Acropolis Now

[Beskar]

Wow, that is from a year ago.

Though your reply to the post was a conceptual misunderstanding.

It is an unfortunate fact that the average man doesn't know what is good for him, as they aren't taught or made to understand things. Simple education providing key skills such as critical thinking and how to research/come up with valid conclusions by itself will make the common man know what is good for them. If you noticed, I never biased that in any direction.

Let's break down this post into other words:

- People are not taught the key skills they need in order to understand or comprehend information.
- This has a "Fox News"/"Daily Mail" culture of speakers preaching to illiterate masses or don't actually know what is good or bad for themselves.
- My post encourages education, in under to equip the populace with these means, for an informed and education population to make decisions in politics.


Seriously, who would disagree with that statement? How isn't an engaged, informed and educated populace a bad thing for the politics and democracy? (unless you want them only as sheeplike)

[Beskar]

Interesting how attacking my ignostism comes up some how at the same time as attacking me on removing nation states. Especially as they are separate subjects.

Beskar is what is known as a "Utopian Atheist", freed from the strictures and comforts of religion he seeks to create a perfect society on Earth through the perfection of mankind. Worse, because he is the final arbiter of his decisions and believes there is no Higher Power he is his own moral judge, and will do what he believes is necessary to attain this goal. In Beskar's case this is ignoring democratic process and popular will.

In otherwords, Beskar is known as a "Secular Humanist". While its set-up as the atheist bogeyman, it is the position where by Beskar rejects the supernatural invisible men, dusty tomes and dogma from the middle ages, instead preferring reason, ethics, and justice. Using these tenets to form a basis of ethic principles which pretty much sum-up "Treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself."

As for the last part, Beskar said nothing about ignoring any democratic process.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting how you feel the need to ridicule even my name.

Interesting how attacking my ignostism comes up some how at the same time as attacking me on removing nation states. Especially as they are separate subjects.

It is dissapointing how deliberately offensive your reply is, and how predictable.

In otherwords, Beskar is known as a "Secular Humanist".

I prefer my term, I think it's more accurate, and it has the advantage of being explicit. You do after all, do you not, seek to create the perfect world society through human affort and to utterly remove the influence of religion?

While its set-up as the atheist bogeyman, it is the position where by Beskar rejects the supernatural invisible men, dusty tomes and dogma from the middle ages, instead preferring reason, ethics, and justice.

This is a typical atheist slander, where "reason ethics and justice" are claimed to be opposed to religion. This is not so, quite the opposite; totally the opposite in fact. "Reason, ethics and justice", as concepts flourished in the mediaeval period as much, if not more, than the Renaissance or Enlightenment.

Using these tenets to form a basis of ethic principles which pretty much sum-up "Treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself."

As for the last part, Beskar said nothing about ignoring any democratic process.

Pretty weak principles really, you should try harder. I believe you can try harder.

Here are my principles:

1. All life is sacred.

2. It must always be Good which is striven for, and Evil that is resisted.

3. All Law must embody Good, not Evil, and be obeyed for that reason.

4. The use of violence is always wrong.

5. All people are created equal and have the same right to Freedom and Safety.

6. The strong should use their strength to defend the weak, not the enact tyranny.

7. No one person should force their will upon another person by any means.

[gaelic cowboy]

Take it outside lads you might damage the furniture

[LittleGrizzly]

Worse, because he is the final arbiter of his decisions and believes there is no Higher Power he is his own moral judge,

Im sure Beskar is a much better than that moral judge that those physcopaths (god or Allah i believe thier known as) encourage witch hunts, inquisitions, wars, planes into buildings, blowing up abortion clinics, female circumcision, marrying kids off to grown men. Hell at least with an Atheist they have no excuse for thier actions, the religious can fall back on thier ready made excuse, the invisible man wants it!

Give me a guy like Beskar who has to question himself and answer to his conscience not some nutter that has the approval of some invisible entity and a clean conscience always.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anyone who believes I was initially being provacative should review this sequence:

I love this quote from the telegraph:


Hence why Europe is having political integration, to stabilise the economy.

That's a pretty horrific attitude you've got there. It basically validates the claims made by the Daily Mail that the whole thing is a closet conspiracy to Federalise our nations out of existence.

I wish it was. Sooner the better.

So Beskar advocates a conspiracy to Federalise the EU, i.e. the subversion of honesty democracy.

Worse, because he is the final arbiter of his decisions and believes there is no Higher Power he is his own moral judge,

Im sure Beskar is a much better than that moral judge that those physcopaths (god or Allah i believe thier known as) encourage witch hunts, inquisitions, wars, planes into buildings, blowing up abortion clinics, female circumcision, marrying kids off to grown men. Hell at least with an Atheist they have no excuse for thier actions, the religious can fall back on thier ready made excuse, the invisible man wants it!

Give me a guy like Beskar who has to question himself and answer to his conscience not some nutter that has the approval of some invisible entity and a clean conscience always.

So more fallacious slanders? Why is it you feel the need to employ such? The worst I said was the Beskar, or any atheist, can (if he so wish) determine his own moral standard, dispencing with whatsoever he pleases, and there is no ethical argument that can be mounted against him from within his won paradigm.

This is the philosophical reality, and I believe it's practical application is all to evident in the way the EU is run.

[Beskar]

It is dissapointing how deliberately offensive your reply is, and how predictable.

What is disappointing, you are being so hypocritical about it.

You do after all, do you not, seek to create the perfect world society through human affort and to utterly remove the influence of religion?

Not force the removal religion, that would just occur anyway, as the promises of suffering today for rewards in sugar candy mountain would become a thing of the past.

Pretty weak principles really, you should try harder. I believe you can try harder.

Poor Jesus, being called weak. I believe he said the same thing as me.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hedge funds in €3bn gamble on Irish default



I am not one for cheering on Fianna Fail but I cant help but say hup ya boy ya Lenihan, hedge funds are nothing to a man who faces a possibility of death from cancer bring em on.

[LittleGrizzly]

So more fallacious slanders? Why is it you feel the need to employ such? The worst I said was the Beskar, or any atheist, can (if he so wish) determine his own moral standard, dispencing with whatsoever he pleases, and there is no ethical argument that can be mounted against him from within his won paradigm.

This is the philosophical reality, and I believe it's practical application is all to evident in the way the EU is run.

Its not fallacious slanders, these people all had no moral compass, there was no need for one, the invisible man in the sky wanted an inquisition so he got one, obviously its wrong to torture and these people felt bad hearing the screams of anguish but the invisible man is all knowing so it must be done. The invisible man in the sky wanted the great devil (US) punished, these people know that its wrong to murder and didn't want to end thier own lives either, but the invisible man in the sky is all knowing, they are little bugs to his greatness, if they are too stupid to see his great plan then that is thier own limitation!

If Beskar wishes to torture someone or fly a plane into a building he hasn't got the luxury of passing the buck to the invisible man, if he is unsure then he could be wrong, he has no all knowing being he can assume knows best as he plays his own little part, he has to rely on himself and his conscience for what is wrong and what is right.

Basically you are saying that an Atheists ability to setup his own moral standards is a bad thing, I think its a great thing, instead of referring to some invisibile entity for guidance I have to figure out for myself what is right and wrong, if something feels wrong I can't brush it off as the wishes of some all powerful entity if something is wrong then I am in the wrong and have to live with my conscience.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If Beskar wishes to torture someone or fly a plane into a building he hasn't got the luxury of passing the buck to the invisible man, if he is unsure then he could be wrong, he has no all knowing being he can assume knows best as he plays his own little part, he has to rely on himself and his conscience for what is wrong and what is right.

I think things here are getting a bit carried away with the whole atheism/theism issue.

But I would say Beskar's idealism is dangerous in much the way you are portraying a belief in God to be. In the same way a belief in God has allowed believers to kill and trample all over democracy etc, the exact same thing is true for people who subscribe to such absolutist and deterministic political doctrines as Beskar does.

To say that this will necessarily lead to Beskar going down the path of Stalin/Mao/the Khmer Rouge is no less ridiculous than portraying all religious people as equally evil.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Beskar;2494009]What is disappointing, you are being so hypocritical about it.[quote]

Really? In what sense?

In any case, why did you feel the need slander religion, and I think, mine in particular?

I believe I made a salient point, that you are answerable only to yourself.

Not force the removal religion, that would just occur anyway, as the promises of suffering today for rewards in sugar candy mountain would become a thing of the past.

Experience tells me we will never have a perfect society, and we don't need one. I am now going to make the point you have provoked.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and most recently Chavez, have all tried to create socialist all-inclusive paradises on Earth, all have failed and decended into despotism. you might be able to chalk one or two up to selfish dishonesty, but there's still something fishy going on. I submit that a similar motivation drives the EU project; and this can most easily be expressed as a belief that people should accept the "better" destiny their superior ordain for them.

It is a form of intellectual soverignty, which resulted in putting the Lisbon Treaty to Ireland twice.

Poor Jesus, being called weak. I believe he said the same thing as me.

I didn't call you weak, I said the principle you espoused was weak, i.e. lacking force. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth here?

He is actually reported to have said, "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets", (Matt 7.12). That verse is part of a much larger set of instructions given to the disciples, and it hardly sums up the whole Gospel, it's a very tiny part of it.

How about, "Love thy neighbour as thy self", (Matt 22.39)? A somewhat harder instruction.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Basically you are saying that an Atheists ability to setup his own moral standards is a bad thing, I think its a great thing, instead of referring to some invisibile entity for guidance I have to figure out for myself what is right and wrong, if something feels wrong I can't brush it off as the wishes of some all powerful entity if something is wrong then I am in the wrong and have to live with my conscience.

I'm not going to bother with the argument, "the God that doesn't exist told people to....." That is silly, if He doesn't exist You cannot blame him for peoples' actions.

As to your question, you assume a personal God, what about Plato's First Cause? Or Spinoza's God?

The point I am making is that without an external moral standard it is possible to dispense with "morality", which no longer really exists, whenever it is convenient. This is what Lenin et al. regularly did. THEY determined what THEY thought was good for the State and THEY enforced it. In any case, you've already proved me right, because you have appealed to your own concience as some form of external and impartial arbitrator in moral issues; which is exactly the role it has in Christianity.

What? Did you think we had instructions beamed down from Heaven?

[tibilicus]

The debate in this thread reminds me of something Margaret Thatcher said. In fact, it essentially is the debate:

'A single currency is about  the politics of Europe, it is about a federal Europe by the backdoor.'

Agree/ disagree?

[Beskar]

Really? In what sense? In any case, why did you feel the need slander religion, and I think, mine in particular?

You attacked me for being an atheist, and also brought it up in a discussion on another subject, hence my hypocrisy comment where you attacked me for being an atheist, then calling foul when I bought up your views.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You attacked me for being an athiest, and also brought it up in a discussion on another subject.

Not really. I produced a sketch of what I believe is your philosophical position, registered my dislake for said same and indicated why.

"Beskar is what is known as a "Utopian Atheist", freed from the strictures and comforts of religion he seeks to create a perfect society on Earth through the perfection of mankind."

That's the sketch, that I think you have admitted is accurate.

"Worse, because he is the final arbiter of his decisions and believes there is no Higher Power he is his own moral judge, and will do what he believes is necessary to attain this goal. In Beskar's case this is ignoring democratic process and popular will."

This is why I dislike the position, and I brought it all up in response to another poster who was in turn responding to you saying you wanted a conspiracy to stitch us up into a Federal Europe; I have already quoted that part of the sequence back once.

At no point did I say that you were, for example, immoral, or evil, or a Communist tyrant; but you did seperate me from "reason ethics and justice" because I am a religious man.

I didn't attack you in the same way you attacked me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The debate in this thread reminds me of something Margaret Thatcher said. In fact, it essentially is the debate:

'A single currency is about  the politics of Europe, it is about a federal Europe by the backdoor.'

Agree/ disagree?

Agree, stop the Eurostar, I want to get off!

[Beskar]

"Worse, because he is the final arbiter of his decisions and believes there is no Higher Power he is his own moral judge, and will do what he believes is necessary to attain this goal. In Beskar's case this is ignoring democratic process and popular will."

At no point did I say that you were, for example, immoral, or evil, or a Communist tyrant; but you did seperate me from "reason ethics and justice" because I am a religious man.

Though are correct, but also incorrect at the same time. You never explicitly said I was immoral, you instead heavily implied I am not subject to any moral code, thus I can do whatever I like, probably going as far as being a communist tyrant and putting people in gulags.

[LittleGrizzly]

I'm not going to bother with the argument, "the God that doesn't exist told people to....." That is silly, if He doesn't exist You cannot blame him for peoples' actions.

Of course I can't blame a non existent entity, I can however blame the actions on the belief in a non existent entity.

As to your question, you assume a personal God, what about Plato's First Cause? Or Spinoza's God?

Gah! the bane of the lazy debator... have to look these up...

Ok the first cause is an argument I have heard before, I have some issue with it but im not debating whether God exists or not, unless you are making some other point im missing ? your going to have to explain that second one to me as well, im not getting anything from wiki....

The point I am making is that without an external moral standard it is possible to dispense with "morality", which no longer really exists, whenever it is convenient.

Internal moral standards are the only one that actually exist, if your moral standard is wrapped up in some fictional entity that you can only access through books and people then it can by perverted and twisted by those very people. Obviously your grown up now and set in your moral standards but some young catholic just growing up could have his morality influenced to whatever end those around him wished, and even if he thought to himself somewhere... this isn't right, if his belief in god is strong and all he has been taught about god is by these people then the question is who is he to question an all knowing god ? i don't want to blow up this building abortion clinic, but god does and he knows better than I.

That isn't to say its impossible to indoctrinate an atheist but it is an awesome tool in helping circumvent people's morality

This is what Lenin et al. regularly did. THEY determined what THEY thought was good for the State and THEY enforced it.

They did bad things they thought were for the greater good ?

Them and every other ruler in the history or rulers probably... or do religious people not do things for the greater good ? like not paying for hostages off terrorists, short term its bad, you lose some people just for some money, but long term it is for the greater good as you don't encourage more hostage taking....

In any case, you've already proved me right, because you have appealed to your own concience as some form of external and impartial arbitrator in moral issues; which is exactly the role it has in Christianity.

Ahh right, so your problem is in atheism your conscience is an abritrator in moral issues. Which is exatly the role it has in Christinity ?

You cannot have it both ways, either as a christian you have some form of group conscience which earlier you were stating as an advantage because you can't dispense with it as it isn't yours alone (unless your drop the religion too i guess) or christians make thier own moral judgements with thier own morality as the arbitrator, exactly like atheists, which invalidates your whole rant against beskar earlier (or makes your rant against Beskar apply eqaully to all religious and non religious people)

The fact is your conscience is not the ultimate abritrator of right or wrong, god is, if you can be made to believe god wants you to do something then you can ignore your conscience as you can't possibly now what god does, he is all knowing so what your doing must be for a good cause even if your conscience screams at you, your just a falliable little human being.

What? Did you think we had instructions beamed down from Heaven?

That would probably be better, just lone physco thinking thier doing the work of god would be nowhere near as efficient as these groups of physco's who thanks to thier religion group think mentality can combine to crash planes into building and blow up train stations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though are correct, but also incorrect at the same time. You never explicitly said I was immoral, you instead heavily implied I am not subject to any moral code, thus I can do whatever I like, probably going as far as being a communist tyrant and putting people in gulags.

I don't do "imply" except in the most extremely obvious cases, and only then face to face. I was quite explicit that you do not believe yourself subject to any external moral code, which is very different from actually calling you immoral.

The problem I have with your position is that it will only allow for your own actions from your perspective; you can decide something is moral and no one you act upon has a right of moral appeal. This means that, for example, you can decide that because the end of creating universal piece is a worthwile goal it is alright to do it undemocratically.

I object on the grounds that all people are equal and therefore have the right to self determination. I can't ever put that aside for any reason. This is why I said your "Do unto others" statement was weak, because it is dependant on what you are willing to let someone do to you. It does not have the absolute force of "thou shalt not Kill".

I don't actually believe you are immoral, because I believe your concience functions in the same way as mine does, but I do believe your philosophy lacks moral force, and some of your attitude in your posts demonstrate this.

[Furunculus]

Ambrose Evans Pritchard believes it will be the far-left that benefits politically from the the crisis on the continent, what think you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-Far-Left.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Experience tells me we will never have a perfect society, and we don't need one. I am now going to make the point you have provoked.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and most recently Chavez, have all tried to create socialist all-inclusive paradises on Earth, all have failed and decended into despotism. you might be able to chalk one or two up to selfish dishonesty, but there's still something fishy going on. I submit that a similar motivation drives the EU project; and this can most easily be expressed as a belief that people should accept the "better" destiny their superior ordain for them.

It is a form of intellectual soverignty, which resulted in putting the Lisbon Treaty to Ireland twice.

100% agreed, for exactly the same reason i stated in the global warming thread, to wit:

i admit to a healthy dose of benign contempt towards social-science intellectuals who are always trying to engineer society into what they see as a better model.

because social science is not a science, it is a faith that you can express the breadth of human emotion and frailty with a simplified model of collective behavior.

it is an arrogance that leads to ideology which is invariably a universal failure for the reason mentioned above, and it is usually grossly intrusive to the individuals it is practiced upon.

worse, the damage that is done by these social engineers is blithely disregarded as a necessary and temporary evil, to achieve the glorious emancipation of humanity......... as they see it.

there is a world of difference between a social engineer/scientist and an real engineer or scientist, and I will always have contempt for those that think they can engineer away the less perfect parts of the human condition via some pseudo-scientific ideology.

in the event that they achieve power, that benign contempt becomes fear, exactly the same fear that i feel for any other feral nutcase has the ability to inflict their warped views upon society at large be it religiously inspired or some pathetic ideology driven by a desire to 'improve' the world.

[Husar]

So a desire to improve the world is a bad thing now? Would you rather have people robbing grandmothers instead? After all people like Beskar have no universally set morals anyway.
And why do conservatives/people on the right vote for a certain government if not to improve the world they live in? If the EU is a bad thing, then why are Germany and the USA a good thing? Why don't we split up into 16 or 50 independent small nations because federalism is bad? Why did we form those federal nations in the first place? Wasn't that dictated from above as well? Did they do referendums in the good old times we all wish back?

[Furunculus]

at what point did i recommend a society where grandmothers get robbed?

i didn't, but i'm a big fan of negative freedom; the freedom from interefernce in my life provided I live by the (limited) laws of the land.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So a desire to improve the world is a bad thing now? Would you rather have people robbing grandmothers instead? After all people like Beskar have no universally set morals anyway.
And why do conservatives/people on the right vote for a certain government if not to improve the world they live in? If the EU is a bad thing, then why are Germany and the USA a good thing? Why don't we split up into 16 or 50 independent small nations because federalism is bad? Why did we form those federal nations in the first place? Wasn't that dictated from above as well? Did they do referendums in the good old times we all wish back?

Wanting to improve the world is a fine thing, but it should never involve a temporary evil, or an imposition forced upon others.

[gaelic cowboy]

I am sceptical of this Telegraph article there were no great surges to the left in the last 2yrs even though they all thought they would achieve it with the crisis.

the left was the incumbent and suffered defeat due to economic turmoil and in a few places I am thinking Ireland UK here the right retained power because both our left traditions are not really left economically.

The Euro elections did not return large extreme left parties even though many voters were mad as hell.

His article should read the crisis will cause European oppositions parties to return to power in the next cycle.

[Furunculus]

I am sceptical of this Telegraph article there were no great surges to the left in the last 2yrs even though they all thought they would achieve it with the crisis.

the left was the incumbent and suffered defeat due to economic turmoil and in a few places I am thinking Ireland UK here the right retained power because both our left traditions are not really left economically.

The Euro elections did not return large extreme left parties even though many voters were mad as hell.

His article should read the crisis will cause European oppositions parties to return to power in the next cycle.

that perhaps should be made clearer, given that his own premise follows the logic that whilst the recession has happened the 'pain' has not really hit yet as it will once all the austerity measures really start to bite.

there is also the point that many of the left long ago disassocoiated themselves from new-labour style lefty movements as no longer representaive of traditional politics.

i think there is much in what he says, he was after all predicting the collapse of the euro long before most others, whilst the traditional response was to rubbish his fears.

[gaelic cowboy]

I cannot see it extreme left would tax wealth property etc etc after the big developers who has more property than a comfortable middle class civil servant. They used there supposedly secure pensions and only upward pay rates to secure mortgages and loans for all sorts of consumption house in Spain new car or two three holidays a year etc.

The extreme left will fail as they always do at any election when it boils down to the economy etc.

[Furunculus]

agreed generally, though there are enough countries where socialist and communist parties are an electoral force rather than the joke they are here.

[gaelic cowboy]

Osborne outlines plans for UK spending cuts

Uk has got it's own version of An Bord Snip Nua now the fun begins expect to see lots of media rubbish from now on.

[Furunculus]

German media reports on two secret cancellation clauses in the £750bn bailout:
1. immediately cancelled if declared unconstitutional by EU court or any national constitutional court, and germany has two cases going on right now.
2. any member that cannot borrow at less than 5% interest rates has the option to not partatke in the bailout.

My prediction:
Finance markets are going to look at this indecision between greater economic union (which the electorates won't accept) and the exit of club-med from the eurozone (which the politicians won't accept), and they are going to HAMMER the Euro.

Within six months Greece Spain and Portugal will all have had sovereign debt crisises, three or four Eurozone nations won't take part in the bailout and at least two club-med nations will be forced to exit and restructure their debt, which means that they will finally have a chance to become competitive again but French and German banks will take a big-hit as they are forced to accept debt-for-equity due to an inability to bail-out yet more banks.

Within twelve months the political element of the Euro will begine to coalesce around the northern continental countries as they bring about economic union to revive the fortunes of the Euro, but a two-speed EU will be born, because not everyone will be inside that club.

[Vladimir]

A bad sign: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37354919...ope/?gt1=43001