The freedom of the individual vs the balancing the rights of the collective. That is why Ayn Rand is all over these pages. This is best stated by Colonel Jessep, from "A Few Good Men": It is at the heart of the Conservative vs the Liberal debate. The wisdom comes from realizing that nature has selected (in the Darwinian sense, i.e., Evolutionary Biology) people for both these traits, creating a healthy symbiosis. That the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts individually. Next time you put each other down, realize that each is the other side of the same coin. Instead, what each should consider is what measure Conservative and what measure Liberal is needed to solve a problem. We are like a receipe in a stew, not enemies accross lines.
"Eveery argument in P&R boils down to: The freedom of the individual vs the balancing the rights of the collective" not so. at least not the religious arguments. religious debates come down to do we give emotion, ie faith,belief, the same weight as evidence that we do testable scientific data. no matter how many ways you slice it it comes down to this fact. believers believe in spite of the evidence and nonbelievers do not believe because of the evidence.
Interesting point of view. I'm not sure the Jessep rant (although a good one) was an appropriate analogy, but I see where you're coming from. NOT surprising is that you think your arguments are somehow better and or different than everyone else. Human nature...extreme bias...arrogance? Probably some of all, I'd guess.
for me they boil down to three things: 1. How much I'm gaining 2. How much I'm losing 3. How much I've drank in any case, I always win
for god's sakes grow up already, will ya? here, give us some "scientific data" on human emotion? Are you suggesting this driven is unimportant? The young, liberal and stupid ... that really is what keeps the all but dead debate alive on this forum.
and on these pages I do not care what people believe as long as they are honest. here we have a typical ET poster of science. He states that non believers do no believe because of the evidence. As if there is evidence there is no creator of the universe. Why do these posters of science have to be so emotional they pretend there non belief is backed by science? To me this is not about me telling you to be liberal or conservative. When it comes to belief in a Creator I just ask you tell the truth. Science has no proof that there is no Creator so stop writing crap like your quote above.
I am an agnostic but can you do everyone a favor and take a philosophy 101 class at your local community college? You will begin to understand that there are both logical arguments for and against the existence of a god. Go read about the first cause argument. There is no scientific data that explains what the first cause in the universe was. The existence of a god is just as factual as the non-existence of a god. In other words, neither is fact. So do us all another favor and stop claiming the belief in a god has no logical arguments. The same thing goes for theists. Stop claiming the belief in no god has no logical arguments.
Well, maybe in the decidedly strange world of this forum on ET. But in the real world and especially outside the United States, that is not just an oversimplification - it is just not true at all. Even the American split of liberals Vs conservatives is pretty much that - an American thing. The major political force that is not conservative in the rest of the western world would consider itself to be "social democratic" rather than "liberal". There is a considerable difference.
"not so. at least not the religious arguments. religious debates come down to do we give emotion, ie faith,belief, the same weight as evidence that we do testable scientific data. no matter how many ways you slice it it comes down to this fact. believers believe in spite of the evidence and nonbelievers do not believe because of the evidence." ---------------------------------------------------------- right here we have the proof of my statement. jem cant point to any real evidence of any god. the best he can do is put his fingers in his ears and scream "you cant prove there is no god so that proves there is one". he wants to turn the scientific concept of evidence on its head and allow his emotional need to believe in superstition to trump all scientific conclusions derived from testable evidence that shows every test we have ever concieved to test for a god has failed. people like jem start with the mindset that there must be a god because their inherited religion tells them so and as science answers more and more "god did it"questions retreat to a blank spot in our knowledge and places their god in that spot. Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative?
I am not disagreeing, but you fail to comment on what I consider the most important part of what I am trying to say regarding this polarity, call it what you will, that it is evolutionary in the same way that sex is, or eye color, or specialized beaks, etc, and this polarity is actually healthy when it doesn't lead to gridlock or resentment. I wil even go further, morality is evolutionary - www.yourmorals.org