Jump to content


Husker_x

Members
  • Posts

    5,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by Husker_x

  1. No, The surest way for Clinton to get elected would be if Trump stayed a Republican and won the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee any Democrat candidate would win. I would love for a third party candidate to run that is actually viable. The problem is, they tend to be the extremes on both sides. I firmly believe there is a place for a moderate conservative candidate (party) in this country and if one really did run and form a really good campaign with talented people around him/her, I believe they would win easily. Disagree completely. Trump running third party and siphoning off votes from a candidate like Bush, Walker, or Rubio would be a disaster for the Republican party. There is no situation in politics that is better for one party than to have the other party get outflanked by an ex-whatever they are (in this case Republican). One more reason I'm a Sanders guy is that his top priority––or one of them––is campaign finance reform. I am with you 1000% that it's high time we had viable third-party alternatives. Some of the ideas I've heard Sanders put out there would almost certainly lead to the greatest chance of that happening we're likely to see in our lifetimes.
  2. Super, he's a great guy who runs a good company. My question I guess is he one of these guys, or is he compensated relative to employees at a more, uh, equitable rate?
  3. The biggest chance of a third party candidate is for Donald Trump to feel "not treated fairly," as he put it, which is Trumpspeak for he doesn't win the nomination. I would not blink if this ends up happening. It would be the surest way to elect a Clinton, or a . . . gasp . . . SOCIALIST!
  4. That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life. I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'. As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote. A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions. Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how. Correct, if you become the owner/employer, then you can be the dictator, you just confirmed my whole point. Of course, there are more worker run enterprises cropping up these days that are more democratic. I never denied that when you work for someone else, they pretty much make the decisions. I have no problem with that and I always kind of chuckle and roll my eyes when someone does have a problem with it. If you don't like it, go work for yourself. Like I said, there are tons of opportunity to do so. Basically what you just said is that you hate working for someone else but you won't go and do that. You just want to sit back and complain that you are working for someone else. Yeah, you kinda did attempt to deny it, but then I blew up your argument, LOL! Self employment has it's pluses and minuses, but it piggy backs on the thrust of the industrial economic situation, which is where most people are and what my point centers around. Ummm...no, and if you think that then you need reading comprehension lessons. I said the smaller the company the more say you have in what happens. That is totally different than what you are claiming. (if that is even the statement you are talking about.) Oh....so now you are saying owning a business has it's minuses. I thought they had all the power and rule the earth in all it's glory with no worries. Now you're obfuscating. Oh, give me a clear example of alleged 'smaller company' that allows the employee to have a say in on what good or service is produced, how it's produced, and how the good/service and profits and are distributed. Obfuscating....that's funny. Fine.... I have a Sales manager, VP of Production, VP of finance and a board of directors that has employees on it. My sales team, through my Sales Manager gives our management team input into what products are needed on the market. We work with many outside suppliers and sources to develop those products and determine the best way to produce them. VP of production and and his team have a lot of input into how it is produced. The VP of finance has a lot of say into how it is all financed. Like most companies my size, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company in the form of equipment, advertising, labor...etc. Those decisions are made within my management team that almost all of them are not owners of the company. Going on down the chain, my maintenance manager has a lot of say into what equipment is purchased, how it is used and where it goes. Shift managers have a say in how their team is managed and they give feedback as to changes that need to be made. Very very few hiring and firing decisions are even done by ownership in this company. A common question that is constantly asked to people that are being managed..."What do you need to be able to do your job better?" Heck, come to think of it, even my house keeper has complete control over how she does her job. When she does it and what products and equipment she uses to do that job. Any major (macro) decisions that need to be made go through the board of directors (with employees on it). This includes investments, profit distribution and even employee benefits...etc. My wife works for a company that has 5 departments. Those departments work basically as independent businesses. The owner of the company really doesn't do much because he has a great management team under him. He basically spends his time in public relations and doing things outside the company. Those departments have many managers that determine what work is going to be bid on, how it's bid on and how it is ultimately accomplished. They have control over their own budgets, and what income they bring in and what their departments spend it on. If a new facility is to be built or purchased in a department, that decision is done within that department with input from many people down the chain of command. Again, even in that company, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company with the department heads and their teams making the decisions as to what to do with it. Now, I know people who didn't like working for her company and they went out and started their own company and they are very happy. Heck, they even subcontract back to her company and still have a relationship. May I ask a question, just out of curiosity? How much more in terms of a ball-park dollar figure does the owner, who as you say contributes relatively little, make more than your wife? Not asking for salaries––but twenty grand a year, double, triple?
  5. I agree with the bold (not so much the Heritage Foundation, whose sole purpose is to advance conservative ideology by hook or by crook). People making hundreds of millions of dollars a year by buying Stock A at 9:30 and selling it at 10:30, or who move piles of money around according to algorithms designed by Ivy League scientists (who ended up on Wall Street instead of doing something useful with their lives) should be asked to pay a share of taxes commensurate with their "productivity." That would go a ways to curing our ills. We could also afford to cut our military expenditures and police-state armaments. This is easier than it sounds when you don't plan to invade or bomb half the countries in the Middle East. Your note is a little puzzling. It reads as if I indicated something to the contrary. Even in the 1950s (where like I mentioned twice before without comment that the top marginal tax rates were roughly triple what they are now) there were extremely wealthy individuals that everyone envied. What we live in now is a Gilded Age, wealth discrepancy like we haven't seen since the 20s. I'm a little strange, I admit. Although I'm an atheist, I style myself a social Christian in many respects, meaning I believe that the extravagancies of the wealthy are secondary to the needs of the impoverished. Laissez faire capitalism be damned. Edit: Ditto Zrod on the flat tax/fair tax/voodoo tax structure. If you think someone worth ten billion dollars should fork over the same percentage in taxes as a janitor making twenty thousand a year, I'm afraid this is where we part ways again.
  6. AR made two posts in this entire thread, and neither of them were all that negative. You sound like a complete wackjob. Obviously you are oblivious to what exactly I am talking about, or you are in agreement with him. It is a known fact that AR is a liberal. The question is how does a liberal start a condescending thread critical of people he isn't ideologically aligned with? You got that Moraine? Can you say deflection? Read it three times slowly if you still don't get it.-----Signed Wackjob I love your avatar. It's a perfect image for what our future as a nation looks like if we continue to vote for conservative policies and fail to address the most significant challenges of our time. By the way your original post about liberals starting threads talking about national conservative figures is nose-bleed inducing. What the hell do you think Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, George Will, Monica Crowley, Greg Gutfeld, or Megyn Kelly do for a living?
  7. Except when it doesn't... Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take. Really? Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds
  8. That pretty much says it all. Or should, anyway, if people were paying attention to what's happening here. And when you throw on the voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering, the congressional K Street retirement plans, Wall Street bailouts (no worries, the CEOs got their bonuses anyway and it's sure to trickle down any day now), wars of aggression, and the science denialism––which is flat alarming in an apocalyptic sort of way . . . this is a sad pass we find ourselves at.
  9. Forget history and what we were founded upon for a second. Why, exactly, shouldn't the government provide these things if they are able? What is the logical and rational reason why this is a bad thing? I just don't get it, the only argument I here is that, "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS DONE" or something. Further, I've just never really understood why people place the Constitution in such high regard. It's a vaguely worded document written by imperfect men within the context of their specific culture and time. It's not some omniscient force of purity to base life on, imo. Well if the country were not $17 trillion in debt and if we were running huge surpluses, sure it would be great to provide everyone free health care, free tuition, and why don't we throw in a free house and car. But...that is not reality. Moreover, regarding the single payer system referenced above, it was tried in the most progressive state in the union, Vermont, Sanders home state, and the Progressive Governor that pushed to have a single payer system said he would stop pursuing it because the costs were too outrageous, and this is in a very small state with little population. Despite what most liberals think, there is not an appetite in this country to raise taxes to pay for more big government programs. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832 Link
  10. It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities. I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for. Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%. Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc. Link? About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen. Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide. I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees. Man, you keep tossing the word socialist out there like a grenade that plunked in your foxhole. I know he's a socialist; a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. I don't even know where to begin with that Politico article, but the authors apparently believe as you do that simply repeating the fact over and over will somehow make me head for the fire escape. Relax. I'm guessing by the avatar and the general feeling of your writing that you would identify as some kind of political conservative. Well let me tell you, linking to an article about European politics and "mainstream America" is a bad idea. Most western European countries don't even have a word for what the right wing is in the States, much less a serious party that embodies our national brand of fear and loathing. So you mean to tell me that you envision an America with no public education system, no roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, or airports––no welfare or public good of any kind––no space or scientific research programs, no effort to protect climate or human health, no police force (Article 4 Section 4 seems to indicate nothing about domestic violence), and no public services? Just a military big enough to bat away the Hun bastards whichever way they come? Can you point me to which founding father had that in mind? And if you can, could you then explain why I should care? It ain't 1776 anymore. I think at best you're presenting a knockdown case for another amendment.
  11. It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities. I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for. Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%. Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc. Link? About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.
  12. The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention. I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much. No it isn't. It isn't even remotely comparable. What about Bernie Sanders is "extreme" except relative to conservative demagoguery? His stance that healthcare is a human right rather than a privilege predicated upon a person's wealth? His view that a nation in which higher/specialized education is essential to our future should not only quit burdening young people with impossible debts, but join several other modern countries in providing free public universities? His ambition to end a campaign finance system that allows wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums of money and purchase virtually the entire political process? I don't look on the word "socialist" like a tarantula that just crawled into the room. It's a word which thanks to the slow drift of the country rightward (economically) has lost all meaning. Sanders is a democratic socialist who believes in a hybrid system in which both government and capitalism play a role. So far as I know he does not favor nationalizing every American industry. And no one seems to mind our socialist military––a socialist military paid for by the redistribution of wealth from the tax base to soldiers and pilots and generals and such. Or our socialist interstate highway system. Or our socialist NASA. Yet when we consider removing healthcare from the profit-driven arena of capitalism (specifically our widely beloved health insurance companies), suddenly it's Red Dawn out there.
  13. I hate almost all political catch phrases. For instance, people who run for senate/house and say they're going to "fix Washington" as if the body they're running for isn't made up of a bunch of people from all 50 states. And as if they're not accepting or eventually going to accept money from huge corporations to do their bidding. The commercials with these phrases almost always include a combine and some corn fields (okay, obviously I'm in Nebraska so those are what I see) and these are the candidates who fling the words socialism and "wealth distribution" around while farmers receive government subsidies. "Branding someone as a socialist has become the slur du jour by leading lights of the American right from Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh," Sanders said in 2009. "If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do." It is a curiosity of the political right that to even entertain a political ideology outside of what is "mainstream" or "centrist" is seen as a kind of moral failing. Apparently in Murica we have the freedom to hold to a very narrow range of possible views or be branded with a lefty sounding word. Jesus do the talk radio psychos throw "socialist" like a rock. Farm subsidies aren't the half of it. Why don't we ever talk about military spending? It's like a national taboo. If you look at a breakdown of our federal spending on a pie chart, it's enough to make you spew your coffee. "Small government" "conservatives" have no hesitation about turning on the faucet when this or that country needs bombed or invaded, but if some poor unfortunate soul needs groceries, they're a parasite. Oh and we've spent the last several years watching the Republican house tilt at the Obamacare windmill. Because if there's one thing this country needs, it's the freedom to once again have your health insurance cancelled because you went over the lifetime limit thanks to your inconveniently long bout with cancer. Damn "big government liberals" for putting and end to that one.
  14. I'd take Bernie over any candidate in the field in a heartbeat. The Republican Party might as well be on fire. Every candidate is just another degree of completely unacceptable. Donald Trump is far and away the frontrunner as of this moment, which is unbelievable, but also educational. In a very sad way. I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.
  15. Both are good points, I think. On the first part––God's supernatural status putting him fundamentally at odds with scientific exploration––we're still left with disbelief (or lack of belief I should say) as our best option. Given how many people tell whoppers about things we later know to be fraudulent (like Elvis rising from the dead and walking into a Burger King), putting faith in these batch of stories––and only these stories––is betting against the House. And my complaint isn't really so much about theists proving God exists. I'm on your side. I'm wondering why he would ask such a thing of you when he has, quite literally, unlimited power to do the job himself. Making us lowly thinking apes the conveyor of the most important message mankind has or will ever hear is a terrible idea. But suppose I did see someone crucified. Suppose I watched some poor bastard whipped and beaten, watched the beard ripped off his face while a mob of psychopaths taunt him and spit on him, making a real show of the thing. And then I saw him nailed to two stout pieces of timber up on a hill where he would cry and choke and suffocate to death, all in front of a crowd. All of this public humiliation so some fat politicians back in Washington––er Rome could wag his corpse around in the faces of Jews who needed to be taught a lesson about who runs what around these parts. And then after three days of fear and grumbling all over town (not so loud that the soldiers could hear), I see what appears to be the very same guy strolling down the seashore. What would I think? In my innermost thoughts, I'd think that I'd lost my marbles, or at the very least it seems a 50/50 proposition. Or that whatever it is I think I saw, I misapprehended some how (he was beat up bad). But it's a really hard question to answer, because as you say, I wasn't there. And neither was anyone who ever wrote a word about it.
  16. TGHusker, The line that includes "most inclusively" is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe theism/atheism and Gnosticism/agnosticism address different questions. The definition of atheism I used above is without question the majority view among atheists. And the reason is pretty obvious: it's impossible to prove a negative; it is impossible to demonstrate that something--anything really--does not exist. Think Russel's Teapot orbiting Mars.
  17. The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation. Yes, but that brings us all back to the point that both sides have a hard time proving that God does or does not exist. The atheist might have certain arguments and 'evidences' and the theist the same (First Cause, Fine Tuning, Complexity,Moral, etc) What I am saying is that the atheist cannot use the existence of evil as a argument to refute the existence of God. They would have to prove first that God and evil cannot co-exist at the same time to use that as a valid argument against God's existence. X - can I bingo myself ? Just kidding. I agree both sides have burdens to prove and perhaps the Theist more so - esp if the argument is only based on naturalistic evidences - what I can feel, see, touch etc. I just want to clarify something. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. It is NOT the claim: God does not exist. That position is called hard atheism and is actually pretty rare. This distinction is important because it places the burden of proof solely on the religious advocate. Atheism is just the default position until the person with a God claim can substantiate it.
  18. The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation. Bingo.
  19. I'm taking the development of earth up to this point in time as a given. Regardless of whether God created it, or earth's creation resulted from random happenstance. It happened. And that's not what I'm concerned with. What I'm talking about is the odds of the earth maintaining stability from this point forward. It it was random happenstance that resulted in everything up to this point, then it seems overwhelmingly likely that the complex systems of the earth will fail and life on earth will end. For every earth that continues merrily humming along, there must be a million other earths that flame out in a series of explosive, disease ridden disasters every day. For every earth where the outbreak of AIDs is contained, there must be thousands of earths where AIDs goes airborne and snuffs out all human life in a few short months. Think of the consequence for mankind if the earth somehow heated up by 10 degrees Celsius over the next decade, and stayed that way for a few hundred years. Or got colder by 10 degrees. How is it that every day, we are one of the lucky ones? Why is it that the design of all the incredibly complex systems on earth are so robust that we don't simply break down some day and fall by the wayside?Going forward, when you consider all of the possible things that could go wrong with the complexity of earth's many systems, I don't see how you could avoid thinking that a higher power may have somehow been involved in creation. The earth has already undergone five (or six) mass extinctions. The idea that we're lucky is probably nothing more than our own hubris and total inability to comprehend deep time.
  20. I've had plenty of friends email me, and in college we'd hash and rehash this stuff all the time. When I was a believer debate was not as common (except for theological questions). Not much to debate if everyone agrees!
  21. So, it's highly challenging for Christians to use Flew as legitimizing their god. Flew did no such thing. Flew specifically said, if there is a god, it is most likely the god described by Aristotle, perhaps not even a conscious god, more a "force of nature." I dunno. I think that's a pretty good reason. I mean, DNA, reproduction, the human brain, atomic interactions—[/size]all these things are incredibly complicated. We (humans) consider ourselves pretty smart and yet all of humanity's resources in the world could not create one butterfly. But some would have us believe that all the lifeforms and complex systems that we don't even understand formed over eons by happenstance. But let's say the earth and all living creatures did form by happenstance. The conditions were just right on our little planet—not too hot, not too cold—and all the right chemicals came together to form life from the primordial ooze. Then our lucky streak continued, as we somehow became able to reproduce and formed into increasingly complex animal and plant lifeforms until, PRESTO, we have modern day earth! Woo hoo, we got lucky! The odds of this happening are a millionty-billionty-trillionty taken to the googleplex power. But earth was really, really lucky and everything fell into place for us. So given that, why doesn't the system break down? I mean, if all this happened due to dumb luck, there's a LOT more that can go wrong going forward than can go right. Here's a hypothetical for what I'm talking about. Imagine that a group of students at a trade school in San Diego create a self driving car. But this trade school isn't Cal Tech, and their self driving car isn't like the sophisticated Google car. Instead, it has a random number generator controlling its speed, and an automatic coin-flipper that controls its direction. Flip-generate_num: go left at 15 mph. Flip-generate_num: turn right and go 23 mph. You get the picture. Let's call this "Lucky Car". Well it's possible that they could point Lucky Car in the right direction and it would make it all the way from San Diego to downtown Manhattan. Lucky Car made all the correct turns and driving maneuvers to traverse 3,000 of American highways and streets using its automatic coin-flipper and random number generator. It turns out that the odds of Lucky Car making it from San Diego to downtown Manhattan are a millionty-billionty-trillionty taken to the googleplex power. Coincidentally, these are the same as the odds of earth being created through happenstance. But like all truly random things, Lucky Car is a stochastic vehicle. Past results do not dictate future results. Just like happenstance earth. If Lucky Car really is driven on random operating instructions—like happenstance earth—then in the next few seconds Lucky Car will accelerate to 80 mph and run into a crowd of people waiting to cross the street at 34th and Broadway, crushing several of them against Macy's flagship store. So the question I have for you folks who believe in happenstance earth is, why don't you rush out to 7-11 and buy a PowerBall ticket? Because on happenstance earth the odds are greater that the world will spin apart and end by tomorrow than the odds of you winning the PowerBall. And while you're at 7-11 will you please get me a kiwi-orange Slurpee? I love those things! I completely agree with you. It baffles me that something so complicated as life could form from disparate parts of matter in some primordial goo. The ability to ingest sustenance and turn that into appropriate energy to live, to defend itself from the climate, to reproduce itself, to heal itself, eventually to defend itself from competitors/predators... That is a massive leap forward from "organic material" that we hear about all the time. The origin of life is a HUGE stumbling block for me. But because I don't understand it doesn't mean that there's a god. I can't fathom why - aside from the fact that it would sell more books - that guy Flew that TGHusker brought up would look at DNA and say, "There has to be Intelligent Design" (paraphrasing). One thing I learned from watching a few Great Courses videos on abiogenesis is that defining "life" is nowhere near as cut and dried as our intuition would have us believe. There are many links in the chain that have already been identified. Knowing exactly where to draw the line between alive and not alive is difficult, if not arbitrary. But yeah. A real head scratcher. What I can't see is how adding the assumption of an all powerful being no one can detect or communicate with makes this puzzle any simpler. We're just adding an even more complex mystery to the one we already have, and this one comes with the baggage of being both unprovable and unfalsifiable.
  22. - The basis of Faith. - So according to Thomas Paine we should never trust anything a person says because we weren't there. Right. That logic is wonderful. We're talking about dead people making an encore, not bringing in the mail. Bias is the basis for faith. Knapplc has explained this in some detail already.
  23. Go ask a Jew what they think about the so-called prophecies concerning Jesus. And I'll point it out too: quoting the Bible to make your case about the Bible is sort of begging the question.
  24. TGHusker, What Ehrman means, and he's very clear on this point, is that as far as preserving ancient texts go, the New Testament has a treasure trove of manuscripts, which is nice. Now where the problem comes in is not a single one of them is an autograph. They're copies of copies of copies. The really early texts are fragments, some no bigger than a business card. No two of them are identical. God's great plan apparently involved losing the 'inerrant word' to the sands of time. Why? The gospels are realistic? In what sense? The walking on water? The dying and coming back to life? The tombs of Jerusalem breaking open and zombies roaming free? Appealing to conventions of genre to make this particular case is really, really reaching. And a ~40 year gap in time between events and written record may beat Alexander, but Alexander was a conquerer of the known world who has his face stamped on a coin. History literally falls apart for that era if he did not exist. Plus I'm unaware of anyone trying to convince the general population he rose from the dead or can save their souls. I would also add that assuming for sake of argument we had four Gospels written a week after the final events of the New Testament, four seamless accounts that agreed on every detail of these strange events, I would still consider them insufficient evidence for the claim of resurrection (or any miracle). As Thomas Paine said, "miracles are evidence to the witness only and hearsay to everyone else." That's what the whole NT is to us: vague, questionable hearsay.
  25. All the more reason I'm happy to have what at least appears to be a competent staff taking control. He will flourish in this system.
×
×
  • Create New...