____________________________________________

To what ever degree we deny the existence of God, and a final Judgement, we are and we do what is evil. Myself included.

Gar: I've been well. Good to see you again. I trust you ate a lot of turkey on Thanksgiving? Happy Holidays, buddy.

Darjie: well said, as usual. I don't have anything else to add, at this time.

Net, net, you are merely restating positions which I have already critiqued to my satisfaction.

However, let me dilate on this comment: "The inflexibility of most religious doctrines, and their encouraging of people not to think critically, opposes this; hence, our problem with religion."

What have you said? Effectively, that if religious people agree with you, and abjure their own beliefs, they are thinking "critically", and if they don't, that they are irrational.

The conclusion is contained in the premise. By what means, I'm curious, are you able to avoid seeing your own position as dogmatic in its foundation and practice?

Barry,

I see your point, but I think you missed something. You contend that viewing the world in terms of strictly rational, logical, evidence-based, physical laws is as narrow-minded as viewing the world through the lens of illogical, subjective, mystical experiences.

In a way, you are correct. However, I would argue that the physical is really all there is. Or, at least, it is all that is relevant to our lives.

We are all bound entirely by our senses. The only things that we can know are the things that our brain interprets for us based on our physical experiences.

As such, anything that may occur outside of that physical realm is completely irrelevant to us. We can't measure it or interact with it. If we could, or if it could interact with us, then it would exist in the physical world.

If you accept this premise, that the only things that are relevant to our existence are physical, then everything else falls into place. This isn't to suggest that my fellow atheists and I won't keep an open mind to the idea of existence outside of the physical, measurable universe. Rather, we just don't want to spend our lives dealing with possibilities that cannot improve anybody's life in any meaningful way.

Is there a physical world? Maybe. I definitely perceive that there is one and that its functions can be described by the relationships of objects within it.

Is there a metaphysical, spiritual world? Maybe. I don't have any perception of it, though, so how am I supposed to deal with any of it? If I have no perception of it, and no way to perceive it, why is it of any importance at all?

Darije,

Do you really believe air is real? Can you see it? Can you touch it?

So do you believe air is real because of what you see the air do? And the fact that you can feel it?

I have seen what God has made. I can feel His comfort when I need Him most. My faith in God is no more blind then your faith in the air.

A scrum dances to and fro across the media. On one side is the Red Team, comprising Ben Stein, Ann Coulter, Hukabee, Laura Ingraham, Hannity, and the like. Opposing is the Blue Team of Hitchens, Dawkins, Maher, UC Berkeley and the ACLU. The sides vie for the obnoxious price with their preaching. Their motivation is neither morality nor reason, but control, plus a buttress for their personal beliefs, revealing a core lack of faith and insecurity.

Neither side realizes that a crucial element of the greatness of America is its freedom of religion, which happens to be Constitutionally guaranteed by a secular government. Neither side seems able to grasp the distinctions between atheism and secularism, or between the nation and its government, one as religious or irreligious as one might see it or choose to participate, and the other strictly secular.

They don't comprehend their Bible or their Constitution. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.” “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

None seem to have any sense of proportion, either. They wear their feelings on their sleeves. The Reds demand scripture be taught as science. They need their tenets made into federal law. The Blues would strip Christmas of its religious origins, and turn it into a Boxing Day. They would deny ordinary people the comforts and moral teachings of their faith. Get over it, folks. Viewing a government-owned manger scene isn't going to hurt anyone. Teach your kids to pray and worship if you wish, but don't trust in our government to do the teaching.

Gar re: #88
In fact, I can feel air tickle my throat and lungs when I breathe. And if I stop, I die.

This is not mere faith. If it were, I'd hope many more people would summon such faith while drowning.

Everyday someone reports that the stock market went up or down because of a Gulf hurricane, or an OPEC meeting, or a cabinet appointment. Hidden in this analysis is the triumph of correlation over cause. The time-wise pairing of events implies cause and effect, randomly plus or minus, in the minds of historians and reporters.

So it is with John Steele Gordon, a pretty good writer, but a B.A. in history.

His article is hooey.

He shows no understanding of the valuation of assets, and the role that interest rates played in the bank and S&L crises of the '80s and '90s. Nor the mechanism by which the Federal Reserve caused them. The Fed was buying down interest rates in the auctions for treasuries until by the late '70s it owned over a fourth of US debt. It then not only let go of its end of the rubber band, but gave the system a good shove by dumping its holdings at auction. Down went Carter. Real market interest rates which had been negative ran into double digits, and the cost of money for capital investments passed well above 20%. The holdings of the banks and S&Ls promptly plummeted. The rest is history, including a bank rescue plan that failed to produce the planned liquidity.

No housing bubble burst this time. The representative of the Independent Community Bank Association testified recently that her banks saw no particular increase in default rate. Nor did the holders of other-than-subprime mortgages report anything particularly untoward. What burst was the ratings bubble created by MBAs for a cabal of rating agencies, lenders, and investment banks. What failed first was the whole of the securitization process by which lenders and bankers could insure their federally-mandated, high-risk mortgage bonds, along with 20-odd generations of derivative CDOs they created. These were sold by buying maximally high ratings from the three agencies, and bribing Congress from the profits of the sales not to do its oversight duty and not to regulate.

The subprime mortgage bonds failed several times faster than the lowest investment grade. So the three rating agencies precipitously downgraded their AAA and AA bonds to market levels, instantly depreciating the subprime mortgage bonds, and the associated Collateralized Debt Obligations, and soon any commercial asset that relied on the ratings provided by S&P, Moody's, or Fitch. These three ratings agencies caused the interest rate for asset valuation to soar, or raised the fear that it soon would. When that rate goes up, asset values drop. When that rate is unknown, so too are asset values, both financial and real. This was a criminal breach of fiduciary duty.

Even if the tangle of CDOs could be unraveled, company assets can no longer be assessed with any reliability.

This US-led catastrophe has turned into a global meltdown. After all, the US is the world's leading market place. The next administration, now that the election is forgotten, has promised all the old, failed monetary remedies. Keynesian taxing and deficit spending. Make work programs. Stimulus packages. Bail-outs. Asset purchases. These are all going to consume money and produce no more results than they ever did, which at best was to break even. We're heading for an unprecedented inflationary cycle with heavy unemployment. Stagflation on steroids.

Then add in a war or two, and the whole of the carbon emissions nonsense.

The core problem was neither weak consumer confidence nor low capital investment. The problem was and is we have no way to evaluate financial assets. That's what needs to get fixed. Don't ask Henry Paulson, MBA-Harvard! He's from the school that engineered the mess. And the Democrats, especially Dodd, Franks, and tangentially Obama, are not going to do anything to fix a problem in which they were plainly complicit.

None of these things even matter in the Gordon analysis.

Obama promises to dig us a very deep hole. If history can be any guide at all, it is that getting out of such a mess will take decades. Last time, it took World War II to do it. Hang on, everybody.

Barry:

Dogmatic?

"Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles."

So you're saying science and reasoning are unproved or unprovable, and are no better than illogic and conjecture?

That allowing ourselves to change our views and admit that we are wrong in the face of new evidence and argument is narrow-minded?

What principles should we appeal to, then?

Nick said it well in his response: once you accept the premise that this is not the case, the rest just falls into place.

Gar:

Re-read my post. I have no problem with your belief in God - believe what you wish, I have no right to stop you, nor do I feel that I should. What I said was that I find it troubling that so many people hold that belief and are unable to argue for their position, and are unwilling to accept that they may be wrong.

Still, in direct reply:

"Do you really believe air is real? Can you see it? Can you touch it?"

Actually, I believe air is real, within reasonable doubt/within certain limits of error.

Reason leads one to deny the absolute certainty of the external world, but, for reasons I won't go into here, I assume that it does - but never accept completely that it does.

Science works around doubt. It provides the best possible explanation given current knowledge. Given the high probability of air existing according to our best possible models, I choose to believe it - but again, not unremittingly. Still, since the probability of finding that air does not actually exist is now near infinitely small, it makes sense to believe that air does exist.

Nick:

"Well said, as usual."

Thank you.

I'm in a hurry. Couple points.

First: Jeff, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. I am not a Christian in any ordinary sense of the word. At the same time, I am keenly sensitive to the abuse of rights--by anyone, and with regard to anyone--guaranteed by the Constitution. The supposed "right" of atheists to be free of any whiff of religion in the public sphere is a prima facie truncation of the right to worship, guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Secondly, my points stand, but you have misunderstood them. This, for the obvious reason that True Believers of all stripes are unable to see their biases as such. It is emotionally much too important to them to avoid seeing their views questioned.

Let me dilate on this nugget, though: "You contend that viewing the world in terms of strictly rational, logical, evidence-based, physical laws is as narrow-minded as viewing the world through the lens of illogical, subjective, mystical experiences."

This, I would hope you are capable of grasping, is a false dichotomy. Please refer back to the last Rest Day on Fallacies (aka "abuses of reason").

The paradigm which says the survival of a soul is impossible relies on the contention that awareness and chemical functions in the brain are synonymous. This claim, in turn, relies on the concept that all things in the universe consist of matter, which consists in little "bits" that in principle are perfectly predictable. They are predictable because "God does not play dice with the Universe".

Yet, this foundational postulate is empirically, demonstrably wrong. Every indication we have is that matter is an emergent property of awareness. This is the ineluctable conclusion of most interpretations of quantum physics.

Admittedly, most quantum physicists simply do their jobs, using math they know works, and don't worry too much about things that make no sense, like the "Copenhagen Interpretation". It is what it is.

However, my viewpoint is quite simple, and I will restate it for the True Believers, in the hope they might dismount from their self appointed pulpits and exercise thought in the form of the sort of Reason which is amenable to alteration.

1) Religion, while plagued in many times and places with intolerance expressed in violence, offers a proven means of social solidarity. Within the bounds of what Jeff is correct in calling a Secular society--in which the government neither compels nor prohibits worship--the negatives of religion are almost entirely mitigated, while the positives are encouraged, as they have been throughout American history.

2) Atheism, as a widely deployed belief, has the most dismal record possible in terms of generating human suffering. It was first widely embraced in the French Revolution. In destroying the Church, they enabled the first modern totalitarian monarch--Napoleon--to emerge. His model--of secret police, state propaganda, constant wars of conquest--was copied first by the Bolsheviks, then Mussollini and finally Hitler, all of whose regimes were functionally atheistic, and in the case of Communists explicitly so.

3) Even on a personal level, atheists tend to suffer from higher rates of psychological maladjustment. They kill themselves at higher rates, and suffer from depression at higher rates.

4) Their views are irrational. They rely on a materialism that cannot be proven, then they posit Truth as their God, but are utterly uninterested in uses of the Scientific method to document practical manifestations of the underlying ideas of the religious.

For example, the existence of ESP is better documented than the value of aspirin in preventing heart disease. Yet, they have no interest.

Carefully crafted studies have been done--such as that of Gary Schwarz--showing that there is solid evidence in favor of the "survival" hypothesis. They react by insulting Schwarz in the most vicious terms, ignoring the strong evidence he presented, and focusing on the links he himself would have said were tenuous.

Overall, they manifest their beliefs in public dialogue in a way which shows little openness to carefully presented evidence, little to no desire to respect the beliefs of others, and no plan by which to replace the considerable amount of morality out there based on religious belief.

They say Truth is their God, but they ignore all Truth but their own. They say they want to improve our world, but don't care about the practical consequences of their beliefs. They say religion is the source of evil, but are unable to support this view, in the face of the fact that atheistic Communists, in the space of a century, accomplished more evil than all the religions in history combined.

Bottom line: if I accept the reasonable premise that not all that exists is perceptable through my five senses, then any number of religious beliefs are perfectly rational.

And if atheists want to assert that ONLY that exists which is perceptable through five senses, by what means do you prove that? And if you can't prove that, why the intolerance?

I was thinking some more about this, and wanted to add another comment.

Musing, as I often do, it seems to me that many of the more vociferous and outspoken apostles of atheism--dare we view Richard Dawkins as the St. Paul of a vulgar form of Darwinism?--are at heart like school children whose worlds were changed, in a moment, in a classroom in their youth.

Sensitive, bright, impressionable: these traits of youth coalesce in a moment of revelation, of transcendant beauty and meaning. Dawkins sees the precision, the brilliance, the overarching Order which Darwin proposed, and he never looks back. "THIS will be my religion", he says, and spend the rest of his life happily defending it.

Often, he in particular has seemed to me like someone who would take perverse delight in telling small children that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. He revels in destroying religous belief wherever he can, and has said often and unambiguously that the one word most descriptive of his feelings about religion is "hate".

And yet, at heart, he too believes in Santa Claus. He believes with every ounce of his fiber and being that Darwin was right, and that the course of life he has chosen for himself was the only right, noble, just one.

He is guilty of a naive rectitude that is soft on the inside, and unquestioned. He is, in short, vulnerable, and this is the reason for his immense and continuing aggression.

Me, I can expand and contract as needed. I can be a cloud without a middle or anything hard, or I can a diamond bullet. Him, he needs armor because everything inside is soft.

This may be a public internal monologue, but this was an interesting twist for me. I've done these debates for a number of years, but never until this moment saw this.

This is why these things are so prodigiously productive. I never know what direction I will go, but it's always interesting.

#90, Dan

"Gar re: #88
In fact, I can feel air tickle my throat and lungs when I breathe. And if I stop, I die. This is not mere faith. If it were, I'd hope many more people would summon such faith while drowning."
____________________________________________

Dan,
Just finished painting some old wheels in my back yard. Going to use them for bumper plates. You made a good observation. You believe air is real because it is the substance you have been taught that sustains your life, and you can see and feel its effects all around you.

With God, those who do not have faith are spiritually dead and condemned. They are condemned because they have sinned. Every single one of us has fallen short of God’s standard. God’s standard for righteousness is Himself. Be perfect as I am perfect He says. So when I say those without faith in Christ are condemned, do not misunderstand me. They are condemned to an eternity in Hell because they fell short of God’s requirement that they be perfect in every way. The Bible says we have all rebelled against God. Every single one of us has done something we knew was wrong. God does not need to prove He is a loving God by just saying something like; “No worries, its cool, come on in to my heaven.”

If God did that, He would contradict Himself. For He said that all who sin will die. The only way God could remain just, and show His love for all mankind, was for Him to become a man, the man Christ Jesus, live a perfect life, and then suffer the wrath of God as if He were a sinner. You see, when Christ died on the cross, He died in the place of every sinner who would place his faith in God’s payment for sin. There is no other name given among men by which we must be saved.

Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He died for our sins and rose again, is life to the believer, just as the air you breathe sustains you. Jesus described Himself as the bread of life. He said that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has everlasting life. He was not implying that we actually eat Him, or that we have a priest perform some magic act and turn a little wafer into His flesh like so many Roman Catholics falsely believe. He means that those who believed in Him as the one sent from God to redeem man kind would have eternal life. Faith in Christ is the main nutrient to everlasting life. No other bread can do this. No religion, no other person, no other faith in anything at all can take the place of Christ’s death on the cross for our sins.

And no one reading this will be able to stand before a holy God on Judgment Day and say they did not know. God’s Word is being proclaimed all over the world. I have proclaimed it to everyone reading this message. The choice is now yours. Turn away from sin, accept that Christ suffered the full wrath of God for you, and place your faith in Him for your eternal security. When you die, you will not be Judged, you will be with Him.

John 3:18-21
"He who believes in Him (Jesus) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

I wanted to add a bit to what I said. For what it's worth, I have on occasion defended atheists from dogmatic Christians, but overall I think the balance on the internet is well in favor--if measured by volume of words--of atheists.

What Gar has provided here is his faith. I have every reason to believe that he takes this faith seriously, and that in general it affects his behavior in positive ways.

However, I would like to speak for a moment in the abstract, structurally. We can view all religions, formally, as myths. By myth I mean a story which is definitionally unfalsifiable, which offers a latent qualitative structure.

There is a cliche of various religions being various ways to climb the same mountain. Let's take this seriously for a moment.

Let us suppose that the specific content of any given religion--Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism--"acts to" (in a Hayekian sense) foster qualitative richness in whatever population within which it exists.

Could we not view the specific content of this belief (as supposedly disinterested observers) as a sort of bridge which may not survive close scrutiny, but which on balance enables its adherents to travel to better places?

And by qualitative richness, one example may make things more clear. In any given population--including the military--the opportunities for genuine heroism are few and far between.

Yet, that society is richest which has the most people who contain, latent within themeselves, the potential for heroism. For pulling a kid out of burning building or car. For volunteering time to help people who can never help you, and who you don't know. For risking or sacrificing our life for other people.

As a nation, we have been very amply blessed with this sort of richness. It cannot be denied that much of it arose from sincere religious conviction.

Moving on, thinking about this concept of tolerance, it seems to me we could distinguish between what might be termed "positive" and "negative" tolerance. Positive tolerance is an active engagement with the beliefs of others, in pursuit of a common ground (a pursuit made much easier by a secular government and legal system).

Negative tolerance is a blanket acceptance of everything anyone who is not from your culture does. It explicitly requires the rejection of all universal moral claims whatever. As a necessary consequence, it also requires the rejection even of one's one moral claims, with the exception of tolerance itself. This necessarily leads to moral collapse.

The former, Positive Tolerance, is the point of the American experiment. The latter is what our (perhaps) well meaning, but exceedingly dense, liberal elite has given us, in lieu of our ancestral political and religious shared culture.

Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with belief. The problem is when any belief requires--rather than suggests, or argues--the submission of others.

In point of fact, it is precisely the de facto moral anarchy of Britain and other nations that is preventing a clear eyed response to sundry efforts by Islamic radicals to seize power.

This need not last. All that needs to happen is a relapse in the collective amnesis occasioned by unthinking submission to political correctness, and a renewal of principled support of genuine, legally protected, diversity.

Completely random thought, for which I will apologize in advance: could we see a structural homology between Kent State and the Boston Massacre?

John Adams is who got me thinking about that. He defended the British soldiers who did the shooting, and if memory serves, he got them off. There was a large riot, they felt threatened, and they defended themselves (as they thought).

I switched to VOB 86. Now off to read "The Black Book of Communism".

Barry,

I agree with you.

I'd like to add to your analogy of the mountain. The "dogma" of science is that Scientific Method works; that the universe is an ordered place which can be described through mathematical models. If we take that analogy of the mountain and expand it from myths to ways of knowing the world, then science has its own path, as well.

I imagine a mountain crisscrossed with a network of intertwined and overlapping trails, some wide, some narrow, some treacherous and others benign. Some of the paths lead down, and others lead slowly up through a long series of switchbacks.

Some of us fall off of the mountain, some get stuck on a path, and some try to shove others off the mountain, or drag them onto another path.
What's important to each individual, regardless of which path they are on, is that they keep moving up, and that they help others to climb up along the way.

Keep climbing, brothers!

The more we continue this discussion, the more I feel like we're foolishly arguing over very little at all.

It strikes me that this whole debate is going to descend into the lunatic dance we see in the media unless we change the focus from "Atheism v. Religion" - basically, "No-God Hypothesis v. God Hypothesis" - to "Using Science/Reason to establish Truth v. Accepting things with Blind Faith." We have adulterated that, the core argument, by falsely conflating one side with one viewpoint (loosely speaking).

The existence of God is not what we are debating here, and is not relevant; nor is the right to belief (of X); but rather, how we should attain, maintain, and progress those beliefs.

If we apply this focusing lens, can we agree that:

(A) Being an atheist does not mean that science and reason will be applied - which is why the problems of atheism as a widely deployed belief come about, and many atheists are irrational, dogmatic and stubborn.

(B) Being religious does not mean that science and reason will not be employed - which is why,w hen taking into consideration the positive forces that can come of religion, religion is not inherently bad.

(C) We have been arguing the obvious - that not all members of either group fall into one category of Reasonable or Unreasonable. That both standpoints have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

(D) From what I've been arguing, I should apologise, and re-state my views, not to be directed at religion, but at all those who do not apply science and reasoning - atheists included.

(D) The reason atheism and religion are getting bandied about so much is because one side equates atheism with employing science and reasoning and aspects of religion with generally suppressing them; the other equates atheism with the same sort of arrogance and stubbornness that can occur with religion.

(E) (Dis)belief in God is not directly relevant to our discussion.

(F.I) We are all interested in finding the Truth, but have thus far seen the "other side" as preventing that search, for multitudinous reasons, including belief that most or all on the other side fit into a preconception of mental inflexibility and hypocrisy.

(F.II) For examples from both sides:

I made a point about moral "understanding" versus moral "knowledge" - essentially implying that religious believers do not understand their morals. I need not even point to the absurdity in that.

Barry points to atheists not believing in life after death / denying religious claims even when they have scientific evidence etc, and hence being stubborn and arrogant. This is untrue: in fact, if somebody is religious, and then has scientific evidence to back their claims, then that is exactly what I was hoping for - people who are knowledgeable and can debate and defend their positions. Thus, we can more easily find the Truth talked of.

(G) We agree that the best way to do this is through the proper application of S&R and healthy debate. That we agree that people have the freedom to hold religious beliefs of their choosing. That it is better if those beliefs can be properly debated and justified i.o.t. find what is true and what is not.

(I) The debate can now move on from the one we've been having to two things: firstly, "Which beliefs are rational and justified?"; and secondly, "How is it best to disseminate rational thinking throughout society as a whole?"

Nick, Darije,

I'll agree with both of you. Well said.

Today's discussion fairly bristles with a lack of appreciation of science. That is not to say that the posters are unique, for the same errors that I detect are too common even among people who call themselves scientists.

I bristle at argument by declarative statement, so what follows I'll qualify by saying these are my opinions that I submit, tested over a long period of observation, study, and work in the field, and prompted by today's dialog.

1. The hallmark of science is not that it is rational. My personal set of Axioms for Science starts with the Zeroth Axiom, the Axiom of Rationality. The models of science are limited to rational thought. This is not at all unique to science.

2. Science is a branch of knowledge. In particular, it is the objective branch, and objectivity, not rationality, is the hallmark of science. Science deals with facts, where facts are observations reduced to measurements compared to standards.

3. Beliefs, dogma, and tenets are all outside the domain science. The common statement that “scientists believe … ” is a personal statement about the scientists but is unscientific. Science does not prohibit a scientist from believing that the Theory of Evolution happens to be how God implemented His design for the species -- or not.

4. Science is not atheistic; it is secular. There is no particular marriage between science and atheism. Science and religion are not at odds. Where conflict exists, as it certainly does, it is always between science and scripture (or its equivalent, oral dogma). All scientific knowledge is embodied in models based on real world measurements. Nothing supernatural is ever permitted, almost by definition. If anything is measurable, it is no longer supernatural. God, His mysteries, angels, the soul, life after death, forces of Good and Evil, even good and evil, are all outside the domain of science. If, for example, a model incorporating Intelligent Design were ever included in science, it would be unique -- the first scientific model ever to include a supernatural force.

5. Scientitic Method is alive and well, notwithstanding the attacks of certain philosophers. An endeavor is scientific if and only if it obeys the Scientific Method. The Method comprises four elements: language, (including natural language, logic, and mathematics), measurements, models, and validation. The essence of the Method is the construction of models of the real world, whether natural or man made, that have predictive power. The Method perpetually reinforces its own validity everytime science validates a scientific prediction. That occurs with every eclipse, most vaccinations, every time a plane flies, most cell phone calls, and every time your cruise control works.

Jeff,

My own hope--and certainly the focus of a lot of reading and research--is that many of the "metaphysical" beliefs of traditional religions can and will be brought within the realm of the measurable and repeatable. It's all a question of asking the right questions.

My pet peeve, and the source of some of my more generalized comments, is that there is a very slippery slope between stating something cannot currently be brought within the scientific domain, and stating that it will NEVER be brought within the scientific domain. From there, it is a picostep to the conclusion that what is not within the scientific domain does not exist.

This is the reason for the frequent conflation of Science, Reason, and Atheism. This stance is unhelpful for the very reason that it is, ironically, unscientific. Researchers should investigate any and all things that can be observed, but many of the more "metaphysical" areas out there cannot get funded.

I have said often that proper skepticism is equidistance between belief and disbelief. It is the realm of investigation and dispassionate fact gathering. Of science, in the manner you are describing it.

In that spirit, I truly believe we need more honest skeptics. It would do all of us a great deal of good.

Barry, #104

Yes, but why the quotation marks around metaphysical? The metaphysical is a rich reservoir for scientific exploration.

And skepticism is a virtue in a scientist.

A dishonest skeptic I suppose would be someone who pretends to use science (pretends because science can take no such position) to disprove the existence of God. That might fit Dawkins.

If science could disprove the existence of God it would be atheistic.

The domain of science is huge, for all practical purposes infinite, but still a tiny fraction of all reality. And we don't have to venture into the religious for examples of things that exist but are forever outside the domain of science. Good and beauty, and therefore evil and ugly, are examples. Contemporary events in other galaxies, the language of cavemen, and quiet thoughts in someone else's brain are more physical examples.

Jeff,

Agreed.

With respect to "metaphysical", that was a term popularized by the Logical Positivists, who developed much of our philosophy of science. I'm thinking in particular of Popper and Mach. One or both of them really liked that word.

My problem is I've read about them, heard about them in Teaching Company CD's, but never had the time to read what they actually wrote. I'm sure I would enjoy it. You likely would as well.

Thomas Kuhn fits in there, and there's another more recent guy whose name escapes me at the moment.

Interesting read:

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/israel/peter-yarden