FDR's four freedoms...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

Does this sound a bit like doublespeak to you? By putting "from" in after freedom, he completely takes away the actual meaning of freedom. It actually turns the meaning of the word around, and it becomes sort of an anti-freedom. Like, for instance, if I put in "freedom from speech", would that be a freedom?

People do this kind of shit A LOT today, especially people like Brent and the leftists. They talk all about freedom and liberty and don't have a clue as to what the concept means.

[Beefy]

Orwell's concepts put forth in 1984 with regard to language were lightyears ahead of his time.

[OrnotBitwise]

The common, colloquial definition of freedom is largely defined in terms of "freedoms from." One of the biggest problems with libertarianism is the adamant refusal to acknowlege the importance of such.

Society itself is founded on the need for freedom from fear and uncertainty. Security, we call it today, and stability.

Without freedom from fear and want for the majority, all of the other freedoms are moot. You can't successfully preach tolerence and the rule of law to starving people.

[maineman]

religion and speech are good things that we should be free to use and practice.... fear and want are bad things that we should be free FROM experiencing. I see a tempest in a teapot here.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And by changing TO to FROM you completely change the meaning. It's like having a completely different word there.

[AnyOldIron]

And by changing TO to FROM you completely change the meaning. It's like having a completely different word there.

Not really.

If someone is 'freed from slavery' or 'freed from a trap', that doesn't negate the concept of freedom.

You can be free to, and free from. The 'dom' prefix merely means 'the state of'.

[AnyOldIron]

I see a tempest in a teapot here.

In this case maybe, but kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....

[OrnotBitwise]

I see a tempest in a teapot here.

In this case maybe, but kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words.... Agreed. This is actually a topic of more potential substance than any other we've hashed over recently. This is, perhaps, where we can get into the real differences between what "liberals" and "conservatives" believe.

[Damocles]

I have no wish to have freedom "from" fear. It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.

[OrnotBitwise]

I have no wish to have freedom "from" fear. It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.
Oh yes you do. You just don't phrase it that way.

You do want the rule of law: that's clear from your posting history. And that, Damo, is what "freedom from fear" really means. It means the assurance -- not certainty, but confidence -- that society can protect your interests and rights from those who would violate them.

[Damocles]

Oh yes you do. You just don't phrase it that way.

You do want the rule of law: that's clear from your posting history. And that, Damo, is what "freedom from fear" really means. It means the assurance -- not certainty, but confidence -- that society can protect your interests and rights from those who would violate them.
No, Freedom "from" fear "frees" us from being afraid of being attacked by say, "terrorists"...

This type of rhetoric takes freedom away. I do not with to be free of fear.

[Prakosh]

No, Freedom "from" fear "frees" us from being afraid of being attacked by say, "terrorists"...

This type of rhetoric takes freedom away. I do not with to be free of fear.

Rhetoric is nothing but a tool. It does not take freedom away. In fact, it is incapable of acting in and of itself. It might be more appropriate to say that this kind of rhetoric is used by those who you feel would take our freedoms away. But that claim in and of itself does not in fact make it clear that what you claim is happening. I would offer that most people do wish to be free "from" fear and that is the reason that the rhetoric works so well. In fact, what you are really arguing about and are trying to get to is the place where you take up the discussion about how much fear you wish to be free from and what government's role is in keeping you free from that fear. I would simply ask you if you have insurance and how much and for what??? Most people believe that they have less to fear if they have insurance, therefore unless you have another reason for having insurance such as a state law that requires it, your purchase of insurance indicates a desire to be free from fear.

The advertising industry in America generally believed to have been fathered by Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays is based on the near universal desire to be free from fear.

[Damocles]

Rhetoric is nothing but a tool. It does not take freedom away. In fact, it is incapable of acting in and of itself. It might be more appropriate to say that this kind of rhetoric is used by those who you feel would take our freedoms away. But that claim in and of itself does not in fact make it clear that what you claim is happening. I would offer that most people do wish to be free "from" fear and that is the reason that the rhetoric works so well. In fact, what you are really arguing about and are trying to get to is the place where you take up the discussion about how much fear you wish to be free from and what government's role is in keeping you free from that fear. I would simply ask you if you have insurance and how much and for what??? Most people believe that they have less to fear if they have insurance, therefore unless you have another reason for having insurance such as a state law that requires it, your purchase of insurance indicates a desire to be free from fear.

The advertising industry in America generally believed to have been fathered by Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays is based on the near universal desire to be free from fear.
Rhetoric is the first step.

Look.... How many times do I hear that Bush is taking our Freedoms.... I agree. And he does it through this type of manipulation.

He calls on security to get you to give up your freedom, many go right ahead and do it.

I would prefer to face some danger and keep my freedom than to be "free from fear"...

[OrnotBitwise]

No, Freedom "from" fear "frees" us from being afraid of being attacked by say, "terrorists"...

This type of rhetoric takes freedom away. I do not with to be free of fear.
That is only one way in which the phrase can be used. Yes, that sort of rhetoric is reprehensible. Will you stop using any phrase misused in political rhetoric? Your ability to express yourself will suffer greatly in very short order.

Freedom from fear meant, when FDR used it, freedom to feel secure in your own home and in your rights. That meaning is as valid as it ever was. In fact, it is the most fundamental of all freedoms.

[AnyOldIron]

Agreed. This is actually a topic of more potential substance than any other we've hashed over recently. This is, perhaps, where we can get into the real differences between what "liberals" and "conservatives" believe.

Ornot, check out the 'property rights are not natural freedom' thread... you might like that.....

[AnyOldIron]

It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.

What are 'actual' freedoms and how do they differ from 'false' freedoms?

Who adjudicates which are which?

[OrnotBitwise]

Agreed. This is actually a topic of more potential substance than any other we've hashed over recently. This is, perhaps, where we can get into the real differences between what "liberals" and "conservatives" believe.

Ornot, check out the 'property rights are not natural freedom' thread... you might like that.....
LOL! I've been avoiding it, not wanting to get sucked in. Time is at a premium for me and will be through November, likely. What, you want me to forego my quips and bomb mots for the sake of one lengthy, well thought out post?

:shock:

[Damocles]

That is only one way in which the phrase can be used. Yes, that sort of rhetoric is reprehensible. Will you stop using any phrase misused in political rhetoric? Your ability to express yourself will suffer greatly in very short order.

Freedom from fear meant, when FDR used it, freedom to feel secure in your own home and in your rights. That meaning is as valid as it ever was. In fact, it is the most fundamental of all freedoms.
So, the big government is going to keep me safe in my home? It is the same. I prefer to be less secure and more free.

[Damocles]

It is just such rhetoric that gets our actual freedoms curtailed. By promoting "fear" of something they can change law to protect people while curtailing other freedoms.

What are 'actual' freedoms and how do they differ from 'false' freedoms?

Who adjudicates which are which?
Each adjudicates according to logic and knowledge. If the government is going to save you from something that you can save yourself from they are overstepping and actually removing freedom. It isn't rocket science.

[OrnotBitwise]

Each adjudicates according to logic and knowledge. If the government is going to save you from something that you can save yourself from they are overstepping and actually removing freedom. It isn't rocket science.
Who is this "you" you're speaking of, that can save [your]self from some hypothetical something? If the govenrment steps in to save other people from something that I might save myself from, that is not necessarily overstepping anything. The government might be curtailing my freedom, yet increasing the freedom of most people. I accept this as a reasonable principle. In fact, I accept the principle as axiomatic.

Being a member of the "elite" is not a sin, so long as one doesn't demand that everyone else be held to the same standard. I am not, after all, a common man. The reasons why and particulars wherefor are immaterial at this juncture.

It is less burdensome on me to sacrifice some small portions of my liberty for the greater good than it would be for the proverbial least common denominator of citizens to live up to what i am capable of. Or you, Damocles. Or Prakosh -- who I know undestands this principle, probably better than I. Or most anyone else among the regulars here, almost all of whom are college educated and privileged.

Just as the Flat Tax is inherently regressive, a flat standard of competence and "self-reliance" (sic) is inherently elitist and unfair. People differ from one another in their abilities, preferences and weaknesses. This simple fact is the single most fundamental observation one can make about human society and political necessity.

Sociey should burden the exceptional more than it does the ordinary. The exceptional can afford it, to put it in market terms, and they -- we, quite honestly -- are likely to achieve despite the added impediment. The inverse does not hold. QED.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....

LMAO. Yes, Waterhead is being an enlightened pinhead to challenge commonly accepted meanings behind words.

I agree with the first two "freedoms" and disagree with the second two. The structure of "from" in the prose, doesn't matter. When you are free from something, it is still freedom. Freedom from fear, is the freedom to be fearless. Freedom from want, is socialist utopia. Want and fear are great motivators in a capitalist society, and to free ourselves from them, would be a detriment to those principles.

[Timshel]

I don't have a problem with the from, it is what he wants you to be free from that's the problem. Freedom from the initiation of force is a good thing. But FDR's "freedom froms" require positive rights and an obligation on someone else to provide. Freedom from or freedom of/to does not matter but freedom should not equal obligation. That's the newspeak part of it.

[Timshel]

kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....

LMAO. Yes, Waterhead is being an enlightened pinhead to challenge commonly accepted meanings behind words.

I agree with the first two "freedoms" and disagree with the second two. The structure of "from" in the prose, doesn't matter. When you are free from something, it is still freedom. Freedom from fear, is the freedom to be fearless. Freedom from want, is socialist utopia. Want and fear are great motivators in a capitalist society, and to free ourselves from them, would be a detriment to those principles.


You almost said something smart there until you totally fd it up with the last sentence.

[Damocles]

Who is this "you" you're speaking of, that can save [your]self from some hypothetical something? If the govenrment steps in to save other people from something that I might save myself from, that is not necessarily overstepping anything. The government might be curtailing my freedom, yet increasing the freedom of most people. I accept this as a reasonable principle. In fact, I accept the principle as axiomatic.

Being a member of the "elite" is not a sin, so long as one doesn't demand that everyone else be held to the same standard. I am not, after all, a common man. The reasons why and particulars wherefor are immaterial at this juncture.

It is less burdensome on me to sacrifice some small portions of my liberty for the greater good than it would be for the proverbial least common denominator of citizens to live up to what i am capable of. Or you, Damocles. Or Prakosh -- who I know undestands this principle, probably better than I. Or most anyone else among the regulars here, almost all of whom are college educated and privileged.

Just as the Flat Tax is inherently regressive, a flat standard of competence and "self-reliance" (sic) is inherently elitist and unfair. People differ from one another in their abilities, preferences and weaknesses. This simple fact is the single most fundamental observation one can make about human society and political necessity.

Sociey should burden the exceptional more than it does the ordinary. The exceptional can afford it, to put it in market terms, and they -- we, quite honestly -- are likely to achieve despite the added impediment. The inverse does not hold. QED.
It is everybody. Much like a royal "We".

"you" in that instance involves any person reading the post.

[Damocles]

Running a society based on the lowest common denominator fundamentally takes freedoms from the larger portion of society. I do not believe that it should be the government's portion to fix every society problem, and in fact I believe that more often than not you give away fundamental freedoms for very little benefit. Cost benefit analysis is important even in such circumstances. Much as the "if it only can save one life" stricture is simply abomniable, it too can sound reasonable but wind up abominable when working through government to "save" another.

[AnyOldIron]

Freedom from want, is socialist utopia. Want and fear are great motivators in a capitalist society, and to free ourselves from them, would be a detriment to those principles.

Fear and Want are the prime motivations in your ideology?

How depressing....

[AnyOldIron]

Don't forget greed, that is a prime motivator in capitalism too.

I can understand non-religious capitalists such as Grind subscribing to this ideology, but how does an ideology based on fear, want and greed sit with you Christian ideology Dixie?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't say want and fear were prime motivators. They are, indeed, motivating factors in capitalism. When there is no more want, capitalism doesn't exist, there is no purpose for it. Fear often creates want, or need, and is often the catalyst behind capitalism.

It's certainly an ambitious socialist goal, to stamp out fear and want, but it does nothing to promote capitalism, which is ultimately, freedom itself.

[AnyOldIron]

It's certainly an ambitious socialist goal, to stamp out fear and want, but it does nothing to promote capitalism, which is ultimately, freedom itself.

How do you make the case that capitalism is 'freedom itself'?

As Bertrand Russell said... “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

Also, how does an ideology that uses motivations such as fear, want and greed sit with your belief in the teachings of Jesus, which appear to be mutually exclusive?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's certainly an ambitious socialist goal, to stamp out fear and want, but it does nothing to promote capitalism, which is ultimately, freedom itself.

How do you make the case that capitalism is 'freedom itself'?

As Bertrand Russell said... “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

Also, how does an ideology that uses motivations such as fear, want and greed sit with your belief in the teachings of Jesus, which appear to be mutually exclusive?


Because capitalism allows individuals the mechanism to free themselves from the shackles of limitation and restraint. How "free" is a man who has no control over his own destiny? In a capitalist society, there is no limit to success, that is determined by the market.

You keep mentioning "greed" and it's important to note, while 'greed' might be a motivating factor in capitalism, it is not fundamental to capitalism, and greed alone, can't result in successful capitalism. So, to try and construct a straw man that says "Greed=Capitalism" is inherently false.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Also, how does an ideology that uses motivations such as fear, want and greed sit with your belief in the teachings of Jesus, which appear to be mutually exclusive?

Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. Faith and Capitalism are two completely different things, therefore, they can sit together just fine.

[AnyOldIron]

Because capitalism allows individuals the mechanism to free themselves from the shackles of limitation and restraint. How "free" is a man who has no control over his own destiny? In a capitalist society, there is no limit to success, that is determined by the market.


Yes, as Russell said....

"The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate"

How does that equate for freedom for those except the fortunate?

Those with ownership of the modes of production might have control over their 'destiny' but those below certainly don't.

You keep mentioning "greed" and it's important to note, while 'greed' might be a motivating factor in capitalism, it is not fundamental to capitalism, and greed alone, can't result in successful capitalism. So, to try and construct a straw man that says "Greed=Capitalism" is inherently false.

The pursuit of wealth is vital to capitalism, the desire for more than you can possibly need is vital to capitalism, thus greed is vital to capitalism.

[AnyOldIron]

Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. Faith and Capitalism are two completely different things, therefore, they can sit together just fine.

So Jesus would approve of the use of fear, want and greed?

'Render unto Caesar' doesn't account for his position on these...

Best not forget that 'it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of heaven...'

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So Jesus would approve of the use of fear, want and greed?

Jesus' message had nothing to do with his approval, it was his love.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Those with ownership of the modes of production might have control over their 'destiny' but those below certainly don't.

Which is the inherent flaw of socialism, and why it always fails. In a capitalist society, everyone has the opportunity for success, and everyone controls their own destiny.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And... OH BY THE WAY...

It's rather foolish for an Atheist to be trying to make a religious point to a Christian, about the teachings of Jesus Christ. You should stick to things you know more about, rather than making a fool of yourself, misquoting and misinterpreting The Bible.

[AnyOldIron]

Which is the inherent flaw of socialism, and why it always fails. In a capitalist society, everyone has the opportunity for success, and everyone controls their own destiny.

Everyone controls their destiny and has opportunity for success if they have ownership of modes of production. If they don't they have no or little control over their destiny.

To describe the use of markets as people controlling their own destiny is also a fallacy. The variables that effect any interaction on the market demonstrate that any individual has little or no control over destiny.

Another variable that contributes to destiny and has opportunity for success is the lottery of birth, where those fortunate enough to be born into production ownership has more opportunities than others.

In truth, only Democratic Socialism gives all the opportunity to reach their potential, by affording all the opportunity to access education and healthcare.

Socialism doesn't affect the markets in all except the essential services that the markets have proven themselves fallible, so opportunity to financial success still occurs, the difference being that all have a chance to attain it if they wish.

[AnyOldIron]

It's rather foolish for an Atheist to be trying to make a religious point to a Christian, about the teachings of Jesus Christ. You should stick to things you know more about, rather than making a fool of yourself, misquoting and misinterpreting The Bible.

On the contrary, I was trying to understand the paradox between your belief in the teachings of Jesus and your belief in capitalism.

And trust me, I have not always been an atheist, and know the Christian religion very well.

You have used a poor method of defence, Dixie, throwing up chaff like this...

Answer the point, vis a vis the rich man and the camel......

[AnyOldIron]

Jesus' message had nothing to do with his approval, it was his love.

This is a statement that makes little sense, the usual religious obscurum per obscurius argument...

You have to gain Jesus' love, how do you do that by adhering to characteristics he spoke against?

[uscitizen]

The pursuit of wealth is vital to capitalism, the desire for more than you can possibly need is vital to capitalism, thus greed is vital to capitalism.

Amen.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You have to gain Jesus' love, how do you do that by adhering to characteristics he spoke against?

This is false, you do not have to gain Jesus' love. As I said, you would do well to avoid topics you don't understand. You completely miss the point on the 'eye of the needle' scripture, just as Jesus was saying wealth doesn't get you into heaven, he is also saying, wealth doesn't keep you from heaven, it has nothing to do with status, and everything to do with acceptance.

You want to manipulate scriptures to promote a socialist political agenda, and that is all fine and well, but Jesus did not intend his word to be used as a promotion for a political ideology. This does work both ways, and I am consistent with this, but I also demand consistency from others. If you are not willing to stand for religious principles in all areas of our governing, you shouldn't exploit specific areas which bolster your views, and ignore the others. This is the very complaint you have of the religious right, is it not?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The pursuit of wealth is vital to capitalism, the desire for more than you can possibly need is vital to capitalism, thus greed is vital to capitalism.

Hold on a sec... you made a big huge leap, from pursuit of wealth to desire for more than you can possibly need. Capitalism is the enactment of free enterprise to supply the demands of the market. While opportunity is key in the success of capitalism, it has very little to do with greed. Generally speaking, greed can be an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, and capitalism can certainly spawn greed, but greed is not necessary for capitalism to work, that is determined by supply and demand, and a free market.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Everyone controls their destiny and has opportunity for success if they have ownership of modes of production. If they don't they have no or little control over their destiny.

No, this is true in a Socialist or Communist society, not a Capitalist one. In a free enterprise, free market, capitalist system, everyone is in control of their destiny. There are countless cases of people with absolutely nothing, no means of production of anything, no ownership of anything, yet they managed to utilize the capitalist free enterprise system, to gain enormous wealth and prosperity. To deny that this is possible, is ignorant of reality.

Now, you can certainly make the argument that it doesn't happen enough, and that more people should be able to utilize the free market and capitalist system to gain wealth, but that would be an argument for more promotion of Capitalism, not less.

[AnyOldIron]

This is false, you do not have to gain Jesus' love. As I said, you would do well to avoid topics you don't understand. You completely miss the point on the 'eye of the needle' scripture, just as Jesus was saying wealth doesn't get you into heaven, he is also saying, wealth doesn't keep you from heaven, it has nothing to do with status, and everything to do with acceptance.

Read what it says.....

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

It is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, do you agree?

Thus it is even harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

No amount of spinning can make this mean anything other than 'it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'

This isn't ambiguous in the slightest. Not in the slightest.

Nothing in it's context can be deemed to state 'wealth doesn't matter for entry into heaven', it is unequivacal. If you are rich, then you have less chance of getting into heaven than a camel climbing through a needle's eye. You are putting a spin on this so that it doesn't appear to contradict your capitalist beliefs.

You want to manipulate scriptures to promote a socialist political agenda, and that is all fine and well, but Jesus did not intend his word to be used as a promotion for a political ideology.

That's my new signature.....

If you are not willing to stand for religious principles in all areas of our governing, you shouldn't exploit specific areas which bolster your views, and ignore the others. This is the very complaint you have of the religious right, is it not?

I am not saying this justifies a particular position, I am investigating the contradiction between what you say you believe in, and what you do...."

p.s. Religion is my prime subject, I understand it better than you....

[AnyOldIron]

Hold on a sec... you made a big huge leap, from pursuit of wealth to desire for more than you can possibly need. Capitalism is the enactment of free enterprise to supply the demands of the market. While opportunity is key in the success of capitalism, it has very little to do with greed. Generally speaking, greed can be an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, and capitalism can certainly spawn greed, but greed is not necessary for capitalism to work, that is determined by supply and demand, and a free market.


So you consider greed a by-product of capitalism?

Without the constant demand for goods that aren't essential, capitalism would fail. Why do people replace cars when their old ones work perfectly well or replace their tv's with hi-def, because the neighbours have one...

Capitalism is ran by greed, the acquisition of personal wealth...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Jesus' message had nothing to do with his approval, it was his love.

This is a statement that makes little sense, the usual religious obscurum per obscurius argument...

Well, that's why I suggested you avoid topics you know little about. It makes little sense to you, because you don't understand that Christ's Love is universal and unconditional, and it doesn't have to be 'gained'.

Jesus was around in the era of the Great Roman Empire, and so it was a great concern to people of the day. Should they adhere to the faith or the government? Jesus consistent reply to this most important question of the day, was that faith has nothing to do with government and rulers. Loyalty and disloyalty, have nothing to do with faith. Whether you are supportive of capitalist means or socialist means, has nothing to do with faith. Your relationship with God is independent of your individual condition, and rests in your heart alone. You can't be a "better Christian" by being wealthy, and you can't be a "worse Christian" by being wealthy, and visa versa if you are poor. Your faith rests in your heart, and you personal relationship with God, and is not dependent on satisfying some requirement or condition of Jesus for his love.

[Prakosh]

Well, that's why I suggested you avoid topics you know little about. It makes little sense to you, because you don't understand that Christ's Love is universal and unconditional, and it doesn't have to be 'gained'.

Jesus was around in the era of the Great Roman Empire, and so it was a great concern to people of the day. Should they adhere to the faith or the government? Jesus consistent reply to this most important question of the day, was that faith has nothing to do with government and rulers. Loyalty and disloyalty, have nothing to do with faith. Whether you are supportive of capitalist means or socialist means, has nothing to do with faith. Your relationship with God is independent of your individual condition, and rests in your heart alone. You can't be a "better Christian" by being wealthy, and you can't be a "worse Christian" by being wealthy, and visa versa if you are poor. Your faith rests in your heart, and you personal relationship with God, and is not dependent on satisfying some requirement or condition of Jesus for his love.

You do realize of course, BILLO, that this is only one version or interpretation of the myth!!!!!!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hold on a sec... you made a big huge leap, from pursuit of wealth to desire for more than you can possibly need. Capitalism is the enactment of free enterprise to supply the demands of the market. While opportunity is key in the success of capitalism, it has very little to do with greed. Generally speaking, greed can be an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, and capitalism can certainly spawn greed, but greed is not necessary for capitalism to work, that is determined by supply and demand, and a free market.


So you consider greed a by-product of capitalism?

Without the constant demand for goods that aren't essential, capitalism would fail. Why do people replace cars when their old ones work perfectly well or replace their tv's with hi-def, because the neighbours have one...

Capitalism is ran by greed, the acquisition of personal wealth...

Yes, I consider greed a byproduct of capitalism, and it can also be a motivating factor of capitalism, but it is not a necessary element. People replace cars, not out of greed, but out of need, want, and desire. Greed, as you most appropriately stated previously, is the 'desire for more than you could possibly need'. So we have a huge gap between what people legitimately need and desire, and what you arbitrarily determined is "more than they possibly need". I admit, "greed" falls into a grey area, but it doesn't mean that capitalism is the cause of it, or that eliminating the possibility of capitalist opportunity, would thus eliminate greed.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You do realize of course, BILLO, that this is only one version or interpretation of the myth!!!!!!

Yes, Stewart Smalley, I do realize that. There are numerous interpretations of the 2,000 year-old persistent "myth." I think it's fairly universal, that Jesus makes no requirement for his love, except for acceptance of it. If you have another Christian interpretation of that, please present it for observation, if not, shut the hell up and go back to doing bad comedy.

[AnyOldIron]

I notice, Dixie, that you have totally ignored Jesus words in relation to the rich man, and brought about your own interpretation according to what fits your personal circumstances/opinions.

So, answer this....

Does what Jesus actually say not matter, when seen in the light of your own personal perspective?

Did Jesus say things that were superfluous?

[AnyOldIron]

People replace cars, not out of greed, but out of need, want, and desire.

Then why do people replace them when they aren't broken?

Why are perfectly working cars, tv's etc replaced for the newest models?

Capitalism, particulary consumerism, relies heavily on the concept that people will constantly want more. On greed.

You can attempt to spin this away, but it evident everywhere in capitalism.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't need to own the majority of the world's media to make a living, so why does he continue to acquire? Greed...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I notice, Dixie, that you have totally ignored Jesus words in relation to the rich man, and brought about your own interpretation according to what fits your personal circumstances/opinions.

So, answer this....

Does what Jesus actually say not matter, when seen in the light of your own personal perspective?

Did Jesus say things that were superfluous?

There is no need for me to discuss Jesus' words with a man who doesn't understand them. Why would I do such a thing? Regarding my personal perspective, I try to keep that separate from debate points on a message board, as they are often separate things completely.

I know that it is difficult to get sat down and shut up on your 'religious' point, but really... let's be adults about this, Arnold. Jesus simply never spoke out against 'the evils of capitalism', and if you have interpreted that in His word, you are grossly mistaken.

[AnyOldIron]

I think it's fairly universal, that Jesus makes no requirement for his love, except for acceptance of it.

That makes a persons actions irrelevant.

You can act in an unChristian manner throughout your life and yet repent on your death bed.

Then, what is the point in encouraging people to act in a Christian manner?

That is totally illogical.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Capitalism, particulary consumerism, relies heavily on the concept that people will constantly want more. On greed.

No, hold on... Greed is wanting more than you could possibly need. Capitalism only requires a need and demand for something, it makes no delineation with regard to motive, or whether it is a need motivated by greed. As we have determined, greed is in a vast grey area, and can be subjectively defined. Clearly, you may have a completely different interpretation of "what I could possibly need" than I have. I might determine that you don't really "need" a computer to rant on, with all the illiteracy in the world, I am sure it could be put to better use. The point is, "Greed" is a subjective term, in the sense you are trying to apply it, and it simply doesn't support the idea that Capitalism is dependent upon it.

[Prakosh]

There is no need for me to discuss Jesus' words with a man who doesn't understand them. Why would I do such a thing? Regarding my personal perspective, I try to keep that separate from debate points on a message board, as they are often separate things completely.

I know that it is difficult to get sat down and shut up on your 'religious' point, but really... let's be adults about this, Arnold. Jesus simply never spoke out against 'the evils of capitalism', and if you have interpreted that in His word, you are grossly mistaken.

Most knowlegeable economists doubt that modern capitalism existed in 1-33 AD, (a category of time that itself did not exist then) and that it would have been highly unlikely that Christ would have said much about it at that time, not only because it did not exist, but because I know of no one who considers Christ an economist. I think BILLO is in uncharted waters headed for a reef here.

I am especially interested in unpacking this rather convoluted claim: "I know that it is difficult to get sat down and shut up on your 'religious' point, but really..." Is this another, in a long list of foolhardy attempts to get us to see BILLO as too stupid to argue with????? Only the Shadow knows!!!!!

Or Something

[AnyOldIron]

There is no need for me to discuss Jesus' words with a man who doesn't understand them. Why would I do such a thing?

Doesn't understand them? LOL That's a poor way of dodging the argument....

You cannot explain away the paradox between what Jesus said and what you think he meant, so you cut and run....

Fair enough, I'm leaving the office now anyway...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That makes a persons actions irrelevant.
In a sense, yes. Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

You can act in an unChristian manner throughout your life and yet repent on your death bed.

Well, technically, you could... but, if you have adopted this plan, God knows what is in your heart is not sincere, and you will be in for a rude awakening on Judgement Day. I wouldn't recommend it.

Then, what is the point in encouraging people to act in a Christian manner?

Love for Christ.

That is totally illogical

Because you don't understand it.

I know!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...it would have been highly unlikely that Christ would have said much about it at that time, not only because it did not exist, but because I know of no one who considers Christ an economist.

Which is precisely why I made the point. Thanks for noticing!

[Prakosh]

That makes a persons actions irrelevant.
In a sense, yes. Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

You can act in an unChristian manner throughout your life and yet repent on your death bed.

Well, technically, you could... but, if you have adopted this plan, God knows what is in your heart is not sincere, and you will be in for a rude awakening on Judgement Day. I wouldn't recommend it.

Then, what is the point in encouraging people to act in a Christian manner?

Love for Christ.

That is totally illogical

Because you don't understand it.

I know!

It's really all literary, rather than religious, the Bible is after all nothing but a compilation of storiesor narratives, some more believeable than others, but all stories or narratives nonetheless, and as such, open to various and numerous interpretations, yours being one of many possible and equally implausible versions of the events. It's as unlikely that when we all die we will stand before some old man with a beard who will judge what is in our hearts or souls (whatever that abstraction refers to) before letting us into paradise, as it is that 77 (or whatever the number is) virgins will be awaiting all suicide bombers or that the Egyptians crossed the river Styx after death. And the idea that Christ died for anyone's sins let alone mine is ludicrous on its face. What is more important to those of us with any latent or manifest curiousity at all is why people feel the need to believe in such myths. What purpose do such myths serve??? Why do people fear their own creative capacity??? Why do they feel the need for some other power???? Some Super super-ego as it were to watch over them and keep track of them and what they are doing????? What is that about anyway???? Why are we going to heaven or hell instead of just dying and and being burned or buried and rotting away like the rest of the animal kingdom evidently does...We are, after all, still only flesh and bones, except for that rather creative abstraction that we have endowed ourselves with, the soul. But doing so doesn't make the soul any more concrete forall that creative effort.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What is more important to those of us with any latent or manifest curiousity at all is why people feel the need to believe in such myths. What purpose do such myths serve??? Why do people fear their own creative capacity??? Why do they feel the need for some other power???? Some Super super-ego as it were to watch over them and keep track of them and what they are doing????? What is that about anyway???? Why are we going to heaven or hell instead of just dying and and being burned or buried and rotting away like the rest of the animal kingdom evidently does...We are, after all, still only flesh and bones, except for that rather creative abstraction that we have endowed ourselves with, the soul. But doing so doesn't make the soul any more concrete forall that creative effort.

I would submit there is a legitimate reason this human fascination with spiritual faith baffles you and confounds you. Indeed, inherent human behavioral characteristics, are never without purpose or function, and for a scientific mind to try and understand this phenomenon while not accepting God, is extremely difficult to resolve with logic, I understand. Perhaps this is why even Einstein admitted that God doesn't roll the dice?

[Prakosh]

What is more important to those of us with any latent or manifest curiousity at all is why people feel the need to believe in such myths. What purpose do such myths serve??? Why do people fear their own creative capacity??? Why do they feel the need for some other power???? Some Super super-ego as it were to watch over them and keep track of them and what they are doing????? What is that about anyway???? Why are we going to heaven or hell instead of just dying and and being burned or buried and rotting away like the rest of the animal kingdom evidently does...We are, after all, still only flesh and bones, except for that rather creative abstraction that we have endowed ourselves with, the soul. But doing so doesn't make the soul any more concrete forall that creative effort.

I would submit there is a legitimate reason this human fascination with spiritual faith baffles you and confounds you. Indeed, inherent human behavioral characteristics, are never without purpose or function, and for a scientific mind to try and understand this phenomenon while not accepting God, is extremely difficult to resolve with logic, I understand. Perhaps this is why even Einstein admitted that God doesn't roll the dice?
None of this indicates the gravity or even the possibility that your version or interpretation could or even might be true in any objective sense all it does is show how ignorant and unwilling to face reality when it comes to the death of the human being most of us really are. As far as objective history teaches us there is no such thing as a soul, as hauntings or as even any kind of survival after death. Does anyone think for a minute that if such after death things were possible, that the early victims of the Holocaust would not have made some kind of effort to warn the later victims about the existence of Hitler's death camps and ovens. Don't you think that things would be even a little bit different in this world if there was such a thing as an all-knowing and all-powerful being in charge. For a guy who doesn't play dice he sure seems to believe in chance. I mean why would an all-knowing and all-powerful being countenance and condone the senseless murder of six million Jews more or less and no more???? Why countenance and condone the enslavement of millions of people of Black skin while allowing your own teachings to be used as the support and argument for this enslavement and then suddenly decide to end it at least partially with a war that kills over half a million??? All-knowing, all-powerful??? If this is the best he can do, if in fact he is a he as white males have always portended; another projective reality no doubt or perhaps just wishful thinking, I hardly think this evidence indicates an all-knowing, all powerful being; but just another human being full of human arrogance and failings more likely as confused as our current president.

And the asking or posing of questions does not in and of itself make the questioner baffled or confounded, only willing to pose questions that most people would rather not pose. History tells us that as we have progressed in our understanding of both science and nature we have come to understand things that once were attributed to the gods. We no longer need a God of Thunder because we now know what causes thunder, so it is no longer a mysterious occurrence whose origin baffles us. Nor do we need a God of the Sea, etc. Now our mysteries are more abstract, more philosophical if you will, and so we need a God who reflects and aids us in some way in explaining or answering those still unanswered or unexplained mysteries. Someone who can be the container for everything we don't know; since it is like that great romantic poet John Keats said so many years ago when speaking of the superior man, or what he called the "Man of Achievement" that is one who had "Negative Capability...when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." It is my belief as it was John Keats' in December of 1817, that such men are few and far between. God represents the ultimate reach, when all else fails these others, who are not capable of remaining for any time at all in such a state.

The one thing that really separates the true believers from others is their certitude. You my good man, demonstrate more certitude than most posters here. Why is that??? Do you ever feel even the slightest twinge of doubt or ambivalence??? If so, I have never witnessed it???

Even as I argue for a specific position I am continuously struck by the fact that I could be wrong, or that my facts could be wrong or that I may be just so full of myself that I can't see the forest for the trees or that I might simply be talking right out my ass. Indeed, I have been wrong numerous times here and have been mistaken about my facts on numerous occasions (no doubt you will take this confession and run with it to God only knows where [metaphorically speaking of course]).

But according to all you continue to say here, you have never been wrong or mistaken or confused or confounded about anything, like Bush you seem infallible. I get the sense, BILLO, that you think you are always right about everything. Unfortunately you are not, no one can be, you would do well to study Keats's admonition carefully; it's ok to not be so sure. The real trick is to not be paralyzed by your doubt...that's all. I of course am still working on that one.

[Cancel7]

None of this indicates the gravity or even the possibility that your version or interpretation could or even might be true in any objective sense all it does is show how ignorant and unwilling to face reality when it comes to the death of the human being most of us really are. As far as objective history teaches us there is no such thing as a soul, as hauntings or as even any kind of survival after death. Does anyone think for a minute that if such after death things were possible, that the early victims of the Holocaust would not have made some kind of effort to warn the later victims about the existence of Hitler's death camps and ovens. Don't you think that things would be even a little bit different in this world if there was such a thing as an all-knowing and all-powerful being in charge. For a guy who doesn't play dice he sure seems to believe in chance. I mean why would an all-knowing and all-powerful being countenance and condone the senseless murder of six million Jews more or less and no more????. Why countenance and condone the enslavement of millions of people of Black skin while allowing your own teachings to be used as the support and argument for this enslavement and then suddenly decide to end it at least partially with a war that kills over half a million??? All-knowing, all-powerful??? If this is the best he can do, if in fact he is a he as white males have always portended; another projective reality no doubt or perhaps just wishful thinking, I hardly think this evidence indicates an all-knowing, all powerful being; but just another human being full of human arrogance and failings more likely as confused as our current president.

And the asking or posing of questions does not in and of itself make the questioner baffled or confounded, only willing to pose questions that most people would rather not pose. History tells us that as we have progressed in in out understanding of both science and nature we have come to understand things that once were attributed to the gods. We no longer need a God of Thunder because we now know what causes thunder, so it is no longer a mysterious occurrence whose origin baffles us. Nor do we need a God of the Sea, etc. Now we our mysteries are more abstract, more philosophical if you will, and so we need a God who reflects and aids us in some way in explaining or answering those still unanswered or unexplained mysteries. Someone who can be the container for everything we don't know; since it is like that great romantic poet John Keats said so many years ago when speaking of the superior man what he called the "Man of Achievement" that is "Negative Capability...when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." It is my belief as it was John Keats' in December of 1817, that such men are few and far between. God represents the ultimate reach, when all else fails these others, who are not capable of remaining for any time at all in such a state.

The one thing that really separates the true believers from others is their certitude. You my good man, demonstrate more certitude than most posters here. Why is that??? Do you ever feel even the slightest twinge of doubt or ambivalence??? I have never witnessed it???

Even as I argue for a specific position I am continuously struck by the fact that I could be wrong, or that my facts could be wrong or that I may be just so full of myself that I can't see the forest for the trees or that I might simply be talking right out my ass. Indeed, I have been wrong numerous times here and have been mistaken about my facts on numerous occasions (no doubt you will take this confession and run with it to God only knows where [metaphorically speaking of course]).

But according to all you continue to say here, you have never been wrong or mistaken or confused or confounded about anything, like Bush you seem infallible. I get the sense that that you think you are always right about everything. Unfortunately you are not, no one can be, you would do well to study Keats's admonition carefully; it's ok to not be so sure. The real trick is to not be paralyzed by your doubt...that's all. I of course am still working on that one.

You write the most absorbing posts. If I didn't already have a boyfriend, I would set my cap for you.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Even as I argue for a specific position I am continuously struck by the fact that I could be wrong, or that my facts could be wrong or that I may be just so full of myself that I can't see the forest for the trees or that I might simply be talking right out my ass.

Well, at least it's good you realize this, it explains why you seem to be such a clueless idiot.

For instance: History tells us that as we have progressed in in out understanding of both science and nature we have come to understand things that once were attributed to the gods.

Did you ever ask yourself, if this is so, why do we still have such a vibrant relationship between people and Gods? You half-heartily tried to explain it away by saying we need something to explain what we can't explain, but think deeper, why is that? Why do we require something? Could it be, it is our nature because that something does exist? I am at least willing to entertain that possibility, you have closed your mind to it completely, insisting it isn't possible, because your science doesn't prove it... yet, in a sense, your science can't refute it or explain it away.

[Cancel7]

Even as I argue for a specific position I am continuously struck by the fact that I could be wrong, or that my facts could be wrong or that I may be just so full of myself that I can't see the forest for the trees or that I might simply be talking right out my ass.

Well, at least it's good you realize this, it explains why you seem to be such a clueless idiot.

For instance: History tells us that as we have progressed in in out understanding of both science and nature we have come to understand things that once were attributed to the gods.

Did you ever ask yourself, if this is so, why do we still have such a vibrant relationship between people and Gods? You half-heartily tried to explain it away by saying we need something to explain what we can't explain, but think deeper, why is that? Why do we require something? Could it be, it is our nature because that something does exist? I am at least willing to entertain that possibility, you have closed your mind to it completely, insisting it isn't possible, because your science doesn't prove it... yet, in a sense, your science can't refute it or explain it away.

I'll tell you why Dixie. There are two things the human mind is incapable of comprehending. Infinity and eternity.

When you die, if there is nothing after death, you will be non-existent for enternity. The human mind cannot comprehend this, and it is terrifying. Therefore, it invents a God, who runs some sort of paradise in the sky that nobody but dead people can see. And ifyou are very very good, (and I heard he keeps a list, but I do not know if he checks it twice) you will go there after you die, and spend eternity dancing around on clouds with all of your loved ones, including the ones you miss so badly because they died before you did.

It's sort of like Santa Clause for grown-ups.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As far as objective history teaches us there is no such thing as a soul, as hauntings or as even any kind of survival after death.

Really? There have never been hauntings reported? Where is the definitive study on the existence of a soul, I would like to take a look? And why is it, from as far back as we can track human history, people are ceremonially buried in rituals, often with worldly items and gifts to carry into the afterlife? You are claiming history doesn't illustrate this? History is full of this!

Here is what you are looking for... We have no historic proof of something which, by definition, requires faith. Interestingly, if we had proof, it wouldn't require faith.

Does anyone think for a minute that if such after death things were possible, that the early victims of the Holocaust would not have made some kind of effort to warn the later victims about the existence of Hitler's death camps and ovens. Don't you think that things would be even a little bit different in this world if there was such a thing as an all-knowing and all-powerful being in charge.

You are trying to apply human logic and standards to God. This doesn't wash, because God is infallible, humans are fallible. Dead humans have no more right of self-determination than you do, so they would be unable to warn others of the holocaust. Living humans are blessed by God, with free will. Punishment for worldly defiance of God, is provided through eternal damnation to hell, God allows you to make your own choices regarding it.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'll tell you why Dixie. There are two things the human mind is incapable of comprehending. Infinity and eternity.

When you die, if there is nothing after death, you will be non-existent for enternity. The human mind cannot comprehend this, and it is terrifying.

Why do you suppose it is terrifying? It doesn't matter if you are dead, right? And why can't the human mind comprehend this? After all, our advancement and civilization, we still have an enormous number of humans, who seem to need spiritual belief and after-life. Science dictates there is a purpose for every human behavioral trait, so what is the explanation here?

[Prakosh]

As far as objective history teaches us there is no such thing as a soul, as hauntings or as even any kind of survival after death.

Really? There have never been hauntings reported? Where is the definitive study on the existence of a soul, I would like to take a look? And why is it, from as far back as we can track human history, people are ceremonially buried in rituals, often with worldly items and gifts to carry into the afterlife? You are claiming history doesn't illustrate this? History is full of this!

Here is what you are looking for... We have no historic proof of something which, by definition, requires faith. Interestingly, if we had proof, it wouldn't require faith.

Sort of like all those WMDs, HUH?



Does anyone think for a minute that if such after death things were possible, that the early victims of the Holocaust would not have made some kind of effort to warn the later victims about the existence of Hitler's death camps and ovens. Don't you think that things would be even a little bit different in this world if there was such a thing as an all-knowing and all-powerful being in charge.

You are trying to apply human logic and standards to God. This doesn't wash, because God is infallible, humans are fallible.

SSSSSHHH, Don't ever tell George this!!!!!! He really believes he is infallible!!!!


Dead humans have no more right of self-determination than you do, so they would be unable to warn others of the holocaust. Living humans are blessed by God, with free will. Punishment for worldly defiance of God, is provided through eternal damnation to hell, God allows you to make your own choices regarding it.

Well, I guess you have agreed that I and millions like me have no right of self-determination. I blame the sytem; you blame God. I still think the system is more relevant based on the number of prayers offered up each week to God to help the poor and indigent and still nothing...I'm sticking with the system, change the system and the plight of poor people will change. Pray and simply heat up old church buildings...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...And ifyou are very very good, (and I heard he keeps a list, but I do not know if he checks it twice) you will go there after you die, and spend eternity dancing around on clouds with all of your loved ones, including the ones you miss so badly because they died before you did.

It's sort of like Santa Clause for grown-ups.

The basis for the Christian-era Santa Claus is Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna (Izmir), in what is now Turkey. Nicholas lived in the 4th century A.D. He was very rich, generous, and loving toward children. Often he gave joy to poor children by throwing gifts in through their windows.

Was this a real person? Yes. Now, there might not be a big fat man in a red suit, who travels the world on Dec. 24th in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, to come down the chimney and bring toys to the good little boys and girls, but Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna did exist and was a real person. To argue that Santa Claus was merely made up by capitalist American opportunists to generate sales in the slow months of winter, well... that is an opinion, not a complete fact. Because you happen to think belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus, is an opinion as well, and you are entitled to it, just don't try to pass it off as a complete fact.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, I guess you have agreed that I and millions like me have no right of self-determination.

No, I said that dead people certainly have no more than you.

[Prakosh]

The basis for the Christian-era Santa Claus is Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna (Izmir), in what is now Turkey. Nicholas lived in the 4th century A.D. He was very rich, generous, and loving toward children. Often he gave joy to poor children by throwing gifts in through their windows.

Was this a real person? Yes. Now, there might not be a big fat man in a red suit, who travels the world on Dec. 24th in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, to come down the chimney and bring toys to the good little boys and girls, but Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna did exist and was a real person. To argue that Santa Claus was merely made up by capitalist American opportunists to generate sales in the slow months of winter, well... that is an opinion, not a complete fact. Because you happen to think belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus, is an opinion as well, and you are entitled to it, just don't try to pass it off as a complete fact.

"I've never met a man, who knew so much about nothing!" Seinfeld!

[Cancel7]

The basis for the Christian-era Santa Claus is Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna (Izmir), in what is now Turkey. Nicholas lived in the 4th century A.D. He was very rich, generous, and loving toward children. Often he gave joy to poor children by throwing gifts in through their windows.

Was this a real person? Yes. Now, there might not be a big fat man in a red suit, who travels the world on Dec. 24th in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, to come down the chimney and bring toys to the good little boys and girls, but Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna did exist and was a real person. To argue that Santa Claus was merely made up by capitalist American opportunists to generate sales in the slow months of winter, well... that is an opinion, not a complete fact. Because you happen to think belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus, is an opinion as well, and you are entitled to it, just don't try to pass it off as a complete fact.

I'm not. As far as I am concerned there are no facts on this subject, just opinions, beliefs, and musings. Mine are musings. I don't know either way, and I don't claim to know. It might shock you, but I hope there is something after death. I just am not counting on it.

[Prakosh]

Well, I guess you have agreed that I and millions like me have no right of self-determination.

No, I said that dead people certainly have no more than you.

Methinks that this is a distinction without a difference. Prove me wrong!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Methinks that this is a distinction without a difference. Prove me wrong!


LMAO!!! Prove you wrong? Your name is Prakosh! LMAOLMFAO!

[Prakosh]

LMAO!!! Prove you wrong? Your name is Prakosh! LMAOLMFAO!

You'll need a little more explanation than that, BILLO!

[AnyOldIron]

Did you ever ask yourself, if this is so, why do we still have such a vibrant relationship between people and Gods?

God's 'use' to man is two-fold, firstly the 'god of the gaps' where god is used to explain the phenomenon that we don't have an easy answer for. In the past, most phenomenon was explained in this manner, from childbirth to fire. Today, the 'god of the gaps' is in severe retreat. Outside of fundamentalism, god has little left of this role, some religious types still cling to the possibility that a god originated it all, but their arguments are ridiculously weak and unsubstantiated. This role of god is dying a slow death.

The second role of god is 'god, the great comforter', where 'god' provides relief to the fears and insecurities of man. Death and the afterlife are covered by this, as is man's insecurity that there is no paternal figure watching over us and man's desire for absolutist morality to live by.

This role is stronger than the nearly dead 'god of the gaps', because humans are weak and cannot accept the cold reality of existence.

You state that man still has a vibrant relationship with 'god', but this is dying out. Religion has simply become radicalised, forced into a ridiculous fundamentalist position. Atheism is on the rise in the US and has long held sway in Europe, and in areas where religion is vibrant it is so because it plays to people's base instincts, prejudice and hatred of the 'other'. The only places where religion can be said to be vibrant are basket cases like the ME, Africa and Asia. Unsurprisingly, it is in these difficult places to live that 'god the great comforter' holds sway.

Religion is being threatened, and because of that it is becoming more radical, more volitile and thus is in a downward spiral. In a panic, the religious are attempting to reassert their influence, by placing fundamentalists in positions of power (the Bush regime for one) but the actions of the religious fundamentalists in power are driving more away from it.

In many ways, religion is lucky that atheism is not an organised ideology, if it were, it would be picking the last flesh from the corpse of god....As it stands it will be a steady erosion of the two legs of god, until it collapses in a heap of the dust it is made from...

[AnyOldIron]

When you die, if there is nothing after death, you will be non-existent for enternity. The human mind cannot comprehend this, and it is terrifying. Therefore, it invents a God, who runs some sort of paradise in the sky that nobody but dead people can see. And ifyou are very very good, (and I heard he keeps a list, but I do not know if he checks it twice) you will go there after you die, and spend eternity dancing around on clouds with all of your loved ones, including the ones you miss so badly because they died before you did.

It's sort of like Santa Clause for grown-ups.

This is 'god, the great comforter'. Existence is cold, uncaring and amoral. Humans are weak and cannot accept and overcome this fact, thus they invent 'superhumans' to which they attribute the actions of existence, to replace the cold, uncaring and amoral nature of relaity with a paternal figure to 'look after' us.

Religion is akin to adults being afraid of the dark.

[AnyOldIron]

Why do you suppose it is terrifying? It doesn't matter if you are dead, right? And why can't the human mind comprehend this? After all, our advancement and civilization, we still have an enormous number of humans, who seem to need spiritual belief and after-life. Science dictates there is a purpose for every human behavioral trait, so what is the explanation here?

Human weakness. An inability to come to terms with the cold nature of existence.

So humans create fantasies, such as a mythical place to go to when you die.

[AnyOldIron]

You are trying to apply human logic and standards to God. This doesn't wash, because God is infallible, humans are fallible.

This is the typical religious cop-out to avoid answering questions.

It is a formal logical fallacy called obscurum per obscurius, ie attempting to explain the obscure by the even more obscure.