God or Gov't: Would You Rather...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You mean stuff like minding our own business and keeping our hands to ourselves?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

But what else is necessary to reduce conflict? If people just did that religion and dogmatic thinking would be of little relevance.[/quote]

Even though you are asserting that as a religious view with dogmatic thinking in the same way basically every religion claims exactly the same thing.
[/quote]

Which is the point I was trying to get at.

It is possible for different people to come to the same conclusions using only reason.

62

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Point of clarification, please:

I need a Maserati Gran Turismo S in white and a house within walking distance of the lifts in Lake Tahoe. How will these needs be provided to me by 1) God and 2) Government.

I figure God could just send his Son down to take care of the car. I mean, if he can conjour up enough wine and fishes to feed a crowd of people, a sports coupe can’t be that hard. I’m thinking a 4 bedroom, 3 bath house might be a bit trickier even for the King of the Jews.

With the gov’ts power of taxation, it should have no problem providing for my needs.

I think I’ll cast my stone with Government.[/quote]

I suppose we all define “needs” differently.

63

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If there is a creator then everything is dependent on god. If there is no god then everything is dependent on man. I would say, that depending on if you believe in a god, you already live in one of the 2 scenarios in the original question. So, if you believe in god, you already believe you are in a world wholly dependent on god. To answer the question it would then be necessary to hypothesize if you?d rather live in the present world, or an imaginary world where no god existed (and vice versa for the atheist). [/quote]

I intended it to be an imaginary scenario.

64

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You mean stuff like minding our own business and keeping our hands to ourselves?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

But what else is necessary to reduce conflict? If people just did that religion and dogmatic thinking would be of little relevance.[/quote]

Religion also seeks to work on the inner self. I see it remaining relevant if only for that reason.

65

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You mean stuff like minding our own business and keeping our hands to ourselves?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

But what else is necessary to reduce conflict? If people just did that religion and dogmatic thinking would be of little relevance.[/quote]

Even though you are asserting that as a religious view with dogmatic thinking in the same way basically every religion claims exactly the same thing.
[/quote]

Which is the point I was trying to get at.

It is possible for different people to come to the same conclusions using only reason.[/quote]

Not even a little bit. There is no logical reason you should own yourself.

And I was pointing out that basically all religions can claim the same thing you did. For example, if we all became devout Muslims, there’d be no conflict.

67

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You mean stuff like minding our own business and keeping our hands to ourselves?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

But what else is necessary to reduce conflict? If people just did that religion and dogmatic thinking would be of little relevance.[/quote]

Religion also seeks to work on the inner self. I see it remaining relevant if only for that reason.
[/quote]

By irrelevant I only meant that it would not be source of conflict. Its relevance would strictly be a personal thing.

69

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You mean stuff like minding our own business and keeping our hands to ourselves?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

But what else is necessary to reduce conflict? If people just did that religion and dogmatic thinking would be of little relevance.[/quote]

Even though you are asserting that as a religious view with dogmatic thinking in the same way basically every religion claims exactly the same thing.
[/quote]

Which is the point I was trying to get at.

It is possible for different people to come to the same conclusions using only reason.[/quote]

Not even a little bit. There is no logical reason you should own yourself.

And I was pointing out that basically all religions can claim the same thing you did. For example, if we all became devout Muslims, there’d be no conflict.[/quote]

If there is no logic to owning myself then there is also no logic that someone else should. That is still logical reasoning, no?

My conclusion is that as long as people mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves then it does not matter that people have differing beliefs. Conflict is avoided.

70

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It is possible for different people to come to the same conclusions using only reason.[/quote]

Man’s reason is contaminated with his depravity.[/quote]

Luckily the veracity of logic can be tested by independent thinkers.

72

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You mean stuff like minding our own business and keeping our hands to ourselves?
[/quote]

No.[/quote]

But what else is necessary to reduce conflict? If people just did that religion and dogmatic thinking would be of little relevance.[/quote]

Even though you are asserting that as a religious view with dogmatic thinking in the same way basically every religion claims exactly the same thing.
[/quote]

Which is the point I was trying to get at.

It is possible for different people to come to the same conclusions using only reason.[/quote]

Not even a little bit. There is no logical reason you should own yourself.

And I was pointing out that basically all religions can claim the same thing you did. For example, if we all became devout Muslims, there’d be no conflict.[/quote]

If there is no logic to owning myself then there is also no logic that someone else should. That is still logical reasoning, no?

[/quote]
Exactly, then all acts are equally reasonable.

[quote]

My conclusion is that as long as people mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves then it does not matter that people have differing beliefs. Conflict is avoided.[/quote]

Yes, if only everyone believed what you believe then everyone could have their own beliefs. I thought you were talking about reason and logic.

73

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Man’s religions are contaminated with his depravity.[/quote]

Fixed.

75

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Man’s religions are contaminated with his depravity.[/quote]

Fixed.[/quote]

You didn’t fix anything; you amended it. And it is an appropriate amendment to boot.
[/quote]

Inasmuch as “amend” means, according to the OED, “to make minor changes to (a text, piece of legislation, etc.) in order to make it fairer or more accurate, or to reflect changing circumstances”, then I agree. :slight_smile:

76

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Neither.[/quote]

lol, that isn’t a viable answer. But it is the obvious one.

Just play along dman it. [/quote]

Can I choose which god? Because if it were Dionysus or Aphrodite doing the providing, that might not be so bad.[/quote]

That makes things interesting. Choose your God but please explain your reasoning.
[/quote]

That was a somewhat sarcastic, off the cuff answer, which I made before the longer, more thought out one I made later.

I think if there was any reasoning behind the choice of Aphrodite and Dionysus, it was that of all the Olympian gods, they seemed to be the ones who would provide me with my needs in a fashion commensurate with my tastes. I happen to like wine, women, and song, and these are the gods of love and partying, respectively. So as long as Dionysus can provide some decent roast meat to go with the wine, and Aphrodite keeps the honeys flowing, I’m good.

In my later scenario, where I envision what it would mean to live without any government of any kind, I suppose any number of gods from the Greek pantheon might be appropriate. Pan, the god of nature, is an obvious choice, as my idea of a life without government involves living in the wilderness. Pan was also a god of virility and libidinousness, so I imagine he would understand my “need” for a steady stream of river-nymphs and forest-nymphs, all clad in see-through nighties.

Interesting, by the way, to see the implicit contempt for wild nature apparent in Christianity’s conflation of Pan with Satan. Notice how all the early Christian artwork portrays Satan as a horny half-man, half-goat? That’s how the Ancient Greeks portrayed Pan. This was no coincidence.

Other choices might be Artemis, goddess of the hunt (if you want to eat meat, you’d better be able to hunt) and Demeter, goddess of agriculture.

Realistically, though, the only god I would actually be dependent upon in such a scenario is the Deist god, the actual god of nature, the prime mover, the god of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein.

The same god that, ultimately, we all are dependent on anyway. At least, those of us subject to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

Whether we choose to call such an entity “god” or not.

77

705×1000 266 KB

Pan assembling a small gathering of dryads to go take care of Varqanir’s “needs”

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Pan, the god of nature, is an obvious choice, as my idea of a life without government involves living in the wilderness. Pan was also a god of virility and libidinousness, so I imagine he would understand my “need” for a steady stream of river-nymphs and forest-nymphs, all clad in see-through nighties.
[/quote]

My kind of god.

78

1024×635 197 KB

Earlier that morning, Pan told Varqanir about a great little spot to go fishing.

80

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

At least, those of us subject to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

Whether we choose to call such an entity “god” or not.
[/quote]

When you conflate these laws of physics and thermodynamics with God Himself rather than recognizing them as God-created – which is what I think you’re doing – you err.[/quote]

When you assume that I conflate these laws of physics and thermodynamics with god rather than recognizing them as god-created – which is what I think you’re doing – you err.