I’m not willing to discuss religious conspiracy theories - flagged. — I like sushi

A few questions for you:

1) What religious conspiracy theories are you referring to?
2) Why do you feel the need to flag something you're not willing to discuss?
3) Do you feel that censoring things we're not willing to discuss has a positive impact on society?
4) What would you say is the underlying reason why capitalism, socialism, and anarchy do not work?
5) Do you think that your post is philosophically relevant?

Gosh, I love what you have said, and I will stick to the problem of overpopulation because of what this does to how we behave and experience life. In small numbers, everything is managed on a personal level, The rules are informal and 100% managed with social pressure. The word civilization means city life and that is a large number of people organized by formal laws. In the city and with laws, life is impersonal. We can look away from the starving mother and child, and go about our lives as though they don't exist. The rich have a reality totally different from the dirty masses, and they come to believe their difference means they are superior and they are more deserving. I am sorry to say, but Christianity reinforced this division of people and slavery. Jesus would be so hurt by today's reality and how good Christians believe they are doing very well, but "those people", the dirty masses are unworthy. — Athena

Certainly overpopulation is problematic, however I think it would be wrong to see it as the root cause of the division and indifference you're mentioning. If the dynamic of the society isn't healthy at its core, then overpopulation only exacerbates the problem, but it would be misguided to think that if there were many less people we would suddenly all be nicer to each other. You can have a few people oppressed by a tyrant, it doesn't take many people to be divided. There are people who willfully hurt others, they aren't indifferent but they aren't nice either.

I agree that religions have been used as a tool for evil purposes by some people, but pretty much anything can be and has been used as a tool for evil purposes.

Oh my, I am a Senior Companion. That means for $2.65 an hour, I pick up an older person and take this person shopping or to doctor appointments, or to a nutrition site for lunch. The idea is to keep them engaged with the larger community, independent and happy. It is very difficult for me when these very sweet people, often Christians, point at the homeless people we pass and say unpleasant things about "those people". I tried to get them to stop that or to see it differently without offending them. — Athena

I'm not sure if you got the idea that I'm a Christian, I do not follow any organized religion in particular, and I wouldn't say that all Christians only spread love and kindness, it seems to me you yourself spread more of it than the people you mention.

Well, it will be interesting to see how they react to me being homeless. I am not sure how well I will be able to be "professional" when I no longer have a home to come to and feel like a human being, instead of like a wounded animal in danger. :wink: — Athena

It saddens me that you are going to be in this situation. Overpopulation or not there is no excuse for people to be indifferent or to exploit others. It seems obvious to me that if everyone cared for one another homelessness wouldn't be a thing, except for those who want it. And I see how most people walking by the homeless ignore them, just focusing on themselves and often on petty pursuits. But then again many people live a difficult life, for various reasons. I mentioned evil as the root cause, apparently that word is taboo for some here, however you wouldn't be in this situation if there were only loving and caring people, and I don't think it's controversial to point out that there are plenty of desires and beliefs that contribute to spreading suffering.

I really hope things will get better for you, is there really no one you know that can let you stay at their place?

But coercion is never the solution, coercion is what got us there in the first place. — leo

Coercion has to be acceptable in order to prevent coercion otherwise there would be unrestrained violence (e.g. we need to be able to use force as necessary to stop people from murdering, for an obvious example). But yeah, the ultimate goal is to de-escalate and minimize coercion, so if there are non-coercive solutions those are preferable.

The wealthy won’t let themselves be coerced into distributing their wealth. — leo

That's like saying that the mighty won't stand for anyone else to gain any strength. And it's true they'll usually try not to, but that doesn't mean we have to just let them get away with it, and oughtn't fight back.

fighting fire with fire doesn’t stop fire. — leo

Literally speaking, it actually does. That's why that's an idiom: backfires are a firefighting technique used by real firefighters, and (speaking as someone living in the only unburned area in the middle of the footprint of the largest fire in California history) they work.

And when there is a revolution through force, fundamentally things don’t change. New people get in power, and those in power are more easily corrupted, often they start feeling like they deserve to be there because they fought for it, and then they start feeling superior to others, and so on and a similar system gets perpetuated only with new individuals at the top. — leo

I agree with this, and that's why I don't advocate a total revolution, but a careful evolution of what we've got toward what we should have.

As for the rest of your post and the followups with others, setting aside the religious aspects of it, I also agree that the ultimate solution has to be a reform of the people themselves and their sense of morality and justice. Governments are a reflection of the people who make them up, and the only way to get better governments is to have more and better people with more power and the initiative to use it. Even an absolute monarch or dictator only has that power because people allow him to: if few enough supported him and enough opposed him, he would be powerless. So the ultimate solution is to ensure that people support good things and oppose bad things. But that starts with figuring out what's good and bad in the first place, what we should support and what we should oppose.

People like you are making this a wonderful experience! — Athena

I'm glad to hear that. :-)

I grew up in California and I thank God I do not live there. How can you live there and doubt the problem is overpopulation? — Athena

Because there are more unoccupied homes than there are homeless people, and still tons and tons of undeveloped land. I live in a place with mixed suburbs, rural orchards and ranches, national forests and other nature preserves, and so on, and it's still ridiculously expensive to live out here on the edge of nowhere... and there's always lots of fabulous houses for sale, and lots of people living in trailers and sharing run-down slums because nobody from here (like me) can afford the real houses, it's just rich people from elsewhere who want to live close to nature and so jack up the prices and stall any further affordable development to keep their property values high.

It's not a matter of there not being enough resources to support this many people, it's a matter of the resources being artificially restricted by systemic factors so that the people who control them gain more wealth and power, at the expense of a whole lot of other people that they couldn't care less about.

Mind you, I do think that overpopulation exacerbates the problem, and in places where nobody wants to live (which are subsequently sparsely populated) you don't see these problems because there is so much unwanted excess. And there certainly is some point where the world can't support any more people. But we're not there yet.

And once again, best of luck with your troubles to come.

1) What religious conspiracy theories are you referring to? — leo

I would guess it was the part about powerful leaders of foreign countries worshiping evil deities. That sounded a little weird to me too.

If we do not have rich people who can invest in our capitalist system, we sure as blazes will not have a high standard of living with all our technology and wonderful hospitals. — Athena

If we do not have the riches, we will not have those things, but we don't need those riches to be in the hands of just a few people. And economically speaking, "trickle down" is pretty much conclusively disproven. Economic activity is driven from the bottom up: poor people spend more of their incomes than rich people, so if you put money into the hands of the poor, it will immediately be spent on whatever they actually need, funneling that money into businesses generating actual value for actual people (who will then hire more people to meet that increased demand and so on). If you put that money instead into the hands of the rich, who already have everything they need, they will "invest" it meaning lend it out to or buy stock in whatever businesses they bet will be able to pay them back the most money. Rich people gambling on who they think will make good returns for them is a less efficient allocation of resources than poor people directly paying the businesses that provide goods and services people actually need. That's the efficiency of the free market right there.

Rich people generally don't horde their money per se any more, if you mean that to be contrary to investment, because inflation means uninvested money loses value over time. People with enough money that they're not going to need any time soon generally store it in investments that generate some kind of return that at least compensates for the loss due to inflation, if not to generate even further profits on top of that. Inflation is purposefully created by the government specifically for this reason, to keep money from being horded and put it back into the economy again.

But yeah, lots of individuals investing the same money still achieves the same investment results, the proceeds from that just get paid out to more people. I'm not at all against investing in the sense of owning stock, which is fundamentally different from lending or renting. In my ideal world, everyone would have a small diversified investment portfolio about equal in total value to an owner-operated small business, which would financially be like a world where everyone is their own boss (runs their own small business), except we could still have the efficiency of big organized businesses, and our risks would be spread out among each other instead of each of us sinking or swimming on our own. There just wouldn't be one class of people who own everything and don't have to work, and another class of people who do all the work because they don't own anything.

Economic activity is driven from the bottom up: poor people spend more of their incomes than rich people, so if you put money into the hands of the poor, it will immediately be spent on whatever they actually need, funneling that money into businesses generating actual value for actual people (who will then hire more people to meet that increased demand and so on). If you put that money instead into the hands of the rich, who already have everything they need, they will "invest" it meaning lend it out to or buy stock in whatever businesses they bet will be able to pay them back the most money. Rich people gambling on who they think will make good returns for them is a less efficient allocation of resources than poor people directly paying the businesses that provide goods and services people actually need.

I feel like you've almost got it here. Yes, the poor will spend more and the rich will tend to invest it. However, the poor won't just spend the money on things that they need... they'll just spend it. Maybe they buy a luxury vehicle. Sure, it feeds the economy but are they really better off? Cars and clothes depreciate quickly. I feel like you're so close to being right here. Many of the rich are rich because they invest.

It's funny, and I know we're veering off more into sociology now, but I'm someone from a UMC background who works with mostly lower middle class or people from poor backgrounds. It's just a very, very different mentality about money. I'm not making a value judgment here, but the poor tend to be more concerned about acquiring status items/symbols or material possessions or possibly being able to present as wealthy or at least owning X possession. I can't say I blame them given their background/upbringing.

The lender is taking a risk with the borrower — BitconnectCarlos

The borrower is also taking a risk, many times a greater risk. If you take out a mortgage to buy a house, and the market changes, or you lose your job, or have to move, or any other risks, you can end up losing all of the money you put into that effort... and the bank still has a house. Risk is real, but it goes both ways, and doesn't entitle the lender to more than it entitles the borrower to. The lender just has the leverage to force the borrower to cover their (the lender's) risk, because the lender has something the borrower needs.

The landlord needs to worry about constant upkeep and the highs and lows of the real estate market. — BitconnectCarlos

They would need to worry about that if it was their own home too. None of that is the renter's fault, so why should they pay for it? (Yes, renters can damage homes, but landlords can charge the renters for such damage. They only cover the upkeep that they would need to cover anyway, which is just to maintain the value of their own property, not out of some kind of generosity to their tenants).

I don't know about you, but I would never want to live in a world where the ultimate determinant to making wealth was how many hours you worked. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't say the number of hours. Working smarter instead of harder is still a valuable thing, and that's the thing that has really advanced humanity's standards of living over the centuries. But Bill Gates didn't work millions of times smarter or harder than the average American.

It would be like slavery. Investment helps you escape this. — BitconnectCarlos

I almost don't know how to respond to this, I'm so flabbergasted. This sounds to me like a feudal lord saying "I would never want to live in a world where how much you eat depended on how much you farmed! It would be like slavery! Having serfs helps you escape this." But having serfs is like being a slave master. You sound like you're saying a world where you can't be a slave master would be like slavery.

Having to work to support yourself is the natural state of being for all creatures. And it sucks, yeah. There are two ways to reduce the work needed to support a given quality of life: technological improvements, working smarter instead of harder; and coercing other people into doing your work for you. The first of those is the legitimate way to escape from having to work so hard. The second is basically slavery.

I don't know what you're going to think of this, but those who don't work don't necessarily deserve to be poor and those who do work long hours don't necessarily deserve to be rich. Would you agree? — BitconnectCarlos

Nobody deserves to be poor. If we could effortlessly make everybody rich then we should. But it's not effortless. The question is how to distribute that effort and the rewards it pays off. And while I wouldn't blanketly say that those who put in the most effort deserve the most reward (not just because of the smarter-not-harder factor, but also because e.g. disabled people who just can't put in such effort still deserve a good quality of life, and other chance circumstances need to be accounted for too), it definitely is not the case that those who already have more deserve to get more reward for less effort, which is what capitalism gives them.

Deserve" has a place when it comes to morality and justice, but we need to be very careful with it when it comes to economic status. — BitconnectCarlos

Economics, and politics, are closely related to morality and justice. They're all about value of some kind. (It was actually my childhood interest in politics and economics that lead me into ethics to begin with). And general principles of morality and justice apply just as much to economic and political activity as they do to any other aspect of life.

However, the poor won't just spend the money on things that they need... they'll just spend it. — BitconnectCarlos

They'll spend it on whatever they think is most worth the money, whatever their highest priority is, whatever gives them the most value in their lives in exchange for it. Who are we to tell them that what they value is wrong?

(Mind you, having babysat my poor mother's financial life for years now, I have strong feelings similar to yours that some people just don't realize what's really going to be of most long-term value to them, but I only cared about that when it meant that she was going to be nagging me for money to cover her necessities when she blew what she already got on luxuries. But now that I've made it clear that I'm not going to do that, that she has to decide whether she wants a shiny bauble now or to still have food at the end of the month, she gets that the consequences of her spending habits are up to her, and if she wants to make that sacrifice she can and I'm not going to tell her no, she can learn that lesson herself).

They'll spend it on whatever they think is most worth the money, whatever their highest priority is, whatever gives them the most value in their lives in exchange for it. Who are we to tell them that what they value is wrong?

I'm not going to tell them that; I'm not their parent. However, from an economic standpoint - since we're talking about economics - clearly a reality exists there.

This is a topic that I see almost every day. It's a military meme (and it has been for decades) that you have lower enlisted (typically those from the lower middle/poor sectors) driving around in these 40k trucks or camaros or whatever. And sure enough, a couple of months ago one of my good friends/co-workers who grew up in section 8 housing went out and bought a 40-50k audi. Obviously, I wasn't going to step in and parent him. We're the same age. But whenever these discussions arise between how these wealth disparities could exist and how the wealthy horde all these investments, etc. these stories do pop into my head.

I would never in a millions years do what he did. I drive a toyota corolla. As much as you might speak down to investing it is part of the road to wealth and financial independence. Again, on a social level, not my job to shame him.

As much as you might speak down to investing it is part of the road to wealth and financial independence. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't speak down to investing across the board. I have investments myself, and a few posts above I described my ideal world and how investments fit into it. I'm against rent and interest, and against a tiny fraction of the population holding most of the wealth (which they are of course investing, as anyone with wealth to spare would). I want to see that wealth more spread out and more people owning smaller investments and gaining financial independence. And what is "financial independence" if not freedom from debt and rent, not owing anybody anything just to keep what you already have, only needing to pay (and work to earn that pay) if you want something more? The world I want is a world where everybody has that, and where it's not a nigh-impossible lifelong struggle to achieve it.

Coercion has to be acceptable in order to prevent coercion otherwise there would be unrestrained violence (e.g. we need to be able to use force as necessary to stop people from murdering, for an obvious example). But yeah, the ultimate goal is to de-escalate and minimize coercion, so if there are non-coercive solutions those are preferable. — Pfhorrest

Attacking someone is coercion, protecting someone isn’t. Regarding your example, people attempt to murder for various reasons, they usually do not wake up one day and randomly decide to kill some random person, understanding the reasons can help de-escalate a situation without having to physically hurt anyone. In extreme cases it can be necessary to physically restrain someone, but even then to prevent it from happening again there are better ways than locking up the person for many years.

Anyway that’s not what I was referring to, I was referring to the fact that often the same people who are coerced by capitalism want to coerce others through socialism, that won’t solve the underlying issue.

That's like saying that the mighty won't stand for anyone else to gain any strength. And it's true they'll usually try not to, but that doesn't mean we have to just let them get away with it, and oughtn't fight back. — Pfhorrest

In the rest of my post I specifically said we don’t have to accept this state of affairs, that we can change things, but not by fighting back with the same weapons that they use, that ultimately won’t work.

Literally speaking, it actually does. That's why that's an idiom: backfires are a firefighting technique used by real firefighters, and (speaking as someone living in the only unburned area in the middle of the footprint of the largest fire in California history) they work. — Pfhorrest

Come on that was a metaphor, if you add fire to a fire it doesn’t stop the fire, the technique you mention is not at all a suitable analogy, we can go into that if you want but that would probably be a waste of time for both of us, why are you focusing on these superficialities?

Wealthy people coerce others to work for them. If you coerce wealthy people so that they redistribute their wealth, now they are coerced too. Or as another example, if there is a revolution and the oppressor becomes the oppressed, well there is still oppression occurring, the underlying issue isn’t solved, only the new oppressors have the illusion that it has been solved. Or if someone hates you and you hate them in return, that doesn’t de-escalate anything. That’s the kind of examples I was getting at.

So the ultimate solution is to ensure that people support good things and oppose bad things. But that starts with figuring out what's good and bad in the first place, what we should support and what we should oppose. — Pfhorrest

Indeed, or in other words figure out what are the things that lead to peace, harmony, happiness, and what are the things that lead to conflict, division, suffering. Which I call good and evil.

And what is "financial independence" if not freedom from debt and rent, not owing anybody anything just to keep what you already have, only needing to pay (and work to earn that pay) if you want something more?

Alright, lets imagine a family here with a few kids. Lets say they own their home and car outright - no debt, but also no investments and the parents (or parent) work low-end jobs which they don't really like.and can't really get another job. Just because you have no debt doesn't mean you don't have expenses. You still need to pay for food, clothing, cell phones, insurance, etc. - and sure, lets say they can cover these bills but they don't have much left over every month.

Would you call these people financially independent? They work for what they have and they owe nobody.

Additionally, would you call someone with $10M in assets and 500k annual income who rents a $1500/month apartment and has $1000 left on his car debt in a financially worse place than the aforementioned family? Who do you think is in the better situation here?

EDIT: To clarify, the 500k income is from passive investments not from working a job he hates. It is from multiple streams of income.

Would you call these people financially independent? They work for what they have and they owe nobody. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep. I live a very comfortable life that I could afford on a minimum wage job if it weren't for having to pay rent and save like a mofo in the hopes of some day being able to afford stop paying rent. Getting by when you don't owe anything besides to pay for your ongoing consumption is pretty easy, and it is a lifelong uphill struggle just to get to that point. People already at that point young in their lives don't know how good they have it.

Additionally, would you call someone with $10M in assets and 500k annual income who rents a $1500/month apartment and has $1000 left on his car debt in a financially worse place than the aforementioned family? Who do you think is in the better situation here?

EDIT: To clarify, the 500k income is from passive investments not from working a job he hates. It is from multiple streams of income. — BitconnectCarlos

That person is financially better than the aforementioned family because not only does he not owe anyone anything, they owe him, on balance. Yeah he's renting an apartment and borrowing for his car but he's getting way more income from other people paying him rent and interest than he's paying out on it, and at any time he would pay off the car and buy out his (or an equivalent) apartment and still have loads of money that other people are paying him to borrow, so he's not stuck owing anyone rent or interest, he's just (for some reason) choosing to pay it when he has the easy option to not do so without losing anything.

We're almost in agreement! We're like 80% of the way there.

That person is financially better than the aforementioned family because not only does he not owe anyone anything, they owe him, on balance. Yeah he's renting an apartment and borrowing for his car but he's getting way more income from other people paying him rent and interest than he's paying out on it, and at any time he would pay off the car and buy out his (or an equivalent) apartment and still have loads of money that other people are paying him to borrow, so he's not stuck owing anyone rent or interest, he's just (for some reason) choosing to pay it when he has the easy option to not do so without losing anything.

100% agree. $1k of debt with those types of assets and income just isn't meaningful. Keep in mind there are certain advantages to renting: This person can pick up and leave and travel where ever he wants without needing to worry about taking care of the house or mortgage payments. Renting can be very flexible.

Getting by when you don't owe anything besides to pay for your ongoing consumption is pretty easy, and it is a lifelong uphill struggle just to get to that point. People already at that point young in their lives don't know how good they have it.

I feel like you're not considering the quality of life factors and potential power imbalances that come from working a minimum wage job. Keep in mind, if our provider from this family is fired then this family is in serious trouble. They have no investments. Maybe they have some savings but those could go quick in prolonged unemployment especially with children to take care of.

I'm someone who has worked in a factory earning roughly minimum wage where I wasn't allowed to sit down. I'm not entirely sure why this rule was in place; it just was. Similarly, this family (or just our one provider) could be subject to arbitrary rules or a nasty boss who unfortunately holds this economic power over him. When you're living paycheck to paycheck your options to fight back are limited. I'm surprised you're not more critical of workplace hierarchies. Maybe I'm the real socialist here?

I am critical of those workplace hierarchies, but they're a different topic than this question of financial independence. If there are other factors keeping someone tied to their job and unable to quit it and find a better one, those are problems too. But for the vast majority of people, the biggest factor is if they go even briefly unemployed they will be almost immediately homeless, because even if they drastically scaled back their consumption, they still owe money just for existing somewhere. So a family who has that squared away is way, waaaaay ahead of the game compared to almost everybody else.

I've been the starving guy who can't find a job and can barely afford to eat, and while that was awful, I at least had a free roof over my head at the time (barely... a tool shed, but it was something), and it doesn't hold a candle to the abject horror of the prospect of not even being able to sit and starve in peace one I lost that and had to constantly pay a huge chunk of my income just for the right to be somewhere. I've spent my entire life since then trying desperately to get back to a point where I don't have to be afraid of going temporarily broke, a point where there is some kind of rock bottom to hit and rest upon as I try to pick myself up again, and not just an infinite gaping void below me waiting to swallow me up if I slip up for a moment. That terror is what has made me chained to jobs and working myself to death (and avoiding every possible risk, and consequently opportunity, that could jeopardize that fragile stability) my whole life since, way worse than just having to skimp on food made me do. And the realization that it's probably going to take me my entire life just to get back to that point, and I'm doing better than 75% of Americans according to the statistics, is what made me turn to socialism from my more libertarian roots.

ETA: Also, see again a few posts back where I described my ideal world, wherein everyone, like this example family we're talking about, would have a small investment portfolio, equivalent in value to if they owned their own small owner-operated business, and how that's like everybody distributing the risk of their individual businesses among each other. That is how investment should create the safety net that seems to important to you. And that's a form of socialism: widespread individual investment in many diverse businesses is a way of having the means of production owned by the public. But that's very very different from a tiny handful of people owning most of everything.

I didn't mean to ignore your earlier response; there's just sooo much material out there that I don't want to go in a million different directions. If there's one or two things you REALLY want me to respond to or focus in on let me know.

Didn't want to neglect this though:

Deserve" has a place when it comes to morality and justice, but we need to be very careful with it when it comes to economic status.
— BitconnectCarlos
Economics, and politics, are closely related to morality and justice. They're all about value of some kind. (It was actually my childhood interest in politics and economics that lead me into ethics to begin with). And general principles of morality and justice apply just as much to economic and political activity as they do to any other aspect of life.

Alright, lets say I throw half of my investable assets into bitcoin right now. What do I deserve? Maybe I deserve to lose it all for taking a stupid risk and being greedy or maybe I deserve to double it for being bold. I honestly have no idea.

Lets say instead of throwing my assets into bitcoin I decide to start my own business and work really hard. Do I deserve millions of dollars for being a hard worker? Or maybe I deserve to lose it for being selfish and not donating it?

What kind of a return do I deserve on my investment portfolio this year? I feel like I would need to ask myself how nice I was.

I've played poker for years as a way to supplement my income. Do I deserve money from that because I'm better than the competition or maybe I deserve to lose my bankroll because I'm preying on people and taking advantage of holes in their game. Do I deserve to win money if I get my money in as a favorite?

If you want to offer some answers here I'm all ears.

Certainly overpopulation is problematic, however I think it would be wrong to see it as the root cause of the division and indifference you're mentioning. If the dynamic of the society isn't healthy at its core, then overpopulation only exacerbates the problem, but it would be misguided to think that if there were many less people we would suddenly all be nicer to each other. You can have a few people oppressed by a tyrant, it doesn't take many people to be divided. There are people who willfully hurt others, they aren't indifferent but they aren't nice either. — leo

Okay, I have to agree with you. Some of us are so fortunate to live in the US and know each tribe was different. Hopi are perhaps the most peaceful and Apaches were known for being aggressive warriors. The Mongols also were known for wiping out large cities and coming from a harsh region where survival depended on hunting made their culture very different from agrarian city people, and Genghis Khan told his people to never settle and never start accumulating possessions because he thought city people were very immoral! Mongols were committed to feeding and sheltering each other because their harsh ski god just assumes kill pathetic humans in blizzards and they thought the idea of a caring god was ridiculus. Okay, let's look at cities with a caring god, where life encouraged lying and stealing and made some rich and some poor. You are obviously right about the importance of the core of society. But I think we really need to take advantage of science in understanding humans and figuring out what encourages desirable behavior and what does not.

Certainly overpopulation is problematic, however I think it would be wrong to see it as the root cause of the division and indifference you're mentioning. If the dynamic of the society isn't healthy at its core, then overpopulation only exacerbates the problem, but it would be misguided to think that if there were many less people we would suddenly all be nicer to each other. You can have a few people oppressed by a tyrant, it doesn't take many people to be divided. There are people who willfully hurt others, they aren't indifferent but they aren't nice either. — leo

Obviously we also have a disagreement. Only when we have the right facts is there a chance of resolving our problems. Labeling some of the effects of city life as evil is totally different from the religious understanding of evil. You see with science we can see the reality of evil and the cause of it so we can effectively overcome that evil. With religion, evil is a supernatural power and the only help is another supernatural power. The religious belief burns witches instead of making sure the water is not polluted, and to this day religious belief prevents people from having the right facts and taking the right steps to overcome evil. Please consider the word "evil" is tied to supernatural powers, and therefore, the word can be problematic.

I agree that religions have been used as a tool for evil purposes by some people, but pretty much anything can be and has been used as a tool for evil purposes. — leo

Can we adjust that to a supernatural belief in good and evil supernatural powers is problematic because it promotes ignorance and results in well-meaning people doing the wrong thing? I think this is a much greater problem today because we dropped education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church, resulting in an explosion of superstition and a very serious and harmful cultural and political crisis! We no longer have agreement that moral is a matter of cause and effect but think morals are about the church and religion. That is extremely harmful to understanding democracy and what morals have to do with being a democracy. That is both a social and a political problem.

I'm not sure if you got the idea that I'm a Christian, I do not follow any organized religion in particular, and I wouldn't say that all Christians only spread love and kindness, it seems to me you yourself spread more of it than the people you mention. — leo

There is an important difference between following the teachings of Jesus and being superstitious. If you believe evil is a supernatural power and we must be saved by another supernatural power, Jesus, that is superstition, a belief in supernatural powers. It is also believing Satan is as real as God, and boy oh boy, has the belief in Satan caused a lot of trouble! Satanism depends on believing the Christian mythology. The cure to superstition is science.

Quakers have done a better job of living with the teachings of Jesus than other branches of Protestantism. They ignore the old testament. But unfortunately at the time the Bible was written the region had absorbed the demonology of the East and this got mixed up the stories of Jesus. Like let's get real, back in the day, people were trying to figure truth and want is good or bad, exactly the same as we do today, only they didn't have science. A god was not giving anyone special information. Thinking the Bible is somehow the word of God instead of stories told by humans, is just wrong. The teachings of Jesus are great, as long as they are not tied to superstition, but Christianity ties his teachings to superstition by claiming demons come out of people, and we must be saved by the supernatural power of Jesus. All humans know only what humans know. And we all can have spiritual experiences. We are equal in that way. No one at any time was special to a God who could do special favors for them if He was pleased, or He could destroy them if He was displeased. Earthquakes and the such are natural forces. Bottom line, we can follow the words of Jesus without being superstitious, but I think the people who claim to be Christians associate his words with superstition and wear silver crosses to defend themselves against demons and the power of Satan. Unfortunately, that silver cross doesn't work as well as washing hands, and keeping your pit for human waste far away from your water supply. The people of India and Hebrews got the cleanliness thing right, but Christians rebelled and got it wrong.

the poor tend to be more concerned about acquiring status items/symbols or material possessions or possibly being able to present as wealthy or at least owning X possession. I can't say I blame them given their background/upbringing. — BitconnectCarlos

I think you are wrong about the poor doing more status spending. We are just like the rest of the animals when it comes to status and survival. :lol: I assure you I will do my very, very best to not look like or act like a homeless person if I end up on the streets. I do not want to get thrown out of places because of having the status of a homeless person. This is as true for us as it is true for all social animals. If you look like and act like an important member of the group, you will be treated like an important member of the group. If you look like and act like the one who is at the bottom of the pecking order, you will be treated as one at the bottom of the pecking order. All social animals push the losers to perimeters where they are most likely to be dinner for the preditors. Survival is best for those in the inner circle and no one can stay in the inner circle without appearing as a member of the inner circle. That overpriced handbag and shoes a woman must have are her pass into the inner circle.

Yesterday a friend told a story of knowing she gave money to the wrong person because she later saw that woman in a fine restaurant enjoying a special coffee and pastry. Wrong ! You can bet your bippy if I do end up on the street I am going to treat myself very, very well because I know that will be essential to feeling like a decent human being. If I get consumed by the cold, pain and fear, and become as a frightened animal, my chance of survival is very poor. I must remember who I am, and I must treat myself very well if I going to get through this trial. A nice thing about not paying rent is having money to treat myself in a high-class hotel by the river. That will be more important to remembering who I am than it is now, when I can comfort myself in my own soft bed, in the safety of my home.

I don't know if I am explaining things well or not. What I am about to do will only be destructive if people are not agreeable to what I say.

I've been the starving guy who can't find a job and can barely afford to eat, and while that was awful, I at least had a free roof over my head at the time (barely... a tool shed, but it was something), and it doesn't hold a candle to the abject horror of the prospect of not even being able to sit and starve in peace one I lost that and had to constantly pay a huge chunk of my income just for the right to be somewhere. I've spent my entire life since then trying desperately to get back to a point where I don't have to be afraid of going temporarily broke, a point where there is some kind of rock bottom to hit and rest upon as I try to pick myself up again, and not just an infinite gaping void below me waiting to swallow me up if I slip up for a moment. That terror is what has made me chained to jobs and working myself to death (and avoiding every possible risk, and consequently opportunity, that could jeopardize that fragile stability) my whole life since, way worse than just having to skimp on food made me do. And the realization that it's probably going to take me my entire life just to get back to that point, and I'm doing better than 75% of Americans according to the statistics, is what made me turn to socialism from my more libertarian roots. — Pfhorrest

I've been the starving guy who can't find a job and can barely afford to eat, and while that was awful, I at least had a free roof over my head at the time (barely... a tool shed, but it was something), and it doesn't hold a candle to the abject horror of the prospect of not even being able to sit and starve in peace one I lost that and had to constantly pay a huge chunk of my income just for the right to be somewhere. I've spent my entire life since then trying desperately to get back to a point where I don't have to be afraid of going temporarily broke, a point where there is some kind of rock bottom to hit and rest upon as I try to pick myself up again, and not just an infinite gaping void below me waiting to swallow me up if I slip up for a moment. That terror is what has made me chained to jobs and working myself to death (and avoiding every possible risk, and consequently opportunity, that could jeopardize that fragile stability) my whole life since, way worse than just having to skimp on food made me do. And the realization that it's probably going to take me my entire life just to get back to that point, and I'm doing better than 75% of Americans according to the statistics, is what made me turn to socialism from my more libertarian roots. — Pfhorrest

Welcome to Nazi Germany. I think we are back to the OP. It dawned on me when I was denied HUD housing by a woman who resented the "special favors" it get such as special accommodation for a medical condition and not have to claim the $2.65 I earn as a Senior Companion as income because it is stipend, that what you wrote of is how Germany spun out of control. People who struggle as you did can become compassionate or resentful. The woman I had to do deal with was resentful and hell will freeze over before she is unfair by giving someone more than what everyone else gets. Because she had zero compassion, she saw me as a terrible person taking advantage of the system and she was not about to let that happen. Others are shocked that I was denied because I spoke up to get what I am allowed. A person without pain such as the pain I live with has less need of a bathtub to manage pain. I don't think doing my best to get an apartment with a bathtub is being unfair. When she responded in an ugly way, it became even harder for me to smile and kiss her ass as though she were a king who can rule on a whim. But the reality is, what she did is against the policy but she can get away with it because there are so many people on the waiting list who would kiss her feet to the get the apartment. Legal Aid may help me, but too late for me to avoid being homeless.

There is more to this, She has her job instead of a compassionate person because the private owners who own the HUD housing are concerned only with the money. She was not chosen to be compassionate but to enforce the policy and defend the monetary interest of the property owner. Now some people I deal with like the Section 8 caseworker are very compassionate! The social service providers are often there because they really care about the people, and their organizations are about helping people, not monetary interest. Occasionally the social service workers are not compassionate at all, depending on the culture in the community, but hopefully, the culture is compassionate and about caring for people, instead of a focus on money and power. However, when more and more of the people in positions of power are resentful and willing to do anything to keep the security of the their job, we have the condition of Nazi Germany and the number of needy is growing rapidly.

If a person managing storage sheds is compassionate this person will do the best s/he can to help someone get their stuff out before the storage shed is locked and everything in it is sold off. This person will feel really bad if s/he must follow the rules and take action which means the person who can't pay the bill can't even get personal photographs out of the storage shed. If this person is afraid of losing the job or displeasing the employer, like the Nazi victimizing Jews, s/he will coldly do the unpleasant and each time it will become easier and easier to do the unpleasant.

We all like to think of ourselves as nice people, but the conditions we find ourselves in can make us less nice than we would like to be. If most people are desperate, who is going to do the "right thing" instead of following orders? We can do the wrong thing more easily when we believe it is the right thing, and the victims are at fault for everything. We all know those homeless people made bad choices and brought the problem on themselves, obeying authority is the way to avoid their fate. Hail Hitler who makes us proud and strong and is finally doing something about "those people" who cause us a problem.

Please consider the word "evil" is tied to supernatural powers, and therefore, the word can be problematic. — Athena

Can we adjust that to a supernatural belief in good and evil supernatural powers is problematic because it promotes ignorance and results in well-meaning people doing the wrong thing? — Athena

The idea that microscopic germs exist and cause diseases used to be seen as a supernatural power, because we couldn’t see them and the idea seemed far-fetched at the time. Or the idea that continents drift. Or the idea that rogue waves exist. And many other examples. What we call supernatural is usually that which we believe does not exist, then when we come to believe it exists we stop calling it supernatural, when we come to see it or come to understand how it acts on what we see we stop calling it supernatural and start seeing it as natural, as really existing. Something we call supernatural now may not be seen as supernatural in the future.

Now when I talk of evil I’m not asking anyone to believe that there are forces we can’t see and can’t explain that are responsible for all the conflicts and the suffering in the world, we can focus on what we do see. For instance we do see that there are some desires and beliefs that contribute to unite people, to protect life and spread happiness, whereas there are some other desires and beliefs that contribute to divide people, to destroy life and spread suffering. We can see these latter desires and beliefs as natural forces, and we can call them evil forces.

Now where do desires and beliefs come from? People who believe in materialism say that they are the results of chemical reactions in the brain, of particles moving according to laws of physics. Whereas people who believe differently say that desires and beliefs do not come from particles, that they may be influenced by physics but that they are also influenced by other things which we do not see with the eyes. The idea that desires and beliefs solely come from laws of physics is a supernatural explanation itself, because we don’t have evidence of that, that’s a pure belief. But regardless of what we believe on the matter, regardless of where desires and beliefs come from, when we talk of evil we can simply focus on some desires and beliefs without necessarily assuming that there are unseen entities who work to make us have these desires and beliefs.

And I wouldn’t say that believing there are things we don’t see or don’t understand promotes ignorance, on the contrary it prevents us from believing we already know everything, it keeps us open-minded and keeps us thinking and looking. There are some people who like to remain ignorant by looking to explain nothing, and there are people who like to remain ignorant by believing we already see everything. But the idea that we don’t see or don’t understand some things in itself doesn’t promote ignorance.

And so I don’t see what’s wrong with identifying forces that contribute to divide people, destroy life and spread suffering, and what’s wrong with calling them evil. Some of these forces are some desires and beliefs. There are other evil forces we can identify, and there can be other such forces we are yet to identify and understand. If you don’t like the word ‘evil’ you could use another word for it, maybe you have suggestions. But the reason I call evil the elephant in the room is that if we keep ignoring these forces, we can’t explain why social systems always seem to break down no matter what we try.

I am confused because you appear to be making the same arguments I make, only you seem to think the problem is non-Christians and I think the problem is Christianity. Excuse me if I am wrong about thinking about you are Christian who is saying non-Christians are the problem.

1.

The idea that microscopic germs exist and cause diseases used to be seen as a supernatural power, because we couldn’t see them and the idea seemed far-fetched at the time. Or the idea that continents drift. Or the idea that rogue waves exist. And many other examples. What we call supernatural is usually that which we believe does not exist, then when we come to believe it exists we stop calling it supernatural, when we come to see it or come to understand how it acts on what we see we stop calling it supernatural and start seeing it as natural, as really existing. Something we call supernatural now may not be seen as supernatural in the future. — leo

Are you arguing that there is a God? I have no problem with that. However, if you are arguing the Bible is anything but mythology, and that it is the word of God, then we have a disagreement.

2.

Now when I talk of evil I’m not asking anyone to believe that there are forces we can’t see and can’t explain that are responsible for all the conflicts and the suffering in the world, we can focus on what we do see. For instance we do see that there are some desires and beliefs that contribute to unite people, to protect life and spread happiness, whereas there are some other desires and beliefs that contribute to divide people, to destroy life and spread suffering. We can see these latter desires and beliefs as natural forces, and we can call them evil forces.

Then you are not asking us to believe in Satan and demons and power of curses and reason for why we are not living in Paradise and why we need to be saved?

3.

Now where do desires and beliefs come from? People who believe in materialism say that they are the results of chemical reactions in the brain, of particles moving according to laws of physics. Whereas people who believe differently say that desires and beliefs do not come from particles, that they may be influenced by physics but that they are also influenced by other things which we do not see with the eyes. The idea that desires and beliefs solely come from laws of physics is a supernatural explanation itself, because we don’t have evidence of that, that’s a pure belief. But regardless of what we believe on the matter, regardless of where desires and beliefs come from, when we talk of evil we can simply focus on some desires and beliefs without necessarily assuming that there are unseen entities who work to make us have these desires and beliefs.

I really can not think of feelings, thoughts, consciousness as matter. It can even be hard to believe in matter because everything is energy. However, I think you have argued yourself out of accepting the Bible as the word of God because without believing the story of Adam and Eve and the snake/Satan and the forbidden fruit, the whole Christian notion of being made different from all other animals and needing to be saved falls about.

4.

And I wouldn’t say that believing there are things we don’t see or don’t understand promotes ignorance, on the contrary it prevents us from believing we already know everything, it keeps us open-minded and keeps us thinking and looking. There are some people who like to remain ignorant by looking to explain nothing, and there are people who like to remain ignorant by believing we already see everything. But the idea that we don’t see or don’t understand some things in itself doesn’t promote ignorance.

"ignorance" means to ignore something. People who believe the story of Adam and Eve, have cause to fear Satan, and false information from a supernatural source, and forbidden knowledge. They tend to ignore science and the scientific method of judging truth. What you said is true and it is a good argument and to me, it explains what is wrong with Muslims and Christians. They can be holding a false belief and kill people believing it is God's will they kill the pagans and infidels or those Christians who have a different understanding of the Bible. Those who believe they can know the will of God, can be pretty dangerous people.

5.

And so I don’t see what’s wrong with identifying forces that contribute to divide people, destroy life and spread suffering, and what’s wrong with calling them evil. Some of these forces are some desires and beliefs. There are other evil forces we can identify, and there can be other such forces we are yet to identify and understand. If you don’t like the word ‘evil’ you could use another word for it, maybe you have suggestions. But the reason I call evil the elephant in the room is that if we keep ignoring these forces, we can’t explain why social systems always seem to break down no matter what we try.

Wants wrong with calling them evil? They are Christians and Muslims who think they are doing the will of God. Are you wanting to call these religious people evil? Do we want to think of disease as evil spirits and watch for demons to come out of evil people? Do we want to eat without washing our hands but with faith that Jesus is protecting us and if we are saved we are protected? Do we want to believe Bush jr., Obama and Trump are made good presidents because of God and our prayers? Do we want to believe we are better people because we know the word of God and those who do not agree with us do not have the right understanding of God's word so it is okay to use million-dollar bombs and destroy their most important cities? Killing people with weapons of mass destruction because their leader may be developing a weapon of mass destruction. We can do this but they can not?

Oh yes, we can explain why social systems break down. Civilizations are born and die and we know a lot about the cause and effect. And the best reason for opposing Christianity is these people hold false beliefs and do not look for the truth outside of their belief, just as you explained in paragraph 4.

1.

Because there are more unoccupied homes than there are homeless people, and still tons and tons of undeveloped land. I live in a place with mixed suburbs, rural orchards and ranches, national forests and other nature preserves, and so on, and it's still ridiculously expensive to live out here on the edge of nowhere... and there's always lots of fabulous houses for sale, and lots of people living in trailers and sharing run-down slums because nobody from here (like me) can afford the real houses, it's just rich people from elsewhere who want to live close to nature and so jack up the prices and stall any further affordable development to keep their property values high. — Pfhorrest

:heart: My grandson was here yesterday to help me with the move. He made the same argument you made. I assume that is the popular story on the web.

How many people lived there a hundred years ago? I am quite sure you can find the history of your area and get an idea of the size of the population and the value of the property a hundred years ago.

Are you aware of Buckminster's books? I suspect you are too young to remember him?

Richard Buckminster Fuller (/ˈfʊlər/; July 12, 1895 – July 1, 1983)[1] was an American architect, systems theorist, author, designer, inventor, and futurist. Fuller published more than 30 books, coining or popularizing terms such as "Spaceship Earth".... — wikipedia

He, among others, warned us of overpopulation and it is devastating to know those educated since 1958 tend to be clueless of the overpopulation problem and seem to be living a fantasy about what technology can do for us and that we do not have respect limits. Here is a list of authors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_expressed_views_relating_to_overpopulation_as_a_problem

Now to take another look at all the unused land. Do you think humanity can survive if we destroy nature? Do you have any concerns about protecting nature or about global warming? Do you like oxygen in your air? Do you think people are psychologically the same if they live in the inner city or rural area? Do you think you would like to live with the crowding of India or China?

2.

It's not a matter of there not being enough resources to support this many people, it's a matter of the resources being artificially restricted by systemic factors so that the people who control them gain more wealth and power, at the expense of a whole lot of other people that they couldn't care less about.

Ah, yes, I addressed that belief in the paragraph above. With technology we are limitless. :grimace: You don't know much about history and the rise and fall of civilizations do you? Again and again, overpopulation has destroyed civilizations. We can discuss this more if you like.

3.

Mind you, I do think that overpopulation exacerbates the problem, and in places where nobody wants to live (which are subsequently sparsely populated) you don't see these problems because there is so much unwanted excess. And there certainly is some point where the world can't support any more people. But we're not there yet.

:grin: There is hope we can come to agreements. At this point, I am think our disagreement is narrowed down to when we are at that point. And this is a good time for me to say our system of allocating who gets what could be improved. However, as I look at the new housing with almost no front or back yard, and see the teeny tiny apartments for low-income people and student housing used for family housing, I think we passed that crucial point 20 years ago. In California, it was more than 20 years ago. Do you know what California's demand for water is doing to the environment and the very real limits on the supply of water? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California Californians are like the frog that doesn't jump out of the pot on the stove. They are in much more serious trouble than they realize.

I am reminded of the story of Easter Island. Easter Island was a paradise with plenty of everything people needed, like Oregon was a 100 years ago. Each new generation saw the island as it was when they came of age, not as the generation before them saw the island. They did not see what was happening to the island, and they did not see the day coming when the island was deforested and their food supply was gone, and those who survived were reduced to cannibalism. Not only are we overpopulated already but all these people are going to have babies and overnight all that available land can be gone, the tick of the clock between we are not at our limit yet and we are over our limit, is the final tick of the clock. We needed to take overpopulation seriously when Buckminster was writing, the forces that prevented this and exasperated the problem with consumerism could cause our civilization to fall as those before us fell.

I’m not contesting that humans are having a negative impact on nature or advocating that we just destroy nature to build hones willy-nilly. I love my hometown because it’s so close to nature. I’m just pointing out the human-caused problems that are independent of that. There are lots of empty homes up for sale in my town, but you have to be rich to be allowed to live in them, and the homeless or underhoused locals are obviously not rich. And nationally, there are more unoccupied houses than homeless people. Without doing any further development, we could house (and feed etc) everyone. But we don’t. So there being too many people isn’t the cause of poverty. We could fix poverty just with what we have built already.

↪Athena I’m not contesting that humans are having a negative impact on nature or advocating that we just destroy nature to build hones willy-nilly. I love my hometown because it’s so close to nature. I’m just pointing out the human-caused problems that are independent of that. There are lots of empty homes up for sale in my town, but you have to be rich to be allowed to live in them, and the homeless or underhoused locals are obviously not rich. And nationally, there are more unoccupied houses than homeless people. Without doing any further development, we could house (and feed etc) everyone. But we don’t. So there being too many people isn’t the cause of poverty. We could fix poverty just with what we have built already. — Pfhorrest

:heart: I like the forums best when we have agreement and can move forward from there. Now let's see if we can do some problem-solving.

Empty homes are not free. Someone invested in the home and that home can not be taken from that person without compensating the owner. If you sank 5 hundred thousand dollars into a home how would you turn it into a place for people who need housing? Or how could we turn that private land into public land? Who is going to pay and who is going to pay for maintaining the home? And by the way, where I live there is not a surplus of housing. Rentals are off the market a day after they are put on the market and $500,000 housing is gone in a couple of months. I do not see the land for new housing, and the city is pressured to build up, but as you said, people with private homes do not want apartments built next to them. They don't want the extra traffic and more children in the schools, all things that decrease their standard of living and increase their cost of living as growth demands more services and more taxes. I am afraid I am not saying this well, but we need to think about this mathematically. Let us stop agreeing over human values and simply make all this a mathematically understandable problem.

I have a bone to pick to with all cities. We know the price of real estate goes up and up and room to grow does not. We know, or should know, our economy depends on cheap labor. Nothing is affordable without cheap labor or robotic machines that don't pay taxes and who wants a robot waitress or waiter instead of a real human? So let us think of reality good for humans and the reality of needing cheap human labor (how many and amount of wages) and the fact that these human beings need affordable housing (where and how much can they pay). How sane is it to not set aside land for the future needs of low-income people? Some countries such as Mexico have set aside land for the indigenous people. In the US we have reservations for indigenous people. I have read Germany is doing a good job of providing affordable housing and keeping everyone employed. What in hell is wrong with the US? We need to wake up to our reality. We no longer have a wilderness to fill up with our growing population. What should do get people to wake to our changed reality and think mathematically about the problem?

Ouch, :broken: can you show me mathematically how the problem is not too many people and not enough resources?

Well, my sister is on her way. She has been on the warpath since I told her about my situation. She has been to our state capital every day since, arguing that something needs to be done. She is coming to get proof that the woman who denied me housing violated the HUD rules. It is a two-hour drive for her to get here and I better be ready when she arrives. When my sister is upset she is like an armed nuclear bomb. and I don't want to trigger an explosion by not being ready or by arguing with her about details. The two of us have independently fought these battles before and we win but we have avoided each other most of our lives. She is a little too intense for me, and I am a little too passive for her. I hope we get through this without killing each other. :lol: Had I know she would react as she is reacting, I would have never told her.

I am confused because you appear to be making the same arguments I make, only you seem to think the problem is non-Christians and I think the problem is Christianity. Excuse me if I am wrong about thinking about you are Christian who is saying non-Christians are the problem. — Athena

As I said I’m not a Christian, I do not follow any organized religion. I don’t think the problem is non-Christians and I don’t think the problem is Christians either, I described where the problem lies: in the forces that seek to divide, to separate, to spread suffering. These forces can be present within both Christians and non-Christians. Examples of such forces are the desires and beliefs that lead to separation, to suffering.

When some Christian priests rape children or nuns, what they do is part of the problem. When non-Christians kill people or promote hate, what they do is part of the problem. When you say that the problem is Christianity, that’s part of the problem. There can be a horrible world with or without Christianity.

Are you arguing that there is a God? I have no problem with that. However, if you are arguing the Bible is anything but mythology, and that it is the word of God, then we have a disagreement. — Athena

As I said I wasn’t arguing that, the points I make are relevant whether you believe in a God or not. Personally I do believe that our usual senses do not show us the whole picture, that there is more that exists than what we usually see, that existence doesn’t end with the death of the physical body, but I don’t believe that everything that is written in the Bible or the Quran or the Torah is true, however I believe there is some truth in them, that it isn’t pure fantasy, that the people who wrote these texts had important things to share, things they understood or saw and that we misinterpret today.

Then you are not asking us to believe in Satan and demons and power of curses and reason for why we are not living in Paradise and why we need to be saved? — Athena

I’m not asking anyone to believe that the Devil exists, forcing people to believe something is one example of force that divides people and spreads suffering. I’m not forcing beliefs on anyone, I’m simply sharing things I have come to see and understand, important things that I didn’t use to understand, because they are hard to see, and that’s why I see it as important to help others see them too. In this thread I am attempting to highlight the underlying reason why social systems break down, which is the forces that divide, that separate people from one another, that separate people from their environment, that separate people from what they feel, and so on.

I’m calling these forces evil, you don’t have to believe that a Devil you don’t see is behind them, you can simply focus on these forces that you do see. However you choose to call these forces, if you ignore them you can’t explain why social systems break down.

I really can not think of feelings, thoughts, consciousness as matter. It can even be hard to believe in matter because everything is energy. However, I think you have argued yourself out of accepting the Bible as the word of God because without believing the story of Adam and Eve and the snake/Satan and the forbidden fruit, the whole Christian notion of being made different from all other animals and needing to be saved falls about. — Athena

I don’t believe that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, I believe that we are all beings with different abilities, different weaknesses and different appearances, but that fundamentally there is something that connects all of us, so indeed I don’t buy the whole notion that other animals were created to benefit man, the very idea of separating humans from other animals is another example of force that divides, which leads humans to cause immense suffering to other beings, and to destroy the environment. As I said not all is true in the religious texts, the people back then didn’t understand everything, but they did understand important things so we shouldn’t dismiss all of it.

"ignorance" means to ignore something. People who believe the story of Adam and Eve, have cause to fear Satan, and false information from a supernatural source, and forbidden knowledge. They tend to ignore science and the scientific method of judging truth. What you said is true and it is a good argument and to me, it explains what is wrong with Muslims and Christians. They can be holding a false belief and kill people believing it is God's will they kill the pagans and infidels or those Christians who have a different understanding of the Bible. Those who believe they can know the will of God, can be pretty dangerous people. — Athena

Yes the belief that we already know everything is a form of ignorance, and ignorance leads to false beliefs, and false beliefs lead to suffering. But there is not only ignorance in religious people, there is also a lot of it in non-religious people, for instance in the people who believe that science proves there is no God and no free will and no existence after the death of the body, or who believe that scientific theories are proven to be true, and this ignorance can be very dangerous too.

Wants wrong with calling them evil? They are Christians and Muslims who think they are doing the will of God. Are you wanting to call these religious people evil? Do we want to think of disease as evil spirits and watch for demons to come out of evil people? Do we want to eat without washing our hands but with faith that Jesus is protecting us and if we are saved we are protected? Do we want to believe Bush jr., Obama and Trump are made good presidents because of God and our prayers? Do we want to believe we are better people because we know the word of
God and those who do not agree with us do not have the right understanding of God's word so it is okay to use million-dollar bombs and destroy their most important cities? Killing people with weapons of mass destruction because their leader may be developing a weapon of mass destruction. We can do this but they can not? — Athena

Christians and Muslims who falsely believe that they are doing the will of God when they kill people aren’t evil, their false belief is due to ignorance, and that’s what becomes an evil force.

There are many diseases we can cure without believing that evil spirits are behind them, but we shouldn’t dismiss too hastily the extensive evidence that exists for healing miracles, which conventional medicine doesn’t explain. Or the evidence that cats can sense when something bad is about to happen to you, as if they could see things that we don’t see, it isn’t clear that a better smell or better eyesight can explain how they know that.

It is clear that faith in Jesus or in some other being is not enough to overcome evil forces, otherwise some priests who dedicate their life to their faith wouldn’t rape children. And Jesus himself wouldn’t have been crucified if faith alone was sufficient. But that doesn’t imply that faith is useless. Same remark for the presidents, faith can be useful but it is not all-powerful.

People who believe a loving God would tell them to kill people or bomb cities are ignorant, again ignorance becomes an evil force.

Oh yes, we can explain why social systems break down. Civilizations are born and die and we know a lot about the cause and effect. — Athena

In order for a system to keep going, its different parts have to work together, in harmony. If different parts work against one another, if there are forces that disrupt that system, if these forces become stronger than the forces that keep the system going, then the system collapses. We have to focus on these forces, otherwise we will keep addressing superficial problems instead of the root cause, and neither capitalism nor socialism nor communism nor anarchism will work as long as we don’t address the root cause.

And the best reason for opposing Christianity is these people hold false beliefs and do not look for the truth outside of their belief, just as you explained in paragraph 4. — Athena

Vilifying Christianity will create division, which will create suffering. Christians have mostly good intentions, good intentions in themselves aren’t a problem, false beliefs are. And we all have false beliefs, not just Christians. But they aren’t wrong about everything, and we aren’t wrong about everything either.

We all have to work together, they should be open-minded but we should be open-minded too. Open-mindedness doesn’t mean believing whatever we’re told, but not believing that we already hold the whole truth, and so being open to what others say, being open to discussion, without looking to force one’s beliefs onto others.

However forcing someone to be more open-minded is not a solution, if they aren’t open-minded they will perceive you as a threat and then it creates a conflict, and if you don’t defuse it it escalates and then it spreads suffering, and suffering generates more suffering and so on. And keep in mind that many Christians do not condone the killing of people or the bombing of cities. Evil forces can infiltrate in insidious ways, there is a tight balance to find, in order to move as a whole towards more understanding, more collaboration, more harmony, more unity, towards truth.

Hum, I am having trouble focusing, so participating in the forum is difficult. I am having trouble sleeping knowing I have to empty out my apartment. I am having trouble emptying out my apartment because I get so little done before the pain is so bad I have to sit down. I am trying to thin out my library and I am making some progress but I think I am trying to save too many books. Now to what you said.

I think the Bible has many great analogies and metaphors and if we all saw the analogies and metaphors for what they are, the Bible wouldn't be so bad. Thinking of a militarized government like a beast that devours resources is a great metaphor. Thinking a God literate made us from mud in the Garden of Eden is a terrible mistake. Going on your concern of division, dividing things between good and evil can be problematic, and thinking a God controls what is happening instead of natural forces and human choices is problematic.

This is a thinking problem. I think with proper education everyone would interpret the Bible abstractly instead of concretely. They would see the analogies and metaphors for what they are, instead of being superstitious. Holding that man can know the will of God, is a terrible, terrible thing that we must not tolerate because this belief can lead to evil.

We agree holding false beliefs can be a serious problem. How do you suggest we correct the problem without causing division?

Hum, I am having trouble focusing, so participating in the forum is difficult. I am having trouble sleeping knowing I have to empty out my apartment. I am having trouble emptying out my apartment because I get so little done before the pain is so bad I have to sit down. I am trying to thin out my library and I am making some progress but I think I am trying to save too many books. — Athena

I really hope things are going to work out for you, hopefully your sister can get you out of these difficulties.

Going on your concern of division, dividing things between good and evil can be problematic, and thinking a God controls what is happening instead of natural forces and human choices is problematic. — Athena

Yes many things can be problematic. But identifying forces that contribute to divide, to spread suffering, I don’t see that as problematic, precisely it’s what we need in order to solve problems that we haven’t managed to solve.

Dividing things between good and evil can be problematic if we classify something good as evil and something evil as good, if we classify wrongly because of false beliefs or because of an evil intent. Hopefully you agree that there is such a thing as true good or true evil, that good and evil aren’t purely relative. If you don’t agree that’s OK but that means I would have a harder time getting my point across as I would have to show you why this is true. But for instance I hope you agree that something like torturing and killing children to get a kick out of it isn’t good, it’s evil, it’s a destructive force that spreads suffering. I’m sure you agree with that, but when people don’t agree with that it becomes even more difficult to help them see the light, but it’s still possible.

And yes thinking that what happens is independent of human choices, that a God decides everything, is a problem. But many people who don’t believe in a God believe that we have no free will, that everything that happens is determined by physical laws, and that’s a problem too. However it isn’t necessarily a problem to believe that a God who has a limited power exists.

Holding that man can know the will of God, is a terrible, terrible thing that we must not tolerate because this belief can lead to evil. — Athena

A belief in itself isn’t harmful, it’s what we do with it that can be harmful. I wouldn’t really have a problem with someone claiming that they know the will of God if they don’t go around killing people or spreading suffering. What if one individual really does know the will of God? What would that say about us if we imprison that man or worse because we have decreed that we cannot tolerate such belief?

We agree holding false beliefs can be a serious problem. How do you suggest we correct the problem without causing division? — Athena

With promoting understanding, listening to one another more rather than forcing our beliefs onto others, not blindly believing what we are told, finding out for ourselves, considering what others say without blindly dismissing it even if we don’t agree with it. Finding what we can agree on and move from there. Caring about others and about ourselves, caring about other animals, about the environment. Realize that we are all in the same boat so fighting one another is counterproductive. Identify the evil forces that work to disrupt all that, in order to better understand what we’re up against. While being careful not to spread evil ourselves.

And at the same time be strong. Turning the other cheek in the face of evil is problematic in that it is an invitation to let evil destroy ourselves. We have to be strong to stand our ground and say no when faced with evil. If we turn the other cheek we let evil spread, and if we retaliate we spread evil, so the good thing is to prevent evil from spreading without spreading it ourselves. And ask for help when we can’t face it on our own. And be willing to help those who need help when we can help them, when it’s not about helping them spread evil.

Wisdom is needed to uncover what’s truly good and what’s truly evil, but blindly believing someone who appears wise is precisely not wisdom, that’s something we have to uncover ourselves, through introspection, observing, thinking, feeling, listening without blindly believing, discussing, experimenting, ...

In order to uncover our false beliefs, we have to uncover in the first place what it is that we believe, and then find out whether it is possible that our beliefs are false, and if they were false what would that imply. Discussing with people who have different beliefs can help uncover them too. There is so much to say on the subject, but all this can be a good starting point.

I hope things will work out for you, take care.

In short, I think what you said is that we must examine everything philosophically. Then it follows what is required for the philosophical examination of life?

I kind of want to get this thread back on the topic of the breakdown of social justice. While going through my books I found one explaining the mass migration from Europe to the US and how disruptive this is to people's lives. They are born in one culture and one position in an economic structure and must come to understand the needs of a different economy and what is required of them, and the new culture and what it demands of everyone. This is not really different from a civilization taking over a region that is occupied by indigenous people and forcing them into housing and a way of a life foreign to them. This is devastating to their identity and social ties and often leads to alcoholism. I am not sure that the huge problem we have with drug addiction is not the result of the same uprooting, only people haven 't moved but our culture and economy has changed so much they might as well have moved. I am very sure that for most homeless people there is no family to help them. Most of humanity has been ordered by family order and that is no longer true.