Barry Goldwater And The Preachers

[Diogenes]

Many a socon has also told me:

"You may not like our policies but they are not as harsh as those of the left. Besides where are you going to go? "

Home.

Youse guys are making the same mistake in thinking that European intellectuals are making.


Their choice is Islamic or Judeo-Christian society. There is no third choice.
Atheism defaults to Islamic, just as Ross Perot or Gary Johnson defaults to Democrat.


On the one side you get the annoying people, on the other side you get the deadly people. If you try to get the "leave it alone" people, it defaults to the deadly people.

[Stubby]

This reminds me of something I was told years ago by a fairly conservative religious person. When talking about evolution, you can ask a creationist this question - If you were finally convinced that evolution is real and creationism is wrong, could you still be a Christian (or Muslim, or...etc.).

There could be many answers, but two of them might be something along the lines of:
1. Yes. I would be surprised, but I could adjust and I would still believe, basically, the same stuff but with this modification.

2. No way. If the holy book is wrong on that, why not other things? Why not everything? If you convince me of evolution, I will no longer be a member of my church or that group. I do not desire this.

I think there could be a whole range of answers in between and on either side of those answers too.

I know many very conservative people, most all of them Christian owing to where I live. Their beliefs are, for the most part, very integrated and form what appears to me, an integrated whole. If what you say is true, getting many people to change their minds to what you think would be better would be like getting them to change their religion. The younger the easier.

Do you contribute (time, money) to any youth programs in this regard, or do you primarily focus on changing the ideas and wolrd views of older folks. Or, is it a bit of both?

Edited: Thanks everyone!

Let me give you the benefit of my wisdom. Christianity and Judaism owe their existence to made up stories. The stories are NOT TRUE. They were created by clever folk, to explain to simple uneducated people, a history which would induce them to believe and support the moral principles outlined in the History.

The principles were designed to improve the survivability characteristics of communities which adhered to them. It is the following of those principles to which we owe our current civilization. People will police themselves if they believe "God" is watching them. Convince them that there is no such thing and they will then look to their natural instinct for guidance. What that instinct will tell them is that they should do primarily what is in their own best interest.

To sum it up.

1. Yes, it's bullsh*t.
2. You better hope that bullsh*t is believed and that it continues.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bold assertion.
This whole post of yours is such BS. If I take the time to enumerate it call, I swear my monitor will sprout.

[Stubby]

Just realised that you just invalidated all religious objections to same sex marriages. According to you the stories in the old testament are lies. So there is no divine command to kill adulterers, gay men or unruly children.

Most of the evidence you presented against same sex marriages is from religious people or religious websites.

[Diogenes]

Just realised that you just invalidated all religious objections to same sex marriages.

You do seem to be rather not paying attention. I believe I have stated time and time again that I am not a religious person, nor do I make arguments based on religion.

According to you the stories in the old testament are lies. So there is no divine command to kill adulterers, gay men or unruly children.

Whoa! Horsey. You run a long ways with just a little bit of rein. The impossible bits of the bible are definitely lies, but this does not make the entire bible lies. I think the historical parts are probably accurate. Archeological evidence is constantly being discovered which reinforces various aspects of Bible History. (A good lie has a bunch of the truth mixed in with it.)


Noah's Flood has been pretty much linked to the Massive release of water caused by the last Ice Age about 10,000 years ago. The Plagues of Egypt have been pretty much linked to Volcanic/Seismic events several thousands of years ago. (Poison the water with Volcanic ash, you get red water with dead fish, frogs fleeing the river, flies feasting on dead carcases, people unable to wash with the water, plus fire and brimstone falling from the sky, etc.)


Had you been paying attention, you would have learned that I regard "acts of God" to be manifestations of nature occurrences that are very much like "Adam Smith's invisible hand" of economics. Certain sorts of behavior invite death and disaster, and Homosexual sex (prior to anti-biotics and anti-virals) is one of the worst threats a small community can face.

Such behavior creates the appearance that there is a "Deity" punishing transgressors, but this is merely an illusion resulting from the all too human trait of wanting to Anthropomorphize everything.


Adulterers, likewise could tear a small community to pieces, and might very well result in the deaths of the children or relatives of the family members. When your ability to repel invaders is highly dependent upon your numbers, and when your child mortality rate is so horrible, it becomes a necessary survival trait for the community to hold down other potential causes of death.

Most of the evidence you presented against same sex marriages is from religious people or religious websites.

Who do you think is going to bother researching this? Atheists? Libertarians? Liberals? Of course not! The only people who are going to bother compiling evidence against homosexuality are those people who oppose it. Supporters and the indifferent certainly won't.

Your argument is like claiming that you don't see any Anti-Tobacco literature coming from non-Tobacco websites. You have to go to where you can find evidence. Since these people have often done the legwork, it is easiest just to use what they have found.

[Teahive]

Let me give you the benefit of my wisdom. Christianity and Judaism owe their existence to made up stories. The stories are NOT TRUE. They were created by clever folk, to explain to simple uneducated people, a history which would induce them to believe and support the moral principles outlined in the History.

The principles were designed to improve the survivability characteristics of communities which adhered to them. It is the following of those principles to which we owe our current civilization. People will police themselves if they believe "God" is watching them. Convince them that there is no such thing and they will then look to their natural instinct for guidance. What that instinct will tell them is that they should do primarily what is in their own best interest.

To sum it up.

1. Yes, it's bullsh*t.
2. You better hope that bullsh*t is believed and that it continues.

Many "holy texts" are collections of parables and allegories, not unlike Grimm's Fairy Tales or other folk tales. Yet no one would seriously argue among adults that the latter should be taken literally and "believed". Neither should the former.

People will police themselves if they have a conscience and are capable of self-reflection. "God the punisher" is a crutch that is no longer needed once the lesson is learnt and internalized. A person taught accordingly will be able to make use of experience accumulated over generations, yet be able to question authority and imparted wisdom where necessary.

Religious teaching as god-given, indubitable truth and authority is dangerous. Power corrupts, and organized religion is not immune to that. Circumstances change, and people will have to look beyond the stories at the actual reasons for the morals and rules to examine their validity.

"to explain to simple uneducated people" is only the first step. The next one should be to make sure that they become educated people.

Had you been paying attention, you would have learned that I regard "acts of God" to be manifestations of nature occurrences that are very much like "Adam Smith's invisible hand" of economics. Certain sorts of behavior invite death and disaster, and Homosexual sex (prior to anti-biotics and anti-virals) is one of the worst threats a small community can face.

[...]

Who do you think is going to bother researching this? Atheists? Libertarians? Liberals? Of course not! The only people who are going to bother compiling evidence against homosexuality are those people who oppose it. Supporters and the indifferent certainly won't.

So if we take this at face value, they oppose it due to a belief in stories and rules founded on circumstances which no longer exist. This belief naturally leads to selection bias.

[MSimon]

On the one side you get the annoying people, on the other side you get the deadly people.

Empowering criminal cartels is not annoying. It is deadly.

Creating fatherless children en mass by selective enforcement of prohibition crimes is not annoying. It is a moral crime. And the selective enforcement is racist. Another moral crime.

Depriving people of years and decades of their lives for smoking or selling plants that were once legal is not an annoyance. It is immoral.

And totally backed by the "party of morality".

====

I'm not going to hold my nose anymore. Until the "party of morality" becomes moral in my eyes I will be working against them. I will not have another single dead Mexican on my conscience. Nor any of the other dead this war kills. Nor any of the people tortured by the gangs. Or any of the other ten thousand ills a prohibition regime creates.

If the Republican Party supports that (directly or objectively) I am done with them. And they do.

Will that enable the wrongs of the other party? To be sure. But I'm tired of being told "where else can you go?" Home for one. The other side for another.

Why? Because God told me so. And not in a book. By direct communication.

So we will see whose God is strongest. Mine or yours. Mine has never failed me. When I heeded him.

[MSimon]

We have two parties making war on Americans. I'm sick of it.

So as a tactical move I intend to destroy first one party and then the other.

You don't like it that I chose your party first? Well tough. It is not as if I haven't been warning you for long enough.

[ladajo]

Delusions of Granduer oh almighty one.

[paperburn1]

Delusions of Granduer oh almighty one.

somebody must have spiked his weed, maybe it was the government.

[Diogenes]

Let me give you the benefit of my wisdom. Christianity and Judaism owe their existence to made up stories. The stories are NOT TRUE. They were created by clever folk, to explain to simple uneducated people, a history which would induce them to believe and support the moral principles outlined in the History.

The principles were designed to improve the survivability characteristics of communities which adhered to them. It is the following of those principles to which we owe our current civilization. People will police themselves if they believe "God" is watching them. Convince them that there is no such thing and they will then look to their natural instinct for guidance. What that instinct will tell them is that they should do primarily what is in their own best interest.

To sum it up.

1. Yes, it's bullsh*t.
2. You better hope that bullsh*t is believed and that it continues.

Many "holy texts" are collections of parables and allegories, not unlike Grimm's Fairy Tales or other folk tales. Yet no one would seriously argue among adults that the latter should be taken literally and "believed". Neither should the former.

The fallacy in your argument is the implied assumption that the bible is entirely fairy tales. It is not. It is part fairy tales, and part real history. The real history contains real lessons. Noting that fairy tales are present does not invalidate the real history lessons.

People will police themselves if they have a conscience and are capable of self-reflection.

The "conscience" is a by-product of their up bringing. Get raised in a culture where slavery is accepted and you will see nothing wrong with it.

"God the punisher" is a crutch that is no longer needed once the lesson is learnt and internalized.

Every person has to learn this lesson newly during their life. You say it is no longer needed, but you overlook the fact that new lessons are always needed for new people. Every child must learn how to fit into the world in which he is born.

A person taught accordingly will be able to make use of experience accumulated over generations, yet be able to question authority and imparted wisdom where necessary.

I think your scope is too short. People are not rational. Telling them they should behave because someone says so is not nearly as effective as telling them they should behave because a supernatural Deity who can kick the @ss of the Universe will get mad at them if they don't.

The "alpha" dog syndrome is instinctively understood in all mammals. It works where reason takes far too much time. (and therefore fails)

Religious teaching as god-given, indubitable truth and authority is dangerous.

Not having such teachings is more dangerous. Religion occasionally gets corrupted and turned to the acquisition of power and the suppression of dissidents, but most of the time it has helped communities survive hard times. The number of people who's lives are protected vastly outnumber the number of people who were badly served by religion.

This is the same argument I make for drug interdiction. The problems are easily noted, while the benefits are generally not noted. Both issues are exactly like trying to figure out how many ships a lighthouse has saved.

You only notice the wrecks, not the successes.

Power corrupts, and organized religion is not immune to that. Circumstances change, and people will have to look beyond the stories at the actual reasons for the morals and rules to examine their validity.

The average person cannot and will not do this. The reasons behind various moral admonitions do not always lend themselves to easy analysis. I have spent years pondering why certain moral notions became part of religious doctrine and why others did not. They are not always obvious.


It's far easier to say "Because God would be angry if you did" then it is to write a treatise on the topic.

"to explain to simple uneducated people" is only the first step. The next one should be to make sure that they become educated people.

Hand waving. This is no simple task. We cannot even educate the American People on basic economics, what chance would anyone have of getting a populace to understand the social interactions of various moral tenets?

The "Santa Claus effect" works, and it's simple.

Had you been paying attention, you would have learned that I regard "acts of God" to be manifestations of nature occurrences that are very much like "Adam Smith's invisible hand" of economics. Certain sorts of behavior invite death and disaster, and Homosexual sex (prior to anti-biotics and anti-virals) is one of the worst threats a small community can face.

[...]

Who do you think is going to bother researching this? Atheists? Libertarians? Liberals? Of course not! The only people who are going to bother compiling evidence against homosexuality are those people who oppose it. Supporters and the indifferent certainly won't.

So if we take this at face value, they oppose it due to a belief in stories and rules founded on circumstances which no longer exist. This belief naturally leads to selection bias.

No. You are extrapolating again. There are real lessons learned from real experiences in which the conditions still apply. I can give you several examples, but this message is already too long.

Humanity doesn't evolve very quickly. The Humans of today are pretty much motivated by the same passions and instincts that motivated the humans of thousands of years ago.

If you look at the motivations and behavior of mankind as a constant, you can pretty much predict how they will respond in various circumstance. That "Liberal" doctrine that people can evolve to be better is probably 1% true, and occurs far more slowly than they can conceive. That is the reason why their ideas always fail. They never take into account that humans haven't and won't evolve fast enough to behave as they think humans should behave.


Instinctive greed kills socialism.

[Diogenes]

On the one side you get the annoying people, on the other side you get the deadly people.

Empowering criminal cartels is not annoying. It is deadly.

Let me remind you of a bible passage.


"7 And the women sang one to another in their play, and said: Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. "


Drug interdiction has killed it's thousands, Drug Legalization will kill it's Millions. It's a question of the frying pan or the fire.

Creating fatherless children en mass by selective enforcement of prohibition crimes is not annoying. It is a moral crime. And the selective enforcement is racist. Another moral crime.

And now you are completely reversing cause and effect. It is not arresting people for drug crimes which is causing fatherless children, it is creating fatherless children which is causing all the arrests for drug crime.

How do you think these fatherless children get fed? It's the F***** GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS!!!!!!

I think i've shown you dozens of charts and analysis by various organizations which demonstrate that creating incentives for people to have fatherless children is what is driving crime. Of course you only want to believe stats that say what you want them to say.

Depriving people of years and decades of their lives for smoking or selling plants that were once legal is not an annoyance. It is immoral.

Okay Captain Ahab, even accepting your argument (which I completely reject) your priorities are completely out of whack. The drug issue might cause the incarceration of 1.5 million people per year, but an economic collapse is likely to cause the DEATH of millions of people every year, and severe misery and deprivation for a lot of the people it doesn't kill.

I'd say that moral imperative trumps your supposed moral imperative.

And totally backed by the "party of morality".

Even with your presumptions (which are wrong) it is still a matter of triage. You've put the shaving cut in line before the bleeding femoral artery.

I'm not going to hold my nose anymore. Until the "party of morality" becomes moral in my eyes I will be working against them.

Good! The sooner you convince everyone that you are an irrational kook, (on this issue) the sooner people can quit paying attention to your nonsensical ideas that drugs are harmless.

I will not have another single dead Mexican on my conscience. Nor any of the other dead this war kills. Nor any of the people tortured by the gangs. Or any of the other ten thousand ills a prohibition regime creates.

A Blood libel. That is exactly what you are doing. You are scapegoating the wrong actors in this drama, instead of the real perpetrators.

If the Republican Party supports that (directly or objectively) I am done with them. And they do.

Will that enable the wrongs of the other party? To be sure. But I'm tired of being told "where else can you go?" Home for one. The other side for another.

Why? Because God told me so. And not in a book. By direct communication.

So we will see whose God is strongest. Mine or yours. Mine has never failed me. When I heeded him.

Well if God told you so, who can argue with that?

[Teahive]

The fallacy in your argument is the implied assumption that the bible is entirely fairy tales. It is not. It is part fairy tales, and part real history. The real history contains real lessons. Noting that fairy tales are present does not invalidate the real history lessons.

Not saying that the lessons are broadly invalid. Fairy tales contain real lessons, too. But the historical core present is certainly embellished significantly and can't be taken as an objective eyewitness account recorded without delay. It isn't "the word of God" either. It's a heavily edited work of men.

The "conscience" is a by-product of their up bringing. Get raised in a culture where slavery is accepted and you will see nothing wrong with it.

Your point being? That's the same with or without religion. But people taught to question rules will have an easier time fixing flaws in those rules.

"God the punisher" is a crutch that is no longer needed once the lesson is learnt and internalized.

Every person has to learn this lesson newly during their life. You say it is no longer needed, but you overlook the fact that new lessons are always needed for new people. Every child must learn how to fit into the world in which he is born.

It is no longer needed for that specific person. Adults don't believe in Santa. That doesn't mean Santa is forgotten after one generation.

A person taught accordingly will be able to make use of experience accumulated over generations, yet be able to question authority and imparted wisdom where necessary.

I think your scope is too short. People are not rational. Telling them they should behave because someone says so is not nearly as effective as telling them they should behave because a supernatural Deity who can kick the @ss of the Universe will get mad at them if they don't.

Until they realize that it's all bullshit, as more and more people do. You better hope they have internalized the lesson by then.

Power corrupts, and organized religion is not immune to that. Circumstances change, and people will have to look beyond the stories at the actual reasons for the morals and rules to examine their validity.

The average person cannot and will not do this. The reasons behind various moral admonitions do not always lend themselves to easy analysis. I have spent years pondering why certain moral notions became part of religious doctrine and why others did not. They are not always obvious.


It's far easier to say "Because God would be angry if you did" then it is to write a treatise on the topic.

The average person, when taught correctly, is capable of reasoning about the rules. They generally don't have to, because circumstances change slowly such that re-examinations are not frequently required. If it takes years, so what?
If we had more complete records of history the reasons would be easier to follow. Certainly changes in moral notions in recent centuries are much easier to pin down as we not only have the rules but a large amount of historic records to go with them.

"Because God would be angry if you did" is a response to a child. The treatise on the topic is still necessary, but teaching ignorance and calling such discussion blasphemy hinders the development of rational, grown-up discourse.

Humanity doesn't evolve very quickly. The Humans of today are pretty much motivated by the same passions and instincts that motivated the humans of thousands of years ago.

This isn't about evolution of humanity, but about change in human environment and technology, which is quite different from that of thousands of years ago.

[MSimon]

Well if God told you so, who can argue with that?

Precisely.

Now if I was into book writing. And followers. I could make a fortune. A line of underwear might work well.

===============

In any case the proof is in the pudding. The first job is to change the political culture. Fortunately the Drug War has killed the government as a source of rules for living. Support of that war has made the Social Conservatives anathema. Libertarian thinking among the youth is rising thanks to the oppression of that youth (mostly theoretical - but it doesn't take much). And faith is declining. What kind of faith makes war on its own children?

Evidently the God of the social conservatives has never heard of the CB1 and CB2 systems in the body. Those systems seem to regulate rather a lot. That regulation is dimly (empirically) recognized by the Med Pot movement. And thanks to the pioneering work of a Jew, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, there is a scientific basis. What kind of country prohibits medicine based on a religious philosophy? Another nail in coffin of the religion of social conservatives.

This whole zeitgeist will do to the Social Conservatives what the end of alcohol prohibition did to them - prove that religion (or at least theirs) is not the answer. And of course the racism of the whole enterprise is a capper.

It is unfortunate that I have to work with the economic big wreckers (the other side is the smaller <not by much> wreckers) to bring this change about.

I assume people will find some new type of faith consonant with emerging conditions. Buddhism seems to work well as it does not require a God. But who knows? I have heard prophecy that an old man will emerge in the last year of the reign of the usurper to upset the apple cart. Maybe. Maybe not.

In any case - the top down structures (socialism - the churches of all stripes - government) are breaking down.

The church in America has the same faith that the Islamics have. That the current failures are due to a lack of the old time religion. I'm more of the opinion that it is the top down structures that are failing. On the right they get that in relation to socialism. And not much else.

[MSimon]

A very good example of what Teahive is saying are the old rules about which hand you greet/eat with and which hand you wipe your azz with. Lefties had difficulty and were sinister.

Good rules before sanitation was well understood and toilets, hot and cold running water, and hot showers were widely available. The only major religion that made that a "God says" is Islam. Jews still observe the old rules but the "washing" is symbolic. The Jews have a knack for adapting their religion to the age they live in. Note the Reform Jews championing Med Pot. And the Orthodox are not far behind in that regard.

The rules for living in a brigand culture in the Arabian desert are different from the rules for the USA in the 21st century. The church is not as rigid as Islam. It is still too rigid for the 21st century.

I have often thought that the church made a big mistake in squelching the "God in a pill" movement of the 60s. But it was protecting its franchise. Which is what "established" religions do. Funny. Our Constitution warns against that. Although the warning was about a problem of a different age. None the less it does speak to the current age of individualism.

[Diogenes]

Not saying that the lessons are broadly invalid. Fairy tales contain real lessons, too. But the historical core present is certainly embellished significantly and can't be taken as an objective eyewitness account recorded without delay. It isn't "the word of God" either. It's a heavily edited work of men.

Fair enough.

The "conscience" is a by-product of their up bringing. Get raised in a culture where slavery is accepted and you will see nothing wrong with it.

Your point being? That's the same with or without religion. But people taught to question rules will have an easier time fixing flaws in those rules.

I disagree that it is the same with or without religion. I have read many articles which argue that Religion is evolutionarily dominant in humans, because it serves an evolutionary purpose. What few examples of atheistic societies history has given us do not demonstrate a high level of "conscience" as you are using the term.

Every person has to learn this lesson newly during their life. You say it is no longer needed, but you overlook the fact that new lessons are always needed for new people. Every child must learn how to fit into the world in which he is born.

It is no longer needed for that specific person. Adults don't believe in Santa. That doesn't mean Santa is forgotten after one generation.

It is easier to learn that there is no Santa than to learn that there is no God. Destroying the illusion destroys the beneficial effect.

I think your scope is too short. People are not rational. Telling them they should behave because someone says so is not nearly as effective as telling them they should behave because a supernatural Deity who can kick the @ss of the Universe will get mad at them if they don't.

Until they realize that it's all bullshit, as more and more people do. You better hope they have internalized the lesson by then.

What piece of evidence induces you to believe such a thing is possible? By all my observations, a declining belief in Divine punishment is resulting in an increased incidence of criminal behavior.

Again, the default position of most humans will be their natural instinct. "Might makes right."

The average person, when taught correctly, is capable of reasoning about the rules. They generally don't have to, because circumstances change slowly such that re-examinations are not frequently required. If it takes years, so what?

And you have an example where this has been done successfully? Don't quote me an example from the present, for what is wrong with this theory cannot manifest itself in a generation that is surrounded by an Ocean of Christian influence. It must be a society separated from the Contamination by Christian customs.

I argue that a strictly atheist society, separated completely from Christian influence, will not be able to pass down a form of morality similar to that resulting from Christian teachings and principles.

If we had more complete records of history the reasons would be easier to follow. Certainly changes in moral notions in recent centuries are much easier to pin down as we not only have the rules but a large amount of historic records to go with them.

Then you should have no trouble finding an example of an Atheist society that is thriving. On the other hand, the fact that I know of none such existing today would have to be explained. If it works so well, how could it have died out?

"Because God would be angry if you did" is a response to a child.

Exactly.

The treatise on the topic is still necessary, but teaching ignorance and calling such discussion blasphemy hinders the development of rational, grown-up discourse.

Does it? What part of the world Developed Modern Technology? (That the other societies copied after the fact.) James Burke had an excellent series called "Connections." It relates the technological developments which were developed in the Christian parts of the world in a large part because of the workings of the various Christian Churches.


Christianity motivated people to behave a certain way, and that way they behaved benefited their society greatly. It matters not to the consequence whether the underlying premises are true.

Humanity doesn't evolve very quickly. The Humans of today are pretty much motivated by the same passions and instincts that motivated the humans of thousands of years ago.

This isn't about evolution of humanity, but about change in human environment and technology, which is quite different from that of thousands of years ago.

Technology is not going to re-write human behavior. It is what it is, and it is what it has always been. Christianity has tamed some of the worst aspects of it.

Christianity is the pin in the grenade. You'd be better off not losing that pin.