Author Topic: A frustrated loser  (Read 2686 times)

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4449
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2019, 06:15:47 AM »
Greg, you have the option to leave - why don't you?

It's a bit of an unfair question I'll admit, but I think we've all beaten the government debate to death, so might as get right down to it: Why stick around if the value proposition isn't there?

And go where?   Mars?   We are trapped on a planet where every square inch of habitable land is claimed by warlords of one stripe or another.   Here sucks, but it is pretty much the best there is. 

You could try to go live on the sea, but the violent gangs will probably still come after you there.

https://qz.com/1600609/seasteading-cabin-could-bring-bitcoin-couple-death-penalty/


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2019, 07:51:11 AM »
I would be cool with current tax rates if the following conditions were met: 1) government had to run a balanced budget 2) the government/fed couldn't act to save the economy when things get ugly 3) interest were set and could only be changed with something like 80% approval by the fed - and stay within certain bands. 

The big reason the wealth are so wealthy is that the government keeps on bailing out a broken economy and system.
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2019, 08:12:17 AM »
Quote
As the left keep chopping away at the West's religious foundations, what do you think the ultimate outcome will be?

Most progress throughout centuries and millennia of human society has been accomplished with the tools of logic and reason, the scientific method, democratic decision making... i.e. secular humanism, in some form or another (or with some label or another).

I'd personally say that is a much more preferable outcome than a religious apocalypse, of which all the monotheisms believe is the "ultimate outcome". You know the one: god comes to earth, takes the "chosen people" to paradise, and then, of course, completely annihilates everyone else  :o

Now in that context, why should anyone expect the religious to care about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs? They believe in a 2000-year old story which promises a global, species-wide genocide. I mean if they can't even condemn an imaginary genocide, what hope do they have for these problems in real life?

Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)

Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion. If there is no God, there is no true version of good - just our desires. Perhaps China is right about what is "good" or perhaps you are? I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur. That stone age book even talks about that!

A true standard of morality exists or it doesn't. Let's not act like abortion is okay and genocide isn't. Either both are or both aren't. It makes no sense otherwise. Either it's okay to kill humans that you're more powerful than or it doesn't. People try to rationalize it based on what's convenient to them.

I could be completely off base here but I think the "true believers" are the ones who follow their conscience. When we violate that (Epstein, for instance) we are rejecting God. When we go with it, we are following God. But we need to be vigilant, pray and try to make sure God is guiding us and not our own desires.

Religious folks should care about Hong Kong and the Uyghurs for many reasons. We are all made in the image of God and we all have inalienable rights given to us, not by a government, by our Creator. This is a big reason why the East (poor in human rights) and the Christian influenced West (big on human rights) have such a disagreement about the value of humans.

I fail to see a logical reason why secular humanists would care though. The government decides what rights a human has (or doesn't have). They are just being tricked by their evolutionary coding (so much for "free thinking") if they think there's more to it than that.  It makes more sense to be out enjoying themselves instead of worrying about this stuff. Do secular humanists get upset if two animals fight and kill each other? Nope. Why the irrational emotional attachment to the human variety?





Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3795
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2019, 09:29:33 AM »
Quote
Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)
No, it's called faith

Quote
Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion
Nonsense. Non-religious tribes have practiced the same moral behaviour as religious ones. It's almost as if religion doesn't play a factor at all!

Quote
I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur.
Ah yes, if god doesn't exist then we'll all be murdering and whoring in the streets. What a low opinion of humanity.

I think if we found conclusive evidence that god doesn't exist, well then life would go on exactly the same as it already does.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ads | brk.b | irm | mmm | mo | nlsn | pm | pypl | v | wm

rkbabang

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4449
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2019, 09:31:35 AM »
Quote
As the left keep chopping away at the West's religious foundations, what do you think the ultimate outcome will be?

Most progress throughout centuries and millennia of human society has been accomplished with the tools of logic and reason, the scientific method, democratic decision making... i.e. secular humanism, in some form or another (or with some label or another).

I'd personally say that is a much more preferable outcome than a religious apocalypse, of which all the monotheisms believe is the "ultimate outcome". You know the one: god comes to earth, takes the "chosen people" to paradise, and then, of course, completely annihilates everyone else  :o

Now in that context, why should anyone expect the religious to care about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs? They believe in a 2000-year old story which promises a global, species-wide genocide. I mean if they can't even condemn an imaginary genocide, what hope do they have for these problems in real life?

Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)

Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion. If there is no God, there is no true version of good - just our desires. Perhaps China is right about what is "good" or perhaps you are? I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur. That stone age book even talks about that!

A true standard of morality exists or it doesn't. Let's not act like abortion is okay and genocide isn't. Either both are or both aren't. It makes no sense otherwise. Either it's okay to kill humans that you're more powerful than or it doesn't. People try to rationalize it based on what's convenient to them.

I could be completely off base here but I think the "true believers" are the ones who follow their conscience. When we violate that (Epstein, for instance) we are rejecting God. When we go with it, we are following God. But we need to be vigilant, pray and try to make sure God is guiding us and not our own desires.

Religious folks should care about Hong Kong and the Uyghurs for many reasons. We are all made in the image of God and we all have inalienable rights given to us, not by a government, by our Creator. This is a big reason why the East (poor in human rights) and the Christian influenced West (big on human rights) have such a disagreement about the value of humans.

I fail to see a logical reason why secular humanists would care though. The government decides what rights a human has (or doesn't have). They are just being tricked by their evolutionary coding (so much for "free thinking") if they think there's more to it than that.  It makes more sense to be out enjoying themselves instead of worrying about this stuff. Do secular humanists get upset if two animals fight and kill each other? Nope. Why the irrational emotional attachment to the human variety?

Oh god, not this again.   We've had this entire argument before.... a few times.   You can't imagine where morality comes from if not from god, so your lack of imagination trumps everything else and you win!

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2019, 02:04:57 PM »
Quote
Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)
No, it's called faith

Quote
Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion
Nonsense. Non-religious tribes have practiced the same moral behaviour as religious ones. It's almost as if religion doesn't play a factor at all!

Quote
I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur.
Ah yes, if god doesn't exist then we'll all be murdering and whoring in the streets. What a low opinion of humanity.

I think if we found conclusive evidence that god doesn't exist, well then life would go on exactly the same as it already does.

What does faith mean to you?

The moral law is from God and is in each of us. That's why you don't have to be "religious" to follow it. Looking at you, lc. ;)

Now, if God doesn't exist, it's silly to follow that moral law when it goes against your best interest - like fighting with the Chinese government about how it treats a religious minority or territory. There is no greater good than what each of us determine so why bother?  Do you agree with that?

If God doesn't exist, I see nothing wrong with murder or whoring in the streets (that last part is already happening!). Indeed all things are permissible because we determine what is right or wrong. If we found conclusive evidence God didn't exist, I don't think we would be there to discover that in the first place. Care to explain to me why it's okay for animals to "whore" in public, but not us? Those irrational moral values of you, lc!

Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3795
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2019, 03:18:29 PM »
Quote
What does faith mean to you?
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Quote
The moral law is from God and is in each of us
To believe such drivel, you must have:

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ads | brk.b | irm | mmm | mo | nlsn | pm | pypl | v | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2019, 03:37:27 PM »
Quote
What does faith mean to you?
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Quote
The moral law is from God and is in each of us
To believe such drivel, you must have:

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof


So following a moral choice that is against your best interest is not faith? Now that's the drivel. ;)
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3795
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2019, 04:36:13 PM »
Well, that's not what I said, so you're just debating that point with yourself.

I said: the belief that morality originates with the supernatural requires faith.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ads | brk.b | irm | mmm | mo | nlsn | pm | pypl | v | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2019, 04:56:06 PM »
Well, that's not what I said, so you're just debating that point with yourself.

I said: the belief that morality originates with the supernatural requires faith.

And I implied that if morality originates without a supernatural source, it requires faith to follow it when it acts against your best interest.

In other words, following morality requires faith - for any reason -since we don't know, definitively, the source of it. If it doesn't transcend each of us (supernatural), it's silly to follow it when it isn't convenient (trying to stop China from doing what it wants with territories or religious minorities).

If God isn't real, people like Epstein are the real heroes because they break down the dogma of morality. Whereas folks like Bonhoeffer are the fools because they died for an illusion of a greater good.
Paul