quote:Mal, pointing out that the dollar has sunk in value does not support your idea that it is faith based. It is value based, and the US economy has lost value.
Religion is value based as well. If you find nothing of worth or use in a religion or in its' community, then stop investing. It's not like you enter a religion turn off all your sense and then say, "OK hit me with it, I've got total faith!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is exactly what mal is saying: He believes things "just because". You will note that he offered no actual rebuttal to my accusation that he has no reason whatever to take the word of Paul of Tarsus over that of Christian Whitmer; and yet he does. If that's not utter bankruptcy of belief, I don't know what is. But he continues to be bailed out by the corrupt social structure which condones this sort of thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I feel that just because the words "value" and "faith" have meaning in both contexts, you are attempting to establish a false congruence between the concepts. Faith in a dollar and faith in a religious idea are not comparable in any useful way in this discussion, and certainly the understanding and acceptance of one does not lead to the understanding or acceptance of the other. This is somewhat similar to the cases in which religious people quote Jefferson and Plato and Einstein talking about "God," in an attempted appeal to authority, and fail utterly to realize that the God concept being dealt with by those political, philosophical and scientific theorists does not resemble their own conception. Another analogy might help to illustrate my meaning, but I shudder at the thought of you establishing a valence with that concept as well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find meaning in creative pursuits, I also do not require divine intervention to give my life meaning.
Unless the ability to find meaning in creative pursuits is an example of something that was given to you through divine intervention.
quote:The US dollar is backed by the ability of the US government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens, or more accurately, by everyone's belief that it has that ability.
For the average person, I think the value they put in a dollar stems from their belief that other people will at some point in the future accept that dollar in exchange for goods and services. They assume there will not be massive inflation or deflation. This belief, not completely provable through evidence, is a sort of faith.
The value of the dollar can go down even if the total "value" of the U.S. economy stays constant, if people stop believing in it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again Tres, welcome to the party. "is a sort of faith" does not in any way signify. Inhaling the atmosphere with the belief that there is oxygen in it and not pure methane "an act of faith" for all that it matters. It doesn't justify anything about religion at all.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I find meaning in creative pursuits, I also do not require divine intervention to give my life meaning.
Unless the ability to find meaning in creative pursuits is an example of something that was given to you through divine intervention.
A lie and a false dichotomy and circular reasoning of no value whatsoever to logical debate.
IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think it is a lie and a false dichotomy and circular reasoning of no value whatsoever to logical debate?
quote:Once again Tres, welcome to the party. "is a sort of faith" does not in any way signify. Inhaling the atmosphere with the belief that there is oxygen in it and not pure methane "an act of faith" for all that it matters. It doesn't justify anything about religion at all.
Agreed. The example only justifies something about faith. (And about what makes money valuable.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh ye dogs, can we please avoid feeding the sub-aqueous life forms? Of all things that live under bridges, none is lower than the squamous, weed-encrusted blobs that distort the meanings of words. Where they go, utter giggling insanity must soon follow; there is no SAN check in such a campaign, and the GM who introduces one of these fell beings has lost all interest in playing fair. Honest trolls recoil from their disgusting presence, and wise men flee. Throw it back into the river, do not acknowledge its presence!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:ou are attempting to establish a false congruence between the concepts.
I wasn't trying to, but you are welcome to help me understand why.
quote:Faith in a dollar and faith in a religious idea are not comparable in any useful way in this discussion, and certainly the understanding and acceptance of one does not lead to the understanding or acceptance of the other.
You are welcome to help me understand why.
quote:This is somewhat similar to the cases in which religious people quote Jefferson and Plato and Einstein talking about "God,"
Nobody is doing that, but you are welcome to help me understand why you think that is the case.
quote:Another analogy might help to illustrate my meaning, but I shudder at the thought of you establishing a valence with that concept as well.
When you've decided that I'm not too stupid or intentionally being obtuse you are welcome to help me understand why.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mutual agreement to a fungible carrier of value isn't faith in the sense of religious faith.
This mostly, albeit in a less provocative fashion.
It is similar to the difference between the scientific use of the word theory as in theory of evolution or theory of gravity versus the common usage of the word which is roughly synonymous to a guess.
Edit to add: (Similar in the sense that there are different things described by a superficially identical word, rather than that the relationship between the words are the same in both cases)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How specifically is the concept that "faith" conveys in the religious context different from the more general use? What delineates it?
Often it gets misconstrued as "believing whatever you want" or "believing something that reason says is wrong" which are both pretty far off from how I commonly hear it in religious contexts. It actually seems more comparable to the "faith" you'd have in a friend or family member when they tell you something that seems unlikely, although religious faith presumably is much more compelling.
My assertion is not that there is something special about the use of the word "faith" in the religious sense that separates it from its more general usage. I mean, there very well could be but that discussion is not one that I wish to participate in.
My* assertion is that there is something special about the use of the word "faith" in regards to the value of something like the USD or gold that separates it from its religious usage.
*(not really just "my" assertion at this point)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, you're arguing that using faith as though it means the same thing in both cases is equivocation, yes?
You can say you have faith your friend will get here on time.
You can say you have faith in God.
The meanings, while not radically different, are argued to not be quite the same, correct?
As the very dictionary can say, using Miriam Webster online:
" 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"
Or, to clarify, it can mean multiple things, and you can say religious faith is really a version of the "complete trust" meaning of the word.
However, saying you have faith in the U.S. dollar is not really the same thing as saying you have faith in God.
My dollar bought something yesterday, after all, and is guaranteed by the government, as it says right on the bill where I can read it.
Is God the same? Well, though I'm rather biased by not believing any of them exist, it's more a trust in something like a person than in trusting your dollar will still buy something today as it did yesterday.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gentlemen, why are you arguing with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the difference between 1% and 99%? If you can only be 99% certain of something, Tres calls that "faith", and the same thing as believing in something that has a 1% chance of being true. Since, from the statement 1=2, you can prove any statement by valid logic, it follows that Tres cannot have any actual beliefs; for him, all the world is an amorphous sea of non-meaning. This being so, why bother to engage? Only force can penetrate a skull so thick as that; an option which, alas, is not available over the tubes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to point out that an atheist, humanist or religious person can and often do, behave in equally fanatical ways due to their individual belief systems. The subject of importance in their lives may be different but an equally driving force with equally good or bad results. It is understandable that "faith" has a religious implication but I think it is whatever you feel you can count on in life. I have faith in my family and in my god but little faith in the government. An abused child who was raised on government assistance may have little faith in family and much faith in the government. I know many hardworking Christians that are at peace knowing that the lord will provide for their needs. They behave responsibly yet it isn't the IRA or 401k that gives them faith and peace. On the other hand there are people that only have faith in the dollar - believe that God has nothing to do with their life and will not be at peace until their retirement account reaches a certain threshold....(an ever increasing threshold).
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your post has nothing to do with the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Why do you believe this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why do you think it is a lie and a false dichotomy and circular reasoning of no value whatsoever to logical debate?
quote:Once again Tres, welcome to the party. "is a sort of faith" does not in any way signify. Inhaling the atmosphere with the belief that there is oxygen in it and not pure methane "an act of faith" for all that it matters. It doesn't justify anything about religion at all.
Agreed. The example only justifies something about faith. (And about what makes money valuable.)
No, no, no, no... no. I'm saying that the "faith" you're talking about, from a religious point of view, and the "faith" I'm talking about, which is the belief (based on observation and experience) that things will happen a certain way, even if you yourself cannot enumerate the reasons why it should, are not comparable. They are not related beyond the fact that they both have to do with believing things. The nature of the belief is entirely different, and once again, the fact that a person holds one belief does not validate the other.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: How specifically is the concept that "faith" conveys in the religious context different from the more general use? What delineates it?
Often it gets misconstrued as "believing whatever you want" or "believing something that reason says is wrong" which are both pretty far off from how I commonly hear it in religious contexts. It actually seems more comparable to the "faith" you'd have in a friend or family member when they tell you something that seems unlikely, although religious faith presumably is much more compelling.
Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?
For example, my "faith" in the value of the dollar would be falsified by, e.g., a massive increase in prices, or merchants refusing to accept dollars etc etc.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/QUOTE]The example only justifies something about faith. (And about what makes money valuable.) [/qb]No, no, no, no... no. I'm saying that the "faith" you're talking about, from a religious point of view, and the "faith" I'm talking about, which is the belief (based on observation and experience) that things will happen a certain way, even if you yourself cannot enumerate the reasons why it should, are not comparable. They are not related beyond the fact that they both have to do with believing things. The nature of the belief is entirely different, and once again, the fact that a person holds one belief does not validate the other. [/QB][/QUOTE]
You mean the observation and experience that the government will be able to provide a social service at projected cost and can provide what is promised? For someone who's so grounded in observation and paste experiences, after watching Social Security, Medicare, The Post Office, Public Schools etc. I would think you would have very little faith in the government's ability to provide socialized medicine....past experience dictates they are a miserable failure. You sure have a lot of unfounded "faith" in the government.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Faith in a dollar and faith in a religious idea are not comparable in any useful way in this discussion, and certainly the understanding and acceptance of one does not lead to the understanding or acceptance of the other.
You are welcome to help me understand why.
Well, when we talk about "faith" in a dollar we are talking about the belief, based on our collective experiences of economics, that the value of a piece of currency will hold its shape through many transactions of many different kinds. It's similar to the term "good faith," meaning that an unspoken agreement between people exists, and apparently binds those parties to their agreements due to mutual affinity, respect, or fear of reprisal.
What I am objecting to is what I see as a distortion of the concept of faith in currency. Faith in currency is based on real, observable, quantifiable occurrences every day, and throughout history. Faith in currency is not devoted belief in or worship or undue reverence toward the dollar, but rather an appreciation of a mutually agreed system. Though we are aware that throughout history, currencies have fluctuated, been superseded, and even collapsed for various reasons, we still have plenty of common experience that suggests that commerce will continue unabated, almost no matter what happens. In the shorter term, it is wise to trust currency, especially in dealing with small amounts of it, and we are again reassured by our experiences that bear this out. That is why we value even real property in terms of dollars and cents, because the "value" of the thing is not the dollars and cents, but what the dollars and cents represent in value at that moment. It's a fluid relationship, but it's one that acts in an acceptably predictable fashion for most common uses (not talking about complex financial instruments here). I am objecting to the idea that faith in currency is wholly born from nothing, and did not arrive as the end of a process of natural selection. I object especially to the common belief that currency is empowered by some voodoo-like force, that magically causes all people to accept it equally. That isn't the way things are- currencies fluctuate, but our faith is in the observations we make, and what we have learned from them over time. On the other hand, though, the religiously faithful *are* expected to accept that their articles of faith *did not* evolve in this fashion, but rather really *were* placed in their hands by a god or possibly the son of a god, requiring that the religiously faithful ignore the evidence for the origins of their faith, or otherwise justify those origins circularly by always assuming the premise of their faith as the paramount and inevitable conclusion of their existence as human beings.
Religious faith and faith in currency are related in a couple of ways, I will grant. For instance, faith in currency and faith in religious ideas are taught in some of the same ways to children, ie: "this just is the way things are." However, faith in currency remains based on a relatively (though not completely I concede) concrete set of observable phenomena. A reasonable person can look at the evidence for the function of currency, especially where the use of currency leads to socially beneficial financial innovation (such as the concepts of credit and debt, stocks, scalable systems of valuation for virtually any product, etc), and place their faith in the concept as a proven one. Though financial innovation does lead to irrational economic behaviors in a minority of cases, it generally improves the state of economics in societies that have it, as evidenced by the current wealth of the western world. Even if on a daily basis, you and I do not intellectualize the use of currency (though I do, and I suspect many do as well), the intellectual investigation of the concept reinforces our "faith" in it most of the time.
Religious faith doesn't function this way. Religious faith is taught to children in order that they may be persuaded to ignore certain facts in favor of others. Though so far that state applies to both currency and religion, religious faith functions only to bolster religious beliefs that do not have irreplaceable functions in society. For instance, it was once a matter of faith that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and rather than aide society in developing better theories of the way things worked, religious faith maintained the false belief despite better contradictory evidence. Religious faith holds fast, where faith in commerce and currency propels innovation and progress.
Most importantly, at no time has the belief in the importance of currency delayed human progress in any very important and long lasting way. Economic downturns are the results most often of actual changes in the state of the world economy- droughts, wars, famines, shortfalls, climatological changes- currency does not for long retard progress, and does not for long propel the economy in lieu of actual progress. In contrast, religious faith seeks to preserve itself via the destruction of alternate belief sets. Where currency grows out of necessity for a system of valuation, and continues to serve that function continuously, religious faith grows out of a similar need to fill in a gap, and then remains with no actual function, other than to continually perpetuate itself.
Perhaps this is not a conclusion you will find appealing, but the world economy does not exist in order to produce dollars or euros, while any church in the world does exist in order to produce and maintain religious belief. Faith in currency is not an end, but faith in God is.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would think you would have very little faith in the government's ability to provide socialized medicine....past experience dictates they are a miserable failure. You sure have a lot of unfounded "faith" in the government.
Not really. Considering every other industrialized country in the world, including the far less industrialized country I actually live in manage to do it while putting a far smaller burden on their economy as a whole, I'd say my faith in the concept is fairly sound.
You have never heard me express anything like faith in the current administration or the current set of senators in Washington on this issue- you're just projecting that from your pathetic liberal stereotype. What I have expressed is faith in the nation having an ability to do socialized medicine, and to do it well. I do not deny the obstacles, including people like you, to that end.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
Some religions do indeed "preserve itself via the destruction of alternate belief sets"...Islam is the epitome of this. Governments and societies also preserve themselves via the destruction of other societies. And in the same way, some governments can undermine their own society and currency, just as ours is today by monetizing the debt and devaluing the currency.
The role of government is also to self perpetuate and expand, observation and experience has shown few instances otherwise...at least since the initial founding of America.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
care to explain why the Canadian government can provide better and cheaper healthcare per capita then the US mal, or heck why every other industrialized nation has a cheaper and better healthcare system per capital then the US?
IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how the debate suddenly shifted away from religious faith when mal found he had no answer, isn't it? Or perhaps I should have more faith; mal, are you going to come up with some devastating rebuttal, showing why it's perfectly reasonable for you to believe Jesus rose from the dead, by standards of evidence and reasoning that you would also use in other contexts?
I think I can shorten Orincoro a bit: To equivocate between "faith" to mean "a belief supported by considerable empirical evidence, but not completely certain - excreta can occur", such as belief that a dollar will still buy goods a year from now; and "faith" to mean something utterly unsupported by evidence, such as belief in a life after death - to assert that these two meanings are somehow the same, and holding the first kind of "faith" makes it inconsistent to criticise the second - this assertion is deeply, deeply, stupid.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
You trade one false analogy for another. Al Gore is not "Science." Al Gore is a politician who likes to make money selling books. Act accordingly.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Better is certainly debatable and cheaper has a lot to do with providing less with longer waiting lists. If by better you mean universal, I could agree. If by better you suggest higher quality, I disagree. The Canadian's that can't wait on the list and have the money, come to America for care. I never hear of a European in need of brain surgery flying to Canada for care, they come to America. The greatest doctors, medical institutions and institutions of medical education are in America. The rest of the world is benefiting from the financial investments of the American people.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
You trade one false analogy for another. Al Gore is not "Science." Al Gore is a politician who likes to make money selling books. Act accordingly.
On that we can agree. The Pope wasn't science either when he opposed the new scientific concept of the Sun as the center of the Universe. He was also a politician in control of much of the world.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
Some religions do indeed "preserve itself via the destruction of alternate belief sets"...Islam is the epitome of this. Governments and societies also preserve themselves via the destruction of other societies. And in the same way, some governments can undermine their own society and currency, just as ours is today by monetizing the debt and devaluing the currency.
The role of government is also to self perpetuate and expand, observation and experience has shown few instances otherwise...at least since the initial founding of America.
WOAH woah woah, their is ample evidence that certain ancient cultures figured out we were NOT the center of the universe fairly early but was rejected not out of scientific evidence to the contrary but only because the "reason" did not make logical sense to the opponents at the time, ie how could the Moon orbit the earth but nothing else? This was too confusing for people just as seemingly evolution is too confusing for many people today.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Better is certainly debatable and cheaper has a lot to do with providing less with longer waiting lists. If by better you mean universal, I could agree. If by better you suggest higher quality, I disagree.
Stop changing the subject. You're wrong. You are as wrong as you were the last time you said all of these things, and 10 people posted lengthy rebuttals you ignored then because you couldn't answer them. Dig up that thread and post in it, and don't whine to me that I won't debate your stupid points now, because we've all already rebutted all of them before, and you've already ignored them every time. You remind me of my little sister who would lose and argument, and then immediately bring up some other argument as if no one would remember already having that one.
quote:On that we can agree. The Pope wasn't science either when he opposed the new scientific concept of the Sun as the center of the Universe. He was also a politician in control of much of the world.
Are you making a point or just saying things? The Pope represented a church, which represented and crafted a faith. Let's keep the topic in those cross hairs big guy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: care to explain why the Canadian government can provide better and cheaper healthcare per capita then the US mal, or heck why every other industrialized nation has a cheaper and better healthcare system per capital then the US?
Mal could, with some justice on his side, argue that your assertion is not in fact true; the usual statistics trotted out by Democrats to prove this assertion are fraught with complications and generally do not show what they are alleged to show. He could also argue that the rest of the free world is doing this by refusing to pay market price for American-developed drugs, and therefore free-riding on American R&D budgets. But neither of these points has anything to do with whether that dang Jew rose from the dead or not. You're allowing him to distract you from the main point with this quibbling over what "faith" means. Stick to the point and drill down!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not changing the subject but rebutting your lack of evince and past experience insistence in regards to religion. I've repeatedly attempted to tie together that one's faith in government or humanism is no less obsurd and also lacking of evidence through past experience.
In fact in regards to religion there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God but no evidence to the contrary.
In regards to government and humanity, there is ample evidence AGAINST them. You are equally foolish to sit back and have faith that your social security check will be available as you would to avoid the doctor due to a belief in divine intervention.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In regards to government and humanity, there is ample evidence AGAINST them. You are equally foolish to sit back and have faith that your social security check will be available as you would to avoid the doctor due to a belief in divine intervention.
Right now I'm asking myself why I bothered to type out a 1,000 word post to have you assert an article of faith on my part that I have never, in my life, stated, nor that I hold, and that I specifically stated 5 minutes ago I do not hold. Moreover, I am wondering why you are asserting that belief as if it is connected with my post about commerce and currency, when that post has nothing to do with government institutions at all, much less health care.
I'm asking myself this, and I don't have an answer.
quote: I'm not changing the subject but rebutting your lack of evince and past experience insistence in regards to religion. I've repeatedly attempted to tie together that one's faith in government or humanism is no less obsurd and also lacking of evidence through past experience.
You consider making oblique reference to off topic debates to be rebuttals?
I do see you trying to tie things together. You seem to be attempting to tie my left sleeve to my right sleeve.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact in regards to religion there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God but no evidence to the contrary.
On such grounds as these, you can just as well believe in unicorns, as you must well know.
quote:In regards to government and humanity, there is ample evidence AGAINST them. You are equally foolish to sit back and have faith that your social security check will be available as you would to avoid the doctor due to a belief in divine intervention.
On this point there is at least evidence that social security checks have arrived in the past, and - even if social security as such collapses - that almost all societies have taken some sort of care for their elders. But as a matter of fact, I do not expect to get a social security check upon my retirement, and am taking steps to ensure I won't need one.
But that has nothing to do with Jesus. If I believed in the divinity of Odin, the existence of the Golden Plates, that vaccination causes autism, and that you can get rid of body thetans by donating money, all at the same time, that would be very stupid of me. But it would still not excuse your equally silly beliefs. You cannot justify a nonrational belief by sitting about shouting "You have them too!" Either you have evidence or you do not. If you have evidence, show it. If you do not, admit it. If you want to discuss my irrational beliefs, start a separate thread for it; and don't make assumptions on what they are.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry for not addressing your personal viewpoints. I've been making a concerted effort to keep it general as to not personally offend an individual.
Money is a needed form of exchange backed up by the "full faith and credit of the US government". Worldwide "faith" in US is leading to a drop in the dollar and calls for a different world standard. It isn't the US economic output pushing this call, rather the behavior of those in power. The irresponsible actions of the current administration is tanking the dollar. The dollar is not solely dependent upon GDP but faith and trust as well. There is no doubt it represents the production of goods and services but the main item being produced right now is paper that is green with numbers on it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In fact in regards to religion there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God but no evidence to the contrary.
Give an example of something that you would regard as evidence to the contrary [for the existence of God].
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I've already said earlier, can't prove it to you and I'm glad you are happy with your current belief set. Not trying to convert you and I don't have a video tape of Jesus' resurrection to produce.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Money is a needed form of exchange backed up by the "full faith and credit of the US government". Worldwide "faith" in US is leading to a drop in the dollar and calls for a different world standard. It isn't the US economic output pushing this call, rather the behavior of those in power. The irresponsible actions of the current administration is tanking the dollar.
Well, now you're at least making mistakes that can be corrected. No, simply put, you are mistaken. I understand why you want to believe this, and I may even understand why you actually *do* believe this, though I have obviously been getting better information, along with nearly everyone on this forum.
In very, very short form (leaving 90% of the picture out in favor of one central part of it) the US dollar was inflated because the Chinese economy was producing far above and beyond its actual capacity for consumption. In other words, Chinese production soared, but the Chinese economy was not equipped to distribute the money it earned, as it had relatively few products of value to sell to its own people. This meant that the Chinese needed a way to lay off the excess cash, and trusted the American financial system to invest its money, and so invested in US Banks. The US banks suddenly found that they themselves had too much money running around with nothing to do in order to earn them a decent percentage, and so the financial sector in the US (as well as Europe) began to invent bigger and bigger and more and more complex financial instruments in order to hand out and manage more and more loans to more and more people.
Thus, a Chinese laborer is able to produce 3 times what he did at his job 25 years ago, and so at the end of a long chain of causes and effects, another house is built in the desert outside of Flagstaff Arizona, or Reno, and the "owner" gets an unsecured loan for the whole amount from a bank that is selling thousands of these mortgages bundled into larger securities.
Here's where poor governance comes in, and you're not going to like it. A lack of effective regulation (though not a lack of total regulators), caused these very poor and rickety investments to be rated as being very secure investments, so people all over the world bought and traded them like they were worth more than they actually were. Then when people slowly realized that there wasn't going to be enough money earned in all the United States to pay for all those new houses and eventually pay off the investment from China, and thousands of debtors defaulted on their loans, people suddenly realized that the US economy was about to contract, meaning it would actually produce less than it did before. That meant that the value of all US assets and to a lesser extent all assets valued in dollars would start to go down in value. That's what happened.
It was happening well, well before Barack Obama was even a candidate for President. The value of the dollar against the pound reached a periodic low in 2007, just as it did against the Euro, Swiss Frank, Czech Koruna, and many other currencies. Then the financial fallout from this series of errors began to effect the European economy, and the value of the dollar in comparison to those currencies buoyed. Then people started saying, "hey wait a minute, I don't like all this fluctuating... let's think about another currency here!" Then they all sat down and thought about it. And that's where we are today.
Not for nothing, a lack of effective regulation did cause the recession in the sense that the government (Bush's term, not Obama's) failed to stop it or see it coming. But then, the financial sector had been faced with a nearly impossible dilemma, like a fat kid with too many cookies in his hand, and his mom knocking on the door, the US economy stuffed all the cookies into its mouth, and now we're feeling a little sick.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've repeatedly attempted to tie together that one's faith in government or humanism is no less obsurd and also lacking of evidence through past experience.
Mal, can you give an example of some event that would "falsify" your religious faith?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've already said earlier, can't prove it to you and I'm glad you are happy with your current belief set.
I know you can't prove it to me; if you could, you would have. I'm asking how you prove it to yourself. Why do you hold a belief for which you have no evidence? Or for the evidence you have, why do you not trust the equally reliable evidence for other silly beliefs? I don't believe your brain is a random number generator; you must have some sort of 'reasoning' for believing as you do.
Let me save you some time by forestalling the usual defenses:
"It makes me happy". So does Prozac; are you taking Prozac? If not, why not?
"Why shouldn't I believe what I like?" Because in all other fields, you profess, unless you are very unusual indeed, that you not only do believe, but also want to believe, only what is true, and only what you have evidence for.
"It gives me a moral code" - this can be done with or without the added accusations that atheists don't have one. So extract the moral code and drop the belief; nothing about the Sermon on the Mount requires you to believe that its author rose from the dead. I note in passing that it does require you to give a lot more to charity than you are actually doing, but that's besides the point.
"I enjoy the social aspects". So go to church and sing, but drop the silly belief structure. Nothing about enjoying organ music requires you to believe in divinities.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: In other words, Chinese production soared, but the Chinese economy was not equipped to distribute the money it earned, as it had relatively few products of value to sell to its own people. This meant that the Chinese needed a way to lay off the excess cash, and trusted the American financial system to invest its money, and so invested in US Banks.
AFAIK, the Chinese yuan is not pegged to the US dollar for that reason. The peg is maintained for (in their minds) stability, when you are a developing nation, many countries will have doubts in the value of your currency so pegging it to a better known currency is common.
Consistency and stability is why the Hong Kong dollar is still pegged to the USD today and why the Canadian dollar was pegged to the USD as late as 1970. In fact, the dollar peg for China and Hong Kong were both applauded in 1997 for their role in providing stability during that time's financial crisis.
However, the way the Chinese maintain their peg is to make their currency not freely convertible. In other words, all foreign money going into China can only be exchanged at government-controlled banks which have to retain that cash in order to maintain that peg.
Thus, during a trade surplus, these banks will retain a growing amount of USD to the tune of something like two trillion in total.
It is this "asset" which is making them quite worried since it is the US recession (and the accompanying massive printing of money) which is making them worried about the ability of the US to continue backing the value of the USD at its current value.
(As a total aside, AFAIK, very little of the USD surplus was invested in equities or US banks. Most of it is in treasury bonds. At one point they were making very hyped investments into corporate debt and US equities, but this was only a small fraction of the total)
All of which is a long winded way of saying that Mal is not 100% wrong and the rumblings about an international alternative to the USD really is due to a drop in confidence in the US government and associated economy.
But this whole digression has to be ended with the agreement that the confidence that the world has in the US government (and the dollar) has very little to do with religious faith.
(It also has very little to do with the current administration too. This has been going on for a very very long time)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religious faith doesn't function this way. Religious faith is taught to children in order that they may be persuaded to ignore certain facts in favor of others. Though so far that state applies to both currency and religion, religious faith functions only to bolster religious beliefs that do not have irreplaceable functions in society.
At least in the church I go to (I can't speak for all denominations of all religions), religious faith is not understood in the above fashion. I don't recall sermons suggesting we need to ignore certain facts in favor of others. Instead faith is usually described more in terms of ignoring certain emotions (fear, doubt, etc.) in favor of facts and evidence.
But, at the same time, I will admit that faith (as a word) is used in many ways within religion, and is often mystified and glorified in ways that make it hard to pin down or compare to other types of "faith". Sometimes people will speak as if faith by itself is operating in their lives. Sometimes people will speak of faith as if it is a possession they have to guard. Sometimes it is treated as a character trait. I'm not always exactly sure what to make of statements like that, and in those respects, it can't be equated exactly with any other "type" of faith. Faith in currency is certainly not mystified in that way.
quote:Gentlemen, why are you arguing with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the difference between 1% and 99%? If you can only be 99% certain of something, Tres calls that "faith", and the same thing as believing in something that has a 1% chance of being true.
A food that is 99% salt and a food that is 1% salt both contain salt. Believing that does not require any confusion about the difference between 1 and 99.
quote:Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?
For example, my "faith" in the value of the dollar would be falsified by, e.g., a massive increase in prices, or merchants refusing to accept dollars etc etc.
If I died and found myself reincarnated as a conscious rock, I'd conclude many of my religious beliefs must be way off. Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except nearly every one of those values can be objectively ascertained through the far more scientifically rigorous process of analyzing ethical systems.
IP: Logged |
quote:A food that is 99% salt and a food that is 1% salt both contain salt. Believing that does not require any confusion about the difference between 1 and 99.
No. But there's a very fundamental difference between eating a pound of food that is 1% salt and a pound of food that is 99% salt. One may be reasonably healthy. The other will probably kill you. King and Orincono's point is that there is a fundamental difference between faith in something that has 99% certainty and faith in something that has 1%.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the large number of religious faiths there are in the world, maybe it would be easier to focus on why only small fraction of the human population does not believe in god. The details, even between Christian denominations, is as contentious as my conversation with an atheist. The obvious question is, "Why do people believe in god?"
I think the core belief is inherent in us. Perhaps it is leftover genetic memory not unlike our fear of snakes, spiders and rotten flesh. Personally I think we just know yet tend to get hung up on the details.
As I said before, I spent many years struggling to point that I identified myself as agnostic. It wasn't pressure from family or church that caused my internal struggle, rather the pressure from society and science that I had difficulty reconciling with what I felt. Only when I slowly realized that it isn't an all or nothing issue, could I reconcile what I knew innately with what I learned academically. IE, my earlier example of the Big Bang explaining the moment of creation. If it were an all or nothing situation and I were required to believe every word of the Bible literally, I would have to reject it. In many ways, I view the Bible as a conversation between a parent and a very young child. When my two year old asked me where babies came from, I told her they come from mommy and daddy and grow in mommy's tummy. While lacking the scientific details, she accepted this explanation.
Obviously, not all people have this innate belief, but I know very few people who are completely atheist. In fact, the majority of people I know reject organized religion but believe in God. Why would someone who never went to church as a child or had religiously indifferent parents, maintain even that belief at their core?
We just know and look for an explanation of what we already know....who is god? Different faiths suit different people differently. I imagine God being very proud of humans for figuring out His puzzle, while at the same time being disappointed because those who figured it out stopped believing in Him.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In many ways, I view the Bible as a conversation between a parent and a very young child. When my two year old asked me where babies came from, I told her they come from mommy and daddy and grow in mommy's tummy. While lacking the scientific details, she accepted this explanation.
I think what clearly concerns me and many others is that this childish fiction is understood as temporary when you're speaking to your daughter about babies. It's takes on varying degrees of permanence with religious ideas, anywhere from the sort-of-whatever belief in Noah's Ark, to the all consuming passion for the idea that Jesus (assuming such a person existed) died for our sins on a cross and came back from the dead.
I agree that religious ideas are childlike and folkish. But to quote your own Paul of Tarsus:
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
(note: please do not take my quotation of a particularly secular bible verse as an affirmation of the righteousness of Christianity.)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
So in effect you are literally blaming your genes? Well, that's a switch for someone generally rather far to the right. Are you seriously going to disavow personal responsibility for your beliefs? If it comes to what's inherent in us, all men should be out tomcatting, spreading their genes as much as possible; and yes, some do, but you don't believe their actions righteous.
And, one more time: Do you, or do you not, believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead three days after being taken off a Roman cross? (Which incidentally contradicts what's known of this method of execution; the corpses were left in place to encourage others.) You cannot possibly claim that this belief is "inherent", and yet it is the very core of Christianity; without the Resurrection, all you have is a vaguely altruistic code of ethics, no different from what's been proposed by a dozen other thinkers.
If you wish to retreat into deism, fine; it gets sufficiently vague that it's hard to argue against, in a mushy, invisible-dragon, "the willow bends, the oak has the courage of its convictions" sort of way. But you claimed to be a Christian. If you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, I suggest you retract that claim. If you do so believe, you should not advance arguments for a mushy deism, you should say - at a minimum, to yourself - what convinced you; or if you cannot do so, give up the conviction.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe that. What I find amusing is to have an atheist question the foolish beliefs of a believer when the vast majority of the human population holds a religious belief.
To understand religion we should focus on what makes the extreme minority different. Asking a believer why he believes what he does is like a homosexual critically inquiring why a straight man is attracted to women. I could think of many logical/rational arguments for two men partnering in life. Another strong back around the house and in many ways would have more in common....but it is still not the natural way of things.
The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart. It is amusing to be treated as an odd believer in mythology when I fall into the vast majority...the non believers are the oddity of humanity.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your defense is now "everyone else is doing it, so you're not allowed to question it"? Seriously? I notice you don't provide any actual answers, only contorted reasons I should not ask the question. Do you really feel no cognitive dissonance when your best defense for a core belief is "lots of people believe similar things"? The majority of people who know what it is, believe that global warming exists, is man-caused, and is a big problem. So why don't you? The majority of people throughout history believed that slavery was natural and unavoidable. Why don't you?
Leaving aside the question of whether or not it's amusing to doubt something "everyone" believes - I note that in other contexts, like the aforementioned global warming, you would probably find this courageous rather than funny - can we agree that this doesn't actually have anything to do with whether Jesus was divine? I'm asking you seriously. You don't really believe that you've made any arguments that would show this to be true, right? So if you haven't, why not? You must have some sort of reason for believing as you do; I don't demand that it shall be convincing to me, but there must be some reason you believe.
Now maybe, if you state your reason, I'll say "That argument works just as well for Odin. Why don't you believe in Odin?" In fact I already have, further up in the thread. If you think this is likely to happen, let's skip a step ahead. It seems to me there are two options: Either you disagree that this form of evidence is just as strong for Odin. In that case, we'll just have to drop the discussion, because there's nowhere for it to go; I will think you are being dishonest with yourself, but you are not likely to die of grief for this cause.
The other possibility is that, on second (fifth? hundredth?) thought, you realise that your evidence doesn't actually look so strong as all that. Can we consider this possibility as a hypothetical? Since I don't know what your evidence is, I won't make a specific criticism of it right now. Instead I ask this: If there is some piece of evidence which you consider important to your belief; and that evidence is actually equally strong for a different belief; what will you do? Please note, I'm asking this as a hypothetical, so - of your courtesy - don't deny the premise; that is, don't say "That won't happen". It's a thought experiment, similar to "What would you do if aliens landed?" If you answer "There are no aliens", you're not going to learn much.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. But there's a very fundamental difference between eating a pound of food that is 1% salt and a pound of food that is 99% salt. One may be reasonably healthy. The other will probably kill you. King and Orincono's point is that there is a fundamental difference between faith in something that has 99% certainty and faith in something that has 1%.
I agree.
quote:But to quote your own Paul of Tarsus:
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
This may be a fundamental disagreement about our position/role in the universe, though. I'd say that human beings are essentially children in our understanding of the universe. We really know very little.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I have no problem speaking about my faith but it's obvious you have a problem with Christianity. The chip isn't only on your shoulder, it's in your screen name. I've tried to avoid specific attacks on anyone's belief system or to engage in that type of exchange.
Why do I have faith in Jesus? I believe the eyewitness testimony that has been written down. This testimony is not only contained in the Bible, it was recorded in other texts of the day. Testimony that was so profound it quickly spread around the known world. I understand in today's world of cell phone video and You Tube, the written testimony of thousands of people thousands of years ago may seem kinda stale. I don't think there's an expiration date for eyewitness testimony and even a living witness in front of a jury might not convince all the jurors. I don't know much about Odin but if you could point out some documents that were written by people who walked the Earth with him or were politicians in neighboring cities of different faiths, I'd appreciate it.
Against what you've suggested earlier, Christianity spreads of it's own accord, even under threat of death and persecution. The religions that you suggest impose themselves on people are not Christianity. Although there are millions of people under the thumb of communists and other theocracies who secretly worship Jesus. Please, point out a tyrannical Christian theocracy for me. There are tyrannical parents of all sorts and I would think the child of a Christian tyrant might have opinions similar to yours thus ending the spread of the faith. People believe in god and seek the truth. I believe Christianity is the truth but if I lived in Iran I would probably be a Muslim and not be satisfied. (are any of them satisfied?) If my parents only fed me tofu I would always have a hunger, if even an unknown one. You can live on a diet of beans and rice but I want more. Once you have meat and potatoes, beans and rice just doesn't cut it any more. Christians are persecuted because people so readily convert to it of their own accord. It poses a great threat to those in power in China and the middle east.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
