Athena

I don't know how I got so impressed by the horrors of Germany, but I do know it is very important to follow our conscience. Yes, sometimes this means taking a risk, but doing the wrong thing to avoid taking a risk is wrong. What happened in Germany was wrong and we must allow such a thing to happen again. What would you say is the difference between a Jew in my home, and hiding a woman was made homeless because of cancer, and has had both her breast removed? Every religion tell us to do unto other as we would have done to us, and it is unimaginable anyone would want to endure cancer, and loosing everything, and living on the streets, and the terrible way we treat homeless people, plus the fear of not surviving, plus the grief of being disfigured at a young age and wondering a someone of the opposite sex be attracted, because of the disfiguring surgery, all of this, and not one caring human being willing to provide a bed and safety. Leaving such a person on the streets is just wrong. Not helping the Jews in NAZI Germany was also wrong. How is the Constitution a result of physics? Got you. Interesting how personal histories can change things. Now that is something this beyond the laws physics, isn't it? I mean, my reply to you was based on a history of our past arguments, and your reply to Jryan was based on your history of arguments with him, and we sort of had a traffic accident when our histories of arguments got mixed up, and I do not understand how this can be explained by physics. A myth would be an abstract thought, right? How is such a thing ruled by laws of physics? Is not something else happening here besides Physics?

I almost missed this very good argument, and I am glad I didn't, because it gets this discussion back on track. I think we need to work with the fact that because we can not directly experience God, we can not know God. I am sure the bible says so many times, but Christians deified Jesus, so their mythology gives some of them a knowable God, and this becomes very problematic when we discuss God. Which also becomes a huge political problem effecting our understanding of authority, liberty and justice. I have said this before, but it fits in here, so I will say it again. We used to read children moral stories, and at the end of the story ask, "want is the moral of that story". The moral is always a cause and effect. In Athens the philosophers stopped explaining things as the acts of the gods, and began explaining them as a matter of cause and effect. The ancient Greek understanding of moral is to know "the law" and good manners. Knowing the law is philosophy, which was later to become science. Now "God" enforces the law, because that is just how things work. Gravity makes things fall to the earth. Food plants grows in the spring and die in the winter. Stealing and lying cause people to distrust each other and when there is not trust, there is not a good relationship. And who wants to be around someone who is a taker and never gives anything in return? These discussions of cause and effect are an important part of understanding how God works. However, knowing how God works, is not equal to knowing God. You can know how I bake cake by knowing how anyone bakes a cake, but this is not knowing me. So when it is said only highly moral people can have liberty, that means people have to understand how things work to have liberty. My dog can not liberty, because he absolutely does not get moving things can kill him, so I have to keep him a leash when we are walking down streets. For the same reason, I also do not give small children liberty. But darnit, must we all be denied liberty, because some do not have good moral judgment? Does this justify us all living under authority without personal liberty and power? There is more to the laws of nature than physics. All animals are controlled by the laws of nature as well. Some animals can not reproduce if there is not enough good breeding ground and plenty of food, so they compete against each other for territory. Among social animals there are many more complex rules of behavior, and failure to understand the rules, means being pushed to the outside, and become an alarm system, as the predators attack those who on the outside. On the other hand, having good social skills and being highly aggressive can lead to being very successful and the alpha member of the group, to whom everyone else defers. These are laws of nature too.

Hum, you do not believe in the laws of nature, or that there is an organizing force to the universe?

The Athenian and Roman philosophers would say we study nature and from that infer something about God, but because we can not directly experience God, we can not know God. The word conscience is con- meaning to know, and science which also means having knowledge. We get knowledge by observing, and experiencing, and sometimes experimenting, and sometimes by reading and discussing. Socrates was very concerned about how we develop conscience, and democracy is highly dependent on education for good moral judgment. I am afraid superstitious people, and also most technological people, pay far too little attention to how we develop conscience. I really blew if Moontanman. I was rushing to walk the dog before it got dark, and was careless. When I returned I saw my mistake and tried to correct it before anyone noticed. You caught me. Oh darn, and up until now I am sure you thought I was perfect. I hate it when people find out I am not perfect. Can we still be friends anyway?

<br><br><br>Your argument is delightful, because it raises awareness of how technology has changed our thinking. Today we can rely on our technology for doing things like crossing the ocean, but what good is this understanding of technology, when it comes to moral decisions and matters of liberty? <br><br>I want to bring a homeless woman with cancer into my home, following her surgery, because I can increase her chances of surviving, and it is the humane thing to do, but if I do, human authority can evict me from my home and leave me on the streets. How does technology apply to to this human problem?<br><br>You ask "What is belief in god if not submission?" Belief in God is what to you? To me it is believing the universe is organized, that laws of nature are universal. How is acceptance of universal laws which we discover through observation and experimentation, equal to submitting to a human authority? <br><br>"How is personal liberty/power affected?"<br><br>If we claim there is no authority higher than human authority, we make ourselves subject to human authority. However, if we claim there is a higher authority, we can not be held subject to human authority. This works like this- a king orders a man be killed and that no one can bury him. Anyone who does bury him will also be killed. A sister buries him anyway. The king demands to know how she thinks she is above his authority, and she answers, even before there were kings, sisters buried their brothers. This Greek story is saying, there is higher authority than human authority, and this authority trumps all others. <br><br>The work issues are cultural issues, and I am saying we had a culture that manifested individual liberty and power, and we are destroying that culture and making ourselves subject to human authority. <br><br>The Godless technological society is the enemy we defended our democracy against in two world wars. "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power" Tagore. <br><br>Before we were subject to this, and when there was a higher authority, we had individual liberty and power.<br><br> <br><br>Moontanman, that was not one of your best arguments. You seem to be assuming Jryan is speaking only of the bible, but I too prefer the wisdom developed over thousands of years, to what people who who have never studied the religions nor philosophy hold to be true and correct. I think knowledge of Egyptian theology, the Sumerians, Persia's Zoroastrianism and then Mithraism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and native American spiritualism, as well as the Greek and Roman Classics is very important to our judgments. How can we compare the thoughts of those who have none of this knowledge with those who much of it, if we are going to put our trust in human knowledge?

Thank you for your argument. I hope you can answer the following questions, so we can move this discussion forward. How do you think we (those of who believe there is a God) know God? How would say God enforces His authority?

Hi, I am hoping this subject got your attention, and that you help me articulate the thought with your arguments. This is very much what the Occupy movement is about, but as you will see, it is difficult to articulate. There was a time when we thought virtue was synonymous with strength, and the average person could dare to be bold. S/he fully believed if s/he were virtuous, s/he had the support of God, and therefore could not fail. These people dared face great and real dangers such as crossing an ocean in little ships, entering the wilderness of a newly discovered land, with unknown gifts of God and dangers. This knowledge of virtues and faith in God, is directly tied to our personal liberty and power, and with atheism, and our technological society, comes the destruction of our personal liberty and power. Without God above all, we are reduced to power struggles, and a submission to authority that was intolerable to our forefathers. For example- when I followed my conscience on a government funded job as a Senior Companion, I was fired for not having "good boundaries". This means, I did more for my clients than I was supposed to, and my clients liked me too much. I thought a senior companion should be sincere, and follow her conscience. This could mean shopping for someone too sick to do her own shopping, instead of refusing to shop and leaving the client without food for the week, etc.. The old training video (1960 ty's) said having a Senior Companion was like having family. The new program director has a different value system, focused on following policy, that limits what a Senior Companion does, and makes everything completely impersonal (professional). That is, focused on human authority over everyone, instead of on one's conscience and a concept of how people should behave. Now I may risk eviction because of once again following my conscience, and allowing a woman, who has had both breast removed, to stay in apartment until she heals from the surgery. I am horrified by the number of people, including Christians, who argue it is more important for me to obey inhumane rules, and submit to human authority, rather than follow my conscience and act as I believe a God would have us act. That is the mistake Christian Germans made! Those literate in Greek and Roman classics have a different understanding of God, authority and what makes a human good, and it is this difference in literacy that once protected our democracy, from being like Hitler's New World Order. Sincerely, what is the difference between hiding a medically needy woman in my home, and hiding a Jew in my home? Okay, I answer to God, not the human authority, and believe this is essential of our personal liberty and power. What do you have to say?

Thanks I will try unsubscribing to that forum.

"Given our known supply of oil and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war." This came from a 1920's newspaper, along with funny cartoons of skyrocketing gas prices. The economies of all industrial countries depends on oil, and not long after this warning, all industrial economies collapsed the world went to war. Technically it might be said that the value of the dollar is tied to the gross national product, but the gross national product is tied to oil, and when the price of oil goes up too much, the country has a recession. Google offers several explanations of the tie between oil and the value of the dollar, and here is a simple one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare It should be said because we now support the Military Industrial Complex of which Eisenhower spoke, war is a very part of our economy, with the war industry being the most important industry in many towns. Our employment increases if we do not stay engaged in war, and maintaining the Military Industrial Complex is very much a part of our national debt, which also threatens our economy. Before the first world war, a Prussian D. Friedrich Naumann said, "The war of the future is a problem of economic organization of the most difficult nature and highest technological achievement.... When we discuss economics, I really think the discussions are too abstract and omit very important information, such how the Military Industrial Complex economics and culture are different from Adam Smith's experience of economics and culture. For goodness sake, how much industry was power by electricity in the day of Adam Smith? The need for human labor is nothing as it was in his day, and we are still relying on his insight? If we didn't have oil and electricity, there is no way we could maintain our gross national product. The whole world is scrambling for affordable oil, and yes, our economies rely on it, and Military Industrial Complex makes sure we can protect our economy, and the economies of our trade partners.

I am quoting you, because I really like what you said. I don't think everyone can get my favorite books, written by a geologist, but I wish economics were based on reality, instead of abstract theory. The value of the dollar is tied to oil and few people seem aware of this, and what that has to do with everything else. As we exhaust our supplies of gold, silver, nickle and copper it cost more to mint coins than the coins are worth, and search for cheaper metals continues. What is really important to our lives is tied to resources, and where those resources are in the world. This is what Hitler's New World Order was about, and is what the US Military Industrial Complex is about. We are seriously unaware of how our lives have been changed, and will continue to change as we exhaust resources and continue to shift from being an exporter to being an importer, and increasingly rely on our military to protect our economic interest around the world. I really like Youngquist's books "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations" and "GeoDestinies". For sure, religion manifest its own reality, and so does economic theory, and everything goes well, until reality can no longer be ignored.

Now this sounds like a great solution. Perhaps everyone can bicycle back and forth, to conserve on fuel.

This is the second spam emailed to me and I am hoping the administration can stop this spamming.

Toastywombel, I agree with your opening statement. The answer to your question is return to liberal education and transmitting the culture for democracy with liberty, that is found in the Greek and Roman classics. This education internalizes authority, whereas education for technology and Christianity, externalize authority and are deadly to the democracy we defended in two world wars.

The relationship of Religion and Science is totally dependent on the education people receive, other than the bible. Tragically what the people of the US do not understand is that liberal education prepared everyone for critical and scientific thinking, and education for technology does not. I will repeat this, because I am sure the truth is contrary to what most people think. Liberal education prepares everyone for critical and scientific thinking, and education for technology does not. Germany was a Christian Republic, as the US has been a Christian Republic. What separated them was their education. Germany had education for technology as soon as the Prussians took control of Germany, and this left Germans to be very superstitious people, with a fear of the supernatural, and a reliance on authority, that is totally contrary to the liberty of the US. Those educated for technology will understand the bible concretely. That is demons are real beings that can actually possess us, because the bible says this is so. Their morality is completely dependent on a fear of God and reliance on authority. The US mandated free public education around shortly before the Civil War, and this was education based on Greek and Roman classics and preparing everyone for critical thinking and citizenship in a democracy that made liberty a priority. It is Greek and Roman classics that prepares people for scientific thinking, and Christians with this education are much less likely to be superstition. They will understanding the bible abstractly, instead of concretely. That is demons are our fears and pain, and while experience fear and pain, this does not mean demons are foreign beings that can possess us. Their morality rest in their ability to reason, and they assume they are the authority and all the responsibility that comes with that. Get the important difference? In 1958 the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology, so now our Christians are just like Germany's Christians were, and we are in big trouble! Instead of embracing science, as liberally educated Christians did, they distrust science. Instead of embracing liberty, they are intensely reliant on authority, and this is destroying our democracy with liberty.

A very good place to discuss things like this is http://www.unexplain...orum/index.php? of course there are fewer science people there, but some are well informed, and it does not have the bias a science forum. Sometimes I find science purist too restrictive, and not so different from the church of old. Putting a mystery in religion, does prevent the desired discussion, and can be very frustrating. This account of the star of Bethlehem mixes astronomy with history, as have other post in this thread. http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/

It appears these guys are doing the same thing with radio waves as is done to make a laser beam and is getting radio waves faster than light? http://www.universetoday.com/33752/device-makes-radio-waves-travel-faster-than-light/

The threads about food shortages in the political forum, bring up the fact that there is a connection between government and our food supply. There is also a connection between food and our economy, and between food and international national relationships. And we might want to improve the connection between science and voters, because just hoping the future won't be as bad as some say, is not highly responsible, and as self governing people, perhaps we should be more responsible? While those arguing against fear mongering have made a good point too. Running around like chicken little crying the sky is falling, is not helpful either. However, what are the politicians doing about our food supply and what might you say to a representative, or for whom might you vote, or what meant information you might give others on the Internet? This is a link for the US Farm Bills. Hopefully others will add information regarding food supply and the politics of other countries. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/#08

Thank you for the sanity, Moontanman. Now Oregon had a law preventing people from breaking up large parcels of land, in less that 20 areas. This would have protected our farm land, and made a system of small, local farms possible. But it seems most people are ignorant of the difference between farm land and soil that isn't much good for crops, and the people who wanted to build subdivisions were able to weaken laws protecting farm land. So I would say, ignorance in this day of information is one of our worst problems. Maybe because the majority believes it is God rather than science that saves humanity? How possible do you think it might be to intentionally turn our cities into a gardens of Eden? Is there a forum better than this one for discussing this? The subject is where science and planning come together, but people of science must get actively involved. Today, we do not have a problem providing enough food, but if we don't plan now, the future could have many serious problems. Eugene, has a mayor who is rehabilitating the natural habitat of our city and this year we have more wild flowers, butterflies and birds. The ability to do this could have been lost to development, and may not last because of pressures to use land for profit. Right now, we have several community gardens where people can rent plots and grow their own food, and we could use more of them, but as you know, cities don't have the money for these good ideas now. But thinking of the future, perhaps we need to increase these efforts, and commit ourselves to a future food program? Someone planted plum trees on the strip of land between the curb and sidewalk. You know in 5 years, whoever lives in that house is going to be praying passers-by pick plums, because they will have far too many for even a huge family. What city could not have fruit trees spread throughout the city? We could have gleaners who pick the fruit for the food bank, and who get to keep a share for the fruit for themselves, or a room in a shelter? We are spending money to feed the poor and provide shelter, but may be we could do this more efficiently, and with the future in mind? We stupidly removed our canning factory, causing hundreds of people to loose their jobs, and have not planned on replacing it, because at the moment it is not cost effective to do so, but what of the future? Should we maybe considering the future and the problems we are having today, such as tracing down where a food product got contaminated, because it is so hard to know where it all comes from and what happened in transportation. Surely, the increased likelihood of bad weather destroying a crop should go into our future planning shouldn't it? This thread is in politics, and maybe there are some political, city and state planning, things that we should be doing today, for a better tomorrow? How about if for nothing else than being able to look at something and say, things are getting better?

Hi, Jeskill, this is from your link, "Why is it that we often isolate population growth as the key environmental problem in the poorest regions of the world?" I would not do this! I believe we need to be much more realistic about how many people we can fit in a square mile. Of course this depends in part on the resources in this square mile. Some square miles are full of resources and others are not. Some nations were blessed with resources and others were not. It is sooooo wrong for us to waste oil as we have wasted it ever since Reagan took office, and then arm ourselves to fight for what is left, consuming so much so fast, we forcing prices up, and preventing all the poorer countries from having the benefits of cheap oil that we took for granted. This is a global, economic and social justice issue, that is directly tied to our military spending and talk of cutting Social Security. Excuse me, but the oil problem was known in 1920, and there is no excuse for the way things are today. Now you want to argue we do the same head in the sand thing, when it comes to food and water? Personally, I live in Oregon and remember the water wars of a couple years ago. We had to choose between water for fish or water for farmers, and had to wonder how much of our water is California consuming? Just how much should we have to give up, so the people in California can fill their swimming pools? Or say in Israel, surrounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and with the needs of Palestinians to consider, how many more Jews should be brought into Israel, to suck up the water everyone needs to share? At some point, people have to say, "no, you are taking what we need". Now if we all are going on the idea, that before it is too late, technology will come up with an answer, or we will discover a new source of a supply, what do you think is going happen? Everyone is spending money they need for education and hospitals, etc. on weapons, for that day when our failure to be realistic and plan for anything but war, is here. My point is, today, we better get a good grip on reality. What are our existing resources today? Where do they come from? What is our immediate population and expected exponential growth? Given what can know today, with no pie in the sky- may be something good will happen, what can we expect five, ten, twenty years from now? Now, what agreements might we need to make with our neighbors? This might be something like, this year we can send you wheat, but by 2050, unless something expected happens, we will not be able to share wheat with you, and I want you to know that today. Or the resource could be water, or electricity, or whatever you want it to be. We have to get real! Stop it with the gee, I hope something good will happen, so we don't have to face a reality we do not want to face. That is what leads to wars. Time and time again, people fight over limited resources. In the past this might have been excusable, because ignorance was hard to avoid, but it is no longer excusable today. Moontanman, can't we be more accurate than the two extremes? We are already using a better technique for mining phosphorus and have extended the expected exhaustion of the resource. I am sure using manure would increase the time we have left, but increase the cost of food as well, and this would increase the hunger. The information I provided said a slight decrease in population growth would give us something like another 30 years. I am not arguing extremes, I am arguing in favor of being realistic, and against "I don't want to think about that because it scares me, and besides maybe before then, something good will happen that makes the problem go away". That is not a scientific opinion.

I am rather busy right now in other forums and will have to come back to give you the thoughtful answer you deserve. Regarding this thread, my biggest concern at the moment is that the public be well informed and take responsibility for their own decisions, instead of choosing to ignore information, and choosing to rely on a God or some other authority to fix everything. Trusting in the unknown, instead of in education and the individual, drives me a bit nuts. I think these threads need to be about educating people. At this moment in time, we can insist that all farmers under our legal jurisdiction use manure. This would reduce a few farm problems, but it would cost more and when food cost more people go hungry. However, things are not going to get better by maintaining the status quo and counting on some "unknown" to pull our asses out of the fire. That did not work with oil and our economy, and it is not going to work with food. There are political and economic ramifications to all this. Instead of us managing to feed everyone, under the rules of capitalism, the rich will eat and the poor will not. This might not bother you as long as believe you and family will remain among the rich, and your government will remain strong enough to protect you at the expense of others. But if we think about more than ourselves, if we think in terms of governing for the well being of all, then we might want to talk about the problems we can identify today, and what we might do about them.

Ignorant were all the people who voted for Ronald Reagan when he said it is not necessary to conserve. How old are you? Do you remember President Carter who told us conservation is necessary and who invested as much possible into developing alternative energy, and then Reagan who said it was not necessary to conserve and brought an end to every alternative energy program he could end. Reagan slashed domestic budgets and took money out of the Social Security fund, and raised the debt ceiling several times and raised taxes to pay for the military spending that was necessary to secure our "economic interest" in the mid east. As our economy soared, so did our use of oil. Within ten years of Reagan, we consumed as much oil as in the previous 100 years. We remain committed to military goals in the mid east and our national debt has spun out of control, as our military spending has gone off the charts. Our trade deficit, which is caused mostly by importing oil, and exporting our money, is also pulling us down. While those responsible for this are still hoping pay for it by cutting domestic spending, including Social Security. AN IGNORANT MASS RESULTS IN IGNORANT POLITICAL DECISIONS AND I WILL DO ALL MORE IN POWER TO BRING AN END TO SUCH IGNORANCE. I WILL NOT BE SILENCED BY SOMEONE WHO APPEARS TO BE TOO YOUNG TO KNOW BETTER.

I knew a genius who was so offensive, he could not achieve his goal of creating a social organization for the development of technology, despite his investment of technological skill, time and money. He just didn't have social skills, and wasn't learning from his mistakes. Easily qualifying as genius, because of a particular set of mental skills, doesn't mean able to apply this genius to all things. People can be very smart but lack wisdom. In fact, that is exactly what Zeus was afraid of, that with the technology of fire, man would learn all the other technologies and then rival the gods. He created the first woman and gave her to the first man, with a box full of miseries to slow man down. That is, our miseries are not God's punishment because Adam and Eve sinned, but the miseries are, in away, a kindness, protecting us for long as possible from our own arrogance and folly.

And I was thinking the repeated statement that technology would resolve the problems, without stating what that technology is, sounds just like a Christian's faith that God will take care of things. It is just faith in different God. Threads that are old or long will not get the attention of a new thread, so new comers can't have the fun of discussing topics. If people just wanted information, they are better off with books. These discussions allow us to interact, and explore and develop our own thinking. We all hope that interaction will be welcoming and pleasant. If you don't want to discuss this subject anew, why are you reading this thread? Now hopefully Essay has something to say that is on topic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes, Essay brought up a good point, the need for increased control. This is a huge contrast from our move west, and maybe this is why some of us are so upset. We are acknowledging the loss of liberty that we valued so much. Pioneers got to come to land that was never farmed and where trees had not been cut, and rivers not polluted, and they were free to do as they pleased. That is lost to us forever. DJBruce has provided a link explaining the need for tighter controls of human activity and land. I think it is more helpful to discuss what concerned people are discussing, than to criticize the posters. This for the people who want to discuss the subject. China has 22% of the world's population and only 10% of the farm land. I think if it could reclaim the land to the desert , that would be a good thing, and China is not the only place loosing land to a desert. One solution for China is farming land in other countries, but the government is on record as saying this is not a good solution. In the US as we gain awareness of our limits, the states are taking steps to protect what remains of their farm land and forest. Many years ago, Oregon protected a lot of land by making law that some land could not be divided in parcels less than 20 acres. Many years later enough pressure built to erode this law. We have major cities covering the best farm land, and slowly consuming more and more of it, because this just happens to be where the weather is the most pleasant, and of course that is where people want to live.

I went to the link and did not find any evidence to support your argument. Around the world the fishing industry is hurting. In Oregon we are loosing the fight to preserve our salmon supply and the reason for this could be CO2 which is already out there and increasing the acidity of the ocean. Even if we stopped sending more industrial CO2 into the air today, it could be too late, and there is no way we are going to stop increasing the problem any time soon, because as the world continues to industrialize, the problem is going to get worse. The world must continue to industrialize, because this is the only way to meet the needs of the growing populations. This is not a laughing easy problem to fix. http://www.sciencent...nd-acid-oceans/ Over a billion people today, depend on sea food as their main source of protein, and over fishing could cause a collapse of the fishing industry by 2048, before we have added another 2 billion people to the problem, and this figured without figuring in the CO2 and acid problem. The US denial of a problem, in this link, clearly indicates a problem with grasping reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafood A claim made before the study on CO2 and not updated to reflect the newer information.

Yes, other threads have addressed the subject and at least one of them was ruined so badly, it is necessary to start a new thread. This appears to be a good link explaining the problem. http://www.populatio...CFSE8gwod034X7A So although there is evidence of a decline in population growth, there is still an unsustainable increase of humanity. I believe when we add other facts to this, such as, the exhaustion of phosphorus mines, our dependency on fossil fuels, and what will happen to the oceans by 2100 because of CO2 and the increasing acidity of the oceans, the future looks very bleak. Some people seem to be arguing there will not be that much difference over the next 40 years.