I would rather live my life as if there is a God

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

the caracal kid said:
Your "evil" civil servants are no more evil than the civil servants of 4000 years ago, so get over it.

And who said they were not responsible for the downfall of each civilization over the last 4000 years?

I think they very specifically where in each and every case, because fish start to rot from the head.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
civilizations go through cycles just as everything else does.

In the case of Rome, the "rot" you speak of came from the very top, the empiror. It was the adoption of christianity as the official state religion that was the beginning of the end for Rome. We can thank Theodosius for quite a bit still today.

Never forget change is good.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Change is good if it is the right kind of change.

Changing government is good if it changes the bureaucracy too, otherwise nothing changes and things just rot, like Rome and the rest all did and are doing.

No use waiting till is all rots to hell in a handbasket before making drastic changes, like in World War 2.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
While your observations may or may not be valid IAC...It is still not a scientific study as you mentioned. My observation of your behaviour on this board leads me to think you create your own problems within your workplace. That does not prove it to be true.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Henry

interesting link...but I haven't had a lot of time to plow through it. I can already see an interpretation that may have skewed the results but I'll have to analyze it a little more.

Okay I have had time to look at.Interesting, yes...but participants are immediately put into a confrontational setting. That in itself skews the results. It did point out that even though divided that the groups would work together towards common goals.

If human beings became inherently evil when placed into groups...we would never made it out of the caves. It is in the fact that people learned to work together towards a desired end that we have managed to overtake this planet. In a lot of cases people do what they need to do in order to survive. Is that evil ? Not necessarily so.

Pirates, while the scourge of the Spanish Main were often trumpeted as heroes in England. The same applies to the countless wars throughout history. It can even apply to the workplace. What maybe bad for an individual employee, may benefit a great many employees. Evil therefore can be perceptual.

If it is perceptual, it is solely an indivdual interpretation. ( while that can be influenced by group dynamics) ultimately, it is the self that defines what s/he defines as evil. IAC still has not posted anything, but personal observation as proof. As I've pointed out..
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-- Lord Acton


The simple answer is to have more elected people from the public. The more people that have to justify their decisions the more just their decisions will be.

Canada has over 30 Million people today. Something like more than 3 Million people are part of the government. We have less people being elected today than when we had 10 Million people living here.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
For anyone who's interested in investigating the nature of belief as well as it can be examined by people who subscribe to rationalism and empiricism rather than scientism or other mysticisms and/or who don't believe the the illusion that their "thoughts" are not beliefs, I offer the following link:

"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT
PROVE IT?"

Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the "esprit de divination").The 2005 Edge Question has generated many eye-opening responses from a "who's who" of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers. The 120 contributions comprise a document of 60,000 words.


Link
 

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
pastafarian said:
All that is necessary is for the person so exposed to recognize the direction in which s/he does not wish to go, the one in which s/he DOES wish to go, and do so from a rational standpoint.


...kind of like how the Bush administration did in Iraq?

Hardly. Then again, religion hasn't exactly helped the Bush administration to avoid being evil. :?
 

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

iamcanadian said:
Summer said:
For that matter, how are you even defining "evil" as different from the merely "bad"?

Someone like a Bernardo, can't be called bad. It must be called Evil.

Same goes for other people who do harm for pleasure.

Being bad, means stealing for a living or being unethical etc., but being Evil is something else beyond normal comprehension. So you need someway to deal with it spriritualy if you are a victim of it.

No, you don't need a way to deal with it spiritually; you just deal with it. And even if you do choose a "spiritual" way of dealing with it, remember that "spiritual" does not necessarily mean "religious".

There were a few Jews who survived the Holocaust and came away from it as atheists, having decided that if God truly existed, He would not have allowed them to suffer as they had. They were victims of evil, but they dealt with it despite having abandoned religion.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
Hardly. Then again, religion hasn't exactly helped the Bush administration to avoid being evil.

I've seen no evidence that the Bush administration is truly "religious, only that they pander to "religious" types for political gain. Also, I have NEVER seen a speck of evidencethat relationship between "moral" behaviour and religious belief was anything but coincidental... more likely moral in spite of religious beliefs.

Reason I phrased it the way I did, Summer, was because people have been pooh-poohing the idea that good and evil (or bad) could be real forces, without engaging the arguments, just as they accuse (rightly IMO) religious types of begging the God/Devil question.

I suppose I find the idea of a "rational" system of ethics as preposterous as I (and most people on this board) do a system of absolute good and evil determined by a big grouchy Sky-Guy.

I used Bush as the example, because I've seen many of the people who sneer at Good and Bad, refer to him as immoral or bad, for just looking out for the interests of himself and his fellow coporate fascists in a rational way, and I can't see a rational justification for calling his actions "immoral".

Therefore, although I have the greatest for respect for rationality in the arenas it was created for, i don't think it's of much use in constructing a moral code. In fact, I can't see any need for any sort of morality in a purely rational universe.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951, by Hannah Arendt, the dangers of mythologizing science and it's powers and scope of application has been eloquently described:

Totalitarian propaganda raised ideological scientificality and its technique of making statements in the form of predictions to a height of efficiency of method and absurdity of content because, demagogically speaking, there is hardly a better way to avoid discussion than by releasing an argument from the control of the present and by saying that only the future can reveal its merits. However, totalitarian ideologies did not invent this procedure, and were not the only ones to use it. Scientificality of mass propaganda has indeed been so universally employed in modern politics that it has been interpreted as a more general sign of that obsession with science which has characterized the Western world since the rise of mathematics and physics in the sixteenth century; thus totalitarianism appears to be only the last stage in a process during which "science has become an idol that will magically cure the evils of existence and transform the nature of man." [Eric Voegelin, "The Origins of Scientism," in Social Research, December, 1948.] And there was, indeed, an early connection between scientificality and the rise of the masses. The "collectivism" of masses was welcomed by those who hoped for the appearance of "natural laws of historical development" which would eliminate the unpredictability of the individual's actions and behavior.[See F. A. v. Hayek, "The Counter-Revolution of Science," in Economica, Vol. VIII (February, May, August, 1941), p. 13.] There has been cited the example of Enfantin who could already "see the time approaching when the 'art of moving the masses' will be so perfectly developed that the painter, the musician, and the poet-will possess the power to please and to move with the same certainty as the mathematician solves a geometrical problem or the chemist analyses any substance," and it has been concluded that modern propaganda was born then and there.[1bid., p. 137. The quotation is from the Saint-Simonist magazine Producteur, I, 399.]
 

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
pastafarian said:
Hardly. Then again, religion hasn't exactly helped the Bush administration to avoid being evil.

I've seen no evidence that the Bush administration is truly "religious, only that they pander to "religious" types for political gain. Also, I have NEVER seen a speck of evidencethat relationship between "moral" behaviour and religious belief was anything but coincidental... more likely moral in spite of religious beliefs.

Whoa, hold on a sec. All I'm saying is that there are people in his administration who claim to be religious, and that it hasn't helped them to avoid doing evil things. And I *also* share your belief that religion does not make one "moral"... I think you misunderstood me on this, or misunderstood the point I was trying to make, or both.

Reason I phrased it the way I did, Summer, was because people have been pooh-poohing the idea that good and evil (or bad) could be real forces, without engaging the arguments, just as they accuse (rightly IMO) religious types of begging the God/Devil question.

I'm one of those folks who believes that there are absolutes of good and evil, while also recognizing that there are also many shades of grey in between, in which what is moral is based upon the situation. And none of my stance on this issue springs from religion, but rather from a combination of logic, observation, and intuition. I can't actually explain it, but I can say that it didn't take a deity to show me, either.

I suppose I find the idea of a "rational" system of ethics as preposterous as I (and most people on this board) do a system of absolute good and evil determined by a big grouchy Sky-Guy.

I'm not sure why it would be preposterous. Rational ethics are basically a matter of conducting oneself in a manner which minimizes harm to both oneself and others, while permitting one to thrive to the best of one's ability. To live in this way simply requires one to scrutinize as best one can the probably results of one's actions and then to tailor those actions accordingly. Sort of like Vulcan ethics in Star Trek, if you're at all familiar with them. (You didn't really think I was going to be able to discuss this without resorting to the SF that's shaped my worldview, did you? ;) )

I used Bush as the example, because I've seen many of the people who sneer at Good and Bad, refer to him as immoral or bad, for just looking out for the interests of himself and his fellow coporate fascists in a rational way, and I can't see a rational justification for calling his actions "immoral".

Then you are only looking at part of the picture. Immorality is when you don't take the big picture into account and you only concern yourself with yourself while harming others for no other reason than to help yourself. That's what Bush is doing... he doesn't pander to his "fellow corporate fascists" out of an altruistic concern for their well-being, but rather because he knows that if he scratches their backs, they will scratch his. Meanwhile, he and they together take advantage of the people whom he is sworn to serve. That's where the real immorality comes into play: he took office and the responsibilities that go with it, but abandoned those responsiblities in order to serve the interests of a small cadre of the wealthy and powerful. He is foresworn.

Therefore, although I have the greatest for respect for rationality in the arenas it was created for, i don't think it's of much use in constructing a moral code. In fact, I can't see any need for any sort of morality in a purely rational universe.

So in a purely rational universe, it would perfectly all right for someone to simply decide to murder you for no reason other than the fact that they enjoy watching people die? You'd be okay with that?

And you lost me completely on the stuff about totalitarianism and science, as I don't think it has anything to do with what I've been talking about. I'll assume you were aiming that at someone else, and that it wasn't in response to anything I posted.
 

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

iamcanadian said:
Logic would dictate that an eye for an eye is the only fair and equitable punishment.

Why do we not have such a simple way of dealing with everything then?

Actually, logic would dictate that after enough rounds of "an eye for an eye", everyone would be blind. Hardly a state of affairs conducive to anyone's well-being in the long run.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

Summer said:
iamcanadian said:
Logic would dictate that an eye for an eye is the only fair and equitable punishment.

Why do we not have such a simple way of dealing with everything then?

Actually, logic would dictate that after enough rounds of "an eye for an eye", everyone would be blind. Hardly a state of affairs conducive to anyone's well-being in the long run.

spot on , summer. not conducive to anyone's well being on the short run either.

just another form of primitive/ regressive REVENGE......which never solved anything.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
An eye for an eye also assumes that all things are equal.

A poor person stealing from a rich person to put food on his table. Would you take from the poor to feed the rich? What about prostitution ? Exactly how would someone be punished for this crime? Which party would be punished? What about drug possesion? How would the punishment for that be doled out. How about speeding? How about Jay walking? We have created laws and punishment for a reason.

Someone propped up Bush as an example. The illegal wire taps. What will be the result of that? He has broken the law to help capture terrorists. Rather than following the law and getting legal warrants.

The possibility is... now that he has broken the law to capture alleged terrorists....once it gets to a court...there is a good possibility that it will be thrown out for not obtaining the correct warrants. With the double jeopardy laws down here...all information in the wire taps cannot be used in any possible future cases.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they got it right. They were terrorists. Bush has now made it more difficult for them to be prosecuted. Simply by not following the rules of the land he has put the US in greater danger.

Evil? No. The terrorists believe their cause is just. Bush believes his cause is just. A whole lot of stupidity on both sides ...Blatantly. In that aspect I agree with Pastafarian, what is moral to some, is not to others.

I still feel, that because we are a social animal...born from the need to huddle together to survive... that social mores and laws developed because of this. In a group dynamic it is important that there are rules to ensure survival and safety.( This was especially important when we were hunter gathers, not only could you jeopardize someone elses life, but your family or your own as well.) Ooops a little bit of a rant on several things ..so we'll end it there.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Getting caught. Let' take someone who was truly evil like Hitler or Hussein. An eye for an eye does not work. How does that one death compensate the thousands of atrocities they caused?
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Justice John Gomery said Tuesday that some bureaucrats who “disregard the law” through mismanagement don’t appear to suffer any consequences such as losing their jobs.

Gomery told a Treasury Board official at the sponsorship inquiry he couldn’t find any evidence in the Financial Administration Act allowing managers to weed out bad seeds in the bureaucracy.

“Sometimes you get people who just, more or less deliberately, disregard the law,” the judge told Stephen Wallace, a top official at the Treasury Board secretariat.

“There have been, it seems to me, well-documented instances of mismanagement . . . and I didn’t see that they had any consequences on the employment of anybody.

“What happens if you find somebody who’s just a bad apple?”

Wallace said managers in fact have the power to suspend, demote or fire employees who break internal rules.

But he acknowledged that power isn’t always exercised.

“Consistent understanding and ability to use these tools is not evident across the system.”

Wallace added police and the courts, not internal rules, are best-equipped to deal with bureaucrats who cross the line and break the law.

But Gomery didn’t appear satisfied. “It takes a major scandal to get the police involved,” he said. “It is not in the nature of the public service to call in the police.”

Getting caught...does not address the supposition. If the people that get caught don't suffer any consequences.

It worked for Hitler since he's dead and that stopped him good enough. For Hussein a lot of people died including his children and the eye for eye worked to stop him. In fact it was two eyes for one eye in his case.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

zenfisher said:
Getting caught. Let' take someone who was truly evil like Hitler or Hussein. An eye for an eye does not work. How does that one death compensate the thousands of atrocities they caused?

I think the issue in your example is the eye for an eye stops them. It is not an issue of compensation.

It is an issue of stopping them and making sure others are given the message to not try such things if they know whats good for them. Its the deterent that works.

You can't compensate someone for the loss of a loved one, but you can make the other person pay with their life to set an example to others that may try the same.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
When there is no reliance on religion then there is no reason to not have capital punishement for many things as a way of detering evil conduct.

It eliminates the evil people and sends out a deterent necessary to prevent others from doing evil acts. There is no ill effect on society generally, since what is one less living person. People die everyday, in fact everyone dies sooner or later. So why not make it so that evil people die sooner, especially when they are shown to be responsible for the loss of life of a good person.