Are we really THAT much like America?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Not really. It just leaves moderate people like me stuck in the middle with no representation. America seems really divided and everything has to be 'VS'. this or 'conflict' that. It seems no-one with different beliefs can ever get along on television, they just all hate eachother. The solution to right-wing extremism is not extremism from the other side.
This video sums up my feelings on the matter, when Mr. Stewart starts laying into the Crossfire presenters. In fact Jon Stewart is probably one of the best people on American TV because although he is biased and has his own views, he never attacks the other side or demeans a group of people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Way to daily mail it up.
Socialism works, capitalism works.
Combine both and bam, good stuff. Preferably more socialism than capitalism, hate this whole conservative "traditionalist" thing.
Oh and if you ask me religion and government should NEVER mix. I accept religion in personal lives, I aint gonna join in, but seeing as it's very dated and illogical it shouldn't be used on any kind of mass scale in the modern world.
Last edited:
Stewart and Blitzer are not that far to the left of centre ground, or at least what I count as centre ground (and my views on subjects range form very right wing to very left wing).
Nor are many of the other CNN presenters like Mann.
However, when you look at right wing presenters they are so far to the right it is impossible to go any further without being called Adolf.
So it depends what you call "middle" ground, is middle ground something 50% between the slightly left wing presenters and the very right wing ones ... or is middle ground actually MIDDLE ground of the political spread, in which case the left wing ones are VERY close to this for the most part.
Nor are many of the other CNN presenters like Mann.
However, when you look at right wing presenters they are so far to the right it is impossible to go any further without being called Adolf.
So it depends what you call "middle" ground, is middle ground something 50% between the slightly left wing presenters and the very right wing ones ... or is middle ground actually MIDDLE ground of the political spread, in which case the left wing ones are VERY close to this for the most part.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
This quote typifies exactly the problems going on in America at the moment. Dawkins himself doesn't actually claim that he knows that God doesn't exist but you claiming religion to just be an outright lie with no proof is a belief based upon faith just as much as any religious follower has.
But atheists equivocate religion to a lack of intelligence all the time hinting that religious people are simply stupid and believe in "fairy stories". This is no better and is bigoted.
But Stalin did target religious groups and religious people have been persecuted for their faith throughout history, not to mention hate crimes are committed all the time against Jews/Muslims/Christians, etc.
Just because crimes aren't done in the 'name' of atheism doesn't mean religious people are immune from bigotry and hatred (from other religious people as well even), the same type of discrimination that O' Reilly shows towards atheists.
Of course, I don't think Stalin did what he did in the name of atheism, the same as Hitler didn't kill in the name of Christianity.
I'm not sure where you think I stand on this, but just to clarify, I'm an atheist (a 6.9 on Dawkin's scale, the same as he).
How could anything be done in the 'name' of atheism? Atheism is nothing, it's simply a lack of belief. Bill O'Reilly said he believed that these people committed the atrocities they did, because they were atheists and it's simply not true. I don't get his mind set, in that he believes that if you're not a Christian, you're wrong. I don't have a problem with faith and religion, but I do have a problem with how people such as O'Reilly use it. I feel insulted that he made such a sweeping statement about atheism as if it amounts to devil worship, or something along those lines. I don't think that religion should play any part in politics, but I'm asking a question of whether people agree or not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
You misread me. I don't think you can commit a crime in the name of atheism but you can certainly form a group, sell 'it' and make a career out of it.
O' Reilly is best ignored on this subject as he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about (but then he doesn't need to, ratings are his ultimate justification) but people like Dawkins, who go around claiming religion is some sort of human corrupter have to deal with it when they go on Fox News and get told the same sort of thing about atheism.
I think religion and state should be kept separate but I still respect religion and don't buy into the "if I'm right, then you're wrong" rhetoric that both Dawkins and O' Reilly seem to love.
The point is that as usual, its two complete opposite arguments fighting each other with no middle ground to be had. One person says atheism is corrupting society, the other says religion is stupid and is responsible for all the world's evils and without it, we'd be living in some kind of utopia. Both those arguments are clearly nonsense but that's all you ever hear on US TV at least.
I particularly dislike Hitchens & Dawkins because they're not American born and just go over there or live there to stir up trouble.
The UK has some kind of residual feudalistic peasant mentality where they need a big invasive nanny state tit to suck on.
All the "rugged individualists" as Reagan called them left the UK for the new world a long time ago.
The US constitution basically says you have the freedom to do anything you want (pursuit of happiness) so long as you don't hurt anyone (infringe their rights). In turn you have to respect other people's right to do what ever they want. And if anyone infringes your rights you can shoot them
For a vivid visual example of this system check out peopleofwalmart.com
You are responsible for your own life and have to take care of yourself however you see fit. If want to help poor people or whatever you are free to start a church or charity (tax free) and do it.
It's not 100% perfect but it's the best system that's been invented IMO. All they need to do is re-legalize weed (its coming).
All the "rugged individualists" as Reagan called them left the UK for the new world a long time ago.
The US constitution basically says you have the freedom to do anything you want (pursuit of happiness) so long as you don't hurt anyone (infringe their rights). In turn you have to respect other people's right to do what ever they want. And if anyone infringes your rights you can shoot them
For a vivid visual example of this system check out peopleofwalmart.com
You are responsible for your own life and have to take care of yourself however you see fit. If want to help poor people or whatever you are free to start a church or charity (tax free) and do it.
It's not 100% perfect but it's the best system that's been invented IMO. All they need to do is re-legalize weed (its coming).
Show me some proof he does exist, the default is "it does not exist" unless there is SOME evidence to the contrary.
And which part of that is inaccurate, they are people who believe in fairy tales ... much like people who believe santa is real, the easter bunny exists and so on.
Next you will be telling me that the Bogeyman exists too.
And Christians have committed mass genocide multiple times over in the name of Christianity ... so if Atheism is bad because of Stalin, then Christianity is bad because of the Crusades.
Only if you consider the scientific method to be flawless. I'll let Dolph argue about why it isn't.
rypt said:
They believe there is enough evidence of their existence, and as it happens you can't provide sufficient evidence to prove them wrong. However, just about everyone will admit that Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't real, and you'll struggle to find anyone that genuinely believes they are.
rypt said:
So we have nutcases in all camps. Good stuff.
The R&D is profit driven like any other business. The drug companies spend a lot of money to develop a drug, then have a set number of years for a patent to sell it and rake in profits. After the patent expires other people can sell the "generic" version for $4.
If the government just gave researchers money to develop stuff there would be really no big incentive for performance/innovation.
We're just talking about the delivery of primary care, being available to all without bankrupting an individual for getting cancer, or for having a child born that has cystic fibrosis. Nobody said anything about research.
The UK is a world leader in medical reserch.
Not that I wish to turn this into a debate on religion, but the idea that there's not enough evidence to prove them wrong is moot. It's impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on the believer, not the non believer (if one is interested in such pursuits). Bertrand Russell claimed that there was a huge china teapot revolving in our solar system, and invited people to try and prove him wrong, much in the same way that religious people invite scientists to prove to them that God doesn't exist, it's impossible.
I'm aware of Russell's teapot, it's a decent point.
However, much like Occam's razor, it doesn't prove anything.
How did it come to this again?
Because someone decided to say that atheists try to push social values, which is a lie as only the religious groups try to push their social values.
I wouldn't draw another member of Ocuk into your argument on your side. If they hold that position they can represent themselves.
He did not claim the scientific method was flawless. You are attacking this position. This is not his position ergo a strawman.
You may argue that he said proof and evidence which to you implied the scientific method but this is not the case. Evidence exists whether the scientific method is invoked or not.
While it is indeed possible to prove a negative you will never be asked to. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, in this instance it is the religious.
It does highlight where the burden of proof lies though.
Stalin inherited a divine status from the cult of personality he engineered around himself from the power he inherited and wielded. Many of these so called atheist societies are really just saturated in a cult of personality. North Korea is a prime example.
Kim Jong Il is thanked after every meal, congregation, event etc. People hang pictures of him in reverence. They say prayers o him. His father is still president. This society is saturated in religion. The Kim Jong Il that exits is not the same the North Koreans believe him to be. We are no taking sleb worship here either this is full on God worship.
My point to you rypt is that Stalin did not do the things he did in the name of atheism. He did them in the name of Stalin, the Stalin on posters, bilboards, the Stalin that was the focus of disciplines of poetry, literature, music. He had statues, buildings and streets named after him. Many Russians believed he single handedly won WWII. This was not separation of church and state. Stalin was the church and state.
Last edited: