Topical Discussion - Please try to get overly angry/upset

[Lairiodd]

Capitalism drives a TYPE of progress. But is that progress taking us somewhere good? Is it progress towards peace, prosperity, happiness and equality?

Peace -> yup, capitalism requires stable rule of law. Why attack when you can trade. After the US invasion of Iraq, are they still paying for the oil ? It is non-capitalist countries that manipulate (or try/threaten to manipulate) the oil prices. In fact, wars represent a loss of overall value.

prosperity -> yup, history shows capitalism gives wealth (this is capitalism's slam dunk)

happiness -> yes, more wealth gives more happiness, though there is dimishing returns --- but that doesn't mean poor people are happier. Basically, money lets you change the world so it is a little bit closer to what you want. For most people this would be say home improvements and/or consumer goods that save them 1 minute here and 1 minute there. Capitalism lets people pick what they want.

equality -> there are no monarchs/classes in a capitalism, so in that context everyone is equal. In practice, capitalism results in differences in wealth. These wealth differences are mostly based on merit. However, look at the super rich Today, alot of them didn't have super-rich parents. There is reasonable "churn" in wealth distribution. Capitalism gives equality of opportunity, it doesn't mean that everyone will succeed. Perfect equality is not even that easy to define. Do you mean that everyone gets the same hourly wage or the same yearly wage ? Capitalism seamlessly works out a fair wage based on skill required, difficult and usefulness of the job.

I notice you missed out the *big* one:

freedom -> this is a core component of capitalism. Everyone is free to choose what they will buy and what they will sell. Do you think freedom is a good thing ?

A quick look around the state of the world might suggest not.

Erm, what ? The "western" countries have had pretty good peace for the last 60 years. Also, if they embraced more capitalism, there would be more prosperity.

Then look at countries in Africa where they don't have solid property rights. What a shock they are poor.

Who knows? Maybe a capitalism-free world would have enabled us to progress in other ways that would have led us somewhere better.

What do you have in mind ? So far communism is the main alternative. That was a dismal failure in practice. According to economic theory, it had to fail.

The problem with communism is that it requires a group of people to decide what is best for everyone. This can occur either at the central national level (like USSR) or at a more local level (like I believe the original theory proposed). However, in both cases, you are giving up freedom. People are being forced to do stuff that they don't want to do. You are replacing a person's right to decide what is important to them and replacing it with what the group things should be important to them.

Another plus with capitalism is that it spreads power out over more people. No one person runs the world economy, despite big buisness claims.

[Lairiodd]

Well said! The Laws of Physics are incomplete. No-one has yet put forward a theory that unifies all branches of Physics. Until that happens, no-one can conclusively deny the existence of God

It will never happen, so I guess you are safe.

—if indeed such a theory would prove it and not the opposite!

Ok, that's cheating. The God question is fundamentally unanswerable.

Assuming God appeared to everyone to prove his existence, I could still say to you

"Well, maybe its a trick, you can't *prove* that it is God"

This is pretty much the same argument that you used to show God must exist.

A reasonable person would probably admit that the stars at night moving into the shape of a face that speaks in English or some other spectacular display is beyond our tech,

God was used as an answer when science couldn't explain very much. As time has passed, we are able to explain more and more. It seems to me that there is no longer a need to used God as an explanation. We can just explain stuff by saying that it is an area we don't understand yet.

There are things science cannot explain does that mean

A) God is the explanation

or

B) This is an area of science that we haven't figured out yet

I would be willing to go for B as it is the most reasonable.

In fact, some of the world's leading scientists believed in God—scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck... even Einstein!

It doesn't matter if everyone except one person thinks something is true, if that one person is correct. Science is not a democracy.

[Xest]

Well, no-one could disprove that those things happened. To do that you would have to build a time-machine and go back and prove categorically that they didn't happen. I could say the same thing about the Big Bang... unless you were there when it happened, you can't actually prove that it did! For all we know, God might have made the universe to make it look as if a Big Bang happened... you can't prove that is not what happened!

No again, you're ignoring the facts, we can prove that didn't happen due to the mere fact it's impossible to survive in a live whale, whales have to dive to eat and the pressure whales large enough to consume a human dive to alone would kill a human, not to mention the fact the human would starve to death or be killed by the whales digestive system.

Also, in terms of the feeding of the five thousand, it is an outright impossibility, whilst you're right that we don't have all the answers to the way the universe and other dimensions work, we do have enough knowledge to conclusively prove that it's outright impossible to make 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish turn into many more such that they could feed 5,000 people.

Onto the parting of the red sea, again whilst this is entirely impossible to happen on demand when someone does some little magic trick it could have parted as the result of a large underwater volcano or earthquake. As was seen when the asian Tsunami hit the water subsides for a period before the tidal waves come rushing back to hit the coast.

Of course that's not to say that these events are pure fiction, there is a possibility that similar events happened and the bible twists the truth, for example in the case of the feeding of the 5,000 it could simply have been a case of them actually having a stash of food hidden somewhere for example. Essentially whilst it may well have happened one things for sure, there was no magic involved, there was no miracle, regardless of what you like to claim with your ignorance of the facts it is impossible in our universe, in our dimension for these miracles to happen as the bible suggests they did.

As Lairiodd pointed out, it's becoming more and more common that we can prove the bible wrong on many things, and that's why in the developed world beleif in any religion is declining as more and more people now have access to the scientific facts that explain how things work, rather than be stuck with blind faith as to whether or not something is true.

[Gandelf]

No again, you're ignoring the facts.

On the contrary. I suggest that you are determining what those facts are from your understanding of the laws of Physics as you currently know them. You are ignoring the fact that those laws are incomplete. Those dimensions that we don't yet know of or understand, could well be (and most likely are) the mechanism behind why miracles have occured/do occur/will continue to occur. With all due respect, you are looking at things from the "playpen" of the security that your understanding of the physical realm provides. I don't mean that as insult.

I am willing to accept that what I believe may be wrong. Are you so sure in yourself that what you say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Are you able to accept that you could be wrong? Even just for one brief moment? We are all in the same boat, as far as beliefs are concerned. We could argue until we're blue in the face, each trying to get the upper hand. But, we're both on the same journey—in search of the truth... it's just that we're searching in different, yet equally valid ways. I suspect both paths will end up in the same place at some point in the future.

[Kallima]

<skims a lot of discussion> I think the problem with discussing a miracle described in a religious book is one side says, hey this is so unlikely, it couldn't have happened, therefore God doesn't exist. But the only reason the event was described in the book was because it was so unlikely. They described it because it seemed impossible without the direct intervention of a deity. They wouldn't include something boring and ordinary like your local inland revenue office getting your income tax right. Though to be honest with my inland revenue office, it seems more likely that I would survive being swallowed by a whale than they would get it right.

I haven't yet come across a law of physics that proves no deity exists. We as yet have only a partial understanding of some of the basics of our universe, and we may yet find the understanding we have include some fundamental errors. I remember an accepted theorem proof that we were being taught being disproved. I don't think there is a general feeling among physicists and mathematicians that they have proved no deity exists.

To quote Steven Hawking's conclusion of his book 'A Brief History of Time.':-

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason --- for then we would know the mind of God.

[OohhoO]

Capitalism is the opposite of slavery.

ROFL!
Just yesterday I had a conversation about how slavery is more or less the same now as it has always been, with the exception that we are now wealthier slaves than a few hundred years ago and also sometimes have a minor amount of choice as to the corporate identity of our slavemaster.

Capitalism gives people what they want, people should be allowed to decide what they consider important on their own rather than one person (or group) telling everyone what they *should* want.

Sorry Lair but this is ridiculous. People want to be liked/loved. People want to know if there is life after death. People want to be able to play DAoC all day & still have a roof over their heads & food on the table. People want all kinds of things, the vast majority of which are not material &/or not attainable.

I find it rather hypocritical to talk of how advanced humans are on the one hand & then state that our progress has to be based on a system of personal greed.

BTW When I was talking about ruined lives I wasn't referring to rivers I was referring to those which capitalism discards & their dependents & the social structures which contain them.

[Lairiodd]

ROFL!
Just yesterday I had a conversation about how slavery is more or less the same now as it has always been, with the exception that we are now wealthier slaves than a few hundred years ago and also sometimes have a minor amount of choice as to the corporate identity of our slavemaster.

A slave can't be wealthy, that's the whole point. If you don't own yourself, then you are a slave. More importantly, a slave cannot choose to take a holiday. People work Today because they want the things that their salary can provide. They also take holidays because they don't want to work 100% of the time. You don't have to work if you don't want to. However, you shouldn't expect others to work to give you free food.

In any case, a slave who gets to pick who owns him is much better off than one who doesn't get to make that choice. In Western countries, people can change their job to any other employer who is willing to hire them. It is this choice that makes them not slaves. It does require effort to change jobs, but that doesn't make you a slave.

I don't think it is reasonable to call the requirement for people to work slavery. That is just a fact of life no matter what system you use. Also, under communism you have to work and are given no choices in the matter. That is in fact slavery.

In fact, under capitalism, it would be possible for most people to live off investments. That would require extensive automation, and people would rent out their automated factories rather than work for a living.

Sorry Lair but this is ridiculous. People want to be liked/loved.

Well, you can't buy that, but you can buy roses . However, all the time spent dating etc could be considered investing in the relationship. The investment is not with money though. It is what is called a bilateral monopoly in economic terms.

Capitalism is not just about money btw, it is about freedom of trade. Do arranged marriages increase or decrease overall happiness ? They clearly help some people, but allowing people to choose who they marry helps more people.

People want to know if there is life after death.

Actually, I think it is closer to people wanting not to die and then wanting some comfort when it becomes obvious that there is no avoiding death. If there was no involuntary death, then people wouldn't care much. Capitalism provide some life extension in the form of medicine, the vast majority of advances due to investment by capitalistic companies.

People want to be able to play DAoC all day

Money provides that. Ironically, this is probably the kind of thing a communist society would stop providing as it is unproductive. It doesn't matter that people want it.

still have a roof over their heads

Money provides that

food on the table

Again money provides that

People are given a choice

A) work and pay for the above
B) don't work and don't get any of the above

People decide that getting all the stuff is worth the effort.

In fact, they can adjust the amount of work they do until their extra free time is not worth the lost salary.

People want all kinds of things, the vast majority of which are not material &/or not attainable.

I disagree, most people want things that exist in the real world.

I find it rather hypocritical to talk of how advanced humans are on the one hand & then state that our progress has to be based on a system of personal greed.

I disagree, working out that freedom is important is a major achievement of the human race.

BTW When I was talking about ruined lives I wasn't referring to rivers I was referring to those which capitalism discards & their dependents & the social structures which contain them.

Example (as it is easier to argue over a specific example than a general concept) ? People are not slaves, capitalism only leaves behind people who want others to do stuff that those others don't want to do (or value less than what the end up doing).

[Ovi]

The strength & weakness of capitalism is the same - A total lack of social conscience. People are important soley as a raw material.

No social conscience? What do we pay taxes for? What are the various forms of government benefits for?

I can't speak for other countries, but certainly in the UK anyone without a roof over their head and at least some food really has only themselves to blame!

Local councils have a responsibility to provide accomodation & income support is provided to cover eating and other necessary expenses.

Anyone out of work for 6 months qualifies for any number of different training course to reskill!

Having experienced 2 periods of (medium term?) unemployment I have never been in the position of not having shelter or food, and both times it was training I received that allowed me to get out of the situation.

Admittedly in a communist society there would never be unemployment, but then so far any communist societies have struggled to provide even the basics of support for their own people, other than those in a position to look after themselves.

The hard part of capitalism is to cream enough off the top earners to support the poorer sections of the community. At the same time though we need to ensure that there is always an incentive to get out and do something constructive.

So far in the history of mankind the western capitalist democracies are the wealthiest societies, even for the poor. That would suggest no one has yet found a better alternative.

In a perfect world many forms of government would work, I actually think that in a perfect world some form of communism would be the ideal, unfortuantely there are many imperfections in society, and Capitalism is the only philosophy that has worked despite them.

[OohhoO]

Deleted example as it contained sad stuff.

May your capitalism always treat you kindly!

[Xest]

On the contrary. I suggest that you are determining what those facts are from your understanding of the laws of Physics as you currently know them. You are ignoring the fact that those laws are incomplete.

You're totally ignoring what I've said, I can prove various laws of physics as fact and you're ignoring the fact that not all laws of physics are incomplete, that enough are complete to prove many bible miracles as complete impossibilities. Again you're only adding more evidence to backup my comment that those who defend god do so only with ignorance of the facts, choosing to ignore hard evidence when presented to them.

Those dimensions that we don't yet know of or understand, could well be (and most likely are) the mechanism behind why miracles have occured/do occur/will continue to occur.

Again you're proving my point, you're proving that your lack of understanding of physics shows you're incapable of making a reasoned argument on the subject. You see a dimension in the sci-fi sense, as an alternate reality however that is merely the sci-fi description of it. The reality is that dimensions are much more boring I'm afraid, space (x,y,z) makes up 3 dimensions, time makes up the 4th. There's discussion that gravity is possibly also a dimension, however there's absolutely no room in the idea of dimensions for the explanation of a diety, the converting of a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish into 5,000, the ability to survive being eaten by a whale or the ability to part the sea at will.

Certainly things such as quantum theory are fascinating and can produces some pretty unbeleivable results, for example two particles can be linked without ever physically touching and you can alter the state of one which will result in the others state changing identically whether the particles are 1cm apart or 200 million miles apart. To people who don't understand the science behind it this would certainly seem miraculous but in fact it's really not so incredible.

With all due respect, you are looking at things from the "playpen" of the security that your understanding of the physical realm provides. I don't mean that as insult.

This is quite an ironic statement when you look at the situation you're in as a beleiver in god. It's those who use god as a catch-all to explain things they don't understand rather than those who dare to challenge our understanding of the world and push forward research that are safe in their secure little "Well it's obviously gods doing" playpen.

I am willing to accept that what I believe may be wrong. Are you so sure in yourself that what you say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Are you able to accept that you could be wrong? Even just for one brief moment?

Of course I could be wrong, but I'm not much of a gambling person, I'd rather base my beleifs and understanding on things that can be proven time and time again than on the stories of a book from many thousands of years ago that has absolutely no factual evidence backing the more miraculous events in it, despite being in existence for such lengths of time.

Despite me not being much of a gambling person, I'd certainly be willing to bet my life that if religion wasn't force fed to kids from a very young age and hence leading to religion being something forgotten about and lost in time that there'd be absolutely no adverse effects on the world, there'd be no mass plague, no smiting down, no riders of the apocalypse invading the earth.

The fact is the indoctrination of children at a young age, before they can think for themselves is the only thing keeping religion alive at least in the developed world. Todays education system allows for kids to think for themselves and apply basic reasoning such that something with a lot of factual evidence holds more weight than something without. I certainly think religion is a pretty cool thing, some of the stories are absolutely brilliant but they should be taught as just that - stories then let the kids decide if they beleive it's true or not. It's really interesting reading about various beleifs hence why things like religious education classes are pretty good, however whilst it's good to teach about the ideas of various religions it's wrong to teach the ideas as fact. Sadly, even todays supposed western world of free speech denies kids the choice to make up their own mind on religions issues in a lot of schools. It's even more damaging in the middle east where indoctrination of a specific type of islam is used to preach hatred for the west driving people to beleive it deep enough that they'll blow themselves up for the ideas of it.