Whoever organized the books made it look nice but the arrangement was untouched and you could see not one book was sold!

All piled up unsold and gathering dust.

absolutely no way to "know."

Not being able to know is sort of central to agnosticism. It doesn't preclude an end point of disbelieving or believing

People can believe as they wish, but if they claim certainty of knowing, they need extraordinary evidence of which I think there is pretty much none that can't be dismissed as more belief than proof of existance or not


I think recent productions by AI that argue for "knowing" god exisits are proof of cultural pollution of the data base that produces such hallucination

And I think a just God that I would want to believe in would not punish me for saying because of my poor observational position I can't know with certainty, while yet having a desire that Her non-existance is my own delusion.

Last edited Sat Jun 20, 2026, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

...and I agree with you completely that no one knows if what they believe is how things actually are. They may believe it so strongly that they think they know, but they don't.

I've found a comfortable spiritual home in a very small Unitarian Universalist congregation.

I know I'm not alone in thinking that rather than man being created in god's image, it's just the opposite - man has created god in man's image - petty, jealous, vengeful, yet described as a loving parent. Hard to square those very opposite characteristics.

I have attended UU services and also Unity Church of Christ services (very different than UU, UCofC has a lot more woo but they aren't dogmatic or pushy at all)...I consider myself agnostic too but I lean a little Buddhist (and have attended some Buddhist meditations and mini services)...

...folks who call themselves recovering/recovered Catholics, some Wiccans, and a number of atheists. A much beloved minister, who served for 25 years before Parkinson's forced him into retirement, was an atheist, which I found fascinating.

I have no problem with most of the teachings attributed to Jesus. I have a huge problem with how those teaching have been co-opted, corrupted, and contaminated by the likes of Joel Osteen, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, etc, etc, etc.

I was never comfortable with the exclusivity of "No one gets to the Father except though me," and the expectation to go out and witness and try to get people to convert.

I'm not comfortable with any belief system that is exclusive, and that's most of them.

What I like about the UU philosophy is what I think of as its "patchwork quilt" outlook - a little bit of this, a little bit of that.

I'm with you on Swaggart, Osteen, Baker and that ilk and think they are a bunch of scammers...I also agree on the exclusivity faiths and find actively seeking converts to be wrong...UU is probably the best for me but I don't have a UU Church nearby so just manage on my own...

...which is when I first saw some of the TV evangelists on Sunday mornings, asking people for money and telling them they would be healed if they touched the TV screen.

Although not in those words, because I didn't know them yet, I remember thinking the 8 yr old equivalent of, "This is bullshit!"

My little congregation does have the option of participating on-line in real time on Sunday mornings at 10:30 AM
Central time. It is the Unitarian Universalist Church of Elgin, in Illinois. You'd be welcome to check us out. We are currently lay led.

https://uuce.org

by Republican Clare Booth Luce.

You win the Cultural and Historical Context trophy for the week!

Raised in the Episcopal Church, did some searching in my mid 20s bt came back and stayed there although I always kind of had leanings toward the Orthodox, and in 2016 I took that step. I try to be rep=spectful of others, but I find Shady's "conversion" pretty inauthentic, as I find most of his other public utterances and stances inauthentic. Basically, I find HIM to be inauthentic---IOW, a phony.

I thought that Tom Lehrer showed a better understanding of Catholicism in his spoof “The Vatican Rag,” and Tom Lehrer was Jewish.

Before we all fully knew how awful the author is. The potential for a moving personal story was there but there was an exploitative and calculated flavor to it.

And as an examination of a region? Absolutely not.

I didn't know how it got past an editor because I had many notes.

I remember Vance being interviewed on NPR after the book was published. I don’t remember the specifics, but I do remember his superficial and inaccurate understanding of the society he criticized.

to pay for it.) Well when it came my turn I passed it on quickly. It was not worth my brain cells to waste time reading it.

So I could criticize it in good faith.

It was actually on the recommended-but-not-required reading list for one of my classes.

When the movie came out, it enjoyed a bit of a resurgence and a lot of good progressives in my community thought it was the key to understanding the poor and the white. I was horrified.

The purpose of the book is twofold.

1. He wrote Hillbilly Elegy and he needs a followup book if he wants to run for president in 2028. He needs to appeal to the uber religious base of his sick party and this book will help him in that effort.

2. The book will be bought up by his party as well as by Vance's campaign and PACs supporting him making it a phony best seller. The books will then be given out to people who donate money to the party, his campaign, or PACs.

might not be a good look to the Evangelical base much of which is pretty skeptical of Catholics.

He rejected their religion and when religion became important to him, he chose Catholicism.

for right-wing "author"/wannabe-politicians. Have billionaires buy truckloads of their books and give them away as "gifts," or incentives.
The billionaires write it off, the "author" makes a bundle, and whoever is unlucky enough to receive one is totally misinformed and conditioned to the "author's" lies. Mission Accomplished.

It's been working for decades and probably will for many more.

The Methodist Church on the cover of this book about converting to Catholicism, and that choice of illustration serves as a metaphor for the ignorance and inauthenticity found within.

He’s a con man as well, not as good as Trump, but he has wormed his way up the ladder so you’ve gotta give him points for being a pretty good con-man……

His conversion to Catholicism is clear, he wanted to run for office and (particulary as a republican) you aren't going to go very far in this country as an atheist. Certainly not President. As to why he chose Catholicism, that's what his gop strategists decided, Like why all our conservative Supreme Court justices have to be Catholic now, it sends the right message without having to actually wade into hot button controversial issues. You can get away with just being mealy mouthed..

His name is fake. The dog he claimed to own is not his. He is not and never was a hillbilly.

I doubt he has any spiritual beliefs.

Vance is a complete fraud. He is a monster in a person suit.

But, I don't need another hernia surgery.

and the conversion was purely political, or he was never an atheist.

Confused, phony, legend in his own mind fuck wad.

I think it should go under his picture.

He’s just another fuckin’ liar in a whole trainload of pseudo-religious liars. If Jesus came back and saw what they were doing, he couldn’t stop throwing up. That last line was paraphrased from Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters uttered by no less than Max Von Sydow.

So the real religion for evangelicals is the Republican party not Christianity. That fact explains a lot