I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 11402

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jason, I like your statement.  Business runs on incentives; compassion has no place, it seems, in enterprise. The answer, seems to me, is as you suggest, enforcement of law. 

People born with some kind of mental or physical handicap may not be able to be self-responsible.  Who is to take care of that person?  Do tax payers have an obligation to assist with care and treatment?  I think so.  Enlightened self interest says we can't turn our handicapped out on the streets.  

OH!  We've done that already.

You do have one of the worst medical systems in the world at the moment in relation to equality not individual outcomes ( I recognise individual outcomes are quit good
), As you have indie knowledge could you possibly suggest how that  would change without socialising medicine. This an actual question not a political statement  as from your background ou may have some insight.

I still think that good people will do good things no matter what the system.....

"Every single individual would have the same rights under a libertarian society. The person with 150 acres in southern California has the same rights as a person renting a shack in the ghetto."

Which, of course, completely ignores the disparity in economic power which would inevitably lead the person in the ghetto to have to swear fealty to the local feudal overlord or starve. And you don't think this is coercion? That's what your proposal would inevitably come down to, MCT. You don't like government coercion so you ignore the very real and historically well-established threat of private coercion. I don't know if you've noticed, but libertarians are trying awfully hard to eliminate government, not shrink it. Since Reagan, they've been doing a bang-up job of it. I guess it just comes down to whether you fear the power of government or the power of plutocrats more. At least we have some say in how our government operates. Not so much with plutocrats.

And personal autonomy is never total. All of us depend, at all times, on the kindness of strangers. You can choose to ignore this as well, but you are living in a fantasy world.

I am not concerned about disparity of economic power. I am concerned about the morality of institutionalized violence. Equality is not something I value. Fairness is. 

We do not depend on the kindness of strangers. People avoid hurting other people, generally, because of their own rational self-interest, even when that includes opening a door for someone else. We do not purchase goods out of the sweet kindness of our hearts, we buy for our rational self-interest. Our moral code is based on rational self-interest and so should our government. The person living in the ghetto does not need to swear anything to anybody. He can buy a sandwich from any producer of sandwiches, which he will pay for with the money he earns and can afford because prices will be low because their will be separation of state and economics, not separation of state and law, the government would not allow a company to coerce any wage or price and nor could they. You are still using metaphors. Swearing allegiance? Stop it. A proper government would defend him, not from thinking he needs more than he can get, but from coercion. Private coercion, as well as public coercion, is illegal in a libertarian, not anarchy, not socialistic, not feudal, not communist, not monarchy, not oligarchy, not theocracy, but libertarian government.

Autonomy is always singular. Only a single consciousness can make a decision. That's why rights concern the individual.

I am not concerned about disparity of economic power. I am concerned about the morality of institutionalized violence. Equality is not something I value. Fairness is

What are your views on how to sustainably and equitably feed the masses?

Do you grow your own food? Pump your own water? Drive your own car? Clean your own house? Take care of your own child? Care for your aging parents? Did you learn everything you know all by yourself? Who wiped your bottom when you were a baby and who will do it when you are old?  Who protected you from harm and comforted you when you were scared; did you do that all by yourself? Are you a partner with your mate or are you a wham-bam-thank-you-mam/sir kind of lover?  Who puts up with your negativity or are you a hermit? I hope you are not responsible for caring for a dog or cat or bird or snake or whatever!

Everything I am and have achieved I have done with the voluntarily given assistance of my nuclear family and myself and some friends. Everything else, I or my parents have paid for. I am leaving out how sometimes strangers open doors for me or that someone returned my wallet once, but I do not owe them for this, but I might return the favor. We have, in addition to what we use, paid for a lot of other people's shit, through a forced graduated tax system. I, my brother and many others who love my parents will give them whatever assistance they need in the, hopefully far away, but definitely coming years of senescence. I am not a negative person, just cognizant of my oppressors. I am a very sensitive friend, doctor and lover, just not invariably soft. And I have had three very gentle, happy, beautiful and playful cats for 14 years. They get their shots, annual check ups, teeth cleanings, biannual grooming, litter cleaned daily, constant fresh water, toys, occasional cat-nip, diets specific to their health issues (one is predisposed to cystitis and urinary crystal formation and another is a fatty), I have never struck any of them in more than a playful manner and they get 'tons' of affection. My explicit morality of rational self-interest includes compassion, empathy and sympathy, just not sacrifice.

You confuse rational self-interest with what you call selfishness and what really is people's lack of interest in your wish for their stuff, stuff you want whether or not it is in their best interest to give it or if they think so or not .

People are driven by their own perceived self-interest, it is moral when it is rational. It is rational and moral to help those that might help you. It is not rational to expect others, that don't even know you, to provide your means of life and security; that's up to you.

What about your cost to the environment, or the people in the countries that were killed for your cheap gas? Have you squared off with that?

I have zero culpability for people killed for whatever reason. I did not kill them, through direct action or through my purchase of gasoline. Again, a few things you write make me want to have respect for you, but blaming me personally for someone killed 'because I bought gas' is really really really 'pushing it'. I am about as responsible for Bill Gates' wealth, but not a particular sweater he buys, as I am for the wage of the person killed for gasoline, but not his murder. I should not owe that guy more than the percentage of his wage that comes from my purchase and Bill Gates does not owe me for the money I gave Microsoft in addition to a computer they sold me.

That is just unsustainable, If every body behaved with that attitude the world would be doomed both socially and environmentally. So I assume you don't accept responsibility for the deaths of the animals 

you eat, based on the fact someone else tortured and killed them?

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service