5 of 5
5
Would you vote for an atheist Prez candidate?
Posted: 17 November 2012 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
Majority of One - 17 November 2012 12:03 PM

I define spirituality as believing that humans are somehow connected to the “universe” or the cosmos in some way.

We are connected to the Universe. We are a product of it. I believe this yet I don’t consider myself “spiritual”. I don’t understand the point of using that word to describe physical reality.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 12:03 PM

Different people would define even that in different ways which doesn’t conflict with my definition. There’s probably as many ways to be spiritual as there are people who call themselves spiritual. Also, I think a lot of people can’t let go of the god they were indoctrinated with as a child but get that religion is manipulative and a business.

Right. So when children are no longer being indoctrinated, the problem of God will solve itself.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 12:03 PM

They believe in a god but don’t perscribe to a religion and therefore call themselves spiritual. Hope that helps.

Ah, so when you say spiritual, you mean someone who believes in God but no specific religion. I think that’s agnostic.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 12:03 PM

As to objectivism, I’m a fan of Ayn Rand’s but I think she is a bit extreme politically. She came from Russia where she formed opinions that drove her work and her viewpoint. I think we should move more toward objectivism and away from altruism but I can’t see pure capitalism working any better than pure communism mainly because we can’t get to “pure” either way. Humans are always going to act in ways that are unpredictable to some extent.

Why is “acting in ways that are unpredictable” a bad thing? You said that like you think its problematic. Why do you think its problematic?

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 November 2012 04:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26

I mean connected to the universe in a supernatural way. That somehow the universe cares about the human and intervenes on the human’s behalf. I think the person has just replaced “god” with the “universe”. Like the sentence: “That went well. The universe is looking out for me.”

I don’t think humans behaving in a unpredictable ways is a bad thing and I didn’t say that. It just makes it difficult to put a system of government in place that everyone is going to be able to enjoy and thrive under. Some people actually do thrive under totalitarian regimes like Ayn Rand railed against. Some are perfectly happy to be told what to do. She was different. Doesn’t make her better, smarter or anything else. Just different.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 November 2012 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
Majority of One - 17 November 2012 04:22 PM

I mean connected to the universe in a supernatural way. That somehow the universe cares about the human and intervenes on the human’s behalf. I think the person has just replaced “god” with the “universe”. Like the sentence: “That went well. The universe is looking out for me.”

Rand’s Objectivism denounces mythology. Mythology is the anti-thesis of reason.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 04:22 PM

I don’t think humans behaving in a unpredictable ways is a bad thing and I didn’t say that. It just makes it difficult to put a system of government in place that everyone is going to be able to enjoy and thrive under.

Thats why government should be private. There will be competition.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 04:22 PM

Some people actually do thrive under totalitarian regimes like Ayn Rand railed against.

Only people that are part of the regime thrive under totalitarian regimes.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 04:22 PM

Some are perfectly happy to be told what to do.

No. Nobody is happy living irresponsibly. In life, problems are inevitable. And living irresponsibly makes problem solving impossible. Relying on other people to solve one’s problems doesn’t work well.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 04:22 PM

She was different. Doesn’t make her better, smarter or anything else. Just different.

No. It does make her better—because she was smarter.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 November 2012 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26
Rami Rustom - 17 November 2012 05:20 PM

Rand’s Objectivism denounces mythology. Mythology is the anti-thesis of reason.

Well, in that she was right.

Rami Rustom - 17 November 2012 05:20 PM

Only people that are part of the regime thrive under totalitarian regimes.

Maybe so, but they’re still people. And, I think you’re not being very open minded to the possibility that there are people who aren’t very smart who are probably perfectly happy being told what to do. They’re fine with whatever government they’ve been brought up in and don’t question anything. You see a lot of religious people in the world for this very reason. And, I don’t think they see it as living irresponsibly because they don’t really question it or even think about it. They go about their business doing as they’re told and they’re fine with that.

Rami Rustom - 17 November 2012 05:20 PM

No. It does make her better—because she was smarter.

If your definition of better is smarter than most everyone else then ok. She definitely was that. Like I said, I’m a fan of hers. I think she was an absolute genius.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 November 2012 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
Majority of One - 17 November 2012 05:35 PM
Rami Rustom - 17 November 2012 05:20 PM

Only people that are part of the regime thrive under totalitarian regimes.

Maybe so, but they’re still people. And, I think you’re not being very open minded to the possibility that there are people who aren’t very smart who are probably perfectly happy being told what to do.

What do you mean I’m not being open minded? I know that there are a lot of irresponsible people. So what?

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 05:35 PM

They’re fine with whatever government they’ve been brought up in and don’t question anything. You see a lot of religious people in the world for this very reason. And, I don’t think they see it as living irresponsibly

How they see “it” doesn’t matter. What matters is the objective truth. They are living irresponsible lives. And it hurts them.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 05:35 PM

because they don’t really question it or even think about it. They go about their business doing as they’re told and they’re fine with that.

Yes they are fine with it. Because they don’t know better. And it is hurting them.

Majority of One - 17 November 2012 05:35 PM
Rami Rustom - 17 November 2012 05:20 PM

No. It does make her better—because she was smarter.

If your definition of better is smarter than most everyone else then ok. She definitely was that. Like I said, I’m a fan of hers. I think she was an absolute genius.


Thinking better means acting better.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2012 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26

Rami: Wow, you just sound really judgmental. I agree with the statement “thinking better means acting better.”

However, the people we are writing about are IMO unaware that how they think is causing them problems. How is this their fault? I’m talking about people who are incapable of thinking any differently whether we have free will or not. We may not have it to the extent we believe we do in which case these people are just making honey and building the hive without much thought to how to do it differently or better.

Here in Colorado, I’m surrounded by red neck republicans. I work with only one other person who is “middle of the road.” The rest loudly and proudly bray about how Obama is going to destroy the country and take us into socialism, when other than the healthcare thing, he has done nothing that even remotely resembles socialism. They also say climate change is a hoax or is just “normal.” But, doesn’t matter what the facts are. They’re not going to change their minds, at least not by what anyone says to them. They don’t see themselves as wrong or irresponsible. What to do? Calling them names sure as hell doesn’t help.

And, yes, I think you’re being closed minded. You seem very intelligent, so I don’t mean it too disparagingly, but you’re coming across that way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2012 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
Majority of One - 18 November 2012 10:42 AM

Rami: Wow, you just sound really judgmental. I agree with the statement “thinking better means acting better.”

However, the people we are writing about are IMO unaware that how they think is causing them problems. How is this their fault?

Why and how does “fault” enter into a discussion of who’s better?

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 10:42 AM

I’m talking about people who are incapable of thinking any differently whether we have free will or not. We may not have it to the extent we believe we do in which case these people are just making honey and building the hive without much thought to how to do it differently or better.

Here in Colorado, I’m surrounded by red neck republicans. I work with only one other person who is “middle of the road.” The rest loudly and proudly bray about how Obama is going to destroy the country and take us into socialism, when other than the healthcare thing, he has done nothing that even remotely resembles socialism. They also say climate change is a hoax or is just “normal.” But, doesn’t matter what the facts are. They’re not going to change their minds, at least not by what anyone says to them. They don’t see themselves as wrong or irresponsible. What to do? Calling them names sure as hell doesn’t help.

Are you saying I called them names? I don’t recall that. Please quote me.

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 10:42 AM

And, yes, I think you’re being closed minded. You seem very intelligent, so I don’t mean it too disparagingly, but you’re coming across that way.

What am I being closed-minded about? Being closed-minded means being unwilling to consider changing one’s mind about a specific idea. So what idea are you saying that I’m unwilling to consider changing my mind about?

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2012 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26

You called them irresponsible.

You seem unwilling to change your mind to the possibility that people are fine living under totalitarian regimes. You can’t seem to accept that there might be people who see that form of government as positive since they don’t have to think for themselves. They don’t mind being told what to do because it suits them.

You might not like it, I wouldn’t like it, but I recognize that there are people who think differently than me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2012 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
Majority of One - 18 November 2012 03:50 PM

You called them irresponsible.

Yes, because they are living irresponsibly. And you agreed with me when you say “since they don’t have to think for themselves”. Not thinking for oneself *is* irresponsible. Letting someone else think for oneself is putting the responsibility on someone else—hence irresponsible.

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 03:50 PM

You seem unwilling to change your mind to the possibility that people are fine living under totalitarian regimes.

You’ve misunderstood. You asserted that they are fine with their totalitarian regime and I agreed. I’ll quote myself: “Yes they are fine with it. Because they don’t know better. And it is hurting them.”

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 03:50 PM

You can’t seem to accept that there might be people who see that form of government as positive

But I do accept it, which is why I said “Yes they are fine with it”.


And I made a further point that how people view the government doesn’t make their view the right one. Do you agree?

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 03:50 PM

since they don’t have to think for themselves. They don’t mind being told what to do because it suits them.

I agreed to that already. And I’m saying that living irresponsibly hurts them.

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 03:50 PM

You might not like it, I wouldn’t like it, but I recognize that there are people who think differently than me.

So do I. You seem to say that I don’t understand that. But I don’t understand why you think that since I agreed with you on that point.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2012 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2009-06-26
Rami Rustom - 18 November 2012 04:54 PM

Yes, because they are living irresponsibly. And you agreed with me when you say “since they don’t have to think for themselves”. Not thinking for oneself *is* irresponsible. Letting someone else think for oneself is putting the responsibility on someone else—hence irresponsible.

I equate irresponsible behavior with something you can control and I’ll concede I may be wrong about that.

Rami Rustom - 18 November 2012 04:54 PM

But I do accept it, which is why I said “Yes they are fine with it”.

And I made a further point that how people view the government doesn’t make their view the right one. Do you agree?.

Yes. But, I was making the point that that is our opinion and it may not be shared by others. That is all I was saying. I think this or that government is the right one because I’ve thought it through and genuiely want the most people to thrive. But others, who may have a sadistic streak, or no empathy, or whatever, may not see it my way and they may have thought it through with their sadistic filter and come to a different conclusion than me. To them, they’re right.

I think we’re kind of in agreement, maybe just some semantic issues. Thanks for the discussion!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2012 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
Majority of One - 18 November 2012 05:06 PM
Rami Rustom - 18 November 2012 04:54 PM

Yes, because they are living irresponsibly. And you agreed with me when you say “since they don’t have to think for themselves”. Not thinking for oneself *is* irresponsible. Letting someone else think for oneself is putting the responsibility on someone else—hence irresponsible.

I equate irresponsible behavior with something you can control and I’ll concede I may be wrong about that.

I don’t agree with that definition of irresponsibility. What about a guy who *believes* that he’s not able to control a certain problem? Is this person irresponsible about this problem?

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 05:06 PM
Rami Rustom - 18 November 2012 04:54 PM

But I do accept it, which is why I said “Yes they are fine with it”.

And I made a further point that how people view the government doesn’t make their view the right one. Do you agree?.

Yes. But, I was making the point that that is our opinion and it may not be shared by others. That is all I was saying. I think this or that government is the right one because I’ve thought it through and genuiely want the most people to thrive. But others, who may have a sadistic streak, or no empathy, or whatever, may not see it my way and they may have thought it through with their sadistic filter and come to a different conclusion than me. To them, they’re right.

You’re operating under the theory that morality is relative. But that theory is false. Morality is objective. Every decision has an objective fact of the matter that determines the objective truth. Now I might be wrong about what that fact is, and you might be wrong about it, and that other guy might be wrong about it, but the point is that there *is* an objective fact.

Majority of One - 18 November 2012 05:06 PM

I think we’re kind of in agreement, maybe just some semantic issues. Thanks for the discussion!

I think what you’re saying is that the hypothetical person believes that he’s doing the right thing (morally right). I agree. And I’m saying he’s wrong about that—objectively wrong.


Truth is objective. Morality is objective.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2012 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2009-05-12

You can’t get elected in the US unless you at least pretend to be a religion nutter. Some US presidents have been atheists, but none of these has admitted the fact.


I say “religion nutter” because anyone who believes in the supernatural is a nutter.


In the US, to come out of the closet as an atheist and run for president is to commit political suicide. You have to become a lying bag of excrement if you are to have any chance of becoming elected.


The truth doesn’t always set you free. There are times when it can trap and ruin you.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed