Which of these youthful ideals... - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20250

Posted: October 20 2015 at 02:57

Dean wrote:

Erm, it's not my country's history so it's not something I know anything about, I only know what wikipedia tells me, and that is: Kansas was admitted into the Union on the 29th January 1981 as a free-state... their admission as a slave-state was blocked due to questions of legality over its constitution [because of voter-fraud]. But we digress.

proof that one cannot believe everything Wikipedia says..

totally understandable mistake in paraphrasing it... I'm convinced there is 80% chance I would've done it too.

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 19 2015 at 23:51

Dean wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

This is the best description of the no borders idea that I've heard, so I applaud. I still have nagging doubts about the workability of it. In my example, there was no discovery of voter fraud. Kansas was admitted as a slave state because of the vote. It backfired because it was a slave state in name only. Most of Kansas' populace were northerners who moved west.

Erm, it's not my country's history so it's not something I know anything about, I only know what wikipedia tells me, and that is: Kansas was admitted into the Union on the 29th January 1981 as a free-state... their admission as a slave-state was blocked due to questions of legality over its constitution [because of voter-fraud]. But we digress.

HackettFan wrote:

 A major point perhaps overlooked here is that Kansas was a free state in practice because it, like all US states, was obliged to draft a state constitution. US state constitutions cannot be over-ridden by federal law unless they are in conflict with the Federal US Constitution. With no borders, there would be no lower level protections, that are obvious to me at any rate, because there would be no lower level constitutions. There couldn't be unless we know where one applies and another one doesn't. Of course one can say that there would be no US Constitution on the national level, but all that really means is that national levels of government (the nations many want to get rid of) zoom outward to a singular world level. So, the problem just becomes larger in scope, yet never really resolving anything.

<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">You are still thinking along federalist lines, a borderless society would be neither a federal nor a unitary state but something new, so you are thinking top-down, when a borderless world would be bottom-up governance. There would be no world governments, no national governments, no state governments, not even any county councils. As I said, the process would be different to what we are used to but I can't tell you how this would work in detail because such as system hasn't evolved yet. I chose the word "evolve" very carefully and deliberately there because it is not something that you can design or invent. No one invented democracy or monarchy - they are systems that evolved out of communities at a time when those communities were much smaller than they are today, [when the entire population of the world was smaller than the current population of Washington DC].

HackettFan wrote:

Instead of having nations at war, we have districts and nation states at war, probably exacerbated by a neglectful world government. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to let me know.

Let's turn it on it's head for a moment... why aren't districts, counties and states at war with each other? Well, in some regions of the world they are, and in the main they are fighting for their local identities. In fact most conflicts in the world in recent times are civil wars rather than inter-nation wars. Remember that my concept of a borderless world will only come about when peoples of the world recognise what makes them similar is more important what makes them different - wars are fought over differences, not similarities.

Well thanks, Dean. This has been quite illuminating. So, yes, I was still thinking top down. Bottom up makes more sense with the invisible hand concept. I probably presumed a top down world government because that was a component that the other posters accepted, or maybe I framed it that way from the start. This is more like no government to accompany no borders. I can make a good deal of sense out of this now, not that I'm necessarily converted. I'm not sure where protections for minorities might rest. I'm not sure how police determine their jurisdiction other than arbitrarily. I also still have quite doubt that peoples of the world recognizing that "...what makes them similar is more important what makes them different" is a plausible societal evolution. It reminds me of how people thought at one time that wide spread media would halt the progression of accent and dialect differentiation. We know from work from William Labov and other sociolinguists that language change continues and is detectable in real time. Maybe what you're speaking of is just different. I don't know.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: October 19 2015 at 21:03

HackettFan wrote:

A major point perhaps overlooked here is that Kansas was a free state in practice because it, like all US states, was obliged to draft a state constitution. US state constitutions cannot be over-ridden by federal law unless they are in conflict with the Federal US Constitution. With no borders, there would be no lower level protections, that are obvious to me at any rate, because there would be no lower level constitutions. There couldn't be unless we know where one applies and another one doesn't. Of course one can say that there would be no US Constitution on the national level, but all that really means is that national levels of government (the nations many want to get rid of) zoom outward to a singular world level. So, the problem just becomes larger in scope, yet never really resolving anything.

You are still thinking along federalist lines, a borderless society would be neither a federal nor a unitary state but something new, so you are thinking top-down, when a borderless world would be bottom-up governance. There would be no world governments, no national governments, no state governments, not even any county councils. As I said, the process would be different to what we are used to but I can't tell you how this would work in detail because such as system hasn't evolved yet. I chose the word "evolve" very carefully and deliberately there because it is not something that you can design or invent. No one invented democracy or monarchy - they are systems that evolved out of communities at a time when those communities were much smaller than they are today, [when the entire population of the world was smaller than the current population of Washington DC].

HackettFan wrote:

Instead of having nations at war, we have districts and nation states at war, probably exacerbated by a neglectful world government. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to let me know.

Let's turn it on it's head for a moment... why aren't districts, counties and states at war with each other? Well, in some regions of the world they are, and in the main they are fighting for their local identities. In fact most conflicts in the world in recent times are civil wars rather than inter-nation wars. Remember that my concept of a borderless world will only come about when peoples of the world recognise what makes them similar is more important what makes them different - wars are fought over differences, not similarities.

Edited by Dean - October 19 2015 at 21:04

What?

darksinger View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1091

Posted: October 19 2015 at 19:12

never thought guns were evil. in fact, I get very suspicious when people tell me that I do not need them. it bothers me because, since I am not a violent criminal, why should it bother them if I have them? I also always believed in god. most of the others have evolved to the wonderful conservative you all love

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 19 2015 at 18:28

Dean wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

This invisible hand notion is insightful, Dean, and it addresses the issue at all levels (I'm not so moved the others who want to distinguish national and sub-national borders, as it places limits on the no borders concept, and therefore makes it less lofty). But I part company on one critical thing. Thanks to national news, I would absolutely take advantage of voting against certain candidates in other regions if allowed. Maybe you would not. Maybe the majority would not.

And a minority of out-of-region people would also be motivated to vote in favour of those candidates ... just as they did in your Missouri/Kansas example, [in that particular instance the pro-slavery fraudsters simply out-numbered the free-state fraudsters because of geography, in the modern world this is less of a limitation]. The corollary to that is that a minority of people from those regions would be similarly motivated to vote for or against the candidate in your region. However, due to a matter of scale, this would only be a problem on very major issues. Minor issues (such as who is sheriff) the effect would be negligible.

HackettFan wrote:

There is an historical example in the US. Residents in Kansas had to vote initially whether to enter the US as a slave state or a free state. Residents of Missouri rushed over to Kansas to vote, and it entered as a slave state. When the actual residents of Kansas drafted and voted on a state constitution, though, they outlawed slavery.

That level of voter-fraud was quickly discovered because considerably more votes were cast than the total number of residents that the newly created state had, and that in turn raised questions over the legitimacy of the state's initial pro-slavery constitution. That, and what followed, presaged your civil war and ultimately led to the abolition of slavery.

That example of voter-fraud was a consequence of having borders in the first place since voting Kansas as a slave state would have affected the balance of power in the senate. Without state and national borders the senate would not have existed so the vote would not have happened.

However, this is still an example of the difference between 'span of control' and 'sphere of influence' - people in other states were motivated to rig the vote in Kansas because it affected them directly. This seems wrong because we are thinking within the confines of borders - the whole dynamic would be different in a borderless society, and that would lead to a different process than the one we are use to.

This is the best description of the no borders idea that I've heard, so I applaud. I still have nagging doubts about the workability of it. In my example, there was no discovery of voter fraud. Kansas was admitted as a slave state because of the vote. It backfired because it was a slave state in name only. Most of Kansas' populace were northerners who moved west. A major point perhaps overlooked here is that Kansas was a free state in practice because it, like all US states, was obliged to draft a state constitution. US state constitutions cannot be over-ridden by federal law unless they are in conflict with the Federal US Constitution. With no borders, there would be no lower level protections, that are obvious to me at any rate, because there would be no lower level constitutions. There couldn't be unless we know where one applies and another one doesn't. Of course one can say that there would be no US Constitution on the national level, but all that really means is that national levels of government (the nations many want to get rid of) zoom outward to a singular world level. So, the problem just becomes larger in scope, yet never really resolving anything. Instead of having nations at war, we have districts and nation states at war, probably exacerbated by a neglectful world government. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to let me know.

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 19 2015 at 17:49

rogerthat wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

Or require plenty of coercion from a world government that doesn't understand the interests and does not represent the will of many tiny regions. Tyranny of the majority is not my idea of democracy.

I should hope that it doesn't materialise THAT way. I do have something voluntary and self-realised in mind rather than a world govt straight out of 1984, hand in glove with mega corporations, imposing their will on all citizens.

Guldbamsen View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104

Posted: October 19 2015 at 09:52

Dean wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

Dayvenkirq wrote:

If we are talking borders between nations, then I don't think there will ever be any elimination of the borders as long as there are communities that try to preserve their own identity. But if we are talking borders between districts within the same nation, then that's a whole another story. (I know these are all details from a long, long time ago, but mayhaps relevant to some extent. See this and this.)

I've always interpreted the no borders advocates as being against all borders, from national borders on down to the fences that keep them out of concerts they haven't bought tickets to. I don't see a difference in any case. It's not less of an imposition if a local sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma is elected by voters in California as opposed to voters in Mexico. I don't see how democracy (national or local) can co-exist with a no borders philosophy.

Democracy works just fine with imaginary borders arbitrarily drawn on a map and would continue to work just as well without them. Each home, street, neighbourhood, parish, county, state, province and country operates its own democratic processes simply because what affects people on a local level is of no interest to those who reside outside that immediate locale. The span of control of those empowered to enact those democratic decisions extends as far as the people they can affect and that is set by arbitrary borders, yet the sphere of influence of each democratic decision extends as far as those affected by it and that can ignore those imaginary boundaries... just as a war in one region affects everyone in the neighbouring regions, and that in turn affects those in adjoining regions, a local decision that affects people outside that locale becomes undemocratic for those affected who where not permitted to vote upon it.

People in Orange County California are more concerned by who becomes sheriff in their county than they are about who is sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma or any of the other 3,141 counties in the USA (or the 300 electoral constituencies in Mexico or the 308 federal districts in Canada, etc.,)...When voter turnout in Orange County is as low as 17% then motivation for them to interfere in the voting in Comanche County will be negligible.

A better example would be sports. While map-borders are only effective on a national level (though some sports fans have cross-border allegiances even at national level) if we look at club level those borders do not exist, for example football teams like Liverpool and Manchester United have fans all over the world and they by far outnumber any local fans they may have.

Another example is "pay what it's worth", which is another system that operates just fine without arbitrarily imposed barriers - sure some people would attend a fence-less concert without paying, (just as some people attempt to jump those fences today), but the majority would pay something.

As communication barriers between disparate peoples living in the far corners of the world are broken down, for example by the Internet, we will start seeing our similarities and in time will recognise they are more important than any parochial differences that currently divide us. Once those personal barriers are removed then national ones would become less relevant. This won't happen in our lifetimes, but contrary to Andy's assertion that this will be driven by "neo-liberal governments", it would be driven by the people of the world. [Yeah, that's still a utopian thought, but one that is far more realistic than any political or corporate attempts at globalisation].

This post is a piping hot bag of win Clap

“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: October 19 2015 at 09:41

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20250

Posted: October 19 2015 at 04:18

HackettFan wrote:

Dean wrote:

Ermm

the current borders in the Middle East are a direct result of Anglo-French meddling a century ago in a region of the world they barely understood. Everything that has occurred since then has merely made everything worse.

Absolutely true.

I write this out of pure memory, coz I have no time to check my "facts" with wiki

Actually, this "meddling" was the result of the predecessor of the UN (Société des Nations) sharing in three parts the ex-Ottoman empire... These were official mandates

There is little strife between those then-official borders, but most of the acrimony is inside those borders set by the SdN mandates

- The US got Arabic peninsula, which includes Yemen (boundary disputes exists there too, and the reason why the Saudis are invading Yemen to restore the Sunnites in power), but most of the harm was done by Churchill before the US got there... He's the one that gave power to the worse most retrograde tribe (the Saudis) to protect the holy cities of Mecca and Medina

- UK had Irak and created Kuwait (which is why Irak has a claim on Kuwait as it considers it a province) >> hence Saddam's invasion of Kuwait once the Iran war was over and the Occident asked him to pay for the weapons they gave him and Kuwait refused to help out, when they were the happiest that Irak was stopping Iran.

- and the French had Syria & Lebanon (which is why Syria has a similar case over Lebanon)

BTW, it is funny to both Syria's El-Assad's and Irak's Saddam's regimes were both Baas parties that kind of erased the religion disputes, as both had a laic or even slightly atheist doctrine, this giving importance to almost every community, provided they agreed with the party guidelines >> this is why the n°2 and 5 in Irak were Christians.

If the west had supported that Bachir arsehole right from the start, he would've never done any of those atrocities he's done since... But the West was so in love with those "Arab Springs" (that were systematically catastrophe everywhere, with the half-exception of Tunisia). Trying to enforce our democracies to those countries is simply wrong, because unlike Christianity (finally beaten into submission after centuries of fight), Islam claims to be political

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: October 19 2015 at 02:56

And a minority of out-of-region people would also be motivated to vote in favour of those candidates ... just as they did in your Missouri/Kansas example, [in that particular instance the pro-slavery fraudsters simply out-numbered the free-state fraudsters because of geography, in the modern world this is less of a limitation]. The corollary to that is that a minority of people from those regions would be similarly motivated to vote for or against the candidate in your region. However, due to a matter of scale, this would only be a problem on very major issues. Minor issues (such as who is sheriff) the effect would be negligible.

HackettFan wrote:

There is an historical example in the US. Residents in Kansas had to vote initially whether to enter the US as a slave state or a free state. Residents of Missouri rushed over to Kansas to vote, and it entered as a slave state. When the actual residents of Kansas drafted and voted on a state constitution, though, they outlawed slavery.

That level of voter-fraud was quickly discovered because considerably more votes were cast than the total number of residents that the newly created state had, and that in turn raised questions over the legitimacy of the state's initial pro-slavery constitution. That, and what followed, presaged your civil war and ultimately led to the abolition of slavery.

What?

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 18 2015 at 23:56

Dean wrote:

Meh, atheism isn't a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. The opposite of belief in gods can be expressed in two ways that at face value seem the same but are not (subtle but far from clever):

1. I believe that gods do not exist... which can be expressed as I believe that gods !{exist}
2. I do not believe that gods exist... which can be expressed as I !{believe} that gods exist
where ! is the logical negation or NOT function.

One is negating the existence of gods and is thus a belief, while the second is negating the belief in the existence of gods and therefore is not a belief. It is easy to confuse these two expressions because once one has been accepted then it tends to imply the other. Since believers in gods cannot prove that their gods exist then atheists only need to reject the belief to be able to assert that [the lack of evidence suggests] gods do not exist.

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 18 2015 at 22:00

Blacksword wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

Blacksword wrote:

There is no God.

I also believe that nation states will eventually go, but we are a century away from that at least - and I don't support the idea, I just believe it will happen. People will be pursauded of the need to do away with borders, over time and through careful programing in the media, peddled by neo liberal governments.

I've always beeved monogamy is important as is the family unit, although I don't believe that allowing same sex couples to adopt etc is part of some kind of plan to 'destroy the family' Rolls eyes...

Maybe it's my fault that I don't quite get the no borders thing, but if there are no borders then Canada and the US will be one. Germany will be Greece and Greece will be Germany (and everything in between). Is it seriously proposed that Germans should be able to vote in a Greek election? Or Americans in a Canadian election? How does one manage to distinguish any voting district from another voting district without borders?

I think it's a little more complex than that. In the EU there are effectively no borders in terms of the citizens right to move between countries and work and live wherever they wish. The rights and wrongs of that are a seperate debate, but generally what I regard the idea of no borders to mean is that there would still be distinct 'regions' with regional administrations with some limited powers, but a global government would preside over the whole lot with the power of veto over regional decisions not deemed to be in the global interest.

Global governance however can not be achieved until the exact nature of regional power is agreed and defined. There is already moves towards this model through the World Trade Organisation, World Health Organisation, the UN, the ICC, the G20 etc etc. Recent 'trade' deals like the TTP and the forthcoming TTIP are also maybe part of this. They are consideraby more than trade deals.

Ultimately what we could end up with is absolutely no restrictions on passing from one region to another, and this is an easy sell to the liberal left because it is perceived to be about freedom and reflecting the idea that we are "all as one" It works for the right because it allows foreign corporations to simply shift form one gloabl region to another mopping up public infrastructure and creating huge monopolies. That's what deals like the TTP and TTIP are supposed to do IMO.

Bush JR's deals with Canada and Mexico for 'super highways' and the concept of the North American Unon are also possibly part of the plan to move towards a world without borders, as breaking those borders down region by region over a long period of time is probably the only way that can be achieved. Imagine trying to do away with borders in the Middle East!! This, again may be one of the reasons we are so keen to install pro western regimes in all those countries; to make that process easier. Doesn't appear to be going very well though.

IMO.

Actually liberals in the US are against these trade deals. So am I, as a matter of fact. Free movement of corporations is not a selling point for me. Free movement and living where one wishes does not eliminate borders because they are not the sum total of governance. The United States constitution is a very nice trade agreement between states far tighter than the EU. I assure you the state borders have remained here in very substantive fashions.

Edited by HackettFan - October 18 2015 at 23:49

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 18 2015 at 21:45

Dean wrote:

Ermm

Absolutely true.

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 18 2015 at 21:41

Dean wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

Democracy works just fine with imaginary borders arbitrarily drawn on a map and would continue to work just as well without them. Each home, street, neighbourhood, parish, county, state, province and country operates its own democratic processes simply because what affects people on a local level is of no interest to those who reside outside that immediate locale. The span of control of those empowered to enact those democratic decisions extends as far as the people they can affect and that is set by arbitrary borders, yet the sphere of influence of each democratic decision extends as far as those affected by it and that can ignore those imaginary boundaries... just as a war in one region affects everyone in the neighbouring regions, and that in turn affects those in adjoining regions, a local decision that affects people outside that locale becomes undemocratic for those affected who where not permitted to vote upon it.

People in Orange County California are more concerned by who becomes sheriff in their county than they are about who is sheriff in Comanche County Oklahoma or any of the other 3,141 counties in the USA (or the 300 electoral constituencies in Mexico or the 308 federal districts in Canada, etc.,)...When voter turnout in Orange County is as low as 17% then motivation for them to interfere in the voting in Comanche County will be negligible.

This invisible hand notion is insightful, Dean, and it addresses the issue at all levels (I'm not so moved the others who want to distinguish national and sub-national borders, as it places limits on the no borders concept, and therefore makes it less lofty). But I part company on one critical thing. Thanks to national news, I would absolutely take advantage of voting against certain candidates in other regions if allowed. Maybe you would not. Maybe the majority would not. There is an historical example in the US. Residents in Kansas had to vote initially whether to enter the US as a slave state or a free state. Residents of Missouri rushed over to Kansas to vote, and it entered as a slave state. When the actual residents of Kansas drafted and voted on a state constitution, though, they outlawed slavery.

Edited by HackettFan - October 18 2015 at 22:51

HackettFan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951

Posted: October 18 2015 at 21:26

rogerthat wrote:

HackettFan wrote:

For administrative purposes, you do need to have at least district level borders. I think there is a HUGE difference as long as you don't give too much authority to districts. You could completely liberate movement of labour from barriers that would otherwise be imposed by nation-states. You could and would be forced to share resources with everyone instead of mounting national barriers to deny access.

Note, this is the opposite of the opposite of the libertarian ideal in the US, which wants as much local control as possible. I'm not saying that that makes you automatically wrong. I'm just noting that different geographical locales will have different philosophies (and fight over them).

Rogerthat wrote:

At the same time, the district level authorities would be charged with maintaining facilities and public services for its residents. All this would of course require plenty of co-operation of a radical level we have not seen before. Which is why it is unlikely to happen.

Or require plenty of coercion from a world government that doesn't understand the interests and does not represent the will of many tiny regions. Tyranny of the majority is not my idea of democracy.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: October 18 2015 at 20:42

lazland wrote:

Dean, I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of atheists, if asked to express an opinion, would deny the existence of God(s). The point I was making, in response to other points on this thread, was that, as you say, is a belief system in itself. The other common definition of atheism, as you say, the denial of a belief system of God(s) is not, of itself, a belief system. It is simply the choice of persons to refuse to partake in such a belief system.

The point I was making is that the two definitions are not mutually exclusive, one implies the other. Since one is a belief and the other not a belief and both infer the non-existence of gods (so in essence deny the existence of gods), then the "belief" part is unnecessary ... and therefore atheism is not a belief system. The whole point of atheism is you don't have to believe anything, not even science.

The brick-wall in this is the fact that we are all born into a world where religion exists so effectively the burden of proof is placed upon the non-believer. Theists do not have to justify their faith.

lazland wrote:

Anyone who follows blindly the, for example, "militant" (note quote) atheism of Dawkins (and I have read him, for the purpose of trying to understand his viewpoint) would absolutely deny the existence of God. Dawkins does not just attack the belief system of religious society, although he does that as well, but absolutely seeks to prove that we are just a happy accident of evolution and scientific chance, and that God had bugger all to do with this, because God simply does not exist.

Do I sound like someone who cares what Dawkins does, thinks or says? Blind adherents to any ideology would absolutely support that ideology's central tenets. Dawkins actually describes himself as a strong agnostic - he knows neither he nor anyone else can prove or disprove that gods exist. Where he and I differ is in that he is as intolerant of religion, whereas I support tolerance of all beliefs and non-beliefs.

When science (not Dawkins) suggests something that contradicts a long held tenet of a religion this is taken by some to be an attempt to disprove the religious view, which it is not. If Dawkins chooses to use those contradictions as proof that religion is false then that's his choice and his argument. What he doesn't do (as a scientist) is use the non-existence of god to prove that a scientific hypothesis, theory or law is true.

lazland wrote:

I read an interesting quote from him in The Times a few weeks ago. When asked on his thoughts about impending mortality, he said he was not overly concerned. Why? Well, according to the great man, it was "like being under general anaesthetic". Oh really? My retort? How the bloody hell does he know?

Have you ever been under general anaesthetic? I have and it is a complete and very abrupt disconnect from consciousness. It is one of the most disconcerting things I have ever physically experienced. When you naturally fall sleep you have no recollection of the actual moment when you ceased to be awake, thoughts that are running in your head continue from the waking state to the sleeping state so you have no way of telling when you actually fell asleep and when asleep your brain is conscious so when you wake you can (for a brief period) recall some of what you dreamed about. Going under general anaesthetic is like someone flicked a switch [ ] the next thing you know is you are awake and several hours have elapsed that you have no memory of. I too would imagine that being dead was very much like that, except without the waking up several hours later bit.

Since no one who is currently dead can tell us what being dead is like then the supposition that it is like being under general anaesthetic is, in my opinion, slightly more reasonable (and rational) than anything put forward by any of the world's religions.

lazland wrote:

And does he really imagine that this would be some form of comfort to the great unwashed masses? Why did he feel the need to make such a comment, which is absolutely incapable itself of being proven, or unproven. He is a scientist. Why not respond as one, instead of speaking for all the world as if he, himself, is the guru of a pseudo religious, or anti religious, cult?

As a scientist who does not hold with the notion of an immortal soul and the afterlife or concepts such as heaven and hell then it is perfectly reasonable for him to expect that the cessation of life is no different from the experience of being rendered unconscious by a general anaesthetic. I've not read the Times article (nor would I, Dawkins is an arse even when I agree with what he says) but as you related it, he made that comment because he was asked the direct question, which again is exactly what I would expect a scientist to do. And no, I don't imagine that for one moment he believed that saying it would offer any form of comfort to anyone, (except those who had been told they would roast in the pits of hell for eternity by some fire and brimstone preacher).

lazland wrote:

I stand by my comment regarding the arrogance of much of modern atheism, and I hope that this is not a generalisation we would both object to. As a scientist, you will know that we are no closer to truly understanding where, or how, creation came about. Until that day comes, I will continue my fragile beliefs.

Then your beliefs are safe because we will never truly understand where, or how, creation came about. The best science can hope for is a model that works for all known observations. Science is not the opposite of religion.

What?

twseel

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767

Posted: October 18 2015 at 19:45

'How the bloody hell does he know?' Because, according to mainstream science, all human experience can be found in the brain, and the same science has found that the effects of anesthetic are comparable to that of death to the brain, in some ways. Whether a non-physical part of you goes to space and has eternal good times is irrelevant because it can not be measured and is not lacking in his views. The reason for his arrogance then is that the statement is based on measurements instead of faith.

lazland

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634

Posted: October 18 2015 at 17:30

Dean wrote:

lazland wrote:

Blacksword wrote:

lazland wrote:

Blacksword wrote:

I do not believe there is a God.

Fixed

Nothing to fix Lazland. The question was which ideal do you still BELIEVE in. I replied 'There is no god' quoting directly the option presented by the poster. It kind of goes without saying that it is my 'belief' that there is no god.

Sorry, it's pedant Sunday!

No need to apologise. I like pedantry.

Actually, your post was the unwitting catalyst for something that actually does genuinely bother me, and that is the extreme arrogance I find in many modern atheists.

Hugues posted something that spoke of the "fragility" of believers such as myself, and the fact that he knows there is no God, and the rest of us are wilting fantasists.

Your post is spot on. You believe there is no God, so I apologise to you in return. Atheism is as much a belief system as a religious one. Not one of us truly knows the "truth", and I suspect that it is a little more clever and subtle than either non belief or belief would have us think.

I do not believe because I am fragile. Atheists are equally susceptible to human fragility, anyway. I believe because I believe, and because, in my own little way, I have intelligent rationalism for my beliefs. In other words, I have made an intelligent judgement, based upon evidence.

The truth is not the exclusive preserve of atheists. Also, the nonsense that a world run by atheists would be any better is just that. Nonsense. Witness Stalin, for starters.

End of Sunday rant. I repeat my apology. My post was really directed at a wider audience, and I should have made that clear.

Meh, atheism isn't a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. The opposite of belief in gods can be expressed in two ways that at face value seem the same but are not (subtle but far from clever):

1. I believe that gods do not exist... which can be expressed as I believe that gods !{exist}

2. I do not believe that gods exist... which can be expressed as I !{believe} that gods exist

where ! is the logical negation or NOT function.

One is negating the existence of gods and is thus a belief, while the second is negating the belief in the existence of gods and therefore is not a belief. It is easy to confuse these two expressions because once one has been accepted then it tends to imply the other. Since believers in gods cannot prove that their gods exist then atheists only need to reject the belief to be able to assert that [the lack of evidence suggests] gods do not exist.

Unlike Hugues, I would never claim to know that there are no gods, but still class myself an atheist rather than an agnostic - as someone with a scientific background I am always wary of any claims to know anything as truth... for me a truth is something that has not yet been proven to be false. Unfortunately you cannot use this line of reasoning for a belief because beliefs are not falsifiable so cannot be tested, scientific truths are falsifiable so can be tested.

However I agree with Madan when he says that gods are an invention of man, because that is a valid conclusion we can make from the current evidence. Just as we invented a physical object to address a physical need, gods were invented to address a spiritual need. This explains why all human civilisations had/have religion, yet all had/have different gods. As he goes on to say, this does not invalidate belief (it can, but it doesn't have to) only some aspects of the religions that are built around them. For atheists this spiritual need is less important, or is resolved by other means, such as rationalising the world around them. Hugues suggests that spiritual need is an indication of fragility (his actual words were "more fragile"), which is undeniably true for some - some find support and reassurance in religion, especially when they are at their lowest ebb, but generalisations are doomed to be wrong.

Would a world without religion be a better place? Who knows? But it cannot be any worse. [The bad deeds of the few regimes that were also atheistic does not counter all the bad deeds committed in the name of religion]. Without religion those who would wage war and oppression would find other excuses, but those would be far harder to justify perhaps. It is difficult to imagine the troubles in Northern Ireland being fought over non-sectarian causes, because when both sides are stripped of their religion then there is little else to separate them.

Dean, I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of atheists, if asked to express an opinion, would deny the existence of God(s). The point I was making, in response to other points on this thread, was that, as you say, is a belief system in itself. The other common definition of atheism, as you say, the denial of a belief system of God(s) is not, of itself, a belief system. It is simply the choice of persons to refuse to partake in such a belief system.

Anyone who follows blindly the, for example, "militant" (note quote) atheism of Dawkins (and I have read him, for the purpose of trying to understand his viewpoint) would absolutely deny the existence of God. Dawkins does not just attack the belief system of religious society, although he does that as well, but absolutely seeks to prove that we are just a happy accident of evolution and scientific chance, and that God had bugger all to do with this, because God simply does not exist.

I read an interesting quote from him in The Times a few weeks ago. When asked on his thoughts about impending mortality, he said he was not overly concerned. Why? Well, according to the great man, it was "like being under general anaesthetic". Oh really? My retort? How the bloody hell does he know? And does he really imagine that this would be some form of comfort to the great unwashed masses? Why did he feel the need to make such a comment, which is absolutely incapable itself of being proven, or unproven. He is a scientist. Why not respond as one, instead of speaking for all the world as if he, himself, is the guru of a pseudo religious, or anti religious, cult?

I stand by my comment regarding the arrogance of much of modern atheism, and I hope that this is not a generalisation we would both object to. As a scientist, you will know that we are no closer to truly understanding where, or how, creation came about. Until that day comes, I will continue my fragile beliefs.

Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: October 18 2015 at 16:23

Dean wrote:

It is difficult to imagine the troubles in Northern Ireland being fought over non-sectarian causes, because when both sides are stripped of their religion then there is little else to separate them.

Actually, I always saw the troubles in Northern Ireland as a class-based issue. While I agree that there was little to separate the Protestants and Catholics, it seemed to me that the Protestants were intent on clinging to a system under which they had a very small economic edge. The irony of this was that both sides were so much worse off as long as the sectarian violence continued that the economic edge that the Protestants were trying to hold on to meant very little, except in context.

Before everyone leaps in to tell me how misguided and/or ignorant I am of the Northern Ireland situation, bear in mind that I perceive the majority of conflicts in the world as class-based - the issue being how the dominant and repressed class members are defined. In some cases, it is by gender, in some by race, in some by religion, some by tribe and in some by political beliefs. These are all just ways that those in power define those they plan to keep out of power.

This doesn't mean that I am a Marxist (anticipating the next criticism). Far from it. This is just how I see the world, as a running conflict between the haves and have-nots.

p.s. edited to add, I do agree with the rest of your post, Dean.

Edited by emigre80 - October 18 2015 at 16:24

Nogbad_The_Bad View Drop Down

Forum & Site Admin Group

RIO/Avant/Zeuhl & Eclectic Team

Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Points: 20866

Posted: October 18 2015 at 16:04

Very nice post Dean, pretty much agree with all of it.

Ian

Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com

https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/

Poll Question: Which of these do you still believe in?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Monogamy is ridiculous	8	[13.33%]
Capitalism must be abolished	3	[5.00%]
There is no god	23	[38.33%]
Meat is murder	1	[1.67%]
Nation states will go	2	[3.33%]
Leadership is evil	0	[0.00%]
Guns are evil	9	[15.00%]
My kids will never go to a private school	2	[3.33%]
Only idiots smoke	5	[8.33%]
All of them	0	[0.00%]
None of them	7	[11.67%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted