Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Excerpt:

The new law considers a terrorist anyone who:

Calls for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based;

Anyone who disregards their loyalty to the country's rulers;

Anyone who aids [terrorist] organisations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom;

Those who seek to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means;

Attends conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society;

Incites or make countries, committees, or international organisations antagonistic to the kingdom.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-new-law-sees-atheism-terrorism-1442819

When the war starts in earnest, Saudi Arabia will make a good target for a few nukes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
"Article 32 of the Arab

"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association."

I see this as a conflict of interest...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 That has been out for a

 That has been out for a while, but still good to post it. I think they made that declairation a few months ago. Does it shock me. Nope. Is it sad, absolutely.

"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: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association." I see this as a conflict of interest...

This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison. But as a statement that it is our species ignorance of our own evolutionary grouping. 

The same behavior you can see with Christians in America who want to monopolize public venues but throw a fit if other religions want to do the same thing. 

It is our evoluitionary social structures. Everyone is fine with a subordinate up and until that subordinate wants to do the same thing as the majority.

Dawkins explains this in the God Delusion, talking about an alpha male bird in a flock reacting violently to a subordinate, even if that subordinate is offering help.

Religion sets up social structures to the point of being selective about human rights. It allows our species to set up social structures but also ignores the selective nature to which it does, as per your example.

 

Religion is why they ignore this part of their constitution.

"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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wait....there's an Arab

Wait....there's an Arab charter on human rights? Lol, how many Muslim majority countries actually follow this?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If

butterbattle wrote:

Wait....there's an Arab charter on human rights? Lol, how many Muslim majority countries actually follow this?

The Saudis belong to the UN there's no way they could make such laws. As it looks,  no one else should either. So much for a UN.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This cuts to

Brian37 wrote:
This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison.



nobody ever said it was.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association." I see this as a conflict of interest...

This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison. But as a statement that it is our species ignorance of our own evolutionary grouping. 

The same behavior you can see with Christians in America who want to monopolize public venues but throw a fit if other religions want to do the same thing. 

It is our evoluitionary social structures. Everyone is fine with a subordinate up and until that subordinate wants to do the same thing as the majority.

Dawkins explains this in the God Delusion, talking about an alpha male bird in a flock reacting violently to a subordinate, even if that subordinate is offering help.

Religion sets up social structures to the point of being selective about human rights. It allows our species to set up social structures but also ignores the selective nature to which it does, as per your example.

 

"Religion sets up social structures" contradicts with "It allows our species to setup up social structures.."

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
An understanding has to come about

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association." I see this as a conflict of interest...

This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison. But as a statement that it is our species ignorance of our own evolutionary grouping. 

The same behavior you can see with Christians in America who want to monopolize public venues but throw a fit if other religions want to do the same thing. 

It is our evoluitionary social structures. Everyone is fine with a subordinate up and until that subordinate wants to do the same thing as the majority.

Dawkins explains this in the God Delusion, talking about an alpha male bird in a flock reacting violently to a subordinate, even if that subordinate is offering help.

Religion sets up social structures to the point of being selective about human rights. It allows our species to set up social structures but also ignores the selective nature to which it does, as per your example.

 

Religion is why they ignore this part of their constitution.

that while we all are a product of evolution, we evolved into two directional traits, they "being" human nature and animal nature. The world needs to learn the difference and the individual needs to choose one. What we have is double-mindedness at work and will never change societies. Put aside animal nature and we'll have a different world. If we're to remain as is, nothing will change. Animal nature cannot change itself--it always turns out the same as before. This is why histiry shows --it's always been the same over and over, time after time, millenium after milenium. Evolution did it's part, now we have to do the rest. The common idea has been to use animal nature to fix animal nature---it'll never work--we alredy have proof of that. The belief that we are human animals will never allow change. Animal nature cannot beat/replace animal  nature.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Assuming that any feature of

Assuming that any feature of humanity is separate, separable, or in any other way distinguishable from animal nature; is foolish. We are animals, and our nature is animal. There is no such thing as non-animal, human, nature.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: Brian37

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association." I see this as a conflict of interest...

This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison. But as a statement that it is our species ignorance of our own evolutionary grouping. 

The same behavior you can see with Christians in America who want to monopolize public venues but throw a fit if other religions want to do the same thing. 

It is our evoluitionary social structures. Everyone is fine with a subordinate up and until that subordinate wants to do the same thing as the majority.

Dawkins explains this in the God Delusion, talking about an alpha male bird in a flock reacting violently to a subordinate, even if that subordinate is offering help.

Religion sets up social structures to the point of being selective about human rights. It allows our species to set up social structures but also ignores the selective nature to which it does, as per your example.

 

Religion is why they ignore this part of their constitution.

that while we all are a product of evolution, we evolved into two directional traits, they "being" human nature and animal nature. The world needs to learn the difference and the individual needs to choose one. What we have is double-mindedness at work and will never change societies. Put aside animal nature and we'll have a different world. If we're to remain as is, nothing will change. Animal nature cannot change itself--it always turns out the same as before. This is why histiry shows --it's always been the same over and over, time after time, millenium after milenium. Evolution did it's part, now we have to do the rest. The common idea has been to use animal nature to fix animal nature---it'll never work--we alredy have proof of that. The belief that we are human animals will never allow change. Animal nature cannot beat/replace animal  nature.

I know this has already been replied to, but humans are a part of the Animal Kingdom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalia_in_the_10th_edition_of_Systema_Naturae


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Edit

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
"Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which Saudi Arabia is party, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means, HRW said. Article 28 guarantees the rights to peaceful assembly and association." I see this as a conflict of interest...

This cuts to the core of why it is not a matter of hate that I call religon poison. But as a statement that it is our species ignorance of our own evolutionary grouping. 

The same behavior you can see with Christians in America who want to monopolize public venues but throw a fit if other religions want to do the same thing. 

It is our evoluitionary social structures. Everyone is fine with a subordinate up and until that subordinate wants to do the same thing as the majority.

Dawkins explains this in the God Delusion, talking about an alpha male bird in a flock reacting violently to a subordinate, even if that subordinate is offering help.

Religion sets up social structures to the point of being selective about human rights. It allows our species to set up social structures but also ignores the selective nature to which it does, as per your example.

 

Religion is why they ignore this part of their constitution.

that while we all are a product of evolution, we evolved into two directional traits, they "being" human nature and animal nature. The world needs to learn the difference and the individual needs to choose one. What we have is double-mindedness at work and will never change societies. Put aside animal nature and we'll have a different world. If we're to remain as is, nothing will change. Animal nature cannot change itself--it always turns out the same as before. This is why histiry shows --it's always been the same over and over, time after time, millenium after milenium. Evolution did it's part, now we have to do the rest. The common idea has been to use animal nature to fix animal nature---it'll never work--we alredy have proof of that. The belief that we are human animals will never allow change. Animal nature cannot beat/replace animal  nature.

I know this has already been replied to, but humans are a part of the Animal Kingdom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalia_in_the_10th_edition_of_Systema_Naturae

to the mental/mind, not the physical. All physical is very much the same and simular. The dictionary also has a mental application for animal. We all have a "human" mental condition and an animalistic mental condition. I think---animal is derived from "animate" which means the ability to move and related to the physical. Animalistic realtes to--having a state of mind that is the same as the dog or cat for instance. It referes to---within "what" state of mind one related to others. The animal stste of mind seeks power and authority and status over others. The human mind doesn't. That makes the difference--and in this case the concern isn't of the physical. Aslon as "we" seek power, authority, and status above others as the cats and dogs do then our social problems cannot be solved, no more then the cat and dog can solve theirs. We have a special adaption called --higher intellect which gives us the ability to understand the consquences of an anamlistic mindset. If one believes that they are no different then the cats and dogs mentally we underfgo the same fate--as history shows. The cat and dog don't have the facility to figure it out. One needs to understand that we don't have any mental traits different then that of the cat and the dog--BUT---we can reason to put away the superiority complex and be different--and-- leave off seeking superiority over others.

     The present mental condition of the world is that of the cats and dogs, and this isn't a matter of the physical--it the mental that make the changes.  If we go -survival of the fittest- then there is no way to solve social problems and we remain the same as the cats and dogs. Case in point--and with no ill intent--- Aheists as well as others complain about history and all it's killings and mis-deeds, asthey are referred to. BUT, what is the proposal tosolve the problem. If there is no solution thast Atheists can put forward for analysis then what's the pouint in complaining---everyone is just doing what dogs do to cats. How does this get changed if there's no solution submitted to the masses. What good does it do to complain and go on as always. It's very simple---the masses are trapped in a state of mind as you say---we're all animals and----so what--no social problems can be solved with this idea. What you're saying is--we're stuck with what we've got----if so--then why complain about old time Christianity when you have no way to change anything. Why not just--eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. The proposition seems to be--we'll just be fussy about "how" we die. The universe doesn't care whether we live or die--we all do. So why care about it if there's nothing that can be done about it.

  Everyone has to see that there's two sides to their person--on one side is the human traits--on the other is the animal traits(state of mind). once one understands and sees that then one can make a choice. It's the "mind/person" that counts, not the body. The mind is made(evolved) with both of these sets of characteristics not just one. The problem is--the person is being seen as human with all characteristics combined. But that's not true. Each id these carateristics can be set into the huiman catagory or the animal catagory, and, when one does that they can decide which they wish to aspire to. If one thinks their an animal that all you're going top end up with becasue the empasis on life is placed in the animal catagory and---no result but samo samo. We all have "human" and animal traits and they are seperable. The reason why the world has these social problems is because people don't understand themselves. Each individual must understand when they are being human or when they are being animalistic. The human and animal are YOU. Knowing that gives you a choice. If the world is run by those who dominate and they promote that concept you're going nowhere, and that brings about the samo samo. You can't get rid of the animal mind if it's promoted as the solution to a social problem. Superiotity creates superiority, and can't solve itself, so, on with the problem. The animal mind is the one that seeks the advantage, promotes predtorism, promots superiority, and superiority is sonhow suppose to solve the problem---when it's the problem. The animal mind is the one that also seeks status and domination of others, that whole idea and process is what brings about your social problems--which are no different then a society of the Lion pride. Can a lepard change it's spots. Your society is claiming to be human while at the same time promoting animal mental concepts-------------------------------------That is an impossiblity to ever work--and that why history always ends up in the same place, the very same place it's been fo 7000 years. A leopard without spots is still a lepard--Leopards begat Leopards, and it cannot change unless the people know what to change. If there were animal only then there would be no such word as human--these two are opposites not sames.

The world you are in exists on the animal mind, and as long as it does nothing will change except next year model car, or computor, or clothes but that doesn't change society. You'll find that your society is exactly the same as the Lions, and all societies that have come before any existing today--samo samo.

What do you propose be done.

I intended to include--(to be compatable with the OP).

laws never ever solved a single social problem. The laws in one country subject the masses to the will of those who promote the problem---and create laws to protect their beliefs, preferences, or opinions. laws work mostly tio keep the operators (the few) in the position they're in and along with police and military powers maintain tier superiority over the ones they rule. Laws solidify "their" position over people. The very ones that rule are the ones being the first problem, it is they that construct the course that things are on. Their existance is the worlds first problem. People are as those who rule--and then--what is the origin of social problems. If the masses follow the rules and the world is a mess---then what is the problem. The mental problems of leaders are passed to the masses. Civil law does not make one any more hu8man then without it, as civil law only establishes the animal mind as the way of being but then has to control the degree and type of animal behaviour is acceptable. The biggest Lion in the pride is the prides biggest problem, and so with any animal society, and so it is also what is considered human society which mistakes civil as promoting humanity when in reality it'they promote controlled animal behaviour. So then, the mental condition of the rulers construct the mental condition of the masses--and---so also, is the social messes created. What's wrong (so to speak) with the rulers is also what is wrong with the people. Rulership over others is from the animal mental condition, and so then likewise will the ones forced to follow will be victims of those who lead. Laws only make the people suffer the consequences of being ruled by others instead of the self, but the rukles don't pay the consequeces of their laws as they are noramlly exempt--ior find ways to circumvent theirmown laws. History proves this to be correct. The laws in Saudi Arabia serve the same purpose as the laws anywhere else. Rulership is seated on the animal premise, not the human. From rulership comes social problems.

From one's will and drive to be better then others one also seeks to be above others. This concept creates contention and strife as all being as those that lead then create the social climate of competition and predatory practices which eventually produce the social problems we all experience. No predatory society has survived itself. The lions go on as always because they cannot reason to be what they are naturally, and wee can reason to be a predator and become worse then the lion. The Lion does not have the cognation to reason to be beyond itself and there-fore limited allowing the pride to go on without destroying the Pride. We are using cognative ability to reason beyond what the lions can and become destructive enmass to our own kind. This is why civilizations have never survived themselves as they predatored themselves into the destruction of their own society by blind reason--thinking themselves human but not being so.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: ...... From

Old Seer wrote:

...... From one's will and drive to be better then others one also seeks to be above others. This concept creates contention and strife as all being as those that lead then create the social climate of competition and predatory practices which eventually produce the social problems we all experience. No predatory society has survived itself. The lions go on as always because they cannot reason to be what they are naturally, and wee can reason to be a predator and become worse then the lion. The Lion does not have the cognation to reason to be beyond itself and there-fore limited allowing the pride to go on without destroying the Pride. We are using cognative ability to reason beyond what the lions can and become destructive enmass to our own kind. This is why civilizations have never survived themselves as they predatored themselves into the destruction of their own society by blind reason--thinking themselves human but not being so.

This goes back to several philosophical questions. "Is it the DNA or the environment which makes us who we are?" The answer is both. We are born with a set of tools (DNA) which our parents passed on to us. These tools are what we work with and how we build our perception of the world, our reality. Our interaction, our experiences with that reality then form the basis for our Ego.

This is really going off track from the OP so I'm going to avoid the long road on the subject.

The facts are that humans are animals. We are mammals.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. There is no such

Indeed. There is no such thing as human nature vs animal nature. Noone has ever shown even a simple characteristic of humanity which was not found in any other species. Humans are animals in every sense of the word.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You're dealing with the physical.

We deal with the mind on this subject. You are correct when it comes to the physical---there is no such thing as a human body(I've stated this before). Human is a matter of mind not the physical. The physical is an animate allowing movement---movement is neither human or animal mind. The body is not the mind--the person resides in only one part of the body, the brain. The brain is not the person----the mind is. Your perception of the world is created by authorities---that's why you were forced to school--to become like them mentally. The masses exist under their concept of "world". One is born conscious of nothing---but from then on it's a matter of learning--and that learning is done by the teachings others to form you into their ideals and preferences. When one is born they come into the world with basic abilities to start one off to sleep, eat and move as basics. The rest is learned from experience and being taught. No one enters the world knowing anything about the world. The physical belongs in the animal world--the mind needn't be.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
definition

Vastet wrote:
Indeed. There is no such thing as human nature vs animal nature. Noone has ever shown even a simple characteristic of humanity which was not found in any other species. Humans are animals in every sense of the word.

hu·man

adjective \ˈhyü-mən, ˈyü-\

: of, relating to, or affecting people

: typical of people

: having good or bad qualities that people usually have

 

Full Definition of HUMAN

1 :  of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2 :  consisting of humans 3 a :  having human form or attributes  b :  susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human — P. E. More> hu·man·ness noun See human defined for English-language learners »See human defined for kids »

Examples of HUMAN

  1. problems that have occurred throughout human history
  2. She is a very kind and human person.
  3. The dog's expression was almost human.
  4. The assembly line was a human machine.
  5. Everyone held hands and formed a human chain.

Origin of HUMAN

Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being — more at homageFirst Known Use: 14th century

Related to HUMAN

Synonyms
earthborn, mortal, natural
Antonyms
nonhuman
[+]more

Other Anthropology Terms

ectomorph, ethnography, prehistory, yurt See in example 2---thats a state of being--mind. see human item 3--that is also a state of being--mind.   Or--do you have your own dictionary.   Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Indeed. There

Vastet wrote:
Indeed. There is no such thing as human nature vs animal nature. Noone has ever shown even a simple characteristic of humanity which was not found in any other species. Humans are animals in every sense of the word.

This is a state of mind--a condition of Person,

 

[hyoo-meyn or, often, yoo-] adjective 1. characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses. 2. of or pertaining to humanistic studies.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Animalistic.

Vastet wrote:
Indeed. There is no such thing as human nature vs animal nature. Noone has ever shown even a simple characteristic of humanity which was not found in any other species. Humans are animals in every sense of the word.

This is what you society depends on and it's results. This is what is considered greatness and human. This is where the worlds idea of greatness is derived from.

having or showing the nature and appetites of a lower animal <with animalistic fury the boxer tore into his opponent>

Synonyms animalistic, beastly, brutal, brute, brutish, feral, ferine, subhuman, swinishRelated Words animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar  [This is where politics originates from, and the forces you were brought up under. This is the fuel your world runs on. This is what excites and entertains the masses. Check the recent movies list] Smiling

 

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:We deal with

Old Seer wrote:
We deal with the mind on this subject.

The mind is physical.

Old Seer wrote:
You are correct when it comes to the physical

No, I'm right period.

Old Seer wrote:
Human is a matter of mind not the physical.

Wrong. Humans are defined by physical features, including the physical mind.

Old Seer wrote:
The brain is not the person----the mind is.

At least 90% of the mind is the brain. Anything that isn't is still physical in nature, residing in the body. There is nothing about humanity which is divorced from the physical form of humanity.

Old Seer wrote:
Your perception of the world is created by authorities

No. My perceptions of the world are rooted in science and the scientific method. I've never had much use for authorities.

Old Seer wrote:
that's why you were forced to school--to become like them mentally.

Ridiculous. School was a massive failure if that was the goal.

Old Seer wrote:
One is born conscious of nothing

Prove it.

Your definition proves my case. Nothing you've said even remotely suggests that there is any difference between human nature and animal nature; because there is no difference and there never has been.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
definition-inhuman/inhumane

 

So, your saying that the floks that produce the dictionaries are wrong. Do you recall from history anyone that meets the criteria below. If so--they had an animalistic state of being/mind. What is discribed below is all mental, not physical. Under universal law most everything has it's opposite. If there is human then there is animal. if there is a state of mind of one, then there is also a state of mind of the other. You're attempting to defy universal construction/law. The only thing I can think of off hand is that hot is not opposite cold. Cold is merely the absence of heat. Cold is only relative to the affects of less heet on the physical. The universe relative to itself (if that's possible) isn't hot or cold--it just is. Hot or cold has to do with us and it's measured effects on us. Bob Spence may correct this as he is more up on these matters then I. But sorry to say--there is humane and inhumane. If they did not exist there could be no label for them or discription nor use for the term. Something that does not exist cannot have a name/label/discription that can be understood. Humane and inhumane is describing something that exists and is given that name or label---so we all know what another is referring to. OK, back to law---that's why laws are made, to control ones negative (animal) behaviour in accordance with others. It can be seen that it has not gotten rid of any social problems. The Saudi family is making sure that they cannot be opposed so they can maintain their supeiorty of their ---subjects. To allow beliefs other then their may very well bring about their downfal.    adjective 1. lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal: an inhuman master. 2. not suited for human beings. 3. not human.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:So, your

Old Seer wrote:
So, your saying that the floks that produce the dictionaries are wrong.

Partially they are, but that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying humans are 100% animal, and 0% anything else. Many of the troubles in this world are caused by arrogant fools who think, somehow, that humanity is a different class of life. It isn't. Period.

Old Seer wrote:
What is discribed below is all mental, not physical.

Everything mental is physical. Period.

Old Seer wrote:
Under universal law most everything has it's opposite.

Bullshit.

Old Seer wrote:
If there is human then there is animal.

Human = animal. Period.

Old Seer wrote:
You're attempting to defy universal construction/law.

No, you're making shit up.

Old Seer wrote:
If they did not exist there could be no label for them or discription nor use for the term.

People have made up and defined billions of things which do not exist. Your entire argument and all its foundations are fundamentally flawed.

Human nature = animal nature. Period.

Old Seer wrote:
OK, back to law---that's why laws are made, to control ones negative (animal) behaviour in accordance with others. It can be seen that it has not gotten rid of any social problems. The Saudi family is making sure that they cannot be opposed so they can maintain their supeiorty of their ---subjects. To allow beliefs other then their may very well bring about their downfal.

This trait is seen in almost every social species that ever existed, if not every single social species that ever existed. Typical animal behaviour. The alpha animal seeks to maintain dominance. Nothing special here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
IF, everyone

understands and gives up the will to be the Alpha Animal---problems solved. What is there to go to if everyone does so. ?? What would that be?? So, you have no solutions to your social problems-is that what I'm to understand here. OK, why all the complaining about past Christianity (we say the Euros never were Christians on the first count) they were only doing what comes naturally. If your promoting and agreeing with the "survival of the fitist" philosophy--how is that supposed to work. This is in essence what you're complaing about, and that's all the Euros were doing, the survival of the fitist. If that's not what you were proposeing ans forwarding--then what is your personal advice and solution to the world's social problems. If Atheism has no solution--then what's the point of it. We suggest giving up the Alpha animal syndrome. Can you do better? If you think it can't be done then why all the complaining about the shortcomings of and ancient people who knew nothing about living in peace. You're saying that no one else can either---so---what now. If it's never goi8ng to come about then why keep making all the laws that are supposed to creat (somehow) a better world---that hasn't happened yey, and looks like a long time coming. What do you propose. What insights do you have that can bring about this better world that the politititians keep extolling. What can you personally contribute to the cause.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:IF, everyone

Old Seer wrote:
IF, everyone understands and gives up the will to be the Alpha Animal

Not possible. It is a prequisite for society. If noone wants to be boss, nothing will ever happen. Society will grind to a halt, and die. We cannot and will not ever change to the degree you think, nor should we. Authority is not responsible for the problems in society. In fact it is the solution. Even ants and termites know that much.

Old Seer wrote:
So, you have no solutions to your social problems-is that what I'm to understand here.

I have solutions to most of the worlds problems, as a matter of fact. None of those solutions require us to be something we aren't and cannot be.

Widespread education and economic stability, all by themselves, would reduce crime and war by incalculably huge percentages. Most of the remaining problems are unsolvable; a cost of living in this universe under the laws of nature. Some of them, many in fact, will require advances in technology. Mostly medically oriented, but not all.

But some problems will always be problems. Only wiping out homo sapiens entirely would solve every problem, and I don't think that's a practical solution.

Atheism has nothing to do with the topic. A society could easily adopt solutions to problems whether it was religious or not.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old Seer

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
IF, everyone understands and gives up the will to be the Alpha Animal
Not possible. It is a prequisite for society. If noone wants to be boss, nothing will ever happen. Society will grind to a halt, and die. We cannot and will not ever change to the degree you think, nor should we. Authority is not responsible for the problems in society. In fact it is the solution. Even ants and termites know that much.
Old Seer wrote:
So, you have no solutions to your social problems-is that what I'm to understand here.
I have solutions to most of the worlds problems, as a matter of fact. None of those solutions require us to be something we aren't and cannot be. Widespread education and economic stability, all by themselves, would reduce crime and war by incalculably huge percentages. Most of the remaining problems are unsolvable; a cost of living in this universe under the laws of nature. Some of them, many in fact, will require advances in technology. Mostly medically oriented, but not all. But some problems will always be problems. Only wiping out homo sapiens entirely would solve every problem, and I don't think that's a practical solution. Atheism has nothing to do with the topic. A society could easily adopt solutions to problems whether it was religious or not.

You are saying every thing I would have said... so I'll let you handle it. I don't think it is fair to have to people posting the same stuff.

Humans are animals. I can't believe Old Seer is trying to prove it isn't so. I'm speechless.
Are we sure Old Seer isn't Brian in disguise?


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You are

proposing precisly what is being proposed by polititians. So, all the education we've undergone all these centurys hasn't done the job. When is this idea of yours going to work. we,ve got 7000 years so far and no imporvment in the social order, and it's still exactly the same as was 7000 years ago. You're proposeing domination to cure domination---that's been going on also for 7000 years and---where's the result. You are say we should solve the problem with what is causing the problem. When do you suppose this idea you have will work. In other words,, lets solve the war problem with more war. I have to say that's already the phylosphy---so why are we still stuck with all these problems ---and getting worse. You now need war to keep your econiomy going. How many jobs are created by crime--making crime itself good for the economy. You're saying that domination seves the social order--correct, but what manner of social order what's the result---the same old social order and existing problems. So, you're stuck. OK, lets see if the people 1000 years from now agree. Ok, get at it and get it working/done. Your proposition is noted, but it looks like what already is underway, and no result seen so far.

We (The Smurfs) submit that all will have to become different to solve the social problems because it's the way people are that causes the problems.  How can the same as you propose create different from what alrady is. It's said that crazyness is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I don't intend saying your crazy but what you're proposing is the same thing that's always been done. Do you expect a differnent result this time? For the last 40 years polititians have made the same proposals to fix the schools---how many times has this been done in the last forty years--I'd say a couple of dozen times---no improvement???? The better world they keep promoting seems to always get worse and is always "just around the corner". Which corner is it going to be this time. 

If the same ways are maintained as you say I know very well mankind (as it is seen to be) will definitly extinct itself.

Atheism has everything to do with this. If the masses don't get off this God idea of theirs nothing is going to work. They have to be freed from something that doesn't exist ans false beliefs and deal with the reality that it's they that are the solution to these problems. They have to return to being a product of nature instead of being made by the State. If they are to remain dominating entities there is no fix possible--the people have to fix this thing---governments and religions only propagate the problems.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You are

Old Seer wrote:
You are proposing precisly what is being proposed by polititians.

No. I'm stating demonstrable fact. Name anything you think to be unique human nature, and I'll show you animals doing the same thing.

Old Seer wrote:
So, all the education we've undergone all these centurys hasn't done the job

It most certainly has. Or do you still piss and shit in a bucket in your bedroom, that you dump out the window when it gets full? Do you still chase prey and pick vegetables yourself, without tools more sophisticated than rocks? Do you never go to the doctor or use the internet?

The answer to all these things is no. Quality of life in society is so much better than it was 5000 years ago that cities with millions of people who, more often than not, live well into their 70's are commonplace. 5000 years ago the largest population centre would have numbered in the thousands, at most. The majority of those populations were slaves, death during childbirth was common, stillbirth was common, disease was rampant and completely misunderstood, travel beyond about 100km was exceptionally rare, communications between societies was non-existent. In every single aspect, life in society today is exponentially better for every single person on the entire planet, no matter how bad they have it, than it was 5000 years ago. All thanks to an increasing level of education.

You don't have a grasp of the actual causes for the problems of the world, and your solution defies all logic and reason. It is actually impossible, and it takes no effort on my part to see as much.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
all the education

since the dawn of man has not created a better society--any differnet then 7000 yeras ago. The same social problems then are the very same still. It's got nothing to do with where and how one's bathroom skills improves the social oder. Any outhouse will do, any bucket will do, any public toilet will do, and home toilet will do. where one dumps does not cause one to love another.  Where a bear does it in the woods won't improve bear society. Sorry.

The actual causes of social problems are caused by floks striving to be better then each other, and, the domination of others also ends in social problems. hands down.

Social relativity is what manner of values does one relate to another---not how many birth deaths there may be does not improve society--it's a medical problem.

The internet has not caused me to love another--I have to voluteer to do that. Not a single invented device will solve the social problems. IE-the arts (so called) have not changed society for the better. If 100 people are looking at a picture and they all hate each other---looking at a picture will not cause them to stop hateing. All the material endevours through the ages has not changed society from what it was 10000 years ago, 20000 yeras ago, 100000 years ago. People still regard others the very same all through times past. If material inventions solve anything---all social problems should have been solved by now. The same social structtrual effects are the same today as any other time in history. The material content has improved but didn't improve the masses regard toward each other--it is the same. Now, please state what "social" problem has been solved, not material problem. Building roads does not change how one regards their fellow beings. New roads will not cause floks to love one another. Two people aren't going to change their opinion of each other becasue a road got built or a toilet was invented. Social problems are personal problems people have with each other---a toilet is only very remotely relative. How would inventing a new toilet cause people to regard others to a higher level. If a rich man has no regard for the poor---how does a toilet change his "mind"/person to accept the poor.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Not a single

Old Seer wrote:
Not a single invented device will solve the social problems.

 

                                                Including those invented devices known as "gods".


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:since the

Old Seer wrote:
since the dawn of man has not created a better society--any differnet then 7000 yeras ago.

Yes we have, and I demonstrated as much. Your denial is irrelevant.

Old Seer wrote:
The same social problems then are the very same still.

Not even remotely true.

Old Seer wrote:
It's got nothing to do with where and how one's bathroom skills improves the social oder.

Hygene is a very significant change in society that has bettered society. If you disagree, I invite you to live in a sewer for a week. You'll learn better. Or you'll die. Either way, you won't be making shit up here.

Old Seer wrote:
The actual causes of social problems are caused by floks striving to be better then each other, and, the domination of others also ends in social problems. hands down.

Competition is the sole driving force of existence. It always has been and always will be. Those who don't compete die. Whether they be individuals, societies, or entire species.

Old Seer wrote:
The internet has not caused me to love another--I have to voluteer to do that.

And how exactly is the removal of authority going to make anyone love anything? Oh wait... it won't.

Instead, it will cause a vacuum of power that people will fight over. For centuries. Until finally we get right back to where we are today, only with less resources to work with.

Old Seer wrote:
Not a single invented device will solve the social problems.

No shit sherlock. Guess what? Your solution won't fix ANYTHING at all. A device or piece of knowledge may fix a problem. It has happened thousands of times throughout history, fixing thousands of problems. Your solution won't fix even one problem, and it will recreate all the problems we've already solved.

Old Seer wrote:
All the material endevours through the ages has not changed society from what it was 10000 years ago, 20000 yeras ago, 100000 years ago.

You are ignorant, irrational, illogical, and delusional. Anarchy is the single worst system humanity could come up with. Better you resurrect Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and Mussolini, and reinstate them to power right now. The effects would be paradisical compared to the cess pool you want to reside in. If you want it that bad, quit being a hypocrite. Turn off your computer and throw it away. The authority of various governments and corporations is the only reason you can use it effectively. Give your house away, the authority of government is the only thing keeping someone from taking it away. Same goes for all your possessions. The only reason you have any is government authority. Stop buying food and stop driving and stop using the phone. Go live in the woods. Only then will you be free of authority. Well, not really. The bear and cougar populations will assume authority at that point. But at least you'll be free of human interference.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The caveman'ssociety is no different then today.

The social priciples of today are no different. The cave man made an ax to 1- cut wood, 2-kill for food, 3- kill another man. If he understood and not been a predator--which one would not have taken place. It is the same today--with different weapons. Man has changed nothing since the time of the cave man except the means. The rifle does not change attitudes towards one another any more then the caveman's ax. We've improved the way to kill, but not our relations with one another. The ax did not make him a better person toward his fellow man, and the rifle has not made people today any better toward one's fellow man either. What material invention do you propose will cause us to get along with each other. Attitudes toward one another persist from cave man to us today. You are thinkling as those who believed that the machine gun would end war. Changing the priciples of our relationship with one another will end wars. Wars are not created by the masses, wars are created by those who rule. If we relate to one another as leaders do we have no solution to any social problems.

We are stuck with the problem untill the masses change it. And it is the proper infromation that they need to make those chages. Everyone to their own house and land, and mind one's own business, and seek to take no rulership over the other and their 40 acres. We're all in it for the duration. When the people see the differnce between the animal mind and the human mind will they see to change it. Competition is an animal characteristic and creates enmity and is not necessary for us to engage in to live on planet earth. It is needed for the operations of the way things are set, but not necessary in a differently mentally orientated society.  If a society of people relates to each as the cats and dogs relate to each, then you have a society of cats and dogs in a different body. We all are a matter of mind.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Talking about humans in

 Talking about humans in terms of an Alpha-Omega social structure is completely nonsensical. Most animal species do not fall into such a structure (including wolves which was the origin of the theory) and humans certainly don't. Our social leaders are not the leaders because they are the most physical, otherwise NFL players would rule the country, they are not the smartest, they are not the most charismatic. And never have been throughout history. Humans are clearly an animal that tends towards familial family structures. The foundation of virtually every human social structure can be understood in terms of family and extended family. The leaders are almost always viewed in terms of usually paternal, sometimes maternal figures. This can be seen in almost every human social structure from the family unit, to fucking boy scouts ("den mothers" and "den fathers&quotEye-wink to local politics, to religion (it isn't a coincidence that priests are known as "father" and that God is often referred to as father or mother in virtually every (maybe every?) religion. The founders of America are the "founding fathers", Soviet Russia was the Motherland. We often refer to people who are social equals as "brother" or "sister". Those who have tried to rule through sheer force alone have always met with extreme resistance. Those who are recognized as fathers have gotten away with extreme acts of violence. While those who are athletic, charismatic and are the smartest certainly enjoy elevated social status, such features are not significant determinates of leadership the way they would be in an Alpha-Omega social structure. Most human social leaders got their place by being born in the right family and as we have moved towards elections, appearing to be a good fatherly or motherly figure as defined by the society voting is far more important than physical prowess, physical beauty or intelligence. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Anarchy is the

Vastet wrote:
Anarchy is the single worst system humanity could come up with. Better you resurrect Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and Mussolini, and reinstate them to power right now. The effects would be paradisical compared to the cess pool you want to reside in.

Since Oldseer is incapable of supplying any response to this, I will challenge this statement. I think there is little question that the anarchy in Spain and in Somalia were improvements over the governments that existed before by whatever measure you care to use. Life expectancy improved, violence decreased, education levels improved, economic conditions improved both on average and for the median etc. Granted, the societies that existed before didn't set the bar very high. It is hard to argue that anarchy is the best possible since the modern innovations we enjoy were not discovered in anarchic states and it is impossible to know whether or not they would have come about and anarchy has never been preferred by the majority- few truly anarchic systems have survived more than a few years aside from familial/clan social systems which could be argued to be anarchic in that there is no governmental structure, but remain very structured in that there is a leader (usually the father) who creates and enforces rules. But I think it can be demonstrated without a doubt that an anarchic society is not the worst possible regardless of what metric you decide to use to measure quality. 

Comparing any modern government to social structures as they existed even 10,000 years ago is absurd. The technology we have available today has dramatically changed everything about society to a point that you are comparing apples to oranges. Technology has always been a huge influence on preferred social structures, and I believe a strong argument can be made that it significantly influences what social structures are best for achieving any particular goal.  

Edit: I think it is relevant to note that "anarchic" does not mean the complete absense of social structure. Anytime you have two humans interacting or choosing not to interact you have a social structure of some type. The complete absense of social structure is impossible. Anarchy solely refers to a lack of government and government can be defined as a social structure imposed on a group of people supported by force and/or the threat of force. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The social

Old Seer wrote:

The social priciples of today are no different. The cave man made an ax to 1- cut wood, 2-kill for food, 3- kill another man. If he understood and not been a predator--which one would not have taken place. It is the same today--with different weapons. Man has changed nothing since the time of the cave man except the means. The rifle does not change attitudes towards one another any more then the caveman's ax. We've improved the way to kill, but not our relations with one another. The ax did not make him a better person toward his fellow man, and the rifle has not made people today any better toward one's fellow man either. What material invention do you propose will cause us to get along with each other. Attitudes toward one another persist from cave man to us today. You are thinkling as those who believed that the machine gun would end war. Changing the priciples of our relationship with one another will end wars. Wars are not created by the masses, wars are created by those who rule. If we relate to one another as leaders do we have no solution to any social problems.

We are stuck with the problem untill the masses change it. And it is the proper infromation that they need to make those chages. Everyone to their own house and land, and mind one's own business, and seek to take no rulership over the other and their 40 acres. We're all in it for the duration. When the people see the differnce between the animal mind and the human mind will they see to change it. Competition is an animal characteristic and creates enmity and is not necessary for us to engage in to live on planet earth. It is needed for the operations of the way things are set, but not necessary in a differently mentally orientated society.  If a society of people relates to each as the cats and dogs relate to each, then you have a society of cats and dogs in a different body. We all are a matter of mind.

I must completely disagree with you. The social principals of a caveman is completely different than modern man. Don't shoehorn modern humans in to caveman thinking or vice versa either. Cavemen had a very specific and limited way of thinking. Today humans have a much more open and care free lifestyle; and the term caveman is terrible word to describe early man.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I know that

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The social priciples of today are no different. The cave man made an ax to 1- cut wood, 2-kill for food, 3- kill another man. If he understood and not been a predator--which one would not have taken place. It is the same today--with different weapons. Man has changed nothing since the time of the cave man except the means. The rifle does not change attitudes towards one another any more then the caveman's ax. We've improved the way to kill, but not our relations with one another. The ax did not make him a better person toward his fellow man, and the rifle has not made people today any better toward one's fellow man either. What material invention do you propose will cause us to get along with each other. Attitudes toward one another persist from cave man to us today. You are thinkling as those who believed that the machine gun would end war. Changing the priciples of our relationship with one another will end wars. Wars are not created by the masses, wars are created by those who rule. If we relate to one another as leaders do we have no solution to any social problems.

We are stuck with the problem untill the masses change it. And it is the proper infromation that they need to make those chages. Everyone to their own house and land, and mind one's own business, and seek to take no rulership over the other and their 40 acres. We're all in it for the duration. When the people see the differnce between the animal mind and the human mind will they see to change it. Competition is an animal characteristic and creates enmity and is not necessary for us to engage in to live on planet earth. It is needed for the operations of the way things are set, but not necessary in a differently mentally orientated society.  If a society of people relates to each as the cats and dogs relate to each, then you have a society of cats and dogs in a different body. We all are a matter of mind.

 

I must completely disagree with you. The social principals of a caveman is completely different than modern man. Don't shoehorn modern humans in to caveman thinking or vice versa either. Cavemen had a very specific and limited way of thinking. Today humans have a much more open and care free lifestyle; and the term caveman is terrible word to describe early man.

 

I merely used it as an example. Normally (if you've noticed) I refer to past generations as "the ancients". So you disagree, then do you have any solutions to our social problems. What do you propose. We propose to cease the the obsession to rule over each other, if not--nothing will change. Social problems are derived from the creation of enmity caused by a system of greaters and lessors. Competion is war, which eventually gets to a battlefield and weapons of destruction.

Nope--the social concepts are the same, and so also with a Pride of lions or chickens. What you are saying by holding to what you believe--there is no solution to social problems. The rudiments and sructures of all societies are the same, except one. And that's the one that rejects the values of lions, foxes and chickens. The social order of chickens is no different then what is deemed human society. If chickens have a pecking order and you society also--then ??????      Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Technology

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Anarchy is the single worst system humanity could come up with. Better you resurrect Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and Mussolini, and reinstate them to power right now. The effects would be paradisical compared to the cess pool you want to reside in.

Since Oldseer is incapable of supplying any response to this, I will challenge this statement. I think there is little question that the anarchy in Spain and in Somalia were improvements over the governments that existed before by whatever measure you care to use. Life expectancy improved, violence decreased, education levels improved, economic conditions improved both on average and for the median etc. Granted, the societies that existed before didn't set the bar very high. It is hard to argue that anarchy is the best possible since the modern innovations we enjoy were not discovered in anarchic states and it is impossible to know whether or not they would have come about and anarchy has never been preferred by the majority- few truly anarchic systems have survived more than a few years aside from familial/clan social systems which could be argued to be anarchic in that there is no governmental structure, but remain very structured in that there is a leader (usually the father) who creates and enforces rules. But I think it can be demonstrated without a doubt that an anarchic society is not the worst possible regardless of what metric you decide to use to measure quality. 

Comparing any modern government to social structures as they existed even 10,000 years ago is absurd. The technology we have available today has dramatically changed everything about society to a point that you are comparing apples to oranges. Technology has always been a huge influence on preferred social structures, and I believe a strong argument can be made that it significantly influences what social structures are best for achieving any particular goal.  

Edit: I think it is relevant to note that "anarchic" does not mean the complete absense of social structure. Anytime you have two humans interacting or choosing not to interact you have a social structure of some type. The complete absense of social structure is impossible. Anarchy solely refers to a lack of government and government can be defined as a social structure imposed on a group of people supported by force and/or the threat of force. 

does not change the rudiments under which people in a society relate to each other. We have computors but we still have a society of domination, superiority and status seeking. Technology did not change that. it is these mentioned precepts that cause the problem. What youy're saying is--we have these social problems because we haven't invented enough things yet. What specific piece of tecnology will keep floks from creating enmity with each other. The great internet hasn't done it. Your social problems come about by the will and obsession to be better then and rise above each other creating enmity. For as long as people want to engage in this behavior the problems will stay. The people of to day don't regard others any differently then those of the dark ages, and they didn't have the technology of today. Technology has not eliminated wars, nor will it. Wars and strifes will stop when domination and superiority stop.

I'm an anarchist, that doesn't mean I'm dangerous- I have control of me as do all us Old Seers have control of the self. Governments see anarchy as a bad thing. Anarchy is nothing more then self rule. The thing is--what chracteristics of my person do I wish to rule myself by. One way creates a dangerous person (ask any psychiatrist) the other way one is not. Again--we deal with universal law which has it's opposits. There is harmless anarchy and there is harmful anarchy. I chose one. Governments deplore anarchy because it takes one away from believing in them, and they only see one kind--there are two. Which brings another thing to mind--you'll all have to become anarchists to solve the problem. If governmets can't then it's going to be up to you. You'll have to get free of them in order to make the changes. That is--you'll have to re-creaste yourselves from what the government mandates made you. They don't trust that you can rule yourself. If you become a harmless anarchist you won't need them, just like us Old Seers. They would want me to be harmful so they have an excuse to contiue to rule my person. But being I chose to be harmless they shouldn't  have any business with me. Anarchy takes control of you away from them and returns it to youself.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:does not

Old Seer wrote:

does not change the rudiments under which people in a society relate to each other. We have computors but we still have a society of domination, superiority and status seeking. Technology did not change that. it is these mentioned precepts that cause the problem. What youy're saying is--we have these social problems because we haven't invented enough things yet. What specific piece of tecnology will keep floks from creating enmity with each other. The great internet hasn't done it. Your social problems come about by the will and obsession to be better then and rise above each other creating enmity.

Of course it doesn't. Nothing else you can imagine will either. Domination, superiority and status seeking exist anytime two humans have any kind of relationship (indeed, anytime any two random animals meet) They are words we created to describe relationships. Our conversation here is an example of domination and superiority. Social problems exist because we have a society and will always exist as long as more than one human exists. Vastet was exactly right about that, and that should be blatantly obvious to everyone. 

 

Quote:

For as long as people want to engage in this behavior the problems will stay. The people of to day don't regard others any differently then those of the dark ages, and they didn't have the technology of today. Technology has not eliminated wars, nor will it. Wars and strifes will stop when domination and superiority stop.

Nor has anarchy, nor will it. The largest problem anarchic societies have faced is the reality that you need a common defense otherwise some group of peoples will take over and institute their version of governance. As soon as you have a common defense, you have a government and are no longer anarchic. 

 

Quote:

I'm an anarchist, that doesn't mean I'm dangerous- I have control of me as do all us Old Seers have control of the self. Governments see anarchy as a bad thing. Anarchy is nothing more then self rule. The thing is--what chracteristics of my person do I wish to rule myself by. One way creates a dangerous person (ask any psychiatrist) the other way one is not. Again--we deal with universal law which has it's opposits. There is harmless anarchy and there is harmful anarchy. I chose one. Governments deplore anarchy because it takes one away from believing in them, and they only see one kind--there are two.

There are dozens of different kinds of anarchy. The reason why I responded to Vastet is that it is clear you have little exposure to anarchic theory or the history of actual anarchies that have existed. Your ideas are simplistic, idealist and childish. An intelligent anarchist would never claim that anarchy is going to lead to an elimination of social ills.

 

Quote:
 

Which brings another thing to mind--you'll all have to become anarchists to solve the problem. If governmets can't then it's going to be up to you. You'll have to get free of them in order to make the changes. That is--you'll have to re-creaste yourselves from what the government mandates made you. They don't trust that you can rule yourself. If you become a harmless anarchist you won't need them, just like us Old Seers. They would want me to be harmful so they have an excuse to contiue to rule my person. But being I chose to be harmless they shouldn't  have any business with me. Anarchy takes control of you away from them and returns it to youself.    Smiling

Yeah, rainbows, puppy dogs and little ponies. All nice. The reality is that not all humans are going to choose to be harmless as long as you give them a choice. One of the fundamental roles of government is to attempt to control who, if anyone, can make the choice to be violent. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Nope--the

Old Seer wrote:

Nope--the social concepts are the same, and so also with a Pride of lions or chickens. 

You are either speaking so broadly as to be pointless, or you are ridiculously ignorant. Calling the social structures of lions and chickens the same is like saying humans and oceans are the same because both contain water and salt. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: I merely

Old Seer wrote:

I merely used it as an example. Normally (if you've noticed) I refer to past generations as "the ancients". So you disagree, then do you have any solutions to our social problems. What do you propose. We propose to cease the the obsession to rule over each other, if not--nothing will change. Social problems are derived from the creation of enmity caused by a system of greaters and lessors. Competion is war, which eventually gets to a battlefield and weapons of destruction.

Nope--the social concepts are the same, and so also with a Pride of lions or chickens. What you are saying by holding to what you believe--there is no solution to social problems. The rudiments and sructures of all societies are the same, except one. And that's the one that rejects the values of lions, foxes and chickens. The social order of chickens is no different then what is deemed human society. If chickens have a pecking order and you society also--then ??????      Smiling

The solution is to kill off your ego. No ego, no suffering.

Your idea of social concepts is warped. First on the list, you are comparing two animals fighting each other to control a herd to an elected offical who creates laws through a democratic election. While not all countries function in a democratic manner, many do. We also have revolts where people overthrow a leader because they don't like the policies or the economy. I mean, seriously, you are comparing the complexity of human politics to various animal social structures?

Also let's reverse engineer your logic.

With your logic ALL animals, ALL species function in the same social manner?

So bees operate in the same manner as lions? Octopuses? Duckbill Platypuses? If all animals function like humans then that means that ALL animals function in the same social structure?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The social

Old Seer wrote:

The social priciples of today are no different. The cave man made an ax to 1- cut wood, 2-kill for food, 3- kill another man. If he understood and not been a predator--which one would not have taken place. It is the same today--with different weapons. Man has changed nothing since the time of the cave man except the means. The rifle does not change attitudes towards one another any more then the caveman's ax. We've improved the way to kill, but not our relations with one another. The ax did not make him a better person toward his fellow man, and the rifle has not made people today any better toward one's fellow man either. What material invention do you propose will cause us to get along with each other. Attitudes toward one another persist from cave man to us today. You are thinkling as those who believed that the machine gun would end war. Changing the priciples of our relationship with one another will end wars. Wars are not created by the masses, wars are created by those who rule. If we relate to one another as leaders do we have no solution to any social problems.

We are stuck with the problem untill the masses change it. And it is the proper infromation that they need to make those chages. Everyone to their own house and land, and mind one's own business, and seek to take no rulership over the other and their 40 acres. We're all in it for the duration. When the people see the differnce between the animal mind and the human mind will they see to change it. Competition is an animal characteristic and creates enmity and is not necessary for us to engage in to live on planet earth. It is needed for the operations of the way things are set, but not necessary in a differently mentally orientated society.  If a society of people relates to each as the cats and dogs relate to each, then you have a society of cats and dogs in a different body. We all are a matter of mind.

I have refuted everything here and reduced you to the status of broken record. You are absolutely wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I think

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think there is little question that the anarchy in Spain and in Somalia were improvements over the governments that existed before by whatever measure you care to use. Life expectancy improved, violence decreased, education levels improved, economic conditions improved both on average and for the median etc.

I'll take your word for it. I have about as much interest in the history of Spain as I do the bible. They are remarkably similar in brutality and cruelty. Somalia I just never got around to.

I certainly won't argue that anarchistic societies are incapable of improving pre-existing conditions, under certain conditions. But I would argue that anarchy wouldn't improve anything in present-day Europe or N America. I can't think of a single system that would so thoroughly and completely destroy everything that has been accomplished in the last few hundred years. Even a brutally vicious dictator would have to have an agenda against science and progress to destroy it all, and would never succeed as quickly or thoroughly as anarchy would.

FYI, I'm referring to total anarchy here, because that's what Old Seer is referring to, so far as I can tell. A little anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing (indeed I would say a little anarchy is necessary for society to both flourish and be free), but total anarchy is impossible and indefencible. In more than one way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well

what we have here is a prime example of why the world is stuck in the rut it's in. If you all want to keep the social values you have all you can do is invent a new shovel and think siciety has changed. Societies don't change because of new inventions, they will change when the base values change. You're all proposing what polititians propose and thats going nowhere. You need leaders to regulate you to behave and be less harmful to others and yet the leaders set the mental agenda for relationships and everyopne ends up as they were before. You have a newlly developed shovel but you still have the social problems that were promenent 10000 years ago. As long as you have a social system of greaters and lessors you will retain the same problems. As long as your society is patterend after a Lion pride you will keep suffering the consequences the lions do. a perdator society creates enmity and social problems. You're saying that you can't be a decent person on your own and need someone greater then you to maintain you as a human being. And then--you end up as their kind of human being that has all manner of social problems the same as before. Samo samo. you're proposing the same solutions that has never worked. It's not going to change, that's evident. So why all the complaining about the condition of the world, when how your society is consructed is the cause of the problem. You're saying you are stuck with what you have--we know that. The Greeks and Romans had a good education setup, and we have more education today then they--and todays society is no deifferent then theirs, same problems,right. It's evident education hasn't fixed the social problem, so more education is no help. So now what?

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Social & societal have to do w/ human interactions and relations

 

 

   No  room  in the Inn ? 



 

   Ooo fun ..  0P

 

     SOMETHING Exclusively  On- Site ::

 > What do the Social & societal INSTITUTIONS and GOVERNANCE have to do w/ individual  adoption of human or compassionately humane minds ?

     Ooo fun

 

 

    IMHO, It does  seem likely your animal/human dialectic may well be misattributed to a scalability as large a scale as the social /societal (customs and) institutions. " Have you no compassion for a fellow human being with selfless concern FOR OTHERS and the outcasts and dispossessed ? " Is that so ? Is it really enough ? Man doesn't have a good trackrecord, afterall!!

 Practical solutions

  Well,  I guess Technology has one solution seeing socio-political systems have failed to achieve the wider systematic breaking of people over time, mankind is likely to be too selfish to do anything other than adversely harm the human race, anyway  . . 

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5h0sP9htA {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5h0sP9htA}  slave collar

      Those Kree, They form a hive-mind, linking each member by a telepathy-like system (View/See :: YouTube Video from the Silver Surfer comic) . .

   Edit  :: Edit  Added  one additional  Image and  it's breaking and not braking  . . opps


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:what we have

Old Seer wrote:
what we have here is a prime example of why the world is stuck in the rut it's in....~snip~

No, what we have here is you misunderstanding the problems and their sources, as well as the basic natures of all known life and the laws of physics. As a result, you've come up with an illogical and ineffective solution that happens to simultaneously be an impossible one.

How you can possibly assume the conflicts in society are a result of people wanting and attaining power in society is quite beyond me. How you can possibly assume that people could change this characteristic, even if they wanted to, is also beyond me. It resides in every form of life ever observed. It is nothing more than the fundamental desire to exist. Take it away, and you take away existence. You desire extinction.

You have no evidence at all to support either your solution or its effectiveness. You talk about the human mind as if it were separate from the human body, also without evidence. You furthermore talk as if there were any significant difference between human and non-human animal behaviour, again without evidence. Every single part of your hypothesis is flawed in every possible way, and contradicted by thousands of years of improvements in society.

You literally could not be more wrong. In theory, there may be someone equally wrong, but noone could be more wrong. You've managed to hit the mark of absolute failure.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
if you were right

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
what we have here is a prime example of why the world is stuck in the rut it's in....~snip~
No, what we have here is you misunderstanding the problems and their sources, as well as the basic natures of all known life and the laws of physics. As a result, you've come up with an illogical and ineffective solution that happens to simultaneously be an impossible one. How you can possibly assume the conflicts in society are a result of people wanting and attaining power in society is quite beyond me. How you can possibly assume that people could change this characteristic, even if they wanted to, is also beyond me. It resides in every form of life ever observed. It is nothing more than the fundamental desire to exist. Take it away, and you take away existence. You desire extinction. You have no evidence at all to support either your solution or its effectiveness. You talk about the human mind as if it were separate from the human body, also without evidence. You furthermore talk as if there were any significant difference between human and non-human animal behaviour, again without evidence. Every single part of your hypothesis is flawed in every possible way, and contradicted by thousands of years of improvements in society. You literally could not be more wrong. In theory, there may be someone equally wrong, but noone could be more wrong. You've managed to hit the mark of absolute failure.

all the social problems would have been solved by now, not even close. You're say we're wrong when nothing through the centuries has worked. A pedator society under goes the consequences of a predatory society. The proof is all around and you're saying we're wrong when I can see what's going on here is complaint after complaint at how things are and what happened back in history at some time. . No one needs a predator society to live on planet earth--it's not necessay. There is an alternative which you refuse to comprehend. That means you want what you've got. If you want this thing don't complain about it's consequences. Your complain about the consequences but don't understand what to change. Then--you're stuck. Sorry about the broken record, but that's history ain't it. So keep going and we'll keep watching to see the results--which will be the same as always. So-predator onward and upward. Lets see if next year if any changes have taken place. There's no sucsess or faliure ging on on our part, we only give our insights, This is not an attempt to succeed at anything --you understand or you don't, it's not opur place to change another's mind--you have to do that yourself. We're not competitors or predators so there's nothing for us to win or gain. That's your world--and that's why we aren't understood easily. If you need the threat of police force to keep you from harming each other---so be it--we don't.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: Vastet

Old Seer wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
what we have here is a prime example of why the world is stuck in the rut it's in....~snip~
No, what we have here is you misunderstanding the problems and their sources, as well as the basic natures of all known life and the laws of physics. As a result, you've come up with an illogical and ineffective solution that happens to simultaneously be an impossible one. How you can possibly assume the conflicts in society are a result of people wanting and attaining power in society is quite beyond me. erence between human and non-human animal behaviour, again without evidence. Every single part of your hypothesis is flawed in every possible way, and contradicted by thousands of years of improvements in society. You literally could not be more wrong. In theory, there may be someone equally wrong, but noone could be more wrong. You've managed to hit the mark of absolute failure.

all the social problems would have been solved by now, not even close. You're say we're wrong when nothing through the centuries has worked. A pedator society under goes the consequences of a predatory society. The proof is all around and you're saying we're wrong when I can see what's going on here is complaint after complaint at how things are and what happened back in history at some time. . No one needs a predator society to live on planet earth--it's not necessay. There is an alternative which you refuse to comprehend. Thate's nothing for us to win or gain. That's your world--and that's why we aren't understood easily. If you need the threat of police force to keep you from harming each other---so be it--we don't.

We have predators in our society but for this to be a predator society, please provide fact and not opinion.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
A capitalist society

is a predator society. It requires taking advantage of others, especiaslly when they are in a vulnerable condition. The 2008 ecnomy meltdown was directly due to predatorism. The Wall Street prdators were let loose by congress when they repealed the Glass-Steegal act that controlled predatory practices beyound what the law allows. The intelligent predator (historically) figured out a way to get from it's prey without killing the prey so it can be fed off of another day. It's predatorism without killing. As can be seen by the  consequences of 2008 to the masses. Capitalism is a predatory process, nothing else but. You have a society of everyone being a predator and a grazer,an exact replica of the animal world. On one hand you can be a predator, on the other when someone is a predator on you you were a grazer.  The lower masses are grazers most of the time--but it's the those who are the best predators that run things--namely the elites. The predatory class now has become the government by purchase of the government officials that favor them. They have contrived an active system of bribery by government changing the meaning of bribery to campaign funding. Bribery by any process is still bribery. You've all ben conned into letting "the ruling few" decide what things are and aren't. The US of A and the rest of the world have been conned into 2 classes--the predator class and the grazer class--and you all forgot to kiss your constitution goodbye. The constituion doesn't matter anymore---money does. 2008 is the best example in history of the effects of predatorism. And--they are in the process of setting things up to do it again--with government help. And, I suspect you will disagree--they were only enacting their right of "the supeiority of the fitest". Do I have this correct.

The predator class consists of the elites in--religions---governments---Industry----finance. Who gets invited to to White House Parties---it ain't the homeless is it. Think---you've been conned. The federal reserve is the biggist Ponzy scheme on the planet.If you allow governments to change the meaning of words and things then you're the looser. You system is one of loosers and winners---someone has to loose. They have you believing everyone can be a winner. If anyone believes them that same is a sucker. There's never been a time when everyone was a winner. and there never will be.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: But I would

Vastet wrote:
But I would argue that anarchy wouldn't improve anything in present-day Europe or N America. I can't think of a single system that would so thoroughly and completely destroy everything that has been accomplished in the last few hundred years. Even a brutally vicious dictator would have to have an agenda against science and progress to destroy it all, and would never succeed as quickly or thoroughly as anarchy would. FYI, I'm referring to total anarchy here, because that's what Old Seer is referring to, so far as I can tell. A little anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing (indeed I would say a little anarchy is necessary for society to both flourish and be free), but total anarchy is impossible and indefencible. In more than one way.

I agree, which is why I am not an anarchist, although I certainly have many of the same goals and share many sympathies with them. It would be very difficult to argue that any modern first world country would be better off as an anarchy. Historically, anarchies have always had the advantage and disadvantage of coming about after disasterous downfalls. The advantage is that they can look relatively good to what immediately preceeded, the downside is that they always exist at a time when things really suck. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a country like the US became an anarchy overnight, but it will never happen because governments are only overthrown when people are very unhappy (when things REALLY suck). Ultimately, anarchy is impossible because humans are social animals that like order and rules. Even in very small groups, like a group of friends, certain expectations and order assert themselves relatively quickly- while there might not be official stated rules, there are generally unspoken rules that everyone knows will be punished by the group. 

I also don't think you are completely wrong about Hitler or Stalin being better than anarchy. In that argument, what you place value on as far as determining what is "better". Both went a long way towards modernizing their countries, both built very powerful economies and people surviving in both countries today are much better off than they would have been otherwise. Brutality can often be very beneficial for the survivors. Over time, as the people directly and indirectly harmed by the violence die off, it is quite likely that the things they did to improve their country will become more emphasized in histories. They very well might become historical figures more similar to Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan who were every bit as brutal, but to us today the numbers they slaughtered are simply empty numbers. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:if you were

Old Seer wrote:
if you were right all the social problems would have been solved by now, not even close.

No they wouldn't. According to what I said, some social problems will never be solved. Some will. Some things that aren't problems will become problems. Some solutions to problems will become problems. If humanity knew everything, then your ridiculous assertion that we'd have solved everything by now if I was right would be accurate. But humanity does not know everything. Not even by half. Nor will it ever. Thus, all the problems in society will never be solved.

As we and our societies evolve, there will forever be new problems arising. It is absolutely impossible to cure all the ills of society, because even if you pull it off another problem will show up almost immediately. Society is not stagnant, it is constantly changing.

Until you understand these fundamental facts, you will continue spouting meaningless bullshit. I will ensure that said bullshit gets buried by facts until you give up spouting meaningless bullshit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Old Seer

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
if you were right all the social problems would have been solved by now, not even close.
No they wouldn't. According to what I said, some social problems will never be solved. Some will. Some things that aren't problems will become problems. Some solutions to problems will become problems. If humanity knew everything, then your ridiculous assertion that we'd have solved everything by now if I was right would be accurate. But humanity does not know everything. Not even by half. Nor will it ever. Thus, all the problems in society will never be solved. As we and our societies evolve, there will forever be new problems arising. It is absolutely impossible to cure all the ills of society, because even if you pull it off another problem will show up almost immediately. Society is not stagnant, it is constantly changing. Until you understand these fundamental facts, you will continue spouting meaningless bullshit. I will ensure that said bullshit gets buried by facts until you give up spouting meaningless bullshit.

Ok, you want what you've got. Your society will never solve it's relationship problems, it's impossible for an animal based society to solve itself.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: is a

Old Seer wrote:

is a predator society. It requires taking advantage of others, especiaslly when they are in a vulnerable condition. The 2008 ecnomy meltdown was directly due to predatorism. The Wall Street prdators were let loose by congress when they repealed the Glass-Steegal act that controlled predatory practices beyound what the law allows. The intelligent predator (historically) figured out a way to get from it's prey without killing the prey so it can be fed off of another day. It's predatorism without killing. As can be seen by the  consequences of 2008 to the masses. Capitalism is a predatory process, nothing else but. You have a society of everyone being a predator and a grazer,an exact replica of the animal world. On one hand you can be a predator, on the other when someone is a predator on you you were a grazer.  The lower masses are grazers most of the time--but it's the those who are the best predators that run things--namely the elites. The predatory class now has become the government by purchase of the government officials that favor them. They have contrived an active system of bribery by government changing the meaning of bribery to campaign funding. Bribery by any process is still bribery. You've all ben conned into letting "the ruling few" decide what things are and aren't. The US of A and the rest of the world have been conned into 2 classes--the predator class and the grazer class--and you all forgot to kiss your constitution goodbye. The constituion doesn't matter anymore---money does. 2008 is the best example in history of the effects of predatorism. And--they are in the process of setting things up to do it again--with government help. And, I suspect you will disagree--they were only enacting their right of "the supeiority of the fitest". Do I have this correct.

The predator class consists of the elites in--religions---governments---Industry----finance. Who gets invited to to White House Parties---it ain't the homeless is it. Think---you've been conned. The federal reserve is the biggist Ponzy scheme on the planet.If you allow governments to change the meaning of words and things then you're the looser. You system is one of loosers and winners---someone has to loose. They have you believing everyone can be a winner. If anyone believes them that same is a sucker. There's never been a time when everyone was a winner. and there never will be.  Smiling

I'm still waiting on facts, not hyperbole you picked up from conspiracy theory website.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

is a predator society. It requires taking advantage of others, especiaslly when they are in a vulnerable condition. The 2008 ecnomy meltdown was directly due to predatorism. The Wall Street prdators were let loose by congress when they repealed the Glass-Steegal act that controlled predatory practices beyound what the law allows. The intelligent predator (historically) figured out a way to get from it's prey without killing the prey so it can be fed off of another day. It's predatorism without killing. As can be seen by the  consequences of 2008 to the masses. Capitalism is a predatory process, nothing else but. You have a society of everyone being a predator and a grazer,an exact replica of the animal world. On one hand you can be a predator, on the other when someone is a predator on you you were a grazer.  The lower masses are grazers most of the time--but it's the those who are the best predators that run things--namely the elites. The predatory class now has become the government by purchase of the government officials that favor them. They have contrived an active system of bribery by government changing the meaning of bribery to campaign funding. Bribery by any process is still bribery. You've all ben conned into letting "the ruling few" decide what things are and aren't. The US of A and the rest of the world have been conned into 2 classes--the predator class and the grazer class--and you all forgot to kiss your constitution goodbye. The constituion doesn't matter anymore---money does. 2008 is the best example in history of the effects of predatorism. And--they are in the process of setting things up to do it again--with government help. And, I suspect you will disagree--they were only enacting their right of "the supeiority of the fitest". Do I have this correct.

The predator class consists of the elites in--religions---governments---Industry----finance. Who gets invited to to White House Parties---it ain't the homeless is it. Think---you've been conned. The federal reserve is the biggist Ponzy scheme on the planet.If you allow governments to change the meaning of words and things then you're the looser. You system is one of loosers and winners---someone has to loose. They have you believing everyone can be a winner. If anyone believes them that same is a sucker. There's never been a time when everyone was a winner. and there never will be.  Smiling

I'm still waiting on facts, not hyperbole you picked up from conspiracy theory website.

 

Look up the facts on the financial situation of 2008 and what caused it. It should be online somewhere--it was on PBS frontline. Are you saying you missed 2008. Why is it that the four of you can't treat others in a humane manner. You four are a bad representatation of Atheism. Next I'll be labled a troll of some kind. You have a good side and a bad side, and I'm sure you have an excuse to be on the bad side, it's you evolutionary inheritance or something like that, right. No need for me to worry over this I'll just stay how I prefer to be. But you don't believe there is such a thing as inhumane, is that correct?? I say there is     Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth