It's easy to twist statistics to prove whatever you want.
Invading a nation and replacing an evil regime (i.e. having a war) will obviously cost many lives. Comparing the lives lost in war to those lost during relative peacetime is comparing apples and oranges.
Regardless of whether one thinks the Iraq War was a good idea or justified, it's mind-boggling that anyone would try to downplay the evils of Saddam Hussein's regime, to suggest that he would be the lesser of two evils. Collateral damage and civilian casualities are indeed tragic--but at least a purpose was to replace an evil regime with a democracy. How much more tragic are the needless deaths perpetrated by an evil dictator bent on preserving his own power.
That quote could be applied to any election in which the incumbent President were a Republican--or just any election, period. That quote boils down to, simply, "We want to help you, too! We will just do it better than the incumbent! So vote for me!" You're being disingenuous.
It seems to me that the Republicans are more candid about the costs of welfare spending. The Republican platform leans more toward small government than does the Democrats'. That's not to say that the Republicans have done everything right, or that they will in the future. GWB and the Republicans have done many things I disagree with. But I think there is a more substantial difference between the parties than most people will admit. The problem is that the focus on short-term, "what will you do for ME" issues obscures the deeper principles.
The fundamental problem facing our nation right now is materialism. People value money and ease of life over freedom. We need only look to recent history--and current events in other places--to have reason to choose freedom over material wealth. But that's not popular now. Our Founding Fathers--and the nameless men who died under them--must be spinning in their graves. This is not the freedom they died for.
This mindless tirade against "the rich" or "the 1%" is just that: mindless. It's a tool used to manipulate the masses. And I'm nowhere near being part of that "1%". The question is, who is pulling the strings?
I don't care if cutting taxes benefits "the rich": it benefits ME by letting ME keep MY money in MY pocket and letting ME decide what to do with MY money--not the government. It also gives the government less money to spend--and we need less government, not more.
This "1%" movement is emotionally driven. It's about materialism. It's about enforced equality, about forced redistribution of wealth, about "fairness". People just want to be as rich as "the rich". They care more about that than about FREEDOM.
Freedom is our most valuable possession as citizens. Freedom includes the right to own property and seek wealth. Freedom means that some people will have more than others. That's how life works. Life is not fair.
People would rather cede control of their money--and, ultimately, their lives--to the government and let the government even things out between them and "the 1%." It's easier than taking responsibility for oneself.
Elections aren't about principles or values anymore. They're all about "what will you do for ME during the NEXT TERM." They're about, "Will he MAKE things 'better' in the next four years?" with "better" best defined as "making my life easier."
We are spoiled in this country. We have had it easy for so long, and we take our freedoms for granted to such an extent that we are willing--even wanting--to hand them over for the sake of empty promises. We need to do more interviews with immigrants who came from communist countries, who escaped the Iron Curtain, and heed their warnings. We need to listen to how much they value the freedoms we enjoy here in the USA, the freedoms we are trying to give up.
Obama has enacted over 900 Executive Orders while in office--an order of magnitude more than GWB or anyone else. Seems to me that Obama thinks he can do whatever he wants.
A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world
This could be interpreted three ways: a) since it is treated as commonplace and affecting the world, it is probably real; or b) just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; or c) it doesn't exist. Option C boils down to, "The only things that exist are those which can be measured." There are two problems with that, however: 1) We know of many things which exist which we were once unable to detect, see, or measure; 2) It is not claimed that souls may be measured. Indeed, if the claim is that such a thing cannot be measured, then the argument that it is unmeasureable is irrelevant. If it is not claimed that its existence may be proven, then your claim that it cannot be proven is irrelevant.
B. Comes from a source that bares[sic] most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales
This is a gross generalization, unsubstantiated to the point of being meaningless. I would call it "hand-waving." However, as far as Christianity goes, it's interesting that Christianity actually differs substantially from other "myths" to the point that some consider Christianity a genre unto itself, not even in the category of myth. Basically, myths postulate a reality in which ultimately all things are one with all things, while Christianity postulates a God who exists outside of our universe and our reality, yet who has interacted with it. The two are quite opposite, and it is a mistake to lump them together.
C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.
What? There is no scientific explanation of consciousness--not yet, anyway. It would be very big news if there ever were. This is more hand-waving on your part--or just plain lying.
D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.
More hand-waving. "Too good to be true" is simply a cliche--it proves nothing and is meaningless. As for money, money can be made from both truths and lies, so this is also meaningless in and of itself.
I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false.
Logically you can neither prove nor disprove it. The most skeptical statement you can logically make is, "I don't know."
These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.
I have deconstructed your four criteria and shown that they do not logically invalidate belief in the existence of the human soul.
No, what I wrote neither implies that god exists nor that god doesn't exist. It does not make any statement about the existence or non-existence of god.
I can read between the lines. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. Or are you simply unwilling to admit that you're more transparent than you like?
I don't want you tho think that I believe in god, nor do I want you to think that I don't believe in god. Indeed, I don't care whether you think that I believe in god.
What you're trying to say is, "I don't want to talk about it." What I don't understand is why you don't simply say that. And I'm curious as to why not. But the fact that you literally don't care simply reveals again that you don't believe in God. So why not just say so? Why the games?
But given that you are obviously not able to understand what I write, I guess it doesn't make any sense to add any further explanations.
I understand the literal meaning of your words just fine. But that's not as interesting or meaningful--or as important--as what lies behind them. You're not as mysterious as you'd like to think.
It's a bit ironic, though: you claim I don't understand you, but you clearly don't understand the points I'm trying to make.
Utter nonsense. Atheism has no dogma, no directions or rules with which to "create" a government or guide governmental decisions.
Of course it does, it just makes its own. Without any foundation for ethics or morality, it creates its own utilitarian dogma, directions, and rules. If nothing else, natural selection rears its ugly head in that those who are able to take and maintain power over the weak survive longer and with a higher quality of life than those whom they control. cf. Communism, Nazism, facism, totalitarianism, etc. Atheism is the ideal condition for such evil governments. Look at their history and see how they actively spread atheism among their populaces. Without God, there is no reason that the strong should not exploit the weak to their fullest advantage. Indeed, without God, one could say that they would be foolish to not do so.
That's a far cry from the evangelical nature of Christianity, which seeks power, influence and control by its very nature.
You have confused the misdeeds of those who claimed to be acting in the name of Christ with the theology, ethics, and morals espoused by Christ himself. For example, it's written in the Bible that one should submit to governments, and Jesus himself said, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Jesus never advocated forced conversion of anyone. Indeed, such is not true conversion and is meaningless. The job of evangelism is to make the message heard, to literally preach the good news--not to force anyone to accept the message or abide by it. On the contrary, it is human nature which seeks power, influence, and control--not the nature of God.
There is HUGE correlation between Christianity and acts committed specifically in the name of Christianity -- Christianity is a great deal more like communism than atheism is. Kill people for the idea? Check. Force them to comply? Check. Invade other countries? Check. State-directed action against citizens not within (or who even LOOK like they're not within) the fold? Check. Loudmouthed leaders who get up and make blustery speeches the rabble are supposed to cheer? Check. Bullshit dogma that lays out the ground rules for behavior? Check.
The problem is that, regardless of the truth about Christ, man is fallen, broken, and sinful, and so men have distorted the Truth and used it for their own gain. This fact does not, however, invalidate the Truth. It is simply a logical fallacy to say that, because some people who claim Christ have done evil things, Christ or his message must be false.
And NONE of that is true for atheism.
What atheism are you thinking of? Communism (China, Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc) is just one example of explicitly atheistic government which 1) has killed many, many people for their goals; 2) has forced many, many people to comply; 3) has invaded many other countries; 4) has committed horrific acts against dissenting citizens; 5) has loudmouthed leaders who must be cheered (e.g. parades, statues) and who must not be spoken against; 6) has rules for behavior which favor not the people but the few in power over them.
Too much to wrap your head around, I know. Don't worry, no one really expects it of you.
Ah, back to the condescension again. It's easier than arguing rationally, isn't it? (See, I can do it too!)
Religion is a toxin that invades minds that have no defense in the form of critical thinking. It won't go away until we improve education, not to mention a few other things.
Not to mention the fact that many of the most well-educated, critical thinkers in history were ardent believers in God. That's not a convenient truth for you, is it?
There is no human who is not religious.
That... that's just stupid. None so blind as those who will not see, chum.
No, you're just hand-waving away the proven long-term effectiveness of guerilla warfare by citing an extreme example.
The local/foreign argument is missing the point. Besides, there are plenty of examples of domestic guerilla warfare. The issue is uniformed, government-backed forces vs. loosely-organized, armed, plainclothes civilians who outnumber the military.
...other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world...
Not to throw a wrench into the gears of what some might prefer remain a highly-polarized debate... but I can't help disagreeing with you there: weapons are all about this world. The notion that "Gawd wants us to have 'em!" - whether we swallow it hook, line and sinker like a bunch of brainwashed fundamentalists or we completely scoff at it like properly-indoctrinated liberals - is just more framing-of-the-debate courtesy of TPTB.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My point is not that God wants us to have guns. My point is that the reason people oppose gun ownership is that they are afraid. But having an eternity-focused worldview means that one need not fear dying. When one realizes that one's most valuable possession--one's soul--cannot be taken away, one is free to act out of courage rather than fear. One need not fear guns, or ultimately any harm, because the worst that an evil person can do is kill you.
But no, there's absolutely nothing divine or spiritually-healthy about weapons of death and destruction; you can bet your ass that neither Christ nor Buddha would've wanted to carry around a Taurus Judge or a Saiga 12...
This is a specious argument. Christ had a very specific mission to accomplish with his life--the fact that he himself did not carry one (actually, it is not mentioned; he could have, at times, carried or used them before he began his public ministry) does not invalidate our doing so. He did not condemn carrying or using weapons appropriately. The mention of such modern weapons is silly. Your argument about spiritual health seems ironic coming from one who does not appear to believe in God. And one could argue that the right of self-defense is divinely given, or that being able to act to stop evil from being perpetrated upon the innocent is "spiritually healthy."
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." ~Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger), ca. 4 BC â" 65 AD
That sounds clever, but it's based on the presupposition that God is not real, that all religion is man-made. It is true that there are many false religions, and it is true that religion has been used throughout history as a tool of manipulation. But if God exists, then true religion is not man-made--true religion is reality. True religion does not serve any man--true religion serves God.
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree "wackos", or are you tipping your hand and showing your fear which underlies your very argument?
If one agrees with quotes like:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~George Washington
...then it is quite reasonable to argue that the citizenry should have the right to own weapons which are comparable with those used by the military.
If you disagree that government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people--if you believe that the government is responsible for citizens, rather than citizens being responsible for government--then, naturally, you don't want any citizens to have any means by which to oppose government.
Any democratic government is simply the will of the people, distilled.
Wow, that's quite a lot of faith you have in democratic governments. Ideally it would be so, but in reality it's not nearly so simple.
All that will creates enormous power of action
This is a rather meaningless statement; kind of like synergistic buzzwordism.
Power, ANY POWER, corrupts. The more power you have, the more corrupt you are.
I generally agree with this. This is why term limits are a good thing; we probably need more of them.
Yes, having guns around gives the government an excuse to surveil you and encroach on your liberty. No, the government can do those things quite well without you carrying a gun.
Then it makes no difference.
HOWEVER, a gun in your pocket or in mine does nothing to protect OUR FREEDOMS unless you are willing to USE IT.
There are different kinds of freedoms. The right of self-defense against random violence is one. The right to have a revolution and replace the government is another. Just because it's extremely unlikely that the latter would happen--for many reasons--does not mean that 1) it won't ever happen; or 2) that the former is irrelevant.
I don't see an army of NRA gun-nuts on Pennsylvania Avenue, so I'm guessing you guys are all talk.
This is a strawman. You're saying that since the NRA is not carrying out an armed revolution, their arguments are invalid. But I don't hear the NRA claiming that it is time for an armed revolution. You're putting words in their mouths. And who are the nuts, the ones who advocate personal responsibility, or the ones who want to live in fear? The ones who argue reasonably, or the ones who put words in their opponents' mouths? With all your ad hominems, I hope that reasonable people will see through your words.
The government will do what it wants.
In your first sentence you said that the "government is simply the will of the people." Now you say that the government will do whatever it wants. Is the government an entity unto itself, or is it of, by, and for the people? Make up your mind. You're contradicting yourself.
Your gun(s) is/are just ANOTHER excuse for the government to spy on you.
As you yourself said, they will do what they want. So it doesn't matter. You defeated your own argument.
Sleep tight, citizen.
Armed citizens do indeed sleep better, knowing that if the need arose, they would have the means with which to defend themselves and their families.
That is a loaded statement and a useless generalization.
There are plenty of people in government who are afraid of citizens having guns. They would be happy if gun ownership were completely illegal.
There are also people in government who fully support the Second Amendment. They want good citizens to be armed, because they recognize that 1) the government is of, by, and for the people; 2) most people are decent and would never intentionally harm another person; 3) the government/police cannot ultimately protect citizens' lives; and perhaps, 4) liberty and personal responsibility are more important than fear.
And in America, with a gun on every nightstand and glovebox...
This suggests that you aren't American and don't actually know much of what you're talking about.
So you think that if the population isn't armed, the government won't want to surveil it or encroach upon its liberty?
Oh, yes, you're so right: none of the people in favor of the Second Amendment ever did anything to advance democracy or human rights:
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed." ~George Washington
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." ~George Washington
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~George Washington
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." ~Thomas Jefferson
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ~James Madison
Nevermind that those men are the ones who created the world's foremost democracy by the blood of many men, the nation which has thus far done the most to advance the cause of liberty and set the strongest example (no it's not perfect; that's not the point).
It's good to see that you are on the same side as freedom-loving, citizenry-trusting people like this:
."The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police." ~Adolph Hitler
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
Considering your blatant lies, ad hominems, and lack of reason, I can only conclude that you desire a fascist state.
If you're an American, shame on you for forgetting the history of your own nation. If you're a European, shame on you for forgetting what happened 70 years ago in your own neighborhood. If you're neither of those, shame on you for forgetting the (short) history of the free world, and for giving in to fear.
Thank you, that was amazing! I have copied it and will add to my copy whenever I come across relevant quotes.
I think the chief problem is that fear rules over reason in the minds of so many. And I don't know how to solve that, other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world. And people must make that decision on their own.
Did you forget about guerilla warfare? e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In all three the US had the machines of war, but the guerillas slowly but steadily made the uniformed forces' lives miserable until they wanted to withdraw. The latter two, of course, aren't over yet, but the example still stands.
Or maybe God created a universe full of beings like us (even if they don't look like us). Maybe they already know God.
Doctors were interviewed who claim to have treated the lizard-like aliens who are alleged to have crashed in Brazil years ago, and it was recorded in a book all about the Brazil crashes (I don't remember the title, but it should be very easy to find on Amazon). One of the doctors said that an injured alien said to him (I'm paraphrasing), "We feel pity for humans. You don't realize you are spiritual beings in physical bodies."
If aliens do exist, why would we have a monopoly on God, the creator of the universe?
There is a lot of truth and wisdom in your post. However, it's also the truth that we live in a world full of evil people, some of whom are in control of nation-states, some of which have military powers. It's also true that we cannot predict the future, so we must be prepared, and we should expect that someday there could be another large-scale conflict--yes, someday some evil group might try to take over the world again. There will always be war--or there will never be total peace--as long as this world is spinning. It's a sad but true fact.
So it sounds great to say, "We have to accept poverty and renouce war, before we can become a peaceful nation again. We have to embrace other industries besides indoctrination, propoganda, military armorments, and officious legislation if we want to survive." However, this is not a realistic thing to say. We can renounce war all we want, we can disband our militaries and pour all our money into "peaceful" industries, but we cannot make those with whom we share this planet do the same. We would be utterly foolish and naive to do so.
Your argument is ultimately based on a false dichotomy: that a) the military is imperialistic and evil, or b) there is no military. While Eisenhower's words about the military industrial complex may be more true than we realize, this does not mean that we can or should throw the whole thing away. It also does not mean that military research is inherently evil, or that offshoots of military research are a bad thing.
The military could be used in a good way for good purposes--that's what Congress and the President are supposed to be for. Now, whether it's possible to put it all back into Pandora's box is another matter, but to stick our head in the sand and become "a peaceful nation" (implying that we don't have or don't use our military) would be naive and foolish; and, one could argue, irresponsible, considering the 20th century. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Neutrality is a nice idea in theory, but should we have stayed out of WWII? Assuming that we could have stayed out of it and still exist as a nation today, would that have been the right thing to do, morally and ethically?
It might seem silly to mention a comic book, but "with great power comes great responsibility." Being a world superpower is a weighty matter. We should exercise our power with great care, but we should also use it for good, as best we can determine. The problem is that, quite simply, all humans are flawed, and that includes the leadership of the USA; so one cannot expect perfection, even from the most powerful nation or military in the world. To expect that is as unrealistic as to expect "world peace."
General aviation should not be considered a loophole but just as basic a privilege as driving a car.
However, the cost of avgas and insurance nowadays make general aviation practically an elite option, even if for a lesser class of elites. It wasn't that way years ago.
It's sad how these gross generalizations and logical fallacies get modded up all the time.
"Any person who doesn't hunt down and silence any person who claims to believe the same things yet is an 'extremist', such a person must be collaborating with the 'extremist'."
I don't agree with "extremists" like this, but I am not responsible for him. I am responsible for myself. You are responsible for using your brain and discerning--as you appear to be capable of--the extremists from the rest, and for discerning the differences between them, and for not piling them all into one lump group.
If you fail to do this, you are just as guilty as the people whom you accuse--moreso, I would argue. You're just passing the buck onto "the rest of them" for not "putting in place" "their own."
At least you admit that you're guilty of assuming.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to twist statistics to prove whatever you want.
Invading a nation and replacing an evil regime (i.e. having a war) will obviously cost many lives. Comparing the lives lost in war to those lost during relative peacetime is comparing apples and oranges.
Regardless of whether one thinks the Iraq War was a good idea or justified, it's mind-boggling that anyone would try to downplay the evils of Saddam Hussein's regime, to suggest that he would be the lesser of two evils. Collateral damage and civilian casualities are indeed tragic--but at least a purpose was to replace an evil regime with a democracy. How much more tragic are the needless deaths perpetrated by an evil dictator bent on preserving his own power.
That quote could be applied to any election in which the incumbent President were a Republican--or just any election, period. That quote boils down to, simply, "We want to help you, too! We will just do it better than the incumbent! So vote for me!" You're being disingenuous.
It seems to me that the Republicans are more candid about the costs of welfare spending. The Republican platform leans more toward small government than does the Democrats'. That's not to say that the Republicans have done everything right, or that they will in the future. GWB and the Republicans have done many things I disagree with. But I think there is a more substantial difference between the parties than most people will admit. The problem is that the focus on short-term, "what will you do for ME" issues obscures the deeper principles.
The fundamental problem facing our nation right now is materialism. People value money and ease of life over freedom. We need only look to recent history--and current events in other places--to have reason to choose freedom over material wealth. But that's not popular now. Our Founding Fathers--and the nameless men who died under them--must be spinning in their graves. This is not the freedom they died for.
This mindless tirade against "the rich" or "the 1%" is just that: mindless. It's a tool used to manipulate the masses. And I'm nowhere near being part of that "1%". The question is, who is pulling the strings?
I don't care if cutting taxes benefits "the rich": it benefits ME by letting ME keep MY money in MY pocket and letting ME decide what to do with MY money--not the government. It also gives the government less money to spend--and we need less government, not more.
This "1%" movement is emotionally driven. It's about materialism. It's about enforced equality, about forced redistribution of wealth, about "fairness". People just want to be as rich as "the rich". They care more about that than about FREEDOM.
Freedom is our most valuable possession as citizens. Freedom includes the right to own property and seek wealth. Freedom means that some people will have more than others. That's how life works. Life is not fair.
People would rather cede control of their money--and, ultimately, their lives--to the government and let the government even things out between them and "the 1%." It's easier than taking responsibility for oneself.
Elections aren't about principles or values anymore. They're all about "what will you do for ME during the NEXT TERM." They're about, "Will he MAKE things 'better' in the next four years?" with "better" best defined as "making my life easier."
We are spoiled in this country. We have had it easy for so long, and we take our freedoms for granted to such an extent that we are willing--even wanting--to hand them over for the sake of empty promises. We need to do more interviews with immigrants who came from communist countries, who escaped the Iron Curtain, and heed their warnings. We need to listen to how much they value the freedoms we enjoy here in the USA, the freedoms we are trying to give up.
Reductio ad absurdum. You're being intellectually dishonest.
...mittens and vampire boy, there's just something wrong with their brains.
You have won me over with your reasoned argument.
Obama has enacted over 900 Executive Orders while in office--an order of magnitude more than GWB or anyone else. Seems to me that Obama thinks he can do whatever he wants.
A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world
This could be interpreted three ways: a) since it is treated as commonplace and affecting the world, it is probably real; or b) just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; or c) it doesn't exist. Option C boils down to, "The only things that exist are those which can be measured." There are two problems with that, however: 1) We know of many things which exist which we were once unable to detect, see, or measure; 2) It is not claimed that souls may be measured. Indeed, if the claim is that such a thing cannot be measured, then the argument that it is unmeasureable is irrelevant. If it is not claimed that its existence may be proven, then your claim that it cannot be proven is irrelevant.
B. Comes from a source that bares[sic] most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales
This is a gross generalization, unsubstantiated to the point of being meaningless. I would call it "hand-waving." However, as far as Christianity goes, it's interesting that Christianity actually differs substantially from other "myths" to the point that some consider Christianity a genre unto itself, not even in the category of myth. Basically, myths postulate a reality in which ultimately all things are one with all things, while Christianity postulates a God who exists outside of our universe and our reality, yet who has interacted with it. The two are quite opposite, and it is a mistake to lump them together.
C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.
What? There is no scientific explanation of consciousness--not yet, anyway. It would be very big news if there ever were. This is more hand-waving on your part--or just plain lying.
D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.
More hand-waving. "Too good to be true" is simply a cliche--it proves nothing and is meaningless. As for money, money can be made from both truths and lies, so this is also meaningless in and of itself.
I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false.
Logically you can neither prove nor disprove it. The most skeptical statement you can logically make is, "I don't know."
These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.
I have deconstructed your four criteria and shown that they do not logically invalidate belief in the existence of the human soul.
It may be true that some good has come from SETI and may come from this project. But IMO the money would be better spent in other areas of research.
No, what I wrote neither implies that god exists nor that god doesn't exist. It does not make any statement about the existence or non-existence of god.
I can read between the lines. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me. Or are you simply unwilling to admit that you're more transparent than you like?
I don't want you tho think that I believe in god, nor do I want you to think that I don't believe in god. Indeed, I don't care whether you think that I believe in god.
What you're trying to say is, "I don't want to talk about it." What I don't understand is why you don't simply say that. And I'm curious as to why not. But the fact that you literally don't care simply reveals again that you don't believe in God. So why not just say so? Why the games?
But given that you are obviously not able to understand what I write, I guess it doesn't make any sense to add any further explanations.
I understand the literal meaning of your words just fine. But that's not as interesting or meaningful--or as important--as what lies behind them. You're not as mysterious as you'd like to think.
It's a bit ironic, though: you claim I don't understand you, but you clearly don't understand the points I'm trying to make.
Utter nonsense. Atheism has no dogma, no directions or rules with which to "create" a government or guide governmental decisions.
Of course it does, it just makes its own. Without any foundation for ethics or morality, it creates its own utilitarian dogma, directions, and rules. If nothing else, natural selection rears its ugly head in that those who are able to take and maintain power over the weak survive longer and with a higher quality of life than those whom they control. cf. Communism, Nazism, facism, totalitarianism, etc. Atheism is the ideal condition for such evil governments. Look at their history and see how they actively spread atheism among their populaces. Without God, there is no reason that the strong should not exploit the weak to their fullest advantage. Indeed, without God, one could say that they would be foolish to not do so.
That's a far cry from the evangelical nature of Christianity, which seeks power, influence and control by its very nature.
You have confused the misdeeds of those who claimed to be acting in the name of Christ with the theology, ethics, and morals espoused by Christ himself. For example, it's written in the Bible that one should submit to governments, and Jesus himself said, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Jesus never advocated forced conversion of anyone. Indeed, such is not true conversion and is meaningless. The job of evangelism is to make the message heard, to literally preach the good news--not to force anyone to accept the message or abide by it. On the contrary, it is human nature which seeks power, influence, and control--not the nature of God.
There is HUGE correlation between Christianity and acts committed specifically in the name of Christianity -- Christianity is a great deal more like communism than atheism is. Kill people for the idea? Check. Force them to comply? Check. Invade other countries? Check. State-directed action against citizens not within (or who even LOOK like they're not within) the fold? Check. Loudmouthed leaders who get up and make blustery speeches the rabble are supposed to cheer? Check. Bullshit dogma that lays out the ground rules for behavior? Check.
The problem is that, regardless of the truth about Christ, man is fallen, broken, and sinful, and so men have distorted the Truth and used it for their own gain. This fact does not, however, invalidate the Truth. It is simply a logical fallacy to say that, because some people who claim Christ have done evil things, Christ or his message must be false.
And NONE of that is true for atheism.
What atheism are you thinking of? Communism (China, Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc) is just one example of explicitly atheistic government which 1) has killed many, many people for their goals; 2) has forced many, many people to comply; 3) has invaded many other countries; 4) has committed horrific acts against dissenting citizens; 5) has loudmouthed leaders who must be cheered (e.g. parades, statues) and who must not be spoken against; 6) has rules for behavior which favor not the people but the few in power over them.
Too much to wrap your head around, I know. Don't worry, no one really expects it of you.
Ah, back to the condescension again. It's easier than arguing rationally, isn't it? (See, I can do it too!)
Religion is a toxin that invades minds that have no defense in the form of critical thinking. It won't go away until we improve education, not to mention a few other things.
Not to mention the fact that many of the most well-educated, critical thinkers in history were ardent believers in God. That's not a convenient truth for you, is it?
There is no human who is not religious.
That... that's just stupid. None so blind as those who will not see, chum.
It's
No, you're just hand-waving away the proven long-term effectiveness of guerilla warfare by citing an extreme example.
The local/foreign argument is missing the point. Besides, there are plenty of examples of domestic guerilla warfare. The issue is uniformed, government-backed forces vs. loosely-organized, armed, plainclothes civilians who outnumber the military.
I guess I misunderstood you, or vice versa. I'm not Australian. I was thinking more generally.
...other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world...
Not to throw a wrench into the gears of what some might prefer remain a highly-polarized debate... but I can't help disagreeing with you there: weapons are all about this world. The notion that "Gawd wants us to have 'em!" - whether we swallow it hook, line and sinker like a bunch of brainwashed fundamentalists or we completely scoff at it like properly-indoctrinated liberals - is just more framing-of-the-debate courtesy of TPTB.
You seem to have misunderstood me. My point is not that God wants us to have guns. My point is that the reason people oppose gun ownership is that they are afraid. But having an eternity-focused worldview means that one need not fear dying. When one realizes that one's most valuable possession--one's soul--cannot be taken away, one is free to act out of courage rather than fear. One need not fear guns, or ultimately any harm, because the worst that an evil person can do is kill you.
But no, there's absolutely nothing divine or spiritually-healthy about weapons of death and destruction; you can bet your ass that neither Christ nor Buddha would've wanted to carry around a Taurus Judge or a Saiga 12...
This is a specious argument. Christ had a very specific mission to accomplish with his life--the fact that he himself did not carry one (actually, it is not mentioned; he could have, at times, carried or used them before he began his public ministry) does not invalidate our doing so. He did not condemn carrying or using weapons appropriately. The mention of such modern weapons is silly. Your argument about spiritual health seems ironic coming from one who does not appear to believe in God. And one could argue that the right of self-defense is divinely given, or that being able to act to stop evil from being perpetrated upon the innocent is "spiritually healthy."
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
~Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger), ca. 4 BC â" 65 AD
That sounds clever, but it's based on the presupposition that God is not real, that all religion is man-made. It is true that there are many false religions, and it is true that religion has been used throughout history as a tool of manipulation. But if God exists, then true religion is not man-made--true religion is reality. True religion does not serve any man--true religion serves God.
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree "wackos", or are you tipping your hand and showing your fear which underlies your very argument?
If one agrees with quotes like:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
~George Washington
...then it is quite reasonable to argue that the citizenry should have the right to own weapons which are comparable with those used by the military.
If you disagree that government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people--if you believe that the government is responsible for citizens, rather than citizens being responsible for government--then, naturally, you don't want any citizens to have any means by which to oppose government.
Any democratic government is simply the will of the people, distilled.
Wow, that's quite a lot of faith you have in democratic governments. Ideally it would be so, but in reality it's not nearly so simple.
All that will creates enormous power of action
This is a rather meaningless statement; kind of like synergistic buzzwordism.
Power, ANY POWER, corrupts. The more power you have, the more corrupt you are.
I generally agree with this. This is why term limits are a good thing; we probably need more of them.
Yes, having guns around gives the government an excuse to surveil you and encroach on your liberty.
No, the government can do those things quite well without you carrying a gun.
Then it makes no difference.
HOWEVER, a gun in your pocket or in mine does nothing to protect OUR FREEDOMS unless you are willing to USE IT.
There are different kinds of freedoms. The right of self-defense against random violence is one. The right to have a revolution and replace the government is another. Just because it's extremely unlikely that the latter would happen--for many reasons--does not mean that 1) it won't ever happen; or 2) that the former is irrelevant.
I don't see an army of NRA gun-nuts on Pennsylvania Avenue, so I'm guessing you guys are all talk.
This is a strawman. You're saying that since the NRA is not carrying out an armed revolution, their arguments are invalid. But I don't hear the NRA claiming that it is time for an armed revolution. You're putting words in their mouths. And who are the nuts, the ones who advocate personal responsibility, or the ones who want to live in fear? The ones who argue reasonably, or the ones who put words in their opponents' mouths? With all your ad hominems, I hope that reasonable people will see through your words.
The government will do what it wants.
In your first sentence you said that the "government is simply the will of the people." Now you say that the government will do whatever it wants. Is the government an entity unto itself, or is it of, by, and for the people? Make up your mind. You're contradicting yourself.
Your gun(s) is/are just ANOTHER excuse for the government to spy on you.
As you yourself said, they will do what they want. So it doesn't matter. You defeated your own argument.
Sleep tight, citizen.
Armed citizens do indeed sleep better, knowing that if the need arose, they would have the means with which to defend themselves and their families.
The government isn't afraid of your guns.
That is a loaded statement and a useless generalization.
There are plenty of people in government who are afraid of citizens having guns. They would be happy if gun ownership were completely illegal.
There are also people in government who fully support the Second Amendment. They want good citizens to be armed, because they recognize that 1) the government is of, by, and for the people; 2) most people are decent and would never intentionally harm another person; 3) the government/police cannot ultimately protect citizens' lives; and perhaps, 4) liberty and personal responsibility are more important than fear.
And in America, with a gun on every nightstand and glovebox...
This suggests that you aren't American and don't actually know much of what you're talking about.
The grass is always greener, eh?
Y'all come back now, y'hear?
So you think that if the population isn't armed, the government won't want to surveil it or encroach upon its liberty?
Oh, yes, you're so right: none of the people in favor of the Second Amendment ever did anything to advance democracy or human rights:
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
~Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed."
~George Washington
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
~George Washington
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
~George Washington
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."
~Thomas Jefferson
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
~James Madison
Nevermind that those men are the ones who created the world's foremost democracy by the blood of many men, the nation which has thus far done the most to advance the cause of liberty and set the strongest example (no it's not perfect; that's not the point).
It's good to see that you are on the same side as freedom-loving, citizenry-trusting people like this:
."The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police."
~Adolph Hitler
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
Considering your blatant lies, ad hominems, and lack of reason, I can only conclude that you desire a fascist state.
If you're an American, shame on you for forgetting the history of your own nation. If you're a European, shame on you for forgetting what happened 70 years ago in your own neighborhood. If you're neither of those, shame on you for forgetting the (short) history of the free world, and for giving in to fear.
Thank you, that was amazing! I have copied it and will add to my copy whenever I come across relevant quotes.
I think the chief problem is that fear rules over reason in the minds of so many. And I don't know how to solve that, other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world. And people must make that decision on their own.
"Eternal vigilence..."
What can we do?
Did you forget about guerilla warfare? e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In all three the US had the machines of war, but the guerillas slowly but steadily made the uniformed forces' lives miserable until they wanted to withdraw. The latter two, of course, aren't over yet, but the example still stands.
Or maybe God created a universe full of beings like us (even if they don't look like us). Maybe they already know God.
Doctors were interviewed who claim to have treated the lizard-like aliens who are alleged to have crashed in Brazil years ago, and it was recorded in a book all about the Brazil crashes (I don't remember the title, but it should be very easy to find on Amazon). One of the doctors said that an injured alien said to him (I'm paraphrasing), "We feel pity for humans. You don't realize you are spiritual beings in physical bodies."
If aliens do exist, why would we have a monopoly on God, the creator of the universe?
There is a lot of truth and wisdom in your post. However, it's also the truth that we live in a world full of evil people, some of whom are in control of nation-states, some of which have military powers. It's also true that we cannot predict the future, so we must be prepared, and we should expect that someday there could be another large-scale conflict--yes, someday some evil group might try to take over the world again. There will always be war--or there will never be total peace--as long as this world is spinning. It's a sad but true fact.
So it sounds great to say, "We have to accept poverty and renouce war, before we can become a peaceful nation again. We have to embrace other industries besides indoctrination, propoganda, military armorments, and officious legislation if we want to survive." However, this is not a realistic thing to say. We can renounce war all we want, we can disband our militaries and pour all our money into "peaceful" industries, but we cannot make those with whom we share this planet do the same. We would be utterly foolish and naive to do so.
Your argument is ultimately based on a false dichotomy: that a) the military is imperialistic and evil, or b) there is no military. While Eisenhower's words about the military industrial complex may be more true than we realize, this does not mean that we can or should throw the whole thing away. It also does not mean that military research is inherently evil, or that offshoots of military research are a bad thing.
The military could be used in a good way for good purposes--that's what Congress and the President are supposed to be for. Now, whether it's possible to put it all back into Pandora's box is another matter, but to stick our head in the sand and become "a peaceful nation" (implying that we don't have or don't use our military) would be naive and foolish; and, one could argue, irresponsible, considering the 20th century. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Neutrality is a nice idea in theory, but should we have stayed out of WWII? Assuming that we could have stayed out of it and still exist as a nation today, would that have been the right thing to do, morally and ethically?
It might seem silly to mention a comic book, but "with great power comes great responsibility." Being a world superpower is a weighty matter. We should exercise our power with great care, but we should also use it for good, as best we can determine. The problem is that, quite simply, all humans are flawed, and that includes the leadership of the USA; so one cannot expect perfection, even from the most powerful nation or military in the world. To expect that is as unrealistic as to expect "world peace."
General aviation should not be considered a loophole but just as basic a privilege as driving a car.
However, the cost of avgas and insurance nowadays make general aviation practically an elite option, even if for a lesser class of elites. It wasn't that way years ago.
It's sad how these gross generalizations and logical fallacies get modded up all the time.
"Any person who doesn't hunt down and silence any person who claims to believe the same things yet is an 'extremist', such a person must be collaborating with the 'extremist'."
I don't agree with "extremists" like this, but I am not responsible for him. I am responsible for myself. You are responsible for using your brain and discerning--as you appear to be capable of--the extremists from the rest, and for discerning the differences between them, and for not piling them all into one lump group.
If you fail to do this, you are just as guilty as the people whom you accuse--moreso, I would argue. You're just passing the buck onto "the rest of them" for not "putting in place" "their own."
At least you admit that you're guilty of assuming.