|
On August 19 2009 12:58 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion. Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old.
Traditional says 1,400 B.C.E.
|
On August 19 2009 13:03 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:42 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:33 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion. The oldest texts of the Bible that we currently have dates to the 2nd century BCE. What texts are you talking about? I'm an agnostic atheist. Wow... The Bible was written starting (I think) 1,536 B.C.E. and the last book written in 96 A.D. How do we know this? Matching up time lines of what we know with what the Bible says, we're able to determine when parts of the Bible were written. How is it determined that they were not written afterward? We don't, but the accounts are very detail-oriented and were clearly written by someone who was there to witness the account giving a relatively small range in date variation. So small a variation it really doesn't matter if there is one. I like how the books about Jesus were written 60+ years after he died by people who never knew him in real life and only one mentions virgin birth. WIN!
I am an agnostic atheist.
Only one book covers Jesus' early life to baptism. The other gospels were written by those who started following him after he began his ministry.
The books following the gospels regards the life of the apostles after Jesus' death except Revelations which is the final book and final prophecy written by John (not the gospel who was beheaded by that point.)
|
I like the hyperbole that Atheists use to try and "disprove" religion. It's quite hilarious the lengths they go to, to justify that their belief is the only correct belief and that they have the truth on their side. It is the same thing which most religious persons use also. Funny to hear how both sides, appearing to be so far apart are really quite alike.
Continue.
|
On August 19 2009 13:09 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:58 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:
[quote]
Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion. Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old. Traditional says 1,400 B.C.E.
Yeah, for the Torah, not any of the books dealing with the United Monarchy. But it's a bullshit date anyway. What script were they written in? the script that hadn't even evolved into Phoenician yet much less any of the recognized Hebrew scripts?
Some texts are older, like Job, but the accepted view of how the Bible came together is that the majority of it was written during or after the Exile and the canon was not finalized until centuries after this. So yes, the texts dealing with the united monarchy were written centuries later.
|
On August 19 2009 10:44 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 10:41 Jibba wrote:
You're challenging faith with logic, which defeats the purpose of faith and leaves you both without a satisfactory answer. There are better ways to come to equal terms. I mean, you're both aware of the logical deficiency when believing in a god, yet he embraces it and you shun it. I don't think you'll get anything out of arguing that specific point.
There are some historical events in the Bible but they've obviously been warped simply due to the fact that they're retold by humans, for any number of purposes. What annoys me is when people claim universality because some event like Noah's flood seems to appear in other cultures as well, when in reality, there have been many major floods in the history of civilization because early civilizations are always cultivated around bodies of water, namely rivers, and so everyone has experience with them. You make a valid point about faith, to be sure. Of course, I believe faith to be a mental illness, based on current clinical definitions.
Perhaps one of the dumber statements that has been made in this thread.
You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining.
And definitely the dumbest excuse after being called out for the dumb statement.
|
I have no idea why people believe Keynesian Economics works in a Capitalist society. To illustrate the inanities of why Government intervention is antithesis to a functioning market listen to Keynes own words:
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.
For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
To show Keynes contempt for the average person, on which laissez-faire is reliant upon, that is, the means of production to which in Capitalism has some value of power due to the nature of voluntary contracts and the ability to leverage purchasing power, as you can see the consumer dictates the terms to the entreprenuer who wishes to abide by them to be able to sell the goods; a give and take so to speak with both parties benefiting mutually. Here he says:
How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete text-book which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, whatever their faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.
The man was a power-thirsty anti-free market Economist who exalted State power and intellectual elite running the proleteriat. This is exactly the opposite of contemporary American history and our foundation. If for nothing else the only lawful economic basis in America is Austrian, which exalts the mutuality of freedom and liberty both in economics, politics, and Epistemology. It specifically describes why Government intervention never works and why Keynesian theory always leads to stagflation and corporate Statism.
The thinking that a centralized all powerful banking structure coupled with highly deficit proponent spending works is a fallacious arguement because history itself shows it does not work every single time it is used. The reason why politicians and the elite continue to be proponents is because it centralizes their power. For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured? The whole notion of a fiat monetary system creates the instability and wealth inequality because of how inflationary devices work. There is no stabilitiy within a Fiat monetary system moreover; as seen in 71' with brettonwoods and currently today. Yet, still you believe that it works. If the idea of deficit spending and government intervention is not what keynesian economics is about then I would like to know what is? You then go on to say that it was not adopted during the Great Depression, yet Roosevelts policies are directly derived from Keynesian Economics.
You can specifically point to why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did precisely because of this fiscal policy and because of Government involvement. They purposefully destroyed goods and services (farm production, etc.), to price fix and artificially create a distressed market. So, what do you do? Give Government the power over money creation.
Listen:
http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=2487
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On August 19 2009 17:59 Aegraen wrote:I have no idea why people believe Keynesian Economics works in a Capitalist society. To illustrate the inanities of why Government intervention is antithesis to a functioning market listen to Keynes own words: The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.The thinking that a centralized all powerful banking structure coupled with highly deficit proponent spending works is a fallacious arguement because history itself shows it does not work every single time it is used. The reason why politicians and the elite continue to be proponents is because it centralizes their power. For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured? The whole notion of a fiat monetary system creates the instability and wealth inequality because of how inflationary devices work. There is no stabilitiy within a Fiat monetary system moreover; as seen in 71' with brettonwoods and currently today. Yet, still you believe that it works. If the idea of deficit spending and government intervention is not what keynesian economics is about then I would like to know what is? You then go on to say that it was not adopted during the Great Depression, yet Roosevelts policies are directly derived from Keynesian Economics. You can specifically point to why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did precisely because of this fiscal policy and because of Government involvement. They purposefully destroyed goods and services (farm production, etc.), to price fix and artificially create a distressed market. So, what do you do? Give Government the power over money creation. Listen: http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=2487
What? Nice job writing about something completely off topic. In any case, what are we debating about again? I think the actual debate itself got derailed in the illogical posts being thrown around.
|
On August 19 2009 18:18 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 17:59 Aegraen wrote:I have no idea why people believe Keynesian Economics works in a Capitalist society. To illustrate the inanities of why Government intervention is antithesis to a functioning market listen to Keynes own words: The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.The thinking that a centralized all powerful banking structure coupled with highly deficit proponent spending works is a fallacious arguement because history itself shows it does not work every single time it is used. The reason why politicians and the elite continue to be proponents is because it centralizes their power. For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured? The whole notion of a fiat monetary system creates the instability and wealth inequality because of how inflationary devices work. There is no stabilitiy within a Fiat monetary system moreover; as seen in 71' with brettonwoods and currently today. Yet, still you believe that it works. If the idea of deficit spending and government intervention is not what keynesian economics is about then I would like to know what is? You then go on to say that it was not adopted during the Great Depression, yet Roosevelts policies are directly derived from Keynesian Economics. You can specifically point to why the Great Depression lasted as long as it did precisely because of this fiscal policy and because of Government involvement. They purposefully destroyed goods and services (farm production, etc.), to price fix and artificially create a distressed market. So, what do you do? Give Government the power over money creation. Listen: http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=2487 What? Nice job writing about something completely off topic. In any case, what are we debating about again? I think the actual debate itself got derailed in the illogical posts being thrown around.
Basically this is what I call dual-thread. In one segment we have biblical talk, and the other economic. It's quite the duplicity, however neither are interacting with each other, so for all intents and purposes we have two threads in one. You'll have to go back and see how it started, I can't quite remember off-hand.
So, you can either join the biblical debate or the economic. Both are quite intriguing, in any event I still highly recommend that everyone listen to the speech. It's a fascinating look at Keynesian Economics, history, and the effects.
|
On August 19 2009 13:00 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining. Declarative statement about external truth = Faith = Mental illness? What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus. The evidence exists. Verification however is a collaborative effort of ability and will. There's no evidence. Declarative statement about external "truth", where truth is not supported by any facts , eg, believing in fairies that live around your head and direct your actions in live, = faith, = mental illness
If facts were the basis on which we access truth, we are led to a perfectly circular logic:
For a statement to be true, it must be factual.
For a fact to be factual, it must be true.
A statement thus becomes self-confirming from the moment a person accepts it.
|
On August 19 2009 13:29 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 13:09 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:58 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:20 Mindcrime wrote:On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence.
I can't believe I have to do this...
If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time? What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days." This text is 3,500 years old and is written by various writers over a period of 1,600 years from 1,500 B.C.E. to 100 A.D. I'm not sure what you mean it was written centuries later. It is technically a semi-historical text, but really that's splitting hairs for the intents and purposes of this argument. We're talking about kings, kingdoms, geography and anthropology -- not religion. Are you trolling me? Even the traditional view of the Bible doesn't have any of the texts being that old. Traditional says 1,400 B.C.E. Yeah, for the Torah, not any of the books dealing with the United Monarchy. But it's a bullshit date anyway. What script were they written in? the script that hadn't even evolved into Phoenician yet much less any of the recognized Hebrew scripts? Some texts are older, like Job, but the accepted view of how the Bible came together is that the majority of it was written during or after the Exile and the canon was not finalized until centuries after this. So yes, the texts dealing with the united monarchy were written centuries later.
The accepted view doesn't mean it's the right view, but instead, it is one of the theories.
|
And the Keynesian Economist doesn't respond.....
|
On August 20 2009 10:54 Aegraen wrote:
And the Keynesian Economist doesn't respond.....
I suppose this refers to me...
Don't have really time to continue this debate.
As a bedtime reading about Keynesian Economics and account of Great Depression at least in US I would suggest reading Tom Kemp's book "Climax of Capitalism".
Why do I say that Keynesian economics wasn't used in Great Depression? Well, the answer is pretty simple. Let's start from the beginning. First, Hoover who was in power followed classical economists advice and didn't do almost anything to prevent the crises from spreading. Roosevelt came to power in 1933 and till then government wasn't really involved in fighting recession (there might have been small attempts to counter recession but I don't remember now and it is not important really).
The major change occurred when Roosevelt came to power in 1933. Did he followed Keynes advice? Most of economic historian wouldn't called his advisors Keynesian Economists. Keynes met Roosevelt in 1934 or maybe in 1933 I don't remember right now and he tried to convince him to his ideas. He didn't succeed. Later, Keynes wrote that he found Roosevelt were stubborn and economically illiterate. Basically Keynes watched all of the struggle with Great Depression from the side. He had no influence at all. Neither were economic advisors of Roosevelt believers of Keynes ideas. Yes, they did use some measures that Keynes prescribed but didn't use others. Keynes didn't recommend price setting and encouraging creation of monopolist as did Roosevelt. There are more differences but I for that I would need go back to actual articles and books (I recommend Tom Kemp "Climax of Capital" and your Milton Friedman & Anna Schwarz "Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960", both are classics). So that's why mostof economists and economic historians wouldn't call Roosevelt policy Keynesian. Also, no matter what one think about each particular measure undertaken by Roosevelt administration it was obviously better than not doing anything and believing in self-corrective power of market (as Hoover did; market failed big time and those mechanisms were not working).
Only after the WWII Keynesian Economics became a main paradigm in policy making not any earlier.
I don't know why you label me Keynesian Economist. I am and never was a supporter of Keynesian economics. But I might point to you that the reason Keynes ideas were used was the obvious failure of former economic ideas and the fact that for some time it seemed like it was working. If you dig some more information you will notice that years after WWII till 1973 were the most prosperous time in World history. Never before and never after did world experience such a high growth rate. Obviously, it is debatable that it was due to policy makers using Keynesian economics or not but well. It didn't definitely hurt it either.
Finally, the idea of Keynesian economics is belief in the following model consisting of:
1. IS-LM curves
2. Phillips curve
3. AS-AD curves
It believes that government through use of fiscal policy can stabilize economy and get rid of business cycles. It believes in a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. It overemphasise demand side of economy and understate importance of supply side during economic recessions. It believes in market imperfections like sticky wages and prices.
Government spending is just one of the recommendation to counter act the economic downturn, but by itself doesn't define what is Keynesian economics. Just because Keynes suggested government involvement in the market doesn't mean that everywhere you see it is Keynesian economics.
At the end of this post:
"For those who espouse Keynesian economics can you point to me a time where it has been used successfully? Where unemployment dropped, inflation ceased, and stability in the market place occured?"
For your information Keynesian economics were used everywhere in Western countries since 1945-1973. This was the period of unusual low unemployment and modest inflation. And a period of highest growth in the world history. So here you have it. Though again, I am not saying that it was plainly because of that. But it didn't harm economy either.
MY LAST POST IN THIS THREAD. I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT IT. I KEEP POSTING ON WHAT IS THE STANDARD ECONOMISTS REPLY AND YOU KEEP PREACHING ON STH YOU, UNFORTUNATELY, LACK KNOWLEDGE (just to mention economic performance of the world in last 50 years, current economic theory, and recent history of economic thought).
|
On August 19 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:
I like the hyperbole that Atheists use to try and "disprove" religion. It's quite hilarious the lengths they go to, to justify that their belief is the only correct belief and that they have the truth on their side. It is the same thing which most religious persons use also. Funny to hear how both sides, appearing to be so far apart are really quite alike.
Continue.
Do you know nothing about Atheism? I'm pretty sure this has already been pointed out, but I'll make it perfectly clear now: there are very few Strong Atheists (these people think that there is no way any current God can exists biased on the current characteristics of any current gods), and Weak Atheists who believe there is no compelling evidence to suggest one should believe in any particular God.
In the first case, it is the burden of the Strong Atheist to prove why he does not believe in 'a certain god'.
However, in the Weak Atheist sense; the burden is on the believer to prove and provide a compelling reason why one should believe in god.
The vast majority of Atheists are Weak Atheists, and for good reason: Currently there is as much evidence to suggest there is a massive tea pot circling around some planet in the universe as there is support for any current god. That is to say; there is next to no evidence or proof that anyone should believe in one god over another, or if that god even exists at all.
This being said; you may ask a Strong Atheist all you like to disprove a certain god, however asking a Weak Atheist to disprove God only displays an ignorance for what they believe.
|
On August 19 2009 13:00 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:You don't understand faith OR logic. I'm not going to bother explaining. Declarative statement about external truth = Faith = Mental illness? What? I have never heard of ANY evidence that even verifies the existence of Jesus. The evidence exists. Verification however is a collaborative effort of ability and will. There's no evidence. Declarative statement about external "truth", where truth is not supported by any facts , eg, believing in fairies that live around your head and direct your actions in live, = faith, = mental illness
Sorry I just got to the thread and am not trying to get into the main argument(s) but just want to hate on this one post in particular.
I don't understand you louder; you simultaneously justify your derision of belief without evidence as mental illness, and in a previous post deride by implication the very means by which you can make this connection (by saying "by a clinical definition," i.e. by a loose and technical and ridiculously applicable definition).
No one gives a shit about the clinical definition. In an overwhelming majority of clinical situations, mental illness is diagnosed by interview and it is a slow and meticulous process. This is totally tangential to the thread, but I think your reference is completely ridiculous.
To deconstruct the rest of your post, I have to call foul with the blatant fallacy of reducing the belief in truth not supported by fact to belief that fairies live around your head (and direct your actions in "live?" sounds like you've had a few too many fairies tonight). None of man's action can be supported by a complete rational basis; you take for granted a million "facts" that you have no proof for, but are merely preprogrammed into your psyche by culture. These include basic rules that you, consciously or subconsciously, believe are conducive to your continued integration into society (but of course you don't know if integration into society is productive or if these rules will even further that or if it can be furthered, etc). For instance, you don't unzip to whiz on a public sidewalk in broad daylight even though you know for a fact that not doing so will cause you physical discomfort. This belief is a fairy too...You don't know if you will be called out for public disgrace or saluted for your heroic manliness, but you don't do it.
We know for a "fact" only what we can verify by our five senses (this being our most absolute of bases). You take for granted that lots of things are facts, like the earth revolving around the sun, mars being thataway, etc, but you havent really checked have you? (disregard my entire argument if you have a spacesuit and jetpack) You were told that by someone who also told you they had evidence. And the overwhelming majority of people around you believe that too. Ringing any bells here?
Moreover, there is no *evidence* that a "logical basis" (fundamentally rooted at the lowest level only by the combination in the self of outdated evolutionary goals and preprogrammed social values, or reactions to those also defined by different elements in society) is productive. We know this only anecdotally, and many others know the opposite to be true anecdotally, and many many more choose to define a basis somewhere in between believing everything and believing nothing.
You denigrate an "external basis" but you have no internal basis. In fact, your pretension to an internal basis (which you for some reason hold up as if it makes you a big boy) commits you to actions you believe are right, based on factors other than logical connections. Again, this can be trivially assigned (in clinical terms of course) as a case of mental illness.
|
I'm fine with this as long as the people teaching it admit it is taught as fiction  then there is nothing separate from a given book. Besides the fact you are singling out 1 book for a reason that has not been expressed as generally things like that should be left to a list of approved reading etc.
But to blindly require religious teachings in a school is so far up some closed minded persons ass it is just so frustrating, To require the schools with populations exceeding a certain number to have optional religious courses is perfectly fine. But keep your peddling of any religion out of my public school.
I haven't read the bill so ionno wth is going on there but best to luck in people defending the Constitution of the United mother fucking States of America over Texas
|
On August 22 2009 13:56 Saddened Izzy wrote:I'm fine with this as long as the people teaching it admit it is taught as fiction then there is nothing separate from a given book. Besides the fact you are singling out 1 book for a reason that has not been expressed as generally things like that should be left to a list of approved reading etc. But to blindly require religious teachings in a school is so far up some closed minded persons ass it is just so frustrating, To require the schools with populations exceeding a certain number to have optional religious courses is perfectly fine. But keep your peddling of any religion out of my public school. I haven't read the bill so ionno wth is going on there but best to luck in people defending the Constitution of the United mother fucking States of America over Texas
Man, the wonder's of private schooling and home schooling. The curriculum is structured to the individuals need. Anyways, if you don't like it just move. The wonders of mobility. No one is "forcing" your family to stay in Texas. That is why anti-federalism is so wonderful 
I also think it shouldn't be a required class. It should be an elective and guess what....it is an elective. No one is forcing you to choose it, its up to you.
|
Bad idea fueled by stupid individuals.
|
Even as a Christian this stuff is ridiculous imo.
|
I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways...
Atheism is a religion. If you go teaching Darwinism and the Big Bang and that we're all stardust, you are no different than one who teaches Intelligent Design (is that supposed to be capitalized?), Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, even that Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. Separation of state and church is impossible because everything in the world is all interconnected.
However, I would suggest that the state grant parents the permission to withhold their child from such a class if it's grade school.
|
On August 23 2009 09:51 EEEE1234 wrote:
I'm probably going to get my ass flamed off, but Imma say this anyways..
You realized that what you were about to say was moronic but you decided to say it anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
