Progressive-Socialism/The Democrat Party Seeks to Destroy America's Constitutional Republic

Dee

@TKDB

You’re of topic 

Dee

@TKDB

You’re  off topic 

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar Ah yes,

the non-existent CIA.

Pretending as if the CIA never had a role in the downfall of many socialist governments is not only childish, but more importantly delusional. It is not equivalent to 'Flat Earth' theory. It is fact. Maybe you should read up on it.

RickeyD

I'm glad the US CIA and our military played an intricate role in the destruction of socialist-communist regimes around the World. Socialism-Communism are demonic and death, suffering, hopelessness for those enslaved by their ideology of oppression by the elite. Name one successful socialistic-communistic state.

LibertineStates

@RickeyD A country's 'success' is entirely subjective. Ideologies have entirely different views on what is a 'successful' regime. Your word salad has been rejected, just like when you talk to the ladies.

RickeyD

@LibertineStates ; LOL...if you are unable to differentiate between the successes of Capitalism v. Socialism...you're hopeless and your brainwashing is irreversible. Enjoy Bernie.

LibertineStates

@RickeyD I seemed to have hit a nerve.

That meme is clearly biased against any leftist economic world view and should not be trusted.

'Economics 101'? More like 'Economics 666'.

RickeyD

@LibertineStates ; You're the fool of the Socialist-Left propagandist and you're too naive and unwilling to search out the Truth because of a fear of cognitive dissonance. You are the "useful " of the bourgeoisie.

TKDB

https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/has-science-disproved-religion

Has Science Disproved Religion?

The real assumption in this question is clear: Surely the discoveries of modern science have proved that biblical religion is untenable. Yet, there are fundamental false assumptions built into the question itself. The most obvious of these is the popular belief that the scientific method can actually prove things.

As empirical science rests on what philosophers call the inductive method, scientific conclusions never offer certainties, only probabilities. Induction is the principle of scientific inquiry that begins with specific observation in order to offer a generalisation about the thing observed.

For example, all the dogs I have encountered have four legs, so I conclude with the generalisation that all dogs have four legs. But my conclusion is not deduced from a universally known truth; it is based on limited exposure to the facts and so is only a statement of probability.

As it happens, there are dogs born with three legs, or injured and left with three. Inductive scientific methods cannot prove with certainty. Furthermore, the past is not directly accessible to us, so all theories concerning origins and earth history are hypotheses, not facts. And predictions about natural processes in the future are based on philosophical assumptions (faith).

Though these things are understood by philosophers of science, the general public is often unaware of the nature of the scientific enterprise. Most people asking this question assume that Christianity is a blind leap in the dark. Christianity, they say, is not concerned with evidence, but is believed in the absence of evidence, or even contrary to the known facts. Faith is not, however, a leap. Rather, it is a foundation. All science is based upon a faith of some kind. For example, we must believe that there is a real world of matter out there that is accessible and correlated to our senses. We must believe that our minds are giving us reliable information about the world. We must believe that language and mathematics, reason and logic can all be applied to the world of our senses.

In fact, the most basic assumption of the sciences is the uniformity of nature – the expectation that the present and future will be like the past. But none of these things are proved by natural science – they are believed on faith. It is because we believe these things that science itself is made a meaningful and intelligible discipline.

Since science is based upon faith assumptions (metaphysical beliefs) that cannot be proved, we need to ask a different question: What kind of faith provides an adequate foundation for science? And, importantly, how does each person’s religious view of the world affect their methods and conclusions in science?

To answer these questions, we must set the presuppositions of these differing faith systems side by side. Every person, scientist or not, necessarily nurtures a religious perspective made up of a number of interconnected beliefs – what we call a worldview. The two worldviews represented in this question are naturalism and Christian theism.

Naturalism holds that matter and energy is all there is. The whole universe is in flux, matter in motion. Everything we observe in the universe created itself from chaos. The universe is the product of chance, not design. Human beings are nothing more than a random collocation of atoms. In contrast, Christian theism holds that the God of the Bible is the creator, sustainer and redeemer of this world. Rather than the void of chance, the mind of the triune God creates, orders and sustains all that is.

So there are two divergent starting points. In the first case, the mind of finite man must be the ultimate criteria for truth, applying abstract laws to the irrational facts all around him. He puts his faith in himself as god, creating a reality for himself. The Christian theist places his faith not in himself, but in the God of creation. So man does not create knowledge or fashion the universe from his own mind, but rather he looks to God as the ultimate source of all knowledge, and reality.

Facts do not speak for themselves.

People with each worldview are looking at the same data or evidence. However, the facts do not speak for themselves; they are interpreted according to a worldview. Thus, when the naturalistic thinker looks at the evidence, he interprets everything accordingly. He claims, for example, that he does not see design in the genetic code, just selfish genes and random replication. He claims not to see God revealed in the heavens, he sees cosmic evolution. To him all facts must be naturalistic and evolutionary to be facts at all. The Christian theist, on the other hand, sees all the evidence as pointing to God. Facts are not interpreted by the finite and everchanging thinking of people, but pre-interpreted by the mind of God and read in the light of God’s revelation in Scripture.

So the idea that science and religion are opposed is a myth. Naturalism as a religion has its science, and the theist has his science. It is one faith or religion that opposes the other, not an objective scientific establishment that opposes religion. The real heart of the issue is this: Which faith makes scientific knowledge possible? If the universe is ultimately chaotic – if all is in flux – then you cannot finally know anything. How can we believe in the uniformity of nature in a chance-driven universe? How can we trust that the chemical accident of our brain is giving us valid knowledge? If all matter is in motion, how can we apply abstract, universal laws of mathematics and logic to reality?

It is the Christian worldview alone that can provide the pre-conditions of intelligible science. It is God who provides the order, structure and regularity that make the cosmos rational. And he has made us in his image, with mind and spirit distinct from matter, capable of exploring and understanding the world. It is the God-given nature of man living in God’s world that makes science possible. Without such a faith there is no science to speak of.

LibertineStates

@RickeyD And now you are spitting out gibberish to try and sound intelligent. You are the 'useful ', comrade.

RickeyD

@LibertineStates ; Still nothing from the communist but nonsense.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

If one small organisation in one country is able to easily topple socialist regimes all around the world, then it says a lot about how solid of a system socialism is. Interestingly, everywhere where socialism was not toppled, things still went downhill. I wonder if there is a pattern.

Strange that KGB could not just as much topple capitalist regimes all over the world. Maybe capitalism is not as easily toppled, because it actually appeals to people and leads to solid economies?

But maybe I am thinking too hard. Perhaps it is better to go with emotions and believe in what feels good! Who cares if millions people are going to starve over it; at least I will feel righteous.

Dee

@TKDB

You're off topic 

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar Funny how you say that since Libertarianism never even got elected to power, whereas Socialism actually appealed to many people. By that logic, Libertarianism is a much bigger failure than Socialism.

And stop acting like humans need to be cold unemotional psychopaths with no feelings, that is not how humans operate, and that is not how you sustain a society.

100 million people died under capitalism every 5 years. More than the alleged all-time death toll under Socialism/Communism.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

What appeals to people, and what actually works, are two different things. That said, the closest to Libertarian experiment in human history - the American Revolution - led to creation of the most powerful and prosperous nation in the history of mankind, so there is that. The most prosperous nation in Europe - Switzerland - is also closer to Libertarianism than any other European country.
I suppose we use different criteria to judge what is a "failure" and what is not. You are free to choose Cuba or North Korea; I prefer the US and Switzerland, and I am not trying to force my preference on anyone.

I do not have anything against emotions and feelings; they are an essential part of human interaction and life in general. The problem is, emotions and feelings do not fill your stomach at the end of the day. But maybe socialists' organism functions differently from other humans'? I do not know.
Perhaps a socialist can will that 2+2=5 with enough emotional commitment, and then it becomes true. I do not possess such an ability, unfortunately, and have to stick to logic.

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar Yeah right, the guy who advocated humans having no emotions and feelings now suddenly has no problem with emotions and feelings.

Switzerland isn't really a Libertarian country, and neither is the US. Switzerland has some socialist regulations that make the system sustainable, and the US is way more of a neoliberal nation.

I also love how you completely failed at grammar while trying to portray Socialists as being inept at math. You sure showed me how enlightened you are.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

I have never said that. The matter of fact is just that emotions and feelings have their place. You do not bring emotions and feelings into areas of life governed by hard logic.

No country is Libertarian, but some are closer to being one than others.

I am not a native speaker, and I have never claimed that I was better at English grammar than socialists were at math. I do not think myself enlightened. I do think, however, that most socialists have some part of them that is characterised by deep resentment towards those who do not agree with everything they say, which, I suppose, is what causes them to purge all opposition as soon as they take power anywhere.
I do not think socialists are intellectually inferior to capitalists in any way, but they do tend to be much more morally corrupt. Just like Christian fundamentalists', their morals are governed not by a higher principle, but rather come from dark parts of human psyche and are more of a coping mechanism, than a sound position in its own right.

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar If you are 'not a native speaker', then you have no business trying to educate us on math to make yourself feel intellectually superior to others. It will only end in embarrassment.

And if Socialists are somehow more morally corrupt than Capitalists, how come Capitalists allow 100 million people every 5 years to unnecessarily die off as stated earlier? I sure loved to hear about that moral corruption for the first time.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

I must say, this is the first time someone tried to invalidate my argument by appealing to me not being a native speaker. Authoritarians of all kinds invent new ways daily to avoid having to intelligently respond to logical arguments.
That said, Debra seems to value my grammar ability higher than yours, as it does my ability to stay on topic and to be considerate of my opponents. Given how impartial neural networks are at making such assessments, I will defer to its judgement.

Allowing someone to die, and taking action leading to someone dying, are pretty different things. It is pretty clear that the former is much less morally corrupt, than the latter. If it is not clear for you, consider the difference between sitting at your home while somewhere a lady dies of old age, and murdering that said lady.

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar Resorting to red herrings like 'but the old lady' is not going to help your case in this argument. Ignorance of people's suffering is no excuse for a government, and thus comparing it to an old lady is comically inadequate. You have proven to be a bigger psychopath than even I have originally imagined.

Debra is bugged out at the moment, so your claims of Debra supporting your arguments are going to be ignored.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

That is quite a psychological evaluation to make from one short Internet example. Do you win a lot of friends in life with such rhetoric?

It is a common pattern in socialists I have noticed: they claim to deeply empathise with people, yet whenever their ideology is put under the slightest scrutiny, they explode with insults and damning accusations. In clinical psychology it is called a "passive-aggressive response" and indicates deep underlying emotional issues, typically caused by forcible repression of pain.
Incidentally, same issues are typically associated with controlling personality (arising as a coping mechanism), so, again, it is not surprising that socialists always turn out to be authoritarians whenever they are given any degree of control over the society.
Like I said, socialism, Christian fundamentalism and most other variants of authoritarianism fundamentally come from the same place: dark parts of human psyche.

If you click on your profile, you will see an overall assessment by Debra that is not affected by the present issues. Your scores are not terribly impressive, which tends to happen when, instead of participating in debates on a debate website, you choose to berate your opponents and mask your insecurities and immaturity with aggressive verbal explosions.

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar The same can be said of anyone who tries to use big words with no understanding of what they really mean to sound intelligent. AKA a pseudointellectual. When you argue with people who have no understanding of what they're talking about, your consideration scores do tend to fall off.

Finally, placing every Socialist under that label is comical. I just happen to be one of the Socialists who don't have much patience for idiocy and pseudointellect.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

You are free to back your accusations with logic and explain how you have derived that I do not understand something of what I said.

So far you have been attacking me personally from all angles and have not addressed any of my actual arguments in any way. As far as debaters go, you have been a pitiful one. You have not done anything to disprove the stereotype of a typical socialist I hold in my mind, which is someone deeply resentful and run by negative emotions.

You are the one who asked me to clarify my opinion on socialism in the first place. If you do not want to hear the response that you might not like, then do not ask the question. And if you do not understand the response, then apologise for being a naughty boy and go study something.

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar Your first mistake was having stereotypes in your head in the first place.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who labels an entire group of people as having a mental disorder and generally uses the disabled in a talking point against their opponent should never be taken seriously in the debating field, and should go themselves.

I am leaving this site, and I am never returning as long as this cretin is here.

LibertineStates

@MayCaesar Your first mistake was having stereotypes in your head in the first place.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who labels an entire group of people as having a mental disorder and generally uses the disabled in a talking point against their opponent should never be taken seriously in the debating field, and should go themselves.

I am leaving this site, and I am never returning as long as this cretin is here.

MayCaesar

@LibertineStates

Stereotypes do not appear randomly and are usually based on some accumulated experiences.

I have never said that socialists have a mental disorder or are disabled in any way. I merely commented on some of the psychological patterns in them I have noticed.

Safe travels! Advice for the future: if a simple disagreement makes you flip out and leave an entire website, then you are going to be destroyed in the real world, unless you work on your psychology. Do it.