Religions > Atheism > Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"finch" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2007 04:33:27 AM |
| Object: |
Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control? |
Briefly:
Hume looks round and sees the great bulk of the population
underprivileged, but a tiny happy few highly privileged. How does
this come about? Why do not the bulk of the population use their
majority to pull down the few? It is especially odd as the many
often
seem to damage their own interests in the service of the few's
interests - like worker ants perhaps.
He is not apalled by it, he simply wants to know how it is done.
Hume concludes that the few control who occupies the pulpit. The
fellow in the pulpit says 'You've got to agree with us; this isn't
merely our opinion; this is the word of God.' But it isn't - it's
the
word of the priveliged few falsely attributed to God.
I thought the big quote was 'Lying from the pulpit.' But can not
find
same.
Thus the great bulk say: 'It must be true, you cannot gainsay God.'
Which is perfectly reasonable.
It's important to me to know whose argument this is; anybody know?
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control? |
08 Dec 2007 01:20:33 AM |
|
|
"finch" <jamesfinch@bestiaryofthepit.mediamonitors.org> wrote in message
news:0fe48016-65b5-4ea6-bf1f-a627e0729a29@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Briefly:
Hume looks round and sees the great bulk of the population
underprivileged, but a tiny happy few highly privileged. How does
this come about? Why do not the bulk of the population use their
majority to pull down the few? It is especially odd as the many
often
seem to damage their own interests in the service of the few's
interests - like worker ants perhaps.
He is not apalled by it, he simply wants to know how it is done.
Hume concludes that the few control who occupies the pulpit. The
fellow in the pulpit says 'You've got to agree with us; this isn't
merely our opinion; this is the word of God.' But it isn't - it's
the
word of the priveliged few falsely attributed to God.
I thought the big quote was 'Lying from the pulpit.' But can not
find
same.
Thus the great bulk say: 'It must be true, you cannot gainsay God.'
Which is perfectly reasonable.
It's important to me to know whose argument this is; anybody know?
Debbie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control? |
08 Dec 2007 03:47:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:20:33 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"finch" <jamesfinch@bestiaryofthepit.mediamonitors.org> wrote in message
news:0fe48016-65b5-4ea6-bf1f-a627e0729a29@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Briefly:
Hume looks round and sees the great bulk of the population
underprivileged, but a tiny happy few highly privileged. How does
this come about? Why do not the bulk of the population use their
majority to pull down the few? It is especially odd as the many
often
seem to damage their own interests in the service of the few's
interests - like worker ants perhaps.
He is not apalled by it, he simply wants to know how it is done.
Hume concludes that the few control who occupies the pulpit. The
fellow in the pulpit says 'You've got to agree with us; this isn't
merely our opinion; this is the word of God.' But it isn't - it's
the
word of the priveliged few falsely attributed to God.
I thought the big quote was 'Lying from the pulpit.' But can not
find
same.
Thus the great bulk say: 'It must be true, you cannot gainsay God.'
Which is perfectly reasonable.
It's important to me to know whose argument this is; anybody know?
Debbie?
Dallas?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control? |
08 Dec 2007 05:44:14 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:t1qkl3h5gmfbfoh9fhhrrv8ipa2ugjqqks@4ax.com...
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:20:33 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"finch" <jamesfinch@bestiaryofthepit.mediamonitors.org> wrote in message
news:0fe48016-65b5-4ea6-bf1f-a627e0729a29@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Briefly:
Hume looks round and sees the great bulk of the population
underprivileged, but a tiny happy few highly privileged. How does
this come about? Why do not the bulk of the population use their
majority to pull down the few? It is especially odd as the many
often
seem to damage their own interests in the service of the few's
interests - like worker ants perhaps.
He is not apalled by it, he simply wants to know how it is done.
Hume concludes that the few control who occupies the pulpit. The
fellow in the pulpit says 'You've got to agree with us; this isn't
merely our opinion; this is the word of God.' But it isn't - it's
the
word of the priveliged few falsely attributed to God.
I thought the big quote was 'Lying from the pulpit.' But can not
find
same.
Thus the great bulk say: 'It must be true, you cannot gainsay God.'
Which is perfectly reasonable.
It's important to me to know whose argument this is; anybody know?
Debbie?
Dallas?
No, I have a friend named Debbie who uses 'finch' as
her pseudonym. I was wondering if she was visiting
alt.atheism out of curiosity. Guess not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control? |
08 Dec 2007 09:35:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:44:14 -0500, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
Debbie?
Dallas?
No, I have a friend named Debbie who uses 'finch' as
her pseudonym. I was wondering if she was visiting
alt.atheism out of curiosity. Guess not.
Piffle--and here I was, ready to watch.
WOA (Wicked Old Atheist) #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man,
what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control? |
07 Dec 2007 05:20:56 AM |
|
|
finch <jamesfinch@bestiaryofthepit.mediamonitors.org> wrote in
news:0fe48016-65b5-4ea6-bf1f-a627e0729a29@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com to
alt.atheism:
Briefly:
Hume looks round and sees the great bulk of the population
underprivileged, but a tiny happy few highly privileged. How does
this come about? Why do not the bulk of the population use their
majority to pull down the few? It is especially odd as the many
often
seem to damage their own interests in the service of the few's
interests - like worker ants perhaps.
He is not apalled by it, he simply wants to know how it is done.
Hume concludes that the few control who occupies the pulpit. The
fellow in the pulpit says 'You've got to agree with us; this isn't
merely our opinion; this is the word of God.' But it isn't - it's
the
word of the priveliged few falsely attributed to God.
I thought the big quote was 'Lying from the pulpit.' But can not
find
same.
Thus the great bulk say: 'It must be true, you cannot gainsay God.'
Which is perfectly reasonable.
It's important to me to know whose argument this is; anybody know?
It's important for you to realise that the invention of God was for the
very same purpose as the things attributed to him, which is precisely to
ensure that the few control the many. The many acquiesce in it because
they have no power except through discovering the reasons for the few's
dependency on their acquiescence. Religion is part of the means by which
the tools that facilitate that discovery are denied them.
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Awphucket
And now, today's sponsor message:
For the beluga caviar of stupidity, it's got to be...
Brian Carey.
Available in a newsgroup near you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
