Why Nonbelievers and beleivers can’t talk to each other

Christians try to put everyone they don’t like on the same spectrum of rebellious and misguided children who are willfully disobedient;  that way, they think that if they are stern enough, that we’ll become manageable.

It’s because the authoritarian approach stern dietydaddy works on them, so they imagine that what works and motivated them, also works and motivates other people.

But, their tactics don’t work because we aren’t misbehaving children, we’re thinking adults who put god on the same spectrum as Santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

Non-believers think of believers as deluded and willful children who need to grow up and are chosing not to,   but, with encouragement and education (an authoritative approach), they can grow up and become productive adults.

But, we’re wrong too, because no one is willing to own how childish it is, in a manner that will break the stalemate – largely because the change that’s required is for believers, if not to stop believing, at least to not literally beleive.

There are orders of magnitude of belief – there is only one magnitude of non-belief.

I provide a true and not entirely typical exchange, because most exchanges devolve into childish name calling, but it’s the grown up essence of the usually childish debate:

JosephOne wrote:

 Lucifer had free will. And he eventually used that free will to rebel against God and take a third of the angels with him….

nina wrote:

so basically you are admitting that using your free will is what god deems to be evil
so good is obiedance and evil is using your brain
that explains much more than you meant to

JosephOne wrote:

Evil is rebellion against God.
How interesting that you identify with the devil…

You seem to be able to twist things as masterfully as Satan and seem to be able to know what God is thinking.

nina wrote:

if by “twist” you mean, unravel and speak plainly
then yes, atheists do speak plainly and truthfully
you should try it sometime

JosephOne wrote:

He didn’t create rebellion anymore than American created Charles Manson.
Think that through a little while. Ponder it for more than a few minutes.

nina wrote:

you think about it; we are all products of our environment, America did create Charles Manson – the lack of universal health care and welfare resulted in his being raised in a boy’s home rather than in a family home

the fundamentalist factions created the social conditions that resulted in the 50’s sexual/teenager generation gap, the 60’s civil rights – it created the disaffected and disengaged generation – that Manson drifted into and became a leader to a small group of disaffected suburban teens who a generation earlier would have been Manson’s childhood tormentors and what he had aspired to be.

Manson acted out exactly as a wounded, maladjusted power mad and righteous man who was angry at being shut out of the system where as a straight white man, he should have benefitted from.

I see little difference between Manson and George W. Bush – only wealth and entitlement separate the two; the scale of childhood difference created the scale of adult destructive behaviour.  Manson didn’t have a strong parental presence to guide him and neither did Bush Jr. Both resolved their daddy issues with violence – sending young men and women to do their killing for them.

JosephOne wrote:

So, shall we free Manson immediately? I mean you have just made a case, albeit flawed, for Manson’s innocence. “I am not responsible, I am only a product of my environment.”
Don’t think that flies in real real-world.

nina wrote:

how unsurprising that you missed the point. but then, what can I really expect when you are such a rigid product of your environment.
try to break the programming and use that free will you hear so much about

JosephOne wrote:

God. His creation, His rules.

nina wrote:

You admit your god is a dictator then.

JosephOne wrote:

Yes you are a petty dictator who can’t be reasoned with, but God is not like you.

nina wrote:

better to be the dictator than the dictated to, like you

JosephOne wrote:

There IS evidence. Just evidence that you do not believe. Again disbelief does not cancel existence out.

nina wrote:

claiming everything is not evidence for – that everything exists does not indicate where everything came from – it’s just a fact of existence.

also, claiming everything is evidence, doesn’t erase or take away from the contradiction of there being no objective evidence.

you are basically making the same claim that is the basis for the Elder Scrolls of Zion – that the lack of evidence of conspiracy is evidence for the conspiracy.

A lack of evidence is because there is nothing to create any.

As it occurred to you yet that the reason the people here are not believers is exactly because we stopped to think about these core issues and that it’s you who haven’t thought them through enough to reach the obvious conclusion?

The facts on the ground – reality – does not support there being a deity.

The laws of nature that can be observed or deduced or inferred through observation are observable because they are natural – unnatural or supernatural things do not make sense in a natural universe, they are against the laws of nature.

That every region throughout human history has had their own unique religion should be your first clue that religion is religion is religion – there is no more proof of one over another.

Unless you want to claim that god is all the gods of all the religions – in which case, you are worshipping a multi-personality, insane, instable, egomaniac, genocidal, god – with the only difference between that and your present god is the multiply personality part.

JosephOne wrote:

And you can’t say something or someone doesn’t exist just because you haven’t seen them, don’t know them, or don’t believe in them.
Imagine how Darwin would feel if every Christian would say that Darwin never existed? Or go back further. How do we know that Julius Caesar existed? Do we have his remains?

nina wrote:

Darwin won’t feel a thing, he’s dead. We have photos and film of him – and there are people with living memory of him.

if you don’t understand how we know that Darwin and Caesar were real people, it’s no wonder that you don’t understand what constitutes evidence.

His remains were burned and many historians wrote about the event and about his life and career DURING HIS LIFETIME.

Further, there are accounts of Caesar in civilizations OTHER THAN ROME

the same cannot be said of your Jesus – there are no historians who wrote about him, King Herod was dead before the alleged birth and as much as Herod was hated, there is no secular record of him putting infants other than his own family members to death.

Nazareth was a Roman village founded around the 3rd century CE, so Jesus couldn’t have come from there. No Roman census records support the Mary and Joseph story.

None of Pontius Pilot’s records support the crucifixion – so, the whole thing was pretty much a smear campaign done centuries and several generations after the fact.

The equivalent would be if Elvis Presley had done everything in the 1950s, but no one took his photo or wrote a word about him and no recordings or movies survived

and no one wrote about him until 2 or 3 hundred more years yet – think about that for more than a few minutes

US Civil War Rages On

Capitalism in it’s purest form, puts profit before people.

Capitalism tempered or alloyed with socialism, depending on the magnitude of socialism, can balance between the two.

The US Civil war is the beginning of the battle of how much to temper capitalism – the heady days of the robber barons and a slave based economy have not quite left the world stage.

The US civil war was not about slavery in terms of human rights; the US civil war was about economics and how slave labour gave the south an economic advantage – and that the south wasn’t wanting to be lesser than the north.

The north only freed the slaves to reduce the southern labour pool and in hopes of the slaves rising up and creating a second front inside the southern lines – and revisionism doesn’t help resolve a matter when only by acknowledging it, can it be actually dealt with.

The founding fathers were more enlightened than most of their day, but do not impose modern sensibilities and make them into that level of visionary; as most founding fathers owned slaves, so slavery was never an issue for them – all the people they thought of as human had rights – white male landowners, like themselves.

If the founding fathers had a more modern sensibility, then gender would have been explicitly made equal and it wasn’t – women didn’t get to vote in the US at first and have they ever passed the ERA?.

Slaves were not going to get more consideration than free women.

I was kindly reminded that the North’s industry was based largely on textile manufacturing, which was profitable because of cheap southern cotton. Yankee mill owners were deeply complicit in the slave trade, because they well knew that while they piously outlawed slavery in northern states, they made their money from a system that only worked because slavery existed in the south.

Of course, in colonial times, the ancestors of the mill owners were even more directly involved in actually importing slaves as one leg of the “triangle trade”. England was supporting the south because English cotton mills were in direct competition with New England’s mills, and the English saw an opportunity to open a new supply source cheaper than the existing one.

One of the often overlooked keys to the Union’s victory was the naval blockade of southern ports that kept the south from financing their war effort with the profits of foreign cotton sales…..

This confirms my point that the civil wasn’t about the north being upset over slavery – since they continued to benefit from it indirectly –  the south wanted to leave and that would have increased the cost of doing comparatively slave free business in the north.

So why do I say that the US civil war and the central issue of slavery is still being fought? Because we haven’t learned the lessons as multinational corporations outsourced jobs overseas because labour was cheaper than in the US – because there were no human rights, unions, environmental protection act that increase the cost of labour.

Why didn’t anyone consider that the US was effectively still struggling with the issues that caused the civil war – labour vs management – in fact, it’s a battle over the form of capitalism – pure capitalism, uncaring of the people who power the economic engine and unwilling to share the profits with the labour that produce them.

So who is it that has the jobs to buy these cheaper products of what is essentially still slave labour? At what cost do we continue to produce cheap goods that are cheaper to replace than repair? Especially when the warranty costs nearly as much as the product?

Or does the world follow on Canada’s model of socialized capitalism, where there’s environmental, labour and consumer protection?

The reality is that the few who benefit, benefit the most in the short and immediate term by the exploitation of the masses.

We can’t keep pumping poo into the environment or burning through the labour forces;  after a while, all of this comes back on us – the pollution, dead zones in the oceans, desertification of arable land, increased cancers, shorter lifespans.

There isn’t a god who’s going to fix all our bad behaviour – and, if there was a god, we would all be collectively condemned, not rewarded for how we’ve treated the planet – as a personal playpen filled with poo.