Book Meme
I normally find blog memes silly, and I’ve never been tagged before, but vjack just tagged me with the book meme. Since it’s vjack, I’ll participate. I will not, however, tag anyone else. If LBBP wants to do this and pass it along, he’s free to do so.
A book that changed my life:
The Bible. I was an agnostic until I read it for the first time. After that, I was a firm atheist.
A book I’ve read more than once:
The Bible. I’ve gone through it three times and counting. I don’t think I’ll ever tire of it. It’s terribly entertaining. Imagine how much fun it would be to read The Silmarillion if Tolkien had claimed it all to be true.
A book I would take with me if I were stuck on a desert island:
Uh… probably something that teaches you how to build a raft. Call me a pragmatist. If we’re ignoring utility, I’d probably have to go with The Lord of the Rings if I were there alone. If I were shipwrecked with a Christian, I’d take the Bible. It’s only fun if you have someone with whom to argue.
A book that made me laugh:
The Bible. There are several bits that make me chuckle. I crack up when Jesus kills the fig tree.
A book that I wish I had written:
The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I had that book in me and was somewhat disappointed that it was already out there.
A book that I wish had never been written:
The Communist Manifesto. Communism is such a perverse idea, and so many have suffered and died in an attempt to bring about a utopia that in reality looks a lot like Havana. Runners up include the Bible and the Qur’an.
A book I’ve been meaning to read:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s a daunting volume. The United States of America operates based on a four page document. The Catholic Church needs a rule book as long as the Bible. Speaking of the Bible, isn’t that supposed to be the rule book? I think the Catholics had Talmud envy.
I’m currently reading:
Dune by Frank Herbert. I’m only half way through, but I’m enjoying the way Herbert uses religion in conjunction with politics in setting up the motivations and conflicts in his universe. I took out The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics from the library last night. That will be next. I read the first two pages of Mere Christianity, and I’ve already found at least four reasons Lewis was a jackass.
~I AM~
September 7th, 2006 at at 9:05 am
The Dune series was one of my favorites in high school. I’ve been meaning to re-read them again. I’ve told my wife about it and she plans on reading it with me…some time.
September 7th, 2006 at at 12:58 pm
I’m surprised that your anti-communist beliefs are stronger than your anti-theist ones. It is true that revolutions that started out communistic in nature later turned into dictatorships that oppressed those who lived under them. But that does not discredit the idea of communism and it does not justify the situation that our current economic and political structures have gotten us into. There are many ideas as to why a communist society has never been put into place, ranging from the idea that the host country wasn’t industrialized enough, the idea that communism is a world system and can’t succeed with the constant threat of capitalist military intervention (see the United States overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean government in order to prop up the dictator Pinochet), or the libertarian socialist critique that governments are inherently oppressive and that you cannot create a classless society by creating a new class, i.e. the political class.
But as to the future, I’ll think we’ll have a socialistic future or we’ll have none at all. The growing problems of environmental destruction, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and taking care of the ever-growing population cannot be solved within the current framework. A society in which the economic power (and hence also the political power) are concentrated in an elite few (which becomes fewer over time) cannot solve the problems that the world today faces. The current system is simply unsustainable.
September 7th, 2006 at at 2:23 pm
Delta,
I believe that religion was a necessary step in human development. Its utility is long past, but it was important at some point. Communism, on the other hand, is not only unnecessary, it goes against just about every human impulse. Everything you or I or anyone else does is inherently selfish if you really look at it. Mother Theresa was selfish. She wanted to get into heaven and her worldview (Christianity) told her that what she was doing should make her feel good about herself. Selfish. Period.
Communism takes human beings and tries to turn them into bees or ants. The idea of self-sacrifice is counterproductive. I work for me. You work for you. If we all do that, progress is made. If I work for you and everyone else, my motivation to progress and succeed is gone. In a capitalist system, some people suffer. That’s true. In a communist system, almost everyone suffers.
September 7th, 2006 at at 3:43 pm
I agree, everyone is inherently selfish. But society can be structured either so that selfish interests compete with one another, and one person loses, or society can tie the interests together, so that my success is also good for someone else, if perhaps only to a lesser degree.
A transition to a communist society overnight is ridiculous. Communism is something that may only be able to be achieved in the somewhat distant future, but public ownership of the means of production is not communism. Part of the reason that society run means of production can be successful is for the exact reason that you stated–that people work better and harder for themselves than they do for someone else. The vast majority of workers under capitalism work in a system where the value of their labor goes to someone else, usually the owner of the factory. In the third-world, where most of our everyday stuff comes from, the people work in jobs that offer really no opportunity for advancement and no real hope for making enough money to actually cover more than just the bare minimum cost of living. Yet they still work hard. Imagine how well they would work if they were able to share in some of their profits.
September 7th, 2006 at at 4:49 pm
It seems that you are equating profit sharing and communism. I strongly believe in the benefits on incentive management. In other words, you do a good job, and I pay you more or give you some kind of perk based on a fixed schedule of rewards. If your work results in more sales, you get a piece of that additional revenue. This will, in most circumstances, make people work harder. However, if it doesn’t make people work any harder, it’s a wasteful system that should be abolished. So far, all we’re talking about is good management techniques.
Communism is very different. If everyone else works harder, I reap the rewards. That is a system that will soon lead to no one working very hard at all. Even if a few people still do their best, much of the reward that should be theirs is then distributed to the sluggards and incompetents. I can think of no better way to squash motivation and productivity than to reward someone other than the person who did a good job.
You said earlier that you were surprised that my distaste for communism is greater than my distaste for religion (not exactly true). Frankly, I’m shocked that you value a system that so closely resembles the teachings of Christ. I don’t mean that to be an insult. It’s just a strange mixture of ideologies. Atheism is so independent and communism is so dependent.
September 7th, 2006 at at 4:50 pm
Hey Aaron, back me up if you’re around. I know this is an issue about which you feel strongly.
September 7th, 2006 at at 5:44 pm
I don’t understand why you think I’m equating profit sharing and communism. I said “but public ownership of the means of production is not communism”. I’m not talking about profit sharing at all, which is simply (as you said) a managment technique. The workers only benefit if the employer benefits. But I think the relationship is skewed as it is. The worker deserves more, and that’s even if the employer loses. It’s not about appeasing the worker, it’s about worker control.
Self-declared communists themselves do not advocate an instant change to a communist society, in which all goods and services are freely provided for. So arguing that this type of society is impossible is rather pointless, since no one is advocating a change to that. For many, this type of society is the eventual goal, but it’s up to the people when, or if, it should ever happen. Until then (without going into the details) society should own the means of production and use it to provide what the community needs and wants. If someone refuses to work (and isn’t disabled, elderly, a child, or whatever criteria the community adopts, it isn’t for me to say) then their needs do not need to be provided for. In some alternatives to capitalism, people are rewarded for their labor and for their ingenuity. This makes sense, because these are the only factors that an individual can control and thus are the only ones that it makes sense to create rewards for. However, in capitalism, most economic reward goes to those who inherit property and other capital. This is inefficient because people do not control to whom they are born.
Frankly, I’m shocked that you value a system that so closely resembles the teachings of Christ. I don’t mean that to be an insult. It’s just a strange mixture of ideologies. Atheism is so independent and communism is so dependent
No insult taken. Christ is claimed to have said some collectivist like statements, but he’s certainly not communistic and probably “said” those things to appeal to the poor. Slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are all aspects that leftists reject completely.
To me, it’s capitalism which is so dependent. And that’s because those who do not own the means of production are forced to sell their labor to those who do, otherwise they will starve (as they own no way to produce for themselves). The workers work longer and longer hours, with less pay, and are completely dependent on those who own the means of production for survival. Additionally, when the means of production are privately owned, it’s necessary to have states that infringe on the people’s freedom to defend that property.
We live in a small, crowded world. You can’t help but be dependent upon others, but it’s the nature of that dependency which makes all the difference.
September 7th, 2006 at at 7:05 pm
I think that the best way to solve this dispute is to create some sort of Commie vs. Not carnival…
September 7th, 2006 at at 11:10 pm
Have to disagree ’bout the Communist thang, I Am; it gave us the word “bourgeois”, my favorite insult ever.
Example:
A: “How’s the spaghetti?”
B: “Petit bourgeois. If I didn’t have this salt here to put on it, it’d be downright counterrevolutionary.”
September 8th, 2006 at at 5:24 am
If society owns the means of production, then we’ll all be poor. As I AM points out, there will be no profit incentive and no one will work hard. It simply isn’t evolved behavior to work hard for the benefit of others, and most people won’t do it unless thoroughly indoctrinated. Further, without the pricing system and competition, the economy can’t function efficiently and doesn’t move forward. History has demonstrated this again and again. Look at Cuba, China, the Soviet Union… Oh, I’m sorry, we aren’t allowed to look at real world examples of communist thinking in action, are we. We should only look at the pie-in-the-sky version where everyone is selfless through cradle-to-grave indoctrination (or maybe forced genetic modification). Communists are in denial in the face of evidence, just like Christians.
Communism descends into brutality because it requires indoctrination and subordination of normal human self-interest. It descends into poverty because it has nothing to substitute for the efficiency of markets and the profit motive in moving an economy forward. It descends into environmental disaster because in the face of economic failure, it can’t afford to operate clean industries. Oh, sorry, that’s not pie-in-the-sky communism, is it? Pie-in-the-sky communism is clean and beautiful, with flowers and birds everywhere. Kind of like heaven, don’t you think?
Good to see you post again, I AM.
September 8th, 2006 at at 7:27 am
Have to disagree ’bout the Communist thang, I Am; it gave us the word “bourgeois”, my favorite insult ever.
Didn’t capitalism give us “monopoly?” That’s a great game.
September 8th, 2006 at at 7:44 am
Delta, I had another thought on this exchange. Don’t you feel that the communist ideal is an artifact of the industrial revolution? You keep talking about the means of production. We’ve sold all the means of production to China and India. How does communism function in a knowledge economy?
September 8th, 2006 at at 4:46 pm
I’m currently reading “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” which a commentor on this site recommended. It’s pretty interesting, sometimes it gets a little loose with it’s supporting evidence, but it’s made me think about new things which is all you can really ask for.
September 8th, 2006 at at 5:35 pm
I think pie-in-the-sky communism is a great idea, I’m just skeptical about it working on anything other than a commune scale. Even that doesn’t work well for very long, I seem to recall. I like the ideals and all, but I’m not sure it’ll ever work, so I’m with the capitalist viewpoint of “Let it run, it’ll take care of itself.” I’m also self-contradictory, so my views therein are kinda inconsistant, but that happens.
As far as the Catechism goes, it (and the thought behind it) is the reason that Catholicism is my favorite Christianity. Catholicism isn’t Biblical inerrantist, and, if I’m not terrbily mistaken, is able to reject bits of it as necessary. It’s the only Christianity that’s explicitly allowed to change, and that’s gotta be worth something, right?
September 8th, 2006 at at 6:39 pm
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe the United States as a “knowledge economy”. While the US has shipped off a lot of its manufacturing capabilities to other countries with cheaper labor and fewer labor laws, those factories still count as being part of the US economy because they are still owned and operated by US corporations. Really it’s hard to separate anything into independent economies since trade is very much global nowadays. There are a lot of white-collar workers in the US who don’t work in a factory or a farm, and instead push papers around in an office. But their paperwork is generally connected to the actual production of material items in factories, even if those factories are on the other side of the world. Basically all consumer products are physical items that have to be produced in a factory using raw materials so it’s hard to imagine an actual self-sufficient “knowledge economy”.
In a socialistic society there would be some management and organization that would need to be done alongside the actual physical labor as well, so there would be a need for white-collar jobs here too. The ideas behind communism are really not limited to farmers and factory workers, they apply to all workers. If you’re interested in the details of how an economy might work, you could check out “participatory economics” (sometimes called Parecon, but I think that sounds stupid). Except for some details about how jobs should be balanced, I think it’s pretty good.
MB,
From your repeated use of “oh wait, that’s not” it seems pretty obvious that you know that you’re setting up strawmen. Since you are not actually discussing anything that I’m proposing I’ll wait until you do to refute it.
September 8th, 2006 at at 11:26 pm
I’m currently reading “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” which a commentor on this site recommended. It’s pretty interesting, sometimes it gets a little loose with it’s supporting evidence, but it’s made me think about new things which is all you can really ask for.
Great book. Definitely a little sketchy on supporting evidence, but it’s a fabulous theory.
September 13th, 2006 at at 8:42 am
I think people who think people are inheirantly lazy are projecting.
If you are doing what you love, people work extrodinarily hard. The trick is to just find that.
If you’re doing a shit job, where you don’t get the profits, and you don’t get any respect, of course you’re going to be “lazy”. What on earth is your motivation?
But if you’re working what you love, and your needs are met, why would you care about the money? It’s the end-result of the work that is your motivation, not the money.
September 13th, 2006 at at 4:20 pm
Antigone,
Your absolutely right, if your needs are met. Those 5 little words are the difference maker. If I had all the money I needed, I wouldn’t worry about money.
But who does that apply to?
I don’t know anybody who has enough money? I don’t mean ‘buying an island’ enough, but got the rent paid and don’t need to worry about next month enough.
I hate going to sit in my cubicle…….. everyday……… for the last 8 years, but I have a home for my family and the lights come on when I flick the switch. Theoretically, I could quit and become a blacksmith, which I would love….but there’s always those student loans that need to be paid off.
Your plan could work if there was a blank slate to work with, trouble is, the world is running on borrowed money. And I for one expect to be paid!
September 14th, 2006 at at 5:28 pm
Erm… I have enough money. I’m more than happy. I’m not rich either, I just don’t blow money on pointless crap. A good PC & Bandwidth are all I need for my work and entertainment, and friends (good ones anyways) don’t cost a bean.
Mr cubicle wage slave - I ask you this. How much money do you spend on purchases simply to distract or ease your hatred of your job? When I was in your position, I spent a small fortune on magazines, pub lunches, eating out, buying games I only ever played twice, buying films I never even watched, just wanted on the shelf, and blowing money getting drunk down at the pub too frequently. I’m aware that you may lead a much less wasteful life than this, especially given that you have family to support, loans to pay off etc. but I promise you that whatever steps you have to take, whatever luxuries you have to give up, achieving financial freedom and lowering the cost of living makes all worthwhile. once you can do what you love for a living, with no boss but yourself, life and work become one, but in a positive way.
The best thing about working from home and for yourself is the time you don’t spend commuting. you save on petrol, time, the necessity of a car and the peer pressure to have a ’status’ car. Every minuet spent on the roads is a minute in a high risk environment, so by driving less, you’re less likely to die in a car accident. giving up your daily commute will save more lives than terrorism could ever threaten!
My longwinded point is that it’s easier than you think to unshackle yourself, but you have to realise that some of the chains are pretty chains you don’t want to take off.
September 14th, 2006 at at 8:40 pm
Dude, read Milovan Djilas’ new class and how communism practiced during the Cold War had nothing to do with the teaching of Marx.
September 19th, 2006 at at 5:51 pm
I Am,
Please read into communism and other Marxist works before commenting on them. I admire the effort you put into reading and interpreting the bible. Try reading some Marx stuff. You can do it.
Try here:
http://www.marxists.org/
“I work for me. You work for you. If we all do that, progress is made.”
Sounds like the Randroids got to you. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt
This idea that we are rugged individuals, isolated and self-sufficient ignores that blatant fact that we are the sum of our influences, no more, no less. It’s easy to expect poor, uneducated people to pull themselves out of the gutter if we assume they have control over their situation.
Xians try to say that atheism/evolution allows for no inherent morality, and I say that empathy is a built-in moral basis. We have empathy because we evolved to work together. Lizards don’t care that other lizards are suffering.
Were you raised in a crib? Did the lack of bodily contact as a child make you cold and unfeeling towards others? Do you hold a general mistrust towards other people? Do you ever feel like molting?
September 19th, 2006 at at 6:16 pm
Chelfyn,
What if no one wants to pay me for what I’m good at and enjoy?
September 19th, 2006 at at 6:19 pm
On a side note…..I was talking with my Mom and we were talking politics. My Dad watches O’Reilly and she doesn’t get anymore news than that. I was saying how torture is terrible and on and on. And she says, “so who’s torturing?” “You’re on and on about torture.”
I said, “You’ve seen the pictures from Abu Gharib prison right?”
She says “no”
Oh man, I will educate her before the election, but how many other people like that are there? Can we ever win?
September 20th, 2006 at at 9:01 am
Honestly, with technology erasing the need for a lot of jobs, we are either going to have to drasticallly reorginize society OR we’re going to be killing a lot of people. We’re going further and further away from needing a lot of laborers.
September 20th, 2006 at at 3:48 pm
I disagree. Christianity doesn’t deny reality. It states reality more honestly than any other religion or philosophy. Christianity states that human beings are by nature “fallen” or corrupt or selfish.
People have always strived to create the perfect society. Philosophers like Plato in “The Republic” and Marx have tried to envision systems of government that create a human utopia. All these utopias become dystopias because they require a government that imposes selfless behavior upon its citizens but this quickly becomes oppressive and intolerable. On the other hand if government doesn’t force people to behave properly through punishment and tight supervision they behave according to their corrupt natures. If you want to see the true state of humanity just remove police from a city and watch the chaos that ensues. Or simply see what happens after any blackout.
Christianity teaches that any communist or sociality revolution will fail because people are by nature corrupt. A new more controlling government is not the solution. An internal revolution within each individual is what is required. People need to change not governments. And people have to voluntarily join this new kingdom where everyone has voluntarily converted to a belief in selflessness, love and obedience to law. As the Bible says there will come a day when the law is written in men’s hearts.
To have a utopia you need a revolution of the soul—you need people who have converted to a strong belief in selflessness and love. You need a common law that everyone obeys because they love the law and not because they are forced to. It’s easy to see that this common law that everyone so staunchly believes in and loves has to be more of a faith than a law.
If we all agree that human character needs to change in order for a utopia to exist then how do “evangelize” this character change without creating a faith? Philosophies don’t have the power to convert people.
It’s interesting that many who followed Jesus were hoping that he would usher in a new kingdom by force. But Jesus is a different sort of king and his kingdom is unlike any kingdom on this earth. In this world, the strong are great but in his kingdom it is the meek and humble who will be considered great. Jesus himself is a king who rides on a donkey and who wears a crown of thorns.
In short Christianity does a great job at describing what’s wrong with present systems of government (people) and what needs to be changed (people).
September 20th, 2006 at at 4:49 pm
Legislative proposals from the capitalist class “ought always be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the publics, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
The worker “has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention… He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him, not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgement concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.”
September 21st, 2006 at at 4:58 pm
The literature written since my time refutes the absurd notion that I was suggesting glorifying the group at the expense of the individual:
“If we once, like sane men, recognise self-sacrifice as in itself an evil, though we may adapt maybe a habit savouring of asceticism for other reasons, we shall always see in the self-sacrifice involved, so far as it goes, a reason for not adopting it rather than as an additional inducement. Socialism certainly does not set up as its ideal the suppression of self any more than the exaltation of self over others. Socialism means ethically, if it means anything, not the perennial sacrifice of self, but its realisation in and through society – not repression of the individual, but his fulfilment.”
I also don’t remember mentioning sacrifice or selfless behaviour anywhere in Communist Manifesto.
And, as I recall:
“Only in community [has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class.”
Also:
“Free activity for the Communists is the creative manifestation of life arising from the free development of all abilities of the whole person.”
“Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the “freedom of the state”.”
It appears that some people since my time have perverted, distorted, and otherwise butchered my ideas and the ideals from which they were derived. Then people who have even less of an inkling of what I actually said think they know what I did, in fact, say. They then display their ignorance by attacking an idea that has very little resemblance to what I originally posited.
I’m rolling in my grave much the same way Jefferson is. Mao himself said “power flows from a barrel of a gun”. For Bush it would be “freedom and democracy are spread with depleted uranium and white phosphorous”. In time, these concepts “freedom” and “democracy” will come to be associated with gruesome and violent deeds, committed in their name but not in their spirit, whereupon someone will conclude that the only way to ensure stability is to espouse the exact opposite of these ideals. Only by restricting freedom and denying citizen participation can order be maintained.
MB and I Am are unabashedly in support of such thinking, as they believe it is entirely just, fair, and natural that one group of people should be dependent on a much smaller group of people who “own” the means of production. Also, ironically, they find it disturbing that an administration composed almost entirely of people with heavy ties to big business have repeatedly violated the highest ideals of the land. They encourage selfishness, but are surprised when in the course of expanding their fortunes, influence, and political power, selfish leaders bypass and blatantly disregard the liberties of others. Suffice it to say that their beliefs did not include any consideration of possible ramifications, are at the same time contradictory, counterproductive, and, by many standards, an evil excuse for fascism.
September 22nd, 2006 at at 5:18 am
Lory Jean-Baptiste,
I’ve never understood why humans should have a default position of corrupt. Religion makes it’s money by telling people constantly about how crappy they are, how evil they are, and how things would be great if you were’nt such a toad all the time.
We are what we are. I think the problem is people aren’t willing to work with the confines of the intrinsic human. We aren’t greedy, we are opputunistic which is a survival skill we evolved with. We aren’t evil and violent, we are defensive, another good skill. Gluttony can be very handy. Lust is also helpful for keeping species viable. Paranoia is a survival skill. The things x-ians would glibbly call sins are in a large part responsible for the species surviving.
The problem isn’t that we won’t change, the problem is the religious folk constantly telling us that we must change. If you want a utopia, stop saying humans have to be like angels. We’re not angels, we’re humans. If you want a utopia, try coming up with a plan that involves actual humans. I think that’s the key.
September 22nd, 2006 at at 11:37 am
Dull Blade,
I was watching a documentary, “Born in Brothels.” It was about the children of prostitutes in India. During the filming of the documentary one of the children lost his mother. His mother died when her husband/pimp got angry doused her with kerosene and burned her alive. But you say, “We aren’t evil and violent, we are defensive, another good skill.” And what about the Holocaust, Rwanda, or the Khmer Rouge, were those just examples of our useful skills? Isn’t it true that our “useful skills” might one day result in self-extinction? Should we simple throw up our hands and say, “we are what we are?”
Christianity just tries to get people to begin by getting real and facing the true state of human nature. The point is not to make people feel bad. The point is that admitting your weaknesses and failings (confession) is the first step toward positive change (repentance). And people can change. I know I changed after accepting the Christian faith. I’m kind and patient towards people who treat me badly and I forgive those who wrong me. I don’t do this perfectly but I know for sure I am a better citizen and neighbor because I am Christian.
Christianity says something quite obvious that many brilliant men like Max have overlooked. You can’t make a good society out of bad citizens. A good society needs good citizens.
September 22nd, 2006 at at 12:54 pm
“Communism takes human beings and tries to turn them into bees or ants. The idea of self-sacrifice is counterproductive.”
Please see: http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/the_social_life.php?page=2
“In the end, insect societies appear to be as corrupt as our own.”
September 23rd, 2006 at at 12:11 am
I am
Dune is great as are Heinleins work, for Sci Fi.
Here is something else you may be interested in promoting here. Richard Dawkins foundation.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=ourMission.php
September 24th, 2006 at at 12:19 pm
If nothing else, I suppose this thread could be used as proof for those Christians who believe that atheists somehow form a homogeneous group.
September 28th, 2006 at at 7:30 pm
Sooooo….atheists, I know this isn’t a political blog but it’s been quiet around here lately……So how do you feel about the torture bill that was just passed in congress. How do the atheiats feel about torture?
September 29th, 2006 at at 2:22 pm
@Dull Blade: Asking “how do atheiats feel about torture?” is a misnomer, because there are many viewpoints among Athiests. I personally think that torture is wrong under my own particular moral system based on radical individualism and non-coercion… and the fact that no government ever has legitemate authority in any scenario helps to make government torture even worse.
-olly
September 29th, 2006 at at 2:32 pm
Wow getting into the whole communism discussion a bit late, but man, how can someone be opposed to religion and support ANY collectivist belief like communism? Collectivism in general, whether it be religious or political in nature, subdues the individual through coercion, and seeks to impose a system of morality/control on that individual. Communism is asking you to submit to a ‘tyranny of the median’, no better, no worse, no thanks! Communism is about as antithetical to freedom as you can get, as submission to the ‘party’ or ’state’ or whatever is the first step.
-olly
September 29th, 2006 at at 6:45 pm
Olly,
Have you noticed that the current administration is buttressed by big business? If so, do you not think that big business also contributes to state tyranny (please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1878099,00.html )? If so, what alternative economic systems would allow for a small or non-existent state, yet maintain a similar degree of industrial output?
October 1st, 2006 at at 8:00 pm
We think alike. Your comment about Harris’ book was right on–that’s exactly how I felt. For 21 years I was officially an “ordained” member of the Lutheran “cloth.” Now, I’m walking free. You will, I think, appreciate my blog, Blogging the Gospels at http://evangelists4sure.blogspot.com, and also Braveneworld at http://thynkingoutloud.blogspot.com, and also Contextual Criticism at http://heavenswork.blogspot.com.
Keep up the good fight!