Oh ya, "go out on a morphine drip" does not screw with peoples heads. You've obviously not been witness to what happens to people when they waste away and die.
Face it, you are ridiculing this guy because he has balls you'll never have. All you can do is call him selfish to make yourself feel better for not having the guts to face your own death with your eyes wide open. you'd rather go out on drugs, numb to the whole experience, all the time, whining about people who are much stronger than you. pathetic.
Please, explain exactly why the police watching you & everyone else all the time in public is bad. What, exactly, is the problem there?
You do not feel threatened by surveillance because you are not publicly challenging any authority. That's the pitfall of complacency, you feel "safe" as long as you comply and you do not see any problem with being watched because "you're doing the right thing".
One of the great physicists of our time Richard Feynman said
We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers⦠one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"
So you'll never PROVE evolution is true, just as you will never PROVE ID to be true or for that matter ANYTHING to be true! All you can every do is look at the world around you (evidence) and try and make a good guess as to what is going on.
The difference between the evolution and ID camps is the honest observation of the physical world. Scientists are always searching for new evidence to explain the world and their observations. The ID crowd is always searching for ways to prove their faith, it's that simple.
The ID crowd is as dangerous as any fascist movement, they will ignore all evidence that does not support their belief system.
Don't get me wrong, there are also scientist who are fascists. they truely belive their version of reality is the "correct" one. They are also as dangerous as the ID crowd. but they are usually not organized and they are few. The ID crowd is organized and there are a lot of them. It's truely a situation of mass delusion and it will quickly turn to fascism if they were to ever get in a position of power. Just look at the Islamic countries for example.
"feeding the poor" sounds really warm and fuzzy, but without a reversal in global population growth what are you "really" achieving? How about spending some of that money on weekly radio and TV spots that counteract the religious propaganda that we see and hear every day. I've love to see that, a syndicated radio network that examines sermons from famous religious leaders and exposes the fear and hate mongers that they really are. Now THAT would be charitable.
Oh they are titled are they? Oooooo, by a monarchy of the british empire. So lets see, this is a tough one, umm, lemme think, oh, I know, I want to be a lord, but I don't want to "self appoint" myself, hey, I'll ask my buddy joe monarch to do it. ya, that's the ticket. heck, all the little people out there will not catch on. And what is it with accepting a Monarchy? I mean common, to accept class status by blood? that is dark ages crap! It's bad enough we have a president thos *Thinks* he is a king, but to have a system where there really IS a king? By blood line no less! That is disgusting! Stop defending the people who control you! think for yourself!
Ya know, it's bad enough living in the states where the vast majority of the populace is leading the world, slipping into an IQ pit. I was hoping that maybe folks in other parts of the world could actually discern the difference between "what you've been taught" and what is really going on. Oh well, join the puppets.
It's plain and simple, LORDS, get it! LORDS! Get it? Oh, change it, house of emperors, house of Gods, house of Mohomands, House of Enrons! Is this getting through to you?
Ok, let me simplify this. You see, you've been told that a "Lord" of the house is not a deity, just a guy, you know, doing his job. but then why did they not call it "the house of regular Joes?" Hmmm, cuz you want to associate your self with a LORD, Get it!!!!
So here is some advice. If you get to a place where you are really important, you call your postion or group "the house of Saints" or someting like that. You see, it give you status, just by the association of "Sainthood./p?
Anyway, remember, you are down here and they are up there. then it all makes sense. enjoy
My apologies, I did not mean to offend the people who control your mind. Sorry my mistake, I mistakenly assumed you could think for yourself and actually "had a pair". Enjoy your serfdom, it will last you till the day you die.
At this point, can I say that God may not exist? It would take some mighty compelling evidence.
You missed the whole point. If you cannot say it the evidence appears, then the evidence will never appear because your filtering the evidence to support your belief. It's called "trying to prove a negative" and it cannot be done.
For example "It would take some mighty compelling evidence to make me not believe in the tooth fairy". So, there is never going to be any evidence to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, only evidence to suggest that other things exist, like forces of nature etc, but none of it will prove or even suggest that a tooth fair does not exist, just as no evidence exists to prove that green slim monsters do not live in the 665th dimension. (that's the dimension right next to hell btw, which is the 666th dimension)
So again, you're not being objective nor are you trying to reconcile anything, you are trying to fit observed phenomenon of the physical world into a context that reinforces your belief system. That's cool if that's what you want to do, it's a free country, but please, don't kid yourself or others that you are trying to reconcile anything, thats a delusion.
Or you could be like me: a godist (in your terms) who really wants to reconcile science and faith.
At first glance that sounds good, but say it different..."I'm a tooth-fairy-ist who really wants to reconcile science and tooth-fairy-ism". It just does not have the same ring.
More to the point, to be viewed as an objective person with no bias towards the evidence, you must first show your objectivity and/or scepticism by stating that the observed evidence can influence your opinion in either direction. Ie, god may not exist and/or evolution may not exist.
Just as any real scientist would say - "I believe what the evidence shows me and I'm willing to throw out all my current beliefs if new evidence arises that contradicts my current beliefs". granted it would most certainly be really really good evidence, but a real objective person who seeks truth has to be able to say such things.
So my point is, your kidding yourself if you think you are trying to "reconcile" anything. What you are doing is trying to find bits and pieces of evidence to support your pre-conceived belief that god exists.
You cannot be objective unless you are willing to admit that all you now believe may be completely wrong. If you cannot, then all you observe in the world will be filtered through your belief system in support of your manufactured reality.
I'm willing to say it. Evolution may be a complete crock of &*^% and totally wrong. God may exist and created everything we see. That was not to hard, it feels good.
Now, can you say that God may not exist and evolution may be completely correct? Hmmm?
If they can generate images of kids that you cannot tell are fake, then they can generate images of YOU that cannot be identified as fake.
So, it's just a matter of time before we start putting "sicko pedo bastards" in jail for harming innocent children when in fact, not a single real person appears in the photo.
At the same time, real sick and twisted pedophiles, who are smart enough to cover their tracks, will continue to abuse real children. But who cares about that right? As long as we hang a few, innocent or not, it makes us feel better.
There does seem to be a link between viewing child porn and abusing children. Um, got any proof? Like maybe citing your references?
There have been many studies that show that all pron can have a very bad effect. And BTW, masturbating (or self abuse as many porno-phobics call it) can cause blindness. OMG, I'm doomed!
American beauty got it right..."Never underestimate the power of denial".
Open your mind. Going to the moon gives us lots of clues and evidence that it is not made of cheese, everyone agrees with that, well...most everyone. But it does not PROVE that is it not made of cheese. it only says that we are 99.999...... percent certain that it is not and that all the evidence says it is not. But who knows, maybe as soon as we leave the moon it turns to cheese, some lunar phenomenon that we have not yet observed hence, once we observe the phenomenon we conclude that the moon is made of cheese "sometimes".
you see, you are looking for black and white, the world does not work that way. Science understands this and that is what makes it so powerful enlightening. Faith on the other hand is locked into "this is what I believe regardless of the evidence" and that is why you are confused.
Open your mind to the grey areas of existence and you find reality to be much more interesting and fulfilling than any faith based belief system.
The paradox is that if you ask the question... "So before convincing me it is true, tell me how it can be falsified" the person you are asking turns around and asks you the same question about your theory. Even if you both answer, you still have not proven anything. In other words, lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence or "you cannot prove a negative".
The reason you are having trouble understanding the theory of evolution is because you are having difficulty understanding the scientific method. To prove it, apply the scientific method to your statement (your theory) and see if it stands up to testing. Like this....
1) So before convincing me that the moon is made from cheese, tell me how it can NOT be made of cheese.
Of course lots of logical reasons could be given as to why the moon is not made of cheese however, does that prove that the moon is not made of cheese? No it does not, it simply says that given the available evidence to date, the best theory at this point is that the moon is not made of cheese.
If you can firmly grasp this concept then you quickly find that Darwinism and the scientific method do not challenge your faith since neither can disprove the existence of anything. The beauty of the scientific method is that it does not disprove anything just as the theory of evolution does not disprove anything, include the possibility of the existence of God.
So you see, it's not science that challenges your faith, it is reality that challenges your faith, as well it should.
I know how a PC works, and how it is put together, therefore Dell does not make PCs.
That is a very rational way of looking at the situation. Lets face it, until we have overwhelming evidence for one or the other, either theory could be "right" and/or both could be "Right". Your approach leaves room for everyone to be "right" until we learn more and discover more.
I will point out one flaw that I see. To make your analogy more accurate, I would suggest replacing dell with an entity that is not universally accepted to exist or universally accepted to manufacture the product. (just like god) For instance, this statement...
I know how a PC works, and how it is put together, therefore Aliens do not make PCs.
That statement does not really make much sense because most people (some would disagree), but most rational people do not assume that aliens make PC's. And some percentage of rational people do not believe that aliens exist at all. (again, some would disagree)
So, I think a more meaningful analogy might be...
I know how a PC works, and how it is put together, therefore I may be able to create a PC.
That statement does not really say much about the existence, or non-existence of god, but it says you may be able to build a really bitchin gaming rig.:)
Cummon, save the double standards for Oprah, not/.
Your "generally acceptable" is generally a double standard. If its' "generally acceptable" for women to get their lobes pierced, why not men?
Are not clothes a form of body modification? Are clothes not visible? Is wearing clothes a sign of visible body modification? Are you suggesting we all go naked? (I'm all for it BTW).
I think this is one more case of looking at the symptom rather than the cause. A tatoo or piercing is just a ornament. Nothing more, nothing less. A tatoo or piercing does not think or make decisions or have emotions. it's the person who chooses to get one (or both) that makes those decisions.
Personally, I do not care either way what people do however, I must say, that usually when I run across people with tatoos and piercings it is a sign that the person is trying to modify their appearnce for some reason which is usually irrational. Not always, but in many cases I find that.
But if you really think about it, almost everything in our lives is irriational. The most basic of "looking professional" is to wear a suit and tie. Neither is rational. The only rational excuse for wearing clothes to to protect yourself from either the elements or danger. Everyday we wear clothes for an irrational reason "to keep from offending someone else by our nudity" That's about as irrational as it gets.
There is probably a 1000 things a day we do that is irrational. So getting tatooed or pierced is probably just continuing the trend.
Don't forget that although sexual feelings are normal, the porn industry, especially the nastier internet side, thrives by exploiting and prostituting people.
That's a generalization. That's like saying..."Don't forget that although sexual feelings are normal, the religious industry, especially the Catholic priests, thrives by exploiting and molesting young children".
Nobody denies that there is some molesting of young children going on in the Catholic church, but does that mean that all Catholic priests are molesters?
Yes, there is some porn out there which is very distasteful, (in my opinion) but that does not mean it is all bad.
And lets keep it in perspective. Does Hollywood care about its B movie actresses? You know, the girls they use to parade naked through the scene, just before the murder slashes them to pieces and the camera angle ensures that you see her firm ripe breasts giggling as she dies and blood drips across her naked body? If that is not sick, I do not know what is.
Good pornography, like good movies (or any good activity for that mater) is about people doing what they freely want to do to try and bring pleasure to themselves. And if others get pleasure from watching it, then that's great.
The prOn industry does not operate for the best interests of its low level employees.
Again, a generalization and an assumption. I know a LOT of companies who do not operate in the best interest of their low level employees. I worked for some.:)
It doesn't have anything to do with religion
I agree completely. Unfortunately, many religious people feel compelled to bash anything that does not conform to the morality that is dictated to them by their faith. It's a shame.
the industry as a whole exploits and debases its workers.
Again, I know a lot of companies who could be accused of that. I won't name names, but the headlines in any national paper usually has some sort of story about a major company either hiring illegal aliens, buying imports from companies who use child labor, etc.
The porn industry is just like any other. They sell a product that a lot of people want and some of them are upstanding companies who are genuinely concerned about their employees, customers and the quality of their product, and others are...well...as bad as the priest who molest young children.
But we should not judge any industry or religion by the few jerks who happen to be affiliated with such.
Great post. Good examples and I agree with most of what you said. I'll point out a few things I think may be interesting, none of which prove or disprove anything, but you might find them interesting.
voluntary cooperative "government" cannot sustain itself beyond large numbers
That may or may not be true. Wouldn't you agree that a more correct statement would be "we have not yet seen any examples of voluntary cooperative "government" which are able to sustain themselves beyond small numbers" Or in other words, we cannot prove a negative. Just because we have not witnessed a large cooperative government system, does not mean it could not exist.
I'd like to think that someday, someone will come up with a great idea of how to approach cooperative government in a way that will "scale" well. Yes, it's a long shot and I personally have no idea what form that might take. But I hesitate to say it cannot be done, for if I do so, then I have condemned it to failure in my mind and I therefore will not give new ideas the fresh look that they perhaps deserve.
Moreover, it's harder to convince people to support a large impersonal government of their own free will. It's a lot easier to get them to support a small group of people that they can see or a government they can directly take part in.
I agree with this. However, could it not be said then, that this example illustrates the tension between large impersonal government and free will? Or more simply, can a society continue to grow into a large impersonal central control system and still foster free will in its individuals? Or are those mutually exclusive ideas?
Yet many tribes have an endless problem with war and conflict between tribes, however good a small society may be internally. Can you get over that hurdle?
Regretfully, no. But then again, no society has yet succeeded in that area. In fact, if we look at nations as tribes, they are always bickering and fighting. (well, except Switzerland...just kidding):)
You have a lot of good examples and points. And I'll bet we are both on the same page. The US government is probably the best attempt yet in history to have a representative government. It's not perfect, far from it, but it's still not bad considering the existing alternatives.
I guess only history will tell. Rome fell, Briton, France, Germany, they all fell. There is not one example of any nation in the history of the world that has not fallen from power. So if we look at the examples of history, eventually, the US will fall. I'd like to see the US remain a good example of how to do things and how to have quality of life for individuals. But, I think history and the laws of nature win out on that one. At that point, maybe the tribe thing will come back into vogue.:)
I never said that, I said just the opposite. In fact, I'll say it clearly again...
I THINK YOU MAY BE RIGHT AND I MAY BE WRONG.
My point being, you cannot admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, you cannot communicate, you can only dictate. Just repeat the sentence above to me and prove me wrong.
It's easy for me to say "what I think may only work for me and nobody else. If somebody does not believe what I believe then no big deal. Their answer may be a better answer for them than my answer is for me".
Again, you cannot say that.
You should really try and be honest with the people you try to communicate with. Here is what you are trying to say, in a round about way...
"Christianity is the correct faith for every individual on the face of the earth. And if they do not believe in the christian god, they will suffer the consequences. The correct guidlines for how you should live your life is clearly laid out in the bible".
It all boils down to that. I'm simply saying that my beliefs work for me and may not work for anyone else. You are saying your beliefs are the only correct beliefs. And you are unable to entertain any thoughts that may contradict your beliefs. ie, you are unreasonable when it comes to your beliefs.
With an attitude like that, there is no possible way any useful communication could ever take place because you have already made up your mind. This is not rocket science, just honesty.
I'll agree, printing money is definitely not the answer, at least not with the way the current world economy is structured.
To address your question...
Assuming a government is necessary, it's got to pay its employees and buy its stuff somehow
You begin with an assumption "government is necessary" so before we continue any further we have to try and validate that assumption, otherwise the rest of the solution is based on an assumption that may be wrong.
I would agree that most people today would say that Government is necessary. But that is getting back to the common sense idea. On a fundamental level, is Government really necessary? Is it necessary to impose a tax on individuals of a society? Does a government have a right to impose its will on it's citizens? If so, is there any limit to the governments right to impose its will?
If we look back in history we can see examples of very successful cultures who did not have government as we know it. The native Americans, some tribes in Africa and even today, there are some very primitive cultures in south America which do not have a governmental system as we know it and therefore, no taxation as we know it. In most cases individuals are still expected to contribute effort to better the tribe however.
I'll agree with you that government of some form may be necessary for a civilization to prosper. And at some level, it appears, that individuals must contribute back to the group in order for the civilization to grow.
But I would never want to say that the only way to run a country is the current way I see before me. Because then we stop thinking of better ways to do things. And as I said before, questioning the current way we do things is why we no longer have slavery and women have the right to vote etc.
So, I'll agree with you again that, in it's current form, the government needs to collect taxes of some amount.
I personally would like to see a society where most activities of the individuals were voluntary and not forced by the government. ie, people volunteer to contribute back to the group in whatever amount or whatever form they feel sufficient. That's just a concept, not a working model.
But in theory, wouldn't that be nice? It will probably never happen, but what a nice goal to work towards. It may sound crazy, but then again, 200 years ago, if we were to stand up and shout "woman should be allowed to vote and black people should be free", we would be labeled well, all sorts of things.
So personally, I like the idea of individuals, willingly contributing to a group or society that they feel is worth contributing towards. I'm not a big fan of being born into obligations that you may not agree with. Is that government or taxation? I dunno.:)
You really should try to free yourself from your delusional state. You are unable to think rationally nor are you able to be honest with yourself or others. Just come out and say it, here I'll help you, please correct me if any of my statements are wrong.
"Christianity is the only true, right and just religion in the world. All other religions are incorrect and have false prophets. The only way to know god is through Jesus Christ. People can believe whatever they want, but if it is not a belief god, as defined in the bible, their beliefs are wrong".
See how simple that was? Just say it like it is, be honest with yourself and others. I know, it's hard at first, but eventually it will get easier for you. And if you disagree with any of those statements, please, point it out (clearly).
Now, to prove to you that I am a rational person, I'll write a statement showing that I clearly can think about my religion and question it outright. In other words, I'm still thinking about the subject, I have not closed off my mind like some. Here is my statement about my religion, have a gander....
"As a person who believes in science, I can easily and honestly say that science does not have all the answers. It is a process of learning and what we know today is most likely flawed in some way or needs some sort of modification to theory. So, I do believe that science holds the possibility for ultimate truth, but I could be wrong. I also give credence to any other point of view (religion or science) that either brings evidence to the table or just sparks an interest in me. The important point is, I do not KNOW anything, I only have ideas of what works for me and I truly believe that other peoples ideas are just as valid as mine."
I know this is hard, but do you see the difference? I'm not claiming to know anything, I'm simply claiming to know what works for ME. You on the other hand, claim to have the (or know the source of) the key to morality, happiness, etc, etc. You believe you have the correct answer and you believe your answer is correct for everyone Else. And anyone who does not believe what you believe is, as you put it, "any individual is free to ruin his life by living an immoral life. But there's no use pretending that's good." throwing their life away. That's called condescending.
So, to sum it up. How is it possible to have a discussion when someone has already made up their mind? Answer, you can't, you can only have arguments. (this thread is a perfect example).
Here, I'll even offer to end this on a positive note. I'll say this...."I support and encourage your right to believe in your religion, and I think that your religion has just as much possibility of being 'right' as my religion". (I truly believe that BTW)
Now, if you are capable of conversing, you should be able to write that exact same sentence to me or anyone else. If you can't, you not thinking, your preaching.
I hope that is clear now, it is impossible for you to converse (or think for yourself) if you cannot admit that what you believe may be wrong. You cannot have it both ways. And if you continue to pretend to be a thoughtfully person, you're just lying to yourself and everyone around you. But the rational people around you, already know that.
That's very interesting about the colonial government and the conscripted militias. However, a very slight detail seems to have eluded you. We are not ruled by colonial government any more. You speak as if colonial governments decision to use their militias has something to do with post-colonial America. Um, hate to break this to you, the constitution of the United States is the law of the land now, not colonial law. Did you miss that?
You seem to be getting confused with the difference between colonial government and what is today referred to as "Federal Government". The Federal Government, as we know it today, came into existence in 1789. So when you talk about "general" Washington and the "federal government". You are really still talking about colonial government, which has absolutely NO bearing on the functioning of the Federal Government today.
The Federal Government is defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. And the 13th Amendment to that Constitution say "Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude - [shall exist within the United States]". And nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it talk about a "Selective Service" or Draft. What part of "involuntary servitude" are you having trouble understanding?
Do you even care what the constitution says? Do you really think that a "back door draft" is moral? You may find it easy to accept your orders to kill people you do not know, maybe that makes you feel like a big strong man. Perhaps it makes you feel accepted to be a good boy, do as you told and don't ask questions and never question authority. However, for thinking, reasoning people, the concept of a draft is in direct opposition to personal freedom. I get the impression you don't care to much for personal freedom, you'd rather do as your told, just to be accepted, rather than stand up for human rights.
In any regard, you should spend more time READING the CURRENT documents that govern your country rather than dwelling on meaningless colonial law. You might actually learn something.
You gotta pay taxes. That's not natural rights, that's not law, that's common sense.
I'll agree, most people "today" would call that common sense. However, let us not forget that 100 years ago it was "common sense" that women did not have the intellectual capacity to vote. 150 years ago, most people in the southern states would say that it is "common sense" that black people should not be free. 200 years ago it was "common sense" that witches could masquerade as people and needed to be burned at the stake. And if you did not think that was "common sense", well, you were probably a witch. And lastly, not to long ago it was "common sense" that the earth was flat. And anyone who does not believe that the earth is flat is obviously an idiot, I mean just look, you can see it is flat, right? It's just common sense.
So, your argument that it is "common sense" that you have to pay taxes may be true. However, as history shows, "common sense" changes over time and among cultures. To say something is "common sense" is just saying that the majority of the people believe it to be true at a particular time. But claiming the "common sense" argument definitely does not support the idea as being the "right" way to do things. Nor does it suggest that there are not better ways to do things. In fact, claiming that something is "common sense" is usually the last argument to be used because no other substantive data can be provided to support the claim.
Wow, are'nt you on the moral high ground. That "former, what ever that means" person who accused you of pride was RIGHT! In fact they should have accused you of arogant pride. Lets look at how many times you claim to know what I and others think....
if you claim that you do not have those urges, then I claim you are being untruthful
I am a sinner like you and all other people
the morality of the issue is clear
Lets look at how many time you claim to know what is good for everyone
All people are subject to the temptations of sin.
Sex is great, but only within the confines of marriage
Outside of marriage, sex is wrong. As in morally wrong.
And you accuse me of "Ad Hominem attacks"? That's classic neo christian reasoning for you. Your entire argument (if you can call it that) is nothing more than a feeble attempt to cloak your repressive christian views on the rest of society.
Face it, you believe your god is right and anyone who does not believe in your god is wrong. If you don't, I challenge you to publicly write that you personally believe that other religions are just as viable as Christianity and therefore, other religions are just as "correct". If you cant say that, then you have already made up your mind and you proved that you are nothing more than a mindless christian borg, roaming the earth with no purpose but to try and impose the rule of your god on everyone else because you cannot think for yourslef.
Prove me wrong Mr morality, let everyone know that you respect their religion just as mush as you respect yours. Say it plainly "all religions are equal" or don't say it at all. I can say it, I believe it.
If you cannot say it, then rational and logical people correctly label you "a self righteous asshole".
If I knew some passages from the Koran, or Torah, I would quote those here. Just to show you how stupid it is to try and have a logical debate when one person refuses to think for themselves and reverts to logic by passage. Oh wait, here, I found a "good book". You must be wrong, because in my book it says...."I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am". Ahhh, see, we are all tempted to not like green eggs and ham. And we are all tempted to call ourselves Sam I am. What a sinner you are!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh ya, "go out on a morphine drip" does not screw with peoples heads. You've obviously not been witness to what happens to people when they waste away and die. Face it, you are ridiculing this guy because he has balls you'll never have. All you can do is call him selfish to make yourself feel better for not having the guts to face your own death with your eyes wide open. you'd rather go out on drugs, numb to the whole experience, all the time, whining about people who are much stronger than you. pathetic.
Please, explain exactly why the police watching you & everyone else all the time in public is bad. What, exactly, is the problem there?
You do not feel threatened by surveillance because you are not publicly challenging any authority. That's the pitfall of complacency, you feel "safe" as long as you comply and you do not see any problem with being watched because "you're doing the right thing".
We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers⦠one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"
So you'll never PROVE evolution is true, just as you will never PROVE ID to be true or for that matter ANYTHING to be true! All you can every do is look at the world around you (evidence) and try and make a good guess as to what is going on.
The difference between the evolution and ID camps is the honest observation of the physical world. Scientists are always searching for new evidence to explain the world and their observations. The ID crowd is always searching for ways to prove their faith, it's that simple.
The ID crowd is as dangerous as any fascist movement, they will ignore all evidence that does not support their belief system.
Don't get me wrong, there are also scientist who are fascists. they truely belive their version of reality is the "correct" one. They are also as dangerous as the ID crowd. but they are usually not organized and they are few. The ID crowd is organized and there are a lot of them. It's truely a situation of mass delusion and it will quickly turn to fascism if they were to ever get in a position of power. Just look at the Islamic countries for example.
"feeding the poor" sounds really warm and fuzzy, but without a reversal in global population growth what are you "really" achieving? How about spending some of that money on weekly radio and TV spots that counteract the religious propaganda that we see and hear every day. I've love to see that, a syndicated radio network that examines sermons from famous religious leaders and exposes the fear and hate mongers that they really are. Now THAT would be charitable.
Oh they are titled are they? Oooooo, by a monarchy of the british empire. So lets see, this is a tough one, umm, lemme think, oh, I know, I want to be a lord, but I don't want to "self appoint" myself, hey, I'll ask my buddy joe monarch to do it. ya, that's the ticket. heck, all the little people out there will not catch on. And what is it with accepting a Monarchy? I mean common, to accept class status by blood? that is dark ages crap! It's bad enough we have a president thos *Thinks* he is a king, but to have a system where there really IS a king? By blood line no less! That is disgusting! Stop defending the people who control you! think for yourself!
Ya know, it's bad enough living in the states where the vast majority of the populace is leading the world, slipping into an IQ pit. I was hoping that maybe folks in other parts of the world could actually discern the difference between "what you've been taught" and what is really going on. Oh well, join the puppets.
It's plain and simple, LORDS, get it! LORDS! Get it? Oh, change it, house of emperors, house of Gods, house of Mohomands, House of Enrons! Is this getting through to you?
Ok, let me simplify this. You see, you've been told that a "Lord" of the house is not a deity, just a guy, you know, doing his job. but then why did they not call it "the house of regular Joes?" Hmmm, cuz you want to associate your self with a LORD, Get it!!!!
So here is some advice. If you get to a place where you are really important, you call your postion or group "the house of Saints" or someting like that. You see, it give you status, just by the association of "Sainthood. /p?
Anyway, remember, you are down here and they are up there. then it all makes sense. enjoy
My apologies, I did not mean to offend the people who control your mind. Sorry my mistake, I mistakenly assumed you could think for yourself and actually "had a pair". Enjoy your serfdom, it will last you till the day you die.
Class distinction through self appointed title is bad enough, but to call yourself "Lord".... that's just rings of egoooooooo.
You missed the whole point. If you cannot say it the evidence appears, then the evidence will never appear because your filtering the evidence to support your belief. It's called "trying to prove a negative" and it cannot be done.
For example "It would take some mighty compelling evidence to make me not believe in the tooth fairy". So, there is never going to be any evidence to prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, only evidence to suggest that other things exist, like forces of nature etc, but none of it will prove or even suggest that a tooth fair does not exist, just as no evidence exists to prove that green slim monsters do not live in the 665th dimension. (that's the dimension right next to hell btw, which is the 666th dimension)
So again, you're not being objective nor are you trying to reconcile anything, you are trying to fit observed phenomenon of the physical world into a context that reinforces your belief system. That's cool if that's what you want to do, it's a free country, but please, don't kid yourself or others that you are trying to reconcile anything, thats a delusion.
At first glance that sounds good, but say it different..."I'm a tooth-fairy-ist who really wants to reconcile science and tooth-fairy-ism". It just does not have the same ring.
More to the point, to be viewed as an objective person with no bias towards the evidence, you must first show your objectivity and/or scepticism by stating that the observed evidence can influence your opinion in either direction. Ie, god may not exist and/or evolution may not exist.
Just as any real scientist would say - "I believe what the evidence shows me and I'm willing to throw out all my current beliefs if new evidence arises that contradicts my current beliefs". granted it would most certainly be really really good evidence, but a real objective person who seeks truth has to be able to say such things.
So my point is, your kidding yourself if you think you are trying to "reconcile" anything. What you are doing is trying to find bits and pieces of evidence to support your pre-conceived belief that god exists.
You cannot be objective unless you are willing to admit that all you now believe may be completely wrong. If you cannot, then all you observe in the world will be filtered through your belief system in support of your manufactured reality.
I'm willing to say it. Evolution may be a complete crock of &*^% and totally wrong. God may exist and created everything we see. That was not to hard, it feels good.
Now, can you say that God may not exist and evolution may be completely correct? Hmmm?
If they can generate images of kids that you cannot tell are fake, then they can generate images of YOU that cannot be identified as fake. So, it's just a matter of time before we start putting "sicko pedo bastards" in jail for harming innocent children when in fact, not a single real person appears in the photo. At the same time, real sick and twisted pedophiles, who are smart enough to cover their tracks, will continue to abuse real children. But who cares about that right? As long as we hang a few, innocent or not, it makes us feel better.
Open your mind. Going to the moon gives us lots of clues and evidence that it is not made of cheese, everyone agrees with that, well...most everyone. But it does not PROVE that is it not made of cheese. it only says that we are 99.999...... percent certain that it is not and that all the evidence says it is not. But who knows, maybe as soon as we leave the moon it turns to cheese, some lunar phenomenon that we have not yet observed hence, once we observe the phenomenon we conclude that the moon is made of cheese "sometimes".
you see, you are looking for black and white, the world does not work that way. Science understands this and that is what makes it so powerful enlightening. Faith on the other hand is locked into "this is what I believe regardless of the evidence" and that is why you are confused.
Open your mind to the grey areas of existence and you find reality to be much more interesting and fulfilling than any faith based belief system.
The paradox is that if you ask the question... "So before convincing me it is true, tell me how it can be falsified" the person you are asking turns around and asks you the same question about your theory. Even if you both answer, you still have not proven anything. In other words, lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence or "you cannot prove a negative".
The reason you are having trouble understanding the theory of evolution is because you are having difficulty understanding the scientific method. To prove it, apply the scientific method to your statement (your theory) and see if it stands up to testing. Like this....
1) So before convincing me that the moon is made from cheese, tell me how it can NOT be made of cheese.
Of course lots of logical reasons could be given as to why the moon is not made of cheese however, does that prove that the moon is not made of cheese? No it does not, it simply says that given the available evidence to date, the best theory at this point is that the moon is not made of cheese.
If you can firmly grasp this concept then you quickly find that Darwinism and the scientific method do not challenge your faith since neither can disprove the existence of anything. The beauty of the scientific method is that it does not disprove anything just as the theory of evolution does not disprove anything, include the possibility of the existence of God.
So you see, it's not science that challenges your faith, it is reality that challenges your faith, as well it should.
That is a very rational way of looking at the situation. Lets face it, until we have overwhelming evidence for one or the other, either theory could be "right" and/or both could be "Right". Your approach leaves room for everyone to be "right" until we learn more and discover more.
I will point out one flaw that I see. To make your analogy more accurate, I would suggest replacing dell with an entity that is not universally accepted to exist or universally accepted to manufacture the product. (just like god) For instance, this statement...
That statement does not really make much sense because most people (some would disagree), but most rational people do not assume that aliens make PC's. And some percentage of rational people do not believe that aliens exist at all. (again, some would disagree)
So, I think a more meaningful analogy might be...
That statement does not really say much about the existence, or non-existence of god, but it says you may be able to build a really bitchin gaming rig. :)
Hmm, Myabe it's just me, but that sentence just does not add up. How can you have freedom of commerce in a centralized economy?
Seems to me that a qualifier is needed. ie,
However, that pretty much throws any real freedom out the door.
Depending on where you are in Northern CA, this might work. We use it and like it. California Oregon Telephone Company
Cummon, save the double standards for Oprah, not /.
Your "generally acceptable" is generally a double standard. If its' "generally acceptable" for women to get their lobes pierced, why not men?
Are not clothes a form of body modification? Are clothes not visible? Is wearing clothes a sign of visible body modification? Are you suggesting we all go naked? (I'm all for it BTW).
I think this is one more case of looking at the symptom rather than the cause. A tatoo or piercing is just a ornament. Nothing more, nothing less. A tatoo or piercing does not think or make decisions or have emotions. it's the person who chooses to get one (or both) that makes those decisions.
Personally, I do not care either way what people do however, I must say, that usually when I run across people with tatoos and piercings it is a sign that the person is trying to modify their appearnce for some reason which is usually irrational. Not always, but in many cases I find that.
But if you really think about it, almost everything in our lives is irriational. The most basic of "looking professional" is to wear a suit and tie. Neither is rational. The only rational excuse for wearing clothes to to protect yourself from either the elements or danger. Everyday we wear clothes for an irrational reason "to keep from offending someone else by our nudity" That's about as irrational as it gets.
There is probably a 1000 things a day we do that is irrational. So getting tatooed or pierced is probably just continuing the trend.
That's a generalization. That's like saying..."Don't forget that although sexual feelings are normal, the religious industry, especially the Catholic priests, thrives by exploiting and molesting young children".
Nobody denies that there is some molesting of young children going on in the Catholic church, but does that mean that all Catholic priests are molesters?
Yes, there is some porn out there which is very distasteful, (in my opinion) but that does not mean it is all bad.
And lets keep it in perspective. Does Hollywood care about its B movie actresses? You know, the girls they use to parade naked through the scene, just before the murder slashes them to pieces and the camera angle ensures that you see her firm ripe breasts giggling as she dies and blood drips across her naked body? If that is not sick, I do not know what is.
Good pornography, like good movies (or any good activity for that mater) is about people doing what they freely want to do to try and bring pleasure to themselves. And if others get pleasure from watching it, then that's great.
Again, a generalization and an assumption. I know a LOT of companies who do not operate in the best interest of their low level employees. I worked for some.
I agree completely. Unfortunately, many religious people feel compelled to bash anything that does not conform to the morality that is dictated to them by their faith. It's a shame.
Again, I know a lot of companies who could be accused of that. I won't name names, but the headlines in any national paper usually has some sort of story about a major company either hiring illegal aliens, buying imports from companies who use child labor, etc.
The porn industry is just like any other. They sell a product that a lot of people want and some of them are upstanding companies who are genuinely concerned about their employees, customers and the quality of their product, and others are...well...as bad as the priest who molest young children.
But we should not judge any industry or religion by the few jerks who happen to be affiliated with such.
Hi Geoffrey,
Great post. Good examples and I agree with most of what you said. I'll point out a few things I think may be interesting, none of which prove or disprove anything, but you might find them interesting.
That may or may not be true. Wouldn't you agree that a more correct statement would be "we have not yet seen any examples of voluntary cooperative "government" which are able to sustain themselves beyond small numbers" Or in other words, we cannot prove a negative. Just because we have not witnessed a large cooperative government system, does not mean it could not exist.
I'd like to think that someday, someone will come up with a great idea of how to approach cooperative government in a way that will "scale" well. Yes, it's a long shot and I personally have no idea what form that might take. But I hesitate to say it cannot be done, for if I do so, then I have condemned it to failure in my mind and I therefore will not give new ideas the fresh look that they perhaps deserve.
I agree with this. However, could it not be said then, that this example illustrates the tension between large impersonal government and free will? Or more simply, can a society continue to grow into a large impersonal central control system and still foster free will in its individuals? Or are those mutually exclusive ideas?
Regretfully, no. But then again, no society has yet succeeded in that area. In fact, if we look at nations as tribes, they are always bickering and fighting. (well, except Switzerland...just kidding) :)
You have a lot of good examples and points. And I'll bet we are both on the same page. The US government is probably the best attempt yet in history to have a representative government. It's not perfect, far from it, but it's still not bad considering the existing alternatives.
I guess only history will tell. Rome fell, Briton, France, Germany, they all fell. There is not one example of any nation in the history of the world that has not fallen from power. So if we look at the examples of history, eventually, the US will fall. I'd like to see the US remain a good example of how to do things and how to have quality of life for individuals. But, I think history and the laws of nature win out on that one. At that point, maybe the tribe thing will come back into vogue. :)
You completely missed the point.
I never said that, I said just the opposite. In fact, I'll say it clearly again...
I THINK YOU MAY BE RIGHT AND I MAY BE WRONG.
My point being, you cannot admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, you cannot communicate, you can only dictate. Just repeat the sentence above to me and prove me wrong.
It's easy for me to say "what I think may only work for me and nobody else. If somebody does not believe what I believe then no big deal. Their answer may be a better answer for them than my answer is for me".
Again, you cannot say that.
You should really try and be honest with the people you try to communicate with. Here is what you are trying to say, in a round about way...
"Christianity is the correct faith for every individual on the face of the earth. And if they do not believe in the christian god, they will suffer the consequences. The correct guidlines for how you should live your life is clearly laid out in the bible".
It all boils down to that. I'm simply saying that my beliefs work for me and may not work for anyone else. You are saying your beliefs are the only correct beliefs. And you are unable to entertain any thoughts that may contradict your beliefs. ie, you are unreasonable when it comes to your beliefs.
With an attitude like that, there is no possible way any useful communication could ever take place because you have already made up your mind. This is not rocket science, just honesty.
To address your question...
You begin with an assumption "government is necessary" so before we continue any further we have to try and validate that assumption, otherwise the rest of the solution is based on an assumption that may be wrong.
I would agree that most people today would say that Government is necessary. But that is getting back to the common sense idea. On a fundamental level, is Government really necessary? Is it necessary to impose a tax on individuals of a society? Does a government have a right to impose its will on it's citizens? If so, is there any limit to the governments right to impose its will?
If we look back in history we can see examples of very successful cultures who did not have government as we know it. The native Americans, some tribes in Africa and even today, there are some very primitive cultures in south America which do not have a governmental system as we know it and therefore, no taxation as we know it. In most cases individuals are still expected to contribute effort to better the tribe however.
I'll agree with you that government of some form may be necessary for a civilization to prosper. And at some level, it appears, that individuals must contribute back to the group in order for the civilization to grow.
But I would never want to say that the only way to run a country is the current way I see before me. Because then we stop thinking of better ways to do things. And as I said before, questioning the current way we do things is why we no longer have slavery and women have the right to vote etc.
So, I'll agree with you again that, in it's current form, the government needs to collect taxes of some amount.
I personally would like to see a society where most activities of the individuals were voluntary and not forced by the government. ie, people volunteer to contribute back to the group in whatever amount or whatever form they feel sufficient. That's just a concept, not a working model.
But in theory, wouldn't that be nice? It will probably never happen, but what a nice goal to work towards. It may sound crazy, but then again, 200 years ago, if we were to stand up and shout "woman should be allowed to vote and black people should be free", we would be labeled well, all sorts of things.
So personally, I like the idea of individuals, willingly contributing to a group or society that they feel is worth contributing towards. I'm not a big fan of being born into obligations that you may not agree with. Is that government or taxation? I dunno.
Just my 2 cents
You really should try to free yourself from your delusional state. You are unable to think rationally nor are you able to be honest with yourself or others. Just come out and say it, here I'll help you, please correct me if any of my statements are wrong.
"Christianity is the only true, right and just religion in the world. All other religions are incorrect and have false prophets. The only way to know god is through Jesus Christ. People can believe whatever they want, but if it is not a belief god, as defined in the bible, their beliefs are wrong".
See how simple that was? Just say it like it is, be honest with yourself and others. I know, it's hard at first, but eventually it will get easier for you. And if you disagree with any of those statements, please, point it out (clearly).
Now, to prove to you that I am a rational person, I'll write a statement showing that I clearly can think about my religion and question it outright. In other words, I'm still thinking about the subject, I have not closed off my mind like some. Here is my statement about my religion, have a gander....
"As a person who believes in science, I can easily and honestly say that science does not have all the answers. It is a process of learning and what we know today is most likely flawed in some way or needs some sort of modification to theory. So, I do believe that science holds the possibility for ultimate truth, but I could be wrong. I also give credence to any other point of view (religion or science) that either brings evidence to the table or just sparks an interest in me. The important point is, I do not KNOW anything, I only have ideas of what works for me and I truly believe that other peoples ideas are just as valid as mine."
I know this is hard, but do you see the difference? I'm not claiming to know anything, I'm simply claiming to know what works for ME. You on the other hand, claim to have the (or know the source of) the key to morality, happiness, etc, etc. You believe you have the correct answer and you believe your answer is correct for everyone Else. And anyone who does not believe what you believe is, as you put it, "any individual is free to ruin his life by living an immoral life. But there's no use pretending that's good." throwing their life away. That's called condescending.
So, to sum it up. How is it possible to have a discussion when someone has already made up their mind? Answer, you can't, you can only have arguments. (this thread is a perfect example).
Here, I'll even offer to end this on a positive note. I'll say this...."I support and encourage your right to believe in your religion, and I think that your religion has just as much possibility of being 'right' as my religion". (I truly believe that BTW)
Now, if you are capable of conversing, you should be able to write that exact same sentence to me or anyone else. If you can't, you not thinking, your preaching.
I hope that is clear now, it is impossible for you to converse (or think for yourself) if you cannot admit that what you believe may be wrong. You cannot have it both ways. And if you continue to pretend to be a thoughtfully person, you're just lying to yourself and everyone around you. But the rational people around you, already know that.
That's very interesting about the colonial government and the conscripted militias. However, a very slight detail seems to have eluded you. We are not ruled by colonial government any more. You speak as if colonial governments decision to use their militias has something to do with post-colonial America. Um, hate to break this to you, the constitution of the United States is the law of the land now, not colonial law. Did you miss that?
You seem to be getting confused with the difference between colonial government and what is today referred to as "Federal Government". The Federal Government, as we know it today, came into existence in 1789. So when you talk about "general" Washington and the "federal government". You are really still talking about colonial government, which has absolutely NO bearing on the functioning of the Federal Government today.
The Federal Government is defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. And the 13th Amendment to that Constitution say "Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude - [shall exist within the United States]". And nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it talk about a "Selective Service" or Draft. What part of "involuntary servitude" are you having trouble understanding?
Do you even care what the constitution says? Do you really think that a "back door draft" is moral? You may find it easy to accept your orders to kill people you do not know, maybe that makes you feel like a big strong man. Perhaps it makes you feel accepted to be a good boy, do as you told and don't ask questions and never question authority. However, for thinking, reasoning people, the concept of a draft is in direct opposition to personal freedom. I get the impression you don't care to much for personal freedom, you'd rather do as your told, just to be accepted, rather than stand up for human rights.
In any regard, you should spend more time READING the CURRENT documents that govern your country rather than dwelling on meaningless colonial law. You might actually learn something.
I'll agree, most people "today" would call that common sense. However, let us not forget that 100 years ago it was "common sense" that women did not have the intellectual capacity to vote. 150 years ago, most people in the southern states would say that it is "common sense" that black people should not be free. 200 years ago it was "common sense" that witches could masquerade as people and needed to be burned at the stake. And if you did not think that was "common sense", well, you were probably a witch. And lastly, not to long ago it was "common sense" that the earth was flat. And anyone who does not believe that the earth is flat is obviously an idiot, I mean just look, you can see it is flat, right? It's just common sense.
So, your argument that it is "common sense" that you have to pay taxes may be true. However, as history shows, "common sense" changes over time and among cultures. To say something is "common sense" is just saying that the majority of the people believe it to be true at a particular time. But claiming the "common sense" argument definitely does not support the idea as being the "right" way to do things. Nor does it suggest that there are not better ways to do things. In fact, claiming that something is "common sense" is usually the last argument to be used because no other substantive data can be provided to support the claim.
Just my 2 cents
Wow, are'nt you on the moral high ground. That "former, what ever that means" person who accused you of pride was RIGHT! In fact they should have accused you of arogant pride. Lets look at how many times you claim to know what I and others think....
- if you claim that you do not have those urges, then I claim you are being untruthful
- I am a sinner like you and all other people
- the morality of the issue is clear
Lets look at how many time you claim to know what is good for everyoneAnd you accuse me of "Ad Hominem attacks"? That's classic neo christian reasoning for you. Your entire argument (if you can call it that) is nothing more than a feeble attempt to cloak your repressive christian views on the rest of society.
Face it, you believe your god is right and anyone who does not believe in your god is wrong. If you don't, I challenge you to publicly write that you personally believe that other religions are just as viable as Christianity and therefore, other religions are just as "correct". If you cant say that, then you have already made up your mind and you proved that you are nothing more than a mindless christian borg, roaming the earth with no purpose but to try and impose the rule of your god on everyone else because you cannot think for yourslef.
Prove me wrong Mr morality, let everyone know that you respect their religion just as mush as you respect yours. Say it plainly "all religions are equal" or don't say it at all. I can say it, I believe it.
If you cannot say it, then rational and logical people correctly label you "a self righteous asshole".
If I knew some passages from the Koran, or Torah, I would quote those here. Just to show you how stupid it is to try and have a logical debate when one person refuses to think for themselves and reverts to logic by passage. Oh wait, here, I found a "good book". You must be wrong, because in my book it says...."I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am". Ahhh, see, we are all tempted to not like green eggs and ham. And we are all tempted to call ourselves Sam I am. What a sinner you are!