Lines in the sand, not a good tactic for any human as always beign an absolute.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Lines in the sand, not a good tactic for any human as always beign an absolute.

This thread was also inspired by not just recent events but other events in my past.

Are there lines that should be drawn. Yes, like claims that women should submit to men because a deity told them so, or because of a cultural norm> Or a science class being dumbed down because a creationist wants to treat their claims as an equal probability.

But, I do get down on anyone who gets tunnel vision to the point that "this is the only way this can or should be be done". That is the exact climate that creates Stalin's Russia. That is the same climate that causes Iran's theocracy.

I had a friend on another board where I had been a mod, which is why I am not one today here, whom I lost as a friend because I refused to take sides. I did the ethical thing in stepping aside so that there would be no false accusation of playing favorites. In a civil society the reffs (government) SHOULD be as neutral as possible.

It ultimately amounts to, without personal stories from anyone of any label, past or present, that absolute black and white thinking is not a good solution.

One of those attitudes is that it is possible for ANY ONE OF US to be 100% consistent all the time. Humans, not any one of us, is capable of being absolutely free of some sort of hypocrisy or inconsistency. Humans are not perfect, none of us are.

We are all humans, all 7 billion of us, we as a species, did evolve to gravitate to like minded people. That social interaction is normal. But unfortunately it can also cause our species, far too often, to see dissent or people we don't like as a sub species. That is the downside of our evolution. It is what allows us to get violent with each other.

It is one thing to say "I don't like what this person does" or "I hate what that person does" OR "I don't like that person" . That is going to happen. And the other reality in our species is that there will ALWAYS be individuals who will never get along. So in this situation, the best you can do is live under laws that allow people to be themselves and merely simply demand the common ground both sides have in not physically harming someone in spite of what we say.

If the goal of humanity is pluralism then drawing lines in the sand cannot work. If our goal is to see ourselves as individuals, then we too, not just as atheists, but theists too should speak as individuals and don't speak for others under that label.

Guilt by association is what fascism does.

One of my favorite letters was Jefferson's letter to Adams about the state of "mudslinging" in politics. Jefferson basically, of course without cussing, but basically threw cold water on Adams face.

In a very real literal reality, the Declaration of Independence was blasphemy to the King and his position. They could have skipped that formal letter and simply wrote "fuck you" AND IT would have meant the same thing/ Jefferson reminded Adams that it was the King demanding absolutes, and the King was not protecting dissent. While they did not want to fight that war, I don't think any human in reality likes war, unless they are mentally ill. I think humans like the honor of protecting friends an loved ones and resources, though. So some people in that context like the motif of the military.

In any case, time after time after time after time in our courts, but especially with "The People vs Larry Flint" OUR COURT has rightfully said, that merely getting pissed off at someone, or being offended by what someone says is not enough to make a demand for their silence.

Now that was a Christian court that made that decision, and the issue wasn't even religion, it was about Larry Flint poking fun of Falwell's mother. The court said, while we may find that vile, the fact is that it does not meet the higher standard of a public figure. They said that no reasonable person would believe that was true, and parody for that matter, is protected.

WHY? Because if humans go around making demands that others not pick on them or offend them all the time FOR WHATEVER REASON, as an absolute, it does not take into account that powers shift long term. And the short term well intended idea of "cant we all just get along" DOES NOT take the long term reality that power changes, into account. So the people who think like this, ARE well intended, but can, without realizing it, hand a loaded gun(government) TO a future majority that might not agree with them.

The issue isn't "the only way to skin the cat is to get in their face" OR "the only way to skin the cat is to play nice all the time" The issue either way is not drawing lines in the sand not making absolute demands about the actions of others.

Otherwise the individual who does this is no better than the others in other groups whom they rightfully condemn.

You don't fight intolerance with intolerance. And life is NEVER, for anyone, ever simple black and white thinking.

I wrote this because I have seen, not just here, but people in my personal life, not even involving me, do this, I see it also in the news far too much. There ultimately is no "us vs them". There is only one species living on one planet. There are always going to be disagreements and even individuals no matter what, who wont get along with others. So one cant use ultimatums or threats to get people to do what one wants. One  can control oneself, and one can try to appeal to others, but one cannot force other people to be a clone of themselves.

This also really cuts also to the core of my childhood too. My parents wrongly tried to push me in directions I didn't want to go( it wasn't that they were bad people, but they lacked the better psychological data we have now in accepting children as autonomous)  AND I also suffered at the hands of peer pressure in trying to fit in and as a result I unknowingly sacrificed my dignity and threw myself at people who would never like me and even bullied me. The truth was that I only made it worse by trying to demand they not pick on me. I only made it worse when I didn't ignore them. It would have given me more power and control to either say "fuck you" BACK TO them or simply walk away and ignore them. The fact is I made the mistake of trying to control others instead of accepting that their baggage was theirs.

Part of me me now is a direct result of accepting and recognizing all the needless self inflicted trauma I caused myself.

I want atheists, and not just atheists, but all humans to be empowered to see themselves as autonomous. Something did not have the knowledge of when I was a kid which is why I let my parents baggage the bullies baggage and societies baggage get to me. I want people to be judged not as gangs merely based on being offened. The long standing religious disputes are based on the "sins of the father guilt by association"  mistake.

The world does not need more lines in the sand. We simply need to see ourselves as humans first, the labels and disagreements have always been around and will always be around with different motifs and flavors some giving way to the future and some continuing. But what can minimize the harm to our species, or at least reduce it is the idea that we all want to be free from the physical harm of others. That is where the focus should be. Not our words, not our tactics. The mere knowledge that we all shit and pee and need food and shelter and have loved ones. That is where the common ground is, not the fact that we bitch or like to bitch.

 

My only issue with my detractors ANYWHERE, not just here, is not your tactic itself, but the attitude that "never under any situation" as an absolute. Whatever good intent someone might have with "never" gets lost in the real reality of situations and sheds of gray because life is complex and never simple one word or one way solutions. Most of the time they are a combo coming out of lots of sources.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian, are you interested in

Brian, are you interested in social reform or something of a greater nature?  I get the feeling that your views belong with TZM.  Of course, as with with the atheist community as a whole, not all views are necessarily for everyone, but the main goals coincide with radical change albeit in a constructive way. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sage_Override wrote:Brian,

Sage_Override wrote:

Brian, are you interested in social reform or something of a greater nature?  I get the feeling that your views belong with TZM.  Of course, as with with the atheist community as a whole, not all views are necessarily for everyone, but the main goals coincide with radical change albeit in a constructive way. 

I'll check into that. But social reform isn't all one website or one book writer or one poster. It is everyone doing their own way to the extent they want to or can.

And to call what I advocate "radical" miffs me. The founders of America and the age of Enlightenment came up with the idea that individuality and the freedom to question was more important to insure stability than group think.

It is only "radical" in the sense that our country has gotten away from that because of lack of civics education combined with a two party monopoly on politics. Nothing I advocate is new.

And there is no "greater nature" to life or human behavior.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
I don't see anyone saying

I don't see anyone saying that you always have to play nice.  I just don't see that at all.

What I try to do is get people to examine their actions in the light of their stated objectives.  If your actions are achieving, in an efficient and effective manner, your claimed objectives, then good on you.

The woman who convinced me to run off and rejoin the religion of my ancestors didn't get my attention by taking either the "in your face" or "play nice" approach.  She provided me with information that allowed me to take a look inside a religion that normally isn't all that open -- historically, Jews who said anything that might be remotely like "attempting to convert" risked death.  So we have a strong tradition of NOT doing that.  She took me at face value.  She didn't say "Well, you're just wrong!  Jesus isn't the Messiah!  STFU!" or "Well, Christians make some mistakes, but that's okay (pat, pat, pat)".

Are there times for "In your face!"?  Sure.  And "Play nice!"?  Sure.  And something in between?  Yes, sure.  As King Solomon wrote "To every thing there is a season."  There is a time for "In your face!" and a time for "Play nice!" and a time for "Educate" and a time for everything else.  If all you know, and all you ever do, and all you ever =can= do is one of those, you're not (IMHO) as effective as someone who has flexibility.  Not fake flexibility, but real, genuine, situational awareness.  Meeting people where they are, not where you are, or where you want them to be.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is only

Brian37 wrote:

It is only "radical" in the sense that our country has gotten away from that because of lack of civics education combined with a two party monopoly on politics. Nothing I advocate is new.

+1.

Ironically, I blame the ascendance of the modern Neo-Conservative movement, fueled by the idiocy of the Radical Religious Rong on the dumbing-down of education wrought decades earlier by Fuzzy-Headed Liberals.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And to call what I

Quote:
And to call what I advocate "radical" miffs me. The founders of America and the age of Enlightenment came up with the idea that individuality and the freedom to question was more important to insure stability than group think.

 

No no, I wasn't referring to your views as radical; I was talking about social reform in general, sorry.  I also was referring to "greater nature" as your own personal agenda, if you had one, that may or may not be a little unconventional to others.  Just curious about your overall position and do believe TZM is a pretty good fit for you.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I don't

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I don't see anyone saying that you always have to play nice.  I just don't see that at all.

What I try to do is get people to examine their actions in the light of their stated objectives.  If your actions are achieving, in an efficient and effective manner, your claimed objectives, then good on you.

The woman who convinced me to run off and rejoin the religion of my ancestors didn't get my attention by taking either the "in your face" or "play nice" approach.  She provided me with information that allowed me to take a look inside a religion that normally isn't all that open -- historically, Jews who said anything that might be remotely like "attempting to convert" risked death.  So we have a strong tradition of NOT doing that.  She took me at face value.  She didn't say "Well, you're just wrong!  Jesus isn't the Messiah!  STFU!" or "Well, Christians make some mistakes, but that's okay (pat, pat, pat)".

Are there times for "In your face!"?  Sure.  And "Play nice!"?  Sure.  And something in between?  Yes, sure.  As King Solomon wrote "To every thing there is a season."  There is a time for "In your face!" and a time for "Play nice!" and a time for "Educate" and a time for everything else.  If all you know, and all you ever do, and all you ever =can= do is one of those, you're not (IMHO) as effective as someone who has flexibility.  Not fake flexibility, but real, genuine, situational awareness.  Meeting people where they are, not where you are, or where you want them to be.

Furry, you did not rejoin because she merely provided you with information. She sold you something and you bought it. That is not examining or testing, that is simply buying and selling. There is nothing impressive about that. It is why I am a Reskins fan. No real pragmatic reason other than entertainment.

Actions only reflect morals, or the morals you flock to. They don't always coincide with common human interest beyond labels. You merely saw this woman as being nice and doing nice things for you and "poof" a nice person cant be wrong.

My repetition of the argument "non material invisible brain" is not done to say "you got it wrong" solely because I hate the claim. It is done because there IS tons of scientific evidence pointing away from that claim, not to it.

I hate that claim because it is in stark contrast with the biological evolution that has produced species that have a cognition.

AND it is in stark contrast with the fact that our senses and perceptions are notoriously famous for the ability to be wrong.

AND to this date the only tool that has filtered out bias to the best degree so far in human history to settle disputes about the nature of reality IS scientific method.

So don't confuse the usage of "hate" when I use that word, as being closed minded. Your civil rights and human rights, beyond the claims you might make, are as they should be, in tact and something worth fighting for.

So I say the same thing to ANYONE who claims a deity. Go work on a universal model, get it independently tested and you should have no problem getting a patent on it and winning a Nobel Prize. If you can do that I will hand you the Nobel Prize myself.

The other option is much easier as a likely probability, and is not in contrast with biological evolution. The other option is a natural flaw in nature because evolution does not require knowledge, or testing, it only requires a generation to make it to the point of reproduction.

It is Dawkins moth, "The moth mistaking the light bulb for the natural moonlight".

None of what I have said here has anything with the other NATURAL aspect of human existence. I will ALWAYS defend the human right to make any claim you want, but I also have the right to call "bullshit" on that claim.

Closed minded would be "don't ever say things I find absurd".

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sage_Override

Sage_Override wrote:

Quote:
And to call what I advocate "radical" miffs me. The founders of America and the age of Enlightenment came up with the idea that individuality and the freedom to question was more important to insure stability than group think.

 

I wasn't referring to your views as radical; I was talking about social reform in general, sorry.  I also was referring to "greater nature" as your own personal agenda, if you had one, that may or may not be a little unconventional to others.  Just curious about your overall position and do believe TZM is a pretty good fit for you.

No I don't think humans need to have anything greater an agenda than say what you want just agree not to physically harm each other. I think it really is the best way to maximize benefit and minimize harm in our imperfect reality. Simple, to the point and skips all the political, religious, tribal utopia baggage.

It also allows us to make the human condition the priority and not the short cut labels that do not reflect the complexity of an individual.

We all want resources, some more than others. We all want food and shelter, love and a means for survival. AND we also like to bitch when we don't like what others do. If we focus on those primary common conditions we all agree on, we can minimize the fear of harm from others and maximize the focus on what we have in common while still allowing each other to say what we want without fear.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I cannot see what Brian as

I cannot see what Brian as talking about as mapping to the Zeitgeist Movement, which is in its own way as delusional as nay religion.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian,What Sarah did was

Brian,

What Sarah did was provide me with access to information I'd always wanted to get my hands on.  One of the "legacies" of growing up in a house with people whose parents had run from Judaism at warp speed is having those parents tell you "You WILL NOT study that religion.  We DO NOT do that anymore."

Then Mom followed me around and ratted me out to ministers.

Judaism isn't Christianity.  There is no "Disembodied Brain".  There is no "Magic Sky Daddy Santa Claus".  There is no preference for one person over another based on =belief=, skin color, ethnicity, nationality or anything.  Judaism is a what-you-do-matters religion, along with a clean-up-your-own-messes religion.  If I hurt someone, Moses doesn't forgive me.  The person I hurt does.  If someone else hurts me, they don't get to claim Moses, Jesus or Muhammed forgave them.

The key difference between the world you and others here seem to want to create and Judaism is ... barbequed kittens are NOT kosher =and= the whole "G-d" thing.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian,

What Sarah did was provide me with access to information I'd always wanted to get my hands on.  One of the "legacies" of growing up in a house with people whose parents had run from Judaism at warp speed is having those parents tell you "You WILL NOT study that religion.  We DO NOT do that anymore."

Then Mom followed me around and ratted me out to ministers.

Judaism isn't Christianity.  There is no "Disembodied Brain".  There is no "Magic Sky Daddy Santa Claus".  There is no preference for one person over another based on =belief=, skin color, ethnicity, nationality or anything.  Judaism is a what-you-do-matters religion, along with a clean-up-your-own-messes religion.  If I hurt someone, Moses doesn't forgive me.  The person I hurt does.  If someone else hurts me, they don't get to claim Moses, Jesus or Muhammed forgave them.

The key difference between the world you and others here seem to want to create and Judaism is ... barbequed kittens are NOT kosher =and= the whole "G-d" thing.

Furry, you have still not said anything explicit about what makes your version of Judaism different from secular humanism, which is where most atheists come from. Atheism itself has no value system. It is a consequence of a range of world views, from Secular Humanism. Scepticism, to Buddhism.

The values you outline are fully in accord with a proper secular morality.

And your references to the silly stereotypes of Atheism are getting a little tedious.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian,

What Sarah did was provide me with access to information I'd always wanted to get my hands on.  One of the "legacies" of growing up in a house with people whose parents had run from Judaism at warp speed is having those parents tell you "You WILL NOT study that religion.  We DO NOT do that anymore."

Then Mom followed me around and ratted me out to ministers.

Judaism isn't Christianity.  There is no "Disembodied Brain".  There is no "Magic Sky Daddy Santa Claus".  There is no preference for one person over another based on =belief=, skin color, ethnicity, nationality or anything.  Judaism is a what-you-do-matters religion, along with a clean-up-your-own-messes religion.  If I hurt someone, Moses doesn't forgive me.  The person I hurt does.  If someone else hurts me, they don't get to claim Moses, Jesus or Muhammed forgave them.

The key difference between the world you and others here seem to want to create and Judaism is ... barbequed kittens are NOT kosher =and= the whole "G-d" thing.

Furry, you have still not said anything explicit about what makes your version of Judaism different from secular humanism, which is where most atheists come from. Atheism itself has no value system. It is a consequence of a range of world views, from Secular Humanism. Scepticism, to Buddhism.

The values you outline are fully in accord with a proper secular morality.

Hmmm.

Maybe that isn't an accident?  Maybe, just maybe, the core concepts of Judaism aren't all the different from "Secular Humanism", other than the G-d thing.

Other than "belief in G-d" (which isn't a requirement for non-Jews, or for that matter, Jews), what do =you= think Judaism means for a non-Jew?  Meaning, do you think Judaism says you, personally, can't eat a bacon cheeseburger, or what?

Quote:

And your references to the silly stereotypes of Atheism are getting a little tedious.

Which ones?!?

(Edited to make it clear that Judaism doesn't have a "You must believe in G-d, OR ELSE!" commandment.)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian,

What Sarah did was provide me with access to information I'd always wanted to get my hands on.  One of the "legacies" of growing up in a house with people whose parents had run from Judaism at warp speed is having those parents tell you "You WILL NOT study that religion.  We DO NOT do that anymore."

Then Mom followed me around and ratted me out to ministers.

Judaism isn't Christianity.  There is no "Disembodied Brain".  There is no "Magic Sky Daddy Santa Claus".  There is no preference for one person over another based on =belief=, skin color, ethnicity, nationality or anything.  Judaism is a what-you-do-matters religion, along with a clean-up-your-own-messes religion.  If I hurt someone, Moses doesn't forgive me.  The person I hurt does.  If someone else hurts me, they don't get to claim Moses, Jesus or Muhammed forgave them.

The key difference between the world you and others here seem to want to create and Judaism is ... barbequed kittens are NOT kosher =and= the whole "G-d" thing.

"brain" is the term humans use to describe an organ that functions to think and to regulate the rest of that organism's body.

Now, there is no other term for a thing that does the same thing. If your god has no brain, what does it think with? Invisible disimbodied, non material, WHATEVER, you want to claim it is not, WHAT DOES god think with? Or does it "just do"? Because if all you have is just "it just is" AND "just does" you got nothing. Those are just naked assertions.

AND FYI Caposkia in the epic thread has also avoided this with the same tactic, so being a Jew doesn't mean you are doing anything differently than any other label.

He has said in general terms just like you, "I am not claiming a disembodied brain" .

Well if it has no material or brain fine, then please other than "poof" bridge that gap from the non material, to the observable.

"You wouldn't understand" not an excuse.

"It's beyond our comprehension" not an excuse.

"Tradition" not an excuse.

"It just is" not an excuse.

You would not buy these excuses if someone else was trying to argue another pet god with a different name,

Tell us what your god IS, not what it is not.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Furry,just with the

 Furry,

just with the "barbequed kittens are NOT kosher " thing. Even as a joke, which I hope/assume you mean it as...

OK , looking at it again, it HAD to be just a poke at us, but you have said so many more apparently serious cracks at Atheism, and its 'doctrines' or whatever, that I have become a bit p--ed off at them.

I do value you getting more serious at addressing my real attempts to come to grips with what really distinguishes your world-view, mindset, whatever, from ours, or mine in particular.

I have really become engrossed in the last decade or so with understanding the way humans 'tick', the different ways we grapple with 'reality'. Enhanced by my observations travelling around the world. The nearest I have got to Israel was a SCUBA dive trip on the Red Sea on a boat working out of Eilat, skippered by a guy named David Hillel, IIRC. The rest of that trip was 'doing' Egypt: boat trip from Luxor to Aswan, then back to Cairo to do the Museum and Giza.

Had a little chat with an Israeli couple we shared a table with at dinner in Sharm el-Sheik. Gave me a hint of what it was like to live with so many people just beyond your borders who hated your very existence...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I have really become

Quote:

I have really become engrossed in the last decade or so with understanding the way humans 'tick', the different ways we grapple with 'reality'. Enhanced by my observations travelling around the world. The nearest I have got to Israel was a SCUBA dive trip on the Red Sea on a boat working out of Eilat, skippered by a guy named David Hillel, IIRC. The rest of that trip was 'doing' Egypt: boat trip from Luxor to Aswan, then back to Cairo to do the Museum and Giza.

Had a little chat with an Israeli couple we shared a table with at dinner in Sharm el-Sheik. Gave me a hint of what it was like to live with so many people just beyond your borders who hated your very existence...

 

Ever check out Henry Rollins and his spoken word appearances?  They're  on Youtube.  I think you'd enjoy them.  You remind me of what he's doing with his time in a way.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"brain" is the

Brian37 wrote:

"brain" is the term humans use to describe an organ that functions to think and to regulate the rest of that organism's body.

Now, there is no other term for a thing that does the same thing. If your god has no brain, what does it think with? Invisible disimbodied, non material, WHATEVER, you want to claim it is not, WHAT DOES god think with? Or does it "just do"? Because if all you have is just "it just is" AND "just does" you got nothing. Those are just naked assertions.

Sadly, those are the rules.  Imam Ali, the son of Muhammed, gave a sermon that is better than anything I've read by any Rabbi --

Imam Ali wrote:

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

The Hebrew texts only say things like "G-d is not a Man", there's no monologue that I've read that presents that thorough of an argument.

To say that G-d "thinks" is to compare how G-d "thinks" to how we think, and how we "think" is incomparable to how HaKadosh Baruch Hu, who created the entire Universe, "thinks".  To say that G-d has a "brain" is to liken G-d to Mankind, and G-d cannot be compared to Mankind.

Quote:
AND FYI Caposkia in the epic thread has also avoided this with the same tactic, so being a Jew doesn't mean you are doing anything differently than any other label.

Well, maybe there's something to it?  Maybe you don't get the answer =you= want?  Not saying this to be disrespectful, but this isn't Brian37ism, it's Judaism.

Quote:
Well if it has no material or brain fine, then please other than "poof" bridge that gap from the non material, to the observable.

Does the Universe exist?  Good enough for me.  Not good enough for you?  I'm fine with that.

Quote:

"You wouldn't understand" not an excuse.

"It's beyond our comprehension" not an excuse.

"Tradition" not an excuse.

"It just is" not an excuse.

Do you understand?  No?  I can live with that.

It's beyond your comprehension?  Yes?  I often have the same problem.

Not your tradition?  I'm sure you have plenty of other traditions.

Don't like "It just is"?  I'm sure there are plenty of things Science can't address that "just are".

Quote:
You would not buy these excuses if someone else was trying to argue another pet god with a different name

That depends on what they claimed their pet god to be.  La ilaha ila'Allah, Musa rasul Allah.

Quote:
Tell us what your god IS, not what it is not.

Sadly, the way =you= want G-d described is against the rules.  I've read other arguments, besides the piece from Imam Ali's sermon, that were persuasive and I accept them.

But more than that, I grew up being =told= what G-d was, and most of that was different from what I felt to be the case.  If there is One and only One G-d, G-d cannot have a sex, a race, a color, a anything people-like.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: Furry,just

BobSpence wrote:

 Furry,

just with the "barbequed kittens are NOT kosher " thing. Even as a joke, which I hope/assume you mean it as...

OK , looking at it again, it HAD to be just a poke at us, but you have said so many more apparently serious cracks at Atheism, and its 'doctrines' or whatever, that I have become a bit p--ed off at them.

So far as I know it is not a sin to skin a cat and use it's skin to make a hat or handbag or anything else of the sort.

However, if a Jew suggested doing such a thing, I would tell them that teh kitties are teh cuteness and must not be skinned.

That said, you can eat anything you want.  Non-Jews aren't obligated to kosher rules, so it would not be a sin for you to barbeque a kittie and eat it.  But teh kitties are sweet and cute and cuddly.  Please consider eating barbequed dog.  Please?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If there is One and

Quote:
If there is One and only One G-d, G-d cannot have a sex, a race, a color, a anything people-like.

 

If he made us in HIS image, isn't that just a LIIIIIIIITTLE bit of a fallacy?  Me thinks it is.

 

Quote:
The Hebrew texts only say things like "G-d is not a Man", there's no monologue that I've read that presents that thorough of an argument.

 

Try looking up a debater named Hassanein Rajabali; you might find him RIGHT up your alley.  I think he's borderline insane and full of rhetorical nonsense, but that's just me.  As a matter of fact, here's a link http://www.shiasource.com/drive/self/lectures/br-hassanain-rajabali/

 

Quote:
To say that G-d "thinks" is to compare how G-d "thinks" to how we think, and how we "think" is incomparable to how HaKadosh Baruch Hu, who created the entire Universe, "thinks".  To say that G-d has a "brain" is to liken G-d to Mankind, and G-d cannot be compared to Mankind.

 

What you said is teetering on a circular fallacy and is comparable to your previous statement regarding God's non-gender or race; both possess massive, gaping and unimaginable holes of logic.

 

Quote:
Does the Universe exist?  Good enough for me.  Not good enough for you?  I'm fine with that.

 

I think Brian is not content with people using the universe as their personal moral petri dish to create illogical claims of immaterial and irrational viewing simply because the questions to the universe aren't answered quickly in an instant gratifying way so believers try to plug in the gap with an omnipotent force that delegates our actions and how we see each other day in and day out. 

 

Quote:

Do you understand?  No?  I can live with that.

It's beyond your comprehension?  Yes?  I often have the same problem.

Not your tradition?  I'm sure you have plenty of other traditions.

Don't like "It just is"?  I'm sure there are plenty of things Science can't address that "just are".

 

Science is only as right as the steps used to repeat a proposed hypothesis using the same formulas, same observations and the same data.  On a related note, despite all the radical advancements in modern medicine, we are still very in the dark about how viruses work.  We are gaining a larger grasp with every passing day, but we're in the early stages.  One day, we'll be able to better track how they evolve and grow, but some of the more aggressive strains are just too complex in the game right now to really fully gain the upper hand on and fight them off.  Since nature is constantly changing and how we look, act and feel is in almost direct correlation with that, there is no such thing as "just are" arguments because those would be a violation of natural laws of physics, dynamics, thermodynamics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc., etc.  We are always learning new things from theories that we were certain we had down pat, but scientists and experts are always revising and figuring out more about them.  This is how we get closer to understanding our universe and this is how we achieve a better connection with the world around us.  If life were static, we'd all still be painting on walls and trying to figure out how to make a wheel.

 

 

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
For crying out loud, Imam Ali.

 

Imam Ali wrote:

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

 

This mass of assertions is materially meaningless, wholly contrived and totally arbitrary. "The perfection of believing in his 'oneness' is to regard him pure"? "He is with everything but not in physical nearness"? "He exists but not from non-existence"?

These are not rules, they are no more than extravagant examples of motivated reasoning. Believers are exhorted to worship an appeal to complexity here. None of the qualities outlined is knowable in the slightest possible way.

Believing something hard like the Imam does, will not make it true.  As for not getting the answer we want, we get no answers at all, we just uncover more questions as we're hit with layer upon layer of untestable explanations and told to accept that subjective belief is objective metaphysical 'reality'. 

Just reading the Imam's list of impossibilities, asserted with complete authority and without explanation, and claimed to be made real by that lack of explanation, makes my brain scream.   

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What does this mean?

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Don't like "It just is"?  I'm sure there are plenty of things Science can't address that "just are".

 

 

What science can't address is either unknown or unproven. The difference is that no one is insisting their particular interpretation is absolutely true. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Very interesting point, this.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If there is One and only One G-d, G-d cannot have a sex, a race, a color, a anything people-like.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:It's beyond your

Quote:
It's beyond your comprehension?

"snarfwidget" THERE I just made something up beyond your comprehension. Is it true simply because I strung some letters together and typed them?

The attitude of "it just is" is intellectual laziness. I am glad the Wright brothers did not simply look at birds and flight and go "god did it".

There are tons we as a species probably wont discover before we go extinct. But there most certainly are absurdities our species has given up on. The sun was not a god no matter how much the Egyptians wanted it to be so. If you can accept that, then you should be able to accept that your pet claim is not a reality either.

The idea of a non material thinking entity does not explain shit about our universe or anything in it. It causes far more problems in infinite regress, Pascal's wager, Bentrand Russell's teapot, Ocham's Razor, law of probability, and the most obvious scientific absurdity that thoughts can occur without material.

Deity belief is merely our own evolutionary flaw in gap filling, it is merely projecting human qualities on non human objects. That is the reality you and all claimants of the super natural don't want to face.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Great OP Brian. The only

 Great OP Brian. The only things I really disagree with is that humans do in fact love war. It is terrible yes, but there is something extremely primal that is triggered by violence and I believe that our tendency to fall into "us vs them" disputes is probably a deeply rooted evolutionary response. Few soldiers talk about it with civilians, but separated from moral qualms, killing is a pleasurable experience. I'm sure one of the science types could probably provide a study that shows the release of adrenaline and endorphins that go along with violence.  

 

What I can't figure out is how you can say

brian37 wrote:

This also really cuts also to the core of my childhood too. My parents wrongly tried to push me in directions I didn't want to go( it wasn't that they were bad people, but they lacked the better psychological data we have now in accepting children as autonomous)  AND I also suffered at the hands of peer pressure in trying to fit in and as a result I unknowingly sacrificed my dignity and threw myself at people who would never like me and even bullied me. The truth was that I only made it worse by trying to demand they not pick on me. I only made it worse when I didn't ignore them. It would have given me more power and control to either say "fuck you" BACK TO them or simply walk away and ignore them. The fact is I made the mistake of trying to control others instead of accepting that their baggage was theirs.

 

How do you reconcile that with your political views? That really is a remarkably libertarian thing to say, and is the starting point for most libertarians. Live and let live and don't try to control others. How do you reconcile that with forcing people to wear seat belts?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote: Great

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Great OP Brian. The only things I really disagree with is that humans do in fact love war. It is terrible yes, but there is something extremely primal that is triggered by violence and I believe that our tendency to fall into "us vs them" disputes is probably a deeply rooted evolutionary response. Few soldiers talk about it with civilians, but separated from moral qualms, killing is a pleasurable experience. I'm sure one of the science types could probably provide a study that shows the release of adrenaline and endorphins that go along with violence.  

 

What I can't figure out is how you can say

brian37 wrote:

This also really cuts also to the core of my childhood too. My parents wrongly tried to push me in directions I didn't want to go( it wasn't that they were bad people, but they lacked the better psychological data we have now in accepting children as autonomous)  AND I also suffered at the hands of peer pressure in trying to fit in and as a result I unknowingly sacrificed my dignity and threw myself at people who would never like me and even bullied me. The truth was that I only made it worse by trying to demand they not pick on me. I only made it worse when I didn't ignore them. It would have given me more power and control to either say "fuck you" BACK TO them or simply walk away and ignore them. The fact is I made the mistake of trying to control others instead of accepting that their baggage was theirs.

 

How do you reconcile that with your political views? That really is a remarkably libertarian thing to say, and is the starting point for most libertarians. Live and let live and don't try to control others. How do you reconcile that with forcing people to wear seat belts?

It is not that we love war, we love being on top and having control. No one ultimately, unless they are mentally ill or severely depressed wants to die. If war was always a priority, our species would not evolve.

You are talking about social libertarianism, I am talking about economic policies over long periods of time that do not show maximizing benefit. What I see in those policies is privatized profits and socialized losses.

We fight because we want resources. That does not mean we don't cant or shouldn't avoid our most base instinct. "It just is" IS not an excuse. Just because you can and do doesn't always mean you should.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10502
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Dunno that it works in the

Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation.
Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Dunno that it

Vastet wrote:
Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation. Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Fucking panzy! Here in the states we do it the right way, you cant pay you die! No balls man no balls. Europe and Canada are a bunch of wimps with pathetic compassion. Yet you have no problem with hockey where they beat the shit out of each other.

(note to self: Did I think this or type it)

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Don't like "It just is"?  I'm sure there are plenty of things Science can't address that "just are".

What science can't address is either unknown or unproven. The difference is that no one is insisting their particular interpretation is absolutely true. 

Do you like teh kitties?  Love your parents?  Spouse?  Children?  What's your favorite music?  Do you like chocolate?  How do you feel about equal rights for women?  People of color?  Universal access to health care?  Which is the better American Football Team -- The Washington Redskins, or the Philadelphia Eagles?

Does the fact that you can't "prove" any of those things with Science make them not so?

Don't make Science a religion.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 "Very interesting point, this."

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If there is One and only One G-d, G-d cannot have a sex, a race, a color, a anything people-like.

Yeah, I had this one figured out by age 8 or 9.  It severely pissed off my father, who insisted G-d was a bearded old white dude.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Don't like "It just is"?  I'm sure there are plenty of things Science can't address that "just are".

What science can't address is either unknown or unproven. The difference is that no one is insisting their particular interpretation is absolutely true. 

Do you like teh kitties?  Love your parents?  Spouse?  Children?  What's your favorite music?  Do you like chocolate?  How do you feel about equal rights for women?  People of color?  Universal access to health care?  Which is the better American Football Team -- The Washington Redskins, or the Philadelphia Eagles?

Does the fact that you can't "prove" any of those things with Science make them not so?

Don't make Science a religion.

No one is trying to make science a religion, so don't even dare equate a REAL tool to the social club people call religion.

You know what a hammer is and I do too. Religion teaches you to use wet noodles to pound the nail into the wood. Scientific method teaches EVERYONE that the earth rotates around the sun. It teaches EVERYONE what DNA is, and unlike religion, SCIENTISTS, if ethical, WANT YOU TO BEAT THE CRAP out of their claims.

Why? Because if they are wrong, they want to know, it allows them to learn new things. Religion teaches you to be satisfied with not knowing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Dunno that it

Vastet wrote:
Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation. Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Americans don't understand that if =everyone= pays, many of the things that cause escalating health care costs just don't happen.  I've been uninsured for almost three years.  Thankfully I've been healthy, but the revenue from those three years isn't "in" the system for whenever I have health insurance again.  That has to be made up later.  And if I had gotten seriously ill, there's a chance I'd had to have declared bankruptcy and someone else would be stuck footing the bill.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Dunno that it

Vastet wrote:
Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation. Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Good point I can see how this makes sense.  The problem with this line of thinking is that it also applies to smoking, alcohol, over eating...  you have to draw the line somewhere.  I find it a more pragmatic solution, the consequences of not wearing a seat belt are so much more severe, and the relative "discomfort" pales in comparison to the benefits.  Look at it as a penalty on the failure to weigh the consequences.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Don't make Science a religion.

No one is trying to make science a religion, so don't even dare equate a REAL tool to the social club people call religion.

You know what a hammer is and I do too. Religion teaches you to use wet noodles to pound the nail into the wood. Scientific method teaches EVERYONE that the earth rotates around the sun. It teaches EVERYONE what DNA is, and unlike religion, SCIENTISTS, if ethical, WANT YOU TO BEAT THE CRAP out of their claims.

Why? Because if they are wrong, they want to know, it allows them to learn new things. Religion teaches you to be satisfied with not knowing.

Uh, do you really think I'm not a hard-core Science junky =and= a major religious fanatic?

Have a list --

http://www.science.co.il/Nobel-Biomedical.asp

Now, do you stand by what you wrote earlier?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Ktulu wrote:Vastet

Ktulu wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation. Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Good point I can see how this makes sense.  The problem with this line of thinking is that it also applies to smoking, alcohol, over eating...  you have to draw the line somewhere.  I find it a more pragmatic solution, the consequences of not wearing a seat belt are so much more severe, and the relative "discomfort" pales in comparison to the benefits.  Look at it as a penalty on the failure to weigh the consequences.

There is no such thing as a perfect system. But we can see the affects of monopolies and lopsided power. I think even with the flaws of Canada's system, it seems to work far better than "if you cant pay, die".

I would say to improve, you look at what works, and you discard what doesn't. Always allow for adjustment.

I think the flaw in our human existence is that we get fixated on what we think works forgetting that the future is not stagnant. We have to grow to discard bad claims and learn from our mistakes.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is not that

Brian37 wrote:

It is not that we love war, we love being on top and having control. No one ultimately, unless they are mentally ill or severely depressed wants to die. If war was always a priority, our species would not evolve.............

We fight because we want resources. That does not mean we don't cant or shouldn't avoid our most base instinct. "It just is" IS not an excuse. Just because you can and do doesn't always mean you should.

War isn't about wanting to die, its about killing the other guy. Many people in their right mind do want to risk death. That's why many people seek out high risk sports. You might not want to die, but life is so much better when death is an immediate possibility. And war is sometimes over resources, but not always. Indeed, many wars have consumed more resources than the victors could hope to win. It is very much about control, domination and killing. 

 

I agree that it doesn't mean we should. And I believe that our obsession with sports is an attempt to satisfy our desire for violence and probably a much healthier way to satisfy those desires for society at large. That doesn't change the fact that many soldiers enjoy going into battle and enjoy killing. People get all shocked when they see pictures soldiers take of their dead foes. They get outraged, call them deranged, crazy, insane etc. Ex-soldiers are often hesitant to tell their stories when they get home because people don't understand. Our modern society looks at killing and enjoying it as something so incredibly wrong that some soldiers aren't even willing to admit to themselves they enjoyed it. It can make it extremely difficult for a soldier returning home to readjust to society. They might feel there is something wrong with them because they found pleasure in killing, when in fact they are simply being human. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You are talking about social libertarianism, I am talking about economic policies over long periods of time that do not show maximizing benefit. What I see in those policies is privatized profits and socialized losses.

So any efficiency is the main priority of an economic system? Our goal should be to automatically maximize benefit? You say that in your personal life, trying to control others was a mistake. I think it is a mistake trying to control others at the larger level as well, for much the same reason regardless of whether you are talking a social or an economic issue. Really, I think we make too big of a deal over the difference between social and economic, the only difference is money. Why is money so special that it should be treated any different from any other item that is desired?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Don't make Science a religion.

No one is trying to make science a religion, so don't even dare equate a REAL tool to the social club people call religion.

You know what a hammer is and I do too. Religion teaches you to use wet noodles to pound the nail into the wood. Scientific method teaches EVERYONE that the earth rotates around the sun. It teaches EVERYONE what DNA is, and unlike religion, SCIENTISTS, if ethical, WANT YOU TO BEAT THE CRAP out of their claims.

Why? Because if they are wrong, they want to know, it allows them to learn new things. Religion teaches you to be satisfied with not knowing.

Uh, do you really think I'm not a hard-core Science junky =and= a major religious fanatic?

Have a list --

http://www.science.co.il/Nobel-Biomedical.asp

Now, do you stand by what you wrote earlier?

Do you think I only post this for your benefit? Other people will read this too, so even if you personally never lose your belief, someone else might read this and say about my posts "That makes sense".

Of course there are believers that value science. But the ethical believers who are scientists value the separation between their personal whims and what they do in the lab. If they cant they have no fucking business being in a lab.

I do not want any lab, or science class in a public school or university teach bias crap. If a scientist wants to try to prove the existence of a god, they are more than welcome to try. But until they can build an objective universal testable model that has had the shit kicked out of it, and still comes out smelling like roses, any personal pet whim does not belong in a lab.

DNA is not Jew based or Christian based or Allah based. Religion are the whims of individuals, not the computers we type on or the cars we drive or the medicine we take. The technology and scientific knowledge that is taught and used all around the world is not dependent on a god.

When scientists get it wrong, they get to learn. When religion gets it wrong, people still cling to it.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Vastet

Ktulu wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation. Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Good point I can see how this makes sense.  The problem with this line of thinking is that it also applies to smoking, alcohol, over eating...  you have to draw the line somewhere.  I find it a more pragmatic solution, the consequences of not wearing a seat belt are so much more severe, and the relative "discomfort" pales in comparison to the benefits.  Look at it as a penalty on the failure to weigh the consequences.

 

One of my largest objections to any form of government paid healthcare is that it does give the government a good reason to control your lifestyle. I don't care if you smoke, drink, overeat, skydive, use drugs etc. But if suddenly I am forced to pay for the increased medical costs associated with such activities, I do care. That is why I say that even if it could be proved to be cheaper, I would rather not live in such a system. I value my freedom to do whatever the hell I want with my body and life. If my choices are irresponsible, I will pay for the consequences myself. 

 

I reject Ktulu's rationale because I strongly believe that individuals are capable of, and ought to be free to make those kinds of risk assessments themselves. I don't see a reason for us as society to make those decisions for people. No doubt people will make bad decisions, they will fuck up their lives in the worst possible ways, they will hurt their loved ones and may even cause themselves to die young. So?

 

I want them to make good decisions, but I make decisions all the time that many people would see as bad. Sometimes I look back and agree with everyone who said "don't do that", other times I look back and think I was right. I value having the ability to make those choices for myself for better or for worse. Since I want to have that freedom, it is necessary to allow others the same.  

 

How many of you rebelled against your parents at some point in your life or have kids who rebel against you? No doubt your parents were trying to force you to do things that they believed were best for you. In some cases, you might look back as an adult and say "man, mom and dad really were smart, why didn't I listen to them?" Sometimes we can only learn things the hard way and a believe a life where you are allowed to make mistakes and take risks is preferable to one where you are not allowed. 

 

I might know better than you, or you might know better than me, and we should offer advice in areas we are savvy in, but we should also allow our peers to make their own decisions even when we think/know they are bad ones. Tragic things will happen, people will die. But that is the price of allowing people to make decisions for themselves. I would rather have a short life with the freedom to make stupid mistakes, than a long one that is controlled by someone else.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10502
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:The problem with

Ktulu wrote:
The problem with this line of thinking is that it also applies to smoking, alcohol, over eating... you have to draw the line somewhere.

Actually, these have been dealt with to an extent. A pack of cigarettes is 90%+ taxes. Smoking in general has become borderline illegal. It's happened faster with smoking than fast food and alcohol because smoking literally impacts those around you directly. But mark my words, food and alcohol are going to go down the same road.

There's really no easy way to deal with it. Libertarian ideals sound good, and total personal freedom is desirable, but both are impractical in cooperative society. Eventually anarchy either falls apart or is conquered by outside forces. Personal freedom can only extend to the point that it interferes with the freedom of others before it isn't really freedom anymore.

The flipside is that oppression always gets overthrown, and people will do what they want regardless of what they are told to do (often in spite of it, for that..

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10502
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...matter). The "war" on

...matter). The "war" on drugs, for example, will never end. There is simply no way to force people to not do something they want to do. Even in prison, drugs are often obtainable. Even the richest and most educated people in society use drugs.

It is a dilemma with no obvious and simple solution in sight. Make everything legal and risk skyrocketting costs, or make everything illegal and oppress the population.

I think that the entire justice and health and education systems need revising at the same time.
If you're a smoker, then you don't get to ask for paid treatment for smoking (though you could use an insurance or tax system to create funding for people who smoke that aren't entitled to regular care because they smoke; or offer to let them into regular care should they choose to quit in order to receive it) related problems. But if you break your leg, you're entitled to regular care, because that has nothing to do with smoking.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is not that we love war, we love being on top and having control. No one ultimately, unless they are mentally ill or severely depressed wants to die. If war was always a priority, our species would not evolve.............

We fight because we want resources. That does not mean we don't cant or shouldn't avoid our most base instinct. "It just is" IS not an excuse. Just because you can and do doesn't always mean you should.

War isn't about wanting to die, its about killing the other guy. Many people in their right mind do want to risk death. That's why many people seek out high risk sports. You might not want to die, but life is so much better when death is an immediate possibility. And war is sometimes over resources, but not always. Indeed, many wars have consumed more resources than the victors could hope to win. It is very much about control, domination and killing. 

 

I agree that it doesn't mean we should. And I believe that our obsession with sports is an attempt to satisfy our desire for violence and probably a much healthier way to satisfy those desires for society at large. That doesn't change the fact that many soldiers enjoy going into battle and enjoy killing. People get all shocked when they see pictures soldiers take of their dead foes. They get outraged, call them deranged, crazy, insane etc. Ex-soldiers are often hesitant to tell their stories when they get home because people don't understand. Our modern society looks at killing and enjoying it as something so incredibly wrong that some soldiers aren't even willing to admit to themselves they enjoyed it. It can make it extremely difficult for a soldier returning home to readjust to society. They might feel there is something wrong with them because they found pleasure in killing, when in fact they are simply being human. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You are talking about social libertarianism, I am talking about economic policies over long periods of time that do not show maximizing benefit. What I see in those policies is privatized profits and socialized losses.

So any efficiency is the main priority of an economic system? Our goal should be to automatically maximize benefit? You say that in your personal life, trying to control others was a mistake. I think it is a mistake trying to control others at the larger level as well, for much the same reason regardless of whether you are talking a social or an economic issue. Really, I think we make too big of a deal over the difference between social and economic, the only difference is money. Why is money so special that it should be treated any different from any other item that is desired?

People risk death in entertainment too, but it is not about dying, it is about living. Because if you risk that death you have a shot at resources. So ultimately it is not about war or death, but resources.

One of the Walinda bros(High wire act) tried to cross between the twin towers. It got him a huge paycheck, but he didn't get to cash it because he fell to his death.

Again, the appeal to risk has to do with the potential reward, not death, not war.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What you are talking about are feelings

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Don't like "It just is"?  I'm sure there are plenty of things Science can't address that "just are".

What science can't address is either unknown or unproven. The difference is that no one is insisting their particular interpretation is absolutely true. 

Do you like teh kitties?  Love your parents?  Spouse?  Children?  What's your favorite music?  Do you like chocolate?  How do you feel about equal rights for women?  People of color?  Universal access to health care?  Which is the better American Football Team -- The Washington Redskins, or the Philadelphia Eagles?

Does the fact that you can't "prove" any of those things with Science make them not so?

Don't make Science a religion.

 

and concepts that are generated by the human brain. If you agree religion is a concept similarly generated by the human brain, then sure, I agree wholeheartedly. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Ktulu

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Dunno that it works in the US, but here in Canada where we have a comprehensive health system paid for by the population, keeping costs down helps everyone. Therefore making it illegal to participate in activities that are dangerous to ones health (especially if it also endangers others, as someone not wearing a seatbelt turns into a projectile even at low velocities), benefits the entire nation. Now if someone were to write themselves out of state supported health care in events their choices created, I'd have no problem with them taking risks that endangered only themselves, but seatbelts aren't an example of that.

Good point I can see how this makes sense.  The problem with this line of thinking is that it also applies to smoking, alcohol, over eating...  you have to draw the line somewhere.  I find it a more pragmatic solution, the consequences of not wearing a seat belt are so much more severe, and the relative "discomfort" pales in comparison to the benefits.  Look at it as a penalty on the failure to weigh the consequences.

 

One of my largest objections to any form of government paid healthcare is that it does give the government a good reason to control your lifestyle. I don't care if you smoke, drink, overeat, skydive, use drugs etc. But if suddenly I am forced to pay for the increased medical costs associated with such activities, I do care. That is why I say that even if it could be proved to be cheaper, I would rather not live in such a system. I value my freedom to do whatever the hell I want with my body and life. If my choices are irresponsible, I will pay for the consequences myself. 

 

I reject Ktulu's rationale because I strongly believe that individuals are capable of, and ought to be free to make those kinds of risk assessments themselves. I don't see a reason for us as society to make those decisions for people. No doubt people will make bad decisions, they will fuck up their lives in the worst possible ways, they will hurt their loved ones and may even cause themselves to die young. So?

 

I want them to make good decisions, but I make decisions all the time that many people would see as bad. Sometimes I look back and agree with everyone who said "don't do that", other times I look back and think I was right. I value having the ability to make those choices for myself for better or for worse. Since I want to have that freedom, it is necessary to allow others the same.  

 

How many of you rebelled against your parents at some point in your life or have kids who rebel against you? No doubt your parents were trying to force you to do things that they believed were best for you. In some cases, you might look back as an adult and say "man, mom and dad really were smart, why didn't I listen to them?" Sometimes we can only learn things the hard way and a believe a life where you are allowed to make mistakes and take risks is preferable to one where you are not allowed. 

 

I might know better than you, or you might know better than me, and we should offer advice in areas we are savvy in, but we should also allow our peers to make their own decisions even when we think/know they are bad ones. Tragic things will happen, people will die. But that is the price of allowing people to make decisions for themselves. I would rather have a short life with the freedom to make stupid mistakes, than a long one that is controlled by someone else.

Sink or swim. Sounds nice, and I am sure that works for some. But that utopia thinking makes poverty a crime. Now I am quite sure in reality, you wouldn't do that in all cases. I am dirt poor. I doubt because of that and had a heart attack in front of you, you'd ask me for my credit card first. Nor do I think you'd have me arrested for not paying if you did help me.

Health care as it stands now, in the states is a monopoly and more and more people cannot afford it, much less the poor. So simply cutting the middle class and poor off, even from the private sector to keep profits up, wont work.

Government already dictates to you. You pay taxes, you have speed limits. Again, I simply think you have the attitude that only you should be able to appeal to government to get what you want. We already have a welfare state, corporate welfare, due to the voting that put the monopolies in place.

Again, wanting government out of your life depends on you. But you and your mindset and your class are not the only ones with the right to vote. Voting has never ceased and you were never denied the right to vote. So if others compete with you at the voting booth and they win, it is fair. The car has been crashed. Maybe if those at the top had cared not to crash the car, others wouldn't be competing for the drivers seat.

Is competition only fair at the voting booth only when you get what you want?

If you want less government and more efficient government, that sounds nice on paper. But with all the monopolies and corruption and exploding pay gaps, I doubt you are going to convince the people affected by this not to try to make a change at the voting booth.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sink or swim.

Brian37 wrote:

Sink or swim. Sounds nice, and I am sure that works for some. But that utopia thinking makes poverty a crime. Now I am quite sure in reality, you wouldn't do that in all cases. I am dirt poor. I doubt because of that and had a heart attack in front of you, you'd ask me for my credit card first. Nor do I think you'd have me arrested for not paying if you did help me.

Health care as it stands now, in the states is a monopoly and more and more people cannot afford it, much less the poor. So simply cutting the middle class and poor off, even from the private sector to keep profits up, wont work.

Its called bankruptcy. No one is going to throw you in jail for not being able to pay your medical bills. You will be treated at any emergency room. Show me one case where an American was denied vital care or turned away from an emergency room because they couldn't afford it. I have asked in damn near every thread on the issue and not one person has even been able to provide an anecdote let alone actual proof. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Government already dictates to you. You pay taxes, you have speed limits. Again, I simply think you have the attitude that only you should be able to appeal to government to get what you want. We already have a welfare state, corporate welfare, due to the voting that put the monopolies in place.

Government does a lot of things right now that I would like to change. I don't see why that fact means I should roll over and accept even more of a welfare state. Millions of churches already exist, does that mean we should all support having more churches?

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Again, wanting government out of your life depends on you. But you and your mindset and your class are not the only ones with the right to vote. Voting has never ceased and you were never denied the right to vote. So if others compete with you at the voting booth and they win, it is fair. The car has been crashed. Maybe if those at the top had cared not to crash the car, others wouldn't be competing for the drivers seat.

Is competition only fair at the voting booth only when you get what you want?

Did I ever say I was against voting? I do think the governments power should be limited to what it says in the original agreement in an ideal world. In practice, I understand that government will always seize power and the population that has power will always seek to control everyone else. In modern America there are two groups that have power, the welfare corporations and the welfare individuals. I would like neither to have power, but since virtually every voter is part of or sympathetic to one of the two groups, it is doubtful my beliefs will ever gain widespread acceptance.

 

Hence why I don't waste my money or time in politics anymore. Instead, I hope only that the growth of government power is slowed so that it doesn't become to onerous or bankrupt our country before I die. At our current rate, it looks like the shit is going to hit the fan long before I die. I think it is sad that you are so hostile to me when all I want is for you to pursue your dreams whatever they may be, while you blindly vote for people who promise to give you free shit then turn around and hand all the money to their butt buddies.

 

How much of the trillion dollar stimulus helped you personally? Instead of all the "stimulating", the government could have cut a check to every tax paying American of $7000. I suspect that getting a $7000 check in the mail would have helped you out considerably more. And honestly, I would rather just give you the money than filter it through those corrupt SOB's in DC. If you simply redistributed the money by giving nothing to the top 50% you could have received a check of $14000. That is how much money the government has blown in your name. And that is just the extra stimulus spending, that doesn't include regular government spending.

 

You vote for those bastards, then bitch at me about how the rich are raping the country like it is my fault. There is not a single person in office today that I voted for. If you have a problem with what is happening, you should take a look at who you vote for and honestly determine if they give a flying fuck about the plight of the poor. Then question why you are so quick to vote for them to have more money and more power because they promise you "free healthcare" and question why you want such corrupt people in charge of providing you with something as important as your healthcare. I got free healthcare from the government once. It sucked. Free /= better.

 

The good news is I have no qualms with breaking the law and I have enough resources to continue to take care of myself. If Bamacare stays in effect, I simply won't obey the edict to buy insurance. When the insurance plans I currently offer employees are no longer acceptable to the decree of government, I simply will stop offering my employees insurance. I hope they have the foresight to prepare their personal finances, but I'm sure many of them will end up on some kind of government plan eventually. At the current rate of government growth, taxes will eventually have to reach what I consider confiscatory (50%). When it does, I will retire. That will really sadden me because I enjoy what I do and I know that some people I care about would really be affected negatively. I will have to change some of my habits but my main standard of living will not change at all. 

 

You might term it "blackmail" but I don't have that intent. Simply telling you the choices I will make when certain things happen. I don't see why the government should get more from my economic efforts than I do. When that happens, I simply won't do anything. I'm sure I'm not the only one, I do not know how many others will be like me. And when employers like me decide to say "fuck it" and quit employing, someone has to fill that gap to provide jobs. You have said you wouldn't, so who will? Maybe the government? Good luck with that. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I think it is sad that

Quote:
I think it is sad that you are so hostile to me when all I want is for you to pursue your dreams whatever they may be,

I am not hostile to you, I am hostile to your attitude on economic subjects. Maybe government wouldn't be so corrupt or big if the people at the top didn't monopolize it and actually cared more about cost of living and pay gap.

Please do not project your desires on me. I got far to much of that from my parents and society and spent too much time letting them project themselves on me. I am comfortable in my own skin. I don't need you peddling "you can be whatever you want".

I am myself and that is all I want to be and all I can be. Your script is your script, not mine. Life is what you make it, not what others tell you it has to be. Titles and paychecks mean nothing, in the end relationships are what matter, no matter where you end up.

I really hope before you reach old age and are on your deathbed you figure this out. If you do, you are likely to understand why I object to your views.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am myself

Brian37 wrote:

I am myself and that is all I want to be and all I can be. Your script is your script, not mine. Life is what you make it, not what others tell you it has to be. Titles and paychecks mean nothing, in the end relationships are what matter, no matter where you end up.

+1

I love you, will you marry me?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Its

Beyond Saving wrote:

Its called bankruptcy. No one is going to throw you in jail for not being able to pay your medical bills. You will be treated at any emergency room. Show me one case where an American was denied vital care or turned away from an emergency room because they couldn't afford it. I have asked in damn near every thread on the issue and not one person has even been able to provide an anecdote let alone actual proof.

I have a permanent and severe injury to my right middle finger because the hospital I went to was the nearest to the dirt-poor part of town where I tried to remove said finger with a power tool while working on said member of said dirt-poor part of town's said new house.

The hospital wasted a f*ck load of time making sure my insurance was going to be able to pay for the microsurgery my f*cking finger needed, rather than having some clown throw a suture through a tendon that created an adhesion (or something) between that tendon and some other part of my finger.  When it became obvious I was starting to go into shock (never underestimate my ability to avoid passing out on you until I finally have to give up trying to avoid passing out on you ...), they got off their ass and handed me over to said quack.

If I'd been 15 miles further north (near where I live in Mostly White People Land) =and= not been dressed like an electrician (go figure -- I was a volunteer =licensed= electrician) but had been dressed like an engineer making 6 figures (my real job at the time), my fucking finger would be working a hell of a lot better.

I've done so much volunteer work in my life that I know the difference between how Rich White People get treated, and how Dirty Working Class People get treated.

Your morality is Beyond Disgusting.  Poor people deserve to keep their body parts in working order so they stand a chance of =working= and not just staying =poor=.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Beyond

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Its called bankruptcy. No one is going to throw you in jail for not being able to pay your medical bills. You will be treated at any emergency room. Show me one case where an American was denied vital care or turned away from an emergency room because they couldn't afford it. I have asked in damn near every thread on the issue and not one person has even been able to provide an anecdote let alone actual proof.

I have a permanent and severe injury to my right middle finger because the hospital I went to was the nearest to the dirt-poor part of town where I tried to remove said finger with a power tool while working on said member of said dirt-poor part of town's said new house.

The hospital wasted a f*ck load of time making sure my insurance was going to be able to pay for the microsurgery my f*cking finger needed, rather than having some clown throw a suture through a tendon that created an adhesion (or something) between that tendon and some other part of my finger.  When it became obvious I was starting to go into shock (never underestimate my ability to avoid passing out on you until I finally have to give up trying to avoid passing out on you ...), they got off their ass and handed me over to said quack.

If I'd been 15 miles further north (near where I live in Mostly White People Land) =and= not been dressed like an electrician (go figure -- I was a volunteer =licensed= electrician) but had been dressed like an engineer making 6 figures (my real job at the time), my fucking finger would be working a hell of a lot better.

I've done so much volunteer work in my life that I know the difference between how Rich White People get treated, and how Dirty Working Class People get treated.

Your morality is Beyond Disgusting.  Poor people deserve to keep their body parts in working order so they stand a chance of =working= and not just staying =poor=.

Beyond ticks me off on the subject of economics, but that does not make him wrong on everything nor does that make him a bad guy. I think he, and by proxy of your last line both off the mark.

If one stays poor their entire life that too, should NOT be a death sentence, otherwise why not simply execute the poor if they are dead weight?

Life is not either/or. Life is not a script. I am with you that there are far too many, especially at the top of the pay scale, who say "I did it, I got mine, what's your problem", failing to take into account that it takes all classes and there will always be a majority who at best, will only make it to the middle class. But even the poor deserve value and should not be demonized because they don't get or don't want what others want.

PAY GAP, COST OF LIVING, COST OF HEALTH CARE, are my problem, not someone's personal desires.

I would not leave Beyond bleeding on the street or disown him because I am passionate about this particular subject. I don't think he would or could do what he doesn't realize he is advocating. "I am not responsible for you"

CONTEXT, on a personal level, Beyond is right, he is not responsible for me personally. On a societal level, he is dead wrong. If the middle and poor cannot pay their bills, or pay for their medical costs, or even goods from the private sector, long term, he doesn't realize he is undermining his own business(not his personally) but the climate of the society as a whole.

He wants smaller government, and on paper, that is a noble goal. He also does not understand that I work with lots of people in the middle class and poor class and I can tell you the DO NOT want a hand out, but the more the pay gap explodes and cost of living explodes, the more the middle and poor have no choice but to turn to government. The solution to get smaller government, to me, if that is what he wants, is to care more about humans, than profits. If his mantra is "cut out the middle man" then do it. Give more directly to the workers in the form of better pay, health care, and charge less for your goods. The more money people have the more money they can spend on the goods you sell.

Our current government is a monopoly held by one class which is profit driven, not conscious driven to build. I've seen the government policies of the past 30 years, I have lived it. I want the poor taken care of so that they don't need government. I too want less people dependent on government. But that cannot happen with the climate of "every man for themselves".

The solution isn't more government as a default, or less government as a default, but effective government and we cannot have that now while corporate America has a monopoly on it.

Money equals power, but just like politics and religion, money does not deserve a monopoly nor is it entitled to one.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian,My use of "Beyond

Brian,

My use of "Beyond Disgusting" wasn't a way of saying he was beyond redemption or that I'd leave him bleeding to death on the street.  It was a play on his name, "Beyond Saving".

But the notion that he'd take his ball and go home if taxes went up is absurd.  There are very wealthy people in this country who have the money to find, and exploit, every single last tax dodge going.  And yet, they benefit disproportionately based on their one single vote compared to the middle and working class.

What the "1 Percent" is doing isn't just immoral, it is harmful to this Country.  It is unsustainable -- people like Beyond think that once they "quit" the country is going to keep on providing them with the security they need to survive.  Nonsense.  They are destroying this nation's economy and they represent a Clear and Present Danger to our long term security and viability.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian,

My use of "Beyond Disgusting" wasn't a way of saying he was beyond redemption or that I'd leave him bleeding to death on the street.  It was a play on his name, "Beyond Saving".

But the notion that he'd take his ball and go home if taxes went up is absurd.  There are very wealthy people in this country who have the money to find, and exploit, every single last tax dodge going.  And yet, they benefit disproportionately based on their one single vote compared to the middle and working class.

What the "1 Percent" is doing isn't just immoral, it is harmful to this Country.  It is unsustainable -- people like Beyond think that once they "quit" the country is going to keep on providing them with the security they need to survive.  Nonsense.  They are destroying this nation's economy and they represent a Clear and Present Danger to our long term security and viability.

I agree it is harmful to this country. The same type of "every man for themselves" attitude caused the great depression. If you look at the tax rate after WW2 it built the middle class. I agree with him though that less government is something to strive for, but that cannot be done when one class is monopolizing politics and the climate of "every man for themselves" is causing the monopolies and causing the rising cost of living and is exploding the pay gap.

So again, it is not a matter of personal desire, but climate of the society allowing that climate. I personally want him to succeed and be happy at what he does, but not with with the same 30 year attitudes and policies that caused this mess. Both he and I want things to get better, HOW we do that is what the beef is about. More of the same wont work.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Beyond

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Its called bankruptcy. No one is going to throw you in jail for not being able to pay your medical bills. You will be treated at any emergency room. Show me one case where an American was denied vital care or turned away from an emergency room because they couldn't afford it. I have asked in damn near every thread on the issue and not one person has even been able to provide an anecdote let alone actual proof.

I have a permanent and severe injury to my right middle finger because the hospital I went to was the nearest to the dirt-poor part of town where I tried to remove said finger with a power tool while working on said member of said dirt-poor part of town's said new house.

The hospital wasted a f*ck load of time making sure my insurance was going to be able to pay for the microsurgery my f*cking finger needed, rather than having some clown throw a suture through a tendon that created an adhesion (or something) between that tendon and some other part of my finger.  When it became obvious I was starting to go into shock (never underestimate my ability to avoid passing out on you until I finally have to give up trying to avoid passing out on you ...), they got off their ass and handed me over to said quack.

If I'd been 15 miles further north (near where I live in Mostly White People Land) =and= not been dressed like an electrician (go figure -- I was a volunteer =licensed= electrician) but had been dressed like an engineer making 6 figures (my real job at the time), my fucking finger would be working a hell of a lot better.

I've done so much volunteer work in my life that I know the difference between how Rich White People get treated, and how Dirty Working Class People get treated.

Your morality is Beyond Disgusting.  Poor people deserve to keep their body parts in working order so they stand a chance of =working= and not just staying =poor=.

 

All hospitals are not created equal, I never said they were. Having government in control of everything would not change that. Look at schools, schools in wealthy areas perform far better in every category than schools in poor areas. More money attracts more skilled people. There will always be quacks and incompetents and there will always be good doctors that make mistakes. How is a government takeover going to solve any of those problems?

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But the notion that he'd take his ball and go home if taxes went up is absurd.  There are very wealthy people in this country who have the money to find, and exploit, every single last tax dodge going.  And yet, they benefit disproportionately based on their one single vote compared to the middle and working class.

 

Maybe you think so. I'm just stating what I would do. Everyone has a line where they will refuse to work. I'm sure if the government confiscated 100% of your income, you wouldn't work. So the question is simply where the line is that you say "fuck this" and stop working. My line is 50%. Probably lower than many peoples lines. It would be an interesting poll question though. 

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

What the "1 Percent" is doing isn't just immoral, it is harmful to this Country.  It is unsustainable -- people like Beyond think that once they "quit" the country is going to keep on providing them with the security they need to survive.  Nonsense.  They are destroying this nation's economy and they represent a Clear and Present Danger to our long term security and viability.

Well if everyone who owned a small business or two quit the country would go to hell and go bankrupt that much faster. Now personally, I would survive. I am quite confident in my abilities to take care of myself outside of civilization. However, unless we do something radical soon, our federal government is going to run out of money and will began to fail to provide even basic services. Fortunately, we have state and local governments that will be able to prevent anarchy in most areas even if the worst happens.

 

More likely the collapse will be a long protracted affair like what is happening all over Europe now. The government will start to be unable to borrow more and will be forced to dramatically cut spending. Those who really suffer will be people who have allowed themselves to become dependent on things like government healthcare and social security. I don't want to see that, but since the American population seems determined to be lemmings and ignores the warnings of people like me as "crazy", what am I supposed to do about it? I'm just going to do what I believe is best for me and I have determined that means when government gets more from my efforts than I do, my time is better spent doing other things like hunting or playing poker. 

 

Why do I have a moral obligation to continue to earn money and pay taxes to make sure the government has money to provide its basic services? Does someone like Brian37 who has publicly stated he has no desire to work at a higher paying job have a similar obligation? What is the difference between me making the personal decision to not work anymore and someone else deciding to work at a lower paying job?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian,

My use of "Beyond Disgusting" wasn't a way of saying he was beyond redemption or that I'd leave him bleeding to death on the street.  It was a play on his name, "Beyond Saving".

But the notion that he'd take his ball and go home if taxes went up is absurd.  There are very wealthy people in this country who have the money to find, and exploit, every single last tax dodge going.  And yet, they benefit disproportionately based on their one single vote compared to the middle and working class.

What the "1 Percent" is doing isn't just immoral, it is harmful to this Country.  It is unsustainable -- people like Beyond think that once they "quit" the country is going to keep on providing them with the security they need to survive.  Nonsense.  They are destroying this nation's economy and they represent a Clear and Present Danger to our long term security and viability.

I agree it is harmful to this country. The same type of "every man for themselves" attitude caused the great depression. If you look at the tax rate after WW2 it built the middle class. I agree with him though that less government is something to strive for, but that cannot be done when one class is monopolizing politics and the climate of "every man for themselves" is causing the monopolies and causing the rising cost of living and is exploding the pay gap.

So again, it is not a matter of personal desire, but climate of the society allowing that climate. I personally want him to succeed and be happy at what he does, but not with with the same 30 year attitudes and policies that caused this mess. Both he and I want things to get better, HOW we do that is what the beef is about. More of the same wont work.

 

 

 

Exactly which year in the last 30 years did the size of government shrink? What year did my team win? I must have missed it.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Exactly

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly which year in the last 30 years did the size of government shrink? What year did my team win? I must have missed it.

If your issue is that the government keeps growing, often for stupid reasons, you have a point many would agree with.  The facts is, the Left buys votes on the backs of the Right, and the Right buys votes on the backs of the Left, and the people who are getting screwed are the ones on the bottom, and the ones doing the screwing are the ones on the top.

But it would seem that you've embraced a policy which is designed to destroy the Federal Government by strangling it for revenue, without demanding that the politicians who can actually =win= elections (because you've said no one you've voted for is in office ...) quit screwing around.

You also should damned well know that the tax burden on the "1 Percent" is well below 40 percent, much less the 50 percent where you take your ball and go home.  Based on what some have written, it's likely below 30 percent, for that matter, since so much income can be buried under piles of tax loopholes.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."