|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 4, 2018 11:28:59 GMT
Yes, there are atheists who have a solution (more or less) to the problem immorality. It is not news. I talked about it twelve years ago, and it probably wasn't "new" then either.
Basically it involves developing a set of "commandments" very much like the Ten Commandments of the Bible with the exception that there is no god to acknowledge.
There are two problems with the plan. The immediate problem twelve years ago (Edit> six years ago in 2012) was that too many atheists considered the Ten Commandments way too much minding other people's business.
I argued then and have since that the Ten commandments are actually the best formula there can be for people to mind their own business. We have made a little progress. The Atheists' "Ten" (rough count) Commandments have a better chance now. "Oh look, that is how to mind our own business."
That was not the only problem though. The other was one that I said would probably, in the end, prevent the success of any Atheists' "Ten" commandments. That is the lack of an enforcement system outside the government. The Ten Commandments of the Bible has an enforcement system outside the government. It is a rather remote system of rewards and punishments to be sure, but it is thus the more independent of human interference and mismanagement.
The problem with the government management of for example marriage is that the whole point is lost. The point was that by marriage people promised to accept their responsibilities to each other and their children without the need of government oversight. That's how the whole "minding our own business" thing works. If through a total lack of understanding of the process people come to depend on government oversight to regulate their responsibilities to each other and their children then everybody is now minding the business of everybody else. They are doing that from a distance that is bound to fail.
Now consider private property. It is also a way of minding our own business. It also ceases to be a way to mind our own business when government takes over.
With religion and a set of "Ten" commandments it is the best formula for minding our own business and children. However the fear of god is an essential element that the system will fail without. When government tries to enforce it that turns things over to an unqualified herd trying to mind business it cannot begin to understand.
One problem with Trump supporters is that although they do put a high value on private property, they do not care about marriage at all, never have and never will. The worst problem with them though is that they do not understand the need for fear of god. They fear no god themselves and cannot begin to understand why anyone would fear a god. That will lead sooner or later to their failure as illustrated here. The fear of god is the key to how the whole thing works.
The atheists' solution will thus fail.
While on the subject of political parties, it is true that Democrats do not place the same value on private property as Republicans do. However they do place a higher value on marriage than Republicans. It is funny how that works, but I won't go into the details here. The only problem with the Democrats' views on marriage is that they also have left far too much to government just like the Republicans and do not understand how that undermines the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 4, 2018 15:19:19 GMT
it's called the rule of law. and miraculously people get together all by themselves and figure out how to self rule.
not everyone needs to be sucking on some gods withered up cock in order to function.
is this so hard to comprehend that you have to constantly spin your nursery school teachings as ways of life diatribes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 4, 2018 15:40:45 GMT
it's called the rule of law. and miraculously people get together all by themselves and figure out how to self rule. not everyone needs to be sucking on some gods withered up cock in order to function. is this so hard to comprehend that you have to constantly spin your nursery school teachings as ways of life diatribes? It's called the national debt and it has been spiraling out of control since 1979. It passed insane a long time ago. Neither Republicans nor Democrats lately have been able to stop it growing much less bring it down because neither has enough sense to establish any "rule of law." They don't have enough sense to establish any "rule of law" because neither party has any fear of god, just as I exquisitely detailed in the OP. Although Trump supporters fill the air with empty rhetoric about spending cuts and faith in god, it's all filthy lies. The "booming economy" is a myth hiding (not very well hiding) an eleven trillion dollar increase in the national debt. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 4, 2018 15:55:07 GMT
republicans are again spending countless mountains of money propping up a military industrial complex that has been deemed necessary to promote our democracy. all done by enacting laws. now these are indeed twisted laws meant to fatten already fattened calves. but laws none the less.
it has nothing to do with any fear or lack of fear of a spirit entity. it has to do with power. a power far beyond the reaches of magic fatherspirit voodoo. a real world view requires real world laws.
shall i call up newt gingrich and ask him about it? LOLOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2018 5:13:51 GMT
republicans are again spending countless mountains of money propping up a military industrial complex that has been deemed necessary to promote our democracy. all done by enacting laws. now these are indeed twisted laws meant to fatten already fattened calves. but laws none the less. it has nothing to do with any fear or lack of fear of a spirit entity. it has to do with power. a power far beyond the reaches of magic fatherspirit voodoo. a real world view requires real world laws. shall i call up newt gingrich and ask him about it? LOLOL Religious right ideas are advancing, however slowly. You can see that in the Ben Shapiro video clips elsewhere on this board. The Republican Party or at least the part of it led by Trump does not own those ideas. They in fact do not know how to own those ideas. Ben Shapiro doesn't know how to own them either. I wish they did, but they do not. Despite your protests, yes it is fear of god that matters. Unless Trump supporters realize and acknowledge it their efforts will not be successful. Anyone with a pocket calculator can see they are not going to be successful. There is too little time between now and the midterms for them to change their ways. They might succeed in appointing Kavanaugh to the Supreme court, but that isn't going to change anything or keep the nation out of debt. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 5, 2018 7:47:34 GMT
You seem to have a very narrow view of history.
The Ten Commandments and other Old Testament injunctions (for example death to apostates and gays) have informed European justice systems as much as Sharia has informed the middle eastern methods of justice. That is, for centuries the Church was at the centre of the legal system in the west and used the law to enforce the Old Testament. For example It was less than 200 years ago that church dignitaries in Spain were forcing hot coals up the vaginas of women accused of apostasy in the highest traditions of Church morality.
So now we can agree that morality is individual interpretation and enforced by the government of the day and not by the will of religious nutters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2018 11:06:13 GMT
You seem to have a very narrow view of history. The Ten Commandments and other Old Testament injunctions (for example death to apostates and gays) have informed European justice systems as much as Sharia has informed the middle eastern methods of justice. That is, for centuries the Church was at the centre of the legal system in the west and used the law to enforce the Old Testament. For example It was less than 200 years ago that church dignitaries in Spain were forcing hot coals up the vaginas of women accused of apostasy in the highest traditions of Church morality. So now we can agree that morality is individual interpretation and enforced by the government of the day and not by the will of religious nutters. I am fully aware that throughout history there have been supporters of religion who totally did not understand it, misrepresented it, and gave it a bad name. Are you aware that there are now people who support "science" who totally do not understand it, misrepresent it, and give it a bad name? There are. Neither gets a pass calling the other "nutters" as if one isn't just as bad as the other. The problem is neither science nor religion. Science is a wonderful thing. So is religion. The problem is the government and its abuse of science and religion for its own ends. The Republicans, or Trump supporters anyway, misrepresent religion. The Democrats misrepresent science. The problem is the government. The solution is to put the fear of god into both political parties, and no -- Trump supporters have no fear of god yet. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 5, 2018 14:38:38 GMT
'religion a wonderful thing'?
please.
that statement is about as far from the truth as aunt jemimah being a great spokesmen for pancakes. your centuries-old fear tactics are no longer working. and the power of hell almighty is being shown right here on earth by one too many war profiteering 'good' christians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 1:12:28 GMT
Good god... someone actually sat down and wrote that page of horseshit... then actually proofread it and said to himself, "Yes, this is good!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 6, 2018 1:18:21 GMT
You seem to have a very narrow view of history. The Ten Commandments and other Old Testament injunctions (for example death to apostates and gays) have informed European justice systems as much as Sharia has informed the middle eastern methods of justice. That is, for centuries the Church was at the centre of the legal system in the west and used the law to enforce the Old Testament. For example It was less than 200 years ago that church dignitaries in Spain were forcing hot coals up the vaginas of women accused of apostasy in the highest traditions of Church morality. So now we can agree that morality is individual interpretation and enforced by the government of the day and not by the will of religious nutters. I am fully aware that throughout history there have been supporters of religion who totally did not understand it, misrepresented it, and gave it a bad name. Are you aware that there are now people who support "science" who totally do not understand it, misrepresent it, and give it a bad name? There are. Neither gets a pass calling the other "nutters" as if one isn't just as bad as the other. The problem is neither science nor religion. Science is a wonderful thing. So is religion. The problem is the government and its abuse of science and religion for its own ends. The Republicans, or Trump supporters anyway, misrepresent religion. The Democrats misrepresent science. The problem is the government. The solution is to put the fear of god into both political parties, and no -- Trump supporters have no fear of god yet. I am something of a science nerd but i wouldn't call it a wonderful thing. It is a tool. But I fail to see what your reference to abuse of science means, including where government is involved. Perhaps you could enlighten me. And you are less than convincing about religion being a wonderful thing. Religion has been responsible for mass murders and horrific deaths throughout history, as well as for the most fanciful lies. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 6, 2018 3:44:47 GMT
I am fully aware that throughout history there have been supporters of religion who totally did not understand it, misrepresented it, and gave it a bad name. Are you aware that there are now people who support "science" who totally do not understand it, misrepresent it, and give it a bad name? There are. Neither gets a pass calling the other "nutters" as if one isn't just as bad as the other. The problem is neither science nor religion. Science is a wonderful thing. So is religion. The problem is the government and its abuse of science and religion for its own ends. The Republicans, or Trump supporters anyway, misrepresent religion. The Democrats misrepresent science. The problem is the government. The solution is to put the fear of god into both political parties, and no -- Trump supporters have no fear of god yet. I am something of a science nerd but i wouldn't call it a wonderful thing. It is a tool. But I fail to see what your reference to abuse of science means, including where government is involved. Perhaps you could enlighten me. And you are less than convincing about religion being a wonderful thing. Religion has been responsible for mass murders and horrific deaths throughout history, as well as for the most fanciful lies. The most obvious misapplication of science and the easiest to argue against is the idea that the level of the ocean is rising because of human activities that increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Although indeed the isostatic level (local level) of the ocean is changing because of tectonic plate movement and the weighty deposit of silt at the mouths of rivers, the evidence for the eustatic level (worldwide) changing remains rather trivial and disputable so far. The worldwide level of the ocean can be remarkably stable because of feedback loops. A warmer atmosphere might melt more polar ice, but it also holds more water in the atmosphere. Higher levels of CO2 can stimulate plant activities that bring it back down. Belief that the level of the oceans is rising worldwide can be a way to identify people who get their scientific opinions from watching television. The notion that medical science has made significant advances against cancer in the last 25 years is the result of using cancer cure rates rather than cancer death rates. The difference is that earlier detection of cancer increases the "cure" rate but not the death rate because those are cancers that would not have resulted in an earlier death anyway. Although the death can appear to drop over several years a change of less than two percent in any one year is not statistically significant because so many other factors are changing more than two percent, fresher food, working less hard, less exposure to weather and so on. Poor people who went to inferior public schools and hate religion with a passion are often easily duped into believing science is more useful than is the truth. I do not delude myself. I realize how much science has made life easier. It is not however the solution to any political problems, nor is religion the cause of political problems. The problems attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes. Arabs and Jews get along fine except where territory is the issue. Muslims and Hindus get along fine except where territory is an issue. Catholics and Protestants live in relative peace around the world, except that the political differences in Northern Ireland had resulted in conflicts in the past. Religion alone is not the cause of the disputes, and people on borders often have conflicts where "religion" is obviously not the cause, such as in Korea. Is that sufficiently enlightening for you? |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 6, 2018 4:25:35 GMT
I am something of a science nerd but i wouldn't call it a wonderful thing. It is a tool. But I fail to see what your reference to abuse of science means, including where government is involved. Perhaps you could enlighten me. And you are less than convincing about religion being a wonderful thing. Religion has been responsible for mass murders and horrific deaths throughout history, as well as for the most fanciful lies. The most obvious misapplication of science and the easiest to argue against is the idea that the level of the ocean is rising because of human activities that increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Although indeed the isostatic level (local level) of the ocean is changing because of tectonic plate movement and the weighty deposit of silt at the mouths of rivers, the evidence for the eustatic level (worldwide) changing remains rather trivial and disputable so far. The worldwide level of the ocean can be remarkably stable because of feedback loops. A warmer atmosphere might melt more polar ice, but it also holds more water in the atmosphere. Higher levels of CO2 can stimulate plant activities that bring it back down. Belief that the level of the oceans is rising worldwide can be a way to identify people who get their scientific opinions from watching television. The notion that medical science has made significant advances against cancer in the last 25 years is the result of using cancer cure rates rather than cancer death rates. The difference is that earlier detection of cancer increases the "cure" rate but not the death rate because those are cancers that would not have resulted in an earlier death anyway. Although the death can appear to drop over several years a change of less than two percent in any one year is not statistically significant because so many other factors are changing more than two percent, fresher food, working less hard, less exposure to weather and so on. Poor people who went to inferior public schools and hate religion with a passion are often easily duped into believing science is more useful than is the truth. I do not delude myself. I realize how much science has made life easier. It is not however the solution to any political problems, nor is religion the cause of political problems. The problems attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes. Arabs and Jews get along fine except where territory is the issue. Muslims and Hindus get along fine except where territory is an issue. Catholics and Protestants live in relative peace around the world, except that the political differences in Northern Ireland had resulted in conflicts in the past. Religion alone is not the cause of the disputes, and people on borders often have conflicts where "religion" is obviously not the cause, such as in Korea. Is that sufficiently enlightening for you? Yes, it sure is enlightening. I guessed either an antivaxxer, a creationist, a tobacco industry shill or a denier. Denier it is. No, you can't get your scientific knowledge from oil industry propaganda sites like wattsupwiththat.com. When you spout the garbage that you just wrote, you are either the lone real climate scientist on the planet or have a woefully ignorant misunderstanding of climate science. Your claim about the statistics behind cancer cure rates is equally astounding. The little statistics education I have had pales in comparison to your groundbreaking new theory that statisticians would be lining up to glean about a little bit of your knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 6, 2018 4:41:38 GMT
The most obvious misapplication of science and the easiest to argue against is the idea that the level of the ocean is rising because of human activities that increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Although indeed the isostatic level (local level) of the ocean is changing because of tectonic plate movement and the weighty deposit of silt at the mouths of rivers, the evidence for the eustatic level (worldwide) changing remains rather trivial and disputable so far. The worldwide level of the ocean can be remarkably stable because of feedback loops. A warmer atmosphere might melt more polar ice, but it also holds more water in the atmosphere. Higher levels of CO2 can stimulate plant activities that bring it back down. Belief that the level of the oceans is rising worldwide can be a way to identify people who get their scientific opinions from watching television. The notion that medical science has made significant advances against cancer in the last 25 years is the result of using cancer cure rates rather than cancer death rates. The difference is that earlier detection of cancer increases the "cure" rate but not the death rate because those are cancers that would not have resulted in an earlier death anyway. Although the death can appear to drop over several years a change of less than two percent in any one year is not statistically significant because so many other factors are changing more than two percent, fresher food, working less hard, less exposure to weather and so on. Poor people who went to inferior public schools and hate religion with a passion are often easily duped into believing science is more useful than is the truth. I do not delude myself. I realize how much science has made life easier. It is not however the solution to any political problems, nor is religion the cause of political problems. The problems attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes. Arabs and Jews get along fine except where territory is the issue. Muslims and Hindus get along fine except where territory is an issue. Catholics and Protestants live in relative peace around the world, except that the political differences in Northern Ireland had resulted in conflicts in the past. Religion alone is not the cause of the disputes, and people on borders often have conflicts where "religion" is obviously not the cause, such as in Korea. Is that sufficiently enlightening for you? Yes, it sure is enlightening. I guessed either an antivaxxer, a creationist, a tobacco industry shill or a denier. Denier it is. No, you can't get your scientific knowledge from oil industry propaganda sites like wattsupwiththat.com. When you spout the garbage that you just wrote, you are either the lone real climate scientist on the planet or have a woefully ignorant misunderstanding of climate science. Your claim about the statistics behind cancer cure rates is equally astounding. The little statistics education I have had pales in comparison to your groundbreaking new theory that statisticians would be lining up to glean about a little bit of your knowledge. I like the way you build a scientific argument. That's what I'm going to say after you build one. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2018 4:44:25 GMT
Good god... someone actually sat down and wrote that page of horseshit... then actually proofread it and said to himself, "Yes, this is good!" Yeah, somebody sat down - on Planet Arlon - and wrote that page of horseshit. By the way, that's an insult to horseshit.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 6, 2018 4:51:59 GMT
Good god... someone actually sat down and wrote that page of horseshit... then actually proofread it and said to himself, "Yes, this is good!" Yeah, somebody sat down - on Planet Arlon - and wrote that page of horseshit. By the way, that's an insult to horseshit. Does it make you wish you could shut down the internet sometimes. "All right, kids, now turn that garbage off and do your real homework!" I feel the same way. I also feel the same way about much of television, which it is obvious where you get your opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2018 5:05:34 GMT
The most obvious misapplication of science and the easiest to argue against is the idea that the level of the ocean is rising because of human activities that increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Although indeed the isostatic level (local level) of the ocean is changing because of tectonic plate movement and the weighty deposit of silt at the mouths of rivers, the evidence for the eustatic level (worldwide) changing remains rather trivial and disputable so far. The worldwide level of the ocean can be remarkably stable because of feedback loops. A warmer atmosphere might melt more polar ice, but it also holds more water in the atmosphere. Higher levels of CO2 can stimulate plant activities that bring it back down. Belief that the level of the oceans is rising worldwide can be a way to identify people who get their scientific opinions from watching television. The notion that medical science has made significant advances against cancer in the last 25 years is the result of using cancer cure rates rather than cancer death rates. The difference is that earlier detection of cancer increases the "cure" rate but not the death rate because those are cancers that would not have resulted in an earlier death anyway. Although the death can appear to drop over several years a change of less than two percent in any one year is not statistically significant because so many other factors are changing more than two percent, fresher food, working less hard, less exposure to weather and so on. Poor people who went to inferior public schools and hate religion with a passion are often easily duped into believing science is more useful than is the truth. I do not delude myself. I realize how much science has made life easier. It is not however the solution to any political problems, nor is religion the cause of political problems. The problems attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes. Arabs and Jews get along fine except where territory is the issue. Muslims and Hindus get along fine except where territory is an issue. Catholics and Protestants live in relative peace around the world, except that the political differences in Northern Ireland had resulted in conflicts in the past. Religion alone is not the cause of the disputes, and people on borders often have conflicts where "religion" is obviously not the cause, such as in Korea. Is that sufficiently enlightening for you? Yes, it sure is enlightening. I guessed either an antivaxxer, a creationist, a tobacco industry shill or a denier. Denier it is. No, you can't get your scientific knowledge from oil industry propaganda sites like wattsupwiththat.com. When you spout the garbage that you just wrote, you are either the lone real climate scientist on the planet or have a woefully ignorant misunderstanding of climate science. Your claim about the statistics behind cancer cure rates is equally astounding. The little statistics education I have had pales in comparison to your groundbreaking new theory that statisticians would be lining up to glean about a little bit of your knowledge.
As a thirty year survivor of cancer, I can assure that there is no 'cancer cure rate'; my oncologist uses 'years of survival' or 'years of remission'. We don't use the 'c' word (cure). All I know is that I am alive because of advances in medical science that my grandmother, aunt and countless older female relatives did not have. It has nothing to do with moving the goal posts as Arlon has claimed. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 6, 2018 8:50:24 GMT
As a thirty year survivor of cancer, I can assure that there is no 'cancer cure rate'; my oncologist uses 'years of survival' or 'years of remission'. We don't use the 'c' word (cure). All I know is that I am alive because of advances in medical science that my grandmother, aunt and countless older female relatives did not have. It has nothing to do with moving the goal posts as Arlon has claimed. Arlon doesn't seem to understand the level of work that is put into assessing cancer treatments and medications, and in particular, statistical analysis of what works. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 6, 2018 9:08:15 GMT
I like the way you build a scientific argument. That's what I'm going to say after you build one.
You mean like this piece of gobbledegook? I like the way you use big words to prove you actually know nothing of the topic. Listing some of the factors involved in sea level rises followed by a blanket statement that the thousands of climate scientists using quantitative methods to measure each factor, actually fantasised it all from episodes of South Park leaves one conclusion. You ran screaming out of the science lesson when they started dissecting frogs and did religion class instead. The most obvious misapplication of science and the easiest to argue against is the idea that the level of the ocean is rising because of human activities that increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Although indeed the isostatic level (local level) of the ocean is changing because of tectonic plate movement and the weighty deposit of silt at the mouths of rivers, the evidence for the eustatic level (worldwide) changing remains rather trivial and disputable so far. The worldwide level of the ocean can be remarkably stable because of feedback loops. A warmer atmosphere might melt more polar ice, but it also holds more water in the atmosphere. Higher levels of CO2 can stimulate plant activities that bring it back down. Belief that the level of the oceans is rising worldwide can be a way to identify people who get their scientific opinions from watching television.OK, i get that the sarcasm went over your head faster than the ISS. However the same argument holds that you failed on with sea level rises. Yes, there are scientists and mathematicians who know more than you about how to analyse data sets. They look at all those factors you list and attempt to quantify each one. Some studies isolate specific issues they want to check for efficacy. That is the scientific method and doesn't get wiped out with a half-arsed list of things better minds than you thought of and factored into their studies years ago. The notion that medical science has made significant advances against cancer in the last 25 years is the result of using cancer cure rates rather than cancer death rates. The difference is that earlier detection of cancer increases the "cure" rate but not the death rate because those are cancers that would not have resulted in an earlier death anyway. Although the death can appear to drop over several years a change of less than two percent in any one year is not statistically significant because so many other factors are changing more than two percent, fresher food, working less hard, less exposure to weather and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 6, 2018 10:54:10 GMT
Is it your intention to provide any such data or methods before Christmas? Are you one of them? I'm sorry, but I'm still not very excited that medical science is now curing cancer people didn't know they had. Perhaps you should study advertising techniques. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 6, 2018 11:53:06 GMT
1) thousands of climate scientists using quantitative methods Is it your intention to provide any such data or methods before Christmas?
Joke, right? Climate science is wrong because I won't supply data for thousands of research papers to refute a balloon you filled with your farts? 2) there are scientists and mathematicians who know more than you about how to analyse data sets Are you one of them?Apparently. At least i know enough about statistical techniques (and have read papers studying similar areas to your bullshit thought bubble. I'm sorry, but I'm still not very excited that medical science is now curing cancer people didn't know they had. Perhaps you should study advertising techniques.
Just another lump of bullshit you dropped on the ground hoping somebody would think it is real and follow the smell. No, your claim is not real, just one of your fantasies. |
|
