Making a serious choice based on religion.....very disturbing!

The crazy thing is that you are writing about religion and yet somehow put attacks on Pres Obama.

I was actually enjoying the article till reading the initial comment. What's up with that?

I'm also baffled. Like oil and water, free thinking and Republicans don't mix.

It is call Pres Obama on the brain that has hate. I just wish they be honest about the hate. There is another article and seed about the troop draw down and the seeder is hating on Pres Obama about that. I ask why because you should be happy that troops are coming home and the seeder basically said that it is Pres Obama giving the order and that is it.

Am I better off, Yes I am. My small Auto business is doing well, do to Calif f-up roads. You said that you do not politics and religion mixed. Well, how in the hell did you get religion and Pres Obama together.

So you are in fact mixing religion and politics. In one sentence you said you are not and in other sentence you are mad about Pres Obama religion choices. You do know that over half of America vote by religion choice. See as a non-believer of Jesus Christ, RELIGION DON'T MEAN @!$%# TO ME.

So why don't you run for Pres, in seeing that no one is your choice.

Wow, there is that word SOCIALISM. Boo, SOCIALISM is coming for you. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

TryUsingLogic,

Apparently I am the only one here who has voted you up. I am SO in your corner on this issue! The is an inherant weakness that dwells within capitalism. I call it the, "How much is enough" problem? Neither capitalism nor theism can produce morals and/or ethics, but put the two of them together and, LOOK OUT!!! Good premise. Keep it up!

You have a rather deceptive way of trying to say Big Government is no different than Small or Medium Government.....really?

I have no idea what the definition of any of these is. Apparently the people of Florida don’t either because the “Small Government” governor they put in is surprising them with his actions.

You’re avoiding the issue and not providing a definition. Logic requires a definition, so I am not just calling you disingenuous I am telling you why and providing you with the opportunity to correct me. These are simply argumentative partisan terms that have no real definitive meaning and until you define them you are simply a partisan troll.

We are a blend of Socialism and Capitalism until Big Government takes over the economy by spending more than we take in.

Again provide the definition and draw the line between what you think is acceptable and what you think isn’t. Is it acceptable for instance for the EPA to protect our drinking water? Is it acceptable to spend money on a military? Please enumerate. I might actually agree.

derogatory chiefly ( US ) a form of government characterized by high taxation and public spending and centralization of political power

How much taxation is too high? Again a vague statement that doesn't have an answer. It's a random useless term. Do you not understand that logic needs percise definitions? So far you haven't provided one.

As I would say to my kids......I will help you til age 18......then you are on your own and I will not bankrupt my life to take care of your mistakes and stupid decisions. The government can't manage and make everyone the same. Life is tough and it isn't fair....deal with it!

That's why we have each other to depend on. People are not an island despite what the sociopaths think. It's sad that you wouldn't help your kids if they made a mistake. That seems pretty short sighted of you.

I know parents that have bankrupt and destroyed their lives over irresponsible kids.....which left the whole family with nothing.......our country is no different!

Well you're a great example of that. You've probably already gotten your entitlements, so screw everyone else. Now you don't think you should pay for the services you use, like police, fire, roads, etc. What you're asking for is a subversive way of getting entitlements. At least liberals are more honest about it.

Taxation that calls for paying for runaway goverment programs is too much. Since World War II revenue has not increased as a % of GDP because of higher tax rates.

I am not debating that. I am simply asking you to define what a high tax rate means. Some people get taxed more than others. Some companies pay zero taxes. Are they paying too much? Please like I said earlier, please elaborate.

You don't know me! I have given large amounts over 40 years to United Way and other charities during my life to help people that will attempt to help themselves!

No I don't and at the moment I have no desire to know you since you seem more interested in yelling rather than listening. This thread is starting to waste my time. I don't really see any logic here.

Entitlements do not encourage irresponsible people to stand up to the challenge. When people with no money, ambition or pride have 10 kids that they can't support and educate, it is not the duty of the hard working public to solve their issues. It is pretty short sighted of you to break the backs of the tax payer to reward the endeavors of the irresponsible!

Define entitlements. Tax breaks are entitlements especially when the government is spending more on your welfare than you're paying back. The French didn't have entitlements so instead of sitting back and doing nothing the people revolted and took over the government. BTW Social Security is an entitlement. Entitlements aren't alturistic, they are necessary to keep social order. Now there is a line where entitlements become too high.

You are arrogant to say what a great example I am of anything.

It's arrogant to think you have all the answers. It's arrogant to dismiss 1/2 the population because you don't like their dogma. It's arrogant not to listen.

I have taken my SS and Medicare because I was forced to pay into a poorly run system that is running out of funding! It is your selfish projection of the socialist responsibilities of the American tax payer that is weak and foolish.

So obviously you thing SS and Medicare are entitlements worth giving. I agree it's a poorly run system and if we starve it it will get worse. Perhaps we should be more willing to focus on getting good politicans who will spend our money wisely.

I have never minded paying for police, fire, and roads......what the hell are you getting at!

You never gave me a list of items you were willing to pay for. You seemed to say all taxes were bad, well obviously if you want police fire and roads that statement is not as absolute as it seems to be. That's why definitions are important. Do you want us to go to pre WWI levels? To a time where we weren't a super power?

Your are the common icon of a silly and out of touch bleeding heart liberal!

And statements like these are simply argumentative and sabotaging your thread. If this is just conservative posturing, then it's pointless for anyone other than the choir to respond to you. I've heard this before, it's a pointless argument and it's not very creative. There is very little logic in this thread it's all vitriol.

You are the perfect example of why Obama was elected and is failing....

Would you care to elaborate?

I do not have all the answers, but your answers show you don't even understand the questions....

Would you care to elaborate?

Most of your comments are simple to dodge dealing with the mistakes Obama and the liberals have made....

Would you care to elaborate?

The thoughts I express are in the majority now and hope for change is growing for 2012!

What type of change?

I am an independent Agnostic that wonders when the Left and Right will wake up!

Sounds similar to my views

You've made a lot of accusations and a lot of statements, but there is no substance behind what you've said. You simply sound angry at the world. Here's a question, what do you think the answer is. You said vote them out, but replace them with what? The same old guard? The same conservatives that seem to believe that corporations will hold all our hands and sing Kumbaya instead of act in their best interest.

I'm sorry sir, but your statements don't point to a moderate sitting in the middle, they point to a right wing radical. Prove me wrong, put some substance in your posts.

you are not lucid and it is not worth discussing this with you.

Sorry you feel that way.

Let's recap shall we? I give you actual facts as to where the economy was when the current Administration took office and the subsequent improvements made to that picture. You choose not to acknowledge that and instead give me forecast as to what might happen. We might get hit by a comet in the forseeable future - a lot of things might happen.

If you fail to acknowledge actual events of the recent recovery (slow as it might be) of the economy from total meltdown, this really is not worth discussing with you and I can only assume you merely dislike the President and even historical fact will not change your mind.

I have given to you the most current facts that show where we are after 2 years of Obama's Hope and Change......and the bleak path the CBO says we are on.

You have not given facts but rather one bleak scenario from the report which clearly states these are estimates only and cannot be considered definitive they are affected by any number of actions in both business and gov't.

By the way the other scenario you or the article do not mention states:

One long-term budget scenario used in this analysis, the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP. Revenues would reach 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.

You have not given facts - you have given conjecture.

Still don't understand....We all have our value sytems...I doubt your's holds together as well as you think it does....not to get personal....just an observation.

Still don't understand....We all have our value sytems...I doubt your's holds together as well as you think it does....not to get personal....just an observation.

Religion replaces you're natural value system with one invented by man. It takes faith for someone to strap a bomb to their chest and run into a market.

I would suggest that religion reflects the need for a value system, and the authority to enforce it.

It didn't take any faith for Stalin to kill over 50 million people....

But, when people of a specific faith start killing people, who do not exactly follow their faith, its problem with that faith.

When the 'sacred' book of that faith teaches killing others, its a dangerous religion.

I would suggest that religion reflects the need for a value system, and the authority to enforce it.

If you think you need religion to teach you morality, then you are either a sociopath, or a psychopath and have problems that no amount of religion can solve. In fact what religion allows you to do is to replace your inborn morality with something artificial. It takes faith to strap a bomb to yourself and run into the middle of a market.

didn't take any faith for Stalin to kill over 50 million people....

As try said, it took faith in Stalin for people to kill 50 million. He didn't do that himself.

That's why the problem isn't God or even Religion exactly. The problem is an immutable dogma that doesn't allow you to question. Communism is as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. Atheism is a religion when people believe there is no God and demand others to believe the same. God may be unproven, but it takes faith to absolutely say he doesn't exist.

It didn't take any faith for Stalin to kill over 50 million people....

Stalin had faith that he was God like and his regime was more important than anything else.

He was acting like the God of the Old Testament.......very destructive and self centered

Religion replaces you're natural value system with one invented by man.

And it would seem that Stalin replaced religion with something worse. All value systems are "invented" by man.

Stalin and other dictators promote slavery and no choice to believe what you want in freedom. Stalin was a monster manmade God.....and that is not caused by Atheism!

Nor is it prevented. He certainly made "serious choices" not based on religion, which is the method you suggest you support.

Today Japan and Sweden are the largest Atheist countries on the planet......does that make them evil.....absolutely not!

Another Viner attempted to make a similar point regarding another issue. Turns out, upon further review, that Sweden continues to observed and practice the Christian Value System.

Japan, of course, got a crash course on the Christian Value System post WWII.

I would suggest that religion reflects the need for a value system, and the authority to enforce it.

If you think you need religion to teach you morality, then you are either a sociopath, or a psychopath and have problems that no amount of religion can solve. In fact what religion allows you to do is to replace your inborn morality with something artificial. It takes faith to strap a bomb to yourself and run into the middle of a market.

Aside from the possible CoH violation, or simple attempted insult if you prefer, this comment really adds nothing to the debate. "Inborn morality"? Might makes right, and other rules of the jungle, but if that's what you prefer......

didn't take any faith for Stalin to kill over 50 million people....

As try said, it took faith in Stalin for people to kill 50 million. He didn't do that himself.

You consider this to be a response? The topic is whether one should make serious choices based on religion...as above...Stalin didn't.

That's why the problem isn't God or even Religion exactly.

Happy to see you have reconsidered your position.

The problem is an immutable dogma that doesn't allow you to question.

Lucky for us Christianity has shown the willingness to study other perspectives.

Communism is as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. Atheism is a religion when people believe there is no God and demand others to believe the same. God may be unproven, but it takes faith to absolutely say he doesn't exist.

Most atheists would disagree. Atheism is absence of religion, which might not go to well with being a religion. Further, Communisim and Islam have much more in common then Christianity and Islam. The first two are political systems, along with whatever else.

You consider this to be a response? The topic is whether one should make serious choices based on religion...as above...Stalin didn't.

Using the term Religion oversimplifies the problem. Like I said earlier it's a problem with an immutable dogma that doesn't allow you to question. I didn't write the article, I am simply responding to it. Religion isn't the only thing we have to worry about.

Happy to see you have reconsidered your position.

No my opinion has been fairly constant on the issue. That's why I annoy a lot of Atheists. I actually do believe in God, just not the Christian God. I try not to define God. Instead I use the discovery of God as my epic quest and I don't limit the roads available to me to find it, nor do I make any assumptions about what it wants. God and Reality cannot contradict each other. If they do then my understanding of God is wrong and I need to redefine it.

Simpletons miss the message of Genesis. It's not about the creation of man, it's about original sin. Original sin is knowledge, and that is an inseparable part of who we are. It is a poison and has the potential to destroy us. God can't remove it, because if he does he destroys who we are. The antidote to knowledge is wisdom, and the first step to wisdom is the question why. If we never ask that question, we will all perish.

Lucky for us Christianity has shown the willingness to study other perspectives.

Christianity typically demands faith and that is inherently evil. Any dogma that precludes the question why and requires people to follow it without question is inherently evil regardless of how altruistic it may seem to be. Such are easily corruptible as we have seen with every religion or dogma that demands your obedience.

And that, Try, is why I disagree with your political stance. You are spouting dogma not facts. Liberals and Conservatives are not evil on their own, their dogmas have been corrupted and often they blindly follow their path not considering where it will take them and that is self destructive. The answer is somewhere in the middle of liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism. All dogmas have some truth, and only by having and open mind can we ever find it.

Your attraction to liberalism is contradictory logic to me.

See this is the problem, based on your posts we are actually a lot a like in views. I would call myself liberal leaning for only one reason, and it's the reason you stated here. I think that Fiscal Conservatives have some good things to say. I think Moral Conservatives are Evil. Evil + anything = Evil.

As long as there are moral conservatives that control the conservative party and the only choice I have is beween conservatives and liberals then I am forced to choose incompetence over evil. If you choose conservatives then you are trivializing your entire article, because you're not choosing one, you're choosing all.

then I have to choose over political ideas as opposed to religious ideas.........freedom, democracy and the pursuit of individual happiness are light years ahead of the dominating slave concepts of Liberalism and the Left.

And thus you argue against the title of your piece, as well as much of what you both have been suggesting....and, somewhat ironically, making my point.

I have always thought it is a contradiction for Christians to be the ones for free markets and democracy. God does not work that way!

I'm not going to quibble, too much, over definitions here, but this comment, and the one made by stally regarding the "evilness" of morality, and I purposely leave out Conservative, once again show lack of understanding as to why the United States was created as it was.

I would suggest that the more we examine the topic, the more we find it misses the mark.

Out of curiosity...which particular areas upset you stally? or should I guess? I have written my answers in a "secret place" and we'll see if I am correct.....lol

and the one made by stally regarding the "evilness" of morality

You obviously misunderstood my statement. Most people are born with empathy, and as we get older that empathy matures. Christ in fact points this out with the Golden Rule and also in Matthew 25:40. Some interpretations say Christ introduced the law of empathy. Which in itself is a great law. It is our natural morality.

By definition if you do not have empathy you are a sociopath or psychopath. That's not an insult it's a simple fact. When you state that you have no morality and need religion to instill that morality, then you are admitting you are missing your natural morality/empathy and probably need help that religion can't provide. What Religion often does is to replace that natural morality with an artificial morality. That artificial morality allows you to run into the middle of a market with a bomb strapped to your chest. That's evil.

Out of curiosity...which particular areas upset you stally? or should I guess? I have written my answers in a "secret place" and we'll see if I am correct.....lol

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. You didn't upset me. I get passionate with my arguments but rarely upset. Feel free to point out where you think I am upset. I will try to clarify.

it is a pretty good business scam.....don't you think?

Business Scam makes it sound less insidious than it really is :) Businesses don't normally ask you to give your life for the company or to kill innocents to support them. Although the way the US is going I'm not as sure of that as I used to be.

As long as we support democracy, individual rights and free markets.....I am confident that won't happen. Although, it could happen in Greece as it collapses.

What you always have to remember is that a company is really a small government. The only difference is that it's a monarchy rather than a democracy. You don't want to give companies so much control that they end up becoming the new central government. We can see examples of unbridled capitalism, but it didn't look like unbridled capitalism. It was a bunch of castles with armies that were constantly fighting one another. With unbridled capitalism you don't build product, you build armies. Only when you have a large central government can the sub kingdoms focus on somthing other than their millitary. It's easier to take your neighbors crops than grow your own. You need some force that keeps that from happening.

There is a warped hate for capitalism that I do not, and will never understand. Especially when the complainers love more and more government and ignore the even worse problem caused by government abuses

You're right, but you're over compensating. You can't demonize corporations, but it's also foolish to put them on a unrealistic pedestal. Corporations are just as evil as people. All of the reasons that you give about human nature and why socialism fails are applicable to the people running corporations. Government bureaucrat can be just as corrupt as the CEO.

Government is a corporation, it is the prime example of what happens to a corporation when it becomes a monopoly. It no longer has to function efficiently it's ripe with corruption, but we at least have some moderate control over it. Let's use our control to fix it not destroy the only protection we have from yet another monopoly takeover that we might not have control over.

Certainly I could find more to comment on...but

TryUsingLogic....I continue to disagree with my perception of what you are suggesting. Just to pick one example...Inalienable individual rights are predicated on the Christian Value System. I continue to see your attacks, and apparent beliefs, to be quite short sighted.

As for stally..."upset" in terms of what particular issues do you have with the Christian Value System?

I can only say that it is interesting to see the changing assertions just in this thread.

As for stally..."upset" in terms of what particular issues do you have with the Christian Value System?

I grew up Catholic; I actually was actually doing the readings at 10 years old in front of a 300 person congregation. I was taught the love of Christ and God. I have read through the Bible a few times. I remember once after a fire a brimstone style sermon asking the nun why I should fear God. The whole concept confused me. God was my father and he loved me more than anyone else. Why should I fear his retribution? A father who loved me would never hurt me. This nun gave me the most un-Christian answer. She said, that the reason you should fear God was because that when you faced your final judgment you would know the truth, and you would have to look into the eyes of the loving father and explain to him why you did what you did. The fear was not because God was going to punish you, but it was the fear of disappointing God. I have felt that judgment in my own life and I have realized that the worst judge I could face was me. So I live my life by one rule, be true to myself. Do what I know in the deepest part of my heart to be right and don't let some person or book tell me different. I am fine telling God I made a mistake, I have a hard time telling him that I followed a book I knew to be false and ignored my heart.

I learned about God before I learned about the Bible, so my internal concept of God is not tied to the Bible. I learned about a wonderful creature one that was full of love. Whether real or not, it was a beautiful idea. The Christian God of today is a hateful creature not deserving of worship. The concept that God would punish us arbitrarily is ludicrous. The concept that God is so arrogant that he demands worship is also something I cannot fathom. The Christian God as described by the Religious Right is one of the vilest and disgusting creatures that have ever been described in modern literature. It is a description of Satan, not God.

I have made this joke several times, but it really isn't all that funny. I think God wishes that we were all Atheists.

I guess you have seen the clear data that during the election that made Obama president, Fox was rated the most balanced during that time....even among several liberal surveys?

By who Fox?

I have complaints about Fox, but be fair, The liberal media is hypocritical on the subject of being fair!

Fox really has lead the charge of yellow journalism, they don't even try to disguise it. The liberal media is trying to compete and unfortunately, they end up sacrificing the truth as well. It's not hypocritical to use the same weapons as your competition. Calling someone hypocritical for doing that is dishonest. However, that being said the precidence that Fox has set has put into motion an arms war that sacrifices the truth on both sides.

So you hate all political systems but see liberalism having some virtue? You seem all over the place on your opinions.

No I hate absolutes. I don't believe in them, I think they are evil. When you hold on to them you are guilty of the very things you are criticizingin this article. It's amazing you can't see the parallels. If Shermer said that about liberalism and didn't follow it up with an equal comment about dogmatic conservatives, then he is violating his own principles and I no longer have any respect for him. He is just as religious as the people he complains about. All dogmas have some truth, you need to find the best of breed of all.

It comes down to this for me......Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism!

Unbridled freedom for one is slavery for another. The tyranny of the majority represses the minority, and finally the stagnation of the dinosaurs. Everything when taken to an extreme is evil. So it comes down to one and only one word for me

Balance

You can hate freedom.....hate Capitalism.....but the real mosnter is Government controlled Socialism!

Like I said I hate absolutes. Pure freedom, Capitalism, Democracry and Socialism all fail. The truth is always in moderation; always in the middle. Religion is absolute, and you are taking a religious stance on these concepts.

No matter how big someones bleeding heart is

This is the statement of a zealot not a rationalist. It's the same type of thing as if I said you are a Godless Immoral Atheist. It's an Ad-Hominem, argumentative and brings absolutely nothing to the discussion. Statements like these color your entire thread and you take a very hostile stance which invites an equally hostile response. One thing Michael Shermer says a lot is ... I might be wrong. That means that regardless of his stance he MUST listen and consider all arguments. If he doesn't he's just playing lip service to the statement.

You have missed my point and must have skipped the articles where I said it is about compromise and moderation.

And you have missed mine. You may say that but your additional statements seem very dogmatic and very one sided. You need to clarify your statements.

I am not absolute about my opinions but you seem to let your hate for capitalism to not allow you to recognize and admit it

This statement is again argumentative and a strawman. I never said I hate capitalism. I said capitalism has its problem and pure capitalism doesn't work.

is a healthier path than government socialism. The compromise needs to be around free markets controlled by good laws with reasonable government!

First socialism and capitalism are economic concepts not a governmental concept. Oligarchies, Republics and Democracies are governmental concepts. Communism is an oligarchy and how you can call an oligarchy socialist is beyond me.

Anyway, Socialism provides social order. The problem is that too much order leads to stagnation, too little leads to revolution. Capitalism is extremely chaotic and it moves towards order. Unbridled capitalism simply can't last for the same reason that pure chlorine can't last. It's always looking for a stable state. That stable state is most often an oligarchy. So a compromise like you say is required between socialism to keep enough chaos out of the system so you don't have revolution, enough regulation so that Capitalism doesn't stabilize and crush everyone in its path and enough of a free market that your society can grow. When all is in perfect balance you have a wonderful symphony.

In a good society people that abuse capitalism or government should be punished equally. Enron people are in jail. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Obama's cronies taht made a killing on the Freddy, Fannie and the bailout are not in jail.

I absolutely agree, but some would argue that by punishing those individuals you are interfering with the free market. How do I know whether or not you are one of those people unless you tell me where you draw the line? Our first discussion on these issues was me asking you to elaborate your points. I can't guess what's in your head. How do I know what your definition is? Most people on these boards seem to have an extremist position. Yours is interesting because it's a contradiction (and I don't mean that in a bad way) which means you might be open to a discussion and that I might not be wasting my time posting.

Now, here is the question. Looking at our choices if you don't like Obama, what are our options?

Well, I think I am done with this conversation. I typed in a lot more than the three statements you cherry picked. Believe what you want, there is no way anything I say is going to matter.

Peace

No, sir I've answered that several times. You simply refuse to listen. It's disappointing. I thought I might be talking to a rationalist instead of a zealot. Despite your claims you aren't one. You are willfully ignoring what I wrote and you are cherry picking my statements to support your points. That's deceitful. Can I be wrong, absolutely. However, so can you. I have not heard you engage in a real debate, only proselytize.

Like I said, it's pointless arguing with you. If you have seeminly productive arguments with Shermer, then he is either patronizing you or not the man he claims to be. Religion is not the enemy, immutable faith is. You have become what you hate most.

Good Day

There is nothing rational about your responses....

LOL

Shermer is a true free thinking individual and would not agree with your "the goodness of socialism and evils of capitalism talk!" A much more interesting man to discuss things with than your non-commital negative position on everything....ending up being a typical Liberal and calling someone with my views a zealot.

/facepalm

Not such a great conversation after all of your self righteous comments........

Not such a great conversation after all of your self righteous comments

On this point we agree

You sir see what you want to see. It's the same as many Christians. You have your faith. Good luck with that.

The bottom line is you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the phantom in your room which bares very little resemblence to the contents of this discussion.