The Upper Room - 2016-06-05 (page 2 of 2)

« first day (1747 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2906 days later) »

6:00 AM

personal experience is not enough, because it is highly untrustworthy

@LeakyNun As I said above, ultimately, personal experience is all we have--even if it's personal experience of repeatable scientific experiments. So if you reject personal experience as a source of knowledge, you are ultimately rejecting all sources of knowledge. We can have no knowledge without personal experience.

When I read scientific studies, it's still personal experience of reading scientific studies of the personal experiences of scientists who are doing those studies. I.e., scientific knowledge is always empirical. And "empirical" means "based on experience."

The same thing can be applied to religious experience. If, for thousands of years, thousands of individuals have had experiences of God that share certain common themes, that gives far greater assurance that God is real than if it is based only on my own personal experience of God.

@LeeWoofenden That is true to some extent...

@LeakyNun To what extent is it not true?

@LeeWoofenden Well, I think it's true

@LeakyNun Okay. So where is your disagreement with me?

6:07 AM

Do we agree that hallucinations are real to the hallucinators?

@LeakyNun They are at the time they're happening. But afterwards upon reflection hallucinators can usually realize that it was an illusion rather than a reality. And yet, even that is based on the idea that real reality is physical reality. It's exceedingly hard to actually demonstrate that hallucinations aren't real. We can only say we think they're unreal compared to our experience of physical reality.

@LeeWoofenden How can we demonstrate that a certain experience is a hallucination?

@LeakyNun I happen to think that hallucinations are of a type of reality, but usually involve a distorted perception of that reality.

@LeeWoofenden Why?

@LeakyNun It would not be easy to do so. Generally we'd fall back on saying that it doesn't conform to our accepted norms of how reality works. It violates our mental construct of what reality is and how it works. Therefore we say that it is a hallucination rather than a reality.

If in a hallucination we see trees planted in the clouds, and then we come back down to our normal conscious awareness, we say, "Trees can't be planted in the clouds," so we say that it was a hallucination.

@LeakyNun The simplest way of putting it would be that I see hallucinations as being sort of a spiritual movie in a movie theater, where we see images projected that aren't necessarily the way things actually are once we walk out onto the street after the movie is over.

6:14 AM

@LeeWoofenden And which part of it is reality?

@LeakyNun That is a very good question.

@LeakyNun Really, my view of physical reality as it is in itself is probably very similar to yours. I accept science as a very good tool to determine the nature of physical reality. But science isn't very good at determining that the basic assumptions, or axioms, on which science is based are actually true. It can only proceed once those assumptions are made. "What is real?" Science can't really tell us. It can only describe things once we accept that the physical universe is real.

So ironically, science is incapable of demonstrating that the subject of its study is actually real in any objective way as physical reality.

I think your articles demonstrated that pretty well, but then you stepped back and said, basically, "Still, it's practical to accept it as real, so that's what I'm going to do."

@LeeWoofenden What should I have said instead?

@LeeWoofenden If I can demonstrate that something caused that experience, can I then classify it as hallucination?

@LeakyNun Just what just said, I think.

@LeakyNun That's a big "if." But even so, something having a cause doesn't make it unreal or hallucinatory. In general, science thinks everything has a cause, except possibly the existence of the universe itself.

@LeakyNun Perhaps it would help to say that I believe there are levels of reality, some of which are more real than others. Being a theist, I think of God as the ultimate, self-existing reality. And being a Swedenborgian, I think of spiritual reality as the next "realest" level of reality after God. That is the level where our conscious experience takes place. And material reality is the least real of the three general levels of reality. But it is still real. Just at a lesser level.

So to me, reality is not a black-and-white thing, but rather something that has shades and gradations.

I think we pretty much agree on many things

Let's move on to discuss NDEs

@LeakyNun Okay.

6:29 AM

> Many skeptics and materialistic scientists believe that near-death experiences are just hallucinations generated by an oxygen-deprived brain. But those who have had a near-death experience can simply say, “You have not experienced it. I have. I know that it is real.”

So for millions of people alive today, the existence of the spiritual world, and by extension, of an afterlife, is a simple fact because they have been there.

Near-death experience

A near-death experience (NDE) is a personal experience associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. Explanatory models for the NDE can be divided into several broad categories, including psychological, physiological, and transcendental explanations. Research from neuroscience considers the NDE to be a hallucinatory state caused by various physiological and psychological factors. == Characteristics == The...

Have you ever read this?

@LeakyNun I've read similar things. Don't know if I've actually read the whole Wikipedia article on NDEs.

Just the section

@LeakyNun It's a summary of various theories about NDEs put forward by various psychologists and neurobiologists. What is it you want to discuss about it?

My "oxygen-deprived brain" line was meant to be a reductionistic reference to all those theories.

@LeeWoofenden well, alright.

the point is, isn't it established that NDE is indeed caused by those kinds of things?

@LeakyNun No. It's not established. Those are theories put forth by scientists who seek to explain the phenomena through purely physical means. To materialists, those theories have a ring of truth. To me, they don't.

6:37 AM

> Ketamine by intravenous injection can reproduce all the features of the NDE.

For one thing, correlation is not the same as causation. Even if we can induce similar states through the use of drugs, that doesn't necessarily mean the drugs cause those states. Only that they can be the occasion for those states.

From my perspective, while we are living on this earth, there is normally a psychological "veil" that prevents most people from directly experiencing the spiritual world most of the time. That "veil" can become quite diaphanous or get pulled aside altogether under certain circumstances. Drugs are one way that veil is pierced. But the experience itself does not come from the drugs. The drugs only "open the curtain" to those experiences, which themselves come from the spiritual world.

I suspect those drugs have this effect by bringing about a state approaching death--i.e., a neurological emergency state that causes the brain to begin dissociating itself from the physical senses and to turn toward the spiritual senses instead. The brain, from my perspective is an interface between our mind, which is a spiritual entity, and our body and the outside world.

So the brain is capable of responding both to physical stimuli from the physical senses and to spiritual stimuli from our spiritual senses. It's just that normally the conscious portion of our mind/brain duality are focused more on the physical senses than on the spiritual senses. Normally while we're living in the physical world, that is.

@LeakyNun If you injected ketamine into a dead body, it would have no such effects. That, I believe, is because the ketamine occasions rather than causes experiences similar to those of an NDE. The actual experience depends upon having a live consciousness present.

@LeakyNun If you inject harmful bacteria into a healthy body, the body will react by sending white blood cells, antibodies, and so on. The injection of bacteria doesn't actually cause that reaction. It is, rather, the occasion for that reaction. It is the body's own immune system that causes the reaction in order to neutralize a threat to the body's health and well-being.

So we have two explanations for NDE

1. they are caused by our brain's hallucinations

@LeakyNun At least two.

2. they are caused by an outside spiritual reality.

@LeeWoofenden Well, at least we (me and you) now have two.

@LeakyNun Yes. And which explanation you choose to accept as the correct one will depend largely on your pre-existing beliefs about the nature of reality. Option 1 will be the go-to position for those who reject the existence of spiritual reality, whereas option 2 will be the go-to position for those who accept the existence of spiritual reality.

6:49 AM

@LeeWoofenden Which means this cannot be used as a proof of the existence of spiritual reality?

I have, incidentally, spoken to a number of NDErs who think that the "scientific" explanations of NDEs are just plain silly.

@LeeWoofenden Hallucinations are real to the hallucinators.

@LeakyNun Didn't I already say that there's no "proof" of spiritual reality? By the same token, there is no "proof" of physical reality, either. So we're pretty much at a stand-off on that one.

@LeeWoofenden So how can you demonstrate to someone that spiritual reality exist?

@LeakyNun I have sometimes said, not entirely in jest, that if there were ever solid scientific proof for the existence of God, I would immediately become an atheist.

Such a situation in which a rational, scientific person were obliged to believe in God would be intolerable from the standpoint of having freedom in spiritual matters.

@LeakyNun When did I ever say that I can demonstrate to someone that spiritual reality exists?

6:52 AM

Well, then let's agree to disagree.

@LeakyNun I think that was a premise behind the whole discussion, wasn't it?

@LeeWoofenden Oh, then let's continue the discussion.

@LeakyNun Mainly, I maintain that there is no more proof for your position than there is for mine. Both are based on what we choose to accept as reality.

@LeeWoofenden What is my position?

@LeakyNun I don't know. You tell me.

6:54 AM

@LeeWoofenden If you don't know, then how do you know there is no proof for my position?

My position is that I have not been convinced by any god claims.

@LeakyNun I think this is functionally the same as saying that you believe only in the existence of physical reality. If that's not your working belief/theory, please correct me.

@LeeWoofenden I believe only in the existence of physical reality.

@LeakyNun That is what I was assuming all along from your statements.

@LeakyNun and although it seems "obvious" that physical reality exists, and less obvious that spiritual reality exists, I think that upon closer examination, the reverse is actually true. It's most obvious that spiritual reality exists, and less obvious that material reality exists.

@LeeWoofenden Or, better phrased: I only believe in the existence of physical reality.

That is the argument I made in the "Where is the Proof of the Afterlife" article.

7:03 AM

If we only followed what was obvious there would be no inserts anything that technology has made

@LeakyNun That's why we must look deeper, and not simply accept the "obvious" conclusions of our senses.

Exactly.

@LeakyNun I believe that scientific materialism can be accepted only by avoiding a whole realm of experience and knowledge, or attempting to explain it away when it is encountered.

The very fact that psychologists and neurobiologists are busily trying to find some theory, any theory that can explain NDEs without having to resort to accepting the reality of God and spirit shows me that they have a pre-existing bias toward materialistic explanations, and are unwilling to accept the far more reasonable explanation that these experiences are actual experiences of a spiritual reality.

They're certainly welcome to spin their theories. But speaking as someone who has both spoken to many NDEers and who has spent a lifetime exploring the nature of God and spirit, I find their "explanations" to be woefully inadequate, and to show basic ignorance about the nature of God, spirit, and the interactions between them and material reality.

Still, to maintain spiritual freedom, they must be able to come up with theories that satisfy their need to reject the reality of God and spirit.

Belief in God cannot be forced by external evidence. It must be arrived at by one's own experience and choice.

Yep. We attempt to explain away NDE as materialistic because we don't want to accept God as reality.

@LeakyNun Agreed! :-)

7:11 AM

So we are all dishonest people

@LeakyNun I didn't say that.

How are materialistic explanations of NDE inadequate?

And how is the alternative explanation better?

@LeakyNun A person can be mistaken without being dishonest.

@LeakyNun For one thing, they don't deal with the fact that for people who have had NDEs, the experience has a far greater sense of reality than the reality that they experience here on earth. They commonly report that comparatively speaking, the experience of this world is dim and shadowy compared to what they experienced in the spiritual world. And that's the opposite of how it should be if they were mere hallucinations of the physical brain.

@LeakyNun And more generally, science has still come nowhere near finding an adequate theory of consciousness. Why are we conscious in the first place? Science has no idea. Scientists can make certain correlations between conscious experience and activities in the brain. But it cannot provide any explanation of how the brain could produce consciousness.

@LeeWoofenden Not really. People who have had (induced) hallucinations generally do say that the hallucinated reality is better.

Float tank therapy, for example, uses this.

Consciousness itself is a non-material thing. It makes far more sense to accept that there is non-material reality than to continuously try to show that consciousness is somehow a byproduct of material brain functions.

@LeakyNun They don't say "better." They say "more real."

7:22 AM

@LeeWoofenden It's curious how we can only spiritual reality when our brain functions the worst, i.e. near-death.

@LeakyNun Why is that curious?

@LeakyNun But also, near-death is not the only time people experience spiritual reality.

Well, for one thing, I wouldn't trust results generated by a computer that can't even compute 1+1, as an analogy

@LeakyNun You're still assuming that consciousness is a product of the brain. I don't accept that assumption.

@LeeWoofenden Well, how would you explain consciousness then?

@LeakyNun I believe that consciousness is a function of spiritual reality. We have a spiritual body which is actually alive, and a spiritual mind that is actually conscious. While we are in the physical body we experience life and consciousness only because our spirit is associated with our body, and communicates life and consciousness to it. Matter in itself has neither the capacity to live nor the capacity to experience consciousness.

When the spirit leaves the body, we call it "death." At that point, both life and consciousness ceases in the physical body, but it continues in our spiritual body, which lives in the spiritual world.

I should add that even spiritual reality doesn't have those capabilities by itself, but has them from God.

7:30 AM

@LeeWoofenden "Matter can't explain it, so let's invent a whole new realm of reality to explain it." No, this is akin to God of the Gaps.

Consciousness is a problem. Now you moved it to the spiritual realm, you've got two problems.

@LeakyNun No, it's not God of the gaps because thousands, if not millions, of people throughout history have experienced it directly. Some of them wrote down those experiences, which became the basis for the various spiritual texts of humanity. And today we have a vast literature of recorded spiritual experiences, the NDE literature being one of the primary ones.

These people aren't saying, "We can't explain it so we'll resort to God and spirit." They're saying, "I've experienced God and spirit, and this is what it was like." So what they write is, like science, based on experience, not on mere theory.

My main point is, moving consciousness to the s.r. does not explain it.

@LeakyNun According to those who have experienced it, it does explain it. They report spiritual reality as being intrinsically alive and conscious. They experience it as being very different from physical reality. Having experienced spiritual reality, they report physical reality as being relatively dead and inert, and having no intrinsic life in it.

Then what is the explanation?

@LeakyNun Just as time and space are properties of physical reality, so life and consciousness are properties of spiritual reality.

@LeakyNun Can we explain why time and space are properties of physical reality? Don't we, rather, discover that they are properties of physical reality?

Knowledge of the spiritual is just as empirical as knowledge of the physical. We may discover by experience that something is the way it is. But we can't necessarily explain why it is that way.

7:38 AM

I see.

Ultimately, the why of nature and spirit derive from the nature of God. But we discover the nature of God mostly indirectly, through experience of nature and spirit.

I see.

I believe that the "whys" of everything go back to the nature of God, which I believe consists essentially of love and wisdom, and power that flows from the combination of the two. Emanuel Swedenborg wrote an entire, highly philosophical work about this titled Divine Love and Wisdom. Understanding these things stretches us to the limits of our mental capacities.

You should understand that theology is anything but simplistic and easy to grasp. It requires every bit as much mental concentration and rigor as scientific pursuits do--if not more.

I have spent my entire life studying and attempting to grasp these things. And while some come fairly easily, others have taken me decades to wrap my mind around.

And just as in science, there are still vast areas of the unknown.

3 hours later…

The Prophet Elisha

10:54 AM

0

Q: From the Islamic perspective, how can a Christian pray to Allah?

According to Dr. Zakir Naik, if you are a True Christian, then you can still go to Jannah. And to be a true Christian, you have to meet some conditions: 1) You have to believe in one God (no trinity) 2) You have to follow the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) 3) You have to acknowledge Muhammad (pbuh...

quran salat practical-islam christianity

Does Elisha speak?

11:19 AM

0

Q: What is the Biblical basis for Oompa Loompas?

Biblical basis questions are quite popular here, and many of them are good questions. But a large number of them are also really bad questions, because they are based on the false premise that there is a Biblical basis. A few recent examples: What is the biblical basis for the idea that belie...

discussion biblical-basis-questions on-topic

5 hours later…

4:09 PM

Howdy, @LeeWoofenden

@Flimzy Hi

I just saw your reply to my meta question... Do you think I'm really even raising a valid concern?

Are our Biblical Basis questions too wishy-washy?

or should I leave well enough alone... nothing's perfect, after all? :)

@Flimzy I think it's worth thinking about. I'm not convinced that we need to change the criteria, due to the issue you raised in your comment on my answer.

@Flimzy Mainly, I think we've got to set it up so that answers saying, "There is no biblical basis," and especially answers (such as yours on one of the example questions) saying "Here's the biblical basis for the opposite conclusion" are NAA.

For other question types, answers saying "Your question is based on a false premise" are permitted, so long as they go on, as well as reasonably possible, to try to answer the heart of the question.

Heck, I'd love to go around saying, "This belief has no valid biblical basis, and here's the biblical basis for the opposite belief." But that opens the door to everyone who disagrees with a particular belief pleading their case on every biblical basis question.

4:21 PM

Of course, if the question is way off base, then it should just be closed.

I actually tried that early on, in the main question about the biblical basis of the Trinity. I was quickly shut down. So I proceeded to post an answer on the question asking for the biblical basis against the Trinity, where it was on-topic.

I didn't intend to answer that question with the opposing view... but I suppose the last section does indeed do that. My original intention was simply to show that any basis of that belief comes from reasoning, not directly from scripture.

I think "What is the basis that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?" is a great question.

I just don't think that asking for the Biblical basis is a good question, because there cannot be one.

And the other answers, I believe, reinforce this view.

Would it be harmful if all BB questions were treated simply as basis questions?

Would that open things up for too much interpretation?

@Flimzy See, that's the sort of answer that I don't think should be allowed. And perhaps the only way to disallow it is to require that at least some Christian denomination holds to the belief and thinks it has a biblical basis. We wouldn't necessarily have to require users to point to such a denomination. But a question could be challenged on that basis, and if nobody can find any denomination that holds to it and thinks it has a biblical basis, then it could be closed.

@Flimzy I happen to agree with you, as I said in my comments on your answer. But those giving the rest of the biblical basis answers do not agree with you. And why should your opinion and mine be allowed to trump the opinion of those who think that there is a biblical basis for the belief?

@LeeWoofenden But in this case, they do agree with me... because their answers depend on extra-biblical sources :)

Clearly some of the answerers very strongly believe that there is a biblical basis. Is it really valid for you or I to come along and say, "No there isn't! And here's why!"?

4:27 PM

But putting aside the details of this particular question, I think you have a valid point.

@Flimzy You're clever, young man. Very clever. But it's biblical basis all the way down!

So what it sounds like you're saying is: If I believe that 3rd century philosophy justifies my belief, as a biblical basis, I can call it a biblical-basis answer.

@Flimzy I objected to that answer. I don't think it's a good answer. But especially after my objection, it did quote the Bible. I don't think the answer can be disallowed. But it can be downvoted.

That sounds like "My uncle Bob said the Bible said we should all have pink houses. Therefore, there's a Biblical basis for us all having pink houses."

@Flimzy Don't be silly. "Uncle Bob" is an individual. C.SE is about the beliefs of groups and denominations of Christians.

4:30 PM

@LeeWoofenden haha. But you get my point. I hope.

"David Koresh said the Bible said he should have permission to have sex with any members of his congregation. Therefore that belief has a biblical basis." ??

@Flimzy Yes, I think it would be harmful to essentially disallow biblical basis questions. Most Christians, I think, think that the Bible is the primary basis for Christian doctrine. Being able to ask for the biblical basis of a particular belief is, therefore, of critical importance.

@Flimzy If David Koresh's group is seen as a Christian group or denomination, then unfortunately we have to allow that question. We don't get to say, "But that Christian group isn't really Christian!" and disallow the question. That's pretty basic to the philosophy of C.SE.

The general solution, I think, is to regularly ask the contrary question of the biblical basis against such a belief, and make sure the two are linked.

@LeeWoofenden I wouldn't say we don't allow the question--I would say we don't let it hide under the protection of "biblical basis" status.

"What is the Biblical basis for non-consensual sexual relations with all the women in your congregation?" should not be allowed. "How did David Koresh justify this practice?" should be.

IOW, a lot of Christian beliefs and practices have a basis, but assuming that basis is Biblical, and therefore limiting answers only to Biblical answers, is where I have a problem.

@Flimzy If David Koresh claimed a biblical basis for that practice, then we'd have to allow the question. The question would be whether he claimed such a biblical basis. That's how the question would have to be challenged. And showing that he did would fall under the "research before you ask" rubric.

I guess that's fair.

@Flimzy FWIW, I downvoted all of the answers to the question about the biblical basis of the idea that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. Yours for reasons I stated, and the rest because I don't think they do a very good job of providing a biblical basis. But the OPs and the various upvoters clearly think that they have provided good answers.

5:02 PM

Are Swedenborgian pacifists?

5:29 PM

@Flimzy Some are. But although Swedenborg abhorred war and considered it a terrible evil, he generally supported "Just War" theory in which it is allowable to fight defensive wars, but not offensive ones. Many, if not most, Swedenborgians follow suit.

The belief in such a just war theory prevented me from becoming a Conscientious Objector under U.S. law when I was young enough for the draft. But if I had been drafted for a war that I considered unjustified, I was prepared to jail rather than fighting in it or doing alternative service, which also would involve unjust coercion in my view.

I object to the draft itself as a matter of principle. If a war is just, no draft will be necessary because people will willingly fight.

The draft is useful only in prosecuting unjust and unjustifiable wars.

Has the US ever engaged in a war you feel was just?

@Flimzy The CO counselors I talked to tried to convince me that if I couldn't imagine the U.S. actually engaging in a justifiable war, I could in good conscience become a CO. But I couldn't take that step. For one thing, whatever the history leading up to it, we were attacked prior to declaring war in WWII. And it's hard to argue that we didn't have the right to defend ourselves from the Japanese.

We also used the draft during WWII.

In my view, none of the wars since WWII have been legal or constitutional. In none of them did Congress ever actually declare war--though in the Iraq war it tried to act as if it were by giving the President power to pursue the war. But that's still not a declaration of war, which is what the Constitution requires.

@Flimzy And I still believe that the draft was and is wrong.

So you think our involvement in WWII may have been justified, but the draft wasn't?

5:37 PM

@Flimzy Yes.

It seems to me that if it's justifiable for young citizens to "serve their country", they ought to be required to do so in times of peace as well as war.

@Flimzy Even a military response to 9/11 could have been justified if we'd actually been attacking the people responsible for attacking us. But we weren't. First we attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, then we attacked Afghanistan, whose connection is rather murky. The attacks really originated with Saudi citizens. But we weren't about to attack Saudi Arabia.

@Flimzy I understand that some people think that. I don't.

@LeeWoofenden Well, I'm not sure if it's justifiable in any case. But if it is, I don't think it should only be during war :)

And by extension, it shouldn't be limited to military duty.

@Flimzy I think that people serve their country best by engaging in useful work in the course of their jobs and careers.

I "registered" as a CO when it came time to enlist in the selective service.

Since then my views have perhaps softened a bit, in abstract terms. I've come to the conclusion that some wars might be justified.

Although I don't think I really agree with the just war theory, either.

I also don't trust my government to engage in a justifiable war... or to do so in a justifiable way.

5:43 PM

@Flimzy I was too conscientious about following the law to register as a CO. But now that I believe the law itself has been corrupted, I probably wouldn't be quite so stuck on legal niceties. The CO counselors were probably right that no war that the U.S. would actually fight would qualify in my mind as a just war. It would require the U.S. to be under serious threat from a foreign power. And I don't think the U.S. has been in recent history, or is likely to be within my lifetime.

@Flimzy Ditto on that.

Do you think the US was justified in its involvement in the European theater during WWII?

Most of our wars have pretty obviously been for the purpose of gaining political and economic power, not to defend ourselves from any real and credible threat.

That's certainly true in recent history... although early in our nation's history we had several existential wars... (I'm still not convinced they were justified, though)

@Flimzy I think the U.S. didn't really have to get involved in that war at all. But if we decided we were under serious attack (which we did), then fighting the allies of our attackers is simply a matter of military strategy in nullifying the threat to our country. Japan and Germany were allies. If we fought Japan only, we still left an enemy intact.

Do you think it would have been justified to involve ourselves in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, for the defense of others in Europe (or elsewhere)?

5:48 PM

@Flimzy The American Revolution itself was questionable in my mind. But those who fought it felt that we were under a tyranny that we neither chose nor accepted. I'm not a history buff, but I do think that some of our earlier wars were against enemies that threatened to seriously harm us, and that there could therefore be some justification for those wars.

@LeeWoofenden The revolution was fought because we felt we were being treated unfairly, not because we felt we were in danger of being killed by the British. Is that a moral justification?

@Flimzy No. I think the European countries that Germany attacked brought it upon themselves by their draconian terms following WWI. And if they want to beat each other up, why should we intervene? I absolutely don't think that the U.S. should be the policeman of the world. I actually agree with Trump that we should re-evaluate our position in NATO. We've been subsidizing Europe ever since WWII. Why should we do that?

The European countries are wealthy and well-developed. If they want defense, they should provide it for themselves, not depend on the U.S. to defend them.

@Flimzy I don't know. I'm not going to attempt to re-litigate every past war. I'm more concerned about present and future wars.

I agree with Trump on a number of things, too (depending on the day)... it's the things I disagree with him on that concern me :)

@LeeWoofenden Fair enough.

@Flimzy I'd never vote for the guy. Even if he himself is not as racist and xenophobic as his public statements indicate, the very fact that he is pandering to racists and xenophobes is enough to preclude my ever actually supporting him with a vote. But he is bringing up some issues that should be brought up, and forcing people to think about them seriously.

And incidentally, I'd never vote for Clinton either. I think she's actually much more likely to get us into foreign wars than Trump is. At least he's come to the position that the Iraq war was wrong, whatever his initial views may have been. Clinton is a well-know hawk--probably the most hawkish of the entire original Republican and Democratic field of candidates.

I don't trust either one of them.

5:54 PM

And though she can claim "experience" in foreign affairs, I think her actual effect on foreign affairs was quite disastrous, supporting as she did a number of disastrous and unjustifiable wars and military interventions.

They're both purely selfish, as far as I can see. They just exhibit it in different ways.

Clinton is more "mature", in that she doesn't go into 7th-grade tirades when she's upset. But at the core, they're both just out for "#1"

@Flimzy Yes. Like most politicians. Not all. But most.

Agreed.

I just have to decide which third party/write in to vote for.

I haven't been particularly impressed with any of our recent presidents while they've been in office. After they've left office, the one who really does impress me is Carter. I don't agree with all of his views and his policy views as President, but I think he is a truly good, thoughtful, and caring human being.

I agree... I was too young to remember him in office, but everything I read about him since is encouraging.

Although I do think he was a pretty weak president.

Having a good heart doesn't make you a good leader.

(just as being a strong leader doesn't mean you're heart's in the right place)

6:00 PM

@Flimzy No one who would actually be a good president could possibly get elected. The U.S. population doesn't want a good president. They want a president who will give them stuff or do the stuff they want without asking them to pay for it. Which is not only selfish, but self-contradictory.

Politicians are blamed for the massive U.S. deficit. But in fact, they're doing exactly what the people are asking them to do: providing all sorts of services and engaging in all sorts of wars while not requiring the U.S. population to foot the full bill.

The politicians are simply the pimps and prostitutes who do what the people elect them to do. They have no moral compass of their own. They adopt views and policies that they believe will get them elected, based on public polling.

(There are a very few exceptions to this.)

@LeeWoofenden I wish that were true... I think if politicians did the will of the corrupt & depraved population, they'd be doing a much better job than they're doing now.

A lot of politicians are actively campaigning against popular opinion, because it's profitable in some way.

@Flimzy I used to think that if politicians actually did what the people wanted, we'd have a good country and a sound government. I no longer think that.

Blocking labeling of GMOs is a good example. Regardless of how one feels about the labeling, 80% of the population wants to label GMOs. But congress won't do it because big $$ interests don't want it. And congress keeps trying to make it illegal to label GMOs.

If politicians did what people wanted, we'd have a crappy government. But it would be less crappy than what we have now.

@Flimzy If they get people's votes, then clearly they have people's support. And if they really don't do what the people want, the people will vote 'em out of office. I don't think there's any sound basis to claim that the government isn't doing what the people want them to do. Not when the people keep re-electing them to office.

@Flimzy The fallacy is in thinking that corporations don't represent the will of the people, too. Remember, corporations are big and wealthy because people buy their products.

@LeeWoofenden I see your point, but I think it's still too optimistic.

@LeeWoofenden Do you know how easy it is to not buy products of companies trying to block GMO labeling?

6:07 PM

People may say they hate the big corporations and big moneyed interest. But what they do is to vote with their pocketbooks by purchasing the products and services of those big corporations. And in general, they don't really care how those corporations get the job done. As long as they get the products they want at a price they're willing to pay.

Do you know how easy it is to not buy from companies that don't want the EPA to be effective?

@Flimzy How easy is it?

It's practically impossible.

Even if you decide to go 100% off-grid, the solar panels you buy are built by those companies.

@Flimzy If the bulk of the population actually cared, it wouldn't be. But for the most part, they don't. There is a vocal minority that does. But if it were a major concern for the majority of the population, they'd vote with their votes and with their wallets. They'd force the change they want. But they don't. Because it's not really a major concern of the bulk of the population.

Answering a survey question is easy. The acid test is not what you say but what you do. (Just as in religion.)

I simply don't let the population off the hook for the corruption in government and industry. Government and industry are built on the foundation of the actions of the people.

I still don't think it's fair to say that the general population wants politicians who succumb to lobby efforts by big business. We don't even know most of what happens in that area, to decide whether we agree or not.

The first time I was really exposed to that was in 2012-13, when Wichita, KS had a petition to add fluoride to the city's water supply.

6:12 PM

@Flimzy We don't have to know all of the effects of our actions for our actions to be wrong. If we insult someone, we're doing it for our own reasons. If they go off and commit suicide having heard one insult too many, is that what we wanted? Probably not. But our actions still contributed to it. Evil has evil consequences that go beyond what we intended to accomplish by our evil actions.

A friend of mine, who was a pediatrician, asked me to sign the petition in support. I told her I would consider, but I had to research it first.

Upon researching it, I came to the conclusion that fluoridation was a bad idea, and I became involved with the organization opposing the measure.

During those few months up to the election, I read several books on the topic, and countless study summaries, etc.

@Flimzy When the general population lives for generally self-centered and self-absorbed purposes and motives, that has a general effect on the overall state of the country, whether or not the individuals contributing to it consciously intend to contribute to the corruption of the nation.

Our government, basically since, and largely because of, WWII, has been involved in a huge coverup of the harm that fluoride causes to people's health (not specifically in water, but that's part of it). Corrupt scientists, backed by the government, and corrupt politicians, backed by business, lead to a decades-long lie about the benefits of fluoride, as a PR campaign to essentially hide the negative effects of researching on the manhattan project.

Given that the MP was a secret project, I don't think we can really say that "the people wanted it"... and certainly not that they wanted the cover-up.

Why is Walmart so successful? Because tons of people want cheap merchandise. Everything Walmart does is for the purpose of providing a mass population of non-wealthy people with cheap merchandise. And if they engage in various questionable or even illegal practices on the way to accomplishing that, the people don't care, because they're getting their cheap merchandise, and Walmart is supplying it. They'll keep right on voting with their dollars.

People have been trying for decades to expose these bad players, and they end up in jail some times. They end up getting paid off, on the condition that they never speak again...

@LeeWoofenden You're assuming that people have enough information to determine if Wal-Mart is doing illegal or unethical things.

6:17 PM

@Flimzy I agree with you about fluoridation. But the companies making money on it are still being supported by people buying their products and services, and not really caring how those products and services are provided.

@Flimzy No. I'm saying that people don't really care whether Walmart is doing illegal or unethical things.

@LeeWoofenden The companies making fluoride are selling their good to municipalities. Their "goods" are otherwise known as toxic waste--byproducts from fertilizer manufacturing, etc. People don't choose to buy these products. City councils, and in some cases, state legislatures, make these decisions.

Obviously if Walmart started shooting people in cold blood, the population would rebel. But as long as Walmart doesn't do anything massively overtly distasteful to public opinion, people simply don't care. They want their cheap products. Walmart provides them. That's what they care about.

@LeeWoofenden To be honest, I don't usually go to Walmart because it's the cheapest (and it's not always). When I go, it's more for convenience. If I need a screwdriver, tomatoes, and some socks, there's not many other places (and nowhere here) that I can do that in one trip.

@Flimzy Right. But selling those toxic byproducts helps those companies to provide their publicly consumed products cheaper. Companies that can sell their toxic byproducts will be more competitive in the marketplace, and will tend to prevail economically (and therefore existentially) over those who can't or don't.

I do try to care about shady business practices, etc. The problem I see is that I don't know any place that doesn't involve themselves in them. When you live somewhere with basically no small businesses, it's hard to shop "ethically".

6:21 PM

@Geobits Yes. That's another part of Walmart's business model. Have all of the products people most commonly want in the same store, so people can get everything they want in one trip most of the time.

@LeeWoofenden So if you want to boycott their other products (fertilizer), you need to essentially starve to death.

@Geobits If you want anything specialized and in less demand, Walmart won't have it. But most of the stuff people buy on most days isn't very specialized. It's just standard consumer commodities.

I respect that people should involve themselves in the political process if they want to make a change.

But the political process shouldn't be stacked against them. That is not democracy.

And our government has gotten this way due to a lot of hand-waving, and behind-closed-doors deals. You can't blame the american people for this.

You can blame human nature... every government tends in that direction, I believe, if proper checks and balances aren't in place.

The checks and balances we have in place have just proven inadequate.

@Geobits My wife and I both avoid Walmart as much as possible. I'll go there only if I'm pretty sure it's the only place I'm going to be able to get what I want. But I also recognize that there is a limit to what I individually can do to change the culture of the country. It will take change in the bulk of the population to bring about change in government and industry.

Some of that is happening. It used to be hard to get organic produce. Now you can buy it in most grocery stores. That's because lots of people became aware of the difference between organic and chemical farming, and started buying organic produce. And as significant numbers began doing so, the major grocery chains began stocking organic produce.

True. Organic labeling leaves a lot to be desired though :/

6:25 PM

I don't think we'll ever reach absolute perfection. But people's individual actions do collectively affect the overall political/economic situation.

@Flimzy Yes I can.

@Flimzy Human nature is the American people.

@LeeWoofenden But the very fact that the American people are individually selfish, is the reason why they oppose selfish corrupt actions in government.

Ugh, my wife's nail polish is terrible

giving me a headache

@Geobits Come to think of it, I don't think either of us has ever been into the Walmart here in Cheyenne since we moved here almost a year ago. Even though Cheyenne is a rather small city (about 63k in the city proper), it supplies the whole area, including people up to two hours away in Nebraska. So it has a wide variety of stores that so far have provide almost everything we've needed.

That has actually been a pleasant surprise. We thought we'd have to go to Colorado to get some of the products we use.

@Flimzy Huh? That makes no sense at all.

@LeeWoofenden If I'm selfish, I don't want a government official siphoning my tax money away for his personal gain.

Anyway, time to walk the dog and get some exercise. Good convo.

I don't need to be a hippie to think that government corruption is bad.

6:30 PM

@LeeWoofenden Ah. My town's big enough for most of the usual big box stores, but small enough for them to run smaller shops out of business.

2 hours later…

8:17 PM

@Flimzy Unfortunately, if you're selfish, you want government officials in office who will cater to your selfishness. And government officials who will do so are likely to be selfish themselves. They're going to want their cut for giving you the goodies you want. That's how corrupt organizations and societies work.

I should add that the U.S. and state governments have done some good things, such as moving toward protecting the lives and integrity of women and children, gays and lesbians, and so on.

Even though I think our government institutions are still fairly corrupt, I do think that society as a whole is moving in a positive direction. And that is pushing government institutions to do some good as well.

« first day (1747 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2906 days later) »

Transcript for

Jun '165

The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...

christianity discussion

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile