What is your point of view for a proper Society ?

I don't believe in the Society thing. There is a lot of causes that drove me away from "Society". The concept of society is fully rely on collectivism. And there is no such perfect explanation about a proper society. In my point of view, a society is only for interdependent people, because they don't have enough faith on themselves . Being an atheist I'd say self-reliant is the main reason that's why I'm an atheist. If I were not an atheist then I would probably rotten on a society. In another words, atheism make us self-reliant.  

Tags: Collectivism., Individualism

Views: 583

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Society is the term to describe human beings together. It does not refer to everything everybody thinks or does, but only to those things that everybody acts upon - or refuses to do - quite reliably.

Of course fighting fascism is a duty! I can march under this banner! Fighting fascism is not a crime of any kind.  It is not only a responsibility, it is a responsibility of good leadership. If we are not very careful, this present chaos is highly likely to lead to fascism unless you and I and others concerned with a decent society prevent it from happening. 

In my opinion, we are not created equally; we have different personalities and needs and abilities. We do not want or need equal outcomes ... everyone does not have the same resources. What we do want is equal access to jobs, health care, education, protections for young and old, safe worker protections, law, law enforcement. That is not asking too much.

I don't want to see myself as cohered with rules and laws.

Oh goodie!  We have an anarchist loon.

Is that a loon? I really couldn't tell.

Rules and laws, created to benefit one against another is corrupt. Just can't get around that. Just look at the "normal" family, husband (head of household), wife, children. Traditional laws state husbands have the responsibility to keep their wives and children in line and the means to that end includes assault, and even in ancient day, death. Those laws were corrupt 6,000 years ago and they are corrupt now. 

Rules that regulate, i.e. traffic, makes life safer and more democratic. A stop light means stop, whether you are young, old, rich, poor, educated, uneducated. If you doubt the wisdom of these laws, just go to Turkey and try to cross a busy intersection. No one obeys traffic laws, loud honking seems to make more difference than right of way. Swearing, yelling, fighting, smashing the car of someone who offends you are all protocol.

Rules for professionals, medical, legal, business, land ownership, while designed to protect property, often become corrupt by greed and charlatan. Buyer beware.  Rules for these categories should include protection for buyers. Drug companies, corporate lawyers with large financial backing, unscrupulous business and land profiteers all influence rules and regs. 

Well, I could go on, but I think I have made my point. If you want no rules impacting you, I would suggest a life of a hermit. If by rules, you include those protocols that come from a desire to live in community, with some sense of justice for each, then you will either have to learn civil manners, or be a jerk and get jerk-slapped when you earn it. 

As for bad, unfair, unjust, corrupt, immoral, unethical rules, they need to be changed, and one person can make a difference. You can be effective yourself, organize others with a common  complaint, and get to work. 

Has someone programmed a computer to mimic human communication? And named it G?

That was done decades ago in the late 1960s and 1970s, before the first personal computers. Only colleges and major companies had multi-million-dollar computers that filled whole rooms and required air conditioning to keep them from overheating. This was before the Internet and these computers were linked by phone lines and teletype machines. I was writing software for a computer manufacturing company and used teletype machines to connect to the large computers in the building.

The purpose of one such program was to satirize psychiatrists for their impersonal responses (such as "Tell me more about that" and even "Oh?") to what clients told them. The program had a man's name, though I don't remember what it was.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service