Atheists and their jargon of insults

[MikeF]

NO. Absolutory not. There are those who will destroy a product, company, stock holders, and suppliers; who will destroy billions of dollars in wealth as well as thousands of lives to make a lousy million dollars. There was once a time that companies competed to build a better mousetrap but now they compete to build ever worse garbage. It used to be usurpers had to pay a 95% tax on their ill gotten gains so it was easier to make money competing successfully but now they pay lower taxes than their secretaries so an easy million destroying things is an easy million.

The economy is like a thief who smashes your windshield to get a dime off the dashboard. It's barely worth a few seconds but a dime's a dime.

This was in response to my suggestion that 'self interest' was a more neutral and less emotionally charged term than 'greed'. I guess you want to stick with high emotion on this topic. All I can say is that whatever the solution is, it requires sufficient buy-in within society overall. Not everyone feels exactly the same way on every issue so it will always come down to negotiation, reconciliation, and compromise to form an eventual consensus. High emotions make that a difficult, if not impossible process.

 

[F1fan]

I think that success of science is a big problem for some theists in general. Perhaps not a problem so much as a source of frustration.

And that frustration gets converted into an endless stream of crackpottery that is so incoherent and incorrect that to rebut any of it gets tiresome. Could it be that is their tactic, much like the Gish Gallop?

 

[cladking]

This was in response to my suggestion that 'self interest' was a more neutral and less emotionally charged term than 'greed'. I guess you want to stick with high emotion on this topic. All I can say is that whatever the solution is, it requires sufficient buy-in within society overall. Not everyone feels exactly the same way on every issue so it will always come down to negotiation, reconciliation, and compromise to form an eventual consensus. High emotions make that a difficult, if not impossible process.

This goes far beyond mere semantics. Killing hundreds of people and destroying the livelihoods of far more to make a tiny amount of money is far worse than greed or sin. In the old days it was a crime but now days everyone just excuses it.

Unless we can agree that death and destruction are "bad" there's no point in a discussion at all and no point to the continued existence of the human race.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yep, I get where you're coming from.

Too close to the sun @cladking's wings melted.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dea

This goes far beyond mere semantics. Killing hundreds of people and destroying the livelihoods of far more to make a tiny amount of money is far worse than greed or sin. In the old days it was a crime but now days everyone just excuses it.

Unless we can agree that death and destruction are "bad" there's no point in a discussion at all and no point to the continued existence of the human race.

The death and destruction is of course "bad" but that is not remotely the issues at hand concerning the future of humanity. Their has always death and destruction throughout the history of humanity and actually the whole history of life on earth,.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Only 160 years? We've been interacting with the gods for over 10,000!

Amd they didn't tell us of evolution during that time? And it's likely been there for over 50,000. All that time ans not even a whisper of DNA amd how that makes the whole biology thing go round? We have artifacts iver 100,000 years old, it may have been there this whole time with scarcely anything science has revealed to us.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree that the first two fold into each other, but I see the universe being knowable as a valid assumption of science. I like your metaphor of the baby and how we enter this world without any assumptions and learn through experience as we develop. But even without assumptions at that stage, can we know if what we learned from experience as a baby is useful in understanding the past through observation of the present for instance. Can a baby know that gravity worked the same way for it's parents?

I feel my execution here is a bit awkward, but I'll leave it as it came out of my head.

It will take a looongg time to know the universe.

 

[cladking]

Their has always death and destruction throughout the history of humanity and actually the whole history of life on earth,.

Destruction and death is now a major profit center for some individuals. Everyone used to lose with death and destruction and some now profit.

You don't find this in the least disturbing?

We may deserve eradication if the little guys support it.

 

[cladking]

I never imagined I'd have to take a stand against murder or that I'd stand alone!

 

[YoursTrue]

I never imagined I'd have to take a stand against murder or that I'd stand alone!

I think you might mean deliberate murder, not like an ax handle flying off and killing someone.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never thought it would happen to me since I have always had a Pollyanna attitude. Live and learn.



NO. Absolutory not. There are those who will destroy a product, company, stock holders, and suppliers; who will destroy billions of dollars in wealth as well as thousands of lives to make a lousy million dollars. There was once a time that companies competed to build a better mousetrap but now they compete to build ever worse garbage. It used to be usurpers had to pay a 95% tax on their ill gotten gains so it was easier to make money competing successfully but now they pay lower taxes than their secretaries so an easy million destroying things is an easy million.

The economy is like a thief who smashes your windshield to get a dime off the dashboard. It's barely worth a few seconds but a dime's a dime.

I guess that's why at trial a person's motives may be considered.

 

[cladking]

I think you might mean deliberate murder, not like an ax handle flying off and killing someone.

No, not really.

When companies and institutions are destroyed it is easy enough to calculate the effect on the commonweal including the number of deaths and lower population through lower birth rates. It is impossible to destroy billion dollar companies and entire industries like the West Virginia coal industry without the destruction of lives and livelihoods.

You can't change how an economy operates like from trashing mass transit to trashing gas powered vehicles without significant fall out and destruction. Bulldozing powerplants is wasteful, and destroying viable companies so the CEO can deploy a golden parachute is a form of evil excused as mere greed. Greed is good after all? What's good for the renters of government is the good and it doesn't matter the net effect.

The economy has been based on destruction for so long we don't even notice. How long until we're out of things to destroy? How long until there's no profit in chasing ambulances?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not really.

When companies and institutions are destroyed it is easy enough to calculate the effect on the commonweal including the number of deaths and lower population through lower birth rates. It is impossible to destroy billion dollar companies and entire industries like the West Virginia coal industry without the destruction of lives and livelihoods.

You can't change how an economy operates like from trashing mass transit to trashing gas powered vehicles without significant fall out and destruction. Bulldozing powerplants is wasteful, and destroying viable companies so the CEO can deploy a golden parachute is a form of evil excused as mere greed. Greed is good after all? What's good for the renters of government is the good and it doesn't matter the net effect.

The economy has been based on destruction for so long we don't even notice. How long until we're out of things to destroy? How long until there's no profit in chasing ambulances?

I believe that there is corporate greed knowingly endangering lives.

 

[cladking]

I believe that there is corporate greed knowingly endangering lives.

Probably. Indeed, it is mere economics to weight the value of human life against costs. I don't have a problem with making products that will kill a few people providing the cost benefit analysis is positive.

What I am talking about is individuals or boards of directors who intentionally destroy products and companies because of what is in it for himself.

You can see this over and over and planned obsolescence is its most basic manifestation. When you intentionally turn a product into garbage you've relinquished the right to live among men. Reducing product size or adulterating food with potentially toxic chemicals like sodium tripolyphosphate for the sole purpose of cheating your customers should get you removed from society. People don't even complain. Wrecking banks and making off with depositor's funds isn't even illegal any longer.

 

[cladking]

I believe that there is corporate greed knowingly endangering lives.

The economy depends on vast waste and inefficiency. Shaving creme used to last for years and years now half the can comes out with the lightest touch. The cost to be connected to your utility has gone from $4 a month to $40 a month so the thrifty have to support the wasteful such as industry that has never even tried to conserve power. They get power for next to nothing. They don't even make small cars in this country any longer and you have to pay a lot extra to go "green". They add alcohol to gasoline which consumes more energy than is produced and acts like a wet blanke6t on most car engines. One of my car's mileage dropped from 45 to ~38 when it ran on gasahol.

Of course all this is oh so scientific. A few get rich as we waste resources and you have to pay whether you want to waste them or not. And now they purchased the science that says we need to make them even richer as they buy and sell carbon credits which will no doubt result in even more waste. The little guy has to pay as he is forced off his land or forced to change or lose his lifestyle.

 

[cladking]

The little guy has to pay as he is forced off his land or forced to change or lose his lifestyle.

If you speak out against the status quo, purchased science, or waste then you are an heretic and you inviting insults. If there's even a hint that you believe in God, or right and wrong then you are also misanthrope and a place in the gulag will be prepared.

It's supposed to be perfectly natural to have schools that don't teach and money that represents debt rather than wealth. We all have to get with the times.

 

[shunyadragon]

It will take a looongg time to know the universe.

True, fallible humans will never know all there is to know about our physical existence, but we have a lot scientific knowledge about the ~3,7 billions of year history of our universe and ~3.8 billion years of the history of life on our planet.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you speak out against the status quo, purchased science, or waste then you are an heretic and you inviting insults. If there's even a hint that you believe in God, or right and wrong then you are also misanthrope and a place in the gulag will be prepared.

It's supposed to be perfectly natural to have schools that don't teach and money that represents debt rather than wealth. We all have to get with the times.

Actually your being melodramatic like a bad soap opera. Science actually cares less about heretics and internet banter and chater over insults. The dialogue here is interesting, but nonetheless rather meaningless for scientists doing their thing and advancing the knowledge of science in the tradition of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They did not care about heretics and insults.

Speaking out against science is not much different than shouting in darkness of Plato's cave where you dwell with intentional ignorance.

 

[cladking]

Actually your being melodramatic like a bad soap opera. Science actually cares less about heretics and internet banter and chater over insults. The dialogue here is interesting, but nonetheless rather meaningless for scientists doing their thing and advancing the knowledge of science in the tradition of Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. They did not care about heretics and insults.

We're not talking about actual scientists here.

We're talking about how rude many atheists and especially those who believe in science are.

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess that's why at trial a person's motives may be considered.

The person's motives for rejection of science needs to be considered in the context of an ancient tribal agenda