| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2005 06:58:05 AM |
| Object: |
A Design That's Anti-Faith |
A Design That's Anti-Faith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201103_pf.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.7653
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, December 23, 2005; A21
Can you imagine a more faithless pursuit than trying to prove the
existence of God?
Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.9815
Vice President Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the
powers of the presidency.
The Road to Riches
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "APOCALYPSE" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 01:05:14 PM |
|
|
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mick white" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 03:58:06 PM |
|
|
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
28 Dec 2005 05:29:11 PM |
|
|
In message <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> writes
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway's independence is fairly recent. Furthermore it was occupied
during the Second World War. Once you've discounted all the countries
that were occupied by Germany, or were part of the 19th/early 20th
century European Empires you've not much left among current regimes, and
eliminating those which have had military coups and revolutions gets rid
of most of the rest.
UK, Switzerland, Sweden, as mentioned upthread; Isle of Man, Jersey,
Guernsey, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco? San Marino? maybe Oman and
Thailand, and possibly some places in Latin America (Costa Rica?)
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.8/215 - Release Date: 27/12/2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 02:48:32 PM |
|
|
In article <WI$u4dDH$xsDFwlj@meden.demon.co.uk>,
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> writes
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway's independence is fairly recent. Furthermore it was occupied
during the Second World War. Once you've discounted all the countries
that were occupied by Germany, or were part of the 19th/early 20th
century European Empires you've not much left among current regimes, and
eliminating those which have had military coups and revolutions gets rid
of most of the rest.
UK, Switzerland, Sweden, as mentioned upthread; Isle of Man, Jersey,
Guernsey, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco? San Marino? maybe Oman and
Thailand, and possibly some places in Latin America (Costa Rica?)
Cross off Andorra as a current example. They had had one of the
longest (ever) continuous consistent governmental systems -- 750 or
so years. But they changed it out for a new system in the early
1990s, just as I had assembled a table of lengths of governmental
systems.
Switzerland can also be taken off the list of 'longer than the US'.
Reisions in the 1840's, revolution of 1848 et al., lead a Swiss to
tell me to strike them as well -- more wide ranging and fundamental
than the US civil war here.
Any effort at saying 'the same system' leads you to definitional
problems fairly quickly. Dictatorships are pretty easy. War-driven
change from (nominally, at least) absolute monarchies to constitutional
democracy or vice versa are also fairly easy. Unwritten constitutions,
though, ... just when/where is it you draw a line? Arguably the system
is the same -- still unwritten constitution indefinitely (UK). Arguably,
writing down what was 'in' the unwritten constitution is not a change
(Canada) ... or it is. If there's a 'too much change to say it's the
same', then arguably little of Europe could be said to have the
same system as before the revolutions of 1848, nor could the US
be said to be the same system before vs. after our civil war. Yet,
in the latter case the written constitution was little changed. So
where's the line?
All that said ... my observation (quantitative then, ca. 1990) that
governmental systems have a half life of about 18 years seems (eyeball
now -- aided by the collapses of the european communist countries) to
hold fairly well. The longest-running systems (except for Andorra's
former system) all seem to have incorporated the ability to evolve as
part of the system. So we have elected officials, etc., whose turnover
time is ca. 18 years. (Median supreme court term was 18 years when I
counted back then.)
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 03:40:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
All that said ... my observation (quantitative then, ca. 1990)
that governmental systems have a half life of about 18 years seems
(eyeball now -- aided by the collapses of the european communist
countries) to hold fairly well.
I have a supplementary observation, namely a strong correlation
between ruling for 40+ years and being labeled "the Great".
I haven't checked it carefully, but I've certainly noticed it a lot
during my casual reading.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 04:38:17 PM |
|
|
Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article <WI$u4dDH$xsDFwlj@meden.demon.co.uk>,
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> writes
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't
tell you the names of their representatives in congress nor has
voted in an election that wasn't a presidential election.
Although the faith is drilled into us, we do have 200 years of
our system having survived. Despite the many radical changes our
system has undergone (back in the founders' time, the presidency
was only a little bit more than a ceremonial role) no major
shakeups or upsets to our current system have occurred and we
still have faith in our American political system. This is
virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern
governments throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway's independence is fairly recent. Furthermore it was occupied
during the Second World War. Once you've discounted all the
countries that were occupied by Germany, or were part of the
19th/early 20th century European Empires you've not much left among
current regimes, and eliminating those which have had military coups
and revolutions gets rid of most of the rest.
UK, Switzerland, Sweden, as mentioned upthread; Isle of Man, Jersey,
Guernsey, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco? San Marino? maybe Oman and
Thailand, and possibly some places in Latin America (Costa Rica?)
Cross off Andorra as a current example. They had had one of the
longest (ever) continuous consistent governmental systems -- 750 or
so years. But they changed it out for a new system in the early
1990s, just as I had assembled a table of lengths of governmental
systems.
Switzerland can also be taken off the list of 'longer than the
US'.
Reisions in the 1840's, revolution of 1848 et al., lead a Swiss to
tell me to strike them as well -- more wide ranging and fundamental
than the US civil war here.
But why not count the Civil war as a break likewise
in continuity? Basically only the fact that the
South was broken to such and extent it was still
backwards 100 years later stopped very fundamental changes
to the US. Here was a shift then as the South became
a Jim Crow, segregationism, racist regime.
--
Happy Hogmanay!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 04:50:22 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
....
But why not count the Civil war as a break likewise
in continuity? Basically only the fact that the
South was broken to such and extent it was still
backwards 100 years later stopped very fundamental changes
to the US. Here was a shift then as the South became
a Jim Crow, segregationism, racist regime.
I definitely agree that the 1788 Constitution failed after the 1860
election. The US reconstituted it, but it is clear that both national
attitude and the Civil War amendments created a dramatic change in the
government we had. We could possibly argue that the change during FDR
would be the third significant change in the way our government was
constituted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RAM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 08:50:33 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
...
But why not count the Civil war as a break likewise
in continuity? Basically only the fact that the
South was broken to such and extent it was still
backwards 100 years later stopped very fundamental changes
to the US. Here was a shift then as the South became
a Jim Crow, segregationism, racist regime.
I definitely agree that the 1788 Constitution failed after the 1860
election. The US reconstituted it, but it is clear that both national
attitude and the Civil War amendments created a dramatic change in the
government we had. We could possibly argue that the change during FDR
would be the third significant change in the way our government was
constituted.
All true; but we still had not completed the enfranchisement of African
Americans. Jim Crow while illegal was still covertly and frequently
maliciously practiced in the South until the 1964-65 Civil Rights Acts.
100 years of politically institutionalized racial discrimination was
finally found to be undemocratic. Forty years hence we still have
major racial economic discrimination. This latter hurdle will take
longer than 100 years if the past forty years are any indication. The
Civil War settled regional political and economic dominance patterns
but put democracy on hold in the South and encouraged a strong
disrespect for laws in the nation and especially in the South. The 100
years of Southern political and economic backwardness has been only
superficially changed and unfortunately it is well into its second
century.
RAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
28 Dec 2005 05:57:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> writes
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway's independence is fairly recent. Furthermore it was occupied
during the Second World War. Once you've discounted all the countries
that were occupied by Germany, or were part of the 19th/early 20th
century European Empires you've not much left among current regimes, and
eliminating those which have had military coups and revolutions gets rid
of most of the rest.
UK, Switzerland, Sweden, as mentioned upthread; Isle of Man, Jersey,
Guernsey, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco? San Marino? maybe Oman and
Thailand, and possibly some places in Latin America (Costa Rica?)
If temporary military occupation disqualifies, then Jersey and Guernsey
are out, as they too were occupied during WWII.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
28 Dec 2005 06:06:45 PM |
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> writes
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway's independence is fairly recent. Furthermore it was occupied
during the Second World War. Once you've discounted all the countries
that were occupied by Germany, or were part of the 19th/early 20th
century European Empires you've not much left among current regimes, and
eliminating those which have had military coups and revolutions gets rid
of most of the rest.
UK, Switzerland, Sweden, as mentioned upthread; Isle of Man, Jersey,
Guernsey, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco? San Marino? maybe Oman and
Thailand, and possibly some places in Latin America (Costa Rica?)
If temporary military occupation disqualifies, then Jersey and Guernsey
are out, as they too were occupied during WWII.
And parts of the northern US, to, right? Canada and Britain occupied it in the
1812? war?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
28 Dec 2005 06:08:56 PM |
|
|
In message <dov8q3$bg$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant
<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> writes
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway's independence is fairly recent. Furthermore it was occupied
during the Second World War. Once you've discounted all the countries
that were occupied by Germany, or were part of the 19th/early 20th
century European Empires you've not much left among current regimes, and
eliminating those which have had military coups and revolutions gets rid
of most of the rest.
UK, Switzerland, Sweden, as mentioned upthread; Isle of Man, Jersey,
Guernsey, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco? San Marino? maybe Oman and
Thailand, and possibly some places in Latin America (Costa Rica?)
If temporary military occupation disqualifies, then Jersey and Guernsey
are out, as they too were occupied during WWII.
Oops.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.8/215 - Release Date: 27/12/2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
25 Dec 2005 11:49:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:58:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , mick white
<mick@mickweb.com> in <Ovjrf.37220$XJ5.4113@twister.nyroc.rr.com>
wrote:
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
Norway got its parliament in 1884 and separated from Sweden in 1905.
England has had a few interesting "changes" since the American
Revolution. France had 4 or 5 republics, a monarchy or two and a
couple of imperial attempts. The oldest democracy in the world is
Iceland, for reasons that now make sense to me after reading
_Collapse_.
The U.S. is the world's oldest constitutional government. This is, of
course, a trick since the U.S. is, in many ways, the first
Constitutional government. England was democratic before 1787, but the
King had lots of say over foreign policy and actions. Certainly other
"forms" of government have lasted more than 200 years. And I would
argue that the U.S. system took some major changes in 1860, 1868-70,
1913, and 1919. We have a very different system in some important ways
than we did 200 years ago.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 07:17:18 PM |
|
|
mick white wrote:
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
The US elects further down the evolutionary ladder. <G>
--Jeff
--
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark
of an authoritarian personality.
-Theodor Adorno
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 07:44:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
mick white wrote:
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
The US elects further down the evolutionary ladder. <G>
Weasels?
Worms?
Slime?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fluidly Unsure" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
26 Dec 2005 06:19:40 PM |
|
|
mick white wrote:
APOCALYPSE wrote:
Americans have faith in our political system being the greatest
possible system despite the fact that the average person can't tell you
the names of their representatives in congress nor has voted in an
election that wasn't a presidential election. Although the faith is
drilled into us, we do have 200 years of our system having survived.
Despite the many radical changes our system has undergone (back in the
founders' time, the presidency was only a little bit more than a
ceremonial role) no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have
occurred and we still have faith in our American political system. This
is virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
How does US compare to European democracies? Norway, for instance?
Mick
While I do not know much about European politics I do know many of the ideas
that America was formed around. I'm not talking about the PR writeup that is
supposed to make everyone in America proud to be a US citizen. My understanding
is that while most continental Governments are platonic democracies, America is
a Republic [4].
The American system came about because of the differences between the Southern
colonies and the North. Basically, small states that were port-bound and relied
on trade for survival were afraid of being bullied by large states that were
self-sufficient like Virginia. Hense, the dual chamber system we have now.
Thomas Jefferson didn't want anything other than a pure democracy. He felt that
there should be no international interaction (wars & treaties), no financial
system, all citizens should live an agrarian life, and there should be a bloody
revolution every 20 years or so. While he was an incredibly intelligent person
who was needed at the time. But most of his idea where too idealistic and
impractical for anybody that didn't live the aristocratic life his and his wifes
inheritance allowed. While he did try to tone down the arrogance that was so
common in aristocratic people, he had the resources to do (almost) anything he
wanted. He was like Paris Hilton today. They pretend to be in the same "class"
as the rest of us but they retain the right to walk away-- something few others
can afford.
In John Lockes approach, there is not a bad Government as long as it is balanced
and not arbitrary. The American system achieves that. When comparing man with
and without civilization he saw the need for government, war, police, and money.
Many of the trappings of modern society that todays chicken-littles are
currently using as the reason for civilizations demise is a necessity in todays
world. [3]
As far as the OPs statement about faith, yes there is sometimes a big gap
between believing in a God and accepting it by blind faith. [2]
It is interesting that many seem to claim exclusive rights to spiritual truth.
Many claim that anyone who disagrees with them is an "atheist". They have
rewritten the definition of Atheism. In their mind it is not someone who is
against Theism but anybody who is against one particular form of Theism. [1]
As a Deist, I end up arguing about the possible existence of a God with Atheists
and about the truth of any bible or the official words of a priesthood.
Ok, I will now step down from the podium.
Notes:
1 - Both American Heritage 2000 and Websters 'new American dictionary':
Atheist (n), "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
2 - DEISM.ORG
3 - The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), John Locke (1632-1704)
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
4 - US constitution, article 4 section 4
<http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html>
--
Liquid
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
30 Dec 2005 04:09:10 PM |
|
|
Fluidly Unsure schrieb:
While I do not know much about European politics I do know many of the ideas
that America was formed around. I'm not talking about the PR writeup that is
supposed to make everyone in America proud to be a US citizen. My understanding
is that while most continental Governments are platonic democracies, America is
a Republic [4].
This is largely a semantic questions. Many European countries call
themselves "democratic republics": democratic because "all power
emanates from the People", and republics because there is no hereditary
head of state.
Actually, the differences between the US and European countries are
mostly quantitative (the role of the head of government, the degree of
centralization, the powers of the courts etc.).
Regards, HRG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fluidly Unsure" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
31 Dec 2005 12:36:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Fluidly Unsure schrieb:
While I do not know much about European politics I do know many of the ideas
that America was formed around. I'm not talking about the PR writeup that is
supposed to make everyone in America proud to be a US citizen. My understanding
is that while most continental Governments are platonic democracies, America is
a Republic [4].
This is largely a semantic questions. Many European countries call
themselves "democratic republics": democratic because "all power
emanates from the People", and republics because there is no hereditary
head of state.
Actually, the differences between the US and European countries are
mostly quantitative (the role of the head of government, the degree of
centralization, the powers of the courts etc.).
Regards, HRG.
Thanks
--
Liquid
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 02:40:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, "APOCALYPSE" <reignorshyne@hotmail.com> wrote:
no major shakeups or upsets to our current system have occurred and
we still have faith in our American political system. This is
virtually unheard of in terms of pre-modern and modern governments
throughout history.
That's not really true.
I don't feel like digging out a book to check, but I suspect that
several of these modern governments have been stable for as long as
ours has, even if you don't count our Civil War as an unstable
period:
UK
Sweden
Switzerland
Tibet (until ~50 years ago)
Canada
And in the ancient world:
Roman Republic (pre-133 BCE) and probably some phase of the imperial period
some of the Hellenistic kingdoms
Persia, perhaps three different times (Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassinid)
Byzantine empire (twice, if you split it at the Crusader takeover of 1204)
various Egyptian dynasties
Medieval France, Medieval England
Alfred's branch of Anglo-Saxon England
some of the Crusader Kingdoms
Maya, Aztec, Inca
Heck, even the Langobard kingdom in Italy had a 200 year run.
As I say, I haven't verified the dates for all these, so some may need
to be stricken off the list. OTOH, you can see from the list that I'm
completely ignoring most of the world for most of history, so there are
probably a lot more to be added.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seanpit" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 08:39:01 AM |
|
|
There's a difference between faith that is based on evidence and blind
faith. The definition of "faith" does not require a complete lack of
evidence. That's nonsense. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."
Scientists do this all the time - believing in many things that they
have never actually seen. Even Christ pointed to his own miracles and
to the fulfilment of various prophecies as evidence of who he was. He
did not ask for blind faith. He gave evidence as a basis for faith to
believe in what he said.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
24 Dec 2005 11:26:27 AM |
|
|
"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1135435141.791773.86550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There's a difference between faith that is based on evidence and blind
faith. The definition of "faith" does not require a complete lack of
evidence. That's nonsense. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."
Scientists do this all the time - believing in many things that they
have never actually seen. Even Christ pointed to his own miracles and
to the fulfilment of various prophecies as evidence of who he was. He
did not ask for blind faith. He gave evidence as a basis for faith to
believe in what he said.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
My evidence causes me to believe that you are wrong. So when I momentarily
forget why, I have faith that you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seanpit" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
04 Jan 2006 10:07:29 AM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1135435141.791773.86550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There's a difference between faith that is based on evidence and blind
faith. The definition of "faith" does not require a complete lack of
evidence. That's nonsense. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."
Scientists do this all the time - believing in many things that they
have never actually seen. Even Christ pointed to his own miracles and
to the fulfilment of various prophecies as evidence of who he was. He
did not ask for blind faith. He gave evidence as a basis for faith to
believe in what he said.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
My evidence causes me to believe that you are wrong. So when I momentarily
forget why, I have faith that you are wrong.
Yes, but your faith is a blind faith - mine isn't . . . ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
05 Jan 2006 12:08:36 AM |
|
|
"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1136390849.016601.71930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ike wrote:
"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1135435141.791773.86550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There's a difference between faith that is based on evidence and blind
faith. The definition of "faith" does not require a complete lack of
evidence. That's nonsense. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."
Scientists do this all the time - believing in many things that they
have never actually seen. Even Christ pointed to his own miracles and
to the fulfilment of various prophecies as evidence of who he was. He
did not ask for blind faith. He gave evidence as a basis for faith to
believe in what he said.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
My evidence causes me to believe that you are wrong. So when I
momentarily
forget why, I have faith that you are wrong.
Yes, but your faith is a blind faith - mine isn't . . . ; )
My faith that you are wrong is based on evidence. That evidence leads me to
have faith the=at you are wrong. that way I don't have to keep looking for
eveidence every time you say something illogical, like miracles. I just
remember that you are crazy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 03:59:29 PM |
|
|
On 24 Dec 2005 06:39:01 -0800, "Seanpit"
<seanpitnospam@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
There's a difference between faith that is based on evidence and blind
faith. The definition of "faith" does not require a complete lack of
evidence. That's nonsense. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."
Scientists do this all the time - believing in many things that they
have never actually seen.
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
spare me the bitching. spare me the ignorant arrogance of the
fundie...whether muslim or xtian...that says 'we will teach you
scientists how to do science so it doesn't offend me'.
if you're offended by science, it's time for you to give up your
religion. dont rely on me to hold your hand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
29 Dec 2005 04:09:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
04 Jan 2006 08:59:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:09:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
wf3hnew@comcast.net wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Bob Kolker
why is this a belief rather than an expectation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
04 Jan 2006 09:15:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:09:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
wf3hnew@comcast.net wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Bob Kolker
why is this a belief rather than an expectation?
Technically an expectation is a belief, based upon prior knowledge and an
assessment of the present likelihood. It's hard to see how one might assess
the likelihood that there is a real world, based simply on past knowledge and
experiences. After all, if there isn't, then the past knowledge and
experiences are equally likely as if there is, in the absence of some contrary
reason.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
04 Jan 2006 10:03:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:15:58 +1000, John Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au>
wrote:
wf3h@comcast.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:09:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
wf3hnew@comcast.net wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Bob Kolker
why is this a belief rather than an expectation?
Technically an expectation is a belief, based upon prior knowledge and an
assessment of the present likelihood. It's hard to see how one might assess
the likelihood that there is a real world, based simply on past knowledge and
experiences. After all, if there isn't, then the past knowledge and
experiences are equally likely as if there is, in the absence of some contrary
reason.
Which is why there are better words to use that carry the differences
in meaning. And why dishonest fundamentalists replace the better words
to reduce everything to belief - their kind of belief in order to
equivocate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
04 Jan 2006 10:08:33 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:15:58 +1000, John Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au>
wrote:
wf3h@comcast.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:09:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
wf3hnew@comcast.net wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Bob Kolker
why is this a belief rather than an expectation?
Technically an expectation is a belief, based upon prior knowledge and an
assessment of the present likelihood. It's hard to see how one might assess
the likelihood that there is a real world, based simply on past knowledge and
experiences. After all, if there isn't, then the past knowledge and
experiences are equally likely as if there is, in the absence of some contrary
reason.
Which is why there are better words to use that carry the differences
in meaning. And why dishonest fundamentalists replace the better words
to reduce everything to belief - their kind of belief in order to
equivocate.
I think they reduce everything to *faith*. Belief is a part of cognition and
delusion alike.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
30 Dec 2005 12:10:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:09:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
wf3hnew@comcast.net wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Why call that a belief? I doubt they even give something as silly as
that a thought.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seanpit" |
|
| Title: Re: A Design That's Anti-Faith |
04 Jan 2006 10:32:03 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:09:00 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
wf3hnew@comcast.net wrote:
oh brother what ignorant crap. 'scientists do this all the time' he
whines like a petulant schoolboy.
the difference is that SCIENCE WORKS. religion, whatever its virtues,
is NOT science, nor is it scientific,no matter what the xtian savage
fundie caveman mentality thinks.
While the scientific approach works, not all theories do. Eliminating
broken theories is part of the scientific modality. I will tell one
thing scientists (and others) do all the time: they believe that there
is a world outside of our skins and that our perceptions are not
hallucinations.
Why call that a belief? I doubt they even give something as silly as
that a thought.
Any notion of "truth" about the universe outside the mind is dependent
upon the scientific method for its support. There simply is no other
way to discover useful information about the workings of the external
world without some way of forming hypotheses and then testing those
hypotheses in a falsifiable manner. Even animals are capable of doing
this sort of scientific investigation.
Therefore, whenever a religion proposes a "truth" that exists outside
the mind, like the existence of an external God who created the
external universe and the world around each one of us, that statement
is meaningless without testable support. "Faith" in such statements
about external "truths" is worthless without testable support.
However, if the testable support is there, then "faith" in such
statements is actually based on scientific method - i.e., it becomes a
scientific "faith" just like when a scientist says that atoms are
composed of various subatomic particles that can never be seen. It is
very much like Christ pointed out when he told Nicodemus that the
workings of an invisible God were much like the wind as it moves the
leaves on the trees. One can recognize the existence of the invisible
by the effect on the visible - kinda like the theory of "dark matter".
God does not ask for blind faith in his existence or his attributes.
He asks for faith based on the abundant evidence that he has provided.
It is just that some will not believe regardless of the mountains of
evidence provided - "They will not be convinced even if someone rises
from the dead."
Bob Kolker
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
