Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

Ye shall be as gods. evidence based humanistsThe man in the book knows who you are. Keep giving away spare change and telling people stories and He likely will easily accept you and overlook that you never believed in Him but only in His message. I, on the other hand, may have more trouble convincing Him of my worthiness. Perhaps if you put in a prayer on my behalf....Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You're projecting yet again. Your ways are not our ways, so please stop trying to burden us with your own problems. Nor are our thought processes the same -- even the Christian community recognizes that through practice as they refer Christians to Christian therapists instead of therapists for normals. This practice agrees with Dan Barker's definition of fundamentalism as being "when your theology becomes your psychology" -- remember that he was raised his entire life as a fundamentalist (his mother would sing in tongues all day while doing her housework) and he became a fundamentalist minister (having been "called personally by God" to the pulpit when he was 11), until he began to ask questions and to think which led him to his current title of "America's Leading Atheist."So just because you think in a particular manner does not mean we do too.For example, a fundamentalist at work about a decade ago (one of the nicer ones with whom one could actually have a decent and enjoyable discussion) asked me how I, as an atheist, solve the problem of "justification." My response was something like, "What the hell are you talking about?" When he told me what he was talking about, I informed him that is a complete non-issue so there is no need for any solution. For him with his particular theology and his particular psychology modified by that particular theology, justification was an extremely important (vitally important!) question. But for us normals, it was nothing more than a "huh?".Similarly, atheists are sick and tired of theists constantly describing to us all the things that we "worship", projecting their own mindsets upon us just because they cannot understand anybody not needing to worship anything. Or they will claim that we "pray" to all kinds of things since they cannot understand anything different.Or fundy theists will attack education as being "indoctrination" because that is what their own practices are. For them, the purpose of their Christian schools is to indoctrinate the students in their religion even to the point of compelling (and even forcing) the students to believe in what they're being taught. In sharp contrast, the purpose of secular education is that the students gain an understanding of the subject matter without any requirement for them to be compelled to believe in that subject matter. A few decades ago when I implored a creationist to please, please, please study evolution in order to learn something about it before "criticizing" it. His reaction was to vehemently refuse to do so, because he believed that in order to learn about evolution he would be required to believe in it. In contrast and echoing Gen. Milley's recent testimony, the US Air Force trained us in Marxism and Socialism, obviously not in order to turn us into Commies but rather so that we would have a better understanding of the Enemy (c. 1982, so during the Cold War).But because religionists know nothing about education outside of their own abuse of it, they project their misunderstanding of it on us and make it impossible to talk sense with them.And we have creationists still being unable to understand how science works because of their own dependence on authorities. And as a result, they employ fatally flawed strategies and tactics in their war against science; eg, if they can disprove something that Darwin had written, then they feel that should disprove all of evolution.Religious teachings (especially Christian) depend on Authorities. That kind of makes sense since their teachings normally derive from Revelation -- since mere mortal humans cannot determine anything about the supernatural other than what some supernatural being tells them (AKA a vision or "revelation"), then a "revelation" must be valued most highly. Since you really have nothing else to build upon.There is so much more to discuss there (and I had started on it and will return to it), but the point within this context is that science works very differently. What is for the time lost through my editing is a very important part of the religionist's view of Revelation, that Revelation is considered perfect at first, but the longer it resides within the real world the more it is corrupted by it (personified by the medieval figure of Frau Welt (page only exists in German, Verzeihung), "Mrs. World", beautiful when viewed in front, but from behind you can see all the corruption and decay). Therefore, you need to go as far back as you can to the original source of that Revelation in order to get the purest least corrupt form of it.What that means when you want to debunk a teaching is that you go back to the earliest Revelation of it and discredit that Authority.The problem with that is that science works very differently. While science does recognize an authority's expertise, that does not make everything that that authority says Gospel. Eg, the first of Arthur C. Clarke's laws:

quote:

---

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

---

So when a distinguished but elderly scientist says something, you do pay attention because he's supposed to be enough of an expert to know what he's talking about, though that still does not make him right. Refer to the movie, Operation Crossbow (1965 -- I saw it in the theaters and it's now a permanent resident on my DVR -- a depiction of the actual Allied operation of the same name to destroy Nazi rocketry -- V-1, V-2, and the purported New York Rocket). As Britain is trying to assess that threat, Trevor Howard's scientist character, an expert on rocketry, keeps getting in the way since everything he knows is based on solid-fuel rocketry which all says that the Nazi rocket threat cannot possibly exist -- say that to "the widows and orphans of Old London Towne" from Tom Lehrer's song about Werner von Braun).However, in science the reverse is true from religion, in that science gets better and better the further down the line it goes. In religion, perfect knowledge from Revelation can only decay and become worse over time. In science, an initial best guess keeps getting tested and getting better over time. Two very different ways of knowing, two very different results.The problem for the anti-science religionists is that they do not understand how science works, so they assume it works the same as their own "way of knowing". Id est, anti-science religionists seem to believe that science also starts with some kind of "Revelation" delivered unto us non-scientific mortals in some kind of perfect form. Complete and utter nonsense! Therefore, they quasi-reason, if you attack the "scientists" (ie, their mythical "science religionists", since they also weirdly classify science as a "religion", right?) then you do so by attacking their sources of "science revelation", which are the oldest scientific "Authorities".Well, your anti-science folk can attack Charles Darwin all you want to, but that does nothing towards attacking evolution. Because we've learned quite a few things in the 160 years since the publishing of Origin of Species. Darwin got some things right and some things wrong. We normals are able to deal with all that without batting an eyelash, but it is incomprehensible for a religionist.  We do not think the same as you do! So please stop projecting your own failings upon us.

quote:

---

I lean a bit to the right because they advocate freedom more than humanism.

---

No, they don’t. When the Right talks about freedom it’s only to get what they want. Freedom goes out the window whenever it gets in their way.

quote:

---

Granted it can be a refuge for the greedy and the selfish…

---

That pretty much defines the leadership of the US Right. The amount of grifting is colossal.

quote:

---

…. but I would assert that the Left Wing is a refuge for humanists who don't believe in a power higher than themselves.

---

I’m sure the many Christians in the Left would disagree.

You had it right the first time. The snake said:

quote:

---

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

And God agreed:

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

---

You're the only one who disagrees. Matthew 25. Do you need quotes? Jesus doesn't know the ones who say, "Lord! Lord!" and profess to be His followers (without following Him). And He does know the ones who do what He said, even if they didn't know they were doing it for Him.

I'm way behind, but I wanted to reply to this. Have you thought about the implications, because traditionally the way governments reduce inflation is by raising interest rates to tamp down economic activity thereby reducing demand. This also tends to put downward pressure on wages and employment. You are so gullible. In antebellum America you would have argued for slavery because you'd buy the argument that ending slavery would bankrupt the country. In 1920's America you would have argued for Jim Crowe laws because you'd buy the argument that letting the races mix would bring anarchy and ruin racial purity. Now you're buying the argument that America's post WWII prosperity was due to some kind of special quality rather than that we one of the few countries not devastated by the war and that we were large and possessed enormous natural resources. Your belief that Americans are a special people is a kind of racism, and your belief that America is a country of destiny is plain old jingoism. What we could do with less of is the claptrap someone's filling your head with. A powerful military is for preserving liberty. Using it to preserve quality of life means exploiting other countries. You are making two contradictory arguments. First you argue we need our military to maintain our quality of life, then you cite Jon Jost from your Message 1 of the Jon Jost's American Pastoral #29 thread where he says the exact opposite. You seem unable to comprehend what you read. Here's Jost's words that you quoted again:

quote:

---

Since the end of World War Two, Americans have lived in a fantasy bubble, perceiving themselves ever as the good guys, the white-hat cowboy come to save the damsel in distress. After all, we’d gone to Europe’s and Asia’s defense, beating the Krauts and the Japs, sacrificing our youth for others. Our story. Never mind it was the Soviet Union that sacrificed endlessly more and did the job in Europe, and never mind it was Japanese over-reach that cost them their war. But for we Americans, nope, it was our glorious GI’s that turned the tide, and won the day. (...)We were a Norman Rockwell painting!

---

Who is filling your head with this garbage? It isn't money that fills people's hearts with compassion and empathy. It comes from within.When I was a kid selling stuff door to door I quickly learned to avoid rich neighborhoods. Rich people would shut the door in your face, while the poor would invite you in, give you a drink, and as likely as not buy something.Your view of the world is contradictory, warped, ignorant and cruel.--Percy

This is so confused and contorted and such a dense assemblage of error that I abandoned trying to address it the first time I responded to your message, but this pile of illogic and ignorance stayed with me, so let me ask this: Without linking to any video or webpage, explain the following:

1. Define the "US lifestyle in the early 70's" and enumerate which of its qualities you think we risk losing and that should be preserved.
   ​
2. There have been periods of higher inflation all through our history. The inflation that began in the 60's and extended through the 70's (Remember Nixon's wage/price controls? It wasn't just the oil shocks of the late 70's causing inflation.) was back to normal by the mid-80's. Explain how we were different from other countries before that period of inflation, and how we were just like them afterwards.
   ​
3. What forces and/or circumstances are placing the dollar's status as a global currency at risk?
   ​
4. The US ranks 15th in quality of life (Standard of Living by Country | Quality of Life by Country 2022). None of the countries in front of us have a global currency, unless you count the Euro which doesn't belong to any single country. How do you explain that, for example, Finland, Estonia and Slovenia are in front of us?

Until you learn how to think through the data and to reason for yourself you'll continue reaching in the dark toward voices that resonate most strongly with you, no matter how nonsensical and fact-free they are.--Percy

Currency valuation is a double-edged sword. China was attacked for keeping it’s currency artificially low.A strong currency brings cheap imports but makes locally produced goods less competitive - which hurts exports and jobs.

You mentioned jobs being lost when currency is strong, but failed to mention the job losses from a weaker currency.The People's Bank of China (PBOC) officially declared a strong currency to be vital to the nation's economy. The allowed fluctuations are precisely limited.As for the claims that China undervalues its currency, see this article:Does China Devalue Its Currency?By Daniel FernandezSeptember 4, 2019The article looks at the long term fluctuations since the big 2005 change (current to 2019).The Wall Street Journal has a 2021 article describing the higher Yuan value as well.(Until the last few years, China has seen wage increases that are so high, it is hard to believe that it has come with so little inflation. 2014 to 2019 saw weaker currency, but it was really just a correction. Frankly I always felt China had a supernaturally too strong currency. The GDP & income increases from 2000 to 2014 just did not seem real, and I thought 3014 was going to be the beginning of a massive correction.)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

That China was attacked for keeping it’s currency artificially low is a fact. Whether the attacks were true is another matter.The important issue is that a weak currency was seen as an economic advantage.

I don't think China wants a weak currency. I just found out that the 6 months, since the February 21 WSJ article, have seen the Chinese Yuan gain 10% in appreciation against the Dollar.The Yuan was at a 21st century high, January 2014, against the dollar. 6.04 Yuans traded for a dollar.There was a slide that started in 2015, with some devaluations.Now, the Yuan is back to 6.21 for a dollar. The difference is just under 3% lower than the century high.Since 1995, the Yuan gained strength every year, verses the dollar, until 2015. The 2019 article showed that, despite the slump since 2014, the Yuan was still in a position of being 10% appreciated, verses the dollar, since 2005.(I just read a 6 day old article which reported that the IMF explicitly stated that China is no currency manipulator)(The article gives reasons why China wants a strong currency, but there are, of course, reasons for depreciation given as well)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think China wants a weak currency. I just found out that the 6 months, since the February 21 WSJ article, have seen the Chinese Yuan gain 10% in appreciation against the Dollar.

---

All of which is irrelevant to my point (including the parts not quoted),

All I know is that China has more gold than the US, though not officially. The metals are far from dead. The dollar is and has been supported through the oppression of the metals' true levels. Fiat currency temporarily dethroned Gold, as tries Crypto, but the Discipline of Gold and Silver will prevail in the end. Unless Ringo is right and Sardine cans become the global medium of exchange.

Hmmm. Supernaturally?? Do explain.I've listened to a lot of opinions from Loons and respectable people alike on the coming Gold and Silver Discipline over the global fiat currencies. The evidence is abundant. Every time, the Dollar devalues and Gold goes up.They keep the prices down to protect the dollar's status.They won't be able to stop Silver, however...though JP Morgan has a huge stash themselves.The only pretender to the next safe haven is cryptos, though I'd take silver over them any day. Despite the claims, they can be tracked.Once the currency reset happens, the metals can be unloaded and the new digital currency can be purchased perhaps...though I'm not sure I trust my assets being potentially monitored. The stocks will correct soon, and anyone with assets better be prepared for at least a 30% drop while the metals will appreciate by at least 30%. You all heard it here first. Lord Jesus slap me if I'm wrong.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

That’s completely missing the point. The point is that currency valuations are not so simple as high = good. There are pluses and minuses.

You might do better to think than to mock.