Francisco Ferrer

Who paid for the war hero's uniform, helmet, rifle and ammunition? Who financed his transportation to the war zone, his hospital bills after his injury, his rehabilitation, his college education and his pension? So why no federal holiday for the guy who foot the bill? Why no statues in the nation's capital? No parades, no yellow ribbons, no "thank you for your service," no retail discounts, no movies starring John Wayne. Perhaps because no one feels comfortable hero-worshipping a milch cow.

Margaret Thatcher: “We do not want a united Germany"

We're going over the same ground again and again, Frank. I already told you that the exquisitely sophisticated order of the laws governing the physical universe is proof for me... but it is not proof for you. The choice of whether to acknowledge or deny the fact of those well ordered laws is up to each of us, and we each have already made that decision. Can't you see your own need to argue, Frank? It's a sickness not to see it. From the nature of your posts I don't believe that you possess the self awareness to acknowledge that fact... even to yourself. It's because you fantasize that you have the power to change the subjective views of others with your subjective words. Truth is, you are utterly impotent in that regard. Only getting what you deserve in your own life has that power. Sorry, sooner or later someone has to tell you: You do not have it. Greg You say you don't like smoke or going over the same ground, but you keep evading a point I've made several times: if only a god can create "the exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world, then such a god cannot have been unplanned or accidental. He too must be the product of a yet higher entity. In other words, once one makes the claim that the creatures of the earth must have come about through intelligent design, there is no rejoinder to the claim that the creator of the earth must also be a creature of intelligent design. Furthermore, as George H. Smith observed, the argument for an uncaused god is self-contradictory. "The premise, which states that everything must have a sustaining cause, contradicts the conclusion, which posits an uncaused god." (Atheism: The Case Against God, p. 143.)

A truly sad day for the republic. Rest in peace, Gridlock. Welcome back, Getting Things Done.

Trying to dodge around arguing about arguing is just a smokescreen, Frank. The objective fact remains that denial of God is your freely chosen view that you will never change... ...and even you can't deny that you're getting exactly what you deserve in your own life as the result of your choice. Greg You want to cut out the smoke? Fine. Then cut out the talk about deserved consequences and stop evading the points I raised in Post #5 and Post #13. If the "exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world is proof of a God, then by the same logic a thing as sophisticated as a world-creator cannot have resulted by mere accident and must himself be the creation of a yet greater entity. If the world must have a maker, then so must the maker. And so must the maker of the maker. You say a creator has to be uncreated? By what rule? Let's see some real world evidence for that claim.

I made no argument, Frank. You need to imagine that there is one out of your own need to futilely argue over something which has been already decided by each of us. Sorry, man... I don't do that. It takes two to argue... and my need to argue is nothing compared to your own need. So here is what had already said in regards to proof, just because you're trying to make up an imaginary argument as if I had left the topic unaddressed. (shrug...) So what is proof for me isn't proof for you. That's the beauty of God's love... there is no coersion in it. You are just as free do deny as I am to affirm. And this is why there is no point in you trying to argue with me over something which we each have already decided. You get the consequences you deserve from your own choices in life... just as I get mine. I don't get yours, and you don't get mine. It's totally your own business what you chose, so take what you chose and all of its consequences to your grave with you. And I'll add that I'm perfectly content to take my choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with me to my grave. The moral playing field is perfectly level... so we each are getting exactly what we each deserve. Greg Not true. An argument is "a statement or series of statements for or against something." Like it or not, you've been arguing in this thread since Post #2. Currently you are making the argument that you do not make arguments. But that, of course, is entirely consistent with your usual inconsistency and in particular with your position that there is a proof for God and also no proof for God. In such a worldview, one would not blink at a non-contradictory contradiction, a truthful falsehood, an impossible possibility, a meaningful meaninglessness, a non-existent existence.

A quick summary of Moralist's argument: There is no proof for God (Post #31), and, furthermore, there is a proof for God (Post #38). "There is no proof either way," and, additionally, there "is proof for me." A is A, and, besides, A is also non-A. But you can only have A be non-A if you deserve it. It's all "perfectly rational" (Post #20).

There is no proof either way. Good. Then contrary to your Post #2, "the exquisitely sophisticated order of laws which govern the physical world" is proof not of God but of nothing. Nothing.

Prove he's uncreated. Where is the evidence other than your saying so? By the same "perfectly rational" process I can declare that mankind is uncreated. And if "there is no coercion," then there is no such thing as robbery, only donations. No such thing as rape, only consensual sex. No such thing as murder, only suicide. The 2,996 people who died on Sept. 11, 2001 killed themselves.

Madison was concerned that "none of the persons composing the federal Executive shall on any occasion take command of any troops." Perhaps, to ensure the trust of the electorate, the Constitution should be amended to require the president personally to lead his troops into battle, as King Harold did (fatally) at the Battle of Hastings. Imagine an alternate history in which LBJ is in the cockpit of the jet that Lieutenant Commander John McCain flies over North Vietnam when a missile hits it. Or Ronald Reagan is in the F-111 that gets shot down over Libya in 1986.

By extension, "chicken shit" must refer to anyone who "who never served a day in the military," including Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. But Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale did serve. Trust them more?

Yes it does. A Creator, by definition, has to transcend everything He creates. Give it up, Frank. It's beyond you. Just go back to the comfort of the fantasy that there is nothing greater than your own intellect and you'll be just fine. Greg What dictionary are you reading from? Where is there a definition of "creator" that requires him to "transcend everything He creates"? And even if it were true that the creator of the world as we know it has transcended that world, it would not follow that such a creator could not be the product of a still greater being. If something as marvelous and complex as a human has to be the product of a super-intelligence, then that super-intelligence could not have come into being purely by accident. It would, by the same laws of reasoning, have to be the result of thoughtful creation by an ultra-intelligence.

Regardless of its size relative to anyone's mind, that idea is simply untrue. The definition of a "creator" is "A person or thing that brings something into existence." The act of creating does not exclude one from the category of things created.

If the world we know could only have come into existence through the action of a super-intelligent, super-powerful being, then logic dictates that the super-intelligent, super-powerful being must himself be the creation of an ultra-intelligent, ultra-powerful being. Thus we should be worshipping not Jesus's father but his grandfather. And if granddad is awesome, just think about great-granddad! "Our Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name."

Yes, let's concentrate on the top value of making everybody 100% free and let the utopians pursue their impossible dreams.

Anarcho-capitalism does not say that there should be no rules (or rule) but no coercive monopoly on law enforcement and adjudication. And, by the way, if you're entitled to avoid definitions, so is everybody else, including those subscribing to anarcho-capitalism!

No

Greg is an American and a straight-shooter. When he says he does not allow himself to governed by Obama and the "liberal socialists" as we non-Americans do--he means it. For example, when I travel I use a passport issued by the United States Department of State, John Kerry (Obama appointee), Secretary. Real Americans, on the other hand, do not need travel documents from liberal socialists. They govern themselves. Next time you're in an airport, watch how a self-governing, non-sanctioning American handles himself around a TSA agent. (And get ready for a flight delay.)

I have complained about the way Obama governs me and other Americans. But you have insisted "Obama and the Democrats . . . don't govern Americans because Americans govern themselves." (Post #42) So in your view I must be a liar. Why would you base a judgment of government on the words of a liar--unless you really don't care about the truth? If I make a good object lesson of what not to do, when can we expect you to stop criticizing socialists and Marxists?

There is an objective principle which is beyond your understanding. It's outside of your mindset. Which is the reason why you are so poorly equipped to deal with the present with a mind so stuck up in the dead past. This is the objective principle in one simple sentence... ok, Frank, here it comes: "The government treats EACH individual DIFFERENTLY." In every response you've made, this principle doesn't even register in your mind. You think the government treats you exactly the same as it treats me.This of course is a lie. The government treats me completely different than it treats you... because we each live by completely different values. Greg In Post #46 your wrote, "You are experiencing the liberal socialist government you deserve... not me." It could not be clearer. The readers know that you do not have to deal with this form of government. So the next question is obvious: what is the source of your knowledge about this government? You say, "The government treats EACH individual DIFFERENTLY." But, without experience, how would you be able to make a claim about government's differential treatment? You are not experiencing liberal socialism--so you say. Therefore how can you be certain of anything about that form of government? Furthermore, you have said that Obama and the Democrats do not govern America; Americans govern themselves. If that is true, then there is no liberal socialist government here for you, me or anyone to gain experience from.

If you are not experiencing the liberal socialist government, if you have no evidence of it through your own senses, how do you know it exists? Did you hear about it through the rumor mill? And once more I ask: if as you say Obama and the Democrats "don't govern Americans because Americans govern themselves," how is this non-Obama government financed? Surely Americans would not be sending tax money to Obama's government as well as to their own separate American government, would they? Where would American tax dollars go if not to the IRS with its commissioner appointed by Barack Obama?

In Post #7 you wrote, "The American Constitutional form of government was designed only to work for decent people... it [does] not work for the indecent." Therefore, if we now, as you say, have a "liberal socialist government," it must be a decent liberal socialist government. Otherwise, your claim that government does "not work for the indecent" would be false. It must be A or non-A, but not both at the same time. Further, you claim that Obama and the Democrats "don't govern Americans because Americans govern themselves." That means that Americans have a government separate from the one over which Obama is head of state. Accordingly, Americans would have to have a different president. What, I wonder, would his name be? It would also mean that Americans do not support Obama's government with tax money. Where would Americans send their tax money if not to the IRS with its commissioner appointed by Barack Obama? Do Americans have an army, a navy and an air force under a commander-in-chief entirely separate from the forces under Obama? On what military bases are these separate American forces stationed? Do the Americans have troops in the Middle East separate from those sent by Obama? Nuclear weapons? Satellites in space? National parks with their own Grand Canyon and Old Faithful? Treaties with foreign countries? Ambassadors in foreign capitals? Tell more!

Define your terms. How exactly is a private state different from a public state? In a private state does one man or family own the government? In a public state does the entire population own the government? Is the U.S. a public state? If so, does that mean I hold one share of the government? If so, why can't I sell my share? In what sense do I own something I cannot sell? Wasn't the Soviet Union under Stalin a private state? Could not one man do what the hell he wanted with it?

I don't blame government because, as you've shown, government only works for decent people. Therefore, Obama and the Democrats in power must be decent. Furthermore, the people that criticize Obama (and other successful politicians who have made government work for them) are failures, losers, and self-inflicted victims. What America needs now is more winners like Obama.