Posts Tagged With: Personal beliefs

Americans, Have We Become Failures When We Were Once Successful?


Advertisements
Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Science Prove That God Does Not Exist?


The Eye of God

“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

Carroll argues that God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. “As we learn more about the universe, there’s less and less need to look outside it for help,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries.

He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything?”
———-
My take on it is that when you separate the premises as presented of this theory from the rest of the story and question them thouroughly the theory still lacks scientific credibility. Thus it becomes a preconceived hypothesis liKe any other theory of the existence of God from the mind of an atheist.

Categories: Religion, Science | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Socialism, A Scientific Economic Theory


Foolish Thoughts?

This is an election year, a year where many persons seek to be elected into a political office including the President of the nation. The economy and government’s role in it is on the front burner of everyone’s mind. It is an election that, in my mind, will determine whether the people seek a socialistic form of economic system or a system of free enterprise. It will be the ultimate test of the value of the democratic system of government.

The end results may not be seen in the immediate future but never the less time will be the judge of the outcome. And there are many who are uncertain of what is to be expected of them and that uncertainty is felt throughout society right now during this recessionary period. And they are looking to government for the solutions

Economics is a strange creature. It can be measured on the individual level as well as on the collective level. It can be established in many forms also as history has shown us. But regardless of what form of economics is the dominant form at any given time there is one principle that must be applied and that principle is the law of supply and demand.

From an economic viewpoint any society can be divided up into four types of collectives, government, private business, charities, and the family (individual). The success of each is dependent on how well they deal with the relationship between revenues and expenses. In a perfect system of economics expenses would never exceed revenues. But that would only occur if both revenues and expenses can be totally controlled. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect existence and the economy of any society cannot be controlled regardless of what anyone knows or believes.

Socialism is a form of economics where the focus is on the demands of the individual with the expectation of the collective to provide the supply to meet that demand. It is also the foundational basis of their perception of the meaning of rights. In their eyes the needs of the individual is synonymous with the right to possess the object of that need even if it is at the full expense of that collective.

For a socialistic form of economics to thrive theoretically one must believe that people are by their nature altruistic or that life is deterministic and that men can be trained to be altruistic by the application of laws. This would imply that an advocate of socialism believes that a free enterprise form of economics is the cause of greed and self-interest thus immoral and unjust.

It is the profits inherent in a free enterprise form of economics that best exemplifies the self-interest and greed of human beings. To the socialistic mindset it is the fact that within a free enterprise system that profits must come at the expense of some is seen as the crux of the immorality and the injustice of the system itself. It is a declaration that one individual must suffer so that another man may know the benefits of the system.

Socialism is an economic theory that attempts to use a scientific approach for the solutions of the problems of life. Its a viewpoint that sees the imperfections of life then tries to ascertain the cause of that imperfection for the purpose of eliminating that cause and replacing it with a man made solution. Since it is seen as being a scientific approach then in the eyes of a socialist it must be a valid solution.

If socialism is a scientifically valid solution to the problems of life then there can be no reason not to implement it in any society and this is the substance of the socialist’s argument. Even religions are strong proponents of this form of economic system. Yet when it’s fully implemented it proves out to be a failure. It is the acceptance of it being scientifically valid theory that leads a socialist and those on the left to continue to have faith in this theory.

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Society and The Power of Governments


There are a lot of differences between the Right and the Left. And a lot of these differences are not reconcilable. The biggest reason for these differences is the basic differences of the meaning and purpose of what a government is. Both sides will agree that governments are the regulatory arm of any society. The only problem lies in the amount of power that a government possesses. History teaches us that when a government is a totalitarian government it is then that the people are powerless. And when the people are powerless then abuse of power by the government is inevitable.

This would lead us to believe that if governments are a necessity of a society then it must be a government that has limited powers. This would further lead us to accept that any powers that the government does not possess belong to the people. And if a society has set up a government with limited powers then those powers need to be clearly identifiable. For if they are not clearly identifiable then there is no way for anyone to determine when and if government is acting outside of the powers given to it. This is also an inevitability. And this in itself would be considered as an abuse of power by the government.

Now, let us not get into the mindset that division of powers eliminates abuse of powers no matter how strictly one adheres to that division of powers. The only way to eliminate the abuse of power is to eliminate the cause and in this case, the possession of power itself is the cause. This is also a historical fact.

Another difference between the right and the left are the concepts of individualism vs collectivism. These concepts are a little harder to define because many who advocate for individualism have elements of collectivism within their set of beliefs without being able to differentiate between the two concepts. And they justify this by declaring it as a necessity of life when it is, in reality, a part of what they were taught to believe in regards to a society. I might also add that those on the left have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the concept of individualism.

It is from this misunderstanding that we come to a third difference between the two sides, the concept of rights and privileges. Those on the left will declare that rights are possessed by a collective. Those who are of the right will declare that rights are the possession of the individual. This is the crux of all political disagreement in every society. It is also the crux of the accusation of extremism on both sides though this accusation has no merit. Either collectives possess rights or individuals possess rights. On this there can be no compromise.

The left sees some collectives as possessing rights that other collectives do not possess thus see them as being a privileged collective. In other words, the left understands the word in terms of being an adjective. It is from this viewpoint that inequality of collectives are perceived and is the foundation of their entire understanding of society and lack of justice. Thus, for justice to ever be achieved in a society, a socialistic form of economics as well as government must be set up and abided by. Anything less than this will always lead to an unjust society in their minds.

The big problem with a socialistic form of government is the fact that it requires a totalitarian form of government. One is the necessity of the other. If we are to see a totalitarian form of government as a just government then it must be a government run by people with altruistic attributes which is to say that it is a government without any powers over the people. This, in itself, would be a self-contradiction.

The right would see privileges in terms of being a noun. Privileges would be seen as what any individual could do with the permission of government. A license is one form by which government gives its permission to individuals. Since licenses are regulatory by their very nature they also can be seen as a hindrance but not a preventative to the freedom of the individual. And this leads us to another difference between the right and the left, the freedom of the individual vs the regulation of the behavior of the individual.

While there may be a need to regulate the behavior of individuals of any society we must ask at what point does it become an over-regulated society which by its very nature would be declared as an abuse of power by the government?

What say you, my friend?

Categories: My Personal Philosophy of Life, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Welcome To My Home, Stranger


Don’t believe anything needs to be said here, is there?

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Grandpa and Arrogance


Foolish Thoughts?

Grandpa and some friends of his was just sitting in front of the barber shop discussing one of their favorite topics, politics. Grandpa was unusually quiet this day and mostly listened to the arguments of the other men. One of the men noticed this quietness and asked grandpa why he was being so quiet. Grandpa just smiled at the question, and in time quietly gave this response.

“Haven’t got much to say today but there is one thing that amuses me as I listen to others argue. Its the feeling that you get that everyone is cock sure that they are right and if you disagree with them then it is you that is the ignorant fool. Another area of discussion with this same effect is a discussion on religion.

There are times that I feel that some persons are afraid of revealing that they possess some ignorance. This is not to declare they will not admit to lacking in knowledge in a general sense. It is when you pin them down to specific topics that they reveal their arrogance and their unwillingness to admit ignorance. And I’ll admit that upon reflexion of some previous acts I find myself guilty of this arrogant attitude also.

I look upon this form of arrogance as a most basic character flaw and it is a flaw that I am constantly at battle with within myself. It is easy to believe that you are the source of all truth which is what the foundational basis of this flaw is and it is very hard to imagine that you be the source of falsehoods. This just indicates just how important the possession of truth is to each of us. Another possibility be that we consider the possession of ignorance as sign that we be fools and no one likes to see themselves as being a fool.

The problem with the above assumptions are the fact that if truth is all that important to us we would find no shame in having our ignorance revealed. And if truth was all that important to us then the knowledge of our ignorance would not be a sign that we be fools but a sign of the wisdom within us. For the only way that our ignorance can be revealed is by the fact we learned something that revealed the actual truth to us. And that should make us feel humbled not foolish. And once humbled would we not then have the attitude of humility rather than the feeling of humiliation?

So, what could be more important to us as human beings than the possession of truth? What is the problem with humility that we prefer the attitude of arrogance over it? What is it about humility that leads people to walk away from it rather than embrace it even though it is considered a virtue not a vice? What attitude do we seek to possess that is taught that must be considered to be of greater virtue than humility? Maybe a better question would be what is the attitude we are taught to possess and then examine that attitude a little closer as to its effects.

This, admittingly, requires self examination to its fullest and the acknowledgment of the possession of arrogance along with the desire to rid ourselves of this arrogant attitude. This is where the problem lies. There are not many people who will admit to the arrogance within themselves thus the desire to rid themselves of it cannot exist. People are fully willing to declare it of others but not of themselves. Why not?”

With these words said grandpa went silent once more leaving his friends with only questions to be answered

Categories: My Personal Philosophy of Life | Tags: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Fetus or a Baby, Is How We define It a Matter of Conscience?


A fetus or a baby?

A fetus or a baby, is how we define it a matter of conscience? Do we harden ourselves to the consequences of the act by calling it a fetus rather than a baby? If a fetus is not a person as it is claimed then what difference does it make whether it be a male or female? If abortion is as moral as some claim then why should anyone be appalled by how it is disposed of once it has been taken?

If it is nothing but a clump of cells as some claim then why is flushing it down the toilet wrong as depicted in this story? Why should it be treated any differently or given greater respect just because that clump of cells are human?

If it is not a person as some claim then why shouldn’t it be used as dog food as depicted in this story? Why should that non-person be treated any differently or given greater respect than any other animal remains once killed?

It sounds as if people want to treat that life form one way while it is inside a woman and alive but see it as being something entirely different once life has been aborted and it has been taken out of the woman’s body. And women are the biggest victims of the act of abortion whether it be the mother or child.

Call me an extremist if you want but if this is not the very good example of hypocrisy and how the use of force can effect the moral fibre of individuals and of a nation then I am glad I am not a member of the mainstream of thought.

Categories: Ethics and Morality, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 4 Comments

This Cannot be Ignored but Should Always be Celebrated


May you all remember the beauty of the event we celebrate on this Sunday, His Resurrection from the dead

Categories: Religion | Tags: , , | 4 Comments

Say What You Will About Religion and Christianity But This Cannot be Ignored Nor Should it be Condoned Anywhere


GALLERY OF HONOR KILLINGS

Categories: Ethics and Morality, Politics, Religion | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

OK, No One Likes My Politics


Foolish Thoughts?

Ok, nobody likes my politics. Everyone believes me to be nothing but a kook or extremist. And that comes from both sides of the aisle. Funny thing is that the founding fathers tried a whole new form of government and the world saw it as an experiment in government. Well. What is that but except putting extreme ideas into practice instead of following conventional wisdom?

Now, we have a government that is no different from any other government in the world. What happened to that experimental government that we were founded on? What happened to a nation that was united by a constitution and is now divided by that same constitution? What went so wrong that we no longer even care if we follow in the steps of those new ideas or not? What is it that we, the people, seek that the experiment had to be abandoned in order to achieve what we seek of ourselves?

We were once proud of being known as a nation of individuals instead of a collective nation. What happened to that pride? Have we become a nation of wimps? A nation where the individual no longer has the attitude of “I can” but one of “I cannot so government must”? A nation where a man no longer takes pride in having what he has earned and feels no shame in taking what another man has earned?

Is there that much prejudice against individualism now days? Is truth so relative in today’s society that even lies are acceptable because they are also viewed as being relative? Well, if that be the standard then I will remain an extremist because there is nothing more extreme than truth. And that is more important to me than any ideology.

If standing by the truth means that I stand alone then alone I will stand. If in seeking the truth means traveling the road by myself then I will travel it alone. For I will always question what I believe. For I will always question what another believes. That is the hallmark of individualist. I take nothing for granted. For I carry the ball and chain of doubt in all that is told to me. For I carry the ball and chain of doubt in my own findings. If that be wrong then I be eternally wrong. Yet, isn’t that the essence of learning?

If I be wrong teach me the truth. If I be mistaken correct me. But be kind enough to bare with me as I seek answers to my doubts. Give me reasons not excuses and you will find nobody more agreeable than me. Isn’t that what seeking the truth is all about? For there is no shame in acknowledging ignorance.

The path of life is best traveled alone. For only by traveling it alone can one view the world through an unhindered viewpoint. Travel it as a collective and your viewpoint is always hindered and distorted by those who surround you. Travel it alone and you will be the expert of your own life. Travel it as a collective and you will need to depend on experts to tell you how to live.

I speak no more but seek only to listen and question

Categories: My Personal Philosophy of Life, Politics | Tags: , | 7 Comments

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.