How spirituality induces liberal attitudes

Mar 01, 2013 by Jessica Lewis
Meditation affects political beliefs differently than does religious prayer. Credit: RelaxingMusic via Flickr

(Phys.org) —People become more politically liberal immediately after practising a spiritual exercise such as meditation, researchers at the University of Toronto have found.

"There's great overlap between religious beliefs and political orientations," says one of the study authors, Jordan Peterson of U of T's Department of Psychology. "We found that religious individuals tend to be more conservative and spiritual people tend to be more liberal.

"Inducing a through a guided meditation exercise led both liberals and conservatives to endorse more liberal ."

Lead author Jacob Hirsh of U of T's Rotman School of Management said, "While religiousness is characterized by devotion to a specific tradition, set of principles, or code of conduct, spirituality is associated with the direct experience of self-transcendence and the feeling that we're all connected.

In three studies, the researchers – Hirsh, Peterson and Megan Walberg, also from U of T's Department of Psychology, examined their participants' political views in relation to their religiousness and spirituality. In the first study, they asked 590 American participants whether they identified as Democrat or Republican. In the second study, they measured 703 participants' political orientations and support for the major American and Canadian political parties.

The researchers confirmed that religiousness was associated with political conservatism, while spirituality was associated with political liberalism. These associations were in turn due to the common values underlying these orientations: conservatism and religiousness both emphasize the importance of tradition, while liberalism and spirituality both emphasize the importance of equality and social harmony.

In the third study, the researchers recruited 317 participants from the U.S. and asked half to complete a spiritual exercise consisting of a guided meditation video. Those who watched the video were asked to close their eyes and breathe deeply, imagining themselves in a natural setting and feeling connected to the environment. They were then asked about their political orientation and to rate how spiritual they felt. The researchers reported that, compared to those in the control group, participants who meditated felt significantly higher levels of spirituality and expressed more liberal political attitudes, including a reduced support for "tough on crime" policies and a preference for liberal political candidates.

"Spiritual experiences seem to make people feel more of a connection with others," says Hirsh. "The boundaries we normally maintain between ourselves and the world tend to dissolve during spiritual experiences. These feelings of self-transcendence make it easier to recognize that we are all part of the same system, promoting an inclusive and egalitarian mindset."

The researchers hope that these findings can not only advance our understanding of , but also help future political dialogue.

"The conservative part of religious belief has played an important role in holding cultures together and establishing common rules. The spiritual part, on the other hand, helps cultures renew themselves by adapting to changing circumstances," says Peterson. "Both right and left are necessary; it's not that either is correct, it's that the dialogue between them produces the best chance we have at getting the balance right. If people could understand that both sides have an important role to play in society, some of the unnecessary tension might be eliminated."

"Spiritual Liberals and Religious Conservatives" was published in the December edition of Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Explore further: Researchers study why we buy so much for Christmas

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Distinct 'God spot' in the brain does not exist

Apr 19, 2012

Scientists have speculated that the human brain features a "God spot," one distinct area of the brain responsible for spirituality. Now, University of Missouri researchers have completed research that indicates spirituality ...

Spirituality increases as alcoholics recover

Mar 19, 2007

For decades, recovering alcoholics and those who treat them have incorporated spirituality into the recovery process — whether or not it's religious in nature. But few research studies have documented if and how spirituality ...

Spirituality is key to kids' happiness

Jan 08, 2009

To make children happier, we may need to encourage them to develop a strong sense of personal worth, according to Dr. Mark Holder from the University of British Columbia in Canada and his colleagues Dr. Ben Coleman and Judi ...

Recommended for you

Gypsies and travellers on the English Green Belt

Oct 17, 2014

The battle between Gypsies, Travellers and the settled community over how land can be used has moved to the Green Belt, observes Peter Kabachnik of the City University of New York.

Cadavers beat computers for learning anatomy

Oct 16, 2014

Despite the growing popularity of using computer simulation to help teach college anatomy, students learn much better through the traditional use of human cadavers, according to new research that has implications ...

Mongolian women 'want status over big families'

Oct 16, 2014

A new study suggests the aspirations of women in Mongolia have rapidly shifted. Before the rapid economic transition of the 1990s, the wealthiest women in the Communist-style era had big families. However, ...

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

beyondApsis
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2013
I am glad to see a distinction being made between spirituality and religiousness. They are often associated but are definitely not the same thing. Spirituality tenders feelings of oneness and empathy for others. Religiousness spawns ethnocentrism and trepidation.

I easily relate to the spiritual as an atheist with a great love of humanity and a tremendous admiration of the grand universe we all evolve in.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2013
""There's great overlap between religious beliefs and political orientations," says one of the study authors, Jordan Peterson of U of T's Department of Psychology. "We found that religious individuals tend to be more conservative and spiritual people tend to be more liberal."

-Of course, psychologists arent really scientists are they? What about this guy?

"The Maharishi taught thousands of people during a series of world tours from 1958 to 1965, expressing his teachings in spiritual and religious terms."

"Transcendental Meditation was ruled a religion by the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Docket No. 76-341 (H.C.M.) Civil Action, in the case of Alan B. Malnak. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, et al., Defendants, in a summary judgment issued October 19, 1977, followed by an order and judgment, filed December 12, 1977."

'Spirituality' is potentially only a gen or 2 away from becoming a religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2013
I easily relate to the spiritual as an atheist with a great love of humanity and a tremendous admiration of the grand universe we all evolve in.
Naw you are just exhibiting residual symptoms of the god meme. The desire for some superbeing to grant all your wishes including immortality and the lottery is irresistable. Learn to recognize it and RESIST it.

Awe is entirely physiological. So are the effects of meditation and exercise and drugs for that matter. Some are more deleterious than others. There need be no netherworld to account for them.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2013
Religiousness spawns ethnocentrism (Dogmatism) and trepidation (fear of new truths)


So, I guess scientism is a religion and not a form of spiritualism.
beyondApsis
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2013
Naw you are just exhibiting residual symptoms of the god meme. The desire for some superbeing to grant all your wishes including immortality and the lottery is irresistable. Learn to recognize it and RESIST it. Awe is entirely physiological.


You are quite mistaken as to who I am. I have been a staunch atheist for 40 years. My awe is squarely in the scientific realm. I love particle physics. I am a believer in metaphysical naturalism (as is Sean Carroll, a definite non-theist). I seen NO reason to inject a supernatural being into the process.

And I have never played the lottery - ANY lottery.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2013
I am a believer in metaphysical naturalism
What, this?
http://en.wikiped...turalism

-But as the metaphysical DOESNT EXIST, you are on the wrong track. And it doesnt matter who you are.

What is the need to call it an -ism, but to give philos a chance to crawl out of their corners and back behind their oaken desks? I see little on the wiki page but philobabble.

Philosophy is pseudoreligion. Any and all of it. The metaphysical is only a poor and verbally overstuffed substitute for heaven.
And I have never played the lottery - ANY lottery.
Never gambled, never flipped a coin, never wished, never asked for some special dispensation from -somewhere- because you maybe deserved it a little more?

Our egos create our gods. We DESERVE salvation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2013
"Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism..."

Ontological
2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
3. Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.

-There IS no 'essense' or 'nature' of 'being'. And #3 is obvious bullshit.

The trap both religion and philosophy set is to declare that there is an ultimate 'something', and then to declare that only they have the tools with which to discover it.

And so adherents sit around discussing this, and earn salaries and pensions, while scientists who dont care at all about -isms are busy finding out how the world actually works.
beyondApsis
4.4 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2013
I suppose the word METAPHYSICAL did bend your perspective a bit and invoke an attitude. I will quote my favorite particle physicist, Dr Sean Carroll, as he said it fairly well:
"Naturalists have a lot more work to do than simply rejecting God; they bear the responsibility of understanding how to live a meaningful life in a universe without built-in purpose."
You can blame me for trying, but I enjoy feeling good about existence. It ain't a religion. I am also a musician and so feeling is fundamental force in expression.

And I do not gamble. All natural processes are just statistical chance. I will take a bet if I already know the answer, but that is not a gamble. I always politely inform the person of that, but they rarely retreat.

And I have little ego. I am no way special. I am very sure of who I am. It is a good thing for me.

We surely have no argument. Just a bit of clarity.

Want philosophy? Let me quote Mammy Yokum:
"Good is better than evil 'cause it's nicer"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2013
And I have little ego. I am no way special.
Everybodys got an ego. It is part of the survival instinct.
I am very sure of who I am. It is a good thing for me. We surely have no argument. Just a bit of clarity.
I am an antireligionist. Take a stand.
http://www.youtub...;index=2
beyondApsis
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2013
As a person who rarely writes to this forum, I find it noteworthy what a choice of words causes in others.
As an amateur scientist and a strict devotee of the scientific method, it is quite interesting to be assumed otherwise. There is nothing physical that cannot be explained by science. I assume science will do the the same for whatever consciousness is.

As a stringent atheist, I am amazed that it is not obvious. That is very funny to me, as I am quickly ACCUSED of atheism so often by the religious.

Possibly "metaphysical naturalism" is the wrong term. Maybe I should have looked it up first, as I do everything else.

I should contribute more often.
MandoZink
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2013
Since Sean Carroll was mentioned here, there is an absolutely wonderful introduction to a science/religion debate by Sean that begins at 4:50 in this video and lasts for about 10 minutes. I had no interest in the debate itself but the intro speech is wonderful. This expresses my viewpoint exactly.
http://www.youtub...kALV2FQ8
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2013
Spiritual => Socialism?
That's what 'liberal' means, state control of personal property.
Do 'spiritual' people want to have their 'spirit' controlled by the state?
That's what this article states.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2013
As an amateur scientist
WTF is an amateur scientist? Someone who only thinks they work for NASA?
Maybe I should have looked it up first, as I do everything else.
Rastus, do you smell shit?
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2013
Philosophy is pseudoreligion. Any and all of it.
Not more than the mainstream science. And I'm serious.
pauljpease
3.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2013
Spiritual => Socialism?
That's what 'liberal' means, state control of personal property.


Who defines the concept of "personal property"? There is no physical force of nature connecting you to the car in your garage, just an idea. Who came up with the specific set of ideas that define personal property, and who gave them the right to do that? It's a common idea in some circles that if someone agrees to pay you X dollars for your service, then you were entitled (by god perhaps?) to exactly X dollars, no more and no less. And so it is rightfully yours. However, if X was determined by a law or system of ideas created by humans, rather than a law of nature, there is a chance for error. No economist would argue that market forces determine the EXACT value of a good or service, there are always errors, sometimes very large errors (see housing bubble). With this in mind the concept of what's yours and what's mine gets fuzzier. Games can be played. That is what liberals believe.
Sean_W
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2013
So quieting the mind turns you into a race-baiting communist. Good to know.
pauljpease
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2013
Philosophy is pseudoreligion. Any and all of it.
Not more than the mainstream science. And I'm serious.


Says you, by posting a comment on the internet made possible by mainstream science.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2013
Who defines the concept of "personal property"?

Nature did.
YOU belong to you. What you create and labor for belongs to you.
Unless you like being a slave, hunting and gathering food for others that may or may not let you have any.
If you don't have an unalienable, inherent right to your life and the right to protect your life (your property) then you are a 'liberal'/socialist/'progressive'. A subject/slave to others.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2013
No economist would argue that market forces determine the EXACT value of a good or service

The exact value of a good or service is the value YOU are willing to pay.
What value do you place on your life? What is its EXACT value to you? How about to other 'liberals'?
The 'spiritual liberal' Stalin didn't value Ukrainian lives or the lives of millions of others when he starved them to death for not becoming slaves (being owned) to the collective.
pauljpease
3.3 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2013
Who defines the concept of "personal property"?

Nature did.
YOU belong to you. What you create and labor for belongs to you.
Unless you like being a slave, hunting and gathering food for others that may or may not let you have any.
If you don't have an unalienable, inherent right to your life and the right to protect your life (your property) then you are a 'liberal'/socialist/'progressive'. A subject/slave to others.


I respectfully disagree and think you have it exactly backwards. The vast majority of the product of a workers labor in our economic system is taken by people who didn't do the work. If you work at a company with public stock, then anyone can own the product of your labor. It's not difficult to see why US workers have very low levels of productivity and motivation; if they work harder they won't get the fruit of that labor, some investor will.

So personal property is defined in the Standard Model? And "you belong to you"? What does that even mean?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2013
Ghost goes beyond atheism to assert reductionism and positivism. Both are subcultures in science. I must respectfully descent with Ghost regarding philosophy, which can have rigor and proofs much like maths. Once one has a math theorem there are philosophies which assist in the application thereof. As for the metaphysical, there are obviously higher dimensional manifolds, branes and states of energy with imaginary components meaning we cannot directly perceive their structure but only examine vertices at best. Atoms employ symmetries that exist in higher dimensions and reject symmetries that only hold in three dimensions, such as the dodecahedron

One can reject reductionism and positivism yet still be a considered atheist. One such gestalt emerges when infinite variance of the fractal quantum world gives rise to the standard deviations of our classical world. To deny that difference is to ignore the distinctions between quantum and Newtonian mechanics
pauljpease
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2013
No economist would argue that market forces determine the EXACT value of a good or service

The exact value of a good or service is the value YOU are willing to pay.
What value do you place on your life? What is its EXACT value to you? How about to other 'liberals'?
The 'spiritual liberal' Stalin didn't value Ukrainian lives or the lives of millions of others when he starved them to death for not becoming slaves (being owned) to the collective.


Please explain to me how some investor getting rich because I did a great job, worked hard and made my company a profit, while my wage stayed the same or decreased, is different than being a "slave to the collective"? Enlighten me, please. I fully agree with you that a person should be able to decide what to do with the fruit of their labor (i.e. it is "theirs). I just don't see that our current economic system achieves that goal, not even close. You can inherit money from your parents and buy the right to other people's labor.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2013
The vast majority of the product of a workers labor in our economic system is taken by people who didn't do the work.

No, it is not TAKEN. Labor is compensated with money. Unless you work as a slave in China.

If you work at a company with public stock, then anyone can own the product of your labor.

The value of a stock represents the value of the capital used to create wealth.
YOU own the product of YOUR labor when you accept compensation for that labor, unless, you are a slave to a govt that forces you to labor without compensation.

ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2013
Says you, by posting a comment on the Internet made possible by mainstream science.
The western civilization exists just thanks to its western religion which unified it - without it the Hans, Turkey and Arabs would eat us alive already. BTW internet and semiconductor technology are product of engineers, not scientists. After all, the cold fusion and magnetic motors are inventions of engineers, not scientists involved in basic research. These scientists are prohibiting their progress instead.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2013
Please explain to me how some investor getting rich because I did a great job, worked hard and made my company a profit, while my wage stayed the same or decreased, is different than being a "slave to the collective"?


How much wealth did you risk for your company? You did your job for an agreed to salary. If you want more, quit and find another job, OR risk your own wealth and build your own company.
You are not a slave if you agree to work for what the company is willing to pay.
If YOU risked YOUR time, talent and wealth creating a business, how much do you think YOU should profit from it?
pauljpease
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2013
YOU own the product of YOUR labor when you accept compensation for that labor, unless, you are a slave to a govt that forces you to labor without compensation.



I agree with what you're saying in a sense. I think we are disagreeing about something very subtle. You seem to believe that economic theories are absolutely true under all circumstances, like the laws of physics. I think they are only true in very limited circumstances when very specific conditions are met. For example, if two people are on an even footing (e.g. both have enough resources to walk away from a deal if they don't find it is a fair deal), then you can wait until you get an offer that you think is fair compensation for your labor. But when you have no money, and need to pay your rent and feed your family, you are forced to take whatever offer you can get. So the value becomes very skewed when inequality is high. People are willing to work for less because less is better than nothing.
pauljpease
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2013
Please explain to me how some investor getting rich because I did a great job, worked hard and made my company a profit, while my wage stayed the same or decreased, is different than being a "slave to the collective"?


How much wealth did you risk for your company? You did your job for an agreed to salary. If you want more, quit and find another job, OR risk your own wealth and build your own company.
You are not a slave if you agree to work for what the company is willing to pay.
If YOU risked YOUR time, talent and wealth creating a business, how much do you think YOU should profit from it?


Again, not everyone at the negotiating table is on the same footing, so what people's labor is worth and what they are willing to accept are two different things. And to answer your question, I don't think I should profit to the point where I have billions of dollars and my employees who actually do the work need food stamps (see: Walmart).
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2013
not everyone at the negotiating table is on the same footing,

So? Life isn't fair.
so what people's labor is worth and what they are willing to accept are two different things.

If they believe their labor is worth more they are free, in some places, to persuade someone to pay more, OR labor for themselves in their own business.
conomic theories are absolutely true under all circumstances, like the laws of physics.

They are. But the effects of a cause are difficult to measure sometimes. Especially when the state skews the data.
Socialists can't fool Mother Nature (aka physics).

A ND Walmart is paying $17/hr.
You are free to NOT shop at Walmart, NOT buy their stock or NOT work there.
Some people shop their because they like their prices. Their prices are the result of hard bargaining and an efficient logistics system.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2013
So the value becomes very skewed when inequality is high

Especially when the socialists decide value.
In a less socialist, less 'liberal' market place, competition determines value.
The state can't skew the market as it does now in a stupid attempt to 'equalize'.
Lurker2358
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2013
Pauliplease:

The real value of things is obfuscated by a combination of scalping, currency scams, and other artificial, selfish manipulations of the "market".

The real value of gasoline did not change by nearly a dollar in the past 3 months, but the "price" changed because someone in power is exerting their influence to drive up the price artificially, because they stand to gain by doing so.

People are required to have gasoline to live any modern life, in most cases. It is not a matter of choice, nor is the demand measured in "degrees" or "increments". They are required to be at work every day, or be fired, therefore they must pay the price for gasoline, and no matter how high it rises.

We are passing a threshold where the "owners" can extract any price they desire. The "slaves" may not be slaves in name, but they are slaves in function. Technology and standards of living disquise this somewhat in the western civilization, but it is still true.

You have choices, but none matter.
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2013
Especially when the socialists decide value.
In a less socialist, less 'liberal' market place, competition determines value.
The state can't skew the market as it does now in a stupid attempt to 'equalize'.


"Value" is more of an absolute, but not entirely.

"Price" is a rigged system typically manipulated by the wealthy and powerful, except in the cases of pure barter.

The wealthy and powerful buy things because they can and because they feel like it.

Normal people buy things mostly because they are required to, either by the laws of nature, or the laws of man, or the laws of society (which is to say everyone is required to have internet and a smartphone now, else they'd never get/keep a job,etc,) therefore the demands on the poor and the average always increase.

Meanwhile, the demands on the wealthy and powerful are insignificant compared to the proportion of resources they have.
Neinsense99
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2013
"I must respectfully descent with Ghost regarding philosophy, which can have rigor and proofs much like maths."

That's great, but the word is dissent, not descent.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2013
The "slaves" may not be slaves in name, but they are slaves in function.

Yes, this is the socialist state most live in now.
Don't blame 'the rich', blame the rich and poor socialists of all parties.
Blame those who believe they can live of the wealth of others.
But you cannot blame those who support liberty and free markets.
"the basic position of liberalism is this — whatever the size of the government is at any moment, it's the bare minimum standing between us and chaos and misery,"

Read more: http://dailycalle...MLmSy1ku
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2013
"Value" is more of an absolute, but not entirely.

Value is subjective.
"Price" is a rigged system typically manipulated by the wealthy and powerful, except in the cases of pure barter.


Price is determined by what the customer values at the time of purchase.
The only way a price is 'rigged' is when the govt sets the price. And even then, market forces will still prevail based upon the demand and supply. When govts try to over tax something like cigarettes, ways are found to avoid the rigged prices.
OPEC was created to 'rig' oil prices, but their attempts always fail.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2013
everyone is required to have internet and a smartphone now,

Why do you need a 'smart' phone?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Philosophy is pseudoreligion. Any and all of it.
Not more than the mainstream science. And I'm serious.
I know youre serious but you must face the facts. Mainstream science has a stellar track record of producing RESULTS. Real world applications and repeatable experiments.

Philosophy has produced NOTHING. Philos who have actually contributed to science were doing SCIENCE at the time and not philosophy.

Read the metaphysics of morals with a straight face and see if you can find ONE THING in there that has any practical value whatsoever.

Philosophy obscures, obstructs, derails, retards, just like religion. This is its FUNCTION.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
Philosophy has produced NOTHING.

Except the HOW and the WHY to use the results of science.
Without philosophy, there is no reason NOT to use the science of eugenics to murder babies and any other human not meeting the standards set by the eugenicists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Who defines the concept of "personal property"?

Nature did.
YOU belong to you. What you create and labor for belongs to you...A subject/slave to others.
Ryggy you began to lose this argument when tribal dynamics took over the development of the species.

Tribes proved that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" Darwin 1871

-Nature says you belong to the group. The strongest groups were the ones whose members were willing to sacrifice for the good of the tribe.

Your philosophy is sadly anti-human.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
It is NOT the tribe that has resulted in the spectacular economic growth and prospertiy of the past 500 years.
It is the tribe that limits such growth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Except the HOW and the WHY to use the results of science. Without philosophy, there is no reason NOT to use the science of eugenics to murder babies and any other human not meeting the standards set by the eugenicists.
Which philosophy are you talking about? There IS no one school of philosophy embued with the ultimate definition of what is right and what is wrong, although they will all CLAIM to be so, just like your favorite goddess or guru.

How many philos in the past have promoted manifest destiny, the Ubermensch, or the worker as the rightful owner of everything?

Philos have proven to be as clueless and morally bankrupt as any prophet or preacher. I suppose you think that, like your favorite religion, contemporary philos must have finally gotten it right?

Science has shown us the source of morality. It is the tribe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
It is NOT the tribe that has resulted in the spectacular economic growth and prospertiy of the past 500 years.
It is the tribe that limits such growth.
Religion only enabled the tribal dynamic to encompass larger groups. It still defined 'us' vs 'them' with all the tribal behaviors that this implied.

Religion did not invent morality it only commandeered it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Auto's religion is scientism.
"scientism as the notion that "all objectively meaningful questions can be reduced to scientific ones, and only natural explanations are rational.""
"Harris touts the evils of Islamic fundamentalism as morally indefensible from a scientific point of view. But what kind of fact is it to say that making women cover their bodies is wrong, other than the "fact" that Harris thinks it is? Is there a science for determining the optimal way to treat women? If there is, it isn't mentioned by Harris. "
"While it may seem obvious that the oppression of women is morally wrong, proving scientifically that its disadvantageous to the thriving of our species is more tricky. "
http://biologos.o...morality
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Philos invent -isms so they can have something to play with. Your source:

"What We Believe
We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the "living and active" means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God's Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God."

-Why dont you perhaps reference something a little less biased?

As you can see from a cursory look at the wiki article, the word is philobabble ie, has no meaningful content.
http://en.wikiped...cientism
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Sounds like Auto:
"Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them."
" Atkins, for example, is scathing in his dismissal of the entire field: "I consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance.""
"scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer."
http://www.thenew...cientism
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
"Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them...scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research."

-Note the spin:
1) That this is a bad thing
2) That the philos who wrote it possess something better. They dont ryggy. This is however a very good example of the kind of propaganda that got giordano bruno killed.

"Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer."

-And what gives this guy the authority to declare that questions are not answerable?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
"Mr. Phillips, the Nobel physicist, attends Fairhaven United Methodist Church in Gaithersburg because he takes the deity personally. "Einstein's god, who is really just the laws of nature, is not for me," he said. "I'm strongly of the conviction that God is personal, and this is the foundation of my faith."
But he wonders whether science could ever really touch that question, let alone prove anything about the God he worships.
"Let's imagine we do learn a lot more, and it is really pointing us to the idea of a Creator," Mr. Phillips said. "It's difficult to see how that will point to a Creator who wants a personal relationship with us, who loves us, who wants us to love each other, who has expectations for us that come to us by the wisdom of Scriptures.""
http://www.deepsc...nce.html
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
"When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as "given" — imprinted on the universe like a maker's mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour."
"both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, "
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=1
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
What makes you think that throwing wads of religionist propaganda is any way of winning an argument? Austin L. Hughes is apparently an anti-evolution religionist who has books to sell.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
What makes you think that throwing wads of religionist propaganda is any way of winning an argument? Austin L. Hughes is apparently an anti-evolution religionist who has books to sell.

Science has shown us the source of morality. It is the tribe.

What science?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
What makes you think that throwing wads of religionist propaganda is any way of winning an argument? Austin L. Hughes is apparently an anti-evolution religionist who has books to sell.

Science has shown us the source of morality. It is the tribe.

What science?

http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
http://en.wikiped...ribalism
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
What is a 'tribe'?
Popper developed falsifiability because Marxists kept redefining terms as their theories failed.
In this sense, tribalism is not scientific as the definition of 'tribe' is not consistent. Einstein postulated a falsifiable theory and data could either support or reject the theory.
Is a tribe a family group of ~100 individuals or a a nation of millions?
Life is a challenge for biologists since life keeps invalidating theories.
For example, an anti-biotic is used to kill 'bad' bacteria, but it does not kill ALL. Some survive and the theory behind that substance is now invalid.
Inorganic material, when acted upon by forces, has no choice but be affected.
Living things are acted upon by forces, but they can choose a response. Maybe the choice kills them, maybe the choice makes them stronger. Living things can adapt to forces. How does the biologist predict how any living thing will adapt?
Who can scientifically predict how individual humans respond to external forces?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2013
"These philosophers have led to new tribalists pursuing what Daniel Quinn dubbed the "New Tribal Revolution". The new tribalists use the term "tribalism" not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community. " http://en.wikiped...ribalism
Auto says philos have nothing to add, but then philos redefine tribalism which Auto claims as a scientific basis for morality.
What a surprise, this new tribalism sounds like socialism.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
Philosophy is pseudoreligion. Any and all of it.
Not more than the mainstream science. And I'm serious.
@Otto I know youre serious but you must face the facts. Mainstream science has a stellar track record of producing RESULTS. Real world applications and repeatable experiments.

Philosophy has produced NOTHING. Philos who have actually contributed to science were doing SCIENCE at the time and not philosophy.
The framework of science and scientific results lies nested within the frameworks of philosophy and maths. For example the calculus ASSUMES a particular set of axioms by which Zeno's paradox may allow division of the infinitesimal to equal a finite number. That conclusion is arbitrary, but necessary for the calculus. This in turn is necessary to make any sensible description of the physical framework. There are countless examples where maths and computability affect experiments. It's laughable to even suggest otherwise
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
What is a 'tribe'?
Read the rechten paper.
Living things are acted upon by forces, but they can choose a response. Maybe the choice kills them, maybe the choice makes them stronger. Living things can adapt to forces. How does the biologist predict how any living thing will adapt?
Long ago primates began working in groups in response to forces. Many animals do this.

Technology enabled early humans to hunt the animals which had previously kept their numbers in check. As their numbers swelled, the group next door quickly became their principle enemy in conflict over resources.

Those groups whose members chose unwisely, were defeated and their females absorbed. Humans were thus vigorously selected for the tribal dynamic ie internal cohesion vs external animosity ie morality.

To the tribe it is just as moral to cheat and steal from the enemy, to kill him and rape his women, as it is to act altruistically toward fellow tribal members.

You know, like hebrews vs canaanites?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
The framework of science and scientific results lies nested within the frameworks of philosophy and maths.
This is like saying that the plant owes its structure to the dirt it grew from. This is like saying that science owes its structure to the voodoo shamans who were there before it.

Philo wallowed in the dirt, getting nowhere, until a few were able to shake off all the superstitious nonsense about metaphysics and develop the scientific method.

Philos today still insist that this netherworld exists on some level or other, and that they can use it to explain physical phenomena. OR, they think they can somehow assist scientists by watching what they do, and TALKING about it.

Hawking, feynman, dawkins and many others laugh at this. Other scientists merely ignore philos and go about the work of describing the universe AS IT IS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2013
And like I say when early philos were doing things which ultimately contributed to math and science, they were DOING math and science, not philosophy. No matter WHAT philos will claim.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2013
Philos today still insist that this netherworld exists on some level or other, and that they can use it to explain physical phenomena. OR, they think they can somehow assist scientists by watching what they do, and TALKING about it.
That metaphyical world is out there and you may choose to deny it, as would a religionist. Infinite series that don't converge still exist yet there is no direct scientific means to measure them. Scalar waves are undetectable yet essential in physics. Phase waves form the substrate upon which our particles vibrate. I doubt most physicists would claim that they grasp the entire infinite superset of realms in which out universe nests within higher dimensions. Reductionism and positivism are useful razors, but they are tools for the job not world outlooks

Don't confuse simplification necessary for models with reality
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
That metaphyical world is out there and you may choose to deny it, as would a religionist. Infinite series that don't converge still exist yet there is no direct scientific means to measure them. Scalar waves are undetectable etc
-It sounds like these things are all physical phenomena whether science can currently explore them or not. Conversly...

"Metaphysics
(1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
(2) : ontology : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience"

-Note the emphasis on ultimate concepts; nature of knowledge, nature of reality, of perception, experience, existence. Who craves simplicity, the philo or the scientist?

And yet while a scientists theories need only be as complex as needed, the philo will use endless complexity in trying to convince us that these ultimate concepts exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Infinite series that don't converge still exist yet there is no direct scientific means to measure them. Scalar waves are undetectable yet essential in physics. Phase waves form the substrate upon which our particles vibrate. I doubt most physicists would claim that they grasp the entire infinite superset of realms in which out universe nests within higher dimensions.
-You forget that only scientists could inform us about these things. Philos never could and never will.

The distinction between science and philosophy is simple; it is the difference between making stuff up vs examining how things actually are in a methodical way.

Plato thought the human 'mind' could explain reality just by thinking about it. And so he gave us his 'forms'. Aristotle insisted that reality had to be examined to understand it; and gave us empiricism. Platos concepts are the basis of religion and philosophy while aristotles are the basis of science.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
@Ghost -But as the metaphysical DOESNT EXIST, you are on the wrong track. And it doesn't matter who you are.
Nonsense. I gave examples prior of reams unavailable to science, yet are essential for science to operate. Einstein ventured special and general relativity as thought experiments. Philosophy gives man LOGIC without which his scientific pursuits and results would lack meaning. Without philosophy any robot could do science. Are you purporting scientists are overpaid vending machines?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Popper developed falsifiability
-And he was obviously doing science when he did this.
tribalism is not scientific as the definition of 'tribe' is not consistent
Well the term science itself is used in many different ways.

Tribalism as the continuation of evolution by artificial means, is not popular at the moment because it carries with it many uncomfortable concepts and leads to many socially difficult conclusions. The idea that gangs are normal, that religions are an amplification of the tribal dynamic, or that the democratic process has little to do with reason and everything to do with our affinity for tribal behavior, are not currently sociopolitically helpful notions.

And so the concept is obscured and diluted so that elements if it, like tribal morality, can rightfully be suppressed. MS-13 doesn't need to know that science says what they are doing is normal.

But I was encouraged by Jared diamonds new book where he discusses it at length, in so many words.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Nonsense. I gave examples prior of reams unavailable to science, yet are essential for science to operate
-and which are not knowable in any sense except by way of scientific enquiry. And why would you declare that they could never be known?
Einstein ventured special and general relativity as thought experiments.
-What makes you think this is philosophy and not science?
Philosophy gives man LOGIC without which his scientific pursuits and results would lack meaning
'Meaning'? Logic is sloppy math with words. Scientists use numbers when applying logic as words are wholly inadequate.
Without philosophy any robot could do science.
Absolutely. And very very soon AI will be doing just that, whether philos like it or not.
Are you purporting scientists are overpaid vending machines?
philosophy is dead. So said hawking, feynman, Krauss, Dawkins, and so many others. It simply FAILS to inform. I am thinking you are maybe not familiar with the discipline.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Nonsense. I gave examples prior of reams unavailable to science, yet are essential for science to operate
@Ghost -and which are not knowable in any sense except by way of scientific enquiry. And why would you declare that they could never be known?
Nonsense. We know of them by logic and sensory modalities. Sometimes we sense an effect which we do not understand, such as dark matter or gravity. They obviously cover a deeper realm. Asserting that science can fully understand deeper structures is pure faith. It may be a fusion of science, geometry and philosophy. Philosophy grows and evolves, but at a greatly diminished rate being the folding of science, maths, geometry and unseen realms
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
This should give you some idea of the efficacy of classic philosophy;

"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless — a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors.

— Daniel Dennett, The Message is: There is no Medium"

-And dennett is himself a philosopher. We could dismiss this were it not for the fact that every new gen declares much the same thing about the previous one, and will often resurrect the credos of earlier generations in argument.

And even THIS would be acceptable if they had some overall progress to show for themselves. But as hawking concluded, they simply do not. No real relevance, no application, just piles and piles of words.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Nonsense. We know of them by logic and sensory modalities.
-Science.
Sometimes we sense an effect which we do not understand, such as dark matter or gravity.
We 'sense' these things scientifically. PHILOSOPHERS sitting around and speculating without actually LOOKING would have no idea they were there.
They obviously cover a deeper realm. Asserting that science can fully understand deeper structures is pure faith.
No, it is confidence based on past performance and success. Declaring that they never will, is faith.
It may be a fusion of science, geometry and philosophy
Sorry, philosophy only produces things like 'dasein' and 'ding an sich'; ie pure fantasy.
Philosophy grows and evolves
No it changes as does any pursuit based on fashion rather than progress.
but at a greatly diminished rate being the folding of science, maths, geometry and unseen realms
Ahahaaa stop. You got that from 'The Philosophy of the Twilight Saga' didnt you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2013
Hawking fully understands the distinction between philosophy and science.

"...philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

-And he was being kind. Science has shown that the grand philosophical theories of previous centuries were all false, all smoke and mirrors, all pretense. How could they have been anything else? None were based on the scientific examination of evidence.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
Well the term science itself is used in many different ways.

How scientific is that?
Doesn't science depend upon precise terminology, precise definitions, precise equations, the best data collection possible, the best analysis?
If science can't be precise, how is it any different than philosophy?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2013
Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

They have not fared well of late as this hubris has led 'scientists' to stray into fields that are outside the realm of science.
Ehrlich advocating forced population control while birth rates fall around the world.
AGWites who have faith their limited computer models can predict an emergent, chaotic climate system.
Natural philosophers, aka scientists, pursued their discipline to learn more of God's creation.
Modern scientists are no different as they have faith science will unlock ALL knowledge.
depth
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2013
@Ghost -But as the metaphysical DOESNT EXIST, you are on the wrong track. And it doesn't matter who you are.
Nonsense. I gave examples prior of reams unavailable to science, yet are essential for science to operate. Einstein ventured special and general relativity as thought experiments. Philosophy gives man LOGIC without which his scientific pursuits and results would lack meaning. Without philosophy any robot could do science. Are you purporting scientists are overpaid vending machines?

Both philosophy and logic are invented by us. You can give any name you want . It didn't come from from anywhere but the human brain. Logic was present even before philiosophy term was invented, both workings of a human brain.
kochevnik
not rated yet Mar 03, 2013
Sometimes we sense an effect which we do not understand, such as dark matter or gravity.
@Ghost We 'sense' these things scientifically. PHILOSOPHERS sitting around and speculating without actually LOOKING would have no idea they were there.
I submit that is impossible. Sensation is not scientific as it in itself does not lead to predication. Hence it is impossible to formulate a hypothesis based solely upon sensation. All living things sense but few can predicate.

Science rests upon shaky foundations. One in particular is the theory of limits in the calculus, which assumes infinite divisibility. Yet that leads to a contradiction, which force scientists to ASSUME continuity. Indeed many things in nature are discontinuous and differentiable nowhere, such as fractal and quantum systems. Scientists are forced to question the idea of measurement itself. They assume, like Zeno, that movements can be comprised from an infinite set of motionless instants. No motion ensues
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
"Far from being delusional or faith-based, having a positive outlook in difficult circumstances is not only an important predictor of resilience -- how quickly people recover from adversity -- but it is the most important predictor of it. People who are resilient tend to be more positive and optimistic compared to less-resilient folks; they are better able to regulate their emotions; and they are able to maintain their optimism through the most trying circumstances. "
http://www.theatl.../273306/
Not the characteristics of 'liberals'/socialist/'progressive'. They live in the world of envy and resentment.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Dawkins is a coward.

"In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of "the Old Testament" is "hideous" and "a monster", and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character "in fiction". Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about."
http://www.thejc....e/102653
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
If science can't be precise, how is it any different than philosophy?
You're confusing the word 'science' with the disciplines of the scientific method and falsifiability. That's what I was talking about.
Ehrlich advocating forced population control while birth rates fall around the world
Link please. And pops in religion-dominated third world regions are growing far faster than expected.
http://e360.yale....th/2444/
Dawkins is a coward.
This is called pragmatism. Erlich expressed much the same thing. Neither wants to live like Rushdie. Both have shown great courage in speaking out against religionism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Natural philosophers
The term is antiquated and superseded as you know.
aka scientists, pursued their discipline to learn more of God's creation
And guess what? They discovered that the books are full of lies and the gods they describe don't exist. Including yours. How do you reconcile this with your particular faith ryggy?

Why would god make all the evidence for the flood, the exodus, the great kingdoms, and the godman himself disappear, and put only contrary evidence in it's place?

Why would he write a book so obviously PACKED with adulterations, forgeries, and LIES? Does he lie to test your faith? Why would a god who is the source of morality need to resort to this?

Is he in fact evil or merely incompetent? Or more likely, is he made up by evil or merely pragmatic people?
Modern scientists are no different as they have faith science will unlock ALL knowledge
They have increasing CONFIDENCE based on results. Faith is belief DESPITE evidence and lack of results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Sensation is not scientific as it in itself does not lead to predication. Hence it is impossible to formulate a hypothesis based solely upon sensation. All living things sense but few can predicate
Well of course not. Sensate info has to be processed by the brain and tested against further interaction with the world. NONE of this process is in any way unphysical.
Science rests upon shaky foundations. One in particular is the theory of limits in the calculus, which assumes infinite divisibility.
But it works doesn't it?
Yet that leads to a contradiction, which force scientists to ASSUME continuity.
But it still WORKS doesnt it?
Indeed many things in nature are discontinuous and differentiable nowhere, such as fractal and quantum systems
-And what would philos ever know about fractals or quantum systems if scientists hadnt found them to begin with, and explained to them (or tried to anyway) how they worked?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
the books are full of lies

But Auto has faith scientism is the apple from the Tree of Knowledge.
The world is full of books of lies. They are called novels. Some are even considered to be literature.
Shakespeare wrote all sorts of lies in his works yet many believe they have value.
This is called pragmatism. Erlich expressed much the same thing. Neither wants to live like Rushdie. Both have shown great courage in speaking out against religionism.


Pragmatists willing to lie to save their lives or to get what they want?
How can you trust any scientist who is pragmatic?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
All living things sense but few can predicate
No, most all animals learn through interaction, and can anticipate the results of future interaction. They learn what to eat, where to find it, how to avoid danger, etc. This info can be either genetically coded or stored in memory.

This is really a fundamental quality of life.
Scientists are forced to question the idea of measurement itself.
Scientists are trained to question everything they do.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
From Ehrlich's September 1971 edition of The Population Bomb:
""[T]he first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. "
pp 130-131
"We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
The world is full of books of lies. They are called novels. Some are even considered to be literature.
So you admit the bible is a novel? This is progress. Now you have to accept that it is not worth killing and dying for.

Shakespeare didn't promise eternal life in return for accepting that king Lear died to save souls from eternal torment. See the difference? But you're right, both are fiction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
Pragmatists willing to lie to save their lives or to get what they want?
How can you trust any scientist who is pragmatic?
Jesus (or was it Paul?) told the apostles how to keep on the move and who to stay with in order to avoid capture. This is also pragmatism.

Jesus also rode a donkey into the holy city on its most sacred day of the year, and told the high priests that he was not only their king but their GOD. This is not pragmatism. How can you trust anything that an idiot like this has to say?

ESPECIALLY since we now KNOW that the myth is only a rehashing of MANY earlier such fairy tales?
RonB
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2013
As in all things, the devil's in the details...anyone care to comment on one possible set of definitions of the two terms "conservative' and 'liberal' as: conserv - belief in equal opportunity for all peoples and personal responcibility, with rewards for extra effort to do better; liberal - belief in equal outcomes for all people (social equality) and penalty (extra taxes) for all extra effort above the equal outcome.
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
YOU belong to you. What you create and labor for belongs to you.
Unless you like being a slave, hunting and gathering food for others that may or may not let you have any.
If you don't have an unalienable, inherent right to your life and the right to protect your life (your property) then you are a 'liberal'/socialist/'progressive'. A subject/slave to others.


Rygg:

Capitalism makes everyone a slave to the corporation(s). Haven't you figured that out? Capitalism is nothing more than plantationism with a different skin.

You don't actually believe PEOPLE have a right to what they create or labor for, you believe the corporation (or the richest guy around anyway,) has the right to what you create and labor. The worker/creator is simply a pawn "owned" by the "boss," whoever or whatever they may be. That is the Republican core belief, regardless of whatever surface beliefs they may claim to have.

You don't know your own beliefs...
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013

How much wealth did you risk for your company? You did your job for an agreed to salary. If you want more, quit and find another job


A falsehood.

There is no such freedom to "quit your job and find another(higher paying)," particularly at the moment.

Capitalism is not based on "freedom," but rather the illusion of freedom.

Most people do not have choices that matter. They only have choices which give them the "feeling" of having choices.

Laborers risk something all the time in construction: their health and wellbeing, opportunity costs, and so on.

Inventors and those who work with paperwork and intellectual property (cubical workers, etc,) they "risk" all the time, as their employers often steal their ideals and patent them in their own names, or even require them to sign away intellectual property rights before full company employ is allowed.

This is the way America works.

If you are unaware of this you're a liar or else you haven't been in a job market in ages...
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
There is no such freedom to "quit your job and find another(higher paying)," particularly at the moment.


Of course there is: http://us.jobrapi...;l=north dakota&r=auto&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=job%2Bopportunities%2Bnorth%2Bdakota&utm_campaign=YSM_US_GEO_%3E1000ADS_SEARCH&utm_content=b
Capitalism makes everyone a slave to the corporation(s).

Bull $hit!
It is socialism that makes everyone a slave to the state.
So you admit the bible is a novel?
No.

Auto, you assert the Bible is fiction and therefore has no value. Do you also assert ALL fiction has NO value because it is fiction?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2013
@RonB anyone care to comment on one possible set of definitions of the two terms "conservative' and 'liberal' as: conserv - belief in equal opportunity for all peoples and personal responcibility, with rewards for extra effort to do better; liberal - belief in equal outcomes for all people (social equality) and penalty (extra taxes) for all extra effort above the equal outcome.

Those are your own made-up definitions. You can make up a language with new words and create your own subculture. But in the real world the origins of conservatism are tied to the the traitors who backed the Catholic church in England, like Guy Falkes. In America conservatives backed England in the American Revolution. They are nothing but traitors to republics and enforcers of the crown. Liberalism, in contrast, is organic and stems from disgust of authoritarian regimes thwarting personal liberty. You can't stop liberalism because reality has a liberal bias
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Liberalism, in contrast, is organic and stems from disgust of authoritarian regimes thwarting personal liberty.


'Liberalism' was used by FDR to describe his version of socialism. Democrats continued to call themselves 'liberal' until they began to loose elections and the 'L' word was changed to 'progressive', which is the term the socialist Wilson used over 100 years ago.
Socialist is defined by Bastiat in The Law and by Mises in Socialism to mean those who use state power to plunder the personal property and wealth of individuals. It maters not why the socialist wants to plunder. Whether the socialist wants to enrich himself with the money and power or whether he claims to be plundering for 'the masses', it is still plunder.
Lurker2358
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
It maters not why the socialist wants to plunder. Whether the socialist wants to enrich himself with the money and power or whether he claims to be plundering for 'the masses', it is still plunder.


The Bible is a socialist document, with the Old Testament having the first (known) social security system, under the Law, and the New Testament having Jesus commanding a wealthy man to give everything he had to the poor, and Jesus saying loosely that the rich could hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven, and later in the Book of Acts being written with a passage that they, "Said not that any thing was their own, but that they had all things common."

It would seem that the actual teachings of the Bible were not supposedly favoring the hoarding of wealth by a few individuals, but the equal distribution and access to the wealth.

It would seem odd that those most opposed to equality in modern times are those most radically conservatives (whether religious, fiscal, or social). Why?
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2013
If all men are created equal, then why are they not treated equally, and why are they not equally rewarded?!

Rygg, you do not believe "all men are created equal". You rather believe, the Orwellian, "some men are created more equal than others," which is actually obviously a criticism of the U.S., not of Russia or Eastern Europe.

Unfortunately, "all men are created equal" does not appear in the Constitution of the U.S., but they did manage to fit in the 3/5ths compromise.

The 3/5ths compromise is alive and well today, in deed, though not in legal technicality. The corporation and the tycoon own everyone, and you don't even get a real vote, not even representation, because your alleged representation is purchased by corporations.

"Conservatives" have no qualms about "big government" just as long as the spending is on big military contracts or big oil contracts, in which they happen to own stocks....
djr
not rated yet Mar 03, 2013
RonB: "conserv - belief in equal opportunity for all peoples and personal responcibility, with rewards for extra effort to do better; liberal - belief in equal outcomes for all people (social equality) and penalty (extra taxes) for all extra effort above the equal outcome."

If what you are saying Ron is that this kind of research seems very loose in regards to it's use of terms like conservative, and liberal - I would agree fully. I wonder who sits around and thinks up research such as - 'I wonder if meditation makes you more 'liberal?' Your definitions are of course highly biased. Let me give you a different perspective.

Conservative - 'someone who prefers the status quo over progress. A philosophy usually held by individuals in positions of privelege.'

Liberal - 'someone who believes that we are all in this together - and would like to live in a world in which all have equal opportunity in the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

Just saying.....
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Conservative - 'someone who prefers the status quo over progress. A philosophy usually held by individuals in positions of privelege.'


This term applies to the socialist Obama regime that prefers to tax and spend destroying the economy and destroying the life, liberty and opportunity for all.
It is supported by the 'privileged' like Soros, Buffet, Wall St bankers, ....

Jesus commanding a wealthy man to give everything he had to the poor,

Socialists TAKE, plunder using force. Jesus told the rich man to GIVE. Jesus did not put a sword to his throat.
but they did manage to fit in the 3/5ths compromise.
Obama demands compromise. What's wrong with compromise? But the 3/5th compromise helped the slaves by limiting the power in Congress of the slave states. Slave state congressmen would NOT oppose slavery.
I am all for supporting equality under the law. Today's 'liberals' do not. The USAG refuses to prosecute black on white hate crimes.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
If anyone really wants to know about conservatives, read Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin.
http://www.barnes...b=2&

Contrary to the assertions by the 'liberals' here, conservatives want to preserve the US Constitution and the real status quo for the past 100 years has been socialism/'liberalism'/'progressivism'.
The conservative Coolidge cut tax rates and govt spending unleashing a booming economy. The 'progressive' Hoover and 'liberal' FDR, both socialists, killed the boom leading to another world war, against the socialists in Germany and Japan.
JFK's conservative tax policies benefited the economy in the 60s and Reagan's tax RATE cuts created a 20 year boom.
Conservatives want to conserve and defend the liberty and property of EVERY individual.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
From another conservative:
"Black Chamber of Commerce CEO: Obama Is Tyrannical & Borderline Communist
Read more at http://fiscalcons...lLLj1.99

BTW, it is the 'liberal' who promotes dividing people along racial, class, gender, and any other classification they can think of pitting them against each other to keep power.
"President Barack Obama, in stoking up class warfare, said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." This is lunacy. - "Class warfare thrives on ignorance about the sources of income. ""In a free society, for the most part, people with high incomes have demonstrated extraordinary ability to produce valuable services for — and therefore please — their fellow man. People voluntarily took money out of their pockets to purchase the products of Gates, Pfizer or IBM. High incomes reflect the democracy of the marketplace."
Walter E. Williams, "Should the Rich be Condemned?"
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
Regarding the 3/5the compromise, slave state delegates wanted slaves to count as one person to determine the number of representatives to Congress.
Those opposed to slavery did not want slaves to be counted at all since they could not vote and this would give slave state more power in Congress, controlled by a few.
Without the compromise, there may have never been a Constitution (socialists would like this) and the US could have been forced to rejoin the British Empire.
Had the US been reabsorbed into the Empire, slavery would have been abolished in 1809 thanks to the efforts of English Christians.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
OK, I have one more idea for left wing politicians, that would be even better than any political adds.

Convince people who wait in line for ballots, that whole electoral campaign was terribly aggressive and stressful, so the best idea to is to relax through guided meditation for a while.

:D :D :D
kochevnik
not rated yet Mar 04, 2013
OK, I have one more idea for left wing politicians, that would be even better than any political adds.
I don't think it is the left wing which needs lessons in meditation
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
Someone was whining about income inequality.

"Lost on the economic illiterates that populate both sides of the commentariat is the simple, life enhancing truth that when the wealth gap is increasing, that's a certain signal that the lifestyle gap is shrinking – rapidly. Though the politically correct on both sides are loath to admit it, income inequality is beautiful."
"Thinking about wealth creation in the U.S. and the ever-growing wealth gap, Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs died worth billions; his staggering wealth a signal that he'd greatly reduced the lifestyle gap. Music that used to be expensive, and that required the buyer to purchase much that was unwanted, now costs .99 cents. Wireless phones that were once the obscure property of the superrich are now positively pedestrian."
http://www.forbes...quality/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Do you also assert ALL fiction has NO value because it is fiction?
I ASSERT that any obvious fiction which sells itself as fact, and which promises that it's superheros will grant wishes and immortality in return for service and worship, is malevolent.

The cardinals are now meeting to discuss the churches most pressing problems so they can elect a pope who can best address them.

Obviously their MOST pressing problem is that the bible is full of easily disprovable lies. Do you think they are discussing this ryggy? Might it be because the only solution to the issue would be to close up shop and go home?

No, their enduring solution is to choose leaders who are best at obscuring this unfortunate fact.

Ever been to st peters in Rome? Did you know that that statue of Moses whose toes are worn off from the lips of generations of humble supplicants, is actually a pre-Xian statue of Zeus?

The priests are laughing at you all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
The priests are laughing at you all.

I am not Catholic.
Socialists like Obama are laughing at the ignorant 'liberals' who grab their ankles to be slaves for the state.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
http://bastiat.or...ent.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
I am not Catholic.
Priest is a generic term.
Socialist is defined by Bastiat
Bastiat was a philosopher. How could you trust anything he had to say?
Jesus told the rich man to GIVE. Jesus did not put a sword to his throat.
Right. Guido and the boys say you dont have to pay, but they cannot guarantee that your shop will not burn down. Jesus says that you get to choose, but he guarantees that if you dont choose him you will burn for eternity.

And the believers in your neighborhood (including guido) will guarantee that you and your family will suffer throughout this life. You will be shunned, you will do no business, and you will have no peace. The tribe has spoken. Some choice.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)

"Many Christians believe that the sword is a metaphor for ideological conflict and that Jesus is not advocating physical violence..."

-But what is more violent than martyrdom? Jesus advocates self-destruction by example.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
To correct a reference:

"It is supposedly a statue of Peter enthroned. Notice the sun wheel above his head? This statue is thought by some to actually be a pagan statue of Jupiter, removed from the Pantheon in Rome (a pagan temple), moved into St. Peter's and renamed Peter. The extended right foot has been nearly worn away from the many pilgrims who kiss it in homage."

-This appropriation and retasking is typical of the religion. Note the authentic egyptian obelisks in front of many catholic churches including the one in front of st peters.

This is in the spirit of the godman legend itself; an acknowledgement and admission of the fact that it is NOT ORIGINAL, but a continuation of a far older Tradition. Nothing new under the sun.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
Bastiat was a philosopher. How could you trust anything he had to say?

I don't have a problem with philosophers when what they say has been demonstrated over centuries to be true.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Bastiat was a philosopher. How could you trust anything he had to say?

I don't have a problem with philosophers when what they say has been demonstrated over centuries to be true.
True in this case is not falsifiable but merely subjective. Typical philo sociopolitical propaganda. It becomes true when the people act as if it were true.

This does not mean that it is not necessarily right or proper or essential for the moment of course; only that it is artificial.

You cant have one side of a coin without the other. You cant have continuous individualism at the expense of the tribe.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
True in this case is not falsifiable but merely subjective.

No, its falsifiable.
Socialism/legal plunder leads to poverty, tyranny, and destruction of wealth.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
True in this case is not falsifiable but merely subjective.

No, its falsifiable.
Socialism/legal plunder leads to poverty, tyranny, and destruction of wealth.

No it doesnt.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
True in this case is not falsifiable but merely subjective.

No, its falsifiable.
Socialism/legal plunder leads to poverty, tyranny, and destruction of wealth.

No it doesnt.

Of course it does. Pull your head out and look around.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
Never mind that. Look at this bullshit;

"The Bible miniseries: History Channel's take on the Bible not for kids

"The Bible miniseries produced by the History Channel is a disappointment for any family hoping for a new way to share the Bible's stories with their children. The Bible miniseries, not altogether surprising given the History Channel's relentless ratings focus, sensationalizes the Bible's stories. Angel ninjas? Really?

"As a parent and a writer, I think that the sacred text is so woven into our social dialogue that you should share it for historical and social context even if you're not a believer." -CSM

I think the HISTORY CHANNEL should have the courage to explain that the bible stories NEVER HAPPENED. Then maybe this would be suitable for kids.

People see this on the HISTORY CHANNEL which reinforces the LIE that theyre watching history. Its outrageous.