Astrology and Tarot Card Con-artistry

So earlier today I was on Facebook (yeah still using it) and I notice a friend of mine (Joel) in a debate, of sorts, with a friend of his (I will call her Jen) who subsequently de-friended him over the argument. Jen had made a post, which I wish I had screen captured, about how she was wanting to offer a friend referral discounted of 50% to do Astrology and Numerology reading for them. Now, I usually don't get involved in these sorts of "threads" that show up in my feed, as I did not know her except through his Facebook link. You know the one that is in the upper right that says Joel has posted a comment...

Anyway it peaked my interest as his comment was stating something along the lines of:

"You realize the astrology/numerology has 0 lines of evidence for actually working. "

Again, I am paraphrasing as the post has been hidden and Joel was de-friended so I lost access. Anyway, something I haven't mentioned AT ALL, to anyone - as I am sort of embarrassed by it, is that I used to be a reader. That is to say, I used to ascribe to Astrology readings and charts as well as Tarot readings. Yeah, that's right, I was one of those guys. Now, I never charged money, though people were ready and willing to pay, I always felt it was not right to charge for these things; however, I knew many others that would charge for the readings.

So back to this debate: I see her attack Joel telling him to leave her post as it was meant for friends, yet here I see it and I am not her friend; therefore, she posted it openly to drum up business, a logical conclusion. So I had to post being as at one time I used to be a reader. I stated that:

As someone who used to do readings, I know for a fact these things are fake. That people will take from these reading things that only support what they believe in and support their ideas, and in many cases, they will blatantly reinterpret the readings to fit the results they want.

First and foremost, I know from the numerous readings I did throughout those years that they are vague, and I mean seriously vague. You can lay out a card and read it multiple ways and while you are interpreting it you get out of it what ever you want to. The person reading, will tell you that the meaning of the card is dependent on the surrounding cards and the nature of the question asked, or the reason for the reading in the first place. But truthfully, it is dependent on the reader and the person being read, ESPECIALLY if there is money involved.

There was this one reading I did for a friend of mine. She was seriously upset about a boyfriend, and how he was treating her. As I read the cards for her, she kept seeing positive results EVEN when the cards were in negative positions. I would read them as interpreted but she would say, "...maybe it is in reference to this situation or that situation." But ultimately she personally interpreted the reading in a positive direction and felt that things were going to be fine. Two months later they broke up and it was a BAD breakup. He assaulted her, went to jail, and she went into hiding for a little while. Then on top of that she blamed ME for her staying in the relationship. That was also the last reading I ever did...

I use to watch friends as they did readings for money and learned how they interpreted the cards. Understand, that as your reading the cards you're watching the person and how they are reacting to what your "interpreting" from the cards. The more favorable the reaction, the better they felt about the reading in general, the more likely they would pay for it. I also watched how they would twist and changed by "guiding" the subject into the interpretation, they would ask feeler questions.

See, when you're doing a reading your are NOT supposed to know the question as a reader, but ultimately the subject gives away the answer while doing the reading. The reader pulls it out of them through two things, interpretation, and feeler questions.

First, interpretation:
While reading the cards, they know you don't know the question, so you as the reader are having to try to "work for the interpretation" meaning, you lay out a card, and say:

"In this spot, this card represents your past influence, in respect to the question. "

What happens then is you have to "read" your subject to see if the card you are "interpreting" is applicable and fits. When you initially mention what the different meanings of the card are- in its orientation - the subject gives facial cues and ticks that lets you know you are or are not on the right path. As you read each card you get a sense of where it is heading. Once you get a good feel for that you go to the second part, "feeler questions".

Second, the feeler questions:
Feeler questions are sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, but always used. Let's go back to the example I had about the card as a past influence: After you lay the card out and you have a sense of where it is going, you then imply it as a statement, for example:

"This card represents past influence TO THE QUESTION"

This sets the stage. You have already tied it to the question, to the past, now you use what the card can represent. Remember I said these things are vague? Well, this is how it works for the reader: Lets say you lay down a card that represents "struggle", and in that you can place statements and questions like this,

This card CAN represent struggle
(Subject perks up)
The seriousness based on the other cards is high. Like a big fight you had recently? (watch for reaction)
(Subject nods. eyes widen, hand moves to chest)

OK, you have just established that they had a recent altercation and it was personal. How big or influential it was depends on other body cues, for example: how big or small the person opens their eyes, if they hold their breath, the hand moves to their chest, a small vocal noise is made, etc. All of these reactions and more are cues that tell the "reader" the path they are on.

It is all based on conning your subject into giving you the answers you need to give them the reading they want. Plain and simple. It works JUST the same for bad news too - you give them bad news but you read from them and their reactions, the level of news they will accept.

This is accepted buy the subject as I mentioned before because it reinforces their beliefs and ideas. This very same reinforcement and reinterpretation happens in religion and in 'spirituality' circles. If you know where and what to look for you can see it in every "true believer".

Occupy Wall Street, This is YOUR Revolution

Right now in New York City, in a little park on Wall Street there are hundreds, and sometimes peaking at thousands of people protesting. What are they protesting?

Well according to some news sources, and people talking in general, lots of different things. One person I was speaking to this last weekend they are "calling for an end to capitalism" and true that SOME protestors are carrying signs saying this, BUT it is not the goal of the protest itself. They have a purpose which you can see video of Keith Olbermann reading here. They have a list of demands that can bee seen here.

So why Occupy Wall Street? Basically this is about Corporations and the control they have over us the citizens. To stop corporate influence on government and by extension on us.  To put the control BACK into the hands of the people. But this is NOT just occurring on wall street, its just where is started, right so the media has mentioned Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and a few other large cities, but it is happening everywhere. In My State Missouri, it is happening in Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbia, Joplin, and Springfield. To get a better Idea look at this map.

Looking at it you see a lot of cities nation wide, but it is not JUST an American movement, as you can also see this is an international movement, there are cities in Europe, Asia, and Australia, One or to locations have been reported in Africa as well, but unconfirmed at this point.

To get involved I will tell you it is a bit confusing at first, it is a leaderless movement, which means you voice matter, your voice counts, get involved. Go Look at that map, find a city near you and help out, look for them on Facebook, join the sight and offer help, or just see what is needed and help donate. But this is not just some fly by night occurrence, this is a movement that will just keep growing until we get our country back.

Today is Blaspheme Day, Hell everyday is Blaspheme Day for Me

Today, September 30th 2011 marks the 6th anniversary of the publishing of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As a reaction to these cartoons, riots broke out among Muslims who considered those cartoons to be “Blasphemous.”

Then,  in 2009, the Center For Inquiry introduced Blasphemy Day to support the rights of people to criticize and satirize all ideas and beliefs. Religious ideas and beliefs should not be above criticism or beyond satire. Blaspheme is an act punishable by death in several nations. In America, blasphemy laws remain on the books in six states, though supposedly largely arcane and not really enforced, try to tell that to atheists that have run for office.

Well I agree with JT Eberhard, on his post this morning:
"Today is Blasphemy Day? Yes. So was yesterday and the day before. Tomorrow will be Blasphemy Day as well. Every day we should be dismissive of silly ideas no matter how deeply people cherish them. (...)"

Goddamn right, everyday should be blasphemy day. Everyday we need to challenge the "norms " that a christian society has imposed on us. We should go out there and question the logic of a ethereal being's existence and control over a natural world. We need to shake people up and make them think. There is no god. And people should be able to say so without losing their jobs, homes, families, safety, and lives.


I remember as a devout little catholic I was so terrified of god's wrath that when I heard people say goddamn, I was literally sure they would be struck down. I pictured lighting and thunder and "BAM - BOOM - POW" dude got nailed into a jiggly pile of goo. Imagine my surprise when I started questioning my faith the first time I decide to Blaspheme I stood in my backyard, and screamed GOD DAMN to the world and nothing happened. It was much like Jenna Malone's character in Saved! when she stood before the Cross at a church and with a fear in her eyes said it to the crucifix. It made me think a little harder about the furious wrathful god, and all the evil shit he did to people for being ungodly.


No everyday we should be out there deny the holy spirit (the unforgivable sin) and blaspheming in full view of those around us. Make even more people question their faiths, bring to light the illogical claims their dogma makes and engage them (confront them) when asked how we can so blatantly disregard god. Because simply put no god or gods exist and we need to stop putting so much effort to irrational beliefs and concentrate on thing that exist here and now. Things that ARE affecting our daily lives like global warming and wall street.


Please take the time today to remember that the draw Mohammad movement, moved us to where we have this day, thats great. But also remember, that we need to blaspheme everyday to wake those dogmatic zombies up from irrationality and bring them to the light (as it were).

The Right Wing is Just Incredibly Sickening to Me

During the September 7th Republican debate, the right wing crowd cheered Perry for Prisoner executions in Texas, which you can see here, youtube. Cheering for the death of others, seriously? But that's not all.

During the September 12th Republican debate, the right wing crowd cheered and yelled 'YEAH!' when Wolf Blitzer, while asking Ron Paul a question about healthcare states, 'So are you saying we should let him die?', which can be seen here, youtube. So cheer for the deaths of others, not once, but twice? This is deplorable, and inhumane. I mean the most absolutely dispicable sort of reaction in both cases. But wait that's still not all.

During the September 22nd Republican debate, some right wing crowd members Booed a Gay soldiers question that if any of the candidates would change or reverse to progress made for BGLT. Which can be seen here, youtube again (don't you just love youtube?). Booed? WTF??? The same people that scream we MUST support our troops. The same people that we profess we are to put these men and women on pedestals. These people jeered the question of a gay service member? The double standard hypocrisy of the right wing knows no bounds.

NONE of the candidates on stage commented or chastised any of these actions from on stage... NOT ONE!!! Save for the next day, when it was nice and safe, from their offices, statements were released. Like in the case of the latest incident with the booing of the serviceman, some of them released statements condemning the action. Rick Santorum claimed he didn't hear the boo's, however, he apparently has a hearing problem. Former New Mexico governor Garry Johnson, who said he heard the boos from the stage and condemned their intolerance, though again not from the stage. Also, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who thought the first response to a soldier in uniform should be to thank him or her for their service. Just watch the video yourself the boo's are as plain and loud as Rick Santorum himself when he starts to speak.

These are not fringe of society nut bags, hiding in the woods stocking up weapons. These are out in the open, right next door, or next to you on the bus, nutbags. These asses live in society with us and make their Idiocy know far and wide. These people with their uneducated stances and ill informed views, are not only open about it, but they think they are right! These same people are professed Christians by a LARGE margin and yet ignore the teachings of their own believed messiah of love thy neighbor (Mathew 19:19) and even love your enemies, do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27).

These people Believe in a magic sky being, who is watching and judging them, for their actions. This is what is supposed to be "keeping them moral" and yet here they are being immoral and DENYING Christ by ignoring his teachings. These people who time and time again claim the moral high ground especially over atheists, also turn and show their true colors, in just how immoral they can be, time and time again. yet another HUGE example of the failure of religion. The point where the score keeper is supposed to keep everyone honest totally FAILS!!!

This is the true legacy of religion the failure to be a true means of social control, as it has been shown throughout history, the Dark ages, the Crusades,the Inquisition, the 'Manifest destiny' of American settlement, boarding schools, the Holocaust. These examples and many many more that can be cited for the failure of religion in society are are one of the biggest indicators of the lack of an actual existing god. For if there were a benevolent, all seeing, all powerful being, he would have, a long time ago, spoken to all and said:

STOP THIS FUCKING SHIT YOU DUMB-ASSES!!!!

The entire religious right culture, It's just incredibly sickening to me....

Stop with the "it's just a theory bullshit"

Darwin never proposed Evolution, he proposed survival of the fittest or natural selection... Huge difference, so try to keep it straight... but If your not going to read the facts about it you'll never keep it straight.... Also before you claim you have, I know most of you haven't otherwise you would have know he never proposed evolution and thus would not keep referring to him as the one who did... Oh and his (Darwin's) "THEORIES" have already been proven, Natural Selection happens, we have seen it all around us and witnessed it occurring....

Also if most of you had read and were even rudimentary versed in science, you would know the difference between hypothesis and theory but you don't. Because you people sling around "theory" like its some 4 letter word when in fact a theory has already been proven, which it why it is called a theory...

Part of the problem today come from the generalization use of the word theory in the English language in common conversation. For example when one individual looks at another individual and says something like:
"I have a theory why this object might not be working... "
it in fact, is a hypothesis, as it is unproven until said individual tests it.. But in modern Language theory has come to mean something completely different from what it actually means.

A nice explanation of Theory Vs Law, which is of course your next argument is as follows.
The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.

Read more:
"Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology"
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis...

Problem is though Most of you will never get it straight because you take and recycle the arguments of those before you believing the horse crap they spout and re-spout it yourself...

The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of the Principal of Super-Position
The Theory of Special Relativity
The Theory of Atomic Structure
The Theory of Nuclear Fusion

All of those are known just like:
The Theory of Evolution

That's why it isn't called
The Hypothesis of Evolution

Why are atheists suddenly attacking religion (christians)

I have seen this reference in many poll, poll responses, and blogs spots... Thing is yeah it is fairly new but there is a reason why Atheists are suddenly so vocal, and just because we are becoming more vocal it is NOT necessarily an attack...

For many centuries it was a punishable offense to be an atheist in the world, In fact it still causes prejudice, in many cases people are ostracized for being openly atheist... People have been fired from jobs, kicked out of organization refused admittance to job and organizations for having the atheist stance... And example 15% of the US is now estimated to be atheist, how come there is only ONE atheist in government open about it? because simply put the is no way in hell an open atheist would get elected in this country... that one atheist came out after he had been elected to office...

Recently well known people (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) have stood up and said we are tired of it and fighting back against this continued oppression (YES Oppression). the atheists of the world have been and are still oppressed in many areas. In some communities around the world you are still open to be KILLED because of an atheist stance...

The reason it appears "the 'in' thing to do" is because millions of atheists who, until recently, have been afraid to speak openly, are now coming out, like the previously mentioned people, because of this oppression are saying "NO, we arent taking it any longer"... They are arguing back for once strongly and openly... they are feeling empowered and able to do so without fear of overt retribution...

As for the whole "attacking christianity all of a sudden", that is not the case. We are vocal against all religion, even peace loving Buddhist, As religion leads to illogical conclusions, conformity to authoritarian rule, and well closed mindedness in general. I could list a whole slew of other things as well but it would be redundant. The reason it appears to be christianity is the simple fact, really...

We live in a country (countries) dominated by christians, it is who we deal with on a daily basis and what cult/sects we are most familiar with. Many of us are Ex-christians, though many believers try to play that off. SO it would stand to reason that we would talk about christianity the most.

Come From a Position of the Informed, NOT Ignorance, PLEASE

I am so tired of correcting people on my blogs or facebook, hell, really anywhere in the internet where they make their statements and, to some degree appear, completely ignorant of what they hell they are talking about.

For instance, I posted a link to an article today on facebook, about Ron Paul making a statement he "will ban funding for planned parenthood". Upon posting the link and making my statement about Planned Parenthood being a LOT more than just abortions. One of my Libertarian friends makes the statement:

• "Show me where in the constitution this is authorized spending, its unconstitutional just as all these other programs AND our undeclared illegal wars."

Really? I mean because, this just shows how ignorant these types are. Not Libertarians in general, though I am sure they have their fair share, just people like my friend who made the statement in the first place. Now you may be asking, why is this ignorant? Quite simply because he is claiming with this statement, like he KNOWS, or has access to some fount of knowledge, that this law (and apparently many others) are unconstitutional. Which if he knew anything about constitutional law he would know there are means and guidelines which have to be followed in order to make laws.

I am by NO MEANS a constitutional Law expert, but it isn't hard to research some things and I know a few things to from my required Political science class in college for instance. Like, for instance, if you have a law, that you question as constitutional, what recourse do you have? It's this amazing thing called the Judicial Branch of the American government, guaranteed us by the CONSTITUTION. WHOA AMAZING REALLY WE HAVE THAT? That's right you just take it to court Like atheists are doing here!!! Which of course in the case of Planned Parenthood it has been taken to court several times. Which also means that it is very much constitutionally legal to be funding it.

Now, I am sure he THINKS he is right, and has a source (maybe more) showing his argument is valid. But here is the next question, how much critical analysis has he applied to his source to validate that it is a good source and not some biased tripe just waiting to be cited as legitimate. I am willing to bet, not much.

To many people in our country, didn't pay attention in school, to know how to critically analyze anything. Many don't really even know what critical analysis or critical thinking is. Most just think that if the cited site looks good and makes sense, or just supports their argument in a smart sounding way, well that's enough. Well that's just stupendously STUPID on their parts.

Now, I am not saying that you shouldn't air your Opinion, hell that's garanteed by the constitution. No what I am saying is that you should really, before making yourself look ignorant, research your position carefully THEN state your Opinion. And be ready to call down the idiots who argue their point as fact of knowledge, because your going to have to.