a question for the atheists

[Lagboltz]

We should probably not get into a debate on abortion, for that seldom turns out well; plus, I've taken a "like" to you. My comments about abortion are intended to provide you insight into my Conservative thought process...

Right we shouldn't get in a debate on abortion. That is a hot topic and has been covered here before. However I disagree with most of your thinking and conclusions.

Nevertheless, the societal pressures placed on us by our present government, the leftwing media, our schools, and leftwing judges, demonizes and effectively ostracizes us for our belief.

You have to understand that we liberals think the schools, judges, and media are largely neutral with obvious exceptions such as Fox, and MSNBC.

Regardless of what some pundits and politicans and leftist judges may say, there is an absolute Right to keep and bear arms stated in the Constitution. Those who seek to ignore that Right, obviously believe that guns are bad, and they seek to not only legislate their concept of "good" and "bad", but to ignore our Constitution while doing so.

I see that we are miles apart in how we look at many things. The right to bear arms originally applied to pistols and muskets. The constitution couldn't foretell assault rifles which have no use for much but efficiently killing many people quickly. To me that aspect of the law is more damaging to society than abortion. People that would only allow their assault rifles taken by prying from their cold dead hands carry ugly implications about their character. They give me cold chills. That is one difference between stereotype liberals and stereotype conservatives.

You're right, I'm not suggesting that all 10 Commandments be written into law, for as you say, a few of them are laws already, and several others apply strictly to the practice of religion. What I was referring to was the historical, American-Christian view of "good" and "bad" when it comes to human traits such as "personal responsibility", civility toward all who treat you civilly, a strong work-ethic, respect for women by men (and vice-versa), and above all, the responsibility of each individual and family for its own welfare and well-being..... not unlike Aesop's fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. The left writes laws that legislate in favor of the irresponsible Ant while punishing the Grasshopper.

Lets face it, half the people are below average intelligence. Even intelligent college educated people that I know personally lack the wisdom to know what to do with their intelligence. Some friends (including two with PhD's) and relatives squandered savings, drank too much, or had unwanted babies.

Do you really think teaching responsibility will make much of an impact on the problems? One difference between you and me is that you are guided by idealism, where I am guided by realism. Sure, it would be nice if abortions were unneeded, or guns were used wisely, but it isn't going to happen. People will use their innate abilities to survive or get ahead. If they can't find jobs or are one of the 46 million Americans below poverty level, they are more likely to commit armed robbery, sell drugs, prostitution, commit tax and social security fraud, have abortions, and the list goes on.

I have no solution to the broad problems in the US. I believe anyone who thinks they have a solution has not thought through all the ramifications of their solution.

On a lighter note, Merry Christmas.

 

[Lagboltz]

I suspect you are looking for a "sky God" or some grand power that sits like the all powerful Zeus. The only way I know God is through that section of the brain where meditation, prayer, etc. is found. I can envision a God that exists all around us - like cell phone signals - undetectable by any of the human senses (except a 6th sense). No machine can measure it. The only way you can know God is through that part of your brain you were born with to detect or receive messages like epiphanies.

I can only tell you were I found God. As I explained, I find no inspiration nor truth in classic religion. However, God may exist in many different forms and functions, but I have no idea what those might be.

I am not looking for a God within me, let alone a "sky God". Actually, I go beyond Einstein's God of Spinoza. I have a sort of reverence for nature and not just the laws of nature. I will not kill spiders or lizards, but will put them outside. When I caught mice in a trap, I would release them outside, and even leave them in a warm compost heap in the winter with food. I am a tree hugger. Basically I am a Pantheist (not to be confused with Paganism.) I don't believe my feelings are religious, but just a quirk that I don't expect many others would have.

 

[TheJPRD]

Right we shouldn't get in a debate on abortion. That is a hot topic and has been covered here before. However I disagree with most of your thinking and conclusions.

You have to understand that we liberals think the schools, judges, and media are largely neutral with obvious exceptions such as Fox, and MSNBC.

I understand that as a liberal, you'd consider the schools, judges, and media as being neutral. However, we Conservtives are faced with 90% of the media leaning left or far left. One might deduce that the 90% must be correct in their reasoning, coverage, and conclusions because of the weight of coverage. I don't think so! When you and I were in our teens, FOX NEWS would have been considered left of center. Now, many consider FOX NEWS as a far right organization. The example I like to use is JFK. I voted for JFK in a High School "election", one of only 2 persons in my High Schools who did so. In today's world of US politics, JFK would be considered a radical, rightwing Conservative!

I see that we are miles apart in how we look at many things. The right to bear arms originally applied to pistols and muskets. The constitution couldn't foretell assault rifles which have no use for much but efficiently killing many people quickly. To me that aspect of the law is more damaging to society than abortion. People that would only allow their assault rifles taken by prying from their cold dead hands carry ugly implications about their character. They give me cold chills. That is one difference between stereotype liberals and stereotype conservatives..

Pistols and muskets were state-of-the-art weapons when our Constitution was written. They are no longer state-of-the-art weapons. Nevertheless, our founders unquestionably intended that every citizen had the RIGHT to defend himself/herself against ANY weapon that any individual or the government could bring to bear on him/her. The undertood purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the individual from others who'd harm him/her, and to protect us against a government that might ignore our Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights! Justification of my position can be found in the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and other founding fathers.

Lets face it, half the people are below average intelligence. Even intelligent college educated people that I know personally lack the wisdom to know what to do with their intelligence. Some friends (including two with PhD's) and relatives squandered savings, drank too much, or had unwanted babies.

I fully agree! Knowledge and/or a college degree does not necessarily indicate intelligence, and certainly doesn't equate to "good character". That's why I argued that it's the character of individuals that best indicates the likelihood that a citizen will be lawful or unlawful!

Do you really think teaching responsibility will make much of an impact on the problems? One difference between you and me is that you are guided by idealism, where I am guided by realism. Sure, it would be nice if abortions were unneeded, or guns were used wisely, but it isn't going to happen. People will use their innate abilities to survive or get ahead. If they can't find jobs or are one of the 46 million Americans below poverty level, they are more likely to commit armed robbery, sell drugs, prostitution, commit tax and social security fraud, have abortions, and the list goes on.

I'm positive that teaching "responsibility" will make a huge difference, as long as there are legal and social "punishments" for being irresponsible! However, if individuals are allowed to commit crimes, misdemeanors, and stupid mistakes with little or no personal consequences, there is no incentive to prohibit bad and/or stupid behavior.

I have no solution to the broad problems in the US. I believe anyone who thinks they have a solution has not thought through all the ramifications of their solution..

NO solution could be 100% effective. However, the solution I recommended would have the best results IF it was implemented.

On a lighter note, Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too, and everyone else here at HOP.

 

[Lagboltz]

I understand that as a liberal, you'd consider the schools, judges, and media as being neutral. However, we Conservtives are faced with 90% of the media leaning left or far left. One might deduce that the 90% must be correct in their reasoning, coverage, and conclusions because of the weight of coverage. I don't think so! When you and I were in our teens, FOX NEWS would have been considered left of center. Now, many consider FOX NEWS as a far right organization. The example I like to use is JFK. I voted for JFK in a High School "election", one of only 2 persons in my High Schools who did so. In today's world of US politics, JFK would be considered a radical, rightwing Conservative!

Well, I will have to disagree on your judgement of the media and the history. Also, I'm more concerned about the present government and social conditions, and much less about Fox or JFK 50 years ago.

Pistols and muskets were state-of-the-art weapons when our Constitution was written. They are no longer state-of-the-art weapons. Nevertheless, our founders unquestionably intended that every citizen had the RIGHT to defend himself/herself against ANY weapon that any individual or the government could bring to bear on him/her. The undertood purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the individual from others who'd harm him/her, and to protect us against a government that might ignore our Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights! Justification of my position can be found in the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and other founding fathers.

Again the constitution was written over 230 years ago. They were thinking in terms of their recent revolution and a well regulated militia. Many of today's problems were almost nonexistent back then. Assault rifles are used almost always for offensive murder rather than defense via a "well regulated militia." If you are comfortable with almost anybody being able to get an assault rifle and use it, then as I said before, we are miles apart.

I fully agree! Knowledge and/or a college degree does not necessarily indicate intelligence, and certainly doesn't equate to "good character". That's why I argued that it's the character of individuals that best indicates the likelihood that a citizen will be lawful or unlawful!

I'm positive that teaching "responsibility" will make a huge difference, as long as there are legal and social "punishments" for being irresponsible! However, if individuals are allowed to commit crimes, misdemeanors, and stupid mistakes with little or no personal consequences, there is no incentive to prohibit bad and/or stupid behavior.

Legal punishments for being irresponsible already exist if the action breaks a specific law. You can bet that there were social "punishments" when a cousin-in-law lost a million dollar inheritance in stupid investments suggested by a psychic. Or my unmarried niece got stuck with raising two small kids while trying to keep a full time job in high-tech marketing. I have no reason to believe that teaching responsibility would have helped.

NO solution could be 100% effective. However, the solution I recommended would have the best results IF it was implemented.

I don't see how you could confidently say that. Having a science background, I would never suggest that teaching character or responsibility would work unless there was a good competent study with statistically significant field evidence. The study would have to include various environments such as inner-city, and rural. There would have to be equivalent control groups that do not receive the special education. As I said before, I'm a realist more than an idealist.

 

[Hobo1]

I am not looking for a God within me, let alone a "sky God". Actually, I go beyond Einstein's God of Spinoza. I have a sort of reverence for nature and not just the laws of nature. I will not kill spiders or lizards, but will put them outside. When I caught mice in a trap, I would release them outside, and even leave them in a warm compost heap in the winter with food. I am a tree hugger. Basically I am a Pantheist (not to be confused with Paganism.) I don't believe my feelings are religious, but just a quirk that I don't expect many others would have.

How about this concept... nobody has any firm concept of what God really is. Various religions and prophets have painted different concepts of God, but he could walk up to you in the street and if he said, "I am God", you would never believe him. All of the religions believe he is responsible for miracles and a multitude of powers that we don't understand. So, in a way, everything that humans can't see or explain, that is remains a mystery, we attribute to God. For example, why do some humans (or cultures) have one set of ethics, while other cultures have a different (or no) set of ethics?

The answer we have come up with is Darwins Theory of Evolution.... that's the modern explanation. But many could argue this is just the method God uses to change people. But the questions will always remain why is it necessary for animals (including humans) to evolve at all? Adam and Eve seemed happy in the earth God gave them.

So, in my mind, God is the sum of all mysteries.

One of the best questions are, "Why are some people struck with spiritual epiphanies?" This is about as close that many people can get to believing (and perhap explaining) in God. But in a hundred or thousand years. But in the future some advanced version of a CERN cyclotron type device may discover that we in multiple worlds where humans are are incapable of currently detecting (ie, string theory).

As hard as it may be to imagine, the souls of the dead could live in an alternative world, and the powers we attribute to God (heaven and hell, etc.) could exist in a separate world that occupies a separate world. However. these worlds exist side by side with the same three dimensions that we live in. But occasionally someone may experience a metaphysical event. For example the world of the dead souls temporarily enter our world.

All of these mysteries we now lump together and call it God.. That's not a bad thing as long as you don't get too certain about the "facts" where some religion has all the answers - without any real proof.

 

[Gipper]

If I and other physicists believe in what Einstein's considers as God, then we all have a right to celebrate Christmas without "qualms". Agreed?

What the hell are you trying to say?

You felt compelled to address my post to the Christian hating bigot who wrongly claimed Einstein was an atheist. I merely pointed out to the bigot that he was wrong about Einstein. And now you post silliness. Why?

 

[TheJPRD]

Again the constitution was written over 230 years ago. They were thinking in terms of their recent revolution and a well regulated militia. Many of today's problems were almost nonexistent back then. Assault rifles are used almost always for offensive murder rather than defense via a "well regulated militia." If you are comfortable with almost anybody being able to get an assault rifle and use it, then as I said before, we are miles apart..

The Constitution was indeed written over 200 years ago. Unless I missed it, however, nothing that was guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights came with an expiration date. I doubt you'd argue that our Right to free speech or to assemble peacefully can be ignored because the Constitution is outdated or because today's problems are different than those in the past?

My argument here is based upon the requirement that Constitutional Rights cannot be dismissed out of hand, only via the means of Amendment. Those Justices who told us that abortion was a Right, effectively amended the Constitution via activism, not by properly amending it. If our Constitutional Right to bear arms can be ignored simply because our founders were thinking in 18th-century terms, then so can our Right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.

I don't see how you could confidently say that. Having a science background, I would never suggest that teaching character or responsibility would work unless there was a good competent study with statistically significant field evidence. The study would have to include various environments such as inner-city, and rural. There would have to be equivalent control groups that do not receive the special education. As I said before, I'm a realist more than an idealist.

Yet, you would suggest that our Right to bear arms can be re-defined without a good, competent study, and without a Constitutional amendment?? IF such a study was performed, I know what the result would be! We'd find that it is NOT the prevalence of weapons that best predicts "violent behavior", it is the character and cultural norms of the people possessing those weapons, and the degree of dictatorial control exercized by their National leaders. I'd be only too happy to suggest many independent variables needing inclusion in such a study. Interesting topic!

 

[dogtowner]

The Constitution was indeed written over 200 years ago. Unless I missed it, however, nothing that was guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights came with an expiration date. I doubt you'd argue that our Right to free speech or to assemble peacefully can be ignored because the Constitution is outdated or because today's problems are different than those in the past?

My argument here is based upon the requirement that Constitutional Rights cannot be dismissed out of hand, only via the means of Amendment. Those Justices who told us that abortion was a Right, effectively amended the Constitution via activism, not by properly amending it. If our Constitutional Right to bear arms can be ignored simply because our founders were thinking in 18th-century terms, then so can our Right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.



Yet, you would suggest that our Right to bear arms can be re-defined without a good, competent study, and without a Constitutional amendment?? IF such a study was performed, I know what the result would be! We'd find that it is NOT the prevalence of weapons that best predicts "violent behavior", it is the character and cultural norms of the people possessing those weapons, and the degree of dictatorial control exercized by their National leaders. I'd be only too happy to suggest many independent variables needing inclusion in such a study. Interesting topic!

the purpose of the 2nd amendment has not changed at all since it was ratified all those years ago nor have any of the other ones. they were carefully selected in the knowledge that the represented the tools to combat tyrany which the framers saw as absolutly necessary.

the point if the 2nd is not hunting and is to defend the public from attacks on the Constitution and bill of rights.

 

[Lagboltz]

What the hell are you trying to say?

You felt compelled to address my post to the Christian hating bigot who wrongly claimed Einstein was an atheist. I merely pointed out to the bigot that he was wrong about Einstein. And now you post silliness. Why?

I was getting back to the OP where you implied atheists should have qualms about Christmas. Since you established that Einstein and I are not atheists, I simply wondered, albeit a bit sarcastically, if you changed your mind about having qualms.

 

[Lagboltz]

The Constitution was indeed written over 200 years ago. Unless I missed it, however, nothing that was guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights came with an expiration date. I doubt you'd argue that our Right to free speech or to assemble peacefully can be ignored because the Constitution is outdated or because today's problems are different than those in the past?

My argument here is based upon the requirement that Constitutional Rights cannot be dismissed out of hand, only via the means of Amendment. Those Justices who told us that abortion was a Right, effectively amended the Constitution via activism, not by properly amending it. If our Constitutional Right to bear arms can be ignored simply because our founders were thinking in 18th-century terms, then so can our Right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.

We have had lots of constitutional amendments for the social good. If one were proposed, would you support an amendment to prohibit the sale of assault weapons to civilians?

Yet, you would suggest that our Right to bear arms can be re-defined without a good, competent study, and without a Constitutional amendment?? IF such a study was performed, I know what the result would be! We'd find that it is NOT the prevalence of weapons that best predicts "violent behavior", it is the character and cultural norms of the people possessing those weapons, and the degree of dictatorial control exercized by their National leaders. I'd be only too happy to suggest many independent variables needing inclusion in such a study. Interesting topic!

Yeah, I know guns don't kill people, people kill people. Same with cars, yet we have much much tighter regulations on cars than guns.

What is curious, is that you are now referring to my paragraph where I advocate a scientific study on teaching character and responsibility. I make no mention of assault weapons, yet you immediately bring the topic back to assault weapons.

I seemed to hit a real nerve on you about assault rifles, and I don't understand why. Do you own an assault rifle?

 

[Gipper]

I was getting back to the OP where you implied atheists should have qualms about Christmas. Since you established that Einstein and I are not atheists, I simply wondered, albeit a bit sarcastically, if you changed your mind about having qualms.

You may have had a 'senior moment.' Because the author of the OP was not me.

 

[Lagboltz]

You may have had a 'senior moment.' Because the author of the OP was not me.

Naw, not a senior moment. I just didn't bother to look.
Now I know why you were puzzled about my post. Sorry about that mistaken identity.

 

[Lagboltz]

How about this concept... nobody has any firm concept of what God really is. Various religions and prophets have painted different concepts of God, but he could walk up to you in the street and if he said, "I am God", you would never believe him....

Surprisingly I agree with most of your post. However I did meet God in the street according to my insurance company. A lumberjack cut a tree which fell and damaged my car. Since nobody was in the car, the AAA considered it an "act of God", so the lumberjack must have been God. The insurance company has a strange theology.

So, in my mind, God is the sum of all mysteries.

One of the best questions are, "Why are some people struck with spiritual epiphanies?" This is about as close that many people can get to believing (and perhap explaining) in God. But in a hundred or thousand years. But in the future some advanced version of a CERN cyclotron type device may discover that we in multiple worlds where humans are are incapable of currently detecting (ie, string theory).

As hard as it may be to imagine, the souls of the dead could live in an alternative world, and the powers we attribute to God (heaven and hell, etc.) could exist in a separate world that occupies a separate world. However. these worlds exist side by side with the same three dimensions that we live in. But occasionally someone may experience a metaphysical event. For example the world of the dead souls temporarily enter our world.

All of these mysteries we now lump together and call it God.. That's not a bad thing as long as you don't get too certain about the "facts" where some religion has all the answers - without any real proof.

But on a more serious note, I don't see as many mysteries as religious people do. I generally think that a potential mystery is temporary as many mysteries have been over the historical evolution of understanding in science.

I still believe that the spiritual part of the brain is for clan survival purposes, and epiphanies just pop up in some people. The interpretation of the epiphany depends on the cultural heritage of the person.

However, a multiple-universe concept of spirituality is not hard to imagine from a physics point of view. There are a number of theories of that nature, although no confirmation. These theories do not involve spirituality, but are aimed at explaining some of the intuitive difficulties of quantum mechanics.

In QM, the net of quantum numbers can't change in an interaction, such as charge, spin, etc. If there is a co-existing universe with it's own set of quantum numbers, there won't be any interaction with our universe. However an interaction via a weak force such as a gravity may share a gravitational quantum number and lead to a subtle interaction. This is one explanation for dark matter, and how it influences unexplained motion in galaxies. A future experiment at the Large Hadron Collider will look for an interaction with dark matter.

So you could easily conjure up a theory where there are beings in other quantum dimensions that share a weak and low probability interaction in our quantum dimensions.

As far as spirituality, the "Church" of Scientology believes in something similar to that. However, they are considered to be charlatans who are interested in draining member's bank accounts.

 

[dogtowner]

We have had lots of constitutional amendments for the social good. If one were proposed, would you support an amendment to prohibit the sale of assault weapons to civilians?

Yeah, I know guns don't kill people, people kill people. Same with cars, yet we have much much tighter regulations on cars than guns.

What is curious, is that you are now referring to my paragraph where I advocate a scientific study on teaching character and responsibility. I make no mention of assault weapons, yet you immediately bring the topic back to assault weapons.

I seemed to hit a real nerve on you about assault rifles, and I don't understand why. Do you own an assault rifle?

I would.not support such an amendment. however if one were lawfully enacted the it would demonstrate the will of the people.

you dont have to clear a background check to buy a car. just sayin'

 

[Lagboltz]

I would.not support such an amendment. however if one were lawfully enacted the it would demonstrate the will of the people.

you dont have to clear a background check to buy a car. just sayin'

You can easily buy a gun at a gun show or from a private seller without a background check. You can't buy a used car from anyone without signing over the title, and you can't get a car license without showing the title. You also have to have a driver written test, a visual test, and if you are a kid, a road test.