The fourth estate = the fifth column

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

alexjrgreen wrote:
ravingdave wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:He gave strong importance to Mongol nationalism and Mongol tradition, practised his own religion and respected other people's. By the definition above, that makes him right wing.
You leave out the most important characteristics of "Right Wing."

Freedom and Free markets. Inalienable rights of man. Rule of Law. Enterprise and exceptionalism. The concept of Private ownership.

And others not enumerated. :)
Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...

I followed your link, and he sounds like a real nice fellow. Hard to reconcile that with all the killing he did. Seems like a dichotomy to me. I suspect he was a tyrant to his enemies, and a benevolent monarch to his friends.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

joedead wrote:
I am not trying to be insulting, but do you know the difference ?

Your statement reminds me of what obama said about the Russian invasion of Georgia. " Both sides need to excersize equal restraint. "

George Will pointed out that one side is the INVADER, and the other side is being INVADED. The two are not morally equivilant.


How can the two sides be equal when 80%-90% of Journalists vote Democrat ? It's like asking NAZI's to report on Israel. (That's closer to the truth than most people would admit. )


If you look at history, the left has a habit of piling up bodies by the millions.
Not insulting at all. Let me help you understand my point of view: I find talk of "Right" Vs the "Left" to be far too similiar to talk of Protestants Vs Catholics. Yes, there are significant differences between the two, despite being cut from the same bread. Being an atheist, however, I see both as equally stupid..

I am a ProTheist Agnostic, if that makes any sense. AntiTheism is just as dependent on Faith as is Theism.


My position is that I see no convincing evidence of a Deity(s), but Theism is beneficial and useful to society and human life. (Unless you are a Baal or Kali worshiper.)

It is my opinion that Athiests never ponder the consequences of what life would be like in an ocean of Athiests, as opposed to being in an ocean of Theists.

Like Santa Clause induces children to be good, Having an imaginary old man watching you all the time likewise makes you behave... but only if you believe in him.

joedead wrote:[
And honestly, you're pretty far off if you think that someone from the "Left" can't find as many stats and data to support their side as you can. .

I have little doubt that they can, but would they be reasoned and stand up to scruitny ? THAT would suprise me.


joedead wrote: Does this help?

Check here http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Mongolia/section4b.shtml for modern Mongolian perceptions of Genghis Khan and see what you think...
FYI, I've spent some time in Mongolia, both in UB and in the countryside. I think it's poor journalism and investigation to say the Khan was responsible for political culture in Mongolia.

THIS man did much more for Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaas%C3%BCrengiin_Zorig

I've visited the Zorig Foundation several times and met his sister. Claiming that modern Mongolian politics is based off the governing politics of a warlord's regime 800 years ago is just sloppy thinking.

The Zorig Foundation:
http://www.zorigfoundation.org.mn/index.php?lang=mn

Most Mongolians I've met, however, respect Chinggis as the first Mongolian to unify all the different clan and create a sense of national identity. He was not "Right" wing or "Left" wing. He was a despot; don't misconstrue him as anything else.

Actually no. I'm somewhat confused. This seems cross posted with what someone else said somehow. I didn't bring up Gehngis Khan, and I don't really see him as relevant. Of course he changed the course of, and was a significant force in History, but he's just not very relevant to the discussion.


David

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Kali - fun chick to party with. Not easy to live with.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

Post by joedead »

Actually no. I'm somewhat confused. This seems cross posted with what someone else said somehow. I didn't bring up Gehngis Khan, and I don't really see him as relevant. Of course he changed the course of, and was a significant force in History, but he's just not very relevant to the discussion.


David
I couldn't agree more. You might have noticed that I quoted someone else before my response. This was not aimed at you.
It is my opinion that Athiests never ponder the consequences of what life would be like in an ocean of Athiests, as opposed to being in an ocean of Theists.
You are entitled to that opinion. Personally, I'm too cautious to try and speak for an entire group of people. But, as you said, "atheists never ponder the consequences of what life would be like in an ocean of athiests" seems asinine at best, as there is a considerable amount of literature athiests have devoted to this very topic.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

You are entitled to that opinion. Personally, I'm too cautious to try and speak for an entire group of people. But, as you said, "atheists never ponder the consequences of what life would be like in an ocean of athiests" seems asinine at best, as there is a considerable amount of literature athiests have devoted to this very topic.
Secular religions are very much in vogue. Socialism. Global warming. All very scientific. Or the idea that we just need the right set of laws to fix every thing. Or government spending is the road to prosperity. Or that people working for government are beyond self interest (if they have the correct party affiliation). Or my personal favorite: drugs cause addiction.

God or Gods or no God(s) is not our only religion problem.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:Kali - fun chick to party with. Not easy to live with.
You should write the book. "My life with Kali" could be a bestseller... :wink:
Ars artis est celare artem.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

joedead wrote:
RavingDave wrote:It is my opinion that Athiests never ponder the consequences of what life would be like in an ocean of Athiests, as opposed to being in an ocean of Theists.
You are entitled to that opinion. Personally, I'm too cautious to try and speak for an entire group of people. But, as you said, "atheists never ponder the consequences of what life would be like in an ocean of athiests" seems asinine at best, as there is a considerable amount of literature athiests have devoted to this very topic.

I remeber when I wrote it that I thought the charicterization might be unfair, because undoubtably some A-thiests ought to have thought such thoughts throughout history, however it is easier to be brief and slightly inaccurate, than to be accurate but long and boring. It is of course, my opinion that the majority of Athiests do not devote much thought to pondering the nature of their social surroundings with an objective viewpoint.

A man I once debated asserted that Religion in General, and Christianity in particular, was responsible for holding mankind back from the new age of technology. I pointed out to him that for the last two centuries, the most technologically advanced countries, happened to be Chrisitian. (Sort of.)

Hmmm....


In any case, do you have a link to an example of Athiest pondering the consequence of an Athiest humanity ? I really can't see it as anything but a recipie for mass murder. A different perspective would be very interesting, especially the reasoning behind it.


David

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

alexjrgreen wrote:
MSimon wrote:Kali - fun chick to party with. Not easy to live with.
You should write the book. "My life with Kali" could be a bestseller... :wink:
Some one already wrote it: "Lord of Light" by Zelazny. Better by far than I could ever do.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:Some one already wrote it: "Lord of Light" by Zelazny. Better by far than I could ever do.
Recommended :D
http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Light-Roger- ... 0380014033
Ars artis est celare artem.

joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

Post by joedead »

It is of course, my opinion that the majority of Athiests do not devote much thought to pondering the nature of their social surroundings with an objective viewpoint.
That made me laugh. Not in a mean way. That is, I enjoy your reading your posts. You certainly don't back down from anything!
In any case, do you have a link to an example of Athiest pondering the consequence of an Athiest humanity ? I really can't see it as anything but a recipie for mass murder. A different perspective would be very interesting, especially the reasoning behind it.
I would start off by recommending Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russel and then The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins gets alot of flack from people I know (even atheists) for coming off as condescending, so I would go with Russel first.

Both of them tackle the idea that athiests' lack of belief in god somehow makes them less moral. Both do an admirable job of explaining how morality can exist outside of religion, and both have made cases that it even precedes religion.

I personally don't have anything negative to say about non-athiests. I became an athiest after a long, objective search for what I believe to be rational and reasonable truth. I believe my search for truth to be a good enough reason to believe the way I do. I still question my beliefs, btw. Who knows? Perhaps someday I'll find my past reasoning to be too weak to justify my beliefs, and I'll have to change again. Therefore, I do not begrudge someone for what they believe in. I only hope they have examined and questioned their own beliefs thoroughly before coming to their conclusions.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

joedead wrote:I would start off by recommending Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russel and then The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins gets alot of flack from people I know (even atheists) for coming off as condescending, so I would go with Russel first.
Bertrand Russell's essay is here http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.
In the archaeological record, special care for the dead appears as part of the transition to modern human behaviour. As far as can be reasonably determined, most humans, at most times, in most places, have exhibited religious behaviour.

In historical times, the overwhelming majority of cultures have believed in a God (or gods). The details of these beliefs have varied very widely, but the concept of the supernatural is almost universal.

Even for an atheist, this represents an evidential base that deserves enquiry.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Alex,

The universality does not prove anything except that such belief is helpful for survival. Men it seems need faith. Where things go bad is if they pick one that is counter reproduction.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

MSimon wrote:The universality does not prove anything except that such belief is helpful for survival. Men it seems need faith. Where things go bad is if they pick one that is counter reproduction.
That would make atheism potentially risky...

Quite how self-consciousness results in religion is not yet understood, and what exactly happens during a "religious" experience is still a matter of research.
Ars artis est celare artem.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

That would make atheism potentially risky...
Depends on what kind of faith replaces theism.

The Malthusian faith is rather common and quite destructive if it takes hold. It got Germany reduced to rubble.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply