Interesting debate on existance of god, worth a read 2

[AlphaWolf]

One more thing I might add, I know a lot of you who read this will be thinking "how the hell can you just say that something ive believed my entire life is a lie, and many generations of my family before me who have followed this have been following a lie". Well, sooner or later you can face the facts, or you can forever ignore them. Theres realy no harm in going either way, it just depends on your mental capacity to handle reality.

This actualy compares well to the matrix. Remember how hard it was for neo to face the "reality", and the oracle told him that later he will feel better because he will remember that he doesn't believe in any of this fake crap.

 

[sk8bloke22]

very good stuff alphawolf.

Now heres something else to think about, if your god loves all human beings, then why does he at times command some to kill others?

love those nice little contradictions. RPGlover stop posting articles like that, they mean absolutely nothing, maybe if u highlighted a specific pointed that showed some evidence why we were wrong, but instead all i can see is biassed reporting. it proves nothing.

alphawolf: i think u r right about religion being the original form of control. however, dont think democracy much better. democracy is such a vague term, in that anything can be democratic (dictatorships are actually democratic as the leader represents the view of the majority). wat u r refering to is liberal democracy. but its still highly flawed. the stress on 'individual liberties' implies a need to secure the freedom of the individual. yet, liberal democracy works with capitalism, which by its nature, requires unequal economic circumstances, in order for competition to work. liberal democracy promtes the need for equal opportunities, yet by supporting capitalism, it also maintains inequality. truly equal economic circumstances would be a socialist democracy, which is something entirely different altogether (im talking grass-roots socialism here). also individual liberties are being rapidly destroyed by mass global corporatism, which is subtly changing and branding culture as we know it. it wont be long until governments and corporations are working togeher...(they practically are already). if any of u guys havent read 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, i highly recommend it, it gives a good insight into why corporatism is very bad indeed.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Well, in either case, the general idea here is that the old ways of propaganda and having a supreme ruler are obsolete, there are better ways to propogate your cause. I should have made it noted that I'm just using democracy as an example.

Heres something thats funny that I might add:

In other systems, opression is necessary to keep order, you have to limit the education of the public so that they wont know any better than to follow your cause. Religion origionated from this principle. If you notice, in the dark ages there were hardly any scientific breakthroughs. The dark ages was the period that religion was at its "best"; it was pretty much the law.

Check this out: (yes I know its missing a few things)
http://www.crimsonbird.com/science/timeline.htm

If you look at it, the periods near the dark ages get further and further between as they get closer, and of course the dark ages was the black hole in any development. As people started following the religions more and more, the developments came fewer between. If you notice, religion throughout the years has often considered science to be evil sorcery, probably because it has time and time again proved religion wrong. It was about the time of the burning of the alexandrian library that the christian church started gaining power on a larger scale.

As you can see, religion has to limit your education in order for you to follow it. And as demonstrated, if you tell a lie enough, eventualy you will start believe its true. Now that we are getting beyond it (democracy as the example), heres my prediction: eventualy science will completely overcome religion. Sooner or later the worlds current religions will cease to exist, just as the ones before them did. (e.g. norse)

Also I found a site that pretty much describes my way of thinking better than I can:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

 

[sytaylor]

"capitalism, which by its nature, requires unequal economic circumstances" <-- i disagree, it doesn't require them but it does create them inadvertadley because of corrupt governments

 

[sk8bloke22]

if everyone was equal in capitalism, it cant work. there would be no competition, cos every one would be all economically equal. definitely most Conservative politicians would agree here. in an unregulated market, u need to hav people less off, in order for others to succeed. the bit which is meant to be fair is meritocracy, a fairly new idea, that suggests that people can rise the ranks in industry, no matter how low u start. but even meritocracy doesnt provide equality (meritocracy = the equal opportunity to rise or fall in society) as not everyone succeeds from the bottom of society, and many fall and become bankrupt.

 

[Eddy]

Ok, i side with rez, 2fast, and sk8.

Seriously think about this shit. Religion has caused most of the world conflicts. You can trace problems in the present, to problems between religions in the past, roman era even. I mean, look at the western-middle eastern problems now. Its getting out of hand. I dont know whether im catholic or if im atheis.

People say there must be a god. The damn creationists beliefs. I believe more in science than in any 2-3000 year old books, that have been changed and manipulated to keep up with the times. I mean, if there is a god who created us, there must also be someone who created him, right? So thats the main problem with that theory.

I personally think that if religions didnt exist, the world would be peaceful, so many problems would be solved. It would be incredible. Religion was created to explain the unexplained, what science has yet not discovered. What will happen when there is evident proof of the creation of the universe? whats gonna happen to religion?

I have soo many things to say i dont know where to start. Also, i know this is gonna sound like a insult to muslims, but some muslims take the quran to another level, i mean, beating woman, the woman has to be the man's helper? what kind of shit is that? A relationship should be equal. Religions limit people too much.

The most single and controversial statement. if god is all powerful, why doesnt he come down to earth, and end the suffering, bring his believers into paradise, and end the pain and suffering forever?

My final opinion, is, religion is just like a conscience. Probably created by political leaders in the past to keep people organized and under his control.

 

[Eddy]

btw about the women being the man's helper throughout life, is somewhere in the quran, my friend pointed it out. That, i think, is real fucked up.

 

[Eddy]

Another example of crisis because of religion, israel.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Heres something I would like to know, what event in religious history has ever directly proven any scientific theory wrong?

Science does it to religion all the time.

 

[Eddy]

exactly, i am with alpha also :-D

 

[sk8bloke22]

Another example of crisis because of religion, israel.

its much, much more complicated than that, but yeh religion is a factor.

 

[sytaylor]

meritocracy, a fairly new idea, that suggests that people can rise the ranks in industry, no matter how low u start. but even meritocracy doesnt provide equality (meritocracy = the equal opportunity to rise or fall in society) as not everyone succeeds from the bottom of society, and many fall and become bankrupt.

so your telling me when people work their way thru college and uni, land a successful job and become millionaires (ala branson et al), thats not because the captalist structure was in place? yeah right, theres no WAY that could happen without capitalism... if we're all brandished with the same stick indivdual achievement is capped and held back

 

[sk8bloke22]

of course its the capitalist structure, but not everyone goes to uni (often only middle-class people - middle-upperclass ). what im saying is that a lower class must exist in order for capitalism to work. that is true, we hav a lower class. its the fact that it claims to deliver the equality of opportunity, which is crap, because not everyone has equal opportunities in life to succeed. basically Marx, however flawed his theory is,understood capitalism more than most people. basically in capitalism there is a system of 'single ownership of the means of production', meaning an employer owns the means for which a product can be manufactured, i.e he/she owns the factory, computers, etc. however, the people who make the product the workers, dont get the profit for their work. instead they get a fixed wage, which limits their earnings, and is unrepresentative of wat they deserve to earn. however, the boss, who owns the means to produce (but does not himself produce anything) earns the most. this is a fundamental problem with the capitalist structure, only one central body earns the profit, whilst the worker's entire life revolves around a wage; hence becomes a 'wage slave'.

thats a VERY basic understanding (originating to Marx) of why Capitalism = exploitation. buut things hav changed. unregulated capitalism, is just as bad as state-regulated economies. im in a very anti-corporate mood at the moment, cos im reading 'No Logo' (a great book), if u want any specific examples, ill be happy to give u sum.

socialism doesnt mean we're all the same. it just means a non-competitive market, something which is very liable solution to Third World debt. the socialist model = common ownership of the means of production, meaning there isnt no-one person who actually owns the means to produce, so there is no restricted power. it doesnt mean no heirachy though, u can still hav some form of heirachy in a socialist business, its just everyone earns the profit of the company.

 

[RPGlover12]

coooool guys i found something really usefull
u believe in the bing bang not creation ok its ok i dont blame u if ur an athiest but here is something really great for u guys found articles that show that the big band theory existed in the quran from 1400 years ago

http://www.themodernreligion.com/verses_sci.htm

http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/pub/bigbang/part1.html

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry//ask/acosmexp.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/21nov00.html

http://www.er.doe.gov/feature_articles_2001/June/Decades/38.html

ok guys i've been searchin alot for something like that so plz take a look at it

 

[sytaylor]

"it just means a non-competitive market"

suicide, absolute suicide, im sorry but that idealism where everyone lets everyone get evertything really cheap because it will help the other person just won't happen, just try and make it, see how far you get, survival comes first to any living thing, surley allowing an equalibrium where we all have the same chances (in theory) of success allows a natural suceeder to do well in life?

 

[AlphaWolf]

I still dont follow...but you want to know what I think?

 

[sk8bloke22]

"it just means a non-competitive market"

suicide, absolute suicide, im sorry but that idealism where everyone lets everyone get evertything really cheap because it will help the other person just won't happen, just try and make it, see how far you get, survival comes first to any living thing, surley allowing an equalibrium where we all have the same chances (in theory) of success allows a natural suceeder to do well in life?

well u sorta hit the mark. its exactly wat marx talks about. survival is the key thing in everything. he explains most people want the basic needs to live - thats pretty true, i mean most of us need clothes, food, drink, etc to actually live. he says capatilism creates a system of inequality becos the profit mechanism divides ppl into separate economic classes. of course class division existed before the days of profit (which really only began out of the industrial revolution), but capatilism divides things even worse. in socialism, the whole point of the revolution is to change the system of ownership. private property would be abolished (this is not the same as personal possessions), which means so would currency. true socialism/communism/anarchism economies work on free trade, but there is no managing of currency. not all anarchists/socialists agree with this (anarcho capatilists see that property offers new opportunites,etc,etc). the basic point is, in a socialist economy, there would be no exploitation, as each worker earns (not necessarily in money) the equivalent of wat he makes (common ownership of the means of production). in terms of survival, there would be no class division, more food, and natural resourses to share, and ppl's role in society will be more broad ranged than simply living off a wage. also in a stateless society, no money is poured into the state, and more can be put towards community security (u can still hav police in an anarchic society).

capatilism does not allow this equlibrium at all. in fact the free market is very dangerous. if u look at certain big business strategies, they are implementing structures that prevent meritocracy to work. in south america, they hav Export Processing Zone, which are basically factories that are cheap to build, hav cheap labour, and for some fucked up reason, are exempt from taxes. wat companies like Nike do is set up these factories, close down all theirs in North America and Europe, then sell these new factories in the Export Processing Zones to sub-contractors. wat this means is that Nike dont pay for any manufacturing costs, in fact they dont even make products any more, they just market them. okay back to the point, workers in the EPZ's are given no chance to rise up the ranks, rather, they are kept in miltant conditions, forced to work, and hav no benefits that capitalism supposely offers. well okay thats south america, capitalism hasnt really developed over there, well the problem, Nike and other corporations are actually stopping capitalism from happening like we imagine it. furthermore, similar things are happening within developed countries like the USA. new temping agencies are cheaper opportunities for corportations to hire 'temporary' stuff and then boot them wheneva they like without the hassle of benefits, etc. temps are actually very unlikely to go up anywhere in the capitalist ladder as they r just hired from corporation from corporation (look up M$ techniques with MicroTemps on the net, and ull see wat i mean). free market capatilism allows big businesses to do wat the fuk they want...which is why we need regulations and checks on the market...or even more so on the corrupt states that allow tax-free zones to exist in their countries (ironically Nike sets up many of these factories in 'so-called' communist countries like China). n e way, sorry for blabbering on, hope that shows some stuff on the flaws of the free-market, sy, and some info on socialism. dang, i do go on....

 

[2fast4u]

I still dont follow...but you want to know what I think?

lovely lain2:

 

[sytaylor]

to your first paragraph, those are some nice predictions but not once do i see you suggest HOW they'd be implimented, in thus we have my biggest argument against idealist arguments... they are very rarley tested against real human factors and statistics... its usually just people saying how everyone having the same by default is good. Well im aware of that but natrual selection does not and will not allow that. In effect fair is unfair on those who are capeable/willing to excel in life.

To your second paragraph; do you really think nike would build cheap factories if they weren't allowed to by local government? your point that south america is a developing capitalist environment is a very good point and in a way answers your own question. This kind of thing would probably not happen in brazil, which despite still having a lot of poor people is a developed country after borrowing huge funds from the world bank. It is successful in trade and in 10-15 years i'd hazard a guess that more and more people will become part of this growing economy. It's possible, but just not as instant as your ideals would like

 

[sk8bloke22]

lol, u dont think nike use sub contractors in poor south american (and other continents). nike aernt the only ones....its pretty well known, i dont think they even fully deny it anymore. the local authorities are corrupt, thats why big corporations choose these countries. these are third world places who need anything to help their economy. if a big-mother-fucker-of-a-company like Nike or Addidas, or Intel or AMD or M$ want to save manufacturing costs and focus their money on marketing, wat beta to open a cheap factory in a place that will do anything to get employment (even not charge export taxes). The export processing zones (the specific zones where exports are made - and only really appear in third world countries to attract mass cheap employment) contain factories that make products for a variety of brands, the employees are often under-aged women who are forced to work their due to poor economies. many reports hav exposed brutal treatments and militant conditions in the zones...and these are the ppl who stitch are Nike Trainers and hood-tops. just type in google 'Nike and EPZs' and ull get enuff info on the matter.

back to how a socialist economy would be implemented, i actually did mention it, butn ot very clearly. primarly, the destruction of private property (this could be a result of a revolution)...marx suggested a temporary dictatorship, in which new laws and economic structures would be implemented by the state (who in a revolution are controlled by the ruling class, in marx's case, a socialist revolution would mean a temporary dictatorship by representatives of the working class - and he explains in full detail who these ppl would be and the process in which causes a revolution and the downfall of capitalism). once the economic base has been transformed by new factory laws, the banning of private property, introduction of common ownership in business, then the state itself would supposedly wither away, as its role would be useless. of course theres a serious flaw here, as in the Russian Revolution, common ownership was never fully implemented, and the dictatorship was never temporary. thats the marxist view, i cant be arsed to explain over ways of implementing socialist economies, cos ive already typed too much for my wee lil fingers.