Comrades, Pick me Apart

Inverse Icarus · July 30, 2003, 19:58

durign a debate with some of my friends, i was asked to fully articulate my feelings on, well, everything. i told him that was way too much info to go into at that late hour, and i started to write a "self descriptive essay". it's turning out to be as much for myself as for him.

so anyway, here it is after a few days. read this and pick me apart.

Religion
I have never been a religious person. I was raised a Catholic by my mother (my father was Dutch Reformed Protestant), but I ever really bought into it. I was sent to religion school for several years during my childhood, and I excelled in them. Religion intrigued me but I genuinely did not believe in it. As time moved on, certain events in my life caused me to reach out for something more, and I cried to God every night for nearly two years, in vain. Any chance of me believing in God had vanished during the rocky period of my early teens. As time went on, I began to genuinely loathe the Catholic Church, with its ornamental charade in the name of worship. Six foot golden crucifixes are needed to worship the lord, of course. After that, I began to realize that I didn’t like many of the other religions either, and I turned my hatred into one generalization: Anyone who believes in a religion to such a degree as they would render extreme deeds / die for it, anyone who uses religion to do anything other than maintain a higher moral standard, is a complete and utter idiot, a setback to the sciences and civilization itself.

As for myself, I am an Agnostic.

Being an Atheist is flat out ignorant. I can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than you can prove there is. From personal experience, I seem to be on the pessimist’s side of the fence, but I acknowledge the fact that I am not certain, and my judgment is fallible.

I have recently looked into the East Asian religions, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, but nothing seems to grab me.

Religion had a purpose long ago, and whether the end goal is real or not, it has greatly shaped civilization for the better, as well as caused some of the worst atrocities. Talk about a mixed blessing.

Social Structure
I firmly believe in equality for all those within a society. Note the distinct difference between a society and the human race. All those who are in a society, should want wish to better that society, as a whole. Those who do not wish to better the society, or downright seek to harm or destroy the society, both foreign and domestic, should be destroyed or otherwise neutralized, whether it be diplomatic, or forceful.

I believe in a classless society.

Classes, whether they be economical, social, or political, are detrimental to a society as a whole. When a group of people get together with the sole purpose of bettering themselves, they often do so at the expense of others in the society. One group will attempt to work it’s way to the top of society by exploiting, economically, socially, or politically, the other groups around them. I am aware that the two above paragraphs seem contradictory, but please again note the distinction between a society and the human race.

Politicians are the epitome of the flaws of a class system.

Politicians are nothing more than an upper class that preys off the lower classes of a nation, economically and politically. They are spineless, useless whelps that do nothing but represent their “interests”, often padded by wads of cash from “corporate sponsors”. The fact of the matter is politicians were “created” to make decisions for the people back long ago because, honestly, the people were quite ignorant, and politicians were supposed to be looking out for the good of the people. If anything is laughable, this is it baby. The system has been distorted to such a degree now, that the politicians are only looking to better themselves, only looking to make wads of cash, while appeasing the people enough to stay in office (which isn’t all that hard, if you’re in congress). Politicians are generally useless degenerates looking out for themselves.

I believe in Direct Democracy.

America is officially a Republic. Face that now and save the “Democracy” crap for someone who will buy into it. This is why the Politician class rose up initially, because Americans elect people to make the decisions for them. Power corrupts anyone. Politicians here aren’t any better than the Bolsheviks or the Stalinists in Russia, they all fall to corruption. We have created a weak middleman in America; one man is easier to persuade, easier to corrupt, than a million men. Now, I acknowledge the fact that Politicians serve one “significant” role: simply put, they know the politics so the common man doesn’t have to. Voter turnout in America sucks. Apathy, laziness, not identifying with parties, whatever. As stated above, individuals in a society should want to better it, including politically, they should want to participate in voting and the politics of running the society. To quote one of my fellow workers from the time of the 2000 election, “I don’t care who wins, so long as they don’t raise my taxes”. Clearly, not every American wants to be a part of the political clockwork, a horrible but true fact. To create an efficient direct democracy for a large group of people, a central system would have to be devised to allow the average citizen to vote on matters concerning the society, perhaps even from the home or work area.

America is a “Generous Plutocracy”.

That’s the term I coined for it. Patent pending. America, in my eyes, is simply and completely ruled by the rich upper class. The “generous” part comes from the fact that the rich upper class gives the rest of the country anything they want, as long as it does not directly interfere with the rich’s lifestyle, affluence, or personal affairs. The rich tend to take care of their own, and the richer people tend to be higher up on the political chain.

I love America. I loathe America.

Contradiction is a way of life, I suppose. Although I could sit here all day and pick out the flaws and foibles of the American system of government, I love my country, and in all honesty, I would risk my life for it if I were called upon to do so. Even though I believe this nation is ruled by the rich upper class, I know this is the best government we have had to date. Winston Churchill put it best, “Western democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. The bottom line is, I have enough freedom in this society to feel content. I am not persecuted for what I believe. I am allowed to do almost anything I chose to do. I walk the streets care free, free from battling warlords and civil wars. I do not fear my government. I see the suffering of other nations. I know how good I have it. I love America; I love being an American. This nation is single-handedly the greatest experiment in personal freedom in the history of mankind, and for that I am grateful.

Economics
I strongly believe in equality within a society, as stated in the social structure section, and I affirm that capitalism is in direct opposition to equality. Social and Political power are derived mainly from Economic power, as Karl Marx so elegantly put it, “The Political and Social aspects of a society are the sum total of their economic system”. The fact of the matter is, the rich upper class have more social and political power. Having stated this, I contend that capitalism is indeed counter to equality, in all forms, and must be abolished in all its forms.

I am a socialist.

As I stated above, the path to being truly equal in every shape and form begins with being equal economically. Simply put, everyone should be provided with everything they need from society. Problems arise when defining the word “need”, and this is one pothole socialist nations have bumped hard upon. Stories of people constantly running short on food, and thousands of people lining up for toilet paper have been burned into our perception for decades, and most of these stories have some background in truth. A socialist system would take an incredible amount of organization and planning, which was next to impossible to achieve in past instances. With the advent of computers, large-scale wireless networks, and lower level artificial intelligence, a massive central system could be devised and managed to organize the massive amounts of data required to run a socialist system more effectively.

Communism has failed.

I recognize the fact that communism has failed. Go ahead, take the pot shots now. Socialism’s failure, in every instance to date, can be attributed to many other factors other than a major flaw in the ideology, ranging from the fact that the major economic powers of the world refused to deal with many socialist / communist regimes, to the sheer lack of resources, to the corrupt, power hungry dictators that usually sit atop the social structure. I am aware. I am not blindly following an ideology just because it sounds good, I am not ignoring the past, I am clearly stating that what was tried has failed, but I affirm that it was not solely the fault of the ideology itself. I am affirming that a socialist system is not only feasible in theory, but in practice. We must learn from what has failed, and attempt again.

Capitalism is innate.

I wholeheartedly agree that people, in general, are greedy, manipulative bastards, who wish to work only for their sole benefit. I agree on that, and I believe it is innate in our cognition, a remnant from our earlier evolution, an antiquated heuristic that should be eradicated. Back in the early years of evolution, food was scarce, and being greedy ensured you got most of the food, ensured your own survival, ensured that your genes would be passed on, etc, etc. In the modern era, resources are still scarce, but not nearly to the degree of yesterday. Everyone can live comfortably off the resources a society can produce without the ones at the top hoarding goods, while those at the bottom are left to starve. This food-based example can be extracted to any other good or service, there is enough of everything to go around, the mindset that allowed us to survive through hard times is now no longer a necessity, and should be abandoned with all the other malicious evolutionary traits.

Ought from is.

A common fallacy among many, the “ought from is” fallacy states that it is wrong to say “This is the way it is, so that is the way it ought to be”. Capitalism has “worked” for hundreds of years, but is that the way is ought to be? Capitalism has “worked” off the backs of the massive lower class. The “great equalizer” of the system is the fact that anyone from the lower, poorer class could eventually work their way up to the top of the system. To a degree, this is true. Aside from the fact that the rich often look out for their own, and attempt personal gain at the loss of the lower classes, once in a while one of the proletariat can save enough money, work his way up to be one of the elite. American society is slowly creating many upper-middle-class citizens, doctors, lawyers, etc, and the jump from there to the upper class isn’t too far a leap. This has proven to be the strength of capitalism, the force that drives the lower class to work harder. This has given the working class hope, however fleeting, and as they work their way up, the upper class reaps the benefits. This strength will eventually lead to capitalism’s downfall. As Karl Marx has said, “Capitalism carries within it the seeds of it’s own destruction”.

Flipping the pyramid.

We’ve all heard about pyramid schemes, we’ve all probably seen one or two; we know how they work. Capitalism is nothing more than a state sanctioned pyramid scheme, the smaller, rich upper class sits atop the work of the lower, massive working classes, a few profiting off the work of many. As stated above, however, America is producing more and more upper-middle-class citizens, who will eventually make the leap from middle to upper class. This is how the system in America works: A family emigrates from their native land, be it in Europe, Africa, Asia, or South America. The initial immigrants are usually uneducated, and they become manual laborers. They have joined the lower working class. They work very hard, and provide their children with the chances that they didn’t have. This first step may last between one and three generations, each generation being born into a wealthier family, moving slowly up the pyramid. Eventually, one of the children has the opportunity to go to college, or to master a trade, to essentially hit it big, to have made it to the top of the middle class. This child, or perhaps his child, will then have the opportunity to make the leap into the upper class. Now, you’re probably looking at this and nodding along, this is the glory of capitalism, a family coming here with nothing and eventually working their way to the elite, this is the American dream. This is the demise of capitalism. In short, too many people are going to college, too many people are reaching the top of the pyramid, too many people are reaching the economically elite, too many people are attempting to profit off the backs of the working class. We have become dependent on a steady flow of immigrants to profit off of, our nation is simply growing too “top heavy”, the pyramid is flipping, and eventually it will fall upon itself.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 19:59

*pick*

Heheh.... *runs*

Tuberski · July 30, 2003, 20:03

Well, Uber, from what I can see, you are long winded.

ACK!

Ming · July 30, 2003, 20:05

Come on folks... if all you are going to do is spam, don't bother posting. He asked for help... not crap

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
As for myself, I am an Agnostic.

Being an Atheist is flat out ignorant. I can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than you can prove there is. From personal experience, I seem to be on the pessimist’s side of the fence, but I acknowledge the fact that I am not certain, and my judgment is fallible.

Theism = Belief in God
Atheism = Lack of belief in God

Being uncertain = Lacking belief in God = Atheism.

You are an Atheist. Welcome to the club.

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 20:07

Too long for me to read fully through with some beers behind the keyboard. Just get rid of those Mountain Dew cans and you will be fine, kid...

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 20:10

Actually Boris, that's considered Agnostic, and not Atheist. Unless you are telling me that no one on Earth is Agnostic.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Atheism is much more than being uncertain.

agnostic:

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

korn469 · July 30, 2003, 20:11

do you really believe in a direct democracy?

at times I think I do, but I'm not sure, politically nothing seems to work the way it should, and in some ways I almost would welcome a true Philosopher King that Plato described...that or complete anarchy with lots of nice people

I think you are open to all kinds of flak on this particular issue

Inverse Icarus · July 30, 2003, 20:15

boris: atheism infers that you believe, without a shred of doubt, that there is no god. you are putting FAITH in that fact, like a catholic is putting his FAITH in jesus/god.

korn: i believe in a direct democracy where the people are well educated enough to support themselves. note the fact that i stated that the general populus in such a society should be wanting to better their society, economically and politically.

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually Boris, that's considered Agnostic, and not Atheist. Unless you are telling me that no one on Earth is Agnostic.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

It's much more than being uncertain

Fortunately, we rational people can realize the dictionary isn't an authority on theology.

Atheists come in two camps: weak and strong. The definition above is a strong atheist, who are the rarer breed. Weak atheists, like Uber and myself and most people who wrongly call themselves "Agnostics," are the most common variety of atheists.

You see, if you know about language, you know that A- as a prefix in this context means "without." Theism means belief in God. Atheism is therefore, simply, "without belief in God." If you're uncertain God exists, you do not believe in God, ergo you are without belief in God. There are only 2 possibilities here--it's a mutually exclusive choice. You believe in God or you do not. The "do not" side falls into 2 camps of its own, the "do not believe exists" (weak) and the "believe does not exist" (strong).

Agnosticism doesn't have to do with belief in God, but rather with belief about whether or not God can be proven to exist. One can be a Theist and still be an Agnostic. "Gnosticism" was an early Christian philosophy that taught that once could ascertain absolute knowledge about the divine. "Agnosticism" was coined in the 19th century by Thomas H. Huxley, and it specifically refers to being "without knowledge of God." It does not refer to belief about God's existence itself.

Homework:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

"Atheism is confined to one factor: the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Atheism can be the positive belief that there is no deity.

Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity."

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
boris: atheism infers that you believe, without a shred of doubt, that there is no god. you are putting FAITH in that fact, like a catholic is putting his FAITH in jesus/god.

As I showed, that is not true:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

I am an atheist, because I lack belief in God. I could never positively assert there is no God, though I am pretty skeptical. But the only alternative (antonym) of Atheist is Theist! I can't be a theist unles I believe in God!

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 20:27

Korn:

Off-topic: What happened between you and your mother-in-law?

There was a recent debate on Swedish radio about age differences between couples. One suggested solution was: it is OK if the woman is half the age of the man plus four (which would be your case), another suggestion was half the age of the man plus seven (which would mean you would have to wait for a few years more....

The final solution was: simply choose the one you fall in love with (which in Sweden would legally be anyone over 15).

Nubclear · July 30, 2003, 20:28

Quote:

Go ahead, take the pot shots now. Socialism’s failure, in every instance to date,

OK.

Inverse Icarus · July 30, 2003, 20:30

you call them failures?

Skanky Burns · July 30, 2003, 20:31

At times I also think a direct democracy would be good. But then I see the people around me in everyday life, and shudder at the thought of them making decisions that affect me. A large segment of people are stupid.

That being said, any system of government can work provided all the people in the society are nice - they look out for each other and help each other. The real trick is to get a cohesive society even with greedy, selfish bastards.

Nubclear · July 30, 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX

you call them failures?

The real question is: Do you?

Inverse Icarus · July 30, 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

The real question is: Do you?

in all honesty, i am not well versed enough in the history / current suitations of those nations. hell, i can just barely seperate which flag is which

Skanky Burns · July 30, 2003, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
As I showed, that is not true:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

I am an atheist, because I lack belief in God. I could never positively assert there is no God, though I am pretty skeptical. But the only alternative (antonym) of Atheist is Theist! I can't be a theist unles I believe in God!

Is "green" black or is it white?
It certainly is not black, so the only alternative (antonym) of black is white!

Therefore, green is a white color.

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

Is "green" black or is it white?
It certainly is not black, so the only alternative (antonym) of black is white!

Therefore, green is a white color.

Is green black or is it non-black?

It certainly is not black, and the only alternative of black is non-black.

Therefore, green is a non-black color.

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 20:44

Tassadar, none of those contries ever had real socialism (the case of Norway could be discussed, as most big companies are government owned) Finland and Sweden have always had a capitalist "centre of gravity".

korn469 · July 30, 2003, 20:49

Olaf

well she's not my mother in law yet

but hopefully one day she will be

Anyways I was put on probation for a year and a half, I had to pay a 500 dollar fine + court costs (which could be anywhere from 200 dollars to possibly 3,000 I haven't gotten the bill on them yet) and one of the conditions of my probation (quite possibly the most important one) is to have no contact with her till she turns 18. The judge gave me one last legal oppertunity to contact her; however, I couldn't do that in person (I'm banned from her county), and when I called her phone was disconnected. I haven't heard from her since, and I have no idea what happened. For all I know her parents could have moved across to the country (which would put her about 2000 miles away) and forced her to go with them. I dunno. Once she turns 18 though I'm going to find her, take her away with me (if she wants to go), and ask her to marry me. So it's all good.

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

You see, if you know about language, you know that A- as a prefix in this context means "without." Theism means belief in God. Atheism is therefore, simply, "without belief in God." If you're uncertain God exists, you do not believe in God, ergo you are without belief in God.

Language has changed and become way more complex nowadays, Boris

. Agnostic is now the term used to delinate those who are not sure, while Atheist is the term used to deliniate those who do not believe in God at all.

Anyway, it doesn't matter because Uber is against those people who take a position, no matter what he chooses to call them.

Chemical Ollie · July 30, 2003, 20:53

Man, that sucks! And everything you did would be fully legal all over Europe (but illegal in US, Middle East and all the other backward nations of the world...

Odin · July 30, 2003, 20:54

Religious Beliefs

I was raised a Lutheran and had a spout of devoutness and bigotry, but I soon grew up. My hold on religion weakened, especially after 9/11. I am now a Weak Athiest, I do not beleive there is proof of a higher power and I am disgusted by how theists reject evolution.

Politics

I am a Communist. I beilive in the communal ownership of wealth I used to be a Libertarian, but the Enron debacle and 'Poly have shown me the light. I belive in rule by direct democracy or by a benovolent dictator similar to Plato's "philosopher king"

Philosophy

I believe people are born neutral. It is the experiences on has in life that determines if they are good or evil. We are not born greedy, but rampant consumerism, capitalism, and materialism has made us act this way. I do not believe in a single moral code; each person has thier own moral code made by experiences in life and from reciporical altuism.

Kramerman · July 30, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Religion
I have never been a religious person. I was raised a Catholic by my mother (my father was Dutch Reformed Protestant), but I ever really bought into it. I was sent to religion school for several years during my childhood, and I excelled in them. Religion intrigued me but I genuinely did not believe in it. As time moved on, certain events in my life caused me to reach out for something more, and I cried to God every night for nearly two years, in vain. Any chance of me believing in God had vanished during the rocky period of my early teens. As time went on, I began to genuinely loathe the Catholic Church, with its ornamental charade in the name of worship. Six foot golden crucifixes are needed to worship the lord, of course. After that, I began to realize that I didn’t like many of the other religions either, and I turned my hatred into one generalization: Anyone who believes in a religion to such a degree as they would render extreme deeds / die for it, anyone who uses religion to do anything other than maintain a higher moral standard, is a complete and utter idiot, a setback to the sciences and civilization itself.

As for myself, I am an Agnostic.

Being an Atheist is flat out ignorant. I can’t prove there isn’t a God any more than you can prove there is. From personal experience, I seem to be on the pessimist’s side of the fence, but I acknowledge the fact that I am not certain, and my judgment is fallible.

I have recently looked into the East Asian religions, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, but nothing seems to grab me.

Religion had a purpose long ago, and whether the end goal is real or not, it has greatly shaped civilization for the better, as well as caused some of the worst atrocities. Talk about a mixed blessing.

this very closely resembles my life and 'beliefs' with religion

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Language has changed and become way more complex nowadays, Boris

. Agnostic is now the term used to delinate those who are not sure, while Atheist is the term used to deliniate those who do not believe in God at all.

Had you read, you'd note that is not true, as most self-described Atheists are of the "do not believe" category, not the "believe does not" category.

Agnostics can be not sure, but they don't have to be. You can have Agnostic Theists, and Agnostic Strong Atheists, or Agnostic Weak Atheists. Agnosticism isn't a metaphysical stance.

Kramerman · July 30, 2003, 20:58

ive always known the definitions of those words as boris describes them... but semantics, semantics, we all know what Uber was talking about, despite our personal thoughts on the definitions

Boris Godunov · July 30, 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman
ive always known the definitions of those words as boris describes them... but semantics, semantics, we all know what Uber was talking about, despite our personal thoughts on the definitions

He said "pick," and I am picking away!

Imran Siddiqui · July 30, 2003, 21:01

How in the HELL do you have Agnostic Theists? Someone who is not sure but believes in God? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You can be a theist and have some doubts, but if you believe in God (and thus are a theist), you cannot, by definition, by an Agnostic, who does not take a side one way or the other.

korn469 · July 30, 2003, 21:03

Olaf,

Yea, it does suck, I'm out quite a bit of money (relatively speaking), I lost my girl for a while, and even the judge said he could tell I had feelings for her. Though I did get to say in court "I don't think she loves me I know she does, and I know I love her too." Plus that went on the record. But that's how the law works over here, though it could have been MUCH MUCH WORSE, like up to maybe 30 years in prison. So as long as i stay good for a little while everything is cool. If not I head off to jail for a year!