Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
It's also populated by plenty of non Americans who are not likely to know some political shows from the states.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(23-12-2015 10:55 PM)Sobek Wrote:  And yet they are having loads of problems with ISIS sympathizers in Turkey.

Of course. Chomsky is one of the world's most respected intellectuals and is an ISIS sympathizer. Hell, I'm an atheist pacifist, yet I too am an ISIS sympathizer because I acknowledge that if it happened to me, if a foreign country invaded my land in an unprovoked attack and slaughtered members of my family, and then their secretary of state got on TV and acknowledged killing half a million kids in my country and said "it was worth it", I too would probably be filled with so much rage, fueled by so much hatred, that I too would be pretty screwed up in the head and may turn violent.

This doesn't change the fact that Islam has existed for hundreds of years. And except in Saudi Arabia where they've always been fanatics, most Islamic countries have been peaceful. We haven't this idea of radical jihad terrorists until the West start carpet bombing them. If the jihadist violence was inherent to their religion, why hasn't it been going on for hundreds of years? Why is it only after the West started destroying their lands that they became violent? And why is this controversial since both the CIA and 911 commission have admitted the jihadist violence is blowback for prior US attacks?

(23-12-2015 10:55 PM)Sobek Wrote:  Bin Laden was rich and apparently a fairly skilled engineer.

YES!!! That's my whole point. Look, in that video I included from 1998, referring to the deaths of those 500k Iraqi children, an irate Ron Paul said they're likely to come back and attack us because of this. And a couple years later after 9/11 Bin Laden publishes a video justifying the attack and says it's revenge for this very same event.

But Americans in general and every politician (except for the handful of libertarians in office) dismissed Bin Ladin's explanation and said he was actually driven by jealousy. As you said, the Bin Ladin's have one of the largest construction company in the world and are one of the richest families in the world. Osama grew up in a life of luxury, travelling in private jets to villas in France. And the politicians explanation for his motive is that one day, when he was standing before the 20' panoramic window in his 5th avenue penthouse, he gazed passed Central Park and saw how the typical working class American in New Jersey lived, and was instantly filled with such jealous rage that he called one of his servants over and told them to tell the pilot to get his jet ready so he could fly to Afghanistan and live in a cave and start plotting an attack. And both Democrats and Republicans are so brain-dead that this explanation resonated, and they're so incapable of self-reflection or looking at others viewpoints, that they could not bring themselves to question whether their own actions contributed to this and if in hind-site it was really a good idea to slaughter so many innocent people in the Arab world. Rather, in their simple minds, the solution was just to kill more innocent people and then the problem will go away. So, my question is "How's that strategy working out for ya?" Because when I read the headlines, it seems like half the major news stories in the US about islamic terrorism. Yet look at the headlines from before the US started attacking islamic lands, and it was a non-issue. When I was a kid we never even thought about islamic jihad, and now, the whole country is paralyzed in fear over it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(24-12-2015 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  This board is well-populated with moderate/progressives plus a smattering of libertards.

Why is non-violence and the golden rule so deeply offensive to you?

I have challenged you numerous times to name even policy issue that we disagree on which does not boil down to you wanting to use force to solve a problem, and libertarians opting for non-violent solutions. Nobody has come up with even one example, so the matter is resolved. The only thing dividing us is my rejection of the use of violence vs. your insistence that violence is the only solution to every problem.

For example, when discussing how to care for disadvantaged people, we both agree that the poor need to be taken care of and we want those who have more to pay for it. We both agree that we want a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. But I point out that in a libertarian country like Switzerland where the government has no welfare program at either the federal or state level and it is left up to local communities to do this voluntarily through charity, the statistics prove this actually works better, that people give more, and they have eliminated poverty and everybody is taken care of. You will, however, reject this, no matter how efficient, because it relies on charity. Even though charity, like your preferred method of progressive taxation, IS a transfer of wealth from rich to poor and the only difference is that charity is done voluntarily whereas your solution mandates pointing a gun at people's head and forcing them to pay or else go to jail.

For democrats and republicans, no matter what problem is being discussed, the solution is always the same: violence. And any solution that does not involve violence is automatically rejected without consideration. And this carries over into foreign policy. As has been pointed out, while the Republicans are more vocal on the matter, the use of violence to solve the problems in the middle east is the hallmark of both parties.

But violence begets violence. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I've shown you the videos that for 20+ years we libertards have been screaming that we need to stop the violence, stop attacking them, because it's only going to create more violence and they're going to attack us too. And you democrats and republicans laugh at us, and think we're so stupid for rejecting the use of violence.

Now, look at the headlines and see what's happened. All we can say is, we told you so. It's turned out exactly like we told it would. When we were screaming in the 90's that the attacks on the middle east would result in counter-attacks in the decades to come, you laughed at us. But it happened just like we said it would. So who befits the -tard epithet for shooting themselves in the foot and bringing upon themselves that which now has them so terrified?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I have challenged you numerous times to name even policy issue that we disagree on which does not boil down to you wanting to use force to solve a problem, and libertarians opting for non-violent solutions. Nobody has come up with even one example, so the matter is resolved. The only thing dividing us is my rejection of the use of violence vs. your insistence that violence is the only solution to every problem.

Note for the audience: this delusional recounting of events did not occur in anyone else's mind.

(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  For example, when discussing how to care for disadvantaged people, we both agree that the poor need to be taken care of and we want those who have more to pay for it. We both agree that we want a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. But I point out that in a libertarian country like Switzerland where the government has no welfare program at either the federal or state level and it is left up to local communities to do this voluntarily through charity, the statistics prove this actually works better, that people give more, and they have eliminated poverty and everybody is taken care of.

This is blatantly false, and it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Do you just not care?

I mean, there's always the possibility that you know better than the actual Swiss budget office, but I somehow doubt that.
(hint: welfare is "wohlfahrt" in German. Ctrl-f is your friend. 22 billion francs - one third of federal expenditure - is not quite nothing. Or is it, in your mind?)

(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You will, however, reject this, no matter how efficient, because it relies on charity. Even though charity, like your preferred method of progressive taxation, IS a transfer of wealth from rich to poor and the only difference is that charity is done voluntarily whereas your solution mandates pointing a gun at people's head and forcing them to pay or else go to jail.

Either use force or watch people die. Which do you prefer?

(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  For democrats and republicans, no matter what problem is being discussed, the solution is always the same: violence. And any solution that does not involve violence is automatically rejected without consideration. And this carries over into foreign policy. As has been pointed out, while the Republicans are more vocal on the matter, the use of violence to solve the problems in the middle east is the hallmark of both parties.

To call you one-dimensional would be to imbue you with too much depth.

(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But violence begets violence. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I've shown you the videos that for 20+ years we libertards have been screaming that we need to stop the violence, stop attacking them, because it's only going to create more violence and they're going to attack us too. And you democrats and republicans laugh at us, and think we're so stupid for rejecting the use of violence.

Except for all the violence you endorse. But A little cognitive dissonance takes care of that!

(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, look at the headlines and see what's happened. All we can say is, we told you so. It's turned out exactly like we told it would. When we were screaming in the 90's that the attacks on the middle east would result in counter-attacks in the decades to come, you laughed at us. But it happened just like we said it would. So who befits the -tard epithet for shooting themselves in the foot and bringing upon themselves that which now has them so terrified?

The world is more peaceful now than it has ever been in all of human history.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(24-12-2015 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  This board is well-populated with moderate/progressives plus a smattering of libertards.

Why is non-violence and the golden rule so deeply offensive to you?

I have challenged you numerous times to name even policy issue that we disagree on which does not boil down to you wanting to use force to solve a problem, and libertarians opting for non-violent solutions. Nobody has come up with even one example, so the matter is resolved. The only thing dividing us is my rejection of the use of violence vs. your insistence that violence is the only solution to every problem.

For example, when discussing how to care for disadvantaged people, we both agree that the poor need to be taken care of and we want those who have more to pay for it. We both agree that we want a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. But I point out that in a libertarian country like Switzerland where the government has no welfare program at either the federal or state level and it is left up to local communities to do this voluntarily through charity, the statistics prove this actually works better, that people give more, and they have eliminated poverty and everybody is taken care of. You will, however, reject this, no matter how efficient, because it relies on charity. Even though charity, like your preferred method of progressive taxation, IS a transfer of wealth from rich to poor and the only difference is that charity is done voluntarily whereas your solution mandates pointing a gun at people's head and forcing them to pay or else go to jail.

For democrats and republicans, no matter what problem is being discussed, the solution is always the same: violence. And any solution that does not involve violence is automatically rejected without consideration. And this carries over into foreign policy. As has been pointed out, while the Republicans are more vocal on the matter, the use of violence to solve the problems in the middle east is the hallmark of both parties.

But violence begets violence. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I've shown you the videos that for 20+ years we libertards have been screaming that we need to stop the violence, stop attacking them, because it's only going to create more violence and they're going to attack us too. And you democrats and republicans laugh at us, and think we're so stupid for rejecting the use of violence.

Now, look at the headlines and see what's happened. All we can say is, we told you so. It's turned out exactly like we told it would. When we were screaming in the 90's that the attacks on the middle east would result in counter-attacks in the decades to come, you laughed at us. But it happened just like we said it would. So who befits the -tard epithet for shooting themselves in the foot and bringing upon themselves that which now has them so terrified?

Once again you play fast and loose with the facts. There are government safety nets paid for by tax dollars in Switzerland, e.g health insurance is capped at 8% of a person's income, the shortfall covered by a cash subsidy from the government.
The pension system is funded by employees' and employers' contributions.
That is income redistribution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 12:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  in a libertarian country like Switzerland where the government has no welfare program at either the federal or state level and it is left up to local communities

Once again you play fast and loose with the facts. There are government safety nets paid for by tax dollars in Switzerland, e.g health insurance is capped at 8% of a person's income, the shortfall covered by a cash subsidy from the government.
The pension system is funded by employees' and employers' contributions.
That is income redistribution.

Google "Switzerland welfare" and the very first link:

Quote:Swiss welfare runs like clockwork...

There is no countrywide answer to this question [of welfare] because it is not dealt with on a national basis. It is not even dealt with by one of the 26 cantons. It is dealt with by your local commune.

Exactly what I said. My challenge to you is why you object to the golden rule and the absence of violence. Since you can't deny that this is what divides us, and that like all the club-wielding neanderthals in the Democrat and Republican party, you too believe that a gun is the solution to every problem, but don't want to be so blatantly barbaric, you resort to your usual attack of trying to attack me on some trivial side point, as a smoke and mirror side point. However, in this case, your attempt to discredit my claim that Switzerland has no welfare at the national or state (canton) level is absurd because my statement is 100% factual.

Here's another question... Since you are unable to defend your position that violence is the solution to every problem and keep having to grasp at such desperate distractions, doesn't that mean maybe you should reconsider your political position? Wouldn't you like to be in the comfortable position that we libertarians are where you can throw any political challenge at us, and we can address your point head-on with facts and logic?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 01:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(25-12-2015 12:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once again you play fast and loose with the facts. There are government safety nets paid for by tax dollars in Switzerland, e.g health insurance is capped at 8% of a person's income, the shortfall covered by a cash subsidy from the government.
The pension system is funded by employees' and employers' contributions.
That is income redistribution.

Google "Switzerland welfare" and the very first link:

Quote:Swiss welfare runs like clockwork...

There is no countrywide answer to this question [of welfare] because it is not dealt with on a national basis. It is not even dealt with by one of the 26 cantons. It is dealt with by your local commune.

Exactly what I said. My challenge to you is why you object to the golden rule and the absence of violence. Since you can't deny that this is what divides us, and that like all the club-wielding neanderthals in the Democrat and Republican party, you too believe that a gun is the solution to every problem, but don't want to be so blatantly barbaric, you resort to your usual attack of trying to attack me on some trivial side point, as a smoke and mirror side point. However, in this case, your attempt to discredit my claim that Switzerland has no welfare at the national or state (canton) level is absurd because my statement is 100% factual.

Here's another question... Since you are unable to defend your position that violence is the solution to every problem and keep having to grasp at such desperate distractions, doesn't that mean maybe you should reconsider your political position? Wouldn't you like to be in the comfortable position that we libertarians are where you can throw any political challenge at us, and we can address your point head-on with facts and logic?

Your arguments would have more credibility if you got your facts correct.

And stop assuming you know what my beliefs are.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 10:48 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-12-2015 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You will, however, reject this, no matter how efficient, because it relies on charity. Even though charity, like your preferred method of progressive taxation, IS a transfer of wealth from rich to poor and the only difference is that charity is done voluntarily whereas your solution mandates pointing a gun at people's head and forcing them to pay or else go to jail.

Either use force or watch people die. Which do you prefer?

Thank you for not pretending that you don't understand what 'force' means this time, and admitting that the one and only difference between us is libertarians object to using force. And thank you for justifying why you are on the side of using force. But, please, you seriously can't expect us to just to take your word for it that guns must be used to solve every problem or else people will die. Can you provide some examples? See my response to Chas on Switzerland, and the link I provided. My facts were right on. Switzerland is the only developed country that doesn't use force for welfare. Yet nobody's dying and they have the most efficient system of making sure everyone is taken care of. So who is dying?

Also, for a physicist, you haven't thought this through. Your assumption that if forced isn't used the people will not take care of those less fortunate. But who authorizes the government to use force to implement a welfare program? Are you going to tell me there is some god who is directing the government? If not, then isn't it the very same people that are voting for laws to help the less fortunate? If the people were callous and uncaring and unwilling to help the less fortunate without a gun pointed to their head, then why don't they simply vote down laws to help the less fortunate? The fact is that whether helps the poor or it's done privately doesn't change that the people in society have to be charitable and willing to help the poor. So the question should be how to get more people to be more generous, and how to be more efficient. The reality is it's human nature that we're more generous when we do something for a reward than because there's a gun pointed to your head. If somebody does something nice to, you're likely to give him to a reward or tip. If someone puts a gun to your head and says give me $20, how likely are you to give him a tip? Your use of guns makes people LESS generous. And read that link I gave which gives the example of how the Swiss handle problems, like young unwed mothers who can't support their children. What's more efficient? The US system where the government takes people's money by force and if you want some of it you send a form in to Washington and some data processing clerk who knows nothing about you sends you a check? Or the Swiss system where your neighbors know you personally and work to find solutions that fit your needs and get you re-integrated in society?

Also, when you say people die without the use of force (ie without violence we die), who is going to die? Is it you? If the government doesn't put a gun to your head are you going to run off and do something stupid like shoot yourself up with heroin? Or are you one of the "good people" who doesn't need a gun pointed to your head to keep you from dying? The funny thing is all Dems and Reps insist the gun is needed to protect OTHER people from their own stupidity, but who are these OTHER people since everybody says the same thing? Why is that before government involved, people weren't dying. Before government mandated doctors are forced to provide medical care to poor people who can't pay, the country was covered by a network of charity hospitals that never turned anyone away, and the poor got quality medical care and at the end nothing more than a "thank, you're welcome". The government eliminated the idea of charity health care by forcing all doctors to do charity work whether they want to or not. So now all the charity hospitals are gone and for profit. And when a poor person without insurance needs medical care, instead of being treated by caring doctors, he's given the bare minimum life-sustaining care required by law, and then sent home with a bill based on the "charge master" price list, where the poor people are charged 10x for the same services as rich and insured, and when he can't pay, it's turned over to collection and his wages are garnished and he files bankruptcy. How is this better? Before the government introduced the use of force in medical care for the poor, the poor never went bankrupt over medical bills. Now they're the #1 cause of bankruptcy.

So please clarify your position.

1. When you say people will die without being forced to do things against their will, who are these people? Does it include you? Or only other people?

2. I can give you countless examples where government uses too much force with disastrous consequences, like North Korea, Cambodia, etc. Can you give me just one an example of a country that was too libertarian, where the government put too much effort in blocking the use of force against its citizens and preserving everyone's liberty and freedom to choose? When was it ever not wildly successful, like in Switzerland and Hong Kong. And don't try to deny those examples because, while they're not 100% true to the ideal of the non-aggression principle, they are recognized as the two countries that have gotten closest to it, and the results speak for themselves.

3. Do you yourself like to have a gun pointed to your head and be forced to do something against your will? If not, then are you practicing the golden rule when you in turn vote for laws that do it to other people? This concept of treating others as you and they want to be treated, which is basically the same thing as operating behind a veil of ignorance, is it not widely recognized to be the standard of morality? So why will people die if they're moral and practice the golden rule? Why is it so offensive to you, if that's how you want to be treated?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(23-12-2015 08:23 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  As the founding and only member of the E.F.W.L.P.F. (earmuffs for world leader people's front). I can inform you that we are an Atheist organization politically motivated to separate religion from state by replacing the state entirely with a dictatorship, the most efficient form of government, with me as the figurative and literal leader of the world.

You are welcome to join.

Are there Maori?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Looking for Atheist groups that are politically moderate
(25-12-2015 01:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  And stop assuming you know what my beliefs are.

Okay, is there anything you think you and I would disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting to use force to coerce people into doing things against their will vs. me wanting to find a peaceful voluntary solution?

Answer the question. If, out of the thousands of policies we could debate, you can't come up with even one that doesn't fit that rule, then admit it, that I really DO know what your beliefs are, and that is that you believe the solution to problems is to use force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: