What has America become?

"But to say that I am despotic because I do not believe in the viability of any system of beliefs, philosophical or political, that does not acknowledge Good & Evil, is simply wrong"

I say you are very close, if not in the right way, of intellectual despotism, when you denigrate these other beliefs. By the way you and/or others have described Communism as Evil, it is in no way out of possibilities that this condescending attitude will be also (or is also) applied to any dissenting views.

I would also have trouble with beliefs that dissented, and indeed argued, from the Up and Down paradigm. While I would agree that the Aussie would point in a different direction when pointing Up than I would in Alabama (if we were asked to do so from our respective locations), I would think it irrational, if not mad, to insist that there was therefore no Up or Down. There certainly is to me!

Along such paths of thought one can only come to Chaos. But because someone COULD (and many have) appropriate the language of morality as a cloak for despotism does not mean that all who use such language do. In fact, I do not insist upon all such matters in my conversation, but it is frankly ridiculous to insist that Good and Evil are not real and I don't mind saying so. That doesn't make me a despot. (I might be guilty of pomposity, however.)


"The fact that so many of the Westerners who have posted to this thread have expressed an unhealthy tolerance for this [Communsim] wicked revolution, in the name of open-mindedness, demonstrates the need for better education in exactly these principles"

Wicked revolution? So, you would have advised the people of Russia to stay with tsarism? The revolution was not a reaction against a putrid petrified monarchy that wasted the people it was supposed to justly rule and govern?

Sheesh!!! I almost afraid to ask what you think of the French Revolution...

Ask instead what I think of the American Revolution (which was not perfect). Again, the ends do not justify the means. This is the heart of wickedness. The French Revolution became a wicked thing (as Communism cannot help but do). Their NEED for a revolution was (ahem) self-evident.

While I support the Good of revolt against tyranny, I cannot say that such a revolution is good if it turns to Evil, as the French Revolution did, and as the Communist Revolution could not help but do.

I argue against Despotism. It is not Despotism for me to do so.

[c] ~~~[/c]

In our law, there is such a thing as reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt to the guilt of a person charged with a crime, that person is to be acquited. In America, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and innocence is presumed. It is the job of the defense lawyer (assuming that correct procedure is followed and we do not throw the case out on a state violation of due process, etc.) to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. There must be evidence presented that raises that doubt. Other nations give the benefit of this doubt to the State, and force the Defendant to actually prove his innocence!

In either case, if the self-evident nature of Good and Evil is doubted, it is at least incumbent that this doubt be reasonable.

(For example, I do not think that there was any reasonable doubt that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife and her friend. Unfortunately, the jury in the criminal case acquited him for other considerations.)

I have never yet found a reasonable reason (!) to doubt Good and Evil. Nor has one been offered here.

While one may entertain a doubt about the self-evident, for that doubt to have any chance of concurrence among people of reason, there must be evidence to a contrary effect.

It was argued for a time that one could not question the notion that the world was flat, or that the Earth was at the center of the universe. These notions failed as evidence was eventually presented and accepted by reasonable people.

It was despotism to burn folk at the stake for presenting this evidence, or even for their questioning of the state/religion that enforced the contrary in the expression of people. (To me, the sad thing is that this was done in the name of Christ!)

But, it is not despotism to insist, that if the Order of Things is to be overturned in our minds (ie to accept that Good and Evil are not Real), that there be a reasonable basis for doing so.

I still find no reason to seriously entertain the prospect. Only vague objections to my tone of rhetoric and name-calling.



And finally...

Complacency is the worst of all ills of education and science.

It is not complacency to teach that 2+2=4. It is accuracy. Not much could be taught if we tried to lead the poor child through such higher aspects of number theory or whatever mathematical paradigms contemplate other answers.

It is one thing to use the tools of philosophy to consider the nature of things. It is another to use such tools to question their obvious existence.

Down such paths one may find the rewards of Genius, or the penalties of Madness. (previous stipulations about irrationality vs. insanity aside for the moment)

I think that respectively, the American and French Revolutions tend to prove that. On both sides of the Atlantic, the people desired freedom from the monarchies and philosophically questioned the very nature of Reality as they designed the social contracts for their self-governance. And look at what happened in the aftermath of each...

"I would think it irrational, if not mad, to insist that there was therefore no Up or Down. There certainly is to me"

True. And each have their own Up and Down... right?
So, is there only one Up, and only one Down?
Up is away from the center of the earth, Down is towards it... But if you and an Australian (in her country) each point up at the same time, is that the same Up, even though you have the same idea of what Up is? (I guess Australians are fed up with that old type of discussion... When I talk to one on the net, I always say: "How are things up there?"!)


"it is frankly ridiculous to insist that Good and Evil are not real and I don't mind saying so"

I'm sure you don't mind saying so.
So, if it's so ridiculous saying that Good and Evil may not be real, it's interesting to notice that you also said you have no actual proof of that...

Such is the nature of imponderables: you can't show they exist, nor that they don't exist. So, then what: let's not ask the question of their existence? Let's stick with our preconceptions, or our coloured glasses, our cultural inheritence...? Let's not rock the boat?

So be it for you then.
And so it is not for me.


About the Revolutions: "Again, the ends do not justify the means. This is the heart of wickedness."

When you have a knife at your throath, or at your baby's throat, you may think otherwise.
Revolutions, even when sometimes they simmer slowly, don't come up out of the blue in a peacefull situation: these people whom i dare not judge from where i am (as we are) today had knives at their throats, at their baby's throats... They think in short terms, they don't care if a Gilthalion will judge their actions wicked some decades later: they want to live, they don't want to be crushed by a criminal state/monarchy...

Yes, none of these Revolutions continued in peacefull ways: nor in Russia, nor in France.
But they did what they had to do, with the means they had at that time.

And that is also true of more modern revolutions: many of Iranian exiles told me that the Shah's times were prosperous, but that so many corruptions was eating Iran from inside the monarchy, which was a puppet of Western states, that the ire of the people didn't have any other choice than the Islamic Shii Revolution of Khomeiney, and were so fed up with Western states' egotistical/colonist-minded attitude, that it was finally so natural for them to abhor religiously most Western influences.
Women gladly symbolically accepted (i was told) to wear the tchador, hidding the guns of the revolution under it... to fight the Western Evil. But of course, after the revolution there, it was a bit too late to make compromises, to water down the religious leaders' extremisms...
Revolutions can be a necessary "evil" to get rid of a greater "evil"... and it's so difficult to halt the testosterone/adrenaline (or whatever) that makes the frenzy calm down, since it is that frenzy that helped put down the ruling criminals...
This ain't an easy world to live in, an we in the western world often forget that.
I would think twice, nay thrice, nay... well many times, before saying that all these revolutionaries had wicked minds or intentions.

I believe - and it is only a belief - that one of the tools of despotism is the demonization of the seekers of liberty, even if these seekers are fallible... but aren't we all.

"I have never yet found a reasonable reason (!) to doubt Good and Evil. Nor has one been offered here"

I have not offered any argument to contradict the notion of Good and Evil; I even said it was ultimately an imponderable.

Have you offered reasonable argument for the existence of Good and Evil (capitalized)?

My main point - and there was one - was to raise my voice against the denigration of someone's different view than yours, based on the feeble argument of self-evidence (well, it even ain't no argument at all)(sorry for malformed english sentences!)

I believe - and again it's just my belief - that one can be true to one's own argument/belief, while at the same time not calling the other's different belief as simply ridiculous, without supplying a simple counterargument to support that denigration (if the other's position is so ridiculous, then it should be oh! so easy to dimantle, no?)
And if I myself have erred in using such a stance (and if so then show me where), then i apologize in advance.


And finally (for now...):

"It is not complacency to teach that 2+2=4. It is accuracy."

"2+2=4" is undisputable because it is within a constructed world called the Set of Natural Numbers (which completeness and consistency, by the way, has not yet been proved, and which may be of those unprovable "truths" mathematicians have learned can exist, thanks to Gödel... but I digress...), which is a world far less complicated than the actual universe, and life.

May I take it that, for you, Good and Evil, with all that the capitalization of these words imply, is as self-evident as "2+2=4"?

Mathematicians, and by extension the Sciences, have been dealt humbling blows in the first part of this century, thanks to people like Gödel, Lobachevski, etc..., crushing the old dream of explaining all by pure logic/pure mathematics... Crushing the absolutist blinders of so-called self-evidences.

When dealing with human nature, with life and the universe and our place in it, we don't have the rigourous tools of mathematics to show us what is wrong or right, good or evil, or Good or Evil.
The most rigorous of sciences has taught itself humility; yet, in a much much much much more complex area such as life and humanity and nature, there are some that still think they can get away with maintaining alienating absolutes.

Some say that any revolution based on Communist ideals will fail; I can't deny nor accept that: I think that behind ideals theres are always the humans who in the end are the masters of those ideals, who can bend them, make them work if can be. Ideals are just that, ideals; they don't live in "real" life, they can only emerge in context of actual situations, with actual people. And to brand these people's choices as wicked is acutelly condescending, and - here we go again - reeks of this holier-than-thou attitude.

(Big Al Gore Sigh)

I guess I just don't quite get it.

It seems to take a very elaborate series of justifications to reach the conclusion that it is not somehow irrational (at least) to attempt to politically construct a civilization without Good and Evil being acknowledged, undisputed principles of Nature.

I think it is the very imprecise nature of language (vs. math) that leaves us where we are.

You want me to prove that Good and Evil are Real?

I thought that the very nature of a self-evident realization was that it recquired no proof. It is a first principle kind of thing.

I know that in the absence of a sense of absolute morality (which has its obvious situational variations), governments have always become Despotisms.

And you continue to set up straw dogs to knock down. (Or is that paper tigers?)

I didn't say that all revolutionaries, much less all French and Russian revolutionaries, were evil. I did not venture to debate that they were wrong to revolt. I point out that the systems their leadership sought to erect were more than flawed. They were wicked.

To object to this characterization is simply to return to the "reality of Good & Evil argument" over and over again.

Jefferson believed in self-evident Truths. The Republic he helped to craft stands (more-or-less) intact. He is still thought a hero and a genius, however flawed.

Robespierre did not entertain such quaint views. His Republic fell to a still more brilliant (and arguably more humane) despot. His memory is infamous and it would not be mere rhetoric to think him a monster and a madman.

But I do not think all American revolutionaries saints and I do not think all French revolutionaries demons.

"You want me to prove that Good and Evil are Real?"

Nah... I was responding to: "I have never yet found a reasonable reason (!) to doubt Good and Evil. Nor has one been offered here".
You would require a reasonable reason to doubt Good and Evil? Then why not furnish one to believe in them?

I already stated my belief that these are imponderables; I wouldn't ask you what i believe is not askable (sp?)

But if you go further and say that it is ridiculous to believe that Good and Evil may not exist, then a clear demonstration of why it is so ridiculous is required. Saying that Jefferson believed so and is now a hero is far from being a believable argument.


"I thought that the very nature of a self-evident realization was that it recquired no proof"

And how convenient that is!
Just state, impose, and if someone says the contrary, just answer to them that it is ridiculous to deny these self-evidences, adding that they think that way just because they don't have a good grasp on reality...

The old "Tails I win, Heads you lose" trick.

How convenient indeed...

And that is the danger of complacency, especially regarding these so-called self-evidences...

Follow the "moral majority", or be branded ridiculous, out of touch with reality... and what else, I dare not think or remember...

...Despotism in the making, nothing less...

Dare to doubt!



"And you continue to set up straw dogs to knock down. (Or is that paper tigers?)"

Sure... whatever... read the above comments...

I make this post separate from the one I just made, to put forward a quote from a wise scientist and vulgariser, Jacob Bronowski, from his TV series The Ascent of Man.

Separate, because I do not pretend it supports wholly the views I have, nor that it contradicts the other point of view; equally, I do not pretend it discredits the views I shared, nor wholly supports the other views.

I propose it then to be read for itself. I think it contains elements common to the views expressed by most here, even opposite views, and that it may contain other elements to be thought about.

Bracketed comments are my own.

[Context: Bronowski has just told the story behind the atomic bomb,
especially related to his friend Leo Szilard, who tried to prevent
and warn against the misuses of that powerfull science.
Bronowski is now outside in front of the Auschwitz crematorium,
on a muddy field and a pond.]

"There are two parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that
the end justifies the means. That push-button philosophy, that
deliberate deafness to suffering, has become the monster in the
war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit: the
assertion of dogma that closes the mind, and turns a nation, a
civilisation, into a regiment of ghosts - obediant ghosts, or
tortured ghosts.

It is said that science will dehumanise people and turn them
into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself.
This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond
were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was
not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma.
It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have
absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they
behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge
of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the
brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped.
Every judgment in sciences stands on the edge of error, and is
personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we
are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell:
'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you
may be mistaken'.

[Bronowski now walks slowly into the pond, and slowly crouches]

I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a
human being to the many members of my family who died at
Auschwitz, to stand here by the pond as a survivor and a witness.
We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and
power. We have to close the distance between the push-button
order and the human act. We have to touch people."

[As he says: "We have to touch people", he takes a handfull of
mud from the pond - below which probably the ashes of some friends
or some family member were dumped in - and squeezes it..]


From The Ascent of Man, by Jacob Bronowski (1973)
on pages 370 and 374 ( Little, Brown & Co) of the book
based on the eponymous BBC TV Series

"in the bowels of Christ"

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

That is disgusting!

(I'm sorry, but I did have to get in here somewhere...)

Memory lane...

Straight from Newhart:

I hat to be a spoilsport, but could you guys please condense your material and post shorter messages? It takes me hours to read all that.

(Heavier deeper Al Gore sigh.)

I actually have the textbook The Ascent of Man by Bronowski on my shelf. (Yes, I read it!)

While it is a wonderful and brilliant book, it still makes the logical error of concluding that because some self evident Truths have only been propaganda (or error), we therefore cannot use the concept at all.

My personal ongoing experience with God is evidence that stands in contradiction to the above preference. I say "preference" because it is not a reasoned approach.

The scientist would have to test the repeatability of the experience I (and so many others) describe, rather than dismiss it as a matter of preference.

If Niffiwan is offended that I think it ridiculous in the context of the discussion we were having, he can say so and I will sincerely apologize.

But I actually believe that anyone who thinks they can erect a civilization without basing it upon the principle that there is Good and Evil just doesn't get it.

[Arthur Fonzerelli rolling his eyes ... thanks Gil for the correction!]

"it still makes the logical error of concluding that because some self evident Truths have only been propaganda (or error), we therefore cannot use the concept at all."

Wouldn't the conclusion rather be that because of human arrogance, and ignorance doubled with vain complacency, and the hunger of self-righteousness, so-called self-evident truths should then be taken with magnifying glasses, scrutinized, doubted and contested without fear of persecution, for to fear the ridicule is a lesser consequence than despotic zeolotry?


"My personal ongoing experience with God is evidence that stands in contradiction to the above preference. I say "preference" because it is not a reasoned approach."

And - believe me or not - I do respect your "preference"... as long as, since it is a "preference", others' preferences not be idly branded as ridiculous and a view without "grasps" (since others may have had other experiences than yours, and since like those others you are fallible, limited in what the whole world and life may bring in its unlimited possible experiences).


"If Niffiwan is offended..."

Your denigration of his views also taints those who would have similar opinions.


"But I actually believe that anyone who thinks they can erect a civilization without basing it upon the principle that there is Good and Evil just doesn't get it"

And you know that out of your civilisation-building experience?
I didn't think so...

It is a tenable belief though, but of which tenability shouldn't be taken for granted... nor as self-evident.

If you get it so much more than the ones with an opposite view on that matter, it shouldn't be so hard for you to explicit your thoughts (no, you really didn't do that in this thread... you merely stated).
Unless, of course, if for one to get it one should convert to your deity's brand of faith, which would then make you stand a circular one...

===

LorienWanderer, it just may be that I (and maybe others) have not mastered the art of concision in debating important matters.

If I could post an image to condense a thousand of my words, I would do it (that Newhart was one try... although it is far from representing a thousand words!)

First of all, I am highly offended at the blasphemous mislabeling of THE FONZ! His name was(is) ARTHUR not ALPHONSO! This sort of thing is the reason why America, indeed, all Western Civilization, is in decline. Can the End be far?





"it still makes the logical error of concluding that because some self evident Truths have only been propaganda (or error), we therefore cannot use the concept at all."

Wouldn't the conclusion rather be that because of human arrogance,

I think it the height of arrogance to assert, with all of history standing in contradiction, that a civilization can be built without the foundational principle of Good and Evil

and ignorance doubled with vain complacency,

Of what am I ignorant here? (Other than the meaning intended by the Newhart picture?) How am I complacent? If I were, I'd hardly be making this effort.

and the hunger of self-righteousness,

I'm not hungry at all. In fact, some would say that I'm quite full of it. But seriously, righteous is the last thing I'm presenting myself as. Perhaps I'm failing to communicate something here.

so-called self-evident truths should then be taken with magnifying glasses, scrutinized, doubted and contested without fear of persecution, for to fear the ridicule is a lesser consequence than despotic zeolotry?

When one makes a ridiculous assertion, can ridicule be far behind? That's all I saw. A ridiculous assertion. Again, all of history confounds the notion that a civilization can be built without a Moral foundation. Again, it is self-evident. To "prove" it is to recite the entire litany of man's inhumanity to man (not to mention women!). No one has examined this Good/Evil thing in this thread, including me. I would enjoy reading someone defending the proposition that it ain't so. All I saw was an assertion, and on its own merits, it was ridiculous.


"My personal ongoing experience with God is evidence that stands in contradiction to the above preference. I say "preference" because it is not a reasoned approach."

And - believe me or not - I do respect your "preference"... as long as, since it is a "preference", others' preferences not be idly branded as ridiculous and a view without "grasps"

There was nothing idle about it. I say it is a preference not to accept the self-evidence of Good and Evil because there is no possible scientific proof against it. I at least offer the subjectively verifiable situation that I experience. "I stand at the door and knock... Otherwise, inductively, one can reach much the same conclusion from a greater than cursory acquaintance with History.

(since others may have had other experiences than yours,

Who has had an experience that contradicts mine? Did they experience somehow an absolute definitive absence of God from all that is Real? Or at least that Good and Evil are absent from human events? Failing that, can a case be made beyond a reasonable doubt from the record of History that Good and Evil are in fact absent from the course of human events?


"But I actually believe that anyone who thinks they can erect a civilization without basing it upon the principle that there is Good and Evil just doesn't get it"

And you know that out of your civilisation-building experience?
I didn't think so...

Well, I have had some direct experience in civilization maintenance, and I've read something of what those who have built civilizations have had to say. If your standard is much higher than what can be learned from the record of history, then you need to consult God, Himself. I can only do so much, and that poorly.

It is a tenable belief though, but of which tenability shouldn't be taken for granted... nor as self-evident.

We keep returning to the acceptance of self-evidence. I submit that Good & Evil are self-evident to all but a few philosophers and their followers. All human history demonstrates it. In contradiction to it they offer rationalizations based upon the logical flaw I previously demonstrated. I have yet to be presented with any reason NOT to take it for granted.

If you get it so much more than the ones with an opposite view on that matter, it shouldn't be so hard for you to explicit your thoughts

Though you might quantify certain effects (if you could ever agree on causation), you cannot measure Good & Evil.

You can only judge it.

It is one thing to toss out the self-evident as a matter of scientific inquiry. It is quite another to do so in the realm of Governance. In one case, scientific skepticism is the foundation for progress. In the other, it is anarchy at best, and despotism inevitably. If every law that we passed or judgement we made were debated like this, then like this, we would never get anywhere.

Some things are debatable. Others are not. At least not productively.

I believe that there is a confusion out there in which some philosophers and their followers, who for whatever reason, a priori insist there is no God or Good & Evil, or at least that anything that is beyond scientific proof should not enter into the realm of political discussion.

Which is, frankly, ridiculous, and as History demonstrates, when enforced, can lead to true despotism as swiftly, if not more swiftly, than the slow creep of religious dogma.

I do not cast away doubt about everything because I do not doubt Good & Evil. But doubting everything for the sake of doubt is futile.





Are we done yet? Lorien Wanderer may find the reading tedious, but the writing is more so. (Just not as boring as the holiday work schedule!) Hopefully, some good will come of all these words.

Religious folk are subjected to ridicule when we are ridiculous (which is often). In fact, it's always open season! I didn't mean to seem mean-spirited (if I did), but good grief! I hope that the very length of this debate is convincing enough that there would have been no progress in human affairs if this were the sticking point everytime we moved.

Doubting everything is not scientific. It's laziness, pride, or both. It's just not as lazy as doubting nothing.

Ye gads, you guys should work for the DNC.

************************************************** ******************

Do autoparanoid schizophrenic agnostic dyslexic insomniacs lie awake at
night wondering if they might be the dog that's out to get them?

Actually arrogance is so necessary for the world to go round. Well maybe not exactly for the earth to rotate and revolve, but most definitely for human beings to function in a sane way. That is because pride in your own work is nothing negative. It's a great quality. As for the rest of what you're saying, I've already been over that.

Sorry guys, but it DOES take me hours to go through all that and I can't really afford to waste time. Got exams coming up. But go ahead. I'll catch up later.

"I think it the height of arrogance to assert, with all of history standing in contradiction, that a civilization can be built without the foundational principle of Good and Evil"

History does make us see that civilizations that insisted on their short-sighted versions of self-evident truth of Good and Evil, to the point of defending this view by torture, war, where the prime example of despotic states.
Defending their absolute beliefs (and beliefs in absolute) through bloodshed and accute as well as precise arrogance and intolerance, these states - which are supposed to have a good grasp on reality - ended up creating a reality where hell was a daily experience.

Communism may have had a terrible history after their revolution, but so many proeminent christians states (acting contrary to the gospels their cherished so) no only continued to create hell on earth, but gave that despotic tradition a whole new grandeur. Physical as well as intellectual and spiritual slavery have flourished under these civilisation-builders, because they had an unshakable belief in their notion of Good and Evil: If you are not with me, you are against me became a sentence that either put you under the sword of institutionalized christianity (or islam or any other despotic institutionalized ideology), or put you under the Evil team, which was then simply a death sentence, or a promise of so many kind of slavery.

Does that show that Good and Evil do not exist? Of course not, it doesn't. But it does show that, contrary to what have been said, a civilization that builds upon a near-sighted and unconditional, undisputable belief in Good and Evil, not only were not healthy states, but were states that propagated their filthy mental cancer.

...But these civilisations did survive, and even survived better than any other... For their use of self-centered self-serving force to subjugate those who dare be different than them was oh! so well supported and nurtured by religious zeolotry, by which they thought they were justified... after all, they were merely serving Good, no? They were just the instruments of Good... How convenient.


"Of what am I ignorant here?..."
"I'm not hungry at all..."

I was suggesting an interpretation of what Bronowski wanted to say, at what conclusion he wanted us to attain.
I don't think he knew you personally.


"That's all I saw. A ridiculous assertion."

And when we get to have quality experiences like yours, maybe then we'll see that you were right, and only then will we have a good grasp on reality, and our assertions won't be ridiculous anymore...

Sure...


"Who has had an experience that contradicts mine? Did they experience somehow an absolute definitive absence of God from all that is Real? Or at least that Good and Evil are absent from human events? Failing that, can a case be made beyond a reasonable doubt from the record of History that Good and Evil are in fact absent from the course of human events?"

An experience that contradicts yours?

How about experiences of a god that is not yours? oh... i guess these people just experiences the devil then...

Also, can I really have, say, experiences that contradict those of William S. Burrough? Can I, or can you have any proof of the inexistence of InterZone...

Imponderables... are part of the experiences human being live everyday for millions of years (or thousand of years if you want, if for you we were created 5000 years ago... but that's another thread in itself!)

I can't contradict subjectivist interpretations of experiences, and never thought or said I could.

But by living with people around me, listening to them, to their experiences, I do know they can have experiences from which they get a different view from yours, sometimes small, sometimes larger.

But you do touch an important point: one cannot have an experience that contradicts religious beliefs, mythic beliefs, or even superstitions.

To take a neutral example, just the fact that astrology has kept its hold on people's interest, despite of astronomy, shows that if people want to believe something hard enough, they are going to go on believing, and, as strange as this may sound, they will have some experiences (some, not a lot, but some is enough) that they think will support their belief.
And none of my, or your, experiences can really contradict theirs, because it is their experiences, or at least how they have dealt with their experiences: everyone, them, you, me, color their experiences with their beliefs.


"Well, I have had some direct experience in civilization maintenance"

...whatever that means... We're talking about civilizations, right?
Running for some place in a restricted country, in a restricted party, is far from enough to be considered as experience for civilisation building.


"and I've read something of what those who have built civilizations have had to say"

The builders of Western Civilisation?
I hope you don't consider America as a distinct civilisation (I have myself troubles considering Quebec as a distinct society... but this should have been a comment in a long dead thread...)

Anyways...
One great author of the study of civilisation, one of my favourite, Arnold Toynbee, may to some extent agree with you. But in a way that maybe you wouldn't like... or maybe you would like. I don't know, maybe you've read him already (esp. the two volume abridgment of A Study of History by Sommerled); he's considered dépassé by present scholars, but his methods and enthusiasm, at least, are to be praised.


"If your standard is much higher than what can be learned from the record of history, then you need to consult God, Himself"

Did I ever pretend to be so knowledgeable (sp?) that I could encompass all of human history. I think you're mistaking me from someone else in this thread..............

If I ever get delusional delirium of grandeur, then yes, I guess I may need a deity like yours to help me out...

As for now though, I try to keep on the right track by not wearing self-evident blinders nor in accepting every absolutes my cultural inheritances throw at me.

While never cease dreaming, I also never avoid to doubt, especially in those matters where doubting is considered ridiculous, taboo, and even highly criminal/sinfull not so long ago in human history.


"We keep returning to the acceptance of self-evidence (...) . All human history demonstrates [self-evidence of Good and Evil]. (...) I have yet to be presented with any reason NOT to take it for granted"

Branding something as self-evident seems for you sufficient to avoid any need to justify that label... Or course you point to human history... but human history only points to the belief in Good and Evil... not it's existence...

To make it short then: How does human history, according to you, proves (or demonstrate) the existence of Good and Evil?
...and please just don't simply say that it's obvious and self-evident, as this would point to a circularity in your thinking.

You can take anything you want for granted, that's your choice.
People took for granted that the earth was flat in the not so long past ( even though Eratosthenes measured the earth's radius 300 BCE....)

My suggestions of not taking anything for granted are simply an healthy conduct to prevent slavery of the mind.
I'm sure you would like millions of Chinese not to take Mao's RedBook for granted or as self-evident truths...


"In one case, scientific skepticism is the foundation for progress. In the other, it is anarchy at best, and despotism inevitably"

That, clearly, needs precision.

Do explain how skepticism can lead to despotism, while despotism is against skepticism.

Intolerance of the independance of thought is the natural nuruturing element to despotism, dogma being the main product.

Skepticism is a fight against dogma.

And it is the main role of dogma to keep from questionning so-called self-evidences.
The best way to avoid people from asking clarifications about something is to label that something as a self-evident truth, and to denigrate, ridiculise and even criminalize those who would challenge that.


"I believe that there is a confusion out there in which some philosophers and their followers, who for whatever reason, a priori insist there is no God or Good & Evil, or at least that anything that is beyond scientific proof should not enter into the realm of political discussion.
Which is, frankly, ridiculous, and as History demonstrates, when enforced, can lead to true despotism as swiftly, if not more swiftly, than the slow creep of religious dogma."


Separation of Church and State? So, you're against that part of your country's constitution?
Forcing religious beliefs in a constitution is nothing less than putting the church influence in it.
If politics/government is to be about all people, irrespective of their beliefs, then it should be laid down in secular terms.
The slow creep of religious dogma isn't so slow, as it permeates and often precedes the building of civilisations, or country.

To enforce religious neutrality is quite different than enforcing, say, atheism; enforcing atheism is just another form of religious zeolotism, the religion being human pride in this case.
Enforcing neutrality in a constitution is to prevent undue influences from older institutions, for the better of newer population.
Neutrality in a constitution is not enforcing the absence of god, gods, goddesses, avatars or whatever in a society... It is a need if one wants to avoid a biggoted state. Each must have the liberty of their cult, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's.


"the writing is more [tedious than the reading]"

I'm saddened to learn that, Gilthalion.
Without debates on serious matters, without exposing one's views, one's mind, our civilisation becomes stale.
And debating with only people who agree, or who are easily convinced, is no debate at all.

If this is what you wish, I'll let you speak to yourself here.

I enjoy this debate, I enjoy hearing someone elses completely different views on things.
As I said in another (dead) thread, all my close friends, without exceptions, are of a religion or another, most of them being christians (and most of them being catholics...).
And be assured that this kind of debate isn't my first, won't be my last, and never have there been long faces after debates with my friends, on either side.

The tediousness you feel is truely saddening.
I was assuming, as a radio anchor (or animator?) that such conversations were for you a daily matter.


"Religious folk are subjected to ridicule when we are ridiculous (which is often)."

It might be because people think all Baptists and/or Pentecostals are like Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, or worse Jimmmmy Swaggart and PTL's Jimm Baker (and his equally famed wife Tammy...).

But that comes because of fame, and not the subject matter.
If scientists (and science) were as famous and flamboyant as preachers and politicians, for the people, then one would find that oh! so many proeminent scientists have made laughable blunders...
Human nature...

But I don't think anybody in his/her right mind would find Martin Luther King ridiculous, nor Gandhi, nor Mother Theresa (well, not concerning her work in Calcutta), nor Krishnamurti.

Being religious isn't what makes some christian, or muslim, or jews, (insert other religions here) ridiculous...


"Doubting everything is not scientific. It's laziness, pride, or both. It's just not as lazy as doubting nothing"

Doubting everything for just the sake or play of doubting isn't scientific. It ain't a game, and shouldn't be made as a mind game.
Even Descartes didn't make it into a mind game.

Pride lies much more though on the refusal to doubt what you have been taught not to doubt, out of fear of sin and damnation.
Pride lies in the thought that the beliefs you have cannot be doubted... and especially not doubted by oneself.

Doubting is far, so far, from pride: doubting is humility.
Doubting is saying: I am limited, and what I think is true, may not be true - because I am fallible; and because, what I think is a lesson of history, may just be an easy way for me not to think, not to think differently, not to be disapointed.

Doubting is also so far from laziness: doubting is swimming against the current of so-called established truths; and so much of what was thought to be established truths fell to the ground (eg in sciences) after doubting... But these doubts were made against the current trends, and often cost the mental health of the doubters (eg Ludwig Boltzman, in science).
Doubting is turning away from the easy and comfortable, and challenging the established. Hardly a lazy enterprise...

Doubting may not always lead to a change of what one believes, but that is not the point: the point is to have challenged, to destroy or to strenghten beliefs, avoiding thus the mind-numbing status of dogma.

Laziness lies much more on the refusal to doubt, and to be content of so-called self-evidences, or even of archaic so-called revealed truths.

Laziness lies in the thought that doubting the beliefs you have would be a "ridiculous" enterprise, or worse a sin, and that dogma or scriptures is all you need. Just stop thinking, stop doubting, and believe.




NO!

Dare to doubt!






... and dare to read!

And people say you can't do anything with a philosophy degree...lol

(Hmmm... Physics and Math degrees actually...

Hated philosophy in college... but learned that it was because how it was put to us, not because of what it was.

I guess it's the same thing for any topic.)

Perhaps Sunday School would have been more helpful!

Obviously I must enjoy this to some extent. Still, it is tedious to stand (for I cannot sit for long without pain, anymore) before a computer terminal and go back and forth to pick up disparate threads of thought, organize the thoughts, consider responses, and then to key all of this back in. This takes a tremendous amount of time, which I've fortunately had some of during this holiday. Not much time today, so I devote my Lunch Hour to this post.

To take a remark of mine about the tedium of this sort of communication, and to construe it as you have is just as ridiculous as the comments that catalyzed this debate.

Your hostility to religion, despite your occassional disclaimer, is apparent.

Perhaps you are simply not well-enough acquainted with history. I don't know. Christian Faith is responsible for none of the atrocities you mention. Nor were the domains of Civilization you mentioned established upon such principles. Another straw dog. You believe too much anti-Church propaganda.

I maintain that it was the very acknowledgment of Good & Evil that let folk see when the corrupt nobles who took over the Church were themselved wicked despite their robes. Many of these churchmen could not even read, and certainly had no acquaintance with the Gospel.

To hold that the perception of Good & Evil is causative of the despotism these evil men employed is utterly absurd.

It may only be ignorance and error that causes you to take such a position. I suspect it is a willingness to believe whatever seemingly supports belief in an amoral universe.

How is it "wearing blinders" to acknowledge Good & Evil? For that matter, how is it "wearing blinders" to testify that I personally know God?

It seems to me that the blinders are on other eyes.


[c] ~~~[/c]


Communism may have had a terrible history after their revolution,

MAY HAVE? More clouded thinking. Obviously (self evidently), it did.

AFTER THEIR REVOLUTION? More historical inaccuracy. Or revisionism. I'm seeing a lot of that. On just what date did the Communist Revolution end? It is a global matter that continues today.

but so many proeminent christians states (acting contrary to the gospels their cherished so)

These wolves in sheep's clothing hardly cherished the Gospel.

no only continued to create hell on earth, but gave that despotic tradition a whole new grandeur. Physical as well as intellectual and spiritual slavery have flourished

Actually, the despotic Church tried to forbid the slave trade. It was finally Christian Abolitionist who put an end to it. It is more revisionist history (lies) to say otherwise. And it was CHRISTIANS who overthrew the despotic dogmas of the European "nobility" who married church to state to enhance their own power.

under these civilisation-builders,

Which I take as a reference to me, and an allusion that I would condone slavery as well. This is the sort of thing that makes this all the more tedious.

because they had an unshakable belief in their notion of Good and Evil:

Because they were greedy wicked people who could care less about Good and Evil.

More straw dogs.

On a personal note: In my small way, I HAVE been busy for a quarter century in the field of Civilization Maintenance (never claimed to build one, another straw dog). Yes, running for office, studying the work of politicians from the local to the global level, studying History, being involved in campaigns, commenting and moderating debate on the same, is part of this maintenance. I guess this is too, so congratulations! You, too, are qualified to debate these matters, however ridiculous your ideas.

I don't think it is a uniquely American idea, but it is a typical American idea, that we each have a right to debate, vote, etc, without having to rely upon some official authorization. That's why we are not a European colony. Talk about double-minded thinking!

If we dare to assert ourselves, we don't hold it against others who do the same.

Although I recognize the self-evident right of Niffiwan to hold his opinion that there is no Good & Evil, I don't have to esteem, condone, or support his notions. In fact, if I find it to be clearly in error, I have a right, and a duty to dispute it, especially the dangerous sort of error that leads to the very despotism we speak of.

The despotism you accuse me of, only comes into play if I attempt to silence him and his viewpoint. Your argument that my doubts about the grasp on Reality of anyone who believes there is no Good & Evil depends upon believing that the expression of my doubt is enough to silence those who hold that belief. If that is the case, then they don't hold it very strongly, do they?


[c] ~~~[/c]


In one post you say you don't expect me to prove Good & Evil, in another you demand it.

That kind of thing adds to the tedium, too.


[c] ~~~[/c]


"I believe that there is a confusion out there in which some philosophers and their followers, who for whatever reason, a priori insist there is no God or Good & Evil, or at least that anything that is beyond scientific proof should not enter into the realm of political discussion. Which is, frankly, ridiculous, and as History demonstrates, when enforced, can lead to true despotism as swiftly, if not more swiftly, than the slow creep of religious dogma."

Separation of Church and State? So, you're against that part of your country's constitution?
Forcing religious beliefs in a constitution is nothing less than putting the church influence in it.

Let loose the Straw Dogs of War!

You will never find "Separation of Church and State" in the US Constitution. You really just don't know what you are talking about.

You evidently really and truly do believe all this progaganda the Left has unleashed against the American Way! (And so do a lot of students in today's schools!)

Let me offer a little education here. I think this is needed, just in case any young American ENTMOOTERS are still hanging with this discussion.

From memory, the 2nd Amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The State is limited here. No State Religions. No prohibitions against the People and their religions.

And that's it.

It is a matter of Religious Liberty, not of Secular Supremacy.

Read the Preamble to our Declaration of Independence some time. We, indeed, did base our corner of civilization upon "religious principles."

Again, from memory: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." There is also a part about "...the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God..."

"Church influence?" You bet. And one of those influences was that the State could not ever command Religion again.

So Americans have the Christian church to thank for religious (or non-religious) freedom.

The doctrine of "separation of Church and State" has been missapplied in this century so much so that if a town dares to let its employees put up a menorrah or a christmas tree, they might find themselves in federal court!

I smell Despotism.

And as I pointed out earlier, take the amoral viewpoints of a Robbespierre or a Lenin, and look at what was wrought, and how quickly.

Again, it is the very recognition of Good & Evil that is the foundation of a free society. It is an amoral State that becomes despotic, especially in the case of Communism which demands despotism.

If Christians are to share any blame in the despotisms of the past, it is because they did NOT stand for Good, and allowed their countryment to fall under the yoke of amoral, if not evil, power.


[c] ~~~[/c]


I did not say that Doubt is wrong. I said it is lazy (prideful might be better, certainly anti-pragmatic) to ALWAYS doubt. This is a pattern of behaviour that is substituted for true inquiry, which must acknowledge that which is determined to be Real. (Especially as a matter of pragmatic politics.)

Although scientific skepticism is a wonderful thing, you cannot build a civilization upon Perpetual Doubt.

I'm not even sure you could get dressed in the morning if you actually attempted to live by such a principle. (And no one actually does.)

It is certainly ridiculous to insist upon governing by it.


[c] ~~~[/c]


For what it's worth, America does have a distinct culture, and is an independent and sovereign State. One could argue that it is indeed a separate Civilization in a sense. That argument holds less water each day.

It is the growing loss of this culture and sovereignty (through the growing dominance of anti-Americanism at home and abroad) that precipitated my former signature, which led to this thread in the first place.


[c] ~~~[/c]


So, let me get this straight:


1) Good & Evil do not exist, or if they do, they have no place in constituting a civilization. It is religious despotism for me to insist otherwise.

2) It is religious despotism to insist upon the self-evident, despite the lack of any proof (much less evidence) to the contrary.

3) The Christian Faith, not the despots who abused it, is responsible for the despotisms of Western history.

4) The US Constitution does not mean what it says, and means what it does not say.

5) I, in fact, am a despot for refusing to buy any of this.


You have built your house upon sinking sand. Not a good place to make your Stand, I'm afraid.

I'd throw you a rope, if I thought you could clear your doubts long enough to decide to grab it! Maybe you can feed it to that pack of straw dogs that keeps you company.

"Perhaps Sunday School would have been more helpful!"

"Wisdom begins where the fear of God ends."
- André Gide


"Your hostility to religion, despite your occassional disclaimer, is apparent"

Try as you may, these christians are my friends, and I, theirs.
Try making friends who aren't christians; and if you do, keep an eye on your watch to see how long they'll stand your views about their opinions.

"Perhaps you are simply not well-enough acquainted with history. I don't know. Christian Faith is responsible for none of the atrocities you mention."

So, let me see: we did not have the exceptional experiences you had to have a firm grasp of reality; and i'm not acquainted with history, which explains my mistakes.
What next? My shoe size is wrong?

If for you no historic calamity or genocide have been commited by christians, then so be it.
I guess you reason that if wrong doing has been done, it couldn't be by real christians because real christians do not do atrocities.
"Tails I win, Head you lose" attitude all over again.
See end of this post for more info.


"Another straw dog"

You like mentioning straw dogs, don't you.

Didn't you realize that your "Straw Dog" accusation was a straw dog in itself.
Of course you did; you're not naive, and you're shrewd.
Nice qualities that one shouldn't abuse.


"I maintain that it was the very acknowledgment of Good & Evil that let folk see when the corrupt nobles who took over the Church were themselved wicked despite their robes"

One doesn't need the notion of Good and Evil when one is starving and decomposing, to see that their rulers are corrupt.

Good and Evil, the personification of good and bad by religion (into God and Devil), as a belief, can have (and have) positive consequences when not abused.
But when believers use their personal belief of Good and Evil to say: you do not believe in my Good, therefore you are on the side of Evil, so I will fight you, and trounce you, and flay you, and burn you, until you or your family believes... it is then that this very natural consequence of the belief in supernatural Good and Evil takes its toll on humanity.

And don't tell me there's no historical facts for these; or that these were not from true christians.

You need only acknowledge your pains to see that you are governed by corrupted rulers. It feels bad... it feels evil... and in a religious context, is feels Evil...



"MAY HAVE? More clouded thinking"

May, as most english-born speakers know, and as I learned as a second language when I was young, does not solely mean doubt.

"You may be a good person deep down, but it is your thinking that is clouded"
In this previous sentence, "may" doesn't mean that i doubt that you are a good person (really).

You are out of line here.


"AFTER THEIR REVOLUTION? More historical inaccuracy. Or revisionism"

I do not have to go on lengthy explanations: the 1917 overthrow of the monarchy has been called the October Revolution well before you and I were born.

You are again out of line.


"These wolves in sheep's clothing hardly cherished the Gospel."

But oh! they did indeed!... They did, but by their way of thinking, by their misplaced desire to make their religion the only one standing, for the glory of their god... I do understand that you disagree totally with their actions, but that doesn't make them less believers; they just pushed their absolute desire to maintain their truths much farther than you would (at least, I hope so...)


"'under these civilisation-builders' Which I take as a reference to me"

Paranoia.
You are no civilisation-builder in any way.

Strike three.
You have clearly twisted at least three times my words.
Who's the revisionist here, then?


"Because they were greedy wicked people who could care less about Good and Evil"

Their greed was to take only their own beliefs in Good and Evil as the sole truth.
Their wickedness was to act savagely upon those beliefs.


"You, too, are qualified to debate these matters, however ridiculous your ideas."

There you go again.
Demagoguery, paranoia, and intellectual bigotry.


"If we dare to assert ourselves, we don't hold it against others who do the same."

If constantly branding the opposite views to yours as ridiculous isn't against others asserting themselves, than I don't know what is...


"In fact, if I find it to be clearly in error, I have a right, and a duty to dispute it, especially the dangerous sort of error that leads to the very despotism we speak of."

- > All that you have said in this thread, Gil, is utterly ridiculous.

If i meant the above sentence, then i would be no better than a despot.
Instead, I have, I think, exposed reasons (or at least a view of what i belief) for why I think that your absolutist point of vue is wrong or annoying, rather than just saying "it's ridiculous" and hoping nobody would see the feeble argument.

You have merely said that opposite views are ridiculous, a product of a weak grasp of reality, and over and over agains merely said: "human history shows that"; but not once have you really supported any of these labels.

As I said before, and repeat here: You do not demonstrate, you impose.
And THAT is a clear mark of a despotic mind, or at least one that could do serious damage....


"The despotism you accuse me of, only comes into play if I attempt to silence him and his viewpoint"

"... to silence him ..." !!!
Well, at least NOW you admit it!!!
Nice to read something you wrote on which I agree with you....

If I wanted to silence you, I would merely shut up.
That I continue this discussion will, I hope, be understood as a wish from me to hear you further.

Why would I want to hear you further?
Because I can doubt!
Silencing you would just be a way for me to be content of my views...
And that is a major difference between you and I (and in fact, a major difference between you and my christian friends...)


"In one post you say you don't expect me to prove Good & Evil, in another you demand it"

That maybe because you misread.
And that would explain a lot...

The only place I found where you could have misread is:

"You would require a reasonable reason to doubt Good and Evil? Then why not furnish one to believe in them?"

Hmmm... that seems to be damaging to me indeed... but it was immediately followed by:

"I already stated my belief that these are imponderables; I wouldn't ask you what i believe is not askable (sp?)"

There lies the tediousness you felt: contextuality.


"We, indeed, did base our corner of civilization upon 'religious principles'"

Ok then Gilthalion, you're the american among us two, so I would have to concede.
But unfortunately, things are not that simple, Gilthalion.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"
--- Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.

A treaty endorsed by the then prez J.Adams (including Art.11), sent to Congress, where it was approved; and then later ratified by Adams.

...unless, of course, Gilthalion go on saying that the evil revisionists began their work in 1797... Or that the Communist invented a time machine to destroy america in the past (but that is more a subject for gdl's board!!!)

This is a matter for you Americans to debate amongst yourself.
I quoted the above to show that Gil's self-evidences... are sometimes not so evident...

If Gil finds my remarks about Church and State in America as somewhat shallow, I hope now he sees that this shallowness might be caused by your own historians... or even presidents and congress...
If America, even in 1797 wasn't sure if they were or were not founded on the Christian religion, then how can I be expected to know better...!!!

"You evidently really and truly do believe all this progaganda the Left has unleashed against the American Way!"

That paranoia is really becoming pitifull.


"I smell Despotism"

I know what you meant by the above, but let me tell you it could be interpreted in another way, and bear more truth.


"it is the very recognition of Good & Evil that is the foundation of a free society"

Show it, rather than just say it.
To state is not to show; to impose is not to demonstrate.


"It is an amoral State that becomes despotic"

Ditto.
Communism in its own way was quite similar to institutionalised religions: despotic, denied the right to doubt the Party (or Church or Bible, in religion's case), alienated those who thought differently, had Gods (Lenin, Marx) and Devils (capitalism), etc...
Communism was far from amoral: their moral was the strict adherence to Party line, as in Christinanity there is strict adherence to Gospels (and in many cases also to old testament archaic tribal warfare mentality, despite the gospels). Communism imposed their own morals on the people.


"I said it is lazy (prideful might be better, certainly anti-pragmatic) to ALWAYS doubt (...etc...)"

If anyone would go to lengths to effectively ALWAYS doubt, you could call that a tiring process. But by no way can this be lazy!

What I personnaly said about doubt is clear.

Especially about the importance of daring to doubt what others try to prevent you from doubting (by calling your actions ridiculous for example...).
Doubting doesn't mean not believing.

Doubt is the natural consequence of having an open mind...


"It is certainly ridiculous to insist upon governing by it [doubt]"

Doubt isn't an instrument to govern; but it is necessary for a government or society who want to avoid the path of cancerous despotism.
And if the government/society is indeed based on a religion, then the use of doubt by the watchdogs of that society is the best weapon against the tyranny of the uniformist tendencies of a religion.
By having a universalist society, in which no religion is preferred, in which religion is kept out of the ruling decisions, and left with the people who believe in it, one can then have a society where people are nearer to equality regardless of their religion, color or creed.


"...through the growing dominance of anti-Americanism at home and abroad..."

(I only took that part of the sentence, since i only want to comment on it)
Anti-americanism abroad is part of the usual anti-western movement in third-world countries, and in muslim contries.
Too bad the american people, the individuals, are made part of that hatred, which should only be an hatred of those who manipulated financially and politically these regions out of western self-centered agendas; the american individuals had no real part in these.

They could well have been allies today; but they've been peed on for so long. And they mistakenly resort to violence through their religions, since only these now give them energy to dare release the shakles outsiders have put them in.

But of course, that could also just be evil revisionism from my part...


Getting it Straight

"(1) Good & Evil do not exist, or if they do, they have no place in constituting a civilization. It is religious despotism for me to insist otherwise"

Imho, one cannot know as an absolute certainty, outside of personal relgious belief (and there are many of those) that Good and Evil exist as real individual entities (God and Devil, as the capitalization implies).
It is religious despotism to force them as so-called self-evident truths, and to denigrate and abuse those who would think otherwise, those who dare to doubt.

You may insist on your beliefs: that in itself isn't despotism, it is merely sharing.
The sharing stops though when there is imposition. As you have tried to do by branding other's view as ridiculous and out of grasp of reality, even though you should know as a mature adult that the uncountable experiences people all over the world and times should humble you into not treating other people's opinions as ridiculous!
D@mn! That's so basic! Why do I have to explain this?
That one is straight enough I hope?!

"(2) It is religious despotism to insist upon the self-evident, despite the lack of any proof (much less evidence) to the contrary"

It is, imho, religious despotism to force upon others one's own so-called self-evidences.
Imponderables do not have proofs; but they can be believed in.

Moreover, I will add that not all truths may be provable; since that is true in the simple domain of mathematics (Godel's works), I believe this to be true also of nature itself, and life, which are way more complex than Maths.

But because proofs are not always possible, and we can only rely on personal beliefs, and because each may have his/her own personal belief, respect among these believers is important and healthy.
And one calling another's view as ridiculous is far from respectfull; that is the way of the despots.


"(3) The Christian Faith, not the despots who abused it, is responsible for the despotisms of Western history"

The despots in question were christians, whether you like it or not.
I have clearly stated that I did believe they did their abuses against the teaching of the gospels their cherished so, even though you may want to insist they didn't cherish them: but again, they cherished the gospels in their own ways, wheter you like it or not.

Wheter you like it or not, there is not ONE christian faith: there are many. These faiths are all different interpretations based on one book, true.
I do not know if there is such a thing as this ideal church, consisting of only true christians and of which JC is the "head"; again, imho, this is an imponderable, such as wheter or not the Archangel Gabriel did indeed spoke out the content of the Quran for Muhammad to write down.

My comments, when I speak of "Christianity", is about the christianities that have been effectively crystallized by those interpretations, all with their own attitude and zeolotry toward their precious absolutes; some take peacefull attitude to exhalt these (amish for example), and some took bloody warfare to impose and spread them (starting especially from Constantine).

The despotisms of Western history have, imho, common grounds: human greed, human arrogance, human intolerance towards other humans with other views. And since being a christian in no way protects a human from having these "vices", then it is not surprising that, wanting to impose their God, the Creator of all the world, all over the world, these christians, armed with the certainty their bible and priests gave them, acted despotically throughout their "crusades" (and again, I repeat, against the basic teachings of the gospels they loved so).

If a religion tells you you must not be free to think differently, and just believe blindly, then this religion teaches you a vice of the mind.
Dogma is the foundation of despotic states.


"(4) The US Constitution does not mean what it says, and means what it does not say"

That has already been commented above.
It's not my doing.
It is for you Americans to solve this riddle, if I may call it that way.
Don't blame me for 18th century events and documents...


"(5) I, in fact, am a despot for refusing to buy any of this"

You refusing to "buy" any of this (well, "this" being my corrections above) is a healthy sign of doubt: it's a good sign indeed!
It is not important for me that you believe my stuff: at least really think about what I wrote, not to change opinions about your deity, but to have more respect of others' view (and not calling them ridiculous for example): if I could have even a small contribution in your renewed respect for another's opinion (even if it's not mine), then I wouldn't have written in vain.

No. If I think you have a way of thinking very akin to despots (but in fact you are much nicer than them), it is rather for you branding as "ridiculous", and with other such attributes, another's point of vue, and calling upon so-called self-evidences to justify these denigrations. I'm not afraid to repeat myself about this, over and over again.
I've been clear on that since quite early in this thread.


"You have built your house upon sinking sand. Not a good place to make your Stand, I'm afraid.
I'd throw you a rope, if I thought you could clear your doubts long enough to decide to grab it! Maybe you can feed it to that pack of straw dogs that keeps you company"

That rope would be a snake, I wouldn't grab it even if I was sinking.
You do smell Despotism after all...
Good thing Alabama is far from here, that kind of stench makes me puke.

The Stand still stands.
The sand you see is in your eyes...

How quickly they forget what they want to forget...

The white man's burden. Did something go twang right now? The Christians and the Church who considored it their 'duty' to 'civilize' the 'barbarians' of Asia and Africa by converting them to christianity. I think President McKinley of the US summed up the Western, Christian worl'd attitude while giving the reason for Philippine's annexation. He said, "There was nothing left to do but take them all, and to educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilize and Christianize them as our fellow men for whom also Christ died."

The slave trade was started by the Christians and it was a profitable practice too. But it was confined to the coastal regions of Africa. Thus when all of Asia was conquered and the world reached a saturation point, the Christians used the excuse of abolishing slave trade to colonialise Africa! Rather laughable don't you think?

Colonialism, imperialism, fanaticism, slavery, Nazism, fascism-they all have the same root. Religion. The communists got SOMETHING right after all. They got rid of it.

The Dark ages too, in case you forget was solely because of Christian fanaticism. It was the Church that deemed those who stepped out of line heretics, not some poor misled atheists. In fact, I believe religion is a major cause of violence in the world today. This IS self evident, as the many exmples supporting my statement come to mind immediatly. And if Israel and the Skinheads and Kashmir did not come rushing to your mind, it proves you are a blind supporter of religion, your mind is closed and there is nothing I can possibly do to convince you of its evils...

He has a much better way of putting these sorts of things than I do. Experience, I suppose.

"This is a discussion with supported points. Don't attack others, but attack the ideas of others." (Emphasis his)

He wrote this while kicking off the third chapter to an extremely intense battle on NTS. In case it is not immediately apparent how these words could apply here...

"Your idea is stupid." versus "You are stupid."

One is entirely admissable, as long as it is able to withstand the flurries of "PROOF! PROOF!" which would surely follow. The other one, however, crosses the line between heated discussion and flaming. (I won't pretend that I understand the Entmoot-specific rules on areas such as this - I know I had run afoul of them in one particular instance when I thought I was "behaving myself". Regardless, these are words of experience that I agree with fully.)

So, take it easy. When your (speaking in the generic sense) ideas are being attacked, don't take it as a personal attack... it's far less stressful that way. And when you (again, speaking in the generic sense) attack someone's ideas (which is one of the functions of these bulletin boards IMHO), make sure not to cross the line into a personal attack - you'll regret it. (I'm speaking from experience here)

(Note: Yeah, I'm jumping in here again. I'm not exactly accustomed to playing the role of a peacemaker, but it strikes me as more agreeable than being one of the combatants... for now, anyways)