I don't see how my post was "arrogant." Even if it was, that fact has literally nothing to do with whether or not my claim is true. Do you actually have a counter argument to what I wrote?

Further, if people are just highly evolved pond scum, what's wrong with arrogance? I think arrogance is wrong because people are made in the image of God, and we are disrespecting others when we exhibit arrogance.

I would enjoy a THOUGHTFUL reply from you on the matter.

Have a good day!

In my opinion, concentrated, "centralized" power in ANY institution is generally bad.

Big Government, Big Church and Big Corporations, et.al. usually do more harm than good.

Once the United States implemented the Income Tax, the capacity to wage perpetual war became possible, for example. The Income Tax Amendment passed in part because its proponents argued that very few citizens would be subject to it, and those that did have to pay Income Tax would only pay a few percent of their income.

Before that, the Federal Government was primarily funded by tariffs.

Isn't the Bible chock-full of kings?

Yes. But they weren't ruling over 275 million people and spending trillions of dollars on a war machine. In terms of population,the whole nation of Israel was smaller than many of the big cities we have now in the United States.

L.A.'s Mayor Garcetti probably "rules" over more people than King David did in Israel.

Edit: And under the bad kings, Israel suffered greatly.

Seems a problem for God as a single centralised power. He did go through a brief period of devolution but they're back together now.

it would have to be considered trolling or just a blatant lie at this point.

I have addressed this 'claim' by him multiple times and he never defends it.

He instead finds a reason to beg out of the discussion, only to come back and repeat the claim as if a given or true time and time and time again.



it is easy to counter. I have replied thoughtfully to it each and every time and you have never given a thoughtful reply back.

If you want to get into a thoughtful reply exchange, based on the idea that somehow 'faith' or 'religion' is some type of moral governor that within society adds more protection for citizens against bad people or deeds, ...some type of stronger protection against moral decay, ... then lets use the real world example of Donald Trump as our base or any person X we might assume has a lack of morality, and ambitions to subvert and destroy American democracy.

The way I see it, if there were only more Evangelicals in key voting districts we would have Donald Trump as POTUS again and potential ruler for life. The less evangelicals in the population the less chance of getting a Trump or a worse Trump in the future.

The less chance they find a significant group, easy buyable and willing to put all other morals aside.

Discuss?

Have you not made it past book 1 of the Bible? Cuz warmongering autocrats are portrayed in a very positive light.

Apologies if I’m spoilering the Old Testament for any of you.

I wouldn't go as far as saying "the exact opposite." More that there's really no difference between atheists and theists when it comes to obeying or adhering to a moral code or widely and accepted agreed upon values. But that's side-stepping the real issue, which is how our moral values are derived in the first place. For example take equality. How in the world could one derive 'human' equality from the premises and principles of naturalism?

I think Nietzsche was correct in arguing that once God (or some other higher or transcendent order re other religions) is gone so too is our moral ground. Without some sort of metaphysical grounding, we could essentially all agree that Nietzsche's moral values are good. All except theists because they're pretty much stuck with the Commandments.

Yes the concept of the ubermensch hasn't produced any problematic behavior.

I hear God chose a special race of people who where better than the rest and luckily for the people of Judea at the time, it just happened to be them.

They were a lucky bunch. I mean, what were the odds of that ?

I disagree with this generally.

The reason is not because atheists are morally superior but there tends not to be the common thread to unite them into a base by which a despotic leader can then carry out his despotic agenda.

The 'belief system' of religion is easily exploitable. I think only race based exploitation to rally a significant group of 'others' compares. And thus why Trump went after both of those two baskets.


Yu would be far more likely to get a fractured and smaller amount of adherents and more dissent amongst atheists and that is a good thing.


I absolutely think Trump has exposed a road map in the US but also around the world that has a shrinking window.

That road map is that you can be your absolute worst self as a leader, as despotic as you want, and not have to hide that or deny that like leaders past and still win and be given supreme powers if you focus on the 'Religious' and 'Racist/Xenophobic' voters.

I think it is a genuine risk we see playing out right now and many countries may fall to it.

The higher the concentration of religious people and the more fundamentalist they are, the better chance for you to succeed. They, along with racist/xenophobe voters DO pose the biggest risk to democracy and maintaining a moral society currently.

But pretty much all of human history confirms the latter view. Morality has changed drastically in the last 1000 years whether you say you believe in god or are a christian, muslim hindu or not. If exactly one of those religions has access to some universal sense of right and wrong, they've done an amazing job of mucking it up so badly their history and behavior is indistinguishable from ideologies we all agree are completely man made and fallible.

I mean, does anyone see my above post as hyperbolic who can suggest an easier, better, more predictable path for a despot to follow to achieve and hold power?

I am happy to reconsider but i don't see it.

Well, you're certainly correct.

I think there are plenty of other ways for a despot to get power too, identity politics for example. But religion and nationalism are probably the two easiest.

I think the old USSR did a good job making the state a religion too.

Despots gonna despot.

History is replete with instances and examples to support either side of the debate. But again, what is or what has been or what could be really isn't the point. The point is how are those values derived and grounded. Other than intellect or sentiment - both of which could be mere evolutionary adaptions - what can a naturalist or secularist appeal to for justification?


Nah. Neoliberalism poses the biggest risk to democracy. It's not even close, imo. Actually that should be the other way around since the neoliberal order is already established and democracy is the interloper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolib...elerin_Society

I am open to an argument here so I ask you to be specific.

You are Politician X TODAY. You are a pretty heinous person with clear despotic ambitiions and you wear them on your sleeve. You want power and are targeting the POTUS office.

To make it easier you can cite the # of the question below and start replying via bullet point without having to copy or segregate:

1 : What is your 'Elevator Pitch' argument that you think UNITES those who you see as neoliberal supporters?
2 : Do you think this 'neoliberal' support base exists ALL/Largely in one easily identifiable place (all in Dem Party or GOP or other?) or would this be an attempt to pull them all together

And this is the big one,

3 : This clearly Despotic person (as per my hypothetical) is very much a pretty clear threat to any promise of 'neoliberalism' they might OFFER to get elected as despots don't like 'free' anything. So how do you think this 'clearly despotic person' can sell that?





-----------

IF it helps here is me answering those questions for someone in the Trump mold who is far worse and does not even hide his Despotic end game.

1 :

- We will go to war against nationwide until its abolished (targets Religious)
- We will never yield any support or any action that weakens our support for the coming rapture (targets religious)
- We will Make America Great Again by protecting all the levers of historical power and not allow non-true-american's to subvert or change our great country. We will send them back to their homes before allowing that (targets racists and xenophobes)


2 : Yes. Very identifiable and easy to target places

3 : NO issue. Giving on these would not be seen as in any conflicting with the Despotic power grab. So BOTH the despot and these groups can get what they want or at least have good reason to believe they will.

I have excised this from CRT, locked this thread and am sending it to RGT, mods there can decide if they want to re-open.

Strong adamant Atheism is a religion for losers. Same with "woke" culture.