I now wonder why I think it is a possible endeavor and why are there people who think it is
Ouch
Eventually.
In the trials of the American Experiment, my analysis suggests that the over-run of the poorly observed experiment is repeating and compounding errors in the guidance of the society. The flaws in the deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory causes the partisan chaos that trickles down causing the social disorderliness most of us endure The exception being CyberLN, who wants to be the coolest dude in the room.
A modern sophisticated American constitutional convention will not fall short of the goal. Except for CyberLN, We put a man on the Moon; eventually We are going to recognize the need for a “scientific” government charter system. The difficulty in gathering those who are inclined, talented, and skilled, will be overcome upon the dissemination of a paradigm advancing a more reliable government separation theory.
The American deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. It does not prevent the partisan contest to populate the three parts with politically aligned personnel - oligarchy.
If the Iron Law of Oligarchy is true, then we need to make sure the principles of political organization are demarcated and tried.
Sigh…I’ll simplify my entire response to your post: I find the word we, when used to describe anything about atheists other than a communal lack of belief in deities both absurd and distasteful.
History has proven that no one ideology works over time. At one time in history monarchy worked because it provided strong leadership and organization. From China to Europe to the Americas monarchy was practiced. But once societies got organized, many realized the flaws in such a process, to where today a monarchy is an anachronism and a liability to any society.
When the US Constitution was drawn up, it was a magnificent piece of work and addressed many of the ills of society. But over the course of centuries those who sought power (I am pointing my finger at all political parties) learned how to manipulate loopholes and find ways to gain an advantage.
My point is that we must never allow ourselves to be drawn into the belief that society has finally found a political and societal set of rules that works and must be locked in for millennium.
Well, I would like to commence work on the next best thing. You seem to have an open mind to the idea - right? How did you get as far as you did in your thinking and not try to figure out how to advance to the next best thing?
They were indoctrinated by the teachings they received from their former religious community about the existence of god and the rules for sustaining the community. They questioned the rules of community, and compiled new rules, and self-indoctrinated themselves with the new rules. Other people did not simply follow them without being indoctrinated with the new rules.
you are an example - you do not want to follow my rules, and I do not want to follow your rules. I don’t want to be friends with you. Do you want to be friends with me???
So, indoctrination is different than teaching, now? Make up your mind!
Right - teaching does not require not questioning the doctrine, or does it?
And then, I think you get really confused here.
You are being exposed to an alternate view, and guarding the orthodoxy.
Are there rules for securing the definitions of words, most notably, the words used by atheists to distinguish what atheism is? Science is supposed to do something like that, right???
A person does not have to be indoctrinated to have a religion??? Are you sure, you are an atheist? I have never encountered that idea, before. Are you a liberal?
How does a person strongly behold beliefs without it becoming a doctrine to refer to for exercising whatever it is the belief is supposed to do for them?
Again, what is worship?
You are compiling a profile (doctrine) of me for future reference - right? You are going to hold it strongly - right? You’re not going to give up - right???
When I composed my post, it was looking back into history.
But if I was to project into the future, most likely a global communist dictatorship based on hard egalitarianism will be required in two hundred years. Based on the trends of pollution, global warming, population and more potent weapons of war, a firm hand must take control of humanity to ensure it doesn’t run down the road of extinction.
Democracies are a failure in controlling such excesses that may lead to our extinction.
Now there is an idiotic comment. Please demonstrate the preexistence of Lord Xenu prior to L. Ron’s creation of Scientology. There is no FUCKING GOD in Scientology. You are just spouting dishonest bullshit. You have been demonstrated to be WRONG and your ego is just not allowing you to accept the fact.
Oh my that made laugh till I peed myself a little. I haven’t snorted red wine for a few months at a post on the forum…but Cog? Liberal…oh Yaas. He’s a little snowflake liberal alrighty.
Hey Tin…Cog’s a liberal now…CyberHiker wants to tell ya…
Nontheism is a term used in religious apologetics, it seems prima facie to not understand that atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deity, and I have seen at least one definition that wrongly claims that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive positions. So I am dubious about the term to be honest.
Yes that seem to be part of what it is supposed to mean, but atheism can also describe this of course. This again seems like an attempt to redefine atheism in some disingenuous way, by religious the antipathy many religions and religious apologists have towards atheists and atheism. Again it is setting off alarm bells for me.
What is it you want to know, and what non-theistic religion are you talking about? Buddhism perhaps? I am not a Buddhist so can’t really offer much.
Oh, really? Wow, you say that as if I should be surprised. C’mon! That’s been obvious for a long time. Cog thinks he hides his delicate snowflakiness behind that bulldog illusion of a front he projects. But we all know it’s just his way of avoiding all the touchie-feelie emotions he is afraid to show. Besides, I followed him one day and now know where his secret safe-space is. I’ve even seen him wearing a safety pin on his shirt when he thinks none of us are around.
I am not going to research religions. I am sorry if I made a mistake in analyzing your list of founders of religions. Your failure to recognize the mix that you presented and my somewhat erroneous response, indicates that you are the dishonest one. Not to mention, your lack of response to the rest of my response to your comments.
I am not wrong - you are wrong. The problem is the lack of a “scientific” ontology of all that there is.
Gee, I don’t fucking know? How did we move from Euclidian Geometry to non-Euclidian Geometry. How did we Go from Newton’s Gravity to Einstein’s Gravity? How did we move from a flat earth to globes. How dense are you.
Do you know what the word “Behold” means? Perhaps you need to explain to people that English is not your first language. You would be given a little more room for the idiotic expressions you espouse.
We are very kind to literarily challenged when we know what the problem is.
Your lack of response to our lack of response, to your failure to respond to our lack of responses to your initial reticence, when we failed to respond to your absence of a response to ours, because we had failed to respond to you, failing to respond at that point, is plain for all to see.
Shape up man, we await your response, or lack thereof…
