Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conversations with God
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 320 of 530 (885829)
04-27-2021 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by robertleva
04-27-2021 3:18 PM


Re: Why Stick Around? My Belief
It is not my place to try to convince you. I have done my part and I will keep you in my prayers now as I said. So please just move on in peace and love my brother, you are wasting your time I assure you.
But you forget the lurkers, who are always with us. 76 of them right now (as of the moment I started this edit). How you conduct yourself in discussion (this is a discussion forum, not a circle-jerk. If you are looking for a circle-jerk, then find a creationist forum where non-creationists are immediately expelled the moment they raise any kind of question (several members here have had that experience) while the creationists are encouraged to circle up to their hearts' content. Of course, they'll never learn anything either.
Creationist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International and associated with Answers in Genesis also expressed concern about the negative effects for the Christian message when onlookers watch a Christian use bad claims and arguments (which is true of all creationist and most Christian arguments, but Sarfati was careful to not go there). From his feedback letter (AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002 (link broken)) in response to Kent Hovind's angry letter denouncing the AiG article, "Claims We Really Wish Creationists Would Not Use":
quote:
"As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’."
...
"But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?"
...
" ... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. ... We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments."
His colleague, Dr. Don Batten, said of Carl Baugh, a very rich source of really bad creationist claims:
quote:
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
Both of those leading creationists were issuing the same warnings that I have been for decades: using false claims can only do harm to your cause and to your own faith. It has been said that creationism is perhaps the greatest leading contributor to the spread and growth of atheism.
By demonstrating to the lurkers the weakness of your position, you are making your own contribution to that effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by robertleva, posted 04-27-2021 3:18 PM robertleva has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 333 of 530 (885865)
04-28-2021 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by jar
04-28-2021 8:30 AM


Re: Why Stick Around? My Belief
Sorry child. I Cor 13:11. It's time for you to stop thinking as a child and speaking as a child and to become an adult.
A couple decades ago, a rabbi co-wrote a book, Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, To Think About God. Basically, many adults have very childish ideas about "God". Why? Because they had developed those ideas in childhood and have never revisited those ideas to make them more mature.
That is one of the reasons why I urge believers to think about and question their beliefs. So they can replace their childish ideas with a more mature approach to their faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 04-28-2021 8:30 AM jar has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 367 of 530 (885927)
04-29-2021 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Pressie
04-28-2021 4:14 PM


Now robertleva wants private messages.
That is such a dishonest dodge.
I want every exchange to be fully public. Wanting to keep such exchanges private is a sure sign of the desire to deceive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Pressie, posted 04-28-2021 4:14 PM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Phat, posted 04-29-2021 8:26 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 370 of 530 (885944)
04-29-2021 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Phat
04-29-2021 8:26 AM


Well, for one thing knowing that you have an audience can keep one from blatantly dishonest shenanigans (though not immune to inappropriate drunken posts).
For example there's that local YEC activist I had a 20-year email correspondence with. He was the most pathological liar I have ever encountered. And the most dishonest. As long as he knew that nobody else was watching, he felt free to engage in the worst and most vicious mocking and lying. He was the one who demanded answers to his proselytizing "impossible questions" while being completely unable to answer of my simple questions to him like "What do you mean by that?" BTW, he did not understand his own questions but was just regurgitating them in typical creationist fashion -- for an example, refer to my page, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?, which has direct bearing on your own plan to lurk in alleyways near schools in order to accost children with your religion.
If he knew he had an audience, he would have behaved better, but he didn't so he didn't. He did bring in third party "atheist friend", but it was obviously just him wielding a sockpuppet.
The other example is my malicious ex-wife. Even after two decades, the only time she behaves like a normal person is when other people are present so she has to behave in front of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Phat, posted 04-29-2021 8:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 413 of 530 (895889)
07-23-2022 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Phat
07-18-2022 2:46 PM


Re: Its Return On Investment
Poverty is an attitude. Poverty is giving up and letting another vibe run your head.
No, poverty is an economic reality.
To respond those who say it's political, society's decision of how to handle the issue of poverty would be political. Especially decisions to make it worse and to trap people in poverty in order to benefit those who are not poor.
Poverty can indeed create attitudes among the impoverished, especially when their every effort to work their way out of poverty is thwarted so that they finally end up giving up.
Examples would be a welfare system in which a single parent can survive without working, but as soon as she tries to break out of poverty and gets a job, then all benefits are cut and she finds it impossible to pay for child care along with all the other costs of living, so she has to go back on the dole.
Another example is the old "company town" where you work for the company who provides you with housing (at a cost) and stores (with high prices, but you have no other option), etc. That locks the company's workers into a cycle of poverty that is impossible to break free of. Refer to the line in Tennessee Ernie Ford's best known song, "16 Tons": "Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to the company store."
A more extreme example of that "company town" are the generations of brick makers in India. They have to pay for the materials and other needs, but they don't get paid enough to pay that off. Every single member of the family, young children to the elderly, must work all day never being able to pay off the family's debt which goes back hundreds of year. A political decision to use poverty to enslave your workforce.
When repeated efforts to break free of the poverty being forced onto you, then eventually you get worn out and you give up.
Similarly with the homeless. Yes, some don't want to change -- they're like you in that they want personal freedom to the point that they refuse to move back with their families because they don't want to follow house rules. But many do want to get out and find themselves trapped. If they got there by having lost their job, then they find it near impossible to get a new job -- every job application wants a residential address and phone number and if you don't have either then you're a good prospect. Finding a new home to rent is prohibitively expense as you must come up with first and last months' rent plus cleaning/security deposit. Child care expenses again rear their ugly head. Along with the job's grooming requirements such as how you're supposed to clean up to report to work (I met a homeless woman who was able to work that out for a waitressing job by using a business' rest rooms, but she was exceptional in her determination).
Throwing money at it wont change the attitude of the people being given the money, ...
Ah yes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." But what that leaves out is that you must to both, feed him as you are teaching him to feed himself. Sure, you could teach a homeless person how to get rich by simply telling him to "buy low and sell high" or by describing how he could play the real estate game with multiple properties, but you still haven't provided him any way to even begin to get started.
Plus there's the attitude the long-term poverty engenders. About a decade ago on NPR they reported on a "donate a goat" charity that operated in the Third World where poverty was so bad that it was a struggle for people just to find enough food to stay alive; they had no concept of planning for the future because they were pinned down in the present just trying to survive. Give one of those families a goat and you know what they'll do with it: immediately slaughter and eat it. So that charity's program was to set a family up with a goat and a place to keep it and then to teach them how to take care of it. In the short term you get nourishment from its milk, so you learn the value of keeping that goat alive. Then you learn to work with other families with goats to get them (the goats) to breed and produce more goats, which means more milk plus excess goats (and dry does who no longer give milk) can become dinner. And you can start to make money by selling the excess milk that you cannot consume yourself.
The issue that that charity was addressing was the problem of ingrained attitudes of long-term poverty which prevent people from ever escaping poverty. It did so by providing them with the means (a goat and a place to keep it) and with training to teach them how to make the best use of that goat and in the process changing their attitudes so that they could finally start to plan for the future.
You don't just throw money at a problem, but rather you use that money to address and to solve that problem.
... but it sure might change the attitude of the people you are taking it from to get the money in the first place.
IOW, their attitude of extreme selfishness (which you freely confess to and which is completely antithetical to Christian teachings, hence your hypocrisy of claiming to be a follower of the Christ who had commanded against such extreme selfishness (but sadly you are not alone in your fake-Christian hypocrisy) ). They want it all just for themselves and are unwilling to share it with anyone else, especially those in great need.
Even in a non-Christian society, everybody recognizes and responds to the most basic societal directive of helping others in your society, AKA altruism. That is the very reason for being in a society. Otherwise, we naked apes are out there all alone in the wilderness depending on our own individual ability to fend for our own individual self without a snowflake's chance in Hell of succeeding. It's like that symbol of collective power, the fasces (an axe encased on a bundle of rods, such as we see on the wall of our House of Representatives and which unfortunately lends its name to fascism. I'm sure that you've been told the same story as I had of the Roman father giving his sons a life lesson. He gave each one a single stick and told them to break it, which they easily did. Then he gave each one a bundle of sticks and told them to break it, which they could not do. "Alone we are weak and easy to break, but together we are strong and remain unbroken."
Of course, fascism then seeks to eliminate the weak sticks and the "undesirable" ones in order to make the whole state stronger, but that is a perversion of societal unity. Rather, the whole society becomes stronger by doing the opposite, by supporting and caring for even the weakest among us. The moral strength of a fascist state is greatly diminished when every single member must live in fear of being "culled" or of having their loved ones being "culled", whereas a society which cares for and takes care of all its members increases in moral strength.
But then what would a Christian know of morality? Especially a fake Christian.
LET THE PEOPLE WHO WANT IT FIXED (THROUGH MONEY) FIX IT VOLUNTARILY AND WILLINGLY.
You mean organized charities? Such as Christian charities?
I know a fellow atheist and fellow Air Force veteran who had spent time being homeless. Those Christian charities working to help homeless veterans were only interested in one thing: using their "good works" to proselytize. He got no help from them despite all the money they had received including, I'm sure, government money (a carry-over from the Dubya administration, I'm sure).
The thing is that "voluntary charities" will fail both because they will lack sufficient funds but also because of sectarian prejudices they will lack the willingness to help all those who need it. That is where the entire society itself must step in, which is done through government action. And the funding for that is through government funding, which comes from government revenues which includes your taxes.
Since you have proven to be not very aware of Christian teachings, it would not surprise me to find that you are also not very aware of Jewish teachings.
The Pirke Avot ("Sayings of the Fathers") "is a compilation of the ethical teachings and maxims from Rabbinic Jewish tradition. It is part of didactic Jewish ethical literature." We read it and did a report on it in my Rabbinic Literature class.
Some of entries would construct a gaming matrix (these are from the first centuries of the Common Era, mind you) which used two states of two properties in order to construct a 2×2 matrix of four outcomes that could then be analyzed, somewhat like Pascal did with his infamous wager. Hence the four kinds of students and the four kinds of charity (working from memory here, since I had lent my copy to a friend in 1973 and he has since disappeared on me).
Regarding charity and how altruistic it could be, the two aspects are:
  1. Does the donor know who the recipient is?
  2. Does the recipient know who the donor is?
The results matrix then reads something like this (again, I'm remembering back half a century, as well as trying to work a dBCodes table for the first time):
  Donor knows Recipient Donor does not know Recipient
     
Recipient knows Donor Least charitable.
Donor has a reason, possibly selfish for helping recipient. And donor receives credit from the recipient for his generosity.
Less charitable.
No ulterior motive on the part of the donor, except that he still receives credit for his generosity.
The example given in the Pirke Avot was of the rich person who filled the hood of his cloak with money and then walked out amongst the public. Those who needed money would take from his hood without him knowing who it was, yet they all knew who he was.
Sadly, Dolly Parton falls in this category, since her generous donation to getting the Moderna vaccine developed and out to the public was without her knowing those who would benefit, yet we all know of her generosity and love her for it (and I'm not even a country music fan!). Doesn't mean that she had done it for fame, but that is still the effect.
     
Recipient does not know Donor Less charitable.
Donor still has a reason, possibly selfish, but it's just not to receive credit nor public acclaim. Example would be "donation angels" who would make a sizable donation to our church anonymously. Or Pip's unknown benefactor in "Great Expectations", the escaped convict he had once helped.
Most charitable.
Donor just gives for the sake of helping others without knowing whom. And recipients receive without knowing whom to thank personally.
I'm sure that we all can see how Christian charities rate in this matrix.
Basically, government assistance through tax dollars qualify as being the most charitable in that through our taxes we all contribute to the same pot and those who need draw from that pot.
(JUST AS YOU ADVOCATE THE Christians giving it all up and that the rule does not apply to others)
Just a bit of sectarian irony that, I guess, only an atheist could appreciate.
"True Christians" insist through their drive for Christian Nationalism, basically their cry for instituting Christian Sharia Law in the USA, that everybody be subject to Old Testament Law ... except for themselves. Because Jesus had made them all exempt from Old Testament Law. But all non-Christians are still bound by that Law.
And that's the irony. Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, are "under contract" (ie, part of the Covenent, the "Old Testament") to follow OT law. Christians believe that Jesus had fulfilled those laws and freed them from those laws (ie, so bacon and cheeseburgers and polyester-cotton blend clothing are suddenly OK).
But what about atheists and others who are neither orthodox Jews nor Christians? Well, what I've heard certain "true Christians" claim is that the full extent of Old Testament Law applies to everybody, including Hindus (so cheeseburgers are still verboten, though for Hindus it's the mere inclusion of cow meat and not the mixing of dairy and meat that's the problem).
 
OK, here's the basic rules that everybody should follow.
If you belong to a religion that has certain teachings and beliefs, then it is your duty to adhere to those teachings and beliefs.
If you do not belong to that religion, then the teachings and beliefs of that religion do not apply to you!
If you observe an individual of a particular religion violate the teachings and beliefs of their particular religion, then you are within your rights to point that out to them.
If you observe an individual who is not of a particular religion that that individual does not belong to violate the teachings and beliefs of that particular religion that they do not belong to nor adhere to in any manner whatsoever, then you have nothing whatsoever to say about their actions. So kindly just sod off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Phat, posted 07-18-2022 2:46 PM Phat has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 439 of 530 (895950)
07-26-2022 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Phat
07-26-2022 9:54 AM


Re: White entitlement
I was just mad that you somehow knew that I had inherited my condo. It really went outside the protocol of EvC.
Not when you are the one who gave us that information!
Message 145, 12-Aug-2021 4:26 AM PDT (adjust for your own time zone), in the Bit Coin: 2 bit bubble topic (bolding added for emphasis):
PhatMouth writes:
I earn roughly $27,000.00 a year. I have no real wealth except the apartment condo that my Mom left me.
QED
 
BTW, following the subtitle here, real estate, especially bequeathing the family home to your child, has been a common way to build up middle-class family wealth over generations. And it has turned into another example of white entitlement due to the practice of redlining:
quote
In the United States, redlining is a discriminatory practice in which services (financial and otherwise) are withheld from potential customers who reside in neighborhoods classified as 'hazardous' to investment; these neighborhoods have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income residents. While the most well-known examples involve denial of credit and insurance, denial of healthcare and the development of food deserts in minority neighborhoods have also been attributed to redlining in many instances. In the case of retail businesses like supermarkets, the purposeful construction of stores impractically far away from targeted residents results in a redlining effect.
Since you like YouTube videos so much, here's one from Adam Ruins Everything that explains redlining (this was actually my first detailed introduction to the problem; before then we were aware of there being discriminatory practices in housing, but not of how those practices worked and had their effect):
Just on the financial side of it, non-whites have not only had more difficulty getting home loans and had to pay higher interests, but they were/are also systematically steered towards the riskier variable-rate subprime loans in which when the higher rates would kick in then those loans would fail. The 2008 mortgage crisis was caused in large part by subprime loans being given out even to those who did not qualify (eg, rock-bottom FICO scores) and then those risky loans were packaged and sold in mortgage bonds given the highest AAA ratings even though they were mostly filled with shit.
Yeah, Margot Robbie tells us that every time we hear "subprime", think "shit." Here is her clip from The Big Short:
I've linked in scenes from that movie before. If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend it.
Here again is the scene where the problem is explained. In a room full of men, no women present, it's a woman who interrupts with a question -- she's in the audience:
So back to white entitlement. In order to build family wealth in your home, you need to be able to keep it, which means that as long as there's a mortgage on it you pay it. If you default on that loan, then you lose the house including any and all equity you may have built up in it. Gone, even your down payment, which is a big hurdle for first-time buyers (as a veteran, we bought our first house with a GI loan, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to). And if they decide to run a freeway or other eminent domain project through your property, the compensation for that will be too little.
Adam touches on how the lower property values and the very slow rate at which they appreciate in non-white neighborhoods not only keep you from being able to move up, but also create a lower property tax base to fund schools and other public services, which help to keep property values down.
Elsewhere, it was pointed out that the lack of black family wealth keeps many from the capitalism dream of going into business -- difficulties in qualifying for business loans doesn't help. Instead, the neighborhood businesses (eg, corner stores) tend to be owned by wealthy immigrants (eg, Koreans, Muslims) who are seen as outsiders and whose profits leave the neighborhood leaving it even poorer.
I already talked about a small New Hampshire town whose primary lumber industry had closed. They were able to keep going by having a local bank and local businesses (eg, grocery store, diner) who bought from local farmers. They were able to keep the town going by keeping the money circulating within the community. Then a burger chain moved in. Not only did it out compete the diner, but it bought its food from suppliers, thus cutting out the local farmers. And all its profits left town and went to corporate. Their money was leaving the community making it poorer. Same thing happens to small towns when a Walmart moves in; not only does it drive other businesses out of business and sucks its profits out of the community, but when they move in they negotiate and get all kinds of tax subsidies from the local governments, depriving them of revenue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Phat, posted 07-26-2022 9:54 AM Phat has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 443 of 530 (895986)
07-27-2022 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Percy
07-27-2022 11:05 AM


Re: White entitlement
Helping the poor and homeless is another matter.
Just using this one phrasing as a springboard. Sorry!1
Helping the poor and homeless has been going on for centuries with soup kitchens and handing out blankets. That just puts a rather flimsy band-aid on the problem.
It's easy to administer "first aid" to the most immediate concerns, such as hunger and the need for warmth. It is an entirely different matter to reduce or even remove the cause of that need. And that solution requires so much more than the mere bandaids of soup kitchens and handing out blankets. And that is where we always fail.


FOOTNOTE 1

German can be a bit of fun for Americans because they have borrowed so much American English into their language, often in unintentionally humorous ways (eg, a single-strap backpack called a "Bodybag") -- see this ex-pat video for more such examples, 10 SHOCKING Things Germans Say That Americans Find Hilarious! ; English examples come from a decades-old article about American sales pitches that didn't translate well in other countries such as the Chevy Nova (in Spanish, "no va", doesn't work, doesn't run), "travel in leather" (in Spanish, travel naked), a Coca-Cola slogan that in Chinese says that it will bring your ancestors back to life. And what German woman could you have ever convinced to use the American product hair product, the Mist Stick (in German, "Mist" is manure)?
My own personal German moment was from a local German shopping center in the early 1970's (which included a German cinema that I used to use all the time since it had the only German content in my area). 1970s, more than two decades before the Internet and YouTube. Now you can watch all those "Heimat" ("homeland", ie country life in Bavaria) films on YouTube. In a store in that shopping center I saw a German candy bar called "Zit".
But one borrowed word that the Germans really love is "sorry". All the German equivalents ("Verscheidung", "Entschuldigung") imply that the person saying it is somehow admitting to some kind of fault or guilt on their own part. "Sorry" doesn't do that. Which is why the Germans love it so much. Now you can try to emphasize with the customer without admitting to somehow being at fault for their dilemma.


Edited by dwise1, : ZIT and chocolate candy ...

Edited by dwise1, : footnote to include the German candy bar, "Zit".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Percy, posted 07-27-2022 11:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by ringo, posted 07-28-2022 12:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024