Capitalism is un-Christian.

[Oblarg]

I don't go by ideals. I only go by what is real. In an ideal world with butterflies and bunnies no one would ever die, and we all be happy as gumdrops. First and foremost this is not an ideal world. Ideal forms of communism and capitalism do not exist. I look at what does exist and only that which exists, Obbie.

 

American "freedom" didn't exist when the country was founded. It was an "ideal." Should we not have fought the revolutionary war because "we should only go by what is real?"

[lord of flies]

Believe it or not, just because you agree with LoF doesn't mean that everyone else fails at life. LoF just tells everyone they're wrong, but never gets around to explaining why. I, at least, explicate why I think Communism needs to go die in a fire.

Honestly, I feel like the Soviet Union had a mistaken basis (Leninism) and had major flaws which lead to a serious loss in the possible victories of revolutionary socialism. Perhaps the world would be a better place without Lenin - not because there would be no USSR, but because the "USSR" that would form would be more open, more communal, and more democratic. A USSR that was truly built on the soviets, rather than using them as a stepping stone to Bolshevik authoritarianism, would have been a guiding light for the world.

 

I have said on this forum that I believe in bottoms-up democracy, and I do not believe in parliamentarianism. I defend the Soviet Union because it was not some barbaric monstrosity, but a state with good sides and bad sides that must be respected rather than demonized. I call myself a communist because I believe in revolutionary socialism, rather than social democracy, and even as a write that I feel a desire to put it in quotes because of the absurdity of social democracy, of its constant historical failures. Where radicals are willing to seize the reins of the state, that is where legitimate change can be made, and the Bolsheviks did seize the reins of the state, and they did legitimately change their country, right down to its core. What's more, they did so for the better.

 

I do not agree with the birth of the Cheka or the use of the KGB as secret police, but I understand them as a small part of a greater whole, with legitimate justifications in terms of the necessity of security and protection from reactionaries.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't go by ideals. I only go by what is real. In an ideal world with butterflies and bunnies no one would ever die, and we all be happy as gumdrops. First and foremost this is not an ideal world. Ideal forms of communism and capitalism do not exist. I look at what does exist and only that which exists, Obbie.

 

American "freedom" didn't exist when the country was founded. It was an "ideal." Should we not have fought the revolutionary war because "we should only go by what is real?"

 

You can fight for "ideals," but the "ideal" will never manifest because humans are a less than ideal species.

[Oblarg]

I don't go by ideals. I only go by what is real. In an ideal world with butterflies and bunnies no one would ever die, and we all be happy as gumdrops. First and foremost this is not an ideal world. Ideal forms of communism and capitalism do not exist. I look at what does exist and only that which exists, Obbie.

 

American "freedom" didn't exist when the country was founded. It was an "ideal." Should we not have fought the revolutionary war because "we should only go by what is real?"

 

You can fight for "ideals," but the "ideal" will never manifest because humans are a less than ideal species.

 

So you're arguing that theory can never work in practice?

 

You're very naive.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am saying that the theory of communism will never because of human nature.

[Oblarg]

I am saying that the theory of communism will never because of human nature.

 

Possibly, but that doesn't make capitalism the best option, nor does it make communism evil.

[Hurlshort]

Heh, this thread is awesome. People saying they have real evidence that God exists yet can't show it, all these right wing idiots writing history again to suit their opinions better and then there's this guy who's smarter than anyone else in this thread yet is a Soviet Union apologist and hardcore communist...

 

God damn you americans are entertaining.

 

I never said I had real evidence of God's existence. I said I know that God exists due to a personal experience. Two completely different animals, Lare.

 

Oh man, it's the "personal revelation" again. Tell me, what differentiates your revelation from a hallucination? If I had a hallucination in which a giant bunny rabbit told me that he controlled the weather, should I believe it?

 

It's a personal revelation that is shared by millions, so that is the difference between God and your giant bunny.

[Oblarg]

Heh, this thread is awesome. People saying they have real evidence that God exists yet can't show it, all these right wing idiots writing history again to suit their opinions better and then there's this guy who's smarter than anyone else in this thread yet is a Soviet Union apologist and hardcore communist...

 

God damn you americans are entertaining.

 

I never said I had real evidence of God's existence. I said I know that God exists due to a personal experience. Two completely different animals, Lare.

 

Oh man, it's the "personal revelation" again. Tell me, what differentiates your revelation from a hallucination? If I had a hallucination in which a giant bunny rabbit told me that he controlled the weather, should I believe it?

 

It's a personal revelation that is shared by millions, so that is the difference between God and your giant bunny.

 

I somehow doubt millions of people have the exact same hallucination. Call me skeptical. Humans are very susceptible to the power of suggestion.

[Gorgon]

Heh, this thread is awesome. People saying they have real evidence that God exists yet can't show it, all these right wing idiots writing history again to suit their opinions better and then there's this guy who's smarter than anyone else in this thread yet is a Soviet Union apologist and hardcore communist...

 

God damn you americans are entertaining.

 

I never said I had real evidence of God's existence. I said I know that God exists due to a personal experience. Two completely different animals, Lare.

 

Oh man, it's the "personal revelation" again. Tell me, what differentiates your revelation from a hallucination? If I had a hallucination in which a giant bunny rabbit told me that he controlled the weather, should I believe it?

 

It's a personal revelation that is shared by millions, so that is the difference between God and your giant bunny.

Supposing for a minute that an enormous supporting apparatus had been constructed around the notion that giant bunnies had the answers to the really big questions and that by believing in them your immortal soul would be assured good digs in paradise... Now that would allow such a comparison.

[Hurlshort]

 

It's a personal revelation that is shared by millions, so that is the difference between God and your giant bunny.

 

I somehow doubt millions of people have the exact same hallucination. Call me skeptical. Humans are very susceptible to the power of suggestion.

 

What you are missing here is that everyone has a unique relationship with God. But the general feeling of something greater in the universe is the same, and it's shared by millions and throughout human history. I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle that. No one here is forcing you to believe it, you are the one going after others because of their beliefs.

 

As for the power of suggestion, that argument works great for religion and mass faith, but not so well with personal faith. If my beliefs were just tied to the power of suggestion, why is it easy for me to dismiss all the religious aspects of Christianity I was raised with except the concept of God? Logic would dictate that it would be an all or nothing deal.

[Oblarg]

 

It's a personal revelation that is shared by millions, so that is the difference between God and your giant bunny.

 

I somehow doubt millions of people have the exact same hallucination. Call me skeptical. Humans are very susceptible to the power of suggestion.

 

What you are missing here is that everyone has a unique relationship with God. But the general feeling of something greater in the universe is the same, and it's shared by millions and throughout human history. I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle that. No one here is forcing you to believe it, you are the one going after others because of their beliefs.

 

As for the power of suggestion, that argument works great for religion and mass faith, but not so well with personal faith. If my beliefs were just tied to the power of suggestion, why is it easy for me to dismiss all the religious aspects of Christianity I was raised with except the concept of God? Logic would dictate that it would be an all or nothing deal.

 

So, everyone has different hallucinations, but somehow they're all worshiping the same god? You lost me.

 

My gripe was with the offering of a "personal experience" as proof of god. Such an experience is not proof.

[Hurlshort]

So, everyone has different hallucinations, but somehow they're all worshiping the same god? You lost me.

 

I'm not sure where worship comes in here, we are just discussing the belief in the existence of God that many people share.

 

My gripe was with the offering of a "personal experience" as proof of god. Such an experience is not proof.

 

You are looking at this from a scientific viewpoint, and I get that, but try looking at it from a legal perspective and you might see my point of view. In a courtroom, an eyewitness account is a form of evidence. It is not as good as DNA or video evidence, to be sure, but it is used in many cases. The jury hears the experience of the witness, and then they make the call as to whether the account is reliable.

 

Nw I'm getting the feeling that you are automatically discounting the eyewitness accounts without actually weighing them. That is your prerogative, but I consider it a folly. Sure, you will probably look at the other evidence and find it weighs against the testimony, but not taking them into account at all is short sighted.

[Killian Kalthorne]

So, everyone has different hallucinations, but somehow they're all worshiping the same god? You lost me.

 

My gripe was with the offering of a "personal experience" as proof of god. Such an experience is not proof.

 

I never offered any proof. I simply said I know God exists. You can believe me or not believe me. Knowing and believing that God exists does not equal worshiping the damn bastard.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

You are looking at this from a scientific viewpoint, and I get that, but try looking at it from a legal perspective and you might see my point of view. In a courtroom, an eyewitness account is a form of evidence. It is not as good as DNA or video evidence, to be sure, but it is used in many cases. The jury hears the experience of the witness, and then they make the call as to whether the account is reliable.

 

Nw I'm getting the feeling that you are automatically discounting the eyewitness accounts without actually weighing them. That is your prerogative, but I consider it a folly. Sure, you will probably look at the other evidence and find it weighs against the testimony, but not taking them into account at all is short sighted.

The difference is that a murder (or any other crime) is something physical and known. We know that murders exist, even if we do not know that a particular murder has occurred, we can take a close look at a body that was murdered, we can look at criminals who have murdered people, we can examine murder weapons, et cetera. We have a framework, established by physical evidence, for understanding murders.

 

The same is not true for the divine. We don't have any physically available gods to theorize about ones that aren't available. We don't have any reliable miracles to theorize about unreliable ones. We don't have any consistently answered prayers (that is, we cannot demonstrate that prayer actually helps anything via testing) to theorize about inconsistently answered ones. We do not have any established framework for understanding the transcendent, the divine. The two situations are very different.

[Oblarg]

So, everyone has different hallucinations, but somehow they're all worshiping the same god? You lost me.

 

My gripe was with the offering of a "personal experience" as proof of god. Such an experience is not proof.

 

I never offered any proof. I simply said I know God exists. You can believe me or not believe me. Knowing and believing that God exists does not equal worshiping the damn bastard.

 

Your "knowing" sounds a lot like "believing" to me.

[Hurlshort]

We don't have any reliable miracles to theorize about unreliable ones. We don't have any consistently answered prayers (that is, we cannot demonstrate that prayer actually helps anything via testing) to theorize about inconsistently answered ones. We do not have any established framework for understanding the transcendent, the divine. The two situations are very different.

 

That really depends on how you define a miracle. Our very existence is a fairly low probability event. We can argue about the exact odds and all that, but lets save that for another thread. I consider my daughter a miracle. You can argue about her just being part of a biological cycle and a combination of genetic traits from two people, but that isn't going to change the emotions I have for her.

 

Really, I'm not looking to change your minds here. Believe what you want to. But it would be nice if you could see and respect other perspectives on the matter. I get where you are coming from, you want more solid proof and evidence. That is something that many of the most pious clergymen have gone through. Questioning faith is an important part of any persons spiritual journey. Closing your mind off to all matters of faith can be just as stifling as closing your mind to science.

[Oblarg]

Closing your mind off to all matters of faith can be just as stifling as closing your mind to science.

 

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has.

[Hurlshort]

Closing your mind off to all matters of faith can be just as stifling as closing your mind to science.

 

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has.

 

Yeah, you're really not reading carefully and just quoting out of context, so this discussion is over. You did illustrate my point on close-mindedness, so thanks for that.

[Oblarg]

Closing your mind off to all matters of faith can be just as stifling as closing your mind to science.

 

No, because faith has never provided any observable, measurable results. Science has.

 

Yeah, you're really not reading carefully and just quoting out of context, so this discussion is over. You did illustrate my point on close-mindedness, so thanks for that.

 

Nice rebuttal. Maybe next time instead of a fancily worded "you're wrong" you could actually back your opinion.

[Trenitay]

He did. You twisted it into something completely different than what he actually said.

[Oblarg]

He did. You twisted it into something completely different than what he actually said.

 

No, he didn't. Claiming I didn't read his post is not a valid rebuttal. I did read his post, and found absolutely no compelling reason to "opening my mind to faith." What exactly am I missing out on by being "close-minded?" How is it stifling? Even more important, why should I make an exception to the way I view the world for faith? What is so special about "faith" that separates it from any other unfounded belief?

 

I simply stripped away the fluff. The context of the quote was irrelevant - there's no context in which it would ever be valid. Instead of actually attempting to refute my claim, however, he simply brushed me off as being "close-minded" and not having read his post. That's not arguing.

[Blank]

Science includes personal experience all the time Oddblob. It's scientific, measurable, and quantifiable when you interview people about their experiences. Have you ever taken a course of psychology or read a psychological journal?

 

For example, take Walsingham's post on the other page about the correlation of depression and sleep deprivation. Do you realize that when someone is considered clinically depressed, it is because they were interviewed and their personal experience fit the criteria for being so?

 

We consider personal experience as scientific all the time. As Hurlshot mentioned earlier, we also legally consider personal experience as key to determining the truth. When I say "the truth", I mean people can die on account of two or three witnesses.

 

This is why Christians use words like "witness" and "testimony". This is why the book of 1 John is so convicting for Christians who do not have a hardened heart; it reminds them that if they say they abide in Christ, they must live a life accordingly transformed by Him; their life ought to testify of their faith. As James says, what kind of faith has no fruit? A dead kind.

 

I agree with you, Oggy, that one cannot "prove" God exists by measuring His height or His depth, but with my actions I can prove that my faith in Him has genuine and tangible results.

 

On the other hand, one must ask, do I have true faith, or am I putting on a show? Once again, that is something I cannot prove. But as a court trusts a witness, or as you trust an acquaintance with your crap when you go to the lou at a coffee shop, you must be able to trust that when a person says their faith guides them to good deeds and love, they have a genuine faith.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Blank

[Nightshape]

Not all Muslims are like that, Nightshape. Only the really stupid ones do that sort of crap. Besides, the largest population of Muslims aren't in the Middle East or Africa, where the majority of terrorists are from. The bulk of the Islamic population resides in Indonesia and that region of the world.

 

Quite simpley, I was stating that the islamic world has fallen from grace. To cut to the chase, in the dark ages, the islamic world could be considered more civil than it is now.

 

I do not intend to tar all with the same brush, I have infact had the pleasure of knowing many moderate muslims. These people give me some hope.

[Oblarg]

Science includes personal experience all the time Oddblob. It's scientific, measurable, and quantifiable when you interview people about their experiences. Have you ever taken a course of psychology or read a psychological journal?

 

For example, take Walsingham's post on the other page about the correlation of depression and sleep deprivation. Do you realize that when someone is considered clinically depressed, it is because they were interviewed and their personal experience fit the criteria for being so?

 

We consider personal experience as scientific all the time. As Hurlshot mentioned earlier, we also legally consider personal experience as key to determining the truth. When I say "the truth", I mean people can die on account of two or three witnesses.

 

This is why Christians use words like "witness" and "testimony". This is why the book of 1 John is so convicting for Christians who do not have a hardened heart; it reminds them that if they say they abide in Christ, they must live a life accordingly transformed by Him; their life ought to testify of their faith. As James says, what kind of faith has no fruit? A dead kind.

 

I agree with you, Oggy, that one cannot "prove" God exists by measuring His height or His depth, but with my actions I can prove that my faith in Him has genuine and tangible results.

 

On the other hand, one must ask, do I have true faith, or am I putting on a show? Once again, that is something I cannot prove. But as a court trusts a witness, or as you trust an acquaintance with your crap when you go to the lou at a coffee shop, you must be able to trust that when a person says their faith guides them to good deeds and love, they have a genuine faith.

 

Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. You can't "know" anything if you're unable to demonstrate it to someone else.

[Humodour]

Not all Muslims are like that, Nightshape. Only the really stupid ones do that sort of crap. Besides, the largest population of Muslims aren't in the Middle East or Africa, where the majority of terrorists are from. The bulk of the Islamic population resides in Indonesia and that region of the world.

 

Quite simpley, I was stating that the islamic world has fallen from grace. To cut to the chase, in the dark ages, the islamic world could be considered more civil than it is now.

 

I do not intend to tar all with the same brush, I have infact had the pleasure of knowing many moderate muslims. These people give me some hope.

 

By the 'Islamic world' you really mean the Middle Eastern world. And yes, even 100 years ago it was more civilised than now. Wahhabism and similar extremist lines of thought spread like wild-fire in that area the past century.

 

I distinguish 'Islamic world' from 'Mid East' largely because that is the way things are; Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Albania are all clearly Muslim dominated and yet are by and large developed, civilised countries (Lebanon was on that list till Hezbollah got involved - it was the Switzerland of the Mid East). Heck even the North African Islamic countries (Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco) are a cut above what you find in the general Middle East area (Yemeni, Somalia, Pakistan and Iran included).

 

Reading properly, it seems that Visceris already made this point quite clearly, yet you chose to ignore him and push your prejudice instead. Nice.