I do agree with Ron Paul's positions on the proper role of the US with regard to our foreign policy, ending the federal reserve, issuing our currency through the US Treasury, and protecting our civil liberties.

It's his economic views with which I take issue. They are the reason I would not vote for the man. Unregulated capitalism is predatory and eventually leads to monopoly and oligopoly as we are currently finding out the hard way. We can not afford to lose the chance to give this ideology the thrashing it deserves.

We have allowed the best form of government ever conceived by man to be perverted into a corporate funded stage play divorced from reality. The inability to pass true healthcare reform serves as evidence of this.

Hello my Brother,
I was thinking of Mother today,
Brother, when can we finally admit that life is more valuable than coin?
We will we allow this truth guide our actions?
Brother,
I take no pleasure in learning of burning corpses and starving children,
I hold human suffering in quite low esteem,
I believe in love, touch, sight, sex, and play,
I believe in challenge, sunlight, music, triumphs, failures, and bittersweet
heartaches,

Brother I do not believe in war.

Brother, when was the last time you sat on your porch, breathing the rain?
Brother, when can we smile and play as children again?
Brother, in this one life, what is to be taken seriously?
No, I don't care about market fluctuations, nor interest rates, nor
petroleum, nor tradition,
I care about your wife and child,
I care about your wife's childhood friends,

Have you forgotten them Brother?
Have you forgotten me?

Brother when will you realize that, though I don't even know you, I love
you,
Brother I am you.
Brother, you, are me.
Do you think perhaps what we've got now is all we'll ever have?



I just wanted to share this with you all. Seeing this cartoon really did something to me. I felt that it was the most poignant I'd ever seen regarding the state of this world and the human condition with respect to war.


Peace.

- PreacherCasey

First, a little background:
I am a Husband and Father in a large family. We live in relative luxury in an upscale, gated community which will remain unnamed. I have been fortunate in my life and have made myself fantastically wealthy through industry and the stock market. In addition, my home is equipped with the best security system money can buy. Incidentally, I also keep a large cache of weapons in my garage and pay several bodyguards and security personnel to keep my family and I safe.

Recently, however, I have run into a problem. It seems that the other people in my community have taken offense with some of my business dealings. You see, for the good of my family, I had to make some decisions which would ensure their continued prosperity. Though I am already quite well off and these dealings may do financial harm to some of the neighbors, I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to make even more money. Now, because of these business dealings, there have been several threats from the neighbors, vandalism to my home, and my son was jumped and beaten by the children of my belligerent neighbors. Since I am President of the community Board of Directors, I've decided to take action to bring peace back to our community. First off, I have convinced the rest of the Board to evict one of our neighbors on suspicion of harboring weapons in his garage. Of course, as I stated earlier, I also have weapons in my garage, however mine are purely for defensive purposes. Upon this neighbor’s eviction, I offered the home to a friend of mine who I felt fit in better with the community. Hopefully, he will be able to help me monitor the rest of the neighbors and assist me in protecting my family and personal property from further damage. Regardless, my Contracting company did all remodeling and landscaping work on his new home. It brought in a hefty profit, but I felt there wasn't anyone else who could do the work. Next I installed security cameras and listening devices throughout the community in order to catch future attacks in their planning phases. Of course, there was no need to advise the Board or the community members of this plan, since doing so would render it less effective IMO. My next order of business was to install a 10 foot security wall around the perimeter of my property. No illegitimate visitors are allowed on my property. I felt this was essential to ensuring the security of my family even though all of the neighbors opposed it and petitioned the Board of Directors to stop it. Of course, since the President of the community appoints the other board members, they chose to see it my way. That brings me to my real problem.

It seems in attempting to quell the initial vandalism and violence so unjustly perpetrated against me, I have actually stirred up more negative sentiment in the community. The other neighbors have actually stepped up their attacks on my family and property, and left me no choice but to step up my security measures even more. You see, reasoning with these people is out of the question. They simply wouldn't unconditionally accept all of my terms and, on top of that, they are all a bunch of Methodists and Lutherans! I mean, how am I expected to reason with people who are not even intelligent enough to worship the one true God whom I worship? Anyway, things have gotten really tense here over the last few weeks. I’m thinking about breaking out my weapons cache to bring about peace through an increased show of force. Policemen, paid by the office of the President, would occupy every street corner in the community and instantly quell any threats or violence, by force if necessary. I see no other way to keep peace in the community while still furthering my financial interests and maximizing profits.

I mean, why can’t these neighbors just accept that this is what’s best for them? What do you think?

futile pursuit. Personally, I don't waste much time on these people. For instance, if they can't agree that an Iraqi or Sudanese child's life is equally as important and meaningful as an American child's, then there is no use in speaking with them. Yes, they are dangerous and they need to be opposed. If your website helps to bring people to the cause, wonderful, but their understanding will be incomplete because they haven't renounced violence. I submit that a truly strong man will stand up for what is right regardless of the epithets and insults thrown at him. It is weak people who resort to name calling and labeling people. I grew up fighting in the streets as a kid, playing football in HS and for a year in College, and training in Mixed Martial Arts. I met a lot of tough dudes and consider myself pretty tough. One observation I've repeatedly made in living in this type of world are the guys who call other people pussies or fags or whatever are usually very insecure and self loathing themselves. They may be all muscled up, fight a lot, talk tough about war, ect but inside they feel weak and scared and have to assert themselves physically to make the feeling of inadequacy go away. They are the real "pussies" as they are slaves to their egos!

I concede the point that a "progressive" with some regressive tendencies is better than hard line religious conservative hell-bent on making everyone else adhere to his world view. I just hope that as their minds begin to open to the possibilities, they will take their new found progressive spirit and "go all the way". I don't advocate non-violence because I think a "Democrat/Liberal/Progressive" should. I advocate non-violence because it is the logical conclusion of a progressive and empathetic train of thought. IMO any retention of violence denotes a lack of understanding of the fundamental problems we, as a species, are facing.

It is a difficult problem. At least your doing something about it by reaching out to people on your website. I appreciate the fact that you are doing something and am glad to see some philosophical debate on this board. (In my few months here I feel it is lacking) I welcome your thoughts on this issue but it's off to bed for me now, so I'll respond tomorrow.

and agree that it will probably strike a chord with the people who you describe.

That being said, those people are still ignorant. I contend that accepting violence in this more subtle, cerebral form is a fundamental error made by "progressives" (and indeed all other humans) in their arguments. Violence divides people by nature. It pits one person against another. It begs for an equally violent response from the target of the original attack, then a response from the initiator, and on and on into perpetuity. The question should be: How is it that people can not see the futility of this course of action and inevitably go on waring with each other?

IMO we are talking about a basic, negative human impulse which has become all the more dangerous as our species and its technology has evolved. It is evident to me that all violence is negative. The scale of the violence makes no difference, except in our perception of it. For example, show anyone a picture of an Iraqi child with his arms blown off and body burned from an errant US bomb and they will say that it is negative. But this overt, physical violence did not come from out of nowhere. It began as intellectual violence in the form of greed, nationalism, hegemonic foreign policy, religious intolerance, ect. I'm not saying that all intellectual violence will blossom into physical violence, but ALL physical violence grows out of intellectual violence.

I don't think we can give ourselves a free pass on this subtle violence and call ourselves progressive.

We need to free ourselves (individually) from the "disease" of our limbic system's responses to global, societal, environmental, industrial, and individual problems which are unprecedented in history. Our "old brain" is not suited well for this task. We need empathy, compassion, and critical thinking now more than ever.

greed, aggression, acquisitiveness, ect will lead to our demise one way or another imo.

Thanks for the topic. I think it's too rarely discussed!!

Take this bs "surge", for instance. It is just another way of saying that the only way America will choose to "solve" its problems (many self-imposed btw) is through the use of AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE. No compassion, no empathy, just flexing of muscles. There's obviously no time for diplomacy and humanitarian intervention in the ME (that, of course, would be silly). There is ONLY time for the escalation of hostilities and time for building PERMANENT MILITARY BASES AND THE LARGEST EMBASSY ON THE PLANET on Iraqi soil. Basically their plan boils down to, "If we kill enough of the opposition, get hold of their only real natural resource, and control the rest through pressure on their US proxy governments we'll be able to bring "peace" to the region.

Feel free to substitute the words "US domination" for "peace" in the above paragraph as this administration has proven that they are interchangeable concepts.

bleh.

We don't care about the people who died and the destruction we have caused by waging this war. We don't care about the dishonorable foreign policy we have been pursuing for years which affected millions worldwide. We don't care about HUMANITY.

We care about looking "strong and honorable" in the eyes of the world. People who would care about such a thing are insane. Look at the destruction we have wrought, we have NO RIGHT to demand an "honorable" with-drawl, even though it's not even possible in our current situation. Sickening.

That is my point. We are increasingly dividing ourselves (the human race) into groups, be them religious, political, national, ethnic, racial, sexual, ect. We then carry with us the baggage that these divisions bring with them (religious dogma, political ideologies, nationalistic fervor, racial & ethnic & class stereotypes, ect). They prevent us from seeing that we are all of one species, one life force. They DIVIDE us, but the differences in our DNA are negligible. Even categorizing ourselves as "humans" artificially separates ourselves from the "animals". We are all LIFE. Think about it.

These beliefs close our minds; they restrict our thinking. We are prejudiced by our beliefs and these prejudices affect the way we see things in reality. They distort reality. They give easy answers to complex or even unanswerable questions that are not rooted in actuality. This is bound to cause conflict because reality can't even be agreed upon between the groups. Beliefs are the subtle, "root" violence that leads to physical, overt violence and war.

It may be easy to say that violence is self defeating, it is much more difficult to SEE that violence (in all its forms) is self defeating.

solving problems violently is utterly futile in the long run, which is what we are talking about.

This thread is about human beings waking up and realizing that their attitudes and behaviors will lead to their demise, whether it be through global warming or war. It all starts with the individual. There can be no lasting peace in the world as long as individuals can not overcome their propensity toward violence. Violence only begets more violence. While you may feel your violence is "justified", so does the other guy. It is stupid. Similarly, there can be no real action toward sustainability as long as individuals put the want of luxury over the health of the planet and future generations.

I see the "pack mentality" as a consequence of the individual's desire to make truth conform to his particular POV in order to further himself IN THE SHORT TERM, regardless of possible long term repercussions. The individual remains largely apathetic to politics as long as his needs and most of his wants are being met. Thus, he implicitly buys into the system which created the conditions conducive to his short term benefit. I think this is where the "pack mentality" comes into it. He (like most other individuals who will now make up "the masses") is generally ok with the way things are going and doesn't want to rock the boat. He craves security in every aspect of life. Meanwhile the people in charge continue tweaking the system to benefit themselves more and more while making sure to keep their underlings "just happy enough". Control of the media, military, and government in general certainly help accomplish this.

However, twisting the truth can not be beneficial in the long run. You can deny Global Warming, economic destabilization, the effects of hegemonic foreign policy, ect. in order to benefit in the short term, but it will always come back to bite you in the long term. The effects are becoming more apparent everyday. While most people are quick to complain and throw their support to those with pre-packaged "solutions", few are able to point the finger back at themselves and see that it is their individual acquisitiveness, envy, violent nature, and jealousy which are being manifested in the society they themselves created.

People need to wake up and realize that EVERYTHING they read and see on TV is biased in one way or another. EVERYTHING. Some bias is unintentional, some quite the opposite. The human race needs free thinking individuals with the best interests of humanity at heart to get together and spread the word.

P.S. I appreciate being able to have this discussion with you on this forum. I feel it is a fundamental issue which gets too little attention.

We are essentially blank slates with some genetic predispositions toward certain behaviors. After birth, the tape recorder starts. Our minds record information. We learn to recognize our Mother's voice, to sit up, crawl, walk and eventually, how to deal with obstacles which arise in our lives. If we keep our minds open and we can come to see the virtue of certain actions and the utter futility of others. However, when we settle on a particular world view or definition of "success", our minds close and we look only for "evidence" to support our chosen worldview. We prejudice our interpretation of reality in order to suit our chosen world view. We rationalize, we stereotype, we accept "easy" answers to terribly complex problems and assert them as indisputable truth. I certainly believe we are our own worst enemy in many respects.


edit: speeelingsz

doesn't look like they learn from past mistakes (theirs or others). The cycle of violence continues. In the whole of human history, has there been one example of a free, peaceful society?

Having a scientific mind is not enough. It seems to me that lack of empathy and too much ego are our main problems as a species (amongst others, surely). It seems we can't get past our reptilian brain's knee jerk responses to problems. While these violent, destructive impulses often manifest themselves subtly on a daily basis (name-calling, jealousy, envy, ect), consider that these same impulses are at work on a much larger, more apparent scale (war). Until we are ready to drive to work without cursing out the guy who cut us off, or to talk behind each other's backs, or get jealous of person flirting with our significant other, we are not really ready to embrace peace or non-violence.

Before I address the explanation of atheism you have provided, I would like to address your insinuation that I am trying to put words into people's mouths.

In your reply you stated,

"And before you assert that us atheists "shut the door to the POSSIBILITY that universe was created somehow by some entity", why don't you ask a few of us to see how we really think rather than telling us what we believe?"

In the subject line you indicate that your position is one not held by ALL atheists. As quoted above, you then go on to repudiate me for making an assumption about the implications of atheism in general. Yet you previously stated that there is no consensus as to what atheists believe. This leaves someone like me who is questioning atheism to tailor his argument relative to which type of atheist he is speaking with? And how am I to know with which type I am speaking with before hand?

In addition, I have specifically asked others on this thread to define the tenets of atheism. As I have stated, I have not researched atheism enough to know EXACTLY what it purports. So please, refrain from accusing me of telling people what they believe. I am merely digging deeper into the subtly and implications of atheism in order to possibly arrive at a full understanding. Your frustration and/or anger are not necessary.

Ironically, your explanation of atheism coincides exactly with my position on the possibility of a diety/theology/atheism. I find it solidly rational and eloquently stated. With that said, I don't see any reason why we must take this any further. We could, of course, if you would like to or if you feel I am missing something.

I do have a question for you, though, as you seem to know the definitions of the various schools of thought on dieties. It was my understanding that agnosticism claims that one does not know if a god exists or does not exist. Therefore, it does not endorse religion nor claim to know with certainty that a god does not exist. This seems to be exactly what you are saying about atheism. What then, is the definition of agnosticism?