The Debate Hall Social Thread

[RDK]

Hi RDK, where have you been?

University consumes my life.

RDK's been sending me daughters even though I asked for sons....

I do not approve.

What the **** am I reading

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So... In a debate on smashmods (of all the weird places to have a debate on religion, a thread about Olimar's changes in Brawl- 2.0? U so crazy, thunda-moo), a christian asked me "What led me to be an atheist". He wanted to see the thought process behind it. This was my answer, and I thought it'd be a good idea to repost it here:

[collapse=my answer]I see issues with faith in general. Not even specific to the christian faith in most cases (the christian-specific ones include wide parts of the old testament, clinging to creationism and wanting it taught in schools, and homophobia), but rather defined in general by faith in not necessarily a higher power, but to non-scientific concepts from god to homeopathy to the denial of global warming. Faith in something beyond the scientific rationalist thought processes lead to things like this.

I suppose you could call me a dogmatic Pearlist first, and moderate utilitarian second. I do not feel that any method of belief beyond that of physical evidence and reasoned logic, the basis of scientific discovery, has any use in our world. When presented with the concept of a god, if you start looking for evidence, you slowly but surely hit a stopping point because it is literally impossible to gather evidence or proof of god, as it is either arguing for the unknowable or the impossible.. And as a Pearlist, the complete lack of physical evidence for god, the fact that there can be no proof of any specific god whatsoever, and that the logical basis for any form of god on the ground of the "first cause" argument is shaky at best, leaves god a completely non-scientific concept, and that turns me away from him.

As far as justifying my beliefs, I point to first of all Occam's Razor (beyond the assumption that the universe as we experience it is real, Pearlism makes no further assumptions; all other religions assume god, an assumption that is unnecessary to understand reality), and second of all to the incredible success rate that Pearlism and the scientific methods have had-while religion ruled the world for thousands of years (pretty much since shortly after the turn of the century), it was a ****ing wreck. People saw god everywhere and thought that prayer was the answer to everything-it wasn't. And then, in the 1600-1700s, people more or less discovered the scientific method and started making the world a better place with it. Religion has brought us prayer, churches, the inquisition and witch burnings, terrorism, the dark ages, and a completely unprovable eternal afterlife that may or may not exist... The scientific method has brought us modern medicine, increased our life expectancy by a good 30-40 years, taken us to the moon, explained most of the mysteries of the universe, allowed for mass transportation and communication, has almost ended hunger in modernized countries, and has improved our quality of life to the extent that other methodologies can only dream of. And all the while, it tells us, "Don't take my word for it-see for yourself!" That's pretty much the exact opposite of any religion, because it's not based on faith.

So why does this lead to me disliking religion to the extent that I feel justified in criticizing people for being religious? Well, religion is a non-scientific concept. To support the idea of any specific god, or any non-scientific concept, you have to ignore the scientific method and assume, which leads to a fairly good chance of making an *** of yourself. If you'd just take any random statement on faith, then there's something seriously wrong with your "bull****" filter. I mean, imagine I told you about Zeus, and how he made the lightning, and how anyone who doesn't believe in him is damned to hades for all eternity... Would you take me seriously? This is how I react when I hear about Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, or any other modern deity.

And also, for the most part, religion also comes with serious baggage attached-these are the things I mentioned before like Homophobia (because an ancient book says so), rejecting scientific theories and evidence (because an ancient book says so), and latching on to an ancient book of, to be honest, incredibly brutal fairy tales (have you read the old testament? Yahweh is one MEAN mother****er.) above all other knowledge. Granted, this isn't the case for all christian denominations, but think about it for a minute... How many people claiming "evolution CANNOT be real because the bible says so" is too many? I'm going to say "1". Replace evolution with heliocentrism and the flat-earth hypothesis (both clearly claimed by the bible in genesis alongside the creation story), and you'll see very quickly how ridiculous this sounds. Most religions enforce the belief in their holy book above most/all others, and this is simply not realistic. Especially for books whose content is closer to "The Brothers Grimm" than "Nature Weekly".

Furthermore, remember that "assume" statement? What's the difference between your faith and the faith of the 9/11 hijackers? You both assume a non-scientific, completely baseless claim... The only difference, I'd argue, is what that claim is and how seriously you're willing to follow it. Furthermore, it's not just your own faith... You pass it down to your children and teach them to see the world through the same eyes. I really think that this is not acceptable.

In short, the christian religion (as well as virtually every other religion) carries extreme baggage with it, faith itself in any non-scientific concept has extreme negative side effects on a person's judgement (seriously, watch that video I linked to above, There Are No Theists in Hospital Waiting Rooms), and ignoring faith and going off Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic has led the world out of the dark ages and into a long period of prosperity. This is why I am a Pearlist, and Pearlism dictates Atheism as a logical conclusion of its dogmatism. This is why I have a serious issue with christianity, Islam, every other organized religion, alternative medicine, paranormal beliefs, and all other non-scientific concepts. And this is why your sig made me change mine.

Hopefully that clears a thing or two up. I think my position is perfectly reasonable, and I hope you spend the time reading this, because I spent the time writing it-it's pretty long, I know.
[/collapse]

 

[ballin4life]

Brawl forums debate religion haha

In smash64 we debate which country is the best

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Brawl forums debate religion haha

In smash64 we debate which country is the best

Clearly it is Japan. The have Godzilla any further arguments is invalid.

Spoiler

(I am joking of course.)

As for which country is better it depends one what you are measuring, are we talking education, population, or culture?

 

[ballin4life]

All of the above.

Plus there was that one time I had a big debate over whether World War II helped the US get out the Great Depression (it didn't).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Does anyone here believe that creationism should be taught... ever? I'm wondering if I should make a thread about it.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

All of the above.

Mmm ...I do not know then, that just became a really grey area now that we are factoring everything.

 

[ballin4life]

Common arguments include "Australia has the best beaches" "Brazil has the hottest girls" "You Americans are all fat" "LOL British people drink tea" etc.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

could you explain to me how WWII didn't help the US out of its economic slump?

 

[ballin4life]

Spending all your resources making bombs, tanks, and other things people don't want decreases people's standard of living.

GDP might go up, but that's only because of flawed accounting. It might cost $200,000 to make a tank, but it's not really worth that in the sense that GDP is trying to measure since no consumers have demand to purchase tanks.

But yeah wasting resources and killing off your people doesn't help the economy. See also fallacy of the broken window.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window


So why do you think it helps the economy? I can refute the standard Keynesian nonsense if you want.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

please do so since at this point in my economics education I am Keyne's *****

Also doesn't the US act as the consumer in the case of government expenditures? Is that not the entire concept behind fiscal policy?

 

[RDK]

I don't like the new Smashboards skin.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Welcome to the club. It's just really huge and clunky.

 

[ballin4life]

please do so since at this point in my economics education I am Keyne's *****

Also doesn't the US act as the consumer in the case of government expenditures? Is that not the entire concept behind fiscal policy?

Yes, the US is the consumer in this case. But this is the problem. The government is not subject to the market processes that make GDP a valid measure of economic good in the first place.

When I spend $500 on a TV or something, that indicates I've gotten at least $500 worth of value from the purchase, but when the government spends $100,000 on a tank, it doesn't necessarily get $100,000 of benefit for the people. The government is diverting resources from the private sector, where people can choose what they want to purchase, and using those resources to make other things that people don't actually want.

What is the purpose of the economy? To satisfy the demands of consumers. The government's consumption is not the purpose.


The claim of Keynes is that government spending helps because the government will employ workers, who will then spend their money on other things, raising demand for those other things and increasing production. This is flawed for a few reasons. For one, each dollar that the government spends comes out of the private sector in the first place, where it would also have been spent. For another, the people that the government employs would be better off (and more efficient for the economy as a whole) if they worked in the private sector. Once someone has a government job, he often won't search around for new jobs where his skills would be utilized more efficiently (since remember the government is producing things that people don't necessarily want). Finally, it's simply misguided to focus on the demand side of the economy rather than the supply side. The purpose of the economy is to create supply that satisfies the demands of consumers. There is no merit to "stimulating demand" because the purpose of the economy is to satisfy the demands that exist, not to change what people demand.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Does anyone here believe that creationism should be taught... ever? I'm wondering if I should make a thread about it.

I don't know about others, but I'm fine with it not being taught. People would just teach it wrong if they're forced to teach something they don't believe. I'd rather have people NOT treat us like we're stupid.

 

[Aesir]

Government spending does help with economic recovery, I would probably also say Investor confidence, and consumer perception play an important part too.

Then again this is just Salt water v fresh water economics.

So why do you think it helps the economy? I can refute the standard Keynesian nonsense if you want.

I highly doubt that, but good luck.

 

[Reaver197]

Don't know much about economic theory, but some very profitable and useful technologies have come from government/military projects and research.

Not that I'm saying that I'm cool with how much we do currently spend on the military though.

 

[ballin4life]

Government spending does help with economic recovery, I would probably also say Investor confidence, and consumer perception play an important part too.

Then again this is just Salt water v fresh water economics.


I highly doubt that, but good luck.

So your argument is basically "No you're wrong".

How about an explanation? How is diverting resources from things people want to things people don't want a good thing?

How does government spending increase "confidence" and why is "confidence" important anyway?

Don't know much about economic theory, but some very profitable and useful technologies have come from government/military projects and research.

Care to name some? It's definitely not enough to make up for the inefficiency.

 

[Reaver197]

Well, DARPA did set the ground work and the technology for the internet with ARPANET. Certainly, a lucrative pay off, but I wouldn't even begin to imagine I have the information nor the know-how to put a number to that. That was before the Mansfield Amendment that forced ARPA/DARPA to stick projects that were directly involved with military research though, so take that how you want to.

I'm pretty sure they also helped develop or refine a lot of satellite technology, but I'm not positive of that and even to what extent they contributed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

Don't know much about other military research projects that have had extended civilian use. I think GPS was one such thing also. I guess the Manhattan Project could also be seen as laying the ground for nuclear energy technology, but that's a more tentative connection with the offset that it was much more directly applicable to nuclear weapons.

Not sure of much else.

 

[ballin4life]

Well, that definitely wasn't a government stimulus effort.

Also MUCH of the advancement of the internet was due to private forces. Even the origins of ARPANET are heavily linked to think tank RAND corporation (which got money from the government but was overall a private institution).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Does anyone here believe that creationism should be taught... ever? I'm wondering if I should make a thread about it.

Certainly it should be taught in Christian private schools if nothing else. But honestly I don't see a problem with having some information on it in a religions class, even in public schools. Just as long as it's not taught as science.

 

[Seikend]

So I should probably post here more often.

Just not been feeling motivated to get back into debating yet. The interest is pretty much constantly on and off for me, but I've not been feeling it at all recently. I'll probably at least look through the PG at some point and scout for possible DHers though.

 

[Aesir]

So your argument is basically "No you're wrong".

I don't think I even said that, but yes I do believe you're wrong. But I'm more skeptical you can succeed where Mitlon Friedman couldn't.

How about an explanation? How is diverting resources from things people want to things people don't want a good thing?

You need to explain specifically what you mean here.

If you like we could have a 1v1 debate here, probably in another thread though, I hate when good debate topics are wasted in here.

How does government spending increase "confidence" and why is "confidence" important anyway?

If we're talking just blind spending into useless projects then all it really does is give a sense of a false recovery. But if the spending targets the issues that are preventing the economy from recovering then it can be very successful. Increasing spending helps with confidence because if investors thing the economy isn't volatile they'll start trading again which lead to a faster recovery.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't think I even said that, but yes I do believe you're wrong. But I'm more skeptical you can succeed where Mitlon Friedman couldn't.

Heh. How did Friedman fail in this? Pretty much only Keynesians believe in stimulating the economy through government spending.

Also I think monetary policy isn't good for the economy either, but that's a bit more complicated.

You need to explain specifically what you mean here.

The government, in order to spend money, must take it out of the private sector. The government is not very efficient at allocating resources. The private sector is more efficient. So increasing government spending is moving resources from efficient areas to inefficient areas.

If you like we could have a 1v1 debate here, probably in another thread though, I hate when good debate topics are wasted in here.

If there is interest I wouldn't mind a mod moving these posts into a new thread.

If we're talking just blind spending into useless projects then all it really does is give a sense of a false recovery. But if the spending targets the issues that are preventing the economy from recovering then it can be very successful. Increasing spending helps with confidence because if investors thing the economy isn't volatile they'll start trading again which lead to a faster recovery.

Ok, if the government can target spending into exactly the right areas of the economy, then yes the government can help the economy. But the thing is, they can't. That's why socialism fails. The government is inefficient. The economic calculation problem can only be solved through the market allocation process and price system. The government does not know exactly how much of each thing to produce (which is why the Soviet Union had problems with shortages).

But Keynesians would argue that ANY government spending will help the economy. Keynes himself said that paying people to dig ditches and fill them back in all day would stimulate the economy. As long as you agree that this is false, we are mostly in agreement.

Also entrepreneurs/businesses (if you mean that type of investing) do help the economy recover (the people trading stocks and stuff don't really). I don't think that government spending will increase the confidence of businesses, especially since government spending means either higher taxes (so entrepreneurs/businesses have less incentive to try to make money) or more government borrowing, leading to higher interest rates (so it's hard for entrepreneurs/businesses to finance projects). Either way it's a net negative for business in general (though the spending may help certain businesses).


One last thing: Recessions themselves aren't a problem - they are a solution to a problem. The problem is the resources squandered during an unsustainable boom. A recession is the markets correcting to move resources from things that people don't want as much any more (like housing right now) to things that people do actually want. So drops in "aggregate demand" are really just market adjustments to new demands of consumers.

 

[GoldShadow]

If you guys make a thread for it, I'll go ahead and copy these posts into it.

 

[rvkevin]

Any thoughts on the Harris-Craig debate?

 

[Dre89]

When was that?

I hope Harris is better than Krauss, and doesn't argue that nothingness has multiple forms lol.

 

[rvkevin]

When was that?

I hope Harris is better than Krauss, and doesn't argue that nothingness has multiple forms lol.

I think it was on the 7th. It was on morality so Kalam doesn't enter the picture. Link to debate.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks I'll check it out when I can. I don't really like Craig on morality though.

I also found out I don't like Alvin Plantinga, some of the arguments he uses in Youtube interviews are just terrible.

 

[ballin4life]

Brawl forums debate religion haha

In smash64 we debate which country is the best

New debate happening in the smash64 forum:


Does it make sense to be proud of something that you did not choose?

 

[adumbrodeus]

In the BBR we play mafia.


Best debate training, ever.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Mafia is legit

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

New debate happening in the smash64 forum:


Does it make sense to be proud of something that you did not choose?

Of course not. BUT...

http://zinniajones.com/blog/transcripts/taking-pride-in-pride/

 

[ballin4life]

OMG turned into a ridiculous debate about whether free will exists

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Hey guys, I'm back, I was really busy with truckloads of work. Anything important I missed?

 

[Sieguest]

Other than someone starting a debate over something that finally isn't religious based, then no you haven't missed much.

 

[ballin4life]

OMG turned into a ridiculous debate about whether free will exists

Looks like a Barry Bonds debate is brewing now in the Smash 64 social thread

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Does anyone here believe that creationism should be taught... ever? I'm wondering if I should make a thread about it.

I mean if it's a private school I don't really have a problem with it but even then I don't think it should be taught. And if we're talking public then no, absolutely not. Never.

 

[Sieguest]

It'd make more sense to have it as an elective course, that way no one has to take it if they don't want to. I also believe private schools may teach it or make it a requirement in their curriculum if they so choose.

But to be mandatory in public schools, I would say no. It does no good to try and impose your religious beliefs on anyone who does not accept them.

 

[RDK]

OMG turned into a ridiculous debate about whether free will exists

How else would it have ended?