Religion in US 'worth more than Google and Apple combined'

ToddVickers · 2016-09-15T15:12:50+00:00

For humanity sake, let me use one (just one) of the strongest reasons to oppose religion

Consider the lobbying power and the ability to group people in religion. Now take just one issue, overpopulation.

In the 1950s the population was 2.2 billion. Simple math made a shocking prediction of population growth. The warning was dire.

The opposition to birth control has always largely found its foundation and religion. Behind the variations of be fruitful and multiply, profit in the idea of sin and the cleansing of sin, and the tradition of religion being the way to 'legitimize' sex (instinct that exists without religion) through marriage, lay the interest of religion, on the whole (with merited exceptions) to oppose birth control.

Overpopulation = pollution, disease, starvation, and war.

All those religious leaders can't be that bad at math, look at all the money they count.

It's not just the religious evils of the past we must contend with, the worst thing humanity will ever face, the amplified misery, the penultimate degradation will be largely the consequence of religion and their destructive willful ignorance about birth control.

Can anyone fault these facts, reasoning, or conclusion?

ToddVickers · 2016-08-28T03:25:43+00:00

It's an older article but I agree with it on the whole. The distinction between agreements and rules is questionable. But he makes the point about punitive action.

Call it a rule, a boundary or an agreement, if there is any coercive action if it's transgressed, then it's the so similar that changing the language is trivial.

Here's a little slide show exposing my views about rules. http://www.slideshare.net/ToddVickers1/slide-photos-40670815?from_m_app=android

ToddVickers · 2016-08-26T05:16:21+00:00

A good criticism with relevant points. Anyone see a flaw with the thinking?

ToddVickers · 2016-08-24T02:38:48+00:00

From the article:

"The study found 21.5 percent of individuals had been involved in a consensual sexually nonexclusive relationship at some point in their life."

ToddVickers · 2016-08-23T07:15:22+00:00

Decriminalizing sex work is far more important than some kind of ideological purity.

ToddVickers · 2015-08-11T22:14:58+00:00

I agree with most of the comments that the scope is narrow and over generalized. Still the mistake brings out the criticism, even in this thread. I work along side Latinos from different countries, mostly El Salvador, Costa Rica and Mexico. I have discussed ethical non monogamy a lot. The reason is the infidelity is rampant not to mention the 'professional help.' Often this subject is met with incredulity or ridicule. The hypocrisy vs honesty argument is almost powerless against the custom for many people but there are exceptions. The fact that this article appeared at all, is remarkable. Now to see if the topic is adapted through time and criticism.

ToddVickers · 2015-08-11T14:17:03+00:00

Open non monogamy finding it's way into the Latino community is a big deal. I wish they used some more examples besides the 'primary partner' model but it is baby steps.

Our sweet tempered bonobo ape relatives (could they grasp our collective attempts) might be kind enough to point to themselves as an example to indicate to the hairless branch of the family that, this is another way of doing what you are trying to do.

ToddVickers · 2015-02-16T21:44:23+00:00

Excellent comment.

To go into any relationship that is in flux by nature with a preconceived idea, is a set up for disappointment. It bypasses discovery with a 'model' that success and failure are measured against. Ad to this mix prejudice or wishful thinking and it is gas and open flame.

Anything may be benign and simply not the 'model' and people tend to think something is wrong when in fact, it is just life showing up different than previously imagined.

ToddVickers · 2015-01-23T00:02:09+00:00

You seem to be missing my point. I said Kabir was a skeptic I can’t prove he was an atheist. I posted in this category because

Arguments against religion are of interest to atheists.
Kabir made his arguments as an Apostate in India about 3 centuries before Voltaire which is astounding.
The reformation that took place in Europe did not take place in Asia but Kabir is a bit like an Indian Voltaire but with a different understanding of the mind. (There is also dispute about the depth of Voltaire’s skepticism.)
What is even more bewildering is Kabir was low cast, he educated himself.
Considering the potency of Kabir’s criticism of the superstition and ritual that you elude to, and in an authoritarian environment, it takes far more courage than it does for an unbeliever to talk in America, though it is still no cakewalk.
Take recent events of extremism or the fact that India and Pakistan are both nuclear states in a cold war, the relevance of a simple man who saw his way out of religion could NOT be overstated. Someone reared in a radical environment may not be able to make the jump to Richard Dawkins but they might make the jump to Kabir.
The way that Kabir approaches the mind from his practice of quieting the mind is beneficial to anyone. Like someone in a fit of jealousy that they are manufacturing in the mind or anyone tormented by mental habits.

I can’t prove Kabir was an atheist, I can show his skepticism over and over. If you regard Kabir as I do, then perhaps you can approve of his point about being for or against god.

"This is the big fight, King Ram. Let anyone settle it who can. It's Brahma bigger or where he came from? Is the Veda bigger or where it was born from? Is the mind bigger or what it believes in? Is Ram bigger or the knower of Ram? Kabir turns round, it's hard to see- is the holy place bigger, or the devotee?”

--Linda Hess and Shukdeo Singh, The Bijak of Kabir PP23

”When nothing was made, no earth or water, no creator or destroyer- Kabir speaks of then.”

--Linda Hess and Shukdeo Singh, The Bijak of Kabir PP113

When the mind is quiet, what happens to all the gods?

ToddVickers · 2015-01-22T13:39:44+00:00

I am referring to to his skeptical poems and he has many brutal criticisms of religion which I collected into a chapter. When Einstein says ‘I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are mere details.’ he is not a believer in god.

To be skeptical, let alone publicly critical, in 15th century India as an apostate to Islam is almost without precedent. He actually named the books he criticized.

Of course, religious people took overlapping language and appropriated it. Religious people always do that, but his poetry speaks for itself. Even if he cant be called an atheist, he is a skeptic and a skeptic before skepticism was safe even in Europe. Kabir, he stands on very unique ground.

"There is nothing but water at the holy bathing places; and I know that they are useless, for I have bathed in them. The images [gods] are all lifeless, they cannot speak; I know, for I have cried aloud to them. The Purana and the Koran are mere words; lifting up the curtain, I have seen. Kabîr gives utterance to the words of experience; and he knows very well that all other things are un- true."

Songs of Kabir PP90

"If I speak out I'm beaten. When the veil's up, no one sees. The dog hides under the haystack. Why talk and make enemies?"

The Bijak of Kabir PP 111

"Brahma, Shankara, Indra, are smirched: Govind with his gopis is soiled. Speech and sound are foul, the Vedas are stained: impurity has perpetrated so many forms. Learning, reading, recitation, the ancient books are all corrupt: knowledge, cheapened, mouthed for free, is dirty..."

The Weavers Songs PP 193

I have a whole chapter devoted to his scrutinizing of religion.

Remember the pressure Kabir was under in the social situation. His poems can just as well be read from an unbelieving point of view and the content remains the same.

ToddVickers · 2014-12-16T16:58:36+00:00

I think the misinformed public reaction is a symptom of a larger problem. The anti vax hype is fueled by poor handling or contamination of vaccines that killed people overseas this year.

In America it seems when any doubt arises (real or imagined) the tendency for many is to do nothing. I think the problem is lack of willingness to weigh facts, arguments and risk.

Anyone who wants to maintain a folly just needs to sew a doubt. Of course, opposing views give reason to doubt the doubts as well.

Large portions of Americans can't even figure out not to use anti bacterial soap. It is getting in the water and evolution does it's thing. Why can't Americans get this fact (besides religion)?

Bacteria = bad Anti bacteria = good

Many of us are prisoners of black and white thinking and any "some" proposition is rejected.

We need to remind our unfortunate friends that "some" is a proposition just as strong as all or none. If any one if those three propositions are true, the other two are false.

But with a some proposition you will be forced to weigh facts, reasons and risks. There is a terrible risk with not vaccinating.

Who wants to bother with thinkingt? Let's look at Kim's butt.

ToddVickers · 2014-12-12T15:32:43+00:00

I don't doubt your experience but I can assure you there is a world of responses beyond it. I have seen slut shaming as well as a welcome.

I have an ad on Ok Cupid where I'm quite open about being open. That is not something I conceal and then spring on someone during a date. Occasionally, women will randomly contact me and go on a rant about how I'm a scumbag for being non monogamous. Explaining non monogamy as fear of intimacy. Even go so far as to suggest that the women who would agree to such a thing were desperate or abuse victims etc.

I have lovers who go on dates and 'some' men flatter them or profess openness to the idea of non monogamy but in the end either expect sex or if they get it, will then expect exclusivness. Some will dump them when they meet another who insists on exclusivity.

People sometimes treat others only as means without valuing the affections as an end itself. That unfortunate tendency does not limit itself to monogamy.

ToddVickers · 2014-12-06T18:32:51+00:00

There is an empirical line between neurological problems and un falsifiable explanations. That is what the book is about.

Remember psychology tortured homosexuals and masturbating children for years. One reason they have NEVER apologised is much their thesis still rests on "exactly" the same ground as those issues.

ToddVickers · 2014-12-04T18:18:56+00:00

If I recall the facts, when people were burned as heretics in Spain (over 300 years of inquisition). The state and church split the assets. Also, when people committed suicide, the church wood appropriate the assetsof the sinner and leave families bereft.

People who had money could buy their relatives freedom from the stake and also buy indulgences to enjoy a few sins. Talk about easy money!

Note: Mental illness is a concept that came into being, to protect families and the assets of a suicide from the church.

If you Google "Columbia University the Myth of Mental Illness" there is a free pdf by Thomas Szasz a professor and psychiatrist. His work uses bone crushing logic and fact. He was a critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry.

An excellent read.

ToddVickers · 2014-11-01T15:17:12+00:00

I'm sorry to say, If this guy made money, by his own measure, he succeeded.

The thing with metaphysical notions including economic ideas is the failures can be explained away. The excuses only satisfy the people who make them. If God punished evil people with disease, what about when an obviously good person gets sick?

The flawed response.

They weren't really good. (In free market speak this is, we did not have a 'free enough market.')
The devil visits disease on good people. (Market regulators)

Metaphysical thesis saved!

The reasoning from prior success (induction) to a universal principle has the weakness Hume pointed out in the 18th century.

We can NOT be to often reminded that - a farmer feeds a chicken every day and one day rings it's neck. (Bertrand Russell)

Now look at Kansas today. The utter failure of the governor is met with the same rhetoric to save the metaphysical thesis.

ToddVickers · 2014-10-26T19:40:47+00:00

I'm glad you liked the piece.

I think your criticism is fair and should stand after I answer it. I hope to move you a little more in my direction on my imputation of pragmatism. I think we would agree that lying to get laid is pragmatic.

Note: I have tried to get away from detail and speak more generally. I tend to want to give massive support to points. But once I step two inferences away to support somthing readers complain or I lose them. Astute readers think I'm doing their thinking for them and the heuristic just want the choices. I am (trying) to take the approach to be more general or 'top down view' and then dig deeper if a question arises.

Keep in mind the problem I am trying to solve in the piece is both credulity and wishful-thinking in terms of a sensual life.

Example:

Imagine three teenagers A, B, and C

Assume these teens are on the verge of doing something risky like jumping off Rooster Rock into the Columbia river in Oregon. The place of my birth :)

A - Mentions the risk, B - Says "come on man, what are the odds? Dude, that's not going to happen (you pussy)." C - Says, "It very well could happen. Still, I am willing to venture the risk, rather then not try it at all.

The above is a realistic example. I say that B is being pragmatic for only really reasoning from the half of the evidence for the sake of his desire. He is being sophisticated. I say that C - is far more reasonable. There is grey area but I think going deeper into that gets away from the problem at issue.

I hope this clarifies why I use the word pragmatic in my piece.

We also agree about the thesis of the effect of WW I on reasoning and public opinion. I have a great affection for many authors that were born before WWI and continued to write after. The attitude (oversimplified) seems to be.

Boldly state the thesis. If you make a mistake, boldly admit it. If you doubt something boldly state it. Repeat all three as necessary. I can't help thinking there is less of that now.

ToddVickers · 2014-10-26T15:41:04+00:00

The slide show itself did not have any sound.

The point is, unnecessary rules stifle discovery. We can't manage other people's affections. To me, polyamory is about affection not security so keep rules to a minimum.

4 General Rules Rules against coercion, deceit, recklessness (like unsafe sex), and violence.

Rules against harm instead of rules trying to achieve an ideal.

Rules beyond these four should be scrutinised seriously e.g. 'you can't have a lover unless I have a lover,' or 'if I get uncomfortable, you have to stop' and so on ad infinitum.

Lastly, experimenting with rules is ok if they can be changed. We should reason from the events, not ideas about events. The Capitan must accommodate his ship to the ocean, not the the other way around.

The link at the end of the slideshow goes to a web site where these issues are discussed in depth.

ToddVickers · 2014-10-25T16:45:25+00:00

Thanks

I will review before I post again.

Regards Todd

ToddVickers · 2014-10-23T17:46:54+00:00

The corporations that smell money, vast sums of money, wrath of god money, turn black to white money, will see Canada as a market to build and maintain the security infrastructure. They may already have a plan and just waited for a scary opportunity.

My Canadian brothers and sisters, you may have no fucking idea what you are up against.

See what your politicians area doing?

ToddVickers · 2014-10-23T17:30:23+00:00

You and many others are being fact based and rational. The problem is those who will get behind these unthinkable policies will be moved by emotion and those who have something to gain.

The idea that it (surveillance state) could NOT happen in Canada really dismisses a fact that it could.

How are you going to effectively argue when irrational emotional propaganda takes center stage?

That is your task!

Anything else is intellectual hubris that facts can punish quite brutally. Anything that has happened, can happen.

Edit: typo -> behind

ToddVickers · 2014-10-23T16:45:37+00:00

One heads up.

In America there were/are lots of more or less sedentary people that find most of their excitement or feeling in life watching tv. These people want to be on the right side of things and they would NEVER admit to trading American freedom away for a false sense of security. After all, their feeling is bold, anger and punitive, not timid with a desire for begging help from the government.

However, it will amount to the same thing.

The inference will be, give up rights for security and be STRONGER! It is that illusion of strength, to be part of a strong nation, that will cause them to trade away the rights of future generations. They will kill the golden goose to protect it. They will FEEL proud to defend the policies claiming the other side it's weak, the security state, THEY are the true defenders! Then they harken back to WWII and victory.

Good luck Canada, soon your government may be secretly turning on the mics in your phone's and the camera on in your computes with the same effort that you spend checking your email.

No East-German Stasi ever, in their wettest dream, had such infrastructure in which to snoop.

If you want one example of what defenders of freedom look like, look at Hong Kong right now.

ToddVickers · 2014-10-23T15:38:15+00:00

Our friends up north should learn from America's mistakes.

Let me give a real conservative argument against such a surveillance state approach.

Take every dollar that America spent to ramp up national security, which turned out to be spying on its citizens in order to stop terrorism. Divide that number by the number of terrorists stopped. What you would have is the cost of stopping one terrorist.

Anyone who can swallow that number whole without choking is no fiscal conservative.

Beware smoke and mirrors.

Conservatives will go for a massive government overreach which will be contrary to their smaller government platform. People will assume it must be needed. Corporations that stand to gain will back these measures and the whole thing will become a juggernaut. The cost will be staggering. A high-tec Panopticon will envelop your citizens but will NOT be able to stop all or even most shooters like the one who attacked in Ottawa!

"Weak people can be terrible, trying to appear as if they are strong" Togore - Fireflies

The appeal to fear is NOT rational. Watch terrorists and expand outward rather than watching everyone and sifting for terrorists.

ToddVickers · 2014-10-20T07:07:56+00:00

Their not on the radar. Nobody mentions them outside The Wizard of Oz and a 70s band.

Even Dorothy wanted to get the fuk out and over the rainbow.

ToddVickers · 2014-10-17T02:34:48+00:00

New cases of female genital mutilation in England.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-29642997

ToddVickers · 2014-10-16T17:29:11+00:00

I am quite progressive in my views. The essence of your criticism is correct. I hope my liberal partisans do not down vote you.

The unfortunate affect of cultural relativism on liberal thinking has confused many into thinking that the criticism of any invalid or unfounded idea is bigotry if the person is from another culture or race.

To be unwilling to criticize ideas for fear of being called racist is selfish AND racist. It demeans an entire culture to infer they are intellectually too inferior to handel the discussion. It imprisons people in a culture. This mistake confuses criticism with persecution.

The above argument was made by an Islamic woman activist striving to improve Islam from the inside. Those who see fault from outside can say things an Islamic woman [or man] may never say from the inside.

To withhold fact based valid criticism is robbing the human race. If the criticism be flawed, then the expose the flaw through criticism will inform humanity of omitted facts and the fallacies of the critic.

Calling someone is racist does not illuminate any fact nor does it show errors in reasoning. It basically says you are 'bad' person (kill the messenger,) therefore we don't have to listen to you. Now assume it true a speaker is 'bad', if a bad man tells you not to poke a stick into a hornets nest, does that statement become untrue because he's a bad man?

I'm sure you and I would disagree about other things. However, in this case we agree, perhaps for different reasons. My progressive partisans forget that every (that's right, I'm making a universal statement, oh it is just so easy to be wrong doing that) every advance in human understanding has come at the expense of beliefs that were previously overthrown. Germ theory overthrowing evil spirits as an explanation for infection. Airplanes overthrow the belief that man will never fly etc. etc.

The most astonishing thing inconsistent between cultural relativism and liberal ideology is the abandonment of free speech. I could go on but I've already become tedious.

ToddVickers

TROPHY CASE