1. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #204803 by alovrin on July 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Thanks whitepearl
House is so durable its amazing, been going now for 20plus yrs.
Maybe I'll be lucky enough to catch a set one day.
If you"re a vodka drinker you should try a Swedish Cocaine before a set.

2. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #204799 by alovrin on July 5, 2008 at 7:08 pm

whitepearl

It presents these ideas as if they are new.

Methinks thats called journalistic licence or summint.
I see you are a DJ any preference for types of music you like to play?

3. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #204773 by alovrin on July 5, 2008 at 6:10 pm

And the evidence just keeps piling up...

that there was/is/ or ever has been any divine, courier-like, progeny.

4. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203826 by alovrin on July 3, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Spankermatic

That last census in 2006 it was less than that - more like 65%

My apologies, I'll just fire off an email to Lyndsay Freer spokes"person" for the NZ catholics something or other
informing her of her error.
Unless she included those saying they were Jedi, not realising it was a joke.

5. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203798 by alovrin on July 3, 2008 at 3:53 pm

(most Muslims in Dundee have been horrified at Asifs stupidity)

As well they should be.
But Im curious as to how you know this.
Did you conduct a survey? Was there an article about the outrage over the outrage?
Do the muslims confide in you as to their feelings about this, while visiting your church?
Or did you just talk to the owner of your corner store, and he said...etc..etc.

6. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203746 by alovrin on July 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm

TradeMe business manager Michael O'Donnell said the company had received an "overwhelming number of complaints from the TradeMe community."

Thats New Zealand for you.
70%, according to a spokesperson for the catholic church, follow some religious faith. I think she was including muslims as well.
NZers are so inclusive.

7. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203733 by alovrin on July 3, 2008 at 1:03 pm

The comments here are more interesting than the article...
well to me.

8. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203387 by alovrin on July 2, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Al-R

When the Iranians finally come into conflict with Israel and the US (which will happen by January 2009),

Lets just store that one away for future reference, shall we.

Seeing as Bush will just be keeping the seat warm after Nov 2008, the Jan 2009 deadline would seem to be wrong, unless McCain wins. So it really has to be in the next 4 months.

Anyway the article, whats with the old pus yellow rotary dial phone, I havent seen one of those in 20yrs. Maybe the UK needs a new telco.

9. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202734 by alovrin on July 1, 2008 at 11:01 pm

So we're getting down to analogies are we....

it might carry more weight if your car weren't resting on cinder blocks and held together by duct tape.

Well in your mind atheism might resemble a car on blocks, but at least we know about the internal combustion engine.
Where as you dear fellow are sitting on your arse in the desert, wondering why your deity doesnt just give you a ride.

If you would like to state you theistic world view, that would be luverly, as an aid here is this example from what now seems like the most sensible theist to have ever visited this site.

333. Comment #48459 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 8, 2007 at 3:02 am
My theistic worldview.

Several posters here have asked me to present and justify my own theistic worldview. I think that's entirely fair. Of course to present my worldview in detail would result in a book-length post, so in what follows I try to present it a way that is as short as possible but sufficiently detailed to present its overall structure and to allow people to evaluate and criticize it. Of course I will be glad to elaborate on any part the reader wishes. This is not going to be easy so bear with me.

Before starting I would like to say that one's worldview is basically how one makes sense of one's overall experience. Even pre-linguistic children device a worldview and make sense of their (at first confusing) perceptual environment by interpreting it as the presence of a stable three-dimensional world in which they can (up to a point) freely move around and manipulate using their bodies. So, for example, even very small children quickly learn that walls are hard and that it doesn't pay to try to walk through them.

Here I will argue that a theistic worldview is better than a non-theistic one. This immediately brings up the question of how worldviews are to be compared. I would say that a worldview is better if it gives one more intellectual satisfaction by being more coherent, elegant, economical, free of problems, and so on. But of course the most important criterion is how useful in a practical or empirical sense a worldview turns out to be. For example one who ignores that walls are hard is apt to have many painful experiences of bumping into them. Now virtually everybody believes that walls are hard, but consider another belief that is extremely popular even though it's false: astrology. Having this false belief in one's worldview is apt to negatively influence one's quality of life because one will act on false information. Indeed what worldview one chooses is a fairly important matter not only for one's personal well-being, but also for society's. So this is clearly an important issue, and I would agree in principle with Dawkins that to help others choose a better worldview is a commendable enterprise (within ethical limits â€" see Ibsen's play "The wild duck").

Now there are as many worldviews as there are people, but we can classify them into groups of similar kind. Even so we are left with a confusing number of kinds of worldviews (just consider how many Christian denominations there are, or how many interpretations of quantum mechanics). Still one can divide all possible worldviews into two major groups: the materialistic/naturalistic worldviews, and the religious/spiritual/supernatural worldviews (which in what follows I will call for short "naturalistic" and "religious" respectively). The difference between the two is clear: A basic issue is what the fundamental constituent (aka substance) of reality is, which explains everything else. According to the naturalistic worldviews what fundamentally exists is a complex configuration of matter following specific natural laws, in short what we call the physical world. According to the religious worldviews what fundamentally exists is a spiritual/supernatural world having its own structure and following its own kind of laws; the physical world forms only a part of reality, indeed a part that is contingent and caused by the larger spiritual/supernatural reality. (In turn religious worldviews can be divided in polytheistic, monotheistic, and atheistic groups).

Now when comparing these two basic types of worldviews I find that the naturalistic worldviews entail three fundamental types of problems which decrease its reasonableness:

1. I judge that naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with consciousness (including the related issue of free will), in other words that naturalistic worldviews cannot explain the existence of consciousness. I am not prepared to entertain the possibility that consciousness does not exist (actually I couldn't believe that it doesn't exist if I tried; consciousness is the one thing whose reality is beyond question). Some naturalistic thinkers believe that in the future this problem will somehow be solved, but I judge that this is a fundamentally impossible problem for naturalism. (Incidentally consciousness is not just some "gap", but represents the single most important fact there is. Indeed, strictly speaking, we live in an environment of conscious experience and not in a physical environment; the existence of the physical world is something we deduce from our experiential environment.) So, here I have one reason that speaks against the entire class of naturalistic worldviews.

2. Similarly I judge that naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with the existence of at least some objectively true ethical precepts (there is ongoing discussion about this matter in this thread). In other words I am not prepared to entertain the idea that ethical precepts, such as "you should not torture a child", are true only because of personal opinion or convention. So, here I have a second reason that speaks against the entire class of naturalistic worldviews.

3. The third problem is extrinsic and refers to my study of the actual materialistic/naturalistic worldviews. If this class of worldviews were the one closest to reality one would expect to find general agreement or at least some general tendency towards agreement about how reality actually is. What I on the contrary observe is that, compared to the disagreements that also exist between religious worldviews, the disagreements on the naturalistic side are a) deeper, b) tend to grow both in number and in kind, and c) tend to produce increasingly fantastic (credulity straining) descriptions of reality.

In comparison I do not detect similar problems with the religious kind of worldviews. The reason is that religious worldviews assert that fundamental reality is spiritual so do not have to explain the reality of consciousness, in the same way that the naturalistic worldviews that assert that fundamental reality is material do not have to explain the reality of matter. (Theistic worldviews are especially elegant in this respect, see bellow). Also spiritual reality is hypothesized as being objectively good thus accounting for the existence of objectively true ethical precepts (they are objectively true because they reflect that objective goodness of reality). Finally, even though many naturalists rightly find problematic the differences and disagreements that exist between religious worldviews, I judge that the differences and disagreements in their camp are much worse.

The case of science. Many naturalists point out the overwhelming success of science as evidence for the superiority of their worldview. But apart from the most primitive religious worldviews (read: the cases of fundamentalism or "literal scripturism" if you like), all other religious worldviews seamlessly and naturally absorb scientific knowledge by hypothesizing that the physical world that science studies is caused and sustained by the larger spiritual reality. This incidentally makes it impossible for any piece of scientific knowledge to contradict or be used as evidence against any of the non-fundamentalist religious worldviews. So a person who adopts any of the non-fundamentalist religious worldview loses nothing of the usefulness and relevance of the scientific and technological project.

Another common argument that naturalists use is that they don't see any reason to assume a religious worldview in the first place. But I see such a reason, namely that in comparison the alternative materialistic worldviews are problematic in the three senses described above and therefore inferior.

So in conclusion, as I find that all the naturalistic worldviews entail serious problems and all (except the most naive) religious worldviews don't, I judge that by default the former worldviews work better than the latter.

The second stand I would like to make refers to my choice of monotheism over all the other religious worldviews. One basic reason is this: As I noted above I judge that all naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with consciousness because they cannot explain how matter brings forth consciousness. Well, similarly, one could ask how spirit brings forth matter, and claim that the religious worldviews suffer from a similar problem. The answer is straightforward: The religious worldviews need not account for matter itself but only for our conscious experience of physical phenomena, so there it is not an issue of spirit causing something of an entirely different kind (namely matter), but of spirit causing consciousness which is not problematic. But observe that the above solution works best if we identify the fundamental constituent (or substance) of reality with consciousness, i.e. equate the concept of spirit with the concept of consciousness (indeed observe that these two concepts can be used interchangeably in virtually all contexts). Conversely if we don't identify the fundamental constituent (or substance) of reality with consciousness, religious worldviews suffer at least to some degree from the equivalent #1 problem of the naturalist worldviews. So, to resume, the supernatural (beyond the natural world) part of reality must a) have consciousness as its fundamental constituent, b) be objectively good, and c) must contain structure and order, because after all it causes our experience of the very intricately structured and ordered physical phenomena we observe. Economy (or Occam's razor) requires that I make the simplest hypothesis in order to account for all three properties, and the simplest hypothesis I can find is the presence of one single and objectively good, intelligent, and powerful conscious being: a divine person on whom all bucks stop, a person whom, in order to be consistent with the three great monotheistic religions, I call "God". In short, the best hypothesis I can device for avoiding the problems that plague the naturalistic worldviews in a clean and economical manner is to hypothesize that there exists a supernatural realm which consists of a personal being of objective goodness, and great intelligence and power - sufficient to cause and sustain our experience of life.

Now up to here I have argued in favor of monotheistic worldviews in a negative manner, i.e. by excluding alternative worldviews I judge inferior. But it turns out that by adopting a monotheistic worldview I have experienced in my own life several concrete gains that represent additional and positive reasons that justify it: First, I experienced the whole of my experiential environment as increasingly more beautiful, a state of affairs which I consider extremely valuable. Second, and this too is a very precious thing, I experienced that the monotheistic worldview is morally empowering and thus helps me live closer to how I aspire to live, namely as a good person. Thirdly, and this will come as a surprise, that worldview helps me understand the presence of evil and pain in my experiential environment â€" evidence that is traditionally used against theism. Here is how:

As we saw my worldview is based in the reality of God, a person who instantiates all that is objectively good as well as all the structure (or intelligence if you will) of the supernatural reality that causes and sustains our experiential environment. Our current experiential environment though clearly includes many evil things. How can that be? Well what helps answer this question is that we, the same as God, are persons, i.e. conscious beings. So we are able in some fundamental (albeit limited) sense to put ourselves in God's shoes as it were, and to ponder the question "What would I do if I were God?" If the answer to that question would ultimately lead to the creation of people experiencing the kind of imperfect and partially evil environment we do â€" then the God hypothesis would indeed explain why our environment is imperfect. So what would I do if I were God? Well I would create other persons to share in the objective goodness that I instantiate. And here is a key point (a point I see clearly myself but have had trouble explaining in the past): The personal goodness (in short "virtue") that God instantiates is not something that can be given directly to others. Why not? Because personal goodness is valuable in that it reflects personal merit. Thus value resides primarily in the way a person attains a particular state and not only in that state. For example we all agree that somebody who climbs to the summit of Everest has more personal merit and increased personal value than somebody who is flown to the same summit by helicopter. So the greatest good that God could give to other sentient beings is to create for them the most efficient experiential environment possible in which they can attain virtue on personal merit. And the experiential environment I live in (the physical world I experience but also the qualitative/internal/subjective parts of my experience, e.g. how it is to love, how it is to fail, how it is to fear, how it is to hurt, how it is to trust, how it is to perceive beauty, how it is to understand, how it is to self-transcend, and so on â€" in short how it is to be a human being), the whole of it appears to me to be perfectly proportioned for attaining virtue. Or at least I see nothing in my experience of life as a human being that would make me suspect that it is not perfectly proportioned for attaining virtue. In short, the God hypothesis explains to my satisfaction the whole of my conscious experience, including the nasty bits.

Now I am not just a theist but a Christian, and this would correspond to my third stand. But this is a stand I don't wish to make here, for various reasons: First it is irrelevant in the context of the atheist/theist debate and the justification of my belief in God. Second I don't consider Christianity to be objectively superior to other religious worldviews, just to be superior for me for various reasons and especially because of my upbringing. Third my understanding of Christianity differs from traditional dogma in several points, including the dogma of humankind's fall, the dogma of divine judgment and hell, the dogma of salvation by faith alone, and the dogma of God's immutability; so obviously I can only meaningfully discuss my Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts ;-)

10. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201456 by alovrin on June 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Oh my giddy aunt...he's waxing lyrical at the climax.
Or is that polishing his.......

It is no cause for pride if Earth should turn out to be the only world where the Incarnation took place. God often selects the younger son, the poor fisherman, the tax-collector, the harlot and the sinner, the weakest and humblest things in the world to do his almighty work. Earth may have been selected because she is the lowest world in the galaxy, the cosmic equivalent of a stinking stable.

In any case, imagining that God selected a lowly stable for His cradle is no harder and no different than imagining God selected a lowly world for His cradle; the difference is only in the magnitude of what one's imagination can grasp.

Indeed, the larger and older the cosmos seems to get as modern science tells us more of its weird secrets, the larger and grander must, to the Christian imagination, seem the maker of all this glory.

...cosmic equivalent of a stinking stable?
Na, Im sure he thinks its his....
....magnitude of what one's imagination can grasp.
Althought it might be his...
...maker of all this glory.

11. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198893 by alovrin on June 24, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Um when the audio is bad, as in the opening of this debate, maybe admin could put subtitles up in the worst parts. Not that I want to add to your workload.
It seems to be just the first two parts where there were problems with Prof Peter Atkins audio.
Note to admin. Im willing to help in this respect.

12. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197738 by alovrin on June 22, 2008 at 3:11 pm

I'm just here to tell you that I think you are missing out on a pretty fulfilling relationship and the fact that I come here might indicate that God hasn't totally given up on you yet!

No, your presence here is indicative of the kind proselytizing indulged in by many of the religious, to prop up their beliefs.
You thinking that your god is watching approvingly when you visit this website is, aw hell, you work it out.
If you have nothing more to add, I'll bid you adieu.

Other posters here have asked you to expand on your words of wisdom, I urge you to respond.

13. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #197376 by alovrin on June 21, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Marshall, Just need to fix this.

God cares so much about saving you from an eternity without him that he sent his son into this terrible world just to come down and get you. That doesn't sound like an uncaring God who is trying to torment you. It sounds like a God who cares so much about his relationship with you that he created a way to reconcile you to him, Hogwash

Better.

I like to communicate with Atheist's mostly because it reinforces my faith.

So do you communicate this way with Muslims? Hindus?
IS it just atheists who do this to you?

In a forum like this where the contributors are probably 98% unbelievers you would think that something you would read could challenge your beliefs. But it never happens.

The point being, we are a disappointment to you?
Thanks for sharing.

The points that Atheists make are not unique. Christians (at least me) have already considered most of the points that Atheists hang their faith on, but we believe anyway.

Oh right, not unique enough. So do you have anything unique to say about your god, something an atheist might not have already considered.
Do tell.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197366 by alovrin on June 21, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I do include you Goldy in the many people whose written thoughts, I have read when here, over past 18 months, and have respect for.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2748,PZ-Myers---Science-and-Atheism-in-the-Blogosphere,Point-of-Inquiry

The above thread for example, has some really good points raised by posters, and well expressed.

he could have been referring to 'clearthinker'.

Ahh, the dry wit, love it.

Anyway TX is back so I'm off.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #197049 by alovrin on June 21, 2008 at 1:37 am

Probably right Irate..
Gave me a fright tho' , being on the wrong side of the formidable intellects here.
I damn near shat meself.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196925 by alovrin on June 20, 2008 at 3:40 pm

OH NO not the

golden spear pike with a sort of curved bladed like tip to it

Phew thanks Goldy...

Steve

wonder if you have ever seen the Rob Newman sketch "Ray - The Man Inflicted With A Sarcastic Tone Of Voice"

No, but I do have a lot of trouble because of a deep furrow mid brow, and bushy eyebrows dammit.

Im off to read MPhils paper.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196920 by alovrin on June 20, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Podaar

I thought you supported socialism/communism.

No I just like revving Al R up, for all the wrong reasons.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196907 by alovrin on June 20, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Podaar

but I would guess from his/her previous posts that he/she didn't care for "tolerant democratic society."

Again Im stunned.
Im now wondering/worried how I come across here.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196896 by alovrin on June 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm

you can overlook the jaw droppingly inane and incredible assertions, assertions without a scrap of evidence other than the Bible (other holy texts being, it seems, wrong) and just point to this one paragraph and chuckle in an arrogantly superior way.

Um I have been reading TXpiper's posts his laughable ice shield idea, 6000 yr old earth etc.
It just seemed Steve Z summed TX's (and many others) position up in a succint, cogent way. Im underlining.
If it seems I was being"arrogant" or "superior" my apologies that was not my intention. After such a long exchange which I have not been part of.
Im am stunned that it came across as such.

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196857 by alovrin on June 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm

But, religion, at heart, is deeply problematic. It panders to people's prejudices by allowing them to claim, evidence free, that their prejudices are supported by the mind of the creator. That is really fundamentally unacceptable in a truly free and tolerant democratic society.

Jeez, Another little gem. Its amazing what you find when stumbling around this site.

21. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196373 by alovrin on June 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith,

Uh huh that'll work.... perhaps they could draw up a schematic of the other world/realms/ whatfuckingever, as well.
Oh no, thats right they cant, they'll be moving their lower jaws at the bidding of their deity.

22. It Doesn't Take an Einstein

Comment #196252 by alovrin on June 19, 2008 at 2:15 pm

"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

Thats it!
Close the site..
I'm off to find a therapist, oh the pain ...the pain

23. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #196248 by alovrin on June 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Irate

The sort of people who, perhaps, would be social workers or teachers if these job's came with a degree of respect from those they try to help and support from the community at large

Just a personal observation, in my lifetime there has been a downwards slide in the respect by the community of those in the teaching and social services. Along with a decline in remuneration.
And in some cases even becoming some kind of whipping boy,
At the head of this downwards slide there's always a few religites.

24. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #195928 by alovrin on June 19, 2008 at 3:56 am

Every time I see Ayaan's beautiful eyes i want to cry as I recall her heart-wrenching story.

So true. And there are millions more who dont escape. She speaks for them.
She works for AEI so what, I bet many here have worked for pricks.
You smile, say "Good Morning" and get to work.
Her instincts for surviving... thriving are superb.

25. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195825 by alovrin on June 18, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Alpha Course = an introduction to Christianity which runs over a 10 week period. Informal, non threatening. A meal followed by different talk
each week.

The big attraction (and thats not saying much) would be the meal.
Did you have menu's? Or just the usual crap food.
Well the Alpha course I allowed myself to be dragged along to was the most lame affair I've attended.
Some dolt talked about his conversion experience*yawn*
When we broke up into groups, it was a given that the bibble was infallible, one twat got his diet from that OT thing, ya know no shellfish etc.
By the time it got to coffee&bikkies(cheapskates) I had lost all appetite and was in need of a couple of stiff drinks.
Yep, I barely lasted one evening.
10 weeks you've got to be kidding!

26. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195766 by alovrin on June 18, 2008 at 7:05 pm

It is only God who can convert

Excuse me , I forgot, you are a model of humility.

Hi Loke How goes it up in sunny Norway? It is summer now right?
DR is like part of the scenery round here, you'll get used to him....or not.

27. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195231 by alovrin on June 18, 2008 at 12:50 am

Hi David

the glee that the atheist evangelists feel at getting one convert.

I guess you can identify with that feeling.

28. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194421 by alovrin on June 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Ketch

If you can show me how Jesus/Truth has changed I will submit, but don't show me how people's interpretation of Jesus has changed, because that isn't Jesus or the Word.

There is a very large supposition in there.. jesus=truth.
What we know about the world has changed beyond the recognition of anyone who would have been alive in biblical times.
If you say changing interpretation's, of said subject arent allowed. I mean we(including you) have nothing else to go on.

by the by....
UM sorry, any feelings or thoughts you experience whilst enraptured by said subject(such as feelings of timelessness, awe) are not admissible, and should be kept at your place of worship.

Then there's no point, and I dont think anyone here craves your submission.

29. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #193384 by alovrin on June 15, 2008 at 1:45 pm

And yes alvorin is a complete and utter fucktard.

OHH dear, getting a widdle upset are we, there, there diddims.
Dont worry your safe, behind the walls of an idiotic foreign policy, and one of the most protected economies in the world.
Where you can rabbit on to your hearts content about free markets being some kind of utopian panacea. Just dont expect anyone with a brain to take you seriously on this.
Gotta go catch my favourite US TV show, which mines the current events to great comedic effect.
Ah Jon Stewart Leibovitz( I think thats right), what a man.
Ciao

30. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193115 by alovrin on June 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm

First, you have to determine what the range of applicability ought to be: Why construct a first-order moral theory to maximize the benefit of one society? What about inter-social relations? What about the nature of that society as it is already - how should that figure in?

Then you have to ask yourself - should society be of more value than the individual? Wouldn't that end in collectivism?

Then you might ask: What is the proper balance between protecting individuals and protecting society as a whole?

Furthermore, what moral code would work best, how do we judge this, how do implement it?

Excellent lines of enquiry that should be dealt with at the national and international level as well as the personal.
Alas it seems we are still monkeys fighting over the waterhole.

31. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192294 by alovrin on June 12, 2008 at 5:43 pm

And I notice the accuser, once called on his foolishness, has scurried off. He (alvorin) is also a socialist, of the "Cuba isn't a socialist country" variety.

Well well, did I say something to upset you?

And just to correct you again, I am not a "socialist" of your Cuban kind. This makes you at best a person with a reading disability, or a liar.
By the way your education ideas... suck.
Unions blah blah evil blah blah

32. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192180 by alovrin on June 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm

It's hard for many Europeans to truly appreciate the rough and individualistic nature of America

HAha, after watching Biggest Loser or American Idol, with all those "rough and individualistic" people, methinks this is a fantasy of backcountry folk, who talk slooowwww.
Just exercising my rights, and looking out for a falcon, rawindi shit storm.

33. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190399 by alovrin on June 9, 2008 at 2:47 am

Clear something.

(such is the level of obcessive behaviour exhibited by some I now suspect that the amateur detectives who want to accuse me of lying will now research bank accounts in 1987!

When it comes to you, we(atheists) dont need to do a thing. You do a pretty good job of stitching yourself up.

And astonishingly some people have had their minds changed.

Poor ole Richard M, hardly astonishing.

34. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186543 by alovrin on May 30, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Your assertion about socialism is all wrong. It is always a massive bureacracy. Because in a free market, market forces allocate resource. In a socialist country, the government has to allocate all resources. For instance fuel, food, liquor, media, science funding, etc...

This has got me interested in finding out if a bureaucracy in a socialist state will always be bigger that any other type of state govt. I guess it could be said that in a socialist state everyone is employed by the govt, but 'llI just stick to numbers in an actual govt dept. I thought the govt just exercised tight control over anything imported, leaving such like consumables made in the country to be distributed by existing networks.(except in times of crisis) But thats the same as any other state.

And also I'm interested in finding out how each type of govt allocates its money. As I said my hypothesis is that consent isnt micromanaged, with re education programmes etc, but dissent( of any kind) is just punished. The obvious example is Pol Pot.
Getting figures from socialist states is a bit difficult tho.

At a personal level, of the many countries I have been to including Russia, China and the US. The US was by far the worst to get into. Those overweight customs and immigration officials are damn nazis. And then theres the Dept of Homeland Security.
A massive bureaucracy created in just 7 years.

I prefer to have more control over my own life, not less. How do you feel?

Self determination is a vital part of any ones life, but because there are now so many of us, the tensions that have arisen between what benefits the individual, and what is in the interest of the community, are a source of trouble.
But I definitely believe that many problems are more likely to be solved by individuals than by committee. And an individual is more likely to come up with an innovative idea than a committee.

Again time is my enemy, I must go.

35. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184113 by alovrin on May 23, 2008 at 4:29 pm

micro management was a necessary consequence

Heres the thing, now this is just speculation, I will look into it further, but for the moment I will just throw this out there.

Once a doctrine is adopted enmasse by a country, then everyone kind of falls into line, as we(humans) do. As we have to get on with the business of living feeding ourselves and our dependants.
The need for micromanagement would seem to not be of that great an importance, as most will tow the line. So anyone who disagrees with the doctrine would kinda stick out from the mass conformity. So it makes the job of those policing the state doctrines within the population easy, just look for anyone lifting there head from the collective trough. So there's no need for a massive state apparatus, just a large number of jailers.

While this was one of those fears that was bandied about as an inevitable consequence of socialism. The micromanagement of societies, it seems, arose from a very different quarter. That is, as a matter of safeguarding the community, from ideologies that can be seen as a threat, but are hard to detect. Which an incumbent administration can use to boost its power. This is an option that is available to any govt regardless of its policies.

As I say this is just a hypothesis, when I get a chance I'll look at some figures, so dont beat up on me if you can find holes in this

Al you have said elsewhere that a capitalist society has the ability to reduce its bureaucracy, and Im sure this is correct. I just wonder if you could flesh this out for me a bit. How could this happen, what would spur an incumbent administration to go down this route.


Also I get the feeling that the USA populace would like some kind of universal healthcare set up by whoever gets into power at the next election. Is this correct? And education is becoming of the utmost importance, and this is best handled by a secular administration,IMO.

How would you deal with health and education?

36. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #180776 by alovrin on May 15, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Keith

Er, if you look I actually included it in my post and you even used it when quoting me. Perhaps you ought to lie down for a while. Oh, just before you sedate yourself, commas heard of that concept

Now, ya know, Im usually attempt to the best of my abilities to read a post i want to comment on, but there ya go.. I missed one.

Which makes it even simpler.. obvious conclusion...its what started you off in the first place.
This, and calling you a tit( hardly the worst invective thrown around this site or the www for that matter), in your opinion, suggests to you, I should sedate myself.
Anyway..thanks for the grammar tip.

groupies that could probably be said to be proto-Capitalist. Without evidence to back up our assertions, either of us can claim whatever we like.

By this you mean people traded stuff?
Um I think just off the top of my head at the times when proto communist states existed in the americas, africa, others, the main alternatives, globally were theocracies or absolute monarchies.

Al-Rawandi

PG: "Tito wasn't a socialist".

OK from the PG, Tito was a socialist/communist, no argument there.
But putting him in a list with Hitler and Mussolini, Pol Pot,
socialist being the connection...
Jugoslavia under Tito was a peaceful place, during his lifetime the fierce rivalries in the area were put aside. His war leadership and record counted a lot in this. And whatever the economics the country flourished. But with the man, that influence died, and the old feuds came back, and they are old feuds.

Defining socialism Im not a socialist, their language just puts me off.
As Epeeist says these doctrines were born of a revulsion of the horrors of the industrial revolution.

37. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177263 by alovrin on May 8, 2008 at 8:40 pm

All I can say Richard is bon chance. I gave up reading this mind numbing drivel.

At the simplest level, this is what it means to be Catholic, to belong to a living community of faith that extends across the centuries and will extend until the end of time.

Big call there, cardimac, I would have thought it would last only to the deathbed of the last catholic, probably in the next 1-2 thousand yrs, I hope.

But it sounds very grand...
*cue reverb*
TILL THE END OF TIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

turn off the fucking reverb willya.

38. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176729 by alovrin on May 7, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Personal incentive drives human progress

Again a broad stroke which renders everything meaningless.

Personal incentive can sometimes lead to theoretical or technical innovations which can then be used by us to come to a deeper understanding of our world/universe, or make a better toasted sandwich.
In the case of the toasted sandwich maker money will be generated, but theories which can enlighten us all can sometimes just sit around for eons till something or one makes it relevant, and we all sit up and take notice. So any idea of a linear progession in human development driven by identifiable forces is a fiction.
But in the meantime we all have to get by somehow, so systems on a huge scale defined by a catchall term have sprung up, and here we run into trouble. And any system is not going to work for everyone.
apologies, I must sign off now, things to do...

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176695 by alovrin on May 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm

eepeist

I have been musing on the state of Christianity in the UK. My thoughts, completely personal opinions with little evidence to back it up.
The CofE seems to be dying gradually.

Or the ones that arent dead are migrating to the fucking colonies, thanks a lot guys.

The Catholic church seems to be in a similar predicament, although it has had a boost recently with the influx of Catholic Eastern Europeans, particularly Poles.

And you can thank bloody John Paul for that. Go anywhere in Eastern Europe where catholic churchs are opening again and its bloody Poles.

What we will have to face is the rump lunatic fringe, supported by people like Peter Vardy and similar exports from the US.

Or nitwits from the colonies like Ham and the banana guy Comfort or friendly or whatever his stupid name is.

40. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176252 by alovrin on May 7, 2008 at 2:47 am

Dont think it will come even close to the best novel with the devil in it.
The Master and Margarita.

41. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176192 by alovrin on May 6, 2008 at 8:57 pm

How about this, you tell me what you think socialism is

This started with an offhand(is that right? its your remark) about Tito. You, for reasons unknown to me, dropped his name on the end of a list of communists as if that was all that needed to be said.

Hey George Bush and Abraham Lincoln what do they have in common, both members of the Republican Party. Now which way should I go, Ab is by association very stupid or George very smart, or maybe like you they were just arseholes.
Whats the connection as with

Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Lenin, Tito

Hitler? Oh thats right it was the National Socialist Party therefore Hitler was a socialist. I guess the same goes for Mussolini, right?
Hey, they all had a perchant for silly uniforms is that the connection?

Lets just concentrate on Tito shall we.

You

was integral in the ascendancy of Communists in Yugoslavia.

Yes he was a member of the communist party no argument there but( see above) that is totally irrelevant.

"integral in the ascendancy of the communists"
This is the end of WWII before you were born.

Partisans? Cetniks? Who ran this loose confederation of states between the world wars? Mihailovic? How did "Tito" conduct himself and by extension his troops during the war? Josip Broz?
All you have given is a very idiosyncratic(shall we say) reading of the history of this region of Europe?
Did you visit the country in question when this "communist" was still alive and in charge?

All you do is paint in such broad strokes around terms it impossible for you to be wrong. And its not mine or anyone else's job to define terms for you, you seem to have done a very good job of that for yourself.

the government should protect people from concentrations of power, be it government power

Now theres some woolly thinking for you, it like saying, OK you foxes Im leaving you in charge of the henhouse. WTF

And just lay off this "you're a psychic you tell me" crap, and put your dick back in your pants.

42. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175622 by alovrin on May 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Anyone caught fondling Nietzche's Der Wille zur Macht or making paper hats from Chomsky is automatically disqualified.

You could set up a third island full of priests and theologians too, but it's probably wise not to give them one with a volcano on it, for fear of who they might decide to throw in.

Thats hilarious.

43. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #175510 by alovrin on May 5, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I am not an Ayn Rand fan at all.

Excellent.

You never answered if we are going to play man-bashing, you never answered why this even matters. What about being a man is important

Sorry was I "man bashing"? as you so delicately put it.

My last post was a written in haste as I had to leave to help my nephew (who lives on an island) make his accommodation habitable. Its a ferry ride away, he has electricity but no computer, let alone internet. But you dont want to hear about my life helping others, it seems you think sitting at a computer screen and railing against bureaucracy is much more worthwhile.

The beliefs any person, I dont care who they are, holds are taken from their environment. Environment is a umbrella term, this would include the culture into which they are born, the ideas they are taught when young etc, Im sure you get the picture. The beliefs you hold do not exist outside of humanity, unless of course you are a theist who thinks some deity has handed down special knowledge to your forebears. The problem with this is there's no way to verify it. But Im sure you know all about this, no need to go over that territory

Other factors to the way a person thinks is within themselves, genes, hormones and chemical balances in the body and brain affect our minds. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Or do you believe your thoughts exist in a bubble of perfection and you just tap into it every time you say or write something?

So being in a certain age grouping and a male, born in the US, into certain socio-economic strata will have a bearing on what you think?
So would you consider this a fair assessment, just as a boy/girl born into a muslim middle class family in Iran/anywhere for that matter, will typically have certain views so will anyone.

Is this man bashing?

fantasy you are having.

Again you show yourself unable to engage but instead throw insults around.

I didn't make a judgement I said "You appear to
me to be", it was an observation...

Interesting observational technique, given the haughty distain that surrounded it.

And the figures were a throwaway. 90, 10 what ever.

Of course there are no successful socialist countries around presently, they were tried, but they were only every going to be a stepping stone to greater prosperity for a larger number of people. Something those in power under those ideologies never wanted to acknowledge. And something western liberals sympathetic to those ideas couldnt see.

And there is a creeping bureaucratic slant now to most government activity, greatly increased since Sept 11 2001.
It was always going to be a problem, and will continue to be until there is a recognition that the problem is not with any system that humans live under, but that it will always need to be changed, there will always be unforeseen problems which need to be taken care of, and maybe ditched if it becomes inhibitive. e.g. religion, socialism.

Anyway fuck it this will probably fall on deaf ears so see ya.

And keith (or Reg) if you prefer( how apt you pick him).
I didnt say I support any thing Rousseau wrote, twit.
Noble savage heard of that concept? Dream up by effetes living in perfumed palours in Europe looking at drawings of exotic foreigners two centuries ago. The pastoralists doomed to failure.

If you're so set on talking only to Al, why not use the personal messaging system instead of this forum? Or do you perhaps think that your interchange with him will make a great spectator event?

Christ you really are a tit.

44. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174521 by alovrin on May 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Another handful of leftist sloganeering. "Young men", why is this relevant? Can you tell me why my gender has something to do with Capitalism, or are we going to get into feminist man-bashing as well?

Do not accuse me of leftist sloganeering. And age and sex, race, upbringing as have been pointed out by so many people all play a part in who and how a person turns out the views they have and espouse, and people can be crudely grouped.
I guess you like to think you are unique and have a full grasp of the full scope of human history and most probably think you know the solution.
But I would say the odds of this being the case are very low, and the more likely scenario is that you are 10%right and 90% wrong.

Now if you would like to engage in a discussion I would be more than happy to expand on my views, if you could first tell me what your full theory is are or point me in the direction of where you have stated these views. I wont guess anymore as to what they may be.Just one question does Ayn Rand play any part in the development of your thinking?

Are you up for it or would you rather just dismiss me as a hippie.

And keith dont (as a rather cute saying goes) come the raw prawn with me. I was wondering what Al would come up with after reading the post, it seems he didnt bother to deem it worth responding to.
The obvious conclusion I would have thought ...a hint. Rousseau. Can you work it out now?

Now I would like to deal with one person on this AI if he wants to. And as it is an open forum you can follow the exchange that is what I would prefer, you can throw in your thoughts but I will probably not respond if I am engaged with Al.

45. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174290 by alovrin on May 2, 2008 at 2:29 am

Maybe the 'obvious conclusion' isn't so obvious because I have no idea what it is. And for those who aren't so slow, what's wrong with coming to obvious conclusions? It's only a bad idea if they are wrong. Obvious conclusions are, more often than not, right.

Wrong.
And as to your other point very little is known because we have to reconstruction from what was left. And all we can do is make educated guesses.
Butt out keith.

46. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174226 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Oh I just remembered successful communism.

Well at present there are none. I would however say that for most of humanities existence on this planet there were many groupings that could probably be said to be communistic, but of course they wouldnt have called themselves that or have even known what it meant. But there is very little record of this. It doesnt transfer successfully to a large scale it seems, something that often happens.
And please dont jump to the obvious conclusion.

47. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174211 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 10:24 pm

These American leftists are much like how I perceive you to be, passive aggressive against a proven system which they cannot conquer with their liberal arts degree. Such threats and prognostications are vacuous without some evidence of the fall of the US system. There is no end in sight I am afraid, a resurgent Chinese economy is all but a farce

Well you got your diagnosis of me completely wrong
And I did say Asian not Chinese.
Anyway no point continuing this exchange as you just seem to want to work yourself into a righteous lather, pretty scary for an atheist, which I bet you gleaned from reading Ayn.

I'll wait till after the US election to make any guess as to the health or otherwise of the US economy.

I always get a bit suspect when I see young males sounding off about which "system" is the best.

And I dont secretly wish for the collapse of the US, but a president with a brain would make a lot of difference.
I am very glad that it is the US that did become the worlds superpower, and I wish you would rethink you hasty dismissal of the rest of the world as riding on the coat tails of the US economy.

Please in future could you refrain from making hasty judgements about people.
And while you like full titles of countries you left in the anglicism, a pretty basic error.

All the best see you another time
A

48. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173954 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 11:48 am

You say communist like its a dirty word, thats very.. um.. american of you.

power house US economy.

Yeah but for how much longer?
Maybe a seachange is coming and it will be a powerhouse asian economy supporting nanny middle eastern religious states.
And all the white folks are working for a buck a day.

49. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173907 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

Al Raw

Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Lenin, Tito.

Tito? Pardon Double Pardon Please explain why you have included
this name. Is there some other Tito than the now deceased leader of the now non existent Yugoslavia?
And your statement " Capitalism reinforces what is human nature"

Again I beg your pardon. You need to get out a bit more lad.

50. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173620 by alovrin on May 1, 2008 at 1:07 am

FF

Soon we will be taking votes on whether to go to war or not...

Dont think that a mass voting matter, such decisions are usually made well away from the public eye. And then the announcement made to the great unwashed with as much gravitas as can be summoned up.

Tho' its highly likely that a global conflict will occur in the coming years as a perfect storm of human stupidity gains momentum.
And politicians pandering to a vociferous minority will be one of the currents driving of this storm.