One of my favorite quotes on this is from Schopenhauer

"We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will"

I have never heard a good explanation for free will ever. Properly defined to the strength we all mean it by, it makes no sense, and try and change it into something we can make sense of, it is no longer the thing which we meant by free will. Let me expand on that.

What we all want to mean when we first set out on talking about free will is the notion that we (our consciousness) are self determining demigods in a sense. That our consciousness somehow is able to transcend all conditions, and make unbound and almost other worldly interjections on our behalf. I am not a materialist, so this isn't a problem for me on the onset. However, even if our brains contains some otherworldly processing engine, the data which populates it for most all decisions in life are from this existence. And those "things" all seem to behave in a way that is bound by predetermined rules. In fact, it is impossible to think of a realty that is not bound by conditions and rules. All reality that we can understand comes from reason and associations. In a world where something could exist by not existing, or where circles are also squares...would make no sense to us. The only world we can understand is a world where things change in a way reason can map to. This undermines the entire notion of a transcendent, boundless "free will", for even the will itself would have a set of rules and conditions it was playing by, or else just be a random number generator of sorts. And when we talk about free will, random number generation isn't what comes to mind, but it is the only thing that can remain if you take away reason, and determinism.

However, I do submit that our choices "feel" unbounded. There is a "feeling" of free will that defies an ability to define it well. But that is typically how feelings operate, outside of ways to completely explain them. But that doesn't make what they appear to represent any more real, only the feeling is real. I can have a feeling that contradictions exist, for example, but be bound by the laws of how I think to not be able to resolve that in reality (IE, if I believe conditions exist, I could still not preform one, like draw a circular square).

That is why many philosophers turns to certain forms of Compatibilism, while others changed what free will meant in their Compatibilism. I think the latter is cheating, and the former is how we as humans experience "free will". Ultimately, if the universe doesn't exist on causality, then my argument will be undermine, and indeed, some form of Occasionalism might be the true nature of reality. Even so, even Occasionalism can't account for free will, only random number generation can, and that isn't what we mean by freedom, or willing.


>> ^messenger:

I think there's enough content to spark a conversation about free will, discourse analysis aside. Excerpts I found interesting enough to be worthy of expansion:

>> ^NaMeCaF:

Heh. If you've got nothing to hide, why not just let them do their job?
Fine, if you dont want to let them search, then you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street.


"Heh. If you've got nothing to hide, why not just let them do their job?"

You need rules and indaviduals need protection from police abusing there power you don't want to be constantly searched all the time do you ? You realise the ultimate point of laws and the police is so a society can function not so that people can be arrested and go to jail ?

"if you dont want to let them search, then you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street."

Well they are not doing there jobs if they are searching someone without probably cause or picking off random people to try and meat arrest quotas. Where do you stop would you like it so that we have to show papers to cops every place you go ? You realise the importance of inosent until proven guilty ?

"you can't ever complain that the cops aren't doing their jobs and getting drugs and weapons off the street"

Yes you can there is no causal link between cops randomly searching people and reducing the amount of drugs and weapons on the street as a whole. In fact research has shown that the more aggressive policing and penalties for drugs have increased the prevalence of drugs. ( just Google it and do some research )

Socities that have reduced crimiunal sentancing for drug possession and use and instead implemented mandatory rehabilitation have seen a massive reduction in drug use and crime.

So its perfectly reasonable to refuse a cop to do something In reality they should not even be asking they are themselves exploiting the good will of people that don't know the law. A cop asking to search your car is the equivilent of a random person knocking on your front door and saying hello would you mind if I look around the inside of your house ? if you say yes then they have permission and its not an intrusion if you say no then they cannot come in without braking trespassing laws. Just because that person is waring a random uniform does not suddenly change that , they still need permission from a court or from laws that say if there is probable cause they have a default permission to search.

In the same way that if I see your house on fire and someone screaming inside its not likely I would get done for trespassing ( if that person later complained) as I have a good solid legally supported reason to trespass on that property.

@dag @Fletch @LarsaruS

I think you're all forgetting that Hitler was a master of propaganda, and those statements affirming Christianity were just that. Hitler used a facade of piousness to cement his power with a predominantly Christian populace. Feel free to disagree, but then you have to deal with statements which he made to party loyalists, like these:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

Night of July 11-12th 1941

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

October 10th 1941

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

19th October, 1941, night

Doesn't seem like such a warrior for christ now, does he? The cult of personality that fletch is talking about just makes my point. When man tries to get rid of God, he just replaces God with himself. Human beings have the natural desire to worship, whether it is something like money, or power, or celebrity, or themselves, everyone who doesn't know the true God has at least one idol in their life they pay homage too.

To say there is no connection between atheism and communism is absurd. Atheism was at the roots of it, and that according to the communists themselves:

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism"

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism"

Lenin

“With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.”

Karl Marx

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion”

Karl Marx

So you see there is a connection between atheism and the atheistic regimes that committed uncounted atrocities. Fletch, you're even denial about the definition of atheism, which is the denial of any deity according to the dictionary. A famous quote says that "without God everything is permissable". And that is the logical connection, that a man unrestrained by any thought of ultimate accountability can justify any kind of moral action to himself. Consider this quote from Joel Marks, the professor of philosophy at the University of New Haven

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality"

Please note, I am not saying atheists cannot be moral; I am simply saying that an amoral viewpoint can be a causal factor in committing atrocities, just as much as any zealout. Psychopaths suppress what they know is right and wrong, and dictators ordain it.

It goes back to my original point. It is human nature that is the problem, the corruption of which I attribute to sin. A moral person will be moral in every circumstance, whereas an immoral person will be immoral in every circumstance. You cannot chop it up to specific beliefs of methodologies..they only diagnose the symptom and not the cause.

No. I didn't miss anything. You didn't hear what Cenk said. He said that some Republicans were trying to convince voters that a) Obama has been ignoring domestic energy, and b) that's the reason gas prices are high. Cenk put paid to both of these ideas because neither is true. It's the Republicans that Cenk quotes who are saying that oil drilling in the US counts as Domestic Energy, and that it would affect gas prices.

I don't watch any American TV news except what pops up on the Sift, which is almost all Fox News, so I can't compare. I can tell you that Fox is the worst journalism that I have ever seen, so much so that it's not really journalism to me, but shoving opinions down people's throats and still calling it news. If CNN and the rest are the same way, then that's a shame.

FWIW, Fox News viewers consistently poll as among the most misinformed of news consumers, often coming in lower than people who don't watch the news at all.

Also, I've never understood when the word "liberal" became a swear word. It just means "open-mminded." I think being able to receive and process new information and change long-held ideas in the face of such information is a strength rather than a weakness. But if you enjoy believing whatever you believe just because you believe it and like having others tell you that you're right even if it's incorrect, then have at it.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.
I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.
Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.
Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.

>> ^messenger:
You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.

"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"

Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.

Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.

Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.


>> ^messenger:

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.

Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]

But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Very well done. Kudos to your researchivity.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data
Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.
http://www.troubledteens.co
m/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html

And they got it from "Heritage.org (A conservative / Republican "Think Tank")" to quote directly from that page, who got it from Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family. Shame they didn't finish reading the paper they cited, or they would have seen this conclusion:
"However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer statistically significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect. "
Booyah! Research sources ftw!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data
Since he was kind enough to copy/paste the typo ("10 Divorce, in turn") it was extremely easy to track his source down.
http://www.troubledteens.co
m/information-and-statistics/troubled-teens-statistics-teen-help-for-troubled-teens.html


And they got it from "Heritage.org (A conservative / Republican "Think Tank")" to quote directly from that page, who got it from Joan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family. Shame they didn't finish reading the paper they cited, or they would have seen this conclusion:

"However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer statistically significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect. "

Booyah! Research sources ftw!

What they're probably acting on is the positive correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profit per publication. Does that suffice for you?

Arguing for statistics representative of counterfactuals like that is tricky. Presumably the dominant causal structure is something like:

profitable <---- good ----> pirated.

You'd somehow need to condition on quality, independent of both profitability and piracy in order to argue that pirating impacts profitability one way or the other. Both are plausible in my mind, via stolen sales competing with free exposure. My guess is that the industry has already done a much more nuanced and contextualized calculations with their data. The result was probably that piracy supports independent artists and small labels, but hurts the blockbuster sales. Instead, they probably should have been focusing on quality music, and the money would come all by itself.

>> ^dgandhi:

Until somebody can at least show an inverse correlation in ( profit/publication ):( files pirated )

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

@shinyblurry

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.

So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

>> ^silvercord:

Here is that link again. I don't know why it crashed earlier.
It absolutely supports the argument for the very reason that UPS is unionized. Corporations exist to turn a profit. Many of them can support union employees. The government, on the other hand, does not exist to make money. It simply cannot fund the same types of benefits the private sector does.

The title of the article you're linking:

USPS made $76M profit in April (before $458M retiree health charge turned it into a loss)

Part of the issue that I didn't even delve into before is that USPS isn't really a good example of a public sector organization to begin with. It's not taxpayer funded, and hasn't been for 30 years. It's a lot closer to Fannie and Freddie than it is to the fire department.

But even setting that aside there's no causal link between unionization and the USPS financial problems, even according to the article you linked. Hell, they point out that wage and benefit costs have dropped.

So why tout the USPS's problems as another strike against public sector unions, its problems have nothing to do with unions, and would be profitable if it weren't for the stupid pre-paid benefits rule?

But that's just nitpicking, really. The real problem with the argument you're making is that it assumes that unions universally make unreasonable demands, and then usually get those unreasonable demands met.

Public sector benefits aren't generous because unions have fleeced the American people, they're generous because the private sector has drastically curtailed benefits (and unions!), while the public sector has been much more gradual in reducing them. Even still, public sector jobs generally pay people less than the private sector would offer them at their education and experience, even after you factor in benefits.

And even if that were not the case, and this was a matter of unions asking for too much, it is still a negotiation. Government employers can negotiate benefit cuts and wage cuts -- and in fact in most places the unions have agreed to rather sharp cuts during the recession!

Taking away the ability for public sector workers to organize is a political maneuver, not a budget concern. The idea on offer is to use a temporary crisis to put in place a permanent change in policy, in order to further their longer-range ideological and political goals.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.