Total posts: 459
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The national debt level of the United States is a measurement of how much the federal government owes its creditors. Right now it is $28 trillion dollars. The federal government is broke.
The national debt level however is NOT a measurement of how much the government, state and federal is worth. To say it is broke - again reflects only the private taxes they are bringing in versus what they spend.
Don't get sucked into thinking the nation is broke. It is in the governments interest to say they are broke because they owe so much money. If we applied to that private individuals yet saw the luxurious apartments they were living in - would we agree with them that they are broke? Of course not - we would go looking for the money and we would start selling their assets which is a more true indicator of their wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
my point is that total wealth should not be exclusive only to the private sector. Many people complain about the disparity between the rich and poor - but never even consider the total wealth in the world properly.
The wealthiest legal persons in the world are the governments. The wealthiest private individuals are poor cousins next to even the poorest nation on the world.
The solution to poverty is not to tax the wealthy private individuals and corporations it is to re-think wealth and who owns it. If the total wealth of the world was properly assessed, it would turn out that all of the private wealth would account for less than 1% of total wealth. This is a mindboggling statistic that is convenient ALWAYS left out of the topic of wealth.
Public Wealth is staggering in its enormity. Why do you think the richest man in the world could not come even close to purchasing the poorest nation in the world?
It includes all that you mentioned and more.
Even if the government's of the world reduced their wealth by less than 5% it would be more than the total private wealth and think what might happen if they set up accounts with this very small amount of what they own - education, health, defense, welfare, and much more would have ongoing payment plans.
The question of course, if this is true, why don't the governments just reduce and invest this money for future programs. Firstly, most don't even think about it. Secondly, government is about power. take away the control they receive by taxing - and suddenly they lose control. Thirdly, there are many politically minded persons who an agenda to get rid of all private property.
But it would be an amazing turnabout for our world and it would provide a lasting legacy for those prepared to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's not true anyway.
Total wealth never takes into account public wealth. Public wealth is where the real money is - and guess who owns that? Not the private sector.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices. But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.
If it a cop out to blame god, the surely it is also evidence for god's existence by default? I am a non-theist and a determinist but I also do not deny that people are responsible for their own actions. Environment, genetics may account for why we end up doing stuff, but at the end of the day, personal responsibility is not excused by these things.
If I kill someone intentionally or recklessly, then I am still a murderer. There may be plenty of reasons why I ended up killing someone. It may be that I am hungry or angry or jealous or that I don't want to get caught. Or it may be that I am nuts or delusional. Or it might be because I am doing my job as a police officer, or soldier, or security guard. Or it may be in self defense.
Our environment and our genetics and I would add the place and race and time I was born accounts for how and what we will do in life. These things will send us down a particular path - but this path - determined by cause and effect for the most part but not necessarily fixed in concrete. However if we do change our circumstances - it is probably because of the unique path we were on in the first place. Events don't happen in vacuums. There is always a reason or a cause - hence determinism is logical.
Yet why should this excuse human personal responsibility? Throwing God into the mix just muddies the waters. I would suggest that if non-theists are attempting to use determinism as a means of blaming god - then they are not non-theists - but rather are theists wanting to come out of the closet. And are needing an excuse to do so without looking like a fool.
On the other hand - if a non-theist is a determinist - and sees that it really is the best explanation of cause and effect and don't bring god into it - then they are the ones who are doing ok. Or are at least living consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am not American - therefore it is in many respects an irrelevant part of history for me. Save and except it apparently set of a chain reaction around the world that systemic racism exists - and that the only racists in the world are whites.
I reject that opinion. I think every race is racist. And not just in a positive way but in a negative way. I have travelled to most nations on this world and experienced significant racism from almost every race.
This death in American has been paraded as racism. Having view both the footage presented by the prosecution and also the extra footage prior to what is typically presented - I think it was not actually about racism. I take the view that the police over-stepped his boundaries. And as such should be punished to the full extent of the law.
The problem is - if the result had come back not-guilty, it would have created more riots - which personally I found more offensive than the attack on Capital Hill. Again I am not American and I did not agree with anyone storming the Hill. Yet Pelosi yesterday accepted the word of the Democrat lady who encouraged outrage and confrontation if the law did not agree with her. I don't see any difference when any person chooses to say the law got it wrong. When Trump said the law was wrong. He was rightfully pulled up for it. Yet Pelosi wrongfully supported those said they would break the law if they did not get what they thought was the right decision when they are pro Democrat. For me it simply proves that the Democrats will do anything to get what they want. They open themselves up to the criticism that they will cheat and lie and steal in order to win. For them - they will do whatever it takes.
It makes America the laughing stock of the world. We laugh at the way the media runs politics in America. But you are schooled in the public education system to stop thinking for yourselves - and just to listen to the experts - who all get paid by the same people.
Hopefully justice will be done in this case and be seen to be done as well. But sometimes just having justice done is what needs to happen. When the results of the case - (and a court case is intrinsically a debatable or disputable case - to be observed and judged by those who can see all of the evidence -) are prejudiced from people outside that court case who have clear agenda like Pelosi or the entire BLM cause - then justice will never be seen to be done - unless the media's conclusion is realised.
I was pleased he was found guilty - not because he did it or because he did not do it - but because if he was found not guilty those in America who lack common sense and self-control would have caused scenes like we saw earlier on. Sometimes the greater good argument becomes what is justice - not true justice but greater good justice.
America wants a civil war. The Democrats and the Far Left are leading the charge. They want a revolution - a reset - a change in the system. They want a system like China where there is only ONE party - and when the government tells everyone else what to do and how to live. Where ordinary people disappear for the greater good - because the greater good is not really the greater good of the people but of the Party.
And if sentencing this police officer to prison where he will be killed within 5 years means that the Left will not have the justification to start this civil war then so be it. Personally however if offends me to the core. I am pleased I am not an American. I am pleased that we in our country are not so politically divided as you guys.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
The best argument for the resurrection is the alleged 513 witnesses that attested to seeing Jesus after his death.The best argument against the resurrection is the billions that did not attest to seeing Jesus after his death.
What about those who think seeing him is irrelevant to his resurrection or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Hi
Thanks for the topic but isn't the question flawed in many ways?
god is not all benevolent, not according to christian thinking. that is how non-theists like to describe god so that we produce a strawman argument to beat up on.
the primary and overarching character trait of god is according to christians and I suspect by jews too is that god is holy. holiness trumps love, power, and knowledge.
i have found in my discussions with christians that this three pronged god argument always ends up with loose and wooly answers. but that is primarily because i did not want to understand how christians understood god, it was how i understood it and the way i always pushed my questions. suffering is bad therefore god is not real. it is a strawman argument and never changes a christians position because it is a strawman argument. it however is one of the most asked questions around the world on forum and in discussions- based entirely on a strawman argument -
non-theists don't understand god from a christian's perspective and the worst non-theists are those who think they were theists in the first place. mostly they were theist by tradition or force not out of understanding. there are some exceptions to this. but rare. most leave and get on the bandwagon to justify themselves and have people around to support them.
i think it would be a better approach for non-theists to stop trying to disprove god by nonsense and start living their lives consistently with their own non-beliefs. if god does not exist, stop expending all of this needless energy on something that does not require it. let those who do believe - live their lives consistently. the problem is that theists and non-theists worlds collide - but why should one have the say over the other - unless - there is someway of determining which should decide? You can't start with science or with revelation - you cant start with truth or philiosophy - perhaps this is why democracy exists - truth, science, revelation, philosophy does not get in the way - the majority decides - and this is probably pragmatic but workable. the minorities might suffer - but someone is always going to suffer - perhaps the greatest good argument ought to prevail - as it has with masks. the minorities in the mask debate are clearly oppressed and disavowed. there has to be a line somewhere. who is going to draw it. these are the important questions - not why did god permit 6 million people to die? The question really should be - why did the Nazis kill 6 million people - and the answer is science. why did the Americans permit the nazis to kill 6 million people? Why did the human world at the time permit the nazis to killl 6 milllion people? Or why did america permit the Russians and the Chinese to kill so many millions of people ?
But noone wants to know that science killed the 6 million jews. why not? because science is seen as some kind of panacea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But as usual they have only managed to display their bible ignorance of the fact the there seems to have been another "miracle worker" on the block that wasn't one of them and these lovely tolerant disciples of Jesus didn't appear like it. Luke 9: 51-55.
Whoever said that the disciples were lovely and tolerant? It looks to me like in this particular verse that the normal me v them attitude is being paraded. People looking for power. And the verses next seem to back up this notion which is why Jesus confronts it.
I think the author - according to tradition is Luke, intentionally does not provide the name of the miracle worker because his or her name is irrelevant to the point he is making. I admit it is a curiosity to figure out who it is. Yet it is impossible to discover and probably pointless to speculate. I think it is interesting that this so called miracle worker was using Jesus' name to drive out demons, not his own name or someone else's name. This suggests that he knew Jesus or had at least seen Jesus drive a demon out. Perhaps he was a Jewish pharisee, they too drove out demons in their own ways, and figured that Jesus was doing it better than he could. Sometimes people think - "if it works I will try it". And if it works they will probably keep on doing it.
Given the disciples response to this person doing what he is doing, it might be surmised that either he was someone who had been part of the group but had left under bad relations, or that they had no idea who he was.
I wonder what Jesus would have done if the man had been driving out demons using someone else's name. Or would Jesus has simply taken the view that driving out demons is a good thing and whoever does it is doing a good thing? Still, you are right - it would be good if someone who claims to be a scholar would address the point. But I thought you were a scholar? You seem to know a lot. And have lots of very interesting discussions.
Who are the people on this site who think they are scholars? Perhaps you could invite them join in the discussion? Although I see some people block others. Perhaps you have been blocked by them or you have blocked them. Sometimes it is necessary to block people I guess. But given your response that no one has bothered, I presume you have not blocked anyone.
I have not been here long enough to see to many people talk but on some other topics, some interesting discussions have taken place. I appreciate your posts.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Name a non-Western nation that is capitalistic.India, Pakistan, Nepal, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Iran, (you won't admit China is but I would say China), Bangladesh, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Singapore and the list goes on and on.Oh and the entire Eastern Europe as well as Russia depending on whether you consider them 'Western' or not.I'd mention South Korea but you'd say what you said about Japan, most likely.
Needless to say I don't think you understand what a capitalist nation is. But because I do wish to understand what you mean - will you please explain what you mean by a capitalist country. You were going to add China - which self-consciously declares itself communist, so I am puzzled as to your meaning. Bangladesh is constitutionally a socialist nation. I could go on - but please explain what you mean by capitalist and then explain what you mean socialist or communist or other type of economies. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
As I said. Thanks for the extra information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you think we should try to end suffering if possible? Suffering from hunger, assault, medical condition that is say treatable if you can afford it. Shouldn't we reduce as much suffering as we can? Granted there will always be suffering you can't control like mourning but I would think we should be doing something to eliminate suffering when possible. Dying from starvation does nothing for character.
Eliminating pain and suffering is impossible. Reducing it is another matter. When I said it is part of life and we ought to use it to stimulate us forward, even embrace it, I am not suggesting I like it or that it is something we should long for. Pain and suffering is a reality - but using its existence as a means of determining the existence or not of a god is counter intuitive. That is simply weird.
All of us have to live on this planet and all of us have to come to a place of understanding our place in the midst of whatever is thrown at us. Yes, it is good to evaluate other person's perspectives and to endeavor to be consistent in our approach. Yet, I am not sure that this means actually or intentionally decimating someone else's viewpoint. I think that is distasteful and is an example of shutting one's eyes to truth. The truth I am talking about here is the fact that noone knows everything. In fact everyone knows less than about about .00000005 of total knowledge. So for anyone to try and destroy someone else's position is not only arrogant but stupid. That is my opinion.
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
If God asked you to sacrifice what you loved most (exactly like what happened to Abraham), would you kill your son, or at least whole heartedly have the intentions of doing so?
If god asked me to sacrifice my most beloved son, I would probably freak out. How would I really know it was god? I would be confidant it was a trick someone was playing on me. Just the idea of god talking to me would freak me out. I guess it depends on what god was like. If he was bigger than me, or was threatening to throw me into prison or kill my other kids or rape my wife.
I wore a mask even though I did not want too because I was scared of the police. I wasn't worried about covid - I have to die one day. But I don't want to go to prison. Fear can make us do crazy things.
But, hypothetically, if it was god asking me to do such a thing - really - it might throw up some weird surprises - after all god allegedly is the creator life - so death or resurrection is always going to be a possibility. In the Marvel movies - when someone had the gift of life - death sometimes was a cool way of surviving the evil.
If god - the creator of life - is asking me to kill my son, probably (if I did not freak out too much - which I would) then I suspect there might be something deeper - a lesson he is wanting to teach me. That sounds plausible.
But given I don't believe in god, it really is a difficult one to get my head about. Just trying to think hypothetically and logically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I don't reckon you have ever talked to a christian about God. (Respectfully, not in a deep manner anyway) If they agreed with that definition - then they really have little understanding of their god. Most Christians would not see god in such a shallow dimensional manner. His overarching character trait which you omit is holiness.
Still, I am not a theist, so it's no skin of my nose save and except that it would be nice to see some intellectual honesty.
The question of a clone having a soul is an interesting one. You would need to believe that people have souls in the first place. I don't so a clone is not going to have one. On the other hand, if you believe in a soul, then it would be interesting to consider the idea of a clone.
Is it the theist's view that a soul is separate from the body and the mind. Or is it a combination of both. I think the bible indicates that god made adam from the dust and then breathed into him - adam becoming a living soul. Was he a dead soul prior to the breath or did he become a soul as a result of the breathe? I don't know. It all sounds a bit far fetched to me.
Is a soul part of our DNA or is it separate - like the consciousness? Is our consciousness part of our DNA? I'm no scientist.
In my view - it would be no. humans don't have souls. And a clone is the photocopy of DNA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
The best evidence for his resurrection.
Ok, let me think.
still thinking.
Duh! - nah you get me there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Undeniably many people suffer and it appears to be a given that some people suffer in ways they do not necessarilly deserve. Just as clearly not all suffering is the direct result of human actions.That in mind and most especially if you believe in some god(s) that can be defined as both all powerful and also loves us all how do you resolve the problem of suffering?
I find this a weird discussion as a non-theist.
Suffering is part of life. We struggle and as non-theists we understand that suffering is normal and actually is a part of life that helps us grow and become better people. Well it can I suppose depending upon how we perceive it. Many people just suffer ( in their jocks) or however and never respond in a positive way. But many others never see a struggle as a threat - but as an opportunity.
Throwing religion into it is I think (respectfully) lame. Especially using strawman arguments. I have never met a theist who believes just in a three prong god. Most Christians I know reject the three prong approach. And most other religious people don't have an issue with their god using suffering as a means to an end. It is often just the so called non-theists who seem to throw it out there - as though it is some kind of panacea.
The Christians I have met seem to think that suffering is necessary for them to grow in faith or in character. When I sit back and consider suffering, it seems to me that whether you are a theist or a non-theist - suffering is the same. I just don't see the point of non-theists using lame arguments to try and justify their non-beliefs. Especially this three prong god who no- one actually believes in. Surely it would be a better to exercise to move past these and add something more positive on what you do believe rather than trying to make others feel insecure about their own? Especially when your best appears to be a strawman.
To resolve suffering is therefore a weird question. Suffering is as it is - part of life. We can respond to it as a threat or a problem or as a challenge and an opportunity. Why use it as a tool or a means to destroy other people in their lives? How is that being secular or unbiased or objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Great question Stephen, do you know who it is? And why is it stuck here in such an interesting way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I was watching a thunderstorm recently in my hometown. It began as a rumble in the night. Low growling. Splashes of light from the lightening as it moved from one end of the sky to the other. Grey clouds turned to darkness - and the evening turned black. The thunder boomed overhead - the windows shook from the sound - lightening bolts zigged and zagged through the night - even at times looking like they were going to bolt right at me.The trees outside were bending over - threatening to break in two. The dogs were whimpering inside the doors and wanting to huddle up to us. The mountains in the distance - which we could hardly make out - were shaking and dancing through the rain. The drops were like bullets horizontally and twisting every way with the wind. The roof was creaking - and the noise of the wind was deafening. Nature is pretty awesome - very powerful. Mind blowing and so very dangerous when it wants to be.Yet, who or what controls nature? Does science control nature? Does humanity in any of it advanced states control it? Does it control itself? Science certainly might help to explain it. And science helps us to explain ourselves. But what controls nature? What is its driving force? What causes it to do what it does? Instinct! Natural forces! latent scientific principles. Aliens?And as an aside - how do people respond or react or feel about the powerful forces of nature? Are people afraid of thunderstorms? OR do they think oh - well that is just a scientific principle acting out - don't worry about it.Is there a spiritual element to the forces of nature - or is it just basic science? And if the latter, why does it create such emotional responses?
The Law of Physics controls nature. Or rather nature is controlled by the law of Physics. Not that the laws are controlling agents - but that its principles are overarching in all such situations. Humanity obviously does not control nature - or rather not things such as thunderstorms.
There does not seem to be a need to imply spirituality into the natural. That is to put the cart before the horse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than 1,000 years.
using your link - it says this number is the most accurate ever - and it is still an estimate - and one that that admits or concedes that the vast majority - so well over 50% and we could probably pretty conservatively take that up to 75% have never been identified. In fact your link goes onto say only 1.25 have been identified. Most of the species are micro - many are part of the same family.
On what basis is this estimate made? With respect it is not very satisfying. If the numbers are reduced from 8.7 to 2.175 it still is a large number - using today's numbers.
But what was the figure thousands of years ago. And what number of animals were necessary to be saved in order to ensure the survival of the species?
Honestly, I don't know - but at first glance it seems improbable - but when we start digging into the facts - the actual facts - and not just estimates of unknown and possibly never able to know numbers of species - then things change somewhat.
Again - I am a non-theist - and I think the entire story seems made up - but I am never going to ignore the facts - just because I don't like them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
ok. it does not answer my question though.
The bible does not indicate how many animals went onto the ark. It only mentions that 7 of some and 2 of others and 8 people went on.
But leaving the bible alone for a moment - since it does not actually reveal a figure, assuming this story was several thousand years ago, what were the actual number of species then?
That is what would be interesting to know. Assuming evolution has increased the numbers species since then - and that others have gone the way of the dodo - how do we calculate the number of species today - actual species verses estimation.
Now that is an fascinating question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Hi quick question -
are these numbers actual known species of animals or estimates of species?
After all every year the number of species grow or are eradicated not necessarily according to real numbers of species but estimates only.
Honestly, I don't know but it would be nice to see the breakup of these animals.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Care to substantiate that? Let's say I accept your assertion - that teachers are inept (in most if not all teaching circumstances) - then that means parents are even more inept. Its not about if your students retain the knowledge per se - because teachers are literally taught how to make knowledge stick and parents have literally no idea, the general population would retain even less of their education - but they also have no idea what they're talking about in most cases. Neither of my parents have a clue how to factor conic sections, or solve for the direction of a magnetic field, how to write a thesis, or anything remotely advanced - because a lot of people do retain stuff they learn, but that doesn't mean that they should teach it - because a lot of people don't know how to teach, or are incredibly biased, or incredibly bad at teaching.
If teachers are taught how to make knowledge stick, then why is it according to you that most parents are unable to retain knowledge?
Every parent teaches their children prior to that child going to school. Do they all do it well? Of course not. But many teachers are pretty inept. That is why there are so many problems in our society.
It is incorrect to say that parents are more inept than teachers. You have no evidence to support such a conclusion - just an inference based on your own bias.
Governments are also not teachers. Yet their educational ministers prescribe curriculum - even though they do not have the appropriate skills to do so.
Education has levels. Most people do not need to know advanced educational levels. Who cares about the magnetic field? Most people do not need to write a thesis. There are very few people who need to know that. Parents, unlike the government, want the very best for their individual children. Governments just want to win enough votes to stay in power. They don't have any real interest in ensuring good education occurs. Yes, a certain standard of education increases wealth in a society . But not every student wants to be an astronaut or computer expert. Your topic is about LBTQ+ topics history and sex education.
That is a topic - that belongs in the family dynamic. I do not want teachers with their own agendas teaching my children such stuff. I want to do that at the appropriate time, when I think that they are ready for it. not just because they turn 10 years of age.
Parent's taking control of a kid's education by the way does not imply home school, but includes private educational institutions who employ and engage professional teachers . Yet it is the parent's along with others who manage the affairs of the school.
Your position does not seem to allow you to consider anything but state regulated education. I am for the abolition of all public educational institutions. Kids need to read and to write and to count. I think that their family ought to be able to determine the history they learn. Professionals tend to teach biased history from a new perspective. It is typically poorly researched and has underlying objectives which tend towards a Marxist view of history. In other words, it is anti-white, it is anti- capitaist, it is anti- religion, it is anti- colonial, it is not just a filling out of history including other perspectives - that I would have no issue with at all. In fact - we teach our children a fuller history - of every background. But we do not simply rewrite history to the detriment of our past.
What is teaching - what is education? I say it is about learning life in all of its multi-colored tapestry. It is not about cutting out an entire culture and generation just because we want to be politically correct. LBTQ+ topics and its current history does that. And why should I not be able to give my children a fuller understanding of these things from the perspective of life - not just a biased teacher.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well if that is the case - then the professionals are pretty lousy at their jobs. And it is even more reason for parents to take control of the educational system.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Christianity only became popular after some Roman monarch said he’d believe in it. If it’s be true then everyone would believe in it.
That is not true. History disagrees with you.
Christianity was so popular at the time - according to the history books that the Roman empire had no choice but to go with it.
There is significant evidence to show that the increase of Christianity from its earliest days up until Constantine became a Christian was exponential in growth. In fact it was from Constantine's time and following that Christianity began to decline. Once you take a persecuted religion and make it part of the landscape, it loses it momentum.
Constantine might have made Rome Christian in name, but it really was a loss to Christianity as a religion. Its power was taken away - and is what happens everytime becomes part of the majority.
This is one of the reasons I think our governments should stop being so harsh on Christians. If Christians think they are being persecuted without good reason, they tend to get all passionate about their Jesus. In China, Christianity is the fastest growing underground religion. Similarly in other places they are persecuted around the world. But where they are simply ignored - they tend to become secular and blend it - not causing much problems. In the West this is seen - they have become so weak and hold no doctrine of substance - all have become Liberal and inclusive and ecumenical. Yet, when they get attacked - then they start to rise up - as we have seen in the past 50 years since Roe v Wade. No wonder Trump was liked by them - he became like them - attacked and persecuted - and this resonated and their numbers increased significantly.
History - tells us we should stop persecuting them - make them part of the establishment - then they will not feel threatened and things can go back to normal.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why? Do you want to leave history to parents? Or Science?
What is with the false dichotomy?
I just don't think it is the government's responsibility to teach history to children. I never suggested that history should not be taught. Nor that science ought not be taught.
Education is and should be the domain of the parent, not the government.
How the parents want their children to be educated is a matter for the family, not the government. Even in a public school system, given that it is parents who pay for it out of their taxes, they ought to maintain this right. Parents are not anti-science.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Capitalism is based in the notion of private property.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Name a non-Western nation that is capitalistic. Hong Kong and Japan consider themselves Western.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - I think we should leave this topic to parents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
If we need to eat or use their bodies for our needs. Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It depends upon how we rate a successful president.
If it is to govern well, or to model well.
Trump did not model well. Yet he governed well.
Biden is neither a good model or a good governor yet.
Humility and integrity seem important - yet will these make him a good governor?
They make him a good model. But is that what we want in a president?
Obama was a terrible governor but he was a good model, mostly
Should and can they be both? Good question,
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It has to do with control and freedom and who decides what and who gets what?
Will I have the control to do so or will someone else decide for me?
As one moves down the spectrum from one to the other - the pendulum increases or decreases by the mix of the capitalism / command breakdown.
Interestingly, there is not one pure market or command system in the world. Every country is a mix. And this mix has no epistemological basis. Both command systems and market systems have a solid epistemology - but there is no rationale for any mixed markets - except practicality.
Countries tend to steer towards one system or the other based on their culture - not always but a tendency. Asian countries have an association that Western nations do not have with group dynamics. Westerners prefer individuality. Hence human rights in both types of society are often understood through this lens.
Western Nations have a stronger affinity with private / personal property. Asian nations tend to not. It belongs to all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
UBI is a nonsensical idea.
It sounds good immediately until you start thinking about the implications.
It implies all work is equal and as valuable as any other kind of work. Is it it true to say that the checkout boy at the supermarket working 9-5 is equal in quality and value as the surgeon working on people's lives at all hours of the day? Their individual lives may well be equal, but their contribution to society is not.
If UBI is simply a minimum wage for every person - then it is not income. It is simply a pension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you want to learn how to debate economically without using stats - go and read some Peter Bauer. He has an amazing approach and quite easy to read. And even when you disagree with him - it makes you consider your position much more closely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Well then you are incorrect.
What are the alternatives to Capitalism which would make you more free?
And freedom really needs to be defined as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
The obvious reason why theists have a lower IQ is actually quite banal. It is because there are more of them statistically and Average IQ simply measures the lowest common denominator.
It does not take into account the entire range of religions and theists which incidentally are not all equal in IQ. And nor does it take into account non-theists who are not academics. Critiques of these types of studies show over and over again - clear biases. (imagine if they simply measured the IQ of Jews? - it would by itself sit statistically outside the norms. ) But in these studies - theists are all lumped together and generally speaking the majority of non-theists never get tested. (probably because many of them cannot read, being in the lowest socio economic group in society)
Generally non-theists who are involved in these studies - are university students. Yes, sometimes they refer to censuses, and at other times to low grade counts - but the overall impression of most of these types of studies are nothing less than a propaganda drive.
And I say that - as a non-theist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
So why give air to a subject that ought to be closed down? It seems to me - the more you bring this sort of stuff up - the more air time and the larger the myth becomes.So what is your theory on how the myth originally began?
I don't need a theory. I leave that to others who are much cleverer than me. I just think that if we give air time to a myth which we think ought to be canceled - then we undo ourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What you call madness, they call a Sunday.
Yeah, ok.
Madness = Sunday ?????
What do they call Friday? Happy Day. And Tuesday? Pension Day.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And that is my whole point. ANYONE said to have a demon or to be demon possessed was accused of such for any number of reasons, as I have already pointed out. I have listed a few on this thread, including being ill, disagreeing, going against the grain or upsetting the status quo. It doesn't mean that one has been over taken by an evil entity.
ahh so your point is not that Jesus was demon possessed but that their culture would synonymously put being mad and other ill stuff in the same context as demon possession. Interesting stuff Stephen.
Yet you did not address the author's clear inference that Jesus was not demon -possessed even though he was accused by others of the same. And nor did you provide a verse which indicates his mother and family thought he was demon-possessed. (I mention this only because if it was the view of the culture - the author presumably would fall foul to the same notion)
I also wonder whether it is accurate to suggest that ANYONE said to have a demon can be equated with EVERYONE said to have a demon? I suppose you can elaborate on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
There is nothing conclusive as far as I am aware.
So why give air to a subject that ought to be closed down? It seems to me - the more you bring this sort of stuff up - the more air time and the larger the myth becomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And they wonder why and take offence when it is that their IQ is brought into question.
I think it has less to do with their IQ and more to do with their traditions and inability to want to change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The pope is somehow a little bit confused.Nope. The Pope knew exactly what he was saying without mentioning the punishment. He had been recently in "discussions" with Muslims not long before he chose to make this comment and we all know what they think about homosexuals and homosexuality and the punishment for it in Islam.
So you think pope Francis is clear headed? Perhaps you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The pope is somehow a little bit confused. Yet what do you expect for a 90 year old man?
Has he been smoking something?
But who cares really? The Catholic church only recognises its own church anyway. Every other government is illegitimate.
We should simply declare the catholic church illegitimate.
That would solve all of the problems - put all priests into prison for being illegal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Everyone can create a religion - it is called meism. I am my own god and I can do whatever I want too. I am the captain of my fate, the master of my destiny. I will follow my heart until it leads me to the right place - a happy place.
Set up a website and a bank account. Call yourself some trippy name - and Bob will be your uncle and your god if you like.
Promise the world - and suggest it requires faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
Obviously God did not create fossils. They are the products of already living creatures dying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
That would make sense, wouldn't? But given that the government wants to stay in power - it needs to ensure it gets enough votes - and unfortunately, since there are so many religious people in the world from all the various sects and cults, that it would be foolish for a government to try and push such a position through.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I thought the answer to this was so obvious it did not need an answer.
Created: