You know what, you almost make me want to stay. Just so I can produce relentless vomit inducing profile colours and PM you all the live long day, causing untold suffering!

Thanks man, you know I love ya. Always did. You are the dogs bollocks and the guinea pigs scrotum. And perhaps at some point i'll be back, just right now it isn't looking likely any time soon. But you know where I am love, and I know where you are. And when i'm bored i'll be sure to lurk and stalk and keep up on you weirdos, make sure you're all behaving yourselves...

Chin up me old china, no need to get in a two and eight about it, guv'nor



In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You know, sister? First and foremost, your page hurts my eyeballs. No offense, but it's so bright that it could awaken Plato's dead homosexual philosophical penis.

Okay, seriously now, PLEASE don't leave us. I, along with SO many others, will mourn your loss. I love your candor and earthy realism. It's like a shot of whiskey after being on the ice: Warm, biting, and invigorating. You don't mince words. You call a spade a spade. And you'd kick the Prime Minister in the balls if he pissed you off on a bad day.

So don't leave us. Now is not the time to be passive-aggressive. I'm not saying this is a call to arms. But please don't leave because of one member.

You're the cat's meow. The bee's knees. The boulder's shoulder. (Okay, that last one didn't work out so well.) Just don't head out on the ice without intentions of return. Right now I'm searching for a witty yet gripping way to end this ill-written missive, but all I can come up with is "Please?"

You know, sister? First and foremost, your page hurts my eyeballs. No offense, but it's so bright that it could awaken Plato's dead homosexual philosophical penis.

Okay, seriously now, PLEASE don't leave us. I, along with SO many others, will mourn your loss. I love your candor and earthy realism. It's like a shot of whiskey after being on the ice: Warm, biting, and invigorating. You don't mince words. You call a spade a spade. And you'd kick the Prime Minister in the balls if he pissed you off on a bad day.

So don't leave us. Now is not the time to be passive-aggressive. I'm not saying this is a call to arms. But please don't leave because of one member.

You're the cat's meow. The bee's knees. The boulder's shoulder. (Okay, that last one didn't work out so well.) Just don't head out on the ice without intentions of return. Right now I'm searching for a witty yet gripping way to end this ill-written missive, but all I can come up with is "Please?"

In the Apology, Plato's account of Socrates's making his defense, there is an interesting bit about your "group dynamics" that I would beg to differ about.

When the trial was over, and votes tallied, it was a very close vote as to how many thought he was guilty, nearly a split decision. However, it was enough to convict. In Greek culture, when you were found guilty, both sides got to make a case for what your punishment would be. Socrates was pretty sarcastic and said things like he should get meals for life for his services to Greece as his punishment. In the end, MORE people voted for him to be executed than people who thought he was guilty. In other words, people who thought he was innocent voted for his death. You can trust groups if you want to, me, I will trust my friends and family any day of the week.

Which would be why I appreciate the meritocratic aspects of capitalism which act, again, as a conjugate to democracy.

Which (flame bait) is why I'm also for the independence of the federal reserve.

>> ^bmacs27:
I trust individuals better than collections of people, whether they be rich or poor.
That's where we differ. I believe injustice is plausibly rationalized by an individual. It is less likely to be rationalized by a collection of individuals.
When you concentrate power within a single human, I become increasingly nervous.
That's why democracy is the great leveler. The more votes, the more expensive it is for one man to buy them all.
In your case, for instance, one might imagine the federal or state law should intervene and remove the sheriff from power. Presumably, the federal government is too large, and dependent on too many actors, for any individual to purchase control over it.
Likewise I'm more likely to invest my capital in a corporation with a vetted board of directors than I am some dude with an idea.


In the Apology, Plato's account of Socrates's making his defense, there is an interesting bit about your "group dynamics" that I would beg to differ about.

When the trial was over, and votes tallied, it was a very close vote as to how many thought he was guilty, nearly a split decision. However, it was enough to convict. In Greek culture, when you were found guilty, both sides got to make a case for what your punishment would be. Socrates was pretty sarcastic and said things like he should get meals for life for his services to Greece as his punishment. In the end, MORE people voted for him to be executed than people who thought he was guilty. In other words, people who thought he was innocent voted for his death. You can trust groups if you want to, me, I will trust my friends and family any day of the week.

GeeSussFreek,

Impose: enforce compliance with.

If 70% want something changed and 30% don't, then not making the change is denying the wishes of the 70 and is enforcing them to comply with the 30. If you want something and are denied it at gumpoint then the gunholder who doesn't want you to have it is most definitely imposing his will upon you. (Speaking of guns, it seems that the ones that don't want change are the ones waving them around and threatening to use them to force their wishes).

The free clinics and hospitals you mention are not a viable alternative for many, otherwise there wouldn't be such a drive for health care reform. The way I see it for people to put the care in health care is to be civil at town hall meetings and to rationally discuss what changes are to be made without devolving into shouting matches and bully tactics and hope the elected representatives will take those concerns into account.

As far as the basis of the social contract being reason, we have all seen that a great many people are not ruled by reason therefore the social contract can't be very binding. I also don't see where you get the idea that we won't knock each other over the head in the night. It happens already and I would imagine would happen a hell of a lot more without the tyranny of law.

I'm not a student of political sciences so I can't argue very effectively about classical liberalism, Locke or Plato, but I like to think that I understand human nature, and being the cynic that I am, I don't think it's possible to even come close to some form of idealized utopia without infringing on the wishes of the many who would want something other.

Hahaha! So much fun, so little embarassment.

So, Canadians, Britains, and the rest of the western world lives under tyranny. It's dumb bullshit like this thats tells people not to take you seriously. FYI I have read Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle ad nauseum, but to be perfectly honest I prefer Rousseau.

You're argument reminds me of this woman.

Nice Plato quote - here's one of my own: He who trivializes terms like 'tyranny', has no understanding of the world beyond his own national borders, and throws around terms like "gun-point" with ease is a rigid idealogue who probably thinks kids should be home-schooled and that society would be so much safer if everyone carried a gun.

Check this out - I dedicate it to you.

In other words, yes, mob rule is tyranny. Read up on some Plato and Socrates.

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

Plato

I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.

In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others. This is how Aquinas used similar arguments in the 13th century, and it's how theistic thinkers deploy them today. They are only intended to weaken the atheist position generally. NonStampCollector doesn't even attempt to address them on this level.

In the second place, it's asinine to assume that every religion is the same--either with regard to how well they are supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, or how much or little they incline their followers to religious violence. As it happens, the Hindu has a much better case than the Christian or Muslim for saying that these arguments support his religion. Brahma, unlike the God of Abraham, does not have a seemingly petty concern with particular tribes of humans or become angry or feel wronged because of sin. Brahma is described as illimitable, all-embracing. Brahma is a more cosmic God, better supported by the discovery of the age and vast distances of the universe.

Other Gods or divine realities so supported include Plato's Form of the Good, the Logos of the Stoics, the God of Leibniz or Spinoza, and even the God of A. N. Whitehead (co-author of the Principia Mathematica with acclaimed atheist Bertrand Russel) and Charles Hartshorne.

Tendencies toward violence differ considerably between religions. The Hindu and the worshiper of Amun have no reason to get into a fight about religion. Hinduism is not a single religion, but thousands of intertwined religions which have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. A plurality of religious beliefs and practices--including atheism--has long been not fought by Hindus, but embraced. Only when aggressive evangelistic monotheisms actively attack Hinduism does anything like an instinct to violence come into play--and even then it tends to arise mainly in extreme circumstances. (As in Orissa in 2008, when the assassination of a Hindu leader by Christian Maoist extremists sparked a riot and violence by members of both religions, or the year before, in 20007, when Christians deliberately provoked Hindus by .) Likewise, there is no reason anyone would go to war over Amun. It would not be appropriate to describe the religions of Egypt as tolerant--the word implies a perception of annoyance or burden in allowing others to co-exist, when co-existence was assumed as a daily fact of life. In fact, the priests of Amun welcomed Zeus-worshiping Greeks to the oracle of Amun at Siwa, which once declared Alexander the Great to be the son of Amun.

But, of course, NonStampCollector doesn't actually know any of this. He just assumes, like nearly all the New Atheists, that all the other religions in the world are more or less just like the ones he's most familiar with. Makes it easier that way; you don't have to do as much studying or thinking.

I would imagine if you made cars illegal, car related deaths would go down. That isn't the point though. You would be punishing people that haven't done something on the off chance that they might. It is even worse than the whole pre-crime stuff of Minority Report, it is punishing people of no crime. Might it be more safe to ban weapons completely, perhaps, but at a great cost of liberty... and like someone (O wait me!) mentioned before, there is no logical ending point to keeping you safe. Like the great movie, "Thank You for Smoking", jested at; should we outlaw New England Cheddar because of people dying from high cholesterol? While this seems ridiculous, it isn't a stretch of the imagination, and moreover, there is no logical distinction between the two. What you have is a system that is made up of preventative safety measures based on arbitrary personal values, a realm that both Ben Francklin and Plato/Socrates warned against. The tyranny of the majority masked in the public good (in this case, safety). The battle cry of the "majority good" flies in face of the ideas the social contract and civil liberties (classical liberalism).

To rephrase what someone said before, there is no perfect system. Horrible things are going to happen. The real question is in what manor will this happen. Will we be free to make our own mistakes and suffer the consequences of poor judgment and/or bad luck. Or will we subject ourselves to tyrannical (in the sense of a moral majority overruling a minority, even if that minority is 48% of people) safety control ebbing away at our every freedom. More over, things could (as they did in Greece) switch from legal and noble to illegal and punishable by death very swiftly. This was in the ancient world, just imagine what shifts in life could be made via modern communications?!

I do truly fear centralized power of any kind; be it government or commercial. My fears are realized all to often in the long history of the human race. Domination and might makes right all to often are the prevailing models of society, I see moving away from the social contract and to a system of moral governance as a return to what is basically a theocracy of dogooders trying to get their moral agendas on top of the "new laws here" list.

Lulz.

Though Plato probably was gay. Seriously. Read the Symposium. Or heck, the Phaedrus, in which he portrays an attempt to get into the pants of a boy in his late teens in a positive light.

Also from him...

"What is the truth about rock music? Music is a powerful and perhaps the
most powerful medium in the world. Music. Plato says when the music
of a society changes, the whole society will change. Aristotle, a contemporary
of Plato's, says when music changes there should be laws to govern the
nature and the character of that music. Lenin says that the best and the
quickest way to undermine any society is through its music...Music, ladies
and gentleman, is the gift of God it was given to man to offer praises
to God and to lift us up to him and to exalt Him to touch the tender
recesses of our hearts and of our minds. Satan has taken music and he has
counterfeited it, convoluted it, twisted it, exploited it and now he's
using it to hammer, hammer, hammer, hammer, hammer a message into the minds
and the lifestyles of this generation."

--"Jimmy Swaggert"--

Very good point Kagenin,

However the problem is that there is a difference between a philosophy and a religion.

If Jesus or Buddah had just written a book telling people to chill out and be nice to each other, that would have been great. The problem lies in that they (or the people who wrote their specific "holy text") took it a step further and said, this is MAGIC! Then, over the centuries that came after, people who had NOTHING to do with Jesus or Buddha came up with an endless chaotic list of random shit that had nothing to do with the original philosophy in order to solidify their own power and greed: gays are evil, priests can't get married, kill the infidels, kung fu is awesome.

The problem is that the so-called "legitimate" religions are just as tainted by imperfect humans who came up with their own bullshit in order to control people, gain wealth, and solidify power. To say that the American Evangelical Right, with all its hate-mongering, torture supporting, assassination endorsing has anything to do with Jesus is ludicrous.

Yes, Jesus, Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Aristotle, Siddhartha, etc. all had excellent ideas, not all of them ended up being religions.

I'm not saying that Scientology is somehow legitimate, I'm just saying that the Boston Catholic priests were just as much pederasts as L. Ron Hubbard and their white-bearded god seems fine with an endless cavalcade of sex-abuse victims whose lives have been forever ruined by those who were supposedly "chosen by god" to serve in "his" name...

man, I love my sarcastic quotes and ellipsis!

>> ^ShakaUVM:
While I have carefully written down your objection to the notion that Christianity and science are compatible, I've also noted you don't disagree with me on this point.


Science and any religion are incompatible.

Religion is a matter of faith, science is not.

1) Did Jesus Christ claim that the world, or universe, had a distinct beginning?

2) Do you know of any other religions that have a similar story? i.e. that a supreme being created the world or the universe from nothing at some point in time.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>Wow. I am so... compelled.
Brilliant counterargument.
The funny thing is, that's how, mm, maybe 75% of atheists react to the argument. They can't formulate a reason why I'm wrong, they just "know I'm wrong". And... oh look a monkey!
There's a lot of irony to that, if you really think about that.


Wow. I am still so... compelled. Your understanding of philosophical argumentation is astounding. There definitely isn't the possibility that your outrageously spurious conclusions do not follow from your premises. Yeeeeep.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
If you were held at gunpoint and forced to pick between Christian and Buddhist worldviews on the ultimate nature of reality, based on our current scientific understanding of the universe, a rational person would pick Christian.


The fearful one would pick Christian.

You know why I don't want to go to heaven? Because I've heard it's filled with Christians.

In all seriousness and jest....

You are exactly like the pope who mocked Galileo Galilei when he claimed that the earth revolved around the sun.

The Pope said something like "Look above you, what do you see? Isn't it obvious? Even a fool can see that!" And then he said something like "If we're revolving around the sun, where is the wind?"

Just as it is more accurate to say "our sun" rather than "the sun," it is more accurate to say "our world" rather than "the world," and "our universe" instead of "the universe." The Big Bang only applies to the sliver of eternity that we pretend to perceive.

I won't convince you otherwise, nor do I wish to.

I only know that even if I'm wrong, I'd rather be wrong than hang out with people like you, be it in this life or the next.