Saturday, July 29, 2017

The Only Reason Why an Atheist Doesn't Believe in the Bible


I commented ...

I have philosophical reasons to think that there might be a god, but I think that the presenter misunderstands the atheist position. Most atheists that I am aware of simply say that there is no credible evidence of a god. They aren't willing to accept something without evidence, and neither am I. The Bible is not evidence of anything, except that ancient people committed atrocities in the name of religion, if we can assume that some of the accounts are true. These atrocities disprove the Bible, and the Bible loses further credibility when you realize that many stories are recycled from other religions worshiping other gods thousands of years before Judaism existed. (The flood from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Adam and Eve from The Tree of Jiva and Atman, and Jesus from the demigod Horus.) I don't expect to expect to convince many people reading this, but the point I am trying to make is that accepting ideas without evidence is not the way to think rationally. Religion puts much emphasis on faith, but that is because they can't prove their bogus claims. However, if religion gives most people's meaningless lives meaning, then I say more power to them, because why not? But a few of us prefer to believe in a rational universe with rules where cause and effect govern. Rational thinking in such a universe is based upon credible evidence.

--

Friday, October 28, 2016

I was appalled by some of the responses I got here. (See bold text.)

FYI.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM
Subject: I was appalled by some of the responses I got here. (See bold text.)
To:



I understand why people on the left feel the way they do. Web page after web page makes it clear that the number one issue on the left is income inequality and disparity of wealth. This is an issue that has rising to the forefront for years, fueled mostly by left leaning politicians, not to mention a suffering economy. This issue has been a concern of mine as well.

I see countless articles claiming that disparity of wealth is a threat to democracy. The theory is that the rich and powerful control the political system, which is probably a half truth. As Michael Moore said, a millionaire gets no more votes than a poor person, and there are far fewer millionaires than there are the rest of us. Despite big income inequality in 2008 and 2012, the American people elected a left leaning socialist who promised to raise taxes on the rich.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have benefited from rich donors and foreign donors, and have been paid exorbitant fees to give speeches to Wall Street bankers and foreign leaders. If you don't want a politician in the pocket of the wealthy, then don't vote for Hillary.

Some disparity of wealth is healthy because it shows that you have a vibrant growing economy. It used to be that if you wanted to get rich, or richer, you would compete in the marketplace. However, today, the way people get rich is they use government to shut down their competitors or use government to grant them special favors.

If you plan on voting for Hillary, I want to tell you why conservatives feel the way they do. It is the birthright of every Unites States citizen to live in a free country. Economic freedom is an essential part of living in a free country, because without economic freedom then you have very little freedom at all. Economic freedom is essential for economic growth and prosperity. Conservatives feel that their birthright is being stolen from them. The country was founded on the principle of limited government to protect freedom, but for several decades there has been a concerted effort to turn the United States into a European style socialism, and it mostly has succeeded.

The Constitution of the United States was worded to limit the power of the federal government. The 10nth amendment to the Constitution specifically states that those powers not assigned by the Constitution to the Federal Government belong to the States or the people. Yet, liberal judges have pretty much nullified any Constitutional limit on federal power. Conservatives feel that this is one of the most important elections in our lifetime, because if Hillary is elected then she will appoint more liberal judges, especially to the Supreme Court, who will render any Constitutional limit on government power meaningless.

Best wishes,

John Coffey

P.S. Be sure to share.

Geneva Coffey Belding I'm telling all people that our constitutional rights are being taken away a little at a time and our government will be telling us all what to do. It's coming faster than u think. Help trump win please
Geneva Coffey Belding
Alan E Woodbury
Alan E Woodbury Obama is not a Socialist.
John Coffey
John Coffey I think that it depends upon where you are standing.
John Coffey
Write a reply...

Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda All men are not created equal.
John Coffey Meaning what? According to the Declaration of Independence they are. I think that it means that they have equal rights.
Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda No. Even when it was written we had slaves.
John Coffey
John Coffey Nick Paleveda what does that have to do with my topic? We are the only nation on earth that went to war to end slavery. The abolitionists were Republicans. The point is that we all should have the right to live in a free country.
Norm Jenson
Norm Jenson Lol and the British ended it without a war
John Coffey
John Coffey What does this have to do with my topic?
Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda Yes. The Brits ended slavery prior to the revolution by the states in a court decision. We revolted perhaps to keep slavery. Today we allow debts such as student loans not to be discharged in bankruptcies creating a class of indentured servants. Hmmm.
Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda The British ended slavery in 1772 by court decision. The colonies revolted in 1776 and wanted to keep slavery..so jot down all men are created equal on your way out the door..
John Coffey
John Coffey The 1772 decision left in place slavery in the colonies "the power of a master over his servant is different in all countries, more or less limited or extensive; the exercise of it therefore must always be regulated by the laws of the place where exercised."
John Coffey
John Coffey The British didn't fully abolish slavery in the British empire in 1833.
John Coffey
John Coffey Does this tangential discussion give you the right to take away my freedom? Does it give you the right to take away Constitutional limits on government power?

John Coffey
John Coffey This seems like a typical liberal ploy to go on the attack. You are attacking the founding fathers, making the clearly false claim that the American Revolution was done to preserve slavery. What a way to obfuscate the issue. Your point seems to be that this somehow invalidates the Constitution or our Constitutional protection of freedom.

Norm Jenson
Norm Jenson i consider it a rather silly discussion. You don't have total freedom. There are dozens of laws that restrict freedom. I'm sure you agree with many of them. I think as long as it is democratically decided it's fine. We can do whatever we want even amend the constitution if necessary. There is nothing wrong with socialism as long as it's a democratic socialism.

You don't now and never have had any absolute freedom. You've always been subject to laws.

The aside was simply setting the record straight. This country is great but far from perfect and there is nothing wrong in acknowledging when others got it right before us.

John Coffey
John Coffey Norm Jenson You might as well throw away the Constitution.
Norm Jenson
Norm Jenson we have a Supreme Court that interprets it. I know you think they get it wrong sometimes I do as well. But if we don't like the interpretation we can amend it. I hate the right wing holier than thou attitude that their reading is the only correct one. What incredible arrogance.
Norm Jenson
Norm Jenson I think the Supreme Court got it wrong on citizens united for example and a string of decisions giving personhood to corporations. Here is a discussion of that issue that informs my view
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/
Contents Introduction to Corporate Personhood Controversies Relating to Corporate…
John Coffey
John Coffey Norm Jenson How convenient that the left can appoint liberal judges who interpret the constitution in a liberal way, but then you call people like me who think that this is wrong holier than thou and incredibly arrogant.
Norm Jenson
Norm Jenson Fair enough there is plenty of arrogance to go around
Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda By the way it is not a false claim that Slavery was abolished in England in 1772. You correctly pointed out it was not abolished in other parts of the empire . It was a concern of the founding fathers that the abolition would take place in the colonies as they all owned slaves. In 1772 slavery eliminated in England. In 1776 we leave..but on the way out we make a brilliant statement "all men are created equal".
John Coffey
Write a reply...

Steve Kusaba
Steve Kusaba Your OP leaves out the most pertinent factor. The gap between rich and poor is a direct result of monetary policy. The policy of both parties. I could write a book on the supporting information to this idea.

Emergency interest rates are a complete disaster for the lower classes as well as the Central bank claim that inflation is good for people. These newer generations are about as brainwashed as could be, no person in first half of the 20th century would think inflation was a good thing. It lowers wages in purchasing power, erodes the value of savings while funneling the wealth to the people who control it. Inflation helps people who own most of the assets as well as politicians, insiders and parasites.

The poor and middle class are ignorant to these realities and continue to vote for the two parties and tacitly, a continuation of the very policy which impoverishes them.

They are their own worst enemies.
Like · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs · Edited
John Coffey
John Coffey I didn't want to get into specifics, but I feel that our monetary system is one of the things that enslaves us.
Like · Reply · 2 · 10 hrs
Steve Kusaba
Steve Kusaba The thing is, it is 99% of what enslaves us. Do you know that the bank of Japan is in the top five holders of 88 of the 220 stocks on the Nikkei? They are the number one holder of 50 of them. Many people might say "Well at least I make money in the stocks while the central bank purchases them." but its not true. The companies just issue more and more shares so that they are the ones who benefit from this artificial inflation where the public's money is stolen and give to insiders.

The Central banks of the world own nearly all of the bonds, much of the stocks and so much more since they have been given (taken really) unconstitutional powers to meddle in all markets. The net affect is that our economy has been hollowed out by all of this. If you forced central banks (better still, got rid of them all together) to stop these criminal practices, things would fix themselves naturally. Without fiat they could not steal by the trillions from the public to line their own pockets. Over taxation and over regulation along with the currency con has impoverished the private sector at the benefit of the public sector. The private sector creates productivity while the public sector destroys it.

This is why America makes nothing and runs 500 billion dollar trade deficits for decades. This is where your good jobs disappeared to. The public has always had it in their power to make themselves well off but they vote Democrat and Republican and get what they deserve. People who should know better vote for these two parties as well. The Lemming like habit of giving in to practices which are ingrained by training must be hard to overcome.

If you measure it properly (no double book accounting for the bonds of the entitlements) we have more debt than GDP. We have went over the edge and will face an increase in the disaster we have been participating in.

Simple, stop doing what doesn't work. I guess this is too hard for the public to grasp.
Like · Reply · 1 · 10 hrs · Edited
John Coffey
Write a reply...

Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda Agree with Steve.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 14 hrs
Nick Paleveda
Nick Paleveda John all the rhetoric about equality is tossed out the door in a capitalist society when 1 % owns 99% of all assets. Think about it.
John Coffey
John Coffey The top 1% doesn't own 99% of all assets. That is just liberal propaganda. I see news articles saying that if current trends continue, then top 1% will own 50% of all assets. But that can also be deceiving. I have heard that many of those are people like me who saved all their life and retired. I worked hard for almost 30 years, saved and invested my money until I had a comfortable nest egg, and then retired at age 54. I might possibly be in the top 1%, or close to it, but I need my investments to live on.

I think that having some inequality is the natural result of a free market and is healthy. It shows that people can get ahead if they work and invest their money. As long as it doesn't get too extreme, I don't think that it's anybody's business. Healthy economies grow wealth. The alternative is government coercion to correct the situation. That is a path to dictatorship. You would have an all controlling state dictating how much people are allowed to have.

If you want to look for the real reason why there is so much inequality, then look at how the wealthy take advantage of government, and how our monetary system and central banks benefit the banking industry and the rich. When all money in the economy starts as a loan, then it enslaves us all to debt.

Think about it.  :-)

--