ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Real people who, hopefully, are engaged in the developement and evaluation of testable explanations of detected phenomena.
Why do you disbelieve?
- Thread starter New Life
- Start date
<b>Nebuchadnezzaar:</b>
<i> James R that's a little too simle isn't it? can't you answer your own question using your own common sense?</i>
You mean the one asking how we would detect a soul? No, I can't answer that. Nobody has clearly stated what this soul is supposed to be. Hence my question to whatsup.
<i>Don't you understand what "whatsupyall" was trying to say?</i>
Yes, I do. He is saying that the soul is a special form of mystical energy which all living things have - humans in particular. As a physicist, the word "energy" has a very specific meaning for me. I do not like vague New Age usages of that word. If you claim something is a form of energy, I want to know exactly what you mean by that. It is not enough to say "Oh, you'll recognise it when you see it." If there's no objective basis for it, it is not a very useful concept.
<i>why attack words and not arguments?</i>
I haven't attacked anything yet. I've asked for clarification.
<b>spuriousmonkey:</b>
<i>it's math...we have a rule that says 1+1=2, hence 1+1=2...tomorrow could be different (especially if the religious fanatics manage to take over the world. Then 1+1 could be 2 in most cases, unless it says in the bible that it is 3.</i>
There's an old riddle, which goes like this:
"How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg?"
Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
In the same way, claiming that 1 + 1 = 3 does not make it so, and it never could. The concept of quantity exists outside our definitions of the words we use to describe it. Two sheep = two sheep, whether or not any human is there to see them.
<i> James R that's a little too simle isn't it? can't you answer your own question using your own common sense?</i>
You mean the one asking how we would detect a soul? No, I can't answer that. Nobody has clearly stated what this soul is supposed to be. Hence my question to whatsup.
<i>Don't you understand what "whatsupyall" was trying to say?</i>
Yes, I do. He is saying that the soul is a special form of mystical energy which all living things have - humans in particular. As a physicist, the word "energy" has a very specific meaning for me. I do not like vague New Age usages of that word. If you claim something is a form of energy, I want to know exactly what you mean by that. It is not enough to say "Oh, you'll recognise it when you see it." If there's no objective basis for it, it is not a very useful concept.
<i>why attack words and not arguments?</i>
I haven't attacked anything yet. I've asked for clarification.
<b>spuriousmonkey:</b>
<i>it's math...we have a rule that says 1+1=2, hence 1+1=2...tomorrow could be different (especially if the religious fanatics manage to take over the world. Then 1+1 could be 2 in most cases, unless it says in the bible that it is 3.</i>
There's an old riddle, which goes like this:
"How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg?"
Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
In the same way, claiming that 1 + 1 = 3 does not make it so, and it never could. The concept of quantity exists outside our definitions of the words we use to describe it. Two sheep = two sheep, whether or not any human is there to see them.
You value modern science, because you are the product of modern society. But we are sticking our heads in the sand if we start thinking that these values our somehow fixed. That they are based on some grand truth. They are based on the interpretation of the world we live in. This interpretation can change.
to be honest, In discussions with most people about this subjectI always end up just saying...you are absolutely right...science is the progressive quest for knowledge..blabla...because it is so damn tiring that people are so fixed in their notion on science.
It doesn't take anyof the merit (or authority) away from science to accept that it is a cultural phenomenum.
riddle:
why did newton come up with its gravitational theory?
because he tought that there was a rational explanation of the universe? no.
He tought that the universe was created by a higher power and his theory would actually be proof of a devine scheme or even supernatural activity. that why he also spend so much time studying as a theologist and alchemist. They were all means to accomplish the same thing. To him there was no difference between the three objects of research. You might therefore say that 1+1 was actually 3.
of course you could put your blinders on and just concentrate on his mathematical formulas and forget about the rest.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
That is entirely irrelevant.
Why someone does science has little to do with How science is done or What science represents. You may be driven to explain some phenomenon because you think it will remove that irritating pixie dust in your ears. So be it. But, if the result is not a testable explanation (theory) of empirically accessible phenomena (facts), it's not science.
Gladly ... (soapbox warning)
A joke: What do you call a WASP with a social conscience? The family failure.
Ever watch NBC's Frasier? I can't watch the show. Not because it's necessarily bad, but because the way it pokes fun at WASPs is just a little too close to my personal experience among white protestants. Life really can be that ridiculous, and so there's no comic relief in it for me.
Listen to people fight about money. Money, in the US, is more important than human life. Not only to the street punk who will kill you for the five bucks in your wallet, or your eighty-dollar shoes, but also the Stupid White Men (see Michael Moore) who would save money by refusing to regulate the pollution from their factories such as those run by the McWane corporation (I caught a PBS program about the company the other night). Also to, for instance, my Lutheran aunt who used to teach her children that the homeless were dangerous thieves. I recall having lunch one day with a lady I met in the mall below my work. We wandered down to Pike Place to grab humbow for lunch, and I came across a homeless man who shared with me his poetry, all bundled and tattered in a spiral notebook. Some of it was quite good, and I gave him a couple of bucks to eat. He sheepishly requested one more dollar, so that he could buy lunch at a specific place, and who am I to begrudge someone such a small luxury? So I gave him another dollar. The woman I was with quickly grabbed my arm, and in a mother's tone said, "You can't trust them. They'll take all your money if you let them. Come on." I didn't bother asking her, "So what?" I simply didn't call her again.
In Seattle, we spent a billion dollars on two sports arenas, expenditures of which I approve. However, the legislature had to cram these structures down the people's throats, and I always wonder why we don't try that approach with our schools.
But that's how important money is. And if you follow the historical, cultural, and sociological arguments back through time, you'll find the primary influence over the development of capitalistic theory lies in Protestant Christianity.
Why did the US move to declare its Christianity in the 1950s in the face of Communism? The tie for Americans between finance and faith is rather messy. (You know the fight about God and government--"In God We Trust"? General theism as a justification does not suffice for the introduction of religion to government, as the motto was created specifically to mark the US as a God-fearing, Christian nation in the face of godless Communism.)
Take South Carolina, where atheists cannot hold public office. There, religion also regulates commerce, proscribing the goods to be sold on Sundays. Or the early American colonies, in which the religious, political, and financial institutions were one and the same.
The oldest insurance firm in the world, I believe, is Lloyd's of London. Suffice to say that it is not Akbar's of Azerbaijan.
Thus I recommend Weber, and also Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests, subtitled "Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph".
The connections between Protestantism and Capitalism are inextricable at this time. Perhaps the future will unknit that tangled web somewhat, but at present it seems as clear as it was in Weber's day.
Aside from its association to Protestantism, there are other reasons to call for the demise of Capitalism. Its priority--comparative currency and wealth--is detrimental, as we see that human life has various price tags, including $1150, the approximate "restitution" paid to an Oregon family after their son was shot to death by a friend. California had passed emission laws that were supposed to take effect in 1997. I don't know if they have. The auto makers simply refused to meet the standards, creating the possibility of no new cars sold in California in '98. Of course the government relented. Clinton's famous environmental orders that the scoundrel Dubya overturned--creating somewhat of an uproar--was bad executive legislation, anyway. It delayed the implementation of standards for four years and fixed the acceptable arsenic (and other pollutant rates) for fifteen years. That's twenty years of companies being allowed to put arsenic into the drinking supply because it is "too expensive" to figure out another way of doing business. Look at Wall Street--in the face of massive graft and corruption, the solutions must first and foremost consider their danger to the economy. Nothing is acceptable if it means the economy has to slow down. So the point becomes one of at least two possibilities:
(A) To cause a transition from theft to legitimate business over the long run without depressing the financial numbers, or
(B) Ignore any transition and find new ways to hide theft
My family has recently become somewhat socialist, upon the arrival of my daughter. Suddenly they can't stop pouring forth the generosity. While I appreciate their support, the conditions of such, unfortunately are predictable. Michael Moore (and others) have long noted that the "ruling class" will not undertake any solutions for society until one of theirs is affected, and it is this principle, for instance, that leaves a bitter taste in Mr. Moore's mouth concerning Nancy Reagan's appeal to the GOP and the Bush administration regarding stem-cell research. If Ronnie wasn't turning to vacuous bag of former humanity before her eyes, would she have made the appeal? Why did Gingrich and Lott suddenly relax their anti-gay stance just because a relative happened to be gay? What about decency is so vile that it must be reserved only for one's family and immediate friends?
I am in a very fortunate situation. I have a daughter, I have a house. The house was given to us by family because it occurred to them that this was their granddaughter/niece/&c. And yes, the house is, technically, luxurious. While it's nothing tremendously special, it's 1800 square feet (larger than my mother's house) and in a wonderfully quiet neighborhood. And with both the mother and I present, parenthood is ridiculously complicated and difficult. I cannot conceive of what single mothers must go through, and I cannot conceive what couples without the kind of assistance we've received from state, county, city, and family would do. While I recognize the privilege of my present existence (after all, getting Verizon to hook up the DSL at my home is my biggest non-parenting worry right now), it seems to me that everybody should have the opportunities I have, and thus that my daughter has.
Or those stadia I mentioned? The reason the legislature doesn't shove school issues down voters' throats is because two stadia can be figured in a ledger. Invest this much, project this much profit and tax revenue. You cannot do that with a school. The return on investment has not yet been figured in a ledger.
Pepsi is sponsoring schools. Great. Pepsi's sponsorship, of course, is so tight that nobody can sell other products for any reason. Specifically, in the Salem-Keizer (Oregon) school district, a cheerleading fundraiser was taken offline because the bottled water with the school's logo being sold wasn't a Pepsi product. High schools have had "Coke Days", in which the students strove to consume enough Coca-Cola to warrant a "grant". The University of Washington, in the early 1990s, had an Apple-based network the likes of which were not seen again until the release of OSX 10.2 (Jaguar). I know students who used it. But then Bill Gates made a "donation" and the network was replaced by a less-useful, more-primitive Microsoft NT matrix. Channel One has been documented to hit as little as twelve minutes of programming per half-hour, with the rest being adverts of various form. My local public broadcasting radio stations have begun running commercials.
Capitalism brings out the worst in people, and given its derivative paradigms, no wonder.
I occasionally run a notion by my Capitalist friends. They find it absurd:
- Invent Money: We powered the economy through what should have been a cyclical decline throughout the Clinton administration. We did this by running ourselves into debt. Not only did the massive consumer wave keep people employed, but the interest on debts invented money that was not yet in existence. While those monies were essentially loans against future labor resources, those resources in a cash transaction would have a different effect. In the end, the economy grew because everyone needed more money.
- Value of a Dollar: Part of the reason we could invent so much money is that we have an intricate economic system. So intricate, in fact, that nobody who approves the federal budget can inform you of its contents, and nobody can tell you the real value of a dollar at any given moment, and nobody can tell you what that value is based on. When currency was fixed to a standard (e.g. gold standard), the production of currency could be said to lessen the value of currency. Instead of x-million dollars representing the gold, you had 2x- or 3x-million dollars representing the same sum. Simple arithmetic tells us that each of those divisions (each dollar) is smaller (worth less). But in this day without standards, what is to stop us from inventing money?
- Results of Invention: Thus--stop all financial markets for a short period, perhaps a day. And then give every person in the world a certain amount of money. My Capitalist friends say this would cause huge turmoil, and while they are right, they are wrong about what turmoil it would cause. Markets would collapse, they say. Inflation would run rampant. Ad nauseam. But why? The relative value of a dollar is fictional. We just wake up the next day and a dollar still equals a dollar (that is, nearly three of them will get you a loaf of bread), and everyone goes forward. Of course, the infrastructure to make the idea work requires so much education that it seems nigh impossible to accomplish under the current conditions.
- Think About It--Money is Fiction: So what makes a dollar worth a dollar? Certes, it is the billions of people who honor that dollar's purported value. (Note: For a period of time occurring in my life, the Russian ruble could not be exchanged for a dollar at any rate; there was apparently no applicable exchange table for similar reasons as I'm discussing. Thus, despite whatever ten-thousand rubles could buy you in Russia, they were worth as much as ten-thousand Post-Its in the US.) What happens if, for instance, everyone in the US who ever smoked pot wakes up tomorrow and says, I'm not interested in cash. I want dope. Therefore, my price index is now set in grams of marijuana. Millions of people could carry out reasonable exchanges, and the dollar would become so insignificant as a Post-It note. I'm not proposing the Hemp Index, though it could be made to work. Rather, it's just an example. What if someone wanted your ten-dollar table lamp because it was the perfect piece for his living room? What if he didn't have ten dollars on him? What if he offered you a fifth-bottle of your favorite liquor? What is any different about it other than having cut out the middle-man? Currency is merely a barter surrogate. The exchange, and the ability to exchange, is what must be protected, not the currency.
What is more valuable to you as a person?
- Space exploration, or blowing up Arabs?
- Viagra, or a cure for AIDS?
- Profits of Ford Motors' investors, or clean air?
Chemistry might invent a new substance, but it is history that teaches us how not to use it. I mean, look at the American defense sector? We go to war now to test new ways of killing people .... Hey, it's good for the economy. Look at the tables! History shows it. War and killing is good for the economy ....
And I haven't even started in on the pseudo-religious capitalism being espoused by a bunch of Ayn Rand freaks over at Capitalism dot org. (Since when did capitalism include a military platform? Or an abortion-rights platform?) That rabble is another case entirely--they're simply insane. They've invented a political platform and called it "Capitalism".
Capitalists I know of my generation still have the occasional ties to Machiavelli, but oh how they salivate when thinking of themselves as a Prince. Few of them, if any, know of Adam Smith. It's sad to me the way it's sad to find an espoused Anarchist who hasn't read Emma Goldman or Pierre Proudhon or others.
Speaking of which, it is also worth noting that Goldman, one of the most feared figures of her time, was deeply influenced by the Haymarket Bombing, in which several innocent persons were put to death for a crime they did not commit. Had the Capitalists, whose influence upon government was known, been more understanding (Marshall Field especially) of the situation, perhaps justice could have been pursued, and not revenge. The condemned were reminded that it was not because they were murderers that they should hang, but because they were anarchists; the underlying problem of anarchism, of course, being that it interfered with the Capitalists' ability to exploit people like livestock.
Capitalism seems to me as immoral and unethical as Christianity itself has become. The degradation of both is symbiotic, a mixture of values and passions and interests that cannot necessarily be separated. Like Christianity, I hear many Capitalists espousing the potential of their system. Like many Christians, those Capitalists usually run into the problem that those ideals are too expensive for their individual tastes.
Once Christianity and Capitalism are inexorably separated, I might revise my call for the end of both. I do think the world would be, in the final sum, better off without Christianity, and the evidence suggests that doing away with its counterpart Capitalism would do well also.
Or so says my two cents
thanx,
Tiassa
It would be best to refer you to the text of Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which outlines the connections between Protestant ethics and the rise of what we know as Capitalism. The Tiassa summary of the volume is that it demonstrates how something so perverse as Capitalism (the elevation of money as the most important factor) results from something so perverse as Protestantism (fill in your own jibe here). Take a look at the history of the US. We refer to a group of people as WASPs--White Anglo-Saxon Protestants--and while the Anglos are not the only ones in this position, I must admit that the financial conspiracies often attributed slanderously to Jews would befit WASPs.
A joke: What do you call a WASP with a social conscience? The family failure.
Ever watch NBC's Frasier? I can't watch the show. Not because it's necessarily bad, but because the way it pokes fun at WASPs is just a little too close to my personal experience among white protestants. Life really can be that ridiculous, and so there's no comic relief in it for me.
Listen to people fight about money. Money, in the US, is more important than human life. Not only to the street punk who will kill you for the five bucks in your wallet, or your eighty-dollar shoes, but also the Stupid White Men (see Michael Moore) who would save money by refusing to regulate the pollution from their factories such as those run by the McWane corporation (I caught a PBS program about the company the other night). Also to, for instance, my Lutheran aunt who used to teach her children that the homeless were dangerous thieves. I recall having lunch one day with a lady I met in the mall below my work. We wandered down to Pike Place to grab humbow for lunch, and I came across a homeless man who shared with me his poetry, all bundled and tattered in a spiral notebook. Some of it was quite good, and I gave him a couple of bucks to eat. He sheepishly requested one more dollar, so that he could buy lunch at a specific place, and who am I to begrudge someone such a small luxury? So I gave him another dollar. The woman I was with quickly grabbed my arm, and in a mother's tone said, "You can't trust them. They'll take all your money if you let them. Come on." I didn't bother asking her, "So what?" I simply didn't call her again.
In Seattle, we spent a billion dollars on two sports arenas, expenditures of which I approve. However, the legislature had to cram these structures down the people's throats, and I always wonder why we don't try that approach with our schools.
But that's how important money is. And if you follow the historical, cultural, and sociological arguments back through time, you'll find the primary influence over the development of capitalistic theory lies in Protestant Christianity.
Why did the US move to declare its Christianity in the 1950s in the face of Communism? The tie for Americans between finance and faith is rather messy. (You know the fight about God and government--"In God We Trust"? General theism as a justification does not suffice for the introduction of religion to government, as the motto was created specifically to mark the US as a God-fearing, Christian nation in the face of godless Communism.)
Take South Carolina, where atheists cannot hold public office. There, religion also regulates commerce, proscribing the goods to be sold on Sundays. Or the early American colonies, in which the religious, political, and financial institutions were one and the same.
The oldest insurance firm in the world, I believe, is Lloyd's of London. Suffice to say that it is not Akbar's of Azerbaijan.
Thus I recommend Weber, and also Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests, subtitled "Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph".
The connections between Protestantism and Capitalism are inextricable at this time. Perhaps the future will unknit that tangled web somewhat, but at present it seems as clear as it was in Weber's day.
Aside from its association to Protestantism, there are other reasons to call for the demise of Capitalism. Its priority--comparative currency and wealth--is detrimental, as we see that human life has various price tags, including $1150, the approximate "restitution" paid to an Oregon family after their son was shot to death by a friend. California had passed emission laws that were supposed to take effect in 1997. I don't know if they have. The auto makers simply refused to meet the standards, creating the possibility of no new cars sold in California in '98. Of course the government relented. Clinton's famous environmental orders that the scoundrel Dubya overturned--creating somewhat of an uproar--was bad executive legislation, anyway. It delayed the implementation of standards for four years and fixed the acceptable arsenic (and other pollutant rates) for fifteen years. That's twenty years of companies being allowed to put arsenic into the drinking supply because it is "too expensive" to figure out another way of doing business. Look at Wall Street--in the face of massive graft and corruption, the solutions must first and foremost consider their danger to the economy. Nothing is acceptable if it means the economy has to slow down. So the point becomes one of at least two possibilities:
(A) To cause a transition from theft to legitimate business over the long run without depressing the financial numbers, or
(B) Ignore any transition and find new ways to hide theft
My family has recently become somewhat socialist, upon the arrival of my daughter. Suddenly they can't stop pouring forth the generosity. While I appreciate their support, the conditions of such, unfortunately are predictable. Michael Moore (and others) have long noted that the "ruling class" will not undertake any solutions for society until one of theirs is affected, and it is this principle, for instance, that leaves a bitter taste in Mr. Moore's mouth concerning Nancy Reagan's appeal to the GOP and the Bush administration regarding stem-cell research. If Ronnie wasn't turning to vacuous bag of former humanity before her eyes, would she have made the appeal? Why did Gingrich and Lott suddenly relax their anti-gay stance just because a relative happened to be gay? What about decency is so vile that it must be reserved only for one's family and immediate friends?
I am in a very fortunate situation. I have a daughter, I have a house. The house was given to us by family because it occurred to them that this was their granddaughter/niece/&c. And yes, the house is, technically, luxurious. While it's nothing tremendously special, it's 1800 square feet (larger than my mother's house) and in a wonderfully quiet neighborhood. And with both the mother and I present, parenthood is ridiculously complicated and difficult. I cannot conceive of what single mothers must go through, and I cannot conceive what couples without the kind of assistance we've received from state, county, city, and family would do. While I recognize the privilege of my present existence (after all, getting Verizon to hook up the DSL at my home is my biggest non-parenting worry right now), it seems to me that everybody should have the opportunities I have, and thus that my daughter has.
Or those stadia I mentioned? The reason the legislature doesn't shove school issues down voters' throats is because two stadia can be figured in a ledger. Invest this much, project this much profit and tax revenue. You cannot do that with a school. The return on investment has not yet been figured in a ledger.
Pepsi is sponsoring schools. Great. Pepsi's sponsorship, of course, is so tight that nobody can sell other products for any reason. Specifically, in the Salem-Keizer (Oregon) school district, a cheerleading fundraiser was taken offline because the bottled water with the school's logo being sold wasn't a Pepsi product. High schools have had "Coke Days", in which the students strove to consume enough Coca-Cola to warrant a "grant". The University of Washington, in the early 1990s, had an Apple-based network the likes of which were not seen again until the release of OSX 10.2 (Jaguar). I know students who used it. But then Bill Gates made a "donation" and the network was replaced by a less-useful, more-primitive Microsoft NT matrix. Channel One has been documented to hit as little as twelve minutes of programming per half-hour, with the rest being adverts of various form. My local public broadcasting radio stations have begun running commercials.
Capitalism brings out the worst in people, and given its derivative paradigms, no wonder.
I occasionally run a notion by my Capitalist friends. They find it absurd:
- Invent Money: We powered the economy through what should have been a cyclical decline throughout the Clinton administration. We did this by running ourselves into debt. Not only did the massive consumer wave keep people employed, but the interest on debts invented money that was not yet in existence. While those monies were essentially loans against future labor resources, those resources in a cash transaction would have a different effect. In the end, the economy grew because everyone needed more money.
- Value of a Dollar: Part of the reason we could invent so much money is that we have an intricate economic system. So intricate, in fact, that nobody who approves the federal budget can inform you of its contents, and nobody can tell you the real value of a dollar at any given moment, and nobody can tell you what that value is based on. When currency was fixed to a standard (e.g. gold standard), the production of currency could be said to lessen the value of currency. Instead of x-million dollars representing the gold, you had 2x- or 3x-million dollars representing the same sum. Simple arithmetic tells us that each of those divisions (each dollar) is smaller (worth less). But in this day without standards, what is to stop us from inventing money?
- Results of Invention: Thus--stop all financial markets for a short period, perhaps a day. And then give every person in the world a certain amount of money. My Capitalist friends say this would cause huge turmoil, and while they are right, they are wrong about what turmoil it would cause. Markets would collapse, they say. Inflation would run rampant. Ad nauseam. But why? The relative value of a dollar is fictional. We just wake up the next day and a dollar still equals a dollar (that is, nearly three of them will get you a loaf of bread), and everyone goes forward. Of course, the infrastructure to make the idea work requires so much education that it seems nigh impossible to accomplish under the current conditions.
- Think About It--Money is Fiction: So what makes a dollar worth a dollar? Certes, it is the billions of people who honor that dollar's purported value. (Note: For a period of time occurring in my life, the Russian ruble could not be exchanged for a dollar at any rate; there was apparently no applicable exchange table for similar reasons as I'm discussing. Thus, despite whatever ten-thousand rubles could buy you in Russia, they were worth as much as ten-thousand Post-Its in the US.) What happens if, for instance, everyone in the US who ever smoked pot wakes up tomorrow and says, I'm not interested in cash. I want dope. Therefore, my price index is now set in grams of marijuana. Millions of people could carry out reasonable exchanges, and the dollar would become so insignificant as a Post-It note. I'm not proposing the Hemp Index, though it could be made to work. Rather, it's just an example. What if someone wanted your ten-dollar table lamp because it was the perfect piece for his living room? What if he didn't have ten dollars on him? What if he offered you a fifth-bottle of your favorite liquor? What is any different about it other than having cut out the middle-man? Currency is merely a barter surrogate. The exchange, and the ability to exchange, is what must be protected, not the currency.
What is more valuable to you as a person?
- Space exploration, or blowing up Arabs?
- Viagra, or a cure for AIDS?
- Profits of Ford Motors' investors, or clean air?
Chemistry might invent a new substance, but it is history that teaches us how not to use it. I mean, look at the American defense sector? We go to war now to test new ways of killing people .... Hey, it's good for the economy. Look at the tables! History shows it. War and killing is good for the economy ....
And I haven't even started in on the pseudo-religious capitalism being espoused by a bunch of Ayn Rand freaks over at Capitalism dot org. (Since when did capitalism include a military platform? Or an abortion-rights platform?) That rabble is another case entirely--they're simply insane. They've invented a political platform and called it "Capitalism".
Capitalists I know of my generation still have the occasional ties to Machiavelli, but oh how they salivate when thinking of themselves as a Prince. Few of them, if any, know of Adam Smith. It's sad to me the way it's sad to find an espoused Anarchist who hasn't read Emma Goldman or Pierre Proudhon or others.
Speaking of which, it is also worth noting that Goldman, one of the most feared figures of her time, was deeply influenced by the Haymarket Bombing, in which several innocent persons were put to death for a crime they did not commit. Had the Capitalists, whose influence upon government was known, been more understanding (Marshall Field especially) of the situation, perhaps justice could have been pursued, and not revenge. The condemned were reminded that it was not because they were murderers that they should hang, but because they were anarchists; the underlying problem of anarchism, of course, being that it interfered with the Capitalists' ability to exploit people like livestock.
Capitalism seems to me as immoral and unethical as Christianity itself has become. The degradation of both is symbiotic, a mixture of values and passions and interests that cannot necessarily be separated. Like Christianity, I hear many Capitalists espousing the potential of their system. Like many Christians, those Capitalists usually run into the problem that those ideals are too expensive for their individual tastes.
Once Christianity and Capitalism are inexorably separated, I might revise my call for the end of both. I do think the world would be, in the final sum, better off without Christianity, and the evidence suggests that doing away with its counterpart Capitalism would do well also.
Or so says my two cents
thanx,
Tiassa
nicely put
I share alot of the same views as you tiassa but you put them so much better.
I share alot of the same views as you tiassa but you put them so much better.
Christianity and Capitalism seem to be the two things that americans push around the world. it's like american culture is some sort of virus.
Missionaries spread christianity like they're doing people a favor. "You may be content with you religion and cuture, but they are inferior to christianity/capitalism(ie america)"
read Things Fall Apart. good book about the subject.
Missionaries spread christianity like they're doing people a favor. "You may be content with you religion and cuture, but they are inferior to christianity/capitalism(ie america)"
read Things Fall Apart. good book about the subject.
No, it hasn't really changed all that much. Science is most simply defined as the pursuit of knowledge. To clarify it further it is the pursuit of knowledge by empirical methodologies. Originally, science's methods were simply observation and reason. The methods have changed, been improved upon, new ones have been invented, and some have been discarded. And the arena of intangible science has been separated from the empirical; we now call it philosophy (an area of study that has been rather neglected).
The assignation of value falls into the realm of philosophy, specifically; ethics.
Certainly some of Newton's methods would not hold up to today's standards and certainly today's will not hold up in the future. But both are science, all the same. In fact, Newton is often considered the father of the scientific method based upon the rules that he stated in the Principia:
1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances
2. The same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes
3. Qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal
4. Propositions deduced from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate until other phenomena contradict them.
I certainly don't find it so.
Which is why I find my brief forays into the lives of various famous scientists so fascinating and why history is so important. But such factors do need to be weeded out from the actual research. Then they can get put back in after the facts have been sifted out to make much more interesting reading... such as with Asimov, Hawking, and Sagan.
~Raithere
i'm not really questioning his methods. I am trying to point out that he didn't define science as we do now. His contemporaries didn't. Hence, science was not always the science it is now. The fact that we wish it to be so, doesn't make it so. By selectively picking out aspects of earlier science you might contruct a false image that the nature of science has remained unchanged, but what's the point? Shall we also start covering up the actions of the nazies, because they don't quite fit in with modern values of our society?
We appointed him father, because he showed some characteristics of modern science, but only if you ripped them out of his whole work. If you would look at what he was actually trying to do you would see that he wouldn't fit in our definition of science.
anyway...i don't think i am going to convinve anyone...i will let you think that science is this simple and not discuss this anymore in this unappropriate thread. Feel free to continue in the thread about the objectivity of science.
reference on the subject of newton:
Dobbs, B.J.T., 1991, The Janus Faces of Genius: The role of Alchemy in Newton's thought, Cambridge.
mind you, Dobbs his viewpoint are still contrioversial with some Newton historians. The last hasn't been said on this subject.
Biography on Newton:
Westfall, R., 1980, Never at rest: A biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge.
New Life, If you would have been born in a non-christian believeing country, you wouldnt believe in God or Jesus right?
You would believe in whatever god they believe on in that country, so this is a pretty good argument that ALL religion is a myth. They have evolved since the first day humans started thinking about the world, they needed religion to explain things like stars, night and day, life, thunder, the sun. Today we DON'T need religion to explain these things, we got science for that
Just my logical explanation
You would believe in whatever god they believe on in that country, so this is a pretty good argument that ALL religion is a myth. They have evolved since the first day humans started thinking about the world, they needed religion to explain things like stars, night and day, life, thunder, the sun. Today we DON'T need religion to explain these things, we got science for that
Just my logical explanation
You're missing my point and perhaps that's my fault. Science is not about what you believe or hope to find, science is a methodology for pursuing knowledge. Certainly it has changed over time but its essence and goals are the same. I'm quite sure that it will continue to change and evolve in the future but if "science" becomes the assignation of values instead of the pursuit of knowledge it is simply not science but would actually be ethics.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with attempting to prove God scientifically... as long as you use scientific methods. The problem is that all claims of "scientific proof of God" thus far, fail analysis and cannot be considered scientific proof... the claims are either premature or simply lies.
~Raithere
not necessarily........I certainly wouldn't buy into Islam, I dont think I could ever live with such mekeness, however if I grew up in a hindu society I might believe in that instead.......I really dont know for sure!
I dont agree that science explains all of this.......it explains HOW things work, but not WHY
that's what i'm saying...
why is it christian parents have christian children, and hindu parents have hindu children?
for the most part(not all, just most) people believe what they are taught. religion is more of a tradition than a set a beleifs that you actually though about.
People that believe in reason also believe because they were taught since the beginning... I already taked about that, but people don't listen to me...
Anyways... if that would be so, than we wouldn't have millions of Hindu people in India coming to Christ since their beliefs would be so deep in them. That's not what happens. The Indian government recently made a law that makes preaching the Gospel illegal, because of so many people turning to God. Besides, most people in the world are Christians because they not only learn about the Bible and abput God, but they also use it and it works very well. This is an evidence that Christianism is right and it works...
Anyways... if that would be so, than we wouldn't have millions of Hindu people in India coming to Christ since their beliefs would be so deep in them. That's not what happens. The Indian government recently made a law that makes preaching the Gospel illegal, because of so many people turning to God. Besides, most people in the world are Christians because they not only learn about the Bible and abput God, but they also use it and it works very well. This is an evidence that Christianism is right and it works...
<i>The Indian government recently made a law that makes preaching the Gospel illegal...</i>
I'll have to call you on that, Truthseeker. Can you please provide some evidence for this statement? A link to a new story on the web or something similar will be sufficient.
I'll have to call you on that, Truthseeker. Can you please provide some evidence for this statement? A link to a new story on the web or something similar will be sufficient.
In old times...
Organiser, November 21, 1999, Vol. LI, No. 17
Supreme Court of India bans Conversions
"Charging the Christian missionaries with violating the Constitution of India, he revealed that a Supreme Court judgment in 1977 had clearly declared conversion as an unconstitutional activity holding that the right to propagate religion didn't constitute the right to convert people of one religion to another."
And in new times...
"Indian State Bans Conversion"
Organiser, November 21, 1999, Vol. LI, No. 17
Supreme Court of India bans Conversions
"Charging the Christian missionaries with violating the Constitution of India, he revealed that a Supreme Court judgment in 1977 had clearly declared conversion as an unconstitutional activity holding that the right to propagate religion didn't constitute the right to convert people of one religion to another."
And in new times...
"Indian State Bans Conversion"
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
People that believe in reason also believe because they were taught since the beginning... I already taked about that, but people don't listen to me...
Anyways... if that would be so, than we wouldn't have millions of Hindu people in India coming to Christ since their beliefs would be so deep in them. That's not what happens. The Indian government recently made a law that makes preaching the Gospel illegal, because of so many people turning to God. Besides, most people in the world are Christians because they not only learn about the Bible and abput God, but they also use it and it works very well. This is an evidence that Christianism is right and it works...
hrmf, I always thought you might be better than this. I remember you had some quite thoughtfull threads over at the Genral Philosophy section.
Saying that there is a god and that he is good and that he is love is all fine. But to assert that your religion is superior to all other religions, that the people who believe your religion are better than everyone who doesn't, that people from your religion are promised to go to a wonderfull place while everyone else are doomed to be tortured and burned in all eternity. Is just ignorant and intollerant.
Yes, it is wrong for the Indian government to do this. But Christianity is by it's nature an intolerant religion (as is proved by your post) Hinduism accepts all other religions and let's it's believers belong to other religions and DOES NOT say that they are 'wrong' and that Hinduism is 'right'.
This is just an assumption, but I believe that Christian missionarys have been converting poeple by the thousands, traveling out to places where people simply haven't been taught the Hindu traditions. No I don't think it is right for christians to go in and try to erradicate other religions.
I say let them come to you, do not go to them.
Moonman,
Where did I say such things!?!?!?
It is the exact opposite. If you search in the internet, you will see lots of "Hindu activists" killing people from other Religions, but you will NEVER see a "Chirstian activist" who killed someone!! Christianity is not intolerant, it is the other religions that are.
No. The government is worried because A LOT of Hindus are turning to Christianism (of course, not the activists...). Otherewise, they wouldn't be concerned at all.
How would they reach us...?
And what is your point...?