351. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88600 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 2:33 am

540. Comment #88598 by krisking on November 18, 2007 at 2:17 am

So it's ideology that you take exception to.

Oh absolutely. You'll find that practically all of my fellow atheists hold similar views. Religion is just a virulent mutation of the personality cult. In many respects, Stalin and Hitler were simply going "back to basics".

Perhaps the youtube clip below will help you join the dots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY

352. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88591 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 1:42 am

Someone please take this thread out and shoot it.

No disrespect to the atheist posters here, great work really, but even you chaps must be wearying of saying the same thing over and over in different ways.

At what point do we qualify someone as a troll and move on? The 10th time they make the same debunked (or plain pointless) claim? The 20th? The 100th?

353. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88584 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 12:23 am

16. Comment #88581 by Corylus on November 18, 2007 at 12:07 am
avatar

The victim's lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.

What amazing and courageous muslims these two are. I sincerely hope they find justice, and change the law, at the very least they have exposed the utter hypocrisy of the religious establishment, that is always a good start.

354. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88583 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 12:17 am

Surely, no-one here could claim that the two world wars were fought over religious issues, or started by religious reasons.

I think a pretty compelling case could be made that ideology, the umbrella under which religion fits as a major subset, was primary. However, certainly in WWII (55 million dead) religion was absolutely central. Ever hear of judaism, christianity and Nordic paganism? Ever hear of a chap called Martin Luther and his religiously grounded anti semitism?

Would the little corporal have come to power without these influences, killed 6 million people because of them and sucked 55 million people into oblivion if they had never existed? Maybe, but religion is a pretty handy lever to motivate people and on a massive scale.

WWI is less obviously religious. However, what are monarchies but religions where some human is the focus of adoration and worship?

It always comes back to people doing stupid things for very bad reasons. Religion, while not the only "very bad reason", is one that has a spectacular capacity to marshall the inate hatred of others that all humans are born with, and motivate them to utter lunacy. Food for thought.

355. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88541 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm

check this out ... pretty good. I done found myself a torrent for it!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297188/

356. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88500 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 6:09 am

Wow. Just finished watching the whole thing. I love this kind of stuff, it helps counterbalance my own acknowledged tendency to anti-americanism, the world needs to see and hear much more of this.

Here are common or garden american citizens, fighting tooth and nail for rationality, good sense and truth, with the final outcome hinging on a Bush appointed republican!!! Holy sheet!!!

The American system of government, and constitution has it flaws, but it came up trumps here. Go USA!!!

357. Mind your manners

Comment #88494 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 4:57 am

If I wanted to read unsubstantiated, despicable right-wing propaganda, I'll go to a website that caters for stupidity and lies. There's a whole collection of right-wing freak shows on the web, MuNky82 doesn't have to come here to spout his ignorant drivel.

I totally agree. We should robustly challenge all idiocy, be it AGW deniers, creationists, IDiots, anarchists, new agers, rabid free marketeers, back to nature freaks or stalinists. Everything is up for discussion and debate, and if you say stupid stuff you should expect a verbal pummeling, especially if you claim an atheism arrived at rationally.

358. Mind your manners

Comment #88483 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 2:31 am

18. Comment #88395 by arogop on November 16, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I am not a big fan a Marzism, Socialism or any of that liberal stuff.

Give me good old Capitalism with some minor checks and balances.

Marzism eh? Is that rule by Martians, or the Marzipan economy? Seriously though, you dismiss an incredibly diverse sweep of subjects rather casually here, not least the compelling reality that those societies with social security nets exhibit far less religion.

Want to kill US religion dead in a generation? Institute universal health care and properly funded free education. When people have less to fear from life, they couldn't give a rats ass about Jebus, this really isn't said often enough.

359. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88480 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 2:10 am

6. Comment #88421 by NormanDoering on November 16, 2007 at 2:35 pm
arogop wrote:

Reason enough to buy E85 fuel.


Reason enough to invest billions in creating the infrastructure needed for a wind/solar/hydrogen fuel economy.

Or shifting a fraction of the Trillion $'s plus spent annually on weapons, to fusion research. A measly 6 billion is all the most powerful countries in the world could scrape together? Yet, somehow they find a trillion each year for the military. Absurd, disgraceful and pissing me off.

Mind you a $ doesn't go as far as it used to ... good or bad news?

Awww, come on. Don't knock gospel music.

Likewise. I still love Don Francisco for some inexplicable reason ...

360. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88327 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 16, 2007 at 2:41 am

40. Comment #88306 by clearthinker on November 15, 2007 at 11:15 pm

I refer you to my post #13. Yes they have a point, but is the same point that everyone who thinks they are some kind of lone genius going against the flow, has.

Of a million people who think they have overturned some well established scientific fact or principle, how many do you imagine actually have? For the answer to that question simply have a google browse on the subjects of perpetual motion, cold fusion or the "moon landing hoax".

We diss this movie not because we are irrationally unreasonable, but because to even the modestly informed it is self evidently disingenous, long debunked, endlessly recycled drivel which is perpetuating the deception of people and retarding progress in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines as a result. It is at least as morally reprehensible as television evangelists, although I grant you, that would be hard to top.

361. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88236 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 15, 2007 at 1:45 pm

14. Comment #88233 by robert s on November 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm
"If you were really a poached egg, you wouldn't have a shell, would you?"

Exactly! It subtly underpins and supports the primary derangement. Well spotted!:-)

362. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88232 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 15, 2007 at 1:34 pm

They have a point of course, they are being ostracised, sidelined and ignored. In much the same way as the guy at the party insisting he is a poached egg, "No REALLY I am a poached egg, here ... stroke my shell!!", is likely to be avoided.

The problem, such as it is, is not with the other partygoers.

363. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88226 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 15, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Another celebrity non-entity leveraging lunacy to elbow themselves temporarily back into the limelight. Pathetic really, especially at this guys age, and sort of sad.

364. Mind your manners

Comment #88224 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 15, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Today one is 'excommunicated' from public office or debate if one does not believe in the present ideology: cultural Marxism/political correctness/multi-nationalism.

Well there are ideologies which are worse .... fascism for example, or nationalism (basically fascism lite) or racism. Though I'd dispute that Marxism is being practiced anywhere. I'd honestly be keen to know where you think Marxism as ... you know ... envisaged by Marx is being practised? Wouldn't that be something of a first? Is anywhere even socialist these days?

365. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #88223 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 15, 2007 at 12:32 pm

37. Comment #88198 by bayareadude on November 15, 2007 at 8:24 am

Hilarious!!!

Torrent is working, I'm downloading the first edpisode now. Download speed isn't great though ... c'mon you bastards, get back online!! I need my Dawkins fix tonight, especially after that blurb in Salon.

366. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88063 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 14, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I'm curious to know if people on this forum are opposed to survelliance being done on a person because they are Iraqi.

As an Irishman, I was never particularly put out in the 80's and 90's when pulled aside in British airports. The questions (and questioners) were always polite, I never felt remotely threatened and I was never seriously inconvenienced.

What I experienced then, seems a sensible precaution to take with people of middle eastern descent now. Not everyone, that would be silly, but the kind of polite spot checks I was subjected to as a mid 20's white male with an Irish accent travelling to Germany through Britian, seem perfectly reasonable to me.

367. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87976 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 14, 2007 at 12:13 am

The London bombers were Englishmen, weren't they?

No argument there, and we are likely to see more of the same. The YT below summarises my view fairly completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

368. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87966 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 13, 2007 at 10:02 pm

How I perceive it, is that thought-crime is a real offence to the fundamentalist, and is not to the gang member.

The critical point for me remains capacity, and actual results. The islamic extremists can't even achieve in Turkey what some hysterical hand wringers claim will occur in Europe. The Spanish recently tried and imprisoned the people responsible for the bombings in 2004. The rigorous application of law is, with some tweaking (along the lines of how the FBI deals with organised crime), sufficient to cope with islamic fundamentalism.

It is a threat, but nothing like an existential threat. Just a badly organised, and temporarily well funded religious mafia. Well actually, they are of course all like the mafia! But Islam is certainly worse than your run of the mill religious cult.

Nothing would do more to undermine these people than for the west to get fusion power up and running, and replace all other uses of oil with synthetics that can be produced agriculturally. The key thing is not to panic, we (mostly) didn't when we faced down communism. We can follow a similar playbook (with even less violence given the relative strengths of the parties) here.

I'm afraid that the rising so called Islamic fundamentalism is perceived as a reaction to the long-held belief that the US is an imperialist state bent on conquering the world, particularly the Islamic world.

Well, they are probably mostly right about that. The difference is the US may actually be able to do it. Not that I wouldn't prefer a US to an Islamic dictatorship. However, well ahead of both options, I'd prefer accountable global structures that ensure all of us are treated fairly and have a say in how the world is run.

Exhibit A : If participation in the election of the US president was global (i.e. not just a little under 1% of the global population), George Bush would never have been elected.

369. Onward Science Soldiers

Comment #87875 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 13, 2007 at 1:00 pm

The Bush administration has done a lot of damage to public policy and our poor "wall" is crumbling. I just have to hope the next president can fix it. January, 2009 cannot get here soon enough!

It is intolerable how the entire world is basically marking time, in limbo, looking to the day that the reeking excrement that is the Republican "president" George Walker Bush, be finally scraped from the heel of history.

With luck we may see himself and Rummy in the Hague within a decade. Now that would be worth waiting for:-)

370. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 13, 2007 at 11:18 am

I think Islamic fundamentalism in Europe is evidence of the thriving of extremism at the expense of all passive world views- not just passive religious world views.

I agree with the basic idea of being intolerant of intolerance, but "islamic extremism" in Europe is vastly overblown. Gang wars in major US cities account for exponentially more deaths annually, and per capita, than islamic extremism in Europe.

Basically, it's part of the right wing agenda to wip up hysteria on the subject. Take care that you aren't being an unwitting sock puppet for people you probably have the good sense to despise.

371. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87769 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 13, 2007 at 4:20 am

505. Comment #87700 by krisking on November 12, 2007 at 10:33 pm


Thank you for this. It all seems very convincing. Plenty of people brought up in Christian homes and Christian churches have struggled with these verses, and continue to do so.

And what is the standard response to that struggle? More faith, believe harder, pray for illumination. Do you see how the perfectly sensible skeptical instincts of humans, your skeptical instincts, are subverted and undermined by faith?

All the major religions do the same thing. Jesus/Allah/Krishna not working for you? You're to blame. It's an ingenous scam, but I get the distinct impression you are almost prising yourself free of it's grip. Keep thinking, questioning and probing.

I found the following book very helpful to make the final break.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/homer1a.htm#TOC

All the best:-)

372. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87342 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 11, 2007 at 11:35 pm

What is more, Christians in the UK (those who take it seriously) are appalled at what purports to be Christianity in the US and the (as it seems to us) hard-line right wing, unbending, unforgiving reactionary, dogmatic, ideas and views that are preached.

As for many televangelists in the US, they are seen no better than highly organised money-grabbing conmen.

You summed it up pretty well, and it's a graphic illustration of why it's nonsense. Without the constant threat of death, or relentless butteressing from family and friends, the specific religious impulse simply withers on the vine.

Massive chunks of the new testament are dedicated to explaining how to ensure the above process does not happen and how to effectivley brainwash and absorb new converts.

Yet if you look at this religious wasteland and consider that your little group has plumbed the depths of the Bible and truly understood it, you are clearly a lunatic. How likely is it that you, or some group of people you hang out with, have grasped some earth shattering truth closed to the rest of us?

This is the core of all sects, the root of all religions and it is always, and without exception complete nonsense. Do yourself a favour and let it go, sounds like you are more than half way there already. For that I salute you.

373. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87151 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 11, 2007 at 10:54 am

So, we live and we die.

I'm afraid so. Simply because you dislike something, doesn't mean it's false. It merely means you have an emotional problem with that particular fact.

You're not the first, and you won't be the last. Still though, there is something to contemplate that is worse than death. The uniquely religious concept of eternal damnation. This is a wrinkle that really makes my blood boil.

The religious mind has taken something natural, but very sad and made it terrifying. Death would not hold the fear it does, if it were not for millenia of religious indoctrination insisting that death is not mere non-existence, but eternal torment. What monstrous cruel arrogance.

374. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87118 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 11, 2007 at 8:36 am

437. Comment #87108 by krisking on November 11, 2007 at 8:13 am
I suspect that most european societies live practically atheistic lives.

Yet they have stable just societies, topping everything from education to international donations.

Right and wrong does have an absolute standard, but it isn't divine instruction. It's a collection of biological modules that can be loosely rendered as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Altruism has utility hence it survives.

The bible and the koran are arguably worse than useless, full of pointless, vague and frequently objectionable injuctions. Best to start again from scratch and realise that right and wrong are in constant flux, and barring some core basics we need to take each case in context.

375. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87005 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 11, 2007 at 1:09 am

But, you have also got to acknowledge the slave owners in the antebellum south who used the Bible to show that blacks were inferior and that slavery was their natural position in life (see "Noah's Curse : The Biblical Justification of American Slavery" by Stephen Haynes for more details.)

This position was held as recently as the mid 1990's by South African christians to endorse apartheid. So forgive us for taking the whole "Christians stopped Slavery" with a great big handful of salt.

376. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87004 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 11, 2007 at 1:02 am

Why is the Bible and the morality it proposes more correct than these?

One can go back even further to the Sumerians and the Egyptians. There is clear evidence that entire chunks of the Bible were lifted wholesale from the writings of these ancient civilisations.

The adage "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you". Was formulated in a range of different civilisations well prior to Jesus, and entirely independently of the Bible.

The Chinese particularly, managed to stabilise and feed the myriad citizens of the worlds largest unified state for millenia. The works of Chinese philosophers had a lot to do with that.

377. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86890 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

23. Comment #86465 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 10:34 am


Not that I want to interfere in US politics, but it might be worth researching his recent statement about cancer treatment comparing the USA and the UK. He seems to have an interesting relationship with the truth.

On the contrary, I take every possible opportunity I can to "interfere". The american president is the most powerful politician in the world, yet 6.3 billion of us have absolutely no say whatever in who gets into that position.

At the very least, we should be doing everything in our power to highlight the outrages of the republican party to americans. I'll heave a sigh of relief (as both an atheist and a humanitarian) on the day the republican party is taken out back, shot by the electorate, and pronounced politically deceased.

378. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86887 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 10, 2007 at 11:19 am

"The only solution is rain, and the only place we get that is from a higher power," Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley said on Wednesday.

Man, that these people can keep a straight face. Besides, what about cloud seeding? Or building aqueducts? Wasn't someone doing that like 2500 years ago?

These people really need to get into the iron age.

379. The Cancer From Within

Comment #86855 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 10, 2007 at 10:24 am

Good to see this being commented on.

While people are obsessing about Iranians trying to get nuclear weapons (a claim they consistently deny), here we have the worlds largest nuclear arsenal gradually being infiltrated by people at least as irrational.

I wish this blighted presidency was over. I'd rest a little bit easier knowing Bush was no longer asleep at the wheel. Just asleep.

380. AAI 07

Comment #85218 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 5, 2007 at 10:02 am

677. Comment #84961 by bayareadude on November 4, 2007 at 10:55 am
Can we just stop responding to Scooternyc's posts from here on?

If we pretend he's not here, maybe it'll be true some day and he won't be.

Even bad opinions are rarely entirely without merit. For example scooter thinks people should be made to fend for themselves, and who would want to argue with that? People bloody well should fend for themselves.

This is the good sensible core of a terrible argument. The idea that anyone, least of all children should die for lack of food, accomodation or medical attention in rich countries that could provide all of these basics to everyone is the bad part.

If we ignore or (suppress) it all, we miss the good stuff too, which may give us pause for thought. Freedom of speech should be a bedrock, especially here. All voices should be heard and assessed.

381. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #84766 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm

You just can't get away with trying to claim that science works as badly as religion. The 'you are just as bad as us' approach of theists is a sham.

Still progress though:-) Used to be they could burn us at the stake, now all they can do is grind their teeth in impotent rage and claim "science is just as bad as religion".

It's obvious nonsense which Steve has dismissed with the brevity it deserves:-)

I'd like to see religion make a prediction as accurate as Newtons theory of gravity, Einsteins general relativity or Feinmanns quantum physics. Then you might actually be on to something.

Gotta love the progress:-)

382. AAI 07

Comment #84702 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 8:56 am

647. Comment #84701 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 8:47 am
avatarphil rimmer, is this the sort of person you would like to meet?

http://www.indianpad.com/story/109086

WOW! Respect.

383. AAI 07

Comment #84688 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 7:38 am

Scooter, I'm very sorry to hear that. My best wishes are with you during this very sad time.

384. AAI 07

Comment #84671 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 7:05 am

This would be very simple to do: publically funded elections (small taxpayer cost, HUGE gain in democracry), and lobbyists have to get in line to see their local member, just like any other action group or environmental organisation.

Sweden has that covered already, but it would be a great idea for the US. This is clear cut example of a dangerous cycle of expanding dependency between politicians, and very rich individuals and corporations. For a healthy democracy that link should ideally be severed.

385. AAI 07

Comment #84667 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 6:58 am

626. Comment #84664 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 6:49 am
Direct voter influence of taxation levels and governmental spending would be catastrophic. Carefully considered governmental budgets, balanced against a myriad different requirements would be trashed on a regular basis. The public can be fickle and can also be easily, if briefly, manipulated by non-democratic forces and random events.

Good points, my enthusiasim is temporarily curbed. Perhaps then initially as a recommendation, with league tables showing how closely government spending mirrors tax payer wishes?

People could still express a preference, and later judge if a given administration had either done as they asked, or had compelling reasons for not doing so.

386. AAI 07

Comment #84663 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 6:42 am

Can you see it happening? :)

Maybe one day in the distant future, when the zeitgeist has moved on, and they look back on our times in the same way that we look back on the past. After all, it was only 100 years ago that most European countries had powerful monarchies.

I can indeed. One of the most common complaints about representative government, is that it isn't "close enough to the people". This complaint is becoming more strident as regional bodies begin to elbow out local ones, think EU versus national parliaments, or federal versus state in the US. If we could get a virtous circle running, with the various legislative bodies competing with each other to involve the citizenry .... ah happy days:-)

387. AAI 07

Comment #84653 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 6:08 am

615. Comment #84649 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 5:58 am
choosing how you want your taxes to be spent via check boxes on income tax returns

An interesting idea, but I have my doubts. Most democracies are representative, not direct. Goverments often have to take harsh decisions based on expert assessment, not on the direct wishes of the population. This check-box idea is a form of referendum, and usually when these are held there are major debates and campaigns.

I have to say I love the idea, at least for a proportion of tax. People elect representative with an idea of how they will spend their taxes, this allows them to give a much more focused and regular set of directives.

Military budgets might be completely hollowed out, while the issues that people genuinely care about, like education would be generously funded.

Love it!!

388. AAI 07

Comment #84633 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 1:32 am

Here is my frank and forthright philosophy on this issue. The market economy is proven as an efficient organiser and focuser of resources, and I would say in almost the majority of cases. There are situations, where the government while not directly providing the service, should be the primary customer, acting as a powerful intermidiary for the citizens collectivley, bargaining on their behalf. I still consider this clear market economy, think getting together with your neighbours to buy one snow plough (from hundreds of potential options) for your street. Same thing, just bigger.

However, unfettered capitalism, is anarchy and we don't want that. So we negotiate rules with each other, an agreed framework within which the wildfire of capitalism can run it's course, without consuming the whole body. This is the legislation passed by the relevant organs of the state.

Thus all economies today are to varying degrees mixed economies, which seem to work most effectivley where the majority of citizens are at least within sight (from above or below) of the middle class. Think America in the 50's and 60's.

To achieve that, you need a baseline set of rights that every childs gets, wether their parents are workaholic, lazy or unlucky.

The baseline is formed by :
Education, at least to secondary level.
Nutrition, ideally through 2 school meals.
Health Care, completely free including dental care until the age of 18.
Compulsory unemployment insurance, as a proportion of income. Like cars have compulsory 3rd party insurance.

Education is directly correlated with child bearing. The more educated women are the less children they have, possibly an argument for educating women to 3rd level for free:-) The education undercuts the "breeding like rabbits" meme fairly convincingly.

These services should be provided through tender by the private sector, not managed end to end by the Government.

At times the US has come close to providing this, but they have certainly gone backwards in the last few decades. The nordic countries seem to have developed the most productive interlocking partnership between the government and private industry, but taxes are very high and this is a challenge to employment.

Bascially a constant balance needs to be struck, informed by the idea, that people should not be left to die because of the bad choices made by others. If the kid wants an Xbox, or a gaggle of expensive hookers for his (or her) 16th birthday, well fair enough, that the indulgent parent can pay for themselves:-)

Finally, it is tragically ironic to watch atheists argue for policies that are literally herding people into the churches. Turkeys forcefully insisting on Christmas.

It simply cannot be iterated enough, societies that provide a modest social welfare net, undercut religion, by draining the swamp of misery, poverty and desperation, in which religious blood suckers breed, functioning as an "insurer of last resort". It is quite "head on desk slamming" frustrating.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/10511?page=1

389. AAI 07

Comment #84629 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 1:02 am

610. Comment #84628 by epeeist on November 3, 2007 at 12:49 am

Below is the end game, when every man stands alone, fully armed, an independent nation state ... of one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7074973.stm

390. AAI 07

Comment #84545 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 10:59 am

Marx was after a demographic group - the weak, gullible, oppressed, and easy to control. The same group religions were using.

Marx was primarily a philosopher not a politician, and largely unknown in his lifetime. As thirdchimpanzee has pointed out, you appear to be conflating the leaders of the Russian revolution, who very clearly target the groups you mention; with Marx.

391. AAI 07

Comment #84526 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 9:13 am

as you know Brian, i am not arguing for the absolute forms of social policy from either side of this debate, but rather take the best from both, course not much fun in debating that.

Hey, it's good to talk:-)

Enjoy your weekend:-)

392. AAI 07

Comment #84521 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 8:52 am

actually this has been a trend amongst the wealthy for some time now, a friend of mine will not pass along his successful business to his children for this very reason, he loves his daughters deeply, supports them and doesn't want to rob them of a fulfilling life by providing an easy path and an easy way out. he often mentions how many spoiled children end up dead too early.

There is something to that alright. Still though, I bet he ensured they had an excellent education, good nutrition and wall to wall health care. If every child in the US had that, well, it'd be Sweden with guns:-)

393. AAI 07

Comment #84517 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 8:27 am

A bit off topic but loan sharking is a crime even though the victim signs onto the contract voluntarily.

As is sex with an underage minor, a definition that varies wildly in time and space. Human law is not immutable scripture, it's a hodge podge of made up stuff that loosely tracks with our moral intuitions. In fact as some wise chap once said, Law and Justice are only very distantly related, and in some countries they aren't even on speaking terms. SA during apartheid for example, or Burma today.

The point of the inheritance comment (if I may) was I suspect merely to point out an inconsistency in the responsibility and accountability mantra. How is the principle realised for those children simply delivered a fortune through inheritance? Isn't this a shocking insult, a cynical gesture of doubt in their ability to realise themselves? An undermining of who they are and what they might achieve if only given the opportunity to grow up dirt poor, and work 3 jobs through college?

Why should the well-off be deprived of the enriching and bracing character building experience of abject poverty? Merely because of the lottery of birth? It hardly seems fair.

Like that.

394. AAI 07

Comment #84493 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 7:05 am

Your attitudes are one of the most significant obstacles to advancing atheism in the US - as Matthew Chapman observed in his presentation.

I absolutely and totally agree. Getting the US to adopt some developed world social policies should be top of the atheist agenda. It is the cornerstone which when removed, will bring the whole edifice tumbling down. I think! Don't want to be too dogmatic:-)

A more humane social policy, universal health care and a massive investment in public education could cripple US religion in a generation. It's done it everywhere else it's been tried.

395. AAI 07

Comment #84489 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 6:55 am

brian - here's the manipulation in the statement:

"Couldn't we work to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility without killing people?"

Who's killing anyone? Because a person doesn't take reponsibility to be self-reliant some people automatically think we're the ones killing them. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Actually I carefully avoided the more loaded and personal word "murder" for exactly the reason you outline. No one is murdering these people, the economic system however is contributing to their death. That they are dying of readily preventable causes (malnutrition for example), is uncontroversial I think? Let us ignore the parents for the moment, and stick with the children. They are not responsible for the actions of their parents, and yet it seems you are willing to champion a system that will contribute to them suffering some fairly severe consequences up to, and including death. For choices, actions and circumstances they had no hand in making. Certainly you are not directly or personally responsible for their deaths, just as you would not be responsible for the death of a child drowning in front of you in 3 feet of water. After all, you didn't murder the child, you just failed to intervene to save it.

The question is what kind of society do we want to negotiate with each other? One which places the principle of personal responsibility above all else, resulting in the predictable and easily preventable deaths of fellow human beings, or one that for a modest investment of resources prevents those deaths? Incidentally paying for itself in preventive health care, reskilling and vastly reduced crime.

On the one hand we have a laudable principle which you (and I for that matter) are a firm believer in, and on the other we have empirical outcomes in current and quite successful mixed market economies, where most of the citizenry manage to live up to those principles anyway.

As a rational and fully human atheist, this a no contest choice for me.

396. AAI 07

Comment #84458 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 4:41 am

As for the rest of that Marxist crap:
The utopia was tried and it failed badly. You can still make a trip to North Korea and some other countries to see how it worked out. Simply put, it cannot work because it's anti-evolution and anti-human nature, which wants to compete and wants to be rewarded accordingly, just like any other animal. /waiting for this argument to be interpreted as support of social Darwinism and such

Does it even require interpretation:-) If this is your canon, then you need to recognise the benefit of reciprocal altruism as critical to our evolution. Basically nature has already beaten us to the punch as regards welfare systems, the moment we began to group together that die was cast.

Well I must also work now, lest I discover up close and personal just how unpleasent the Swedish welfare system can be. I'd like to keep it theoretical. It's been fun:-)

397. AAI 07

Comment #84455 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 4:31 am

I've not visited an allopathic doctor in over 15 years. I'm rarely sick and when I am I take care of myself. I've saved my resources to take off work if my job doesn't offer sick days as part of the job package I've negotiated. I exercise. I eat well. All CHOICES I've made over the years.

This is all wonderful, and I agree with you completely. Nonetheless stuff as we've agreed does happen. Some people are better prepared than others for a range of reasons, some good, some bad.

The bottom line is should they die for those reasons?

To reiterate. Some of the most advanced societies in the world provide health care, education to 3rd level, and adequate housing and food for those unable and even unwilling to work. They are not overrun. On the contrary they are progressive and constantly improving with outcomes better than US outcomes, often for less costs. Population growth, crime and prison populations are all lower. Not to mention religiosity. This is all well documented.

Other than (possibly) eroding overall levels of responsibility/accountability, terms that really require very close contextual definition in any case, how is this worse than a system where we both agree some children, and probably adults, would starve to death (like in Ethiopa or Somalia), as well as die of exposure, easily treatable diseases and minor injuries?

Couldn't we work to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility without killing people? Can't the US have it's cake, eat it and undercut religion at the same time? Other countries seem to manage it without society becoming a den of scroungers and welfare wallies, why not the US?

398. AAI 07

Comment #84447 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 4:04 am

At this time EVERYONE can purchase one form of insurance or another. It would be worthwhile to allow insurance companies more freedom of competition by allowing them to sell to other states rather than just their own. The greater the competition, the greater the savings.


Everyone who can afford it. Most European countries streamline and minimise administrative costs by having a central system (possibly managed by private companies who compete for the right to provide the service).

The state basically negotiates, from a position of immense strength, with private industry on behalf of the citizens. This maximises bargaining power, and keeps costs low. That the US government does not do this, is touted as one of the primary reasons that health care costs in the US are so high for such poor outcomes.

399. AAI 07

Comment #84438 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 3:44 am

Certainly discussion surrounding how to resolve these issues is worthwhile. Yet if each one is predicated on the idea of a person's self-responsibility, do each of the issues not lead to the same conclusion?

No. I don't think so. Stuff happens. When you provide for that, some people take advantage. It's a bit analagous to the adage "To protect the innocent, sometimes the guilty have to go free". No system will be absolutely fool proof, the question is do you want to punish those with real problems who need assistance, to prevent spongers from taking advantage?

As long as you can keep the spongers to minimum, and you recoup your investment on prevention savings, I say fine. Lets do it.

400. AAI 07

Comment #84437 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 3:39 am

Are you a person of accountability who would take responsibility for your actions and choices, or not?

Truly you see how EVERYTHING stems from this simple question of self, self-reliance, self-evaluation, self-respect.

I do, it's just not that simple. Stuff happens, one cannot prepare for every eventuality. When bad stuff happens, social services can keep one on track. Sweden has unemployment a few percentage points higher than the US, clearly indicating that providing the network causes some friction in the economy.

However the trade off in higher life expectancy, lower health costs and orders of magnitude lower prison populations is a compelling case. I think. One incredible statistic I came across is how Swedish spending per capita in education is the same as what the US spends in prisons. What a redirection that is!!

Providing a general social welfare system, which people contribute to when they are working insults no one. If properly managed spongers can be identified and targetted. We have living examples of these systems in action, why not try it in the US?