What do Dems Have Besides Doom and Gloom?

[lilpixieofterror]

1) Reducing pollution
2) Expanding health care
3) Expanding affordable education
4) Improving workers rights
5) Improving womens' positions in society
6) Improving LGBTQ positions in society
7) Combating child poverty
etc. etc.

Those are all things we *all* agree should happen, right? Those are all reasons I support Biden.

What are the plans?

[lilpixieofterror]

You beat me to it, but I'll just add a few.

Election reform-voting rights-campaign finance
Gun control laws
immigration reform
free child care
living minimum wage laws
protecting democracy from a narcisistic wannabe dictator

Nice slogans, now what are your plans of action?

[Cow Poke]

Already adressed but it seems you like to dodge around:

Charles, if I said the sun was hot, would you demand sources?

There should be no need to ask for sources at all.

Agreed, because nobody else seemed puzzled by the reference.

You are holding an embarassingly low standard if you think so.

Yeah, you said that before, and it was just as goofy then as it is now.

[Cow Poke]

You beat me to it, but I'll just add a few.

Election reform-voting rights-campaign finance
Gun control laws
immigration reform
free child care
living minimum wage laws
protecting democracy from a narcisistic wannabe dictator

Thanks, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

Nice slogans, now what are your plans of action?

Well, that's the hard part. And the "free" part is never free.

[Juvenal]

I just figured that anybody with half a brain would know what I was talking about, Charles.

Is that helpful?

Maher: I'm "Hoping" For "A Crashing Economy" So We Can Get Rid Of Trump, "Bring On The Recession"

and

How Many Dems Agree With Bill Maher's Recession Wish?

So two hyper-partisan opinion pieces which together provide a sum total dem count of "Bill Maher." Anybody with half a brain would know this suit isn't going to look on ya, Goober. You should find somebody like that to check ya before you head out in public.

[Charles]

Charles, if I said the sun was hot, would you demand sources?

Straw man.

Agreed, because nobody else seemed puzzled by the reference.

Appeal to common practice.

Yeah, you said that before, and it was just as goofy then as it is now.

Please explain that part and see if you can do so without providing even more fallacies, please.

[Cow Poke]

Is that helpful?

Not so much.

So two hyper-partisan opinion pieces which together provide a sum total dem count of "Bill Maher." Anybody with half a brain would know this suit isn't going to look on ya,

The article was about the Dems that may hold similar opinions, Jesse.

Goober.

Is that helpful?

You should find somebody like that to check ya before you head out in public.

Ya know, it's interesting... everybody else but Charles appears to have accepted the premise, or at least - not opposed it.

Charles is lucky to have a standup guy like you to defend him.

[Cow Poke]

Straw man.

Snow woman.

[rogue06]

Well, that's the hard part. And the "free" part is never free.

And ironically actually believe that "someone else" pays for it blissfully ignorant on what effect "someone else" paying for it has on rising prices and decreasing investments (like expanding businesses and thereby employing more people) among other things.

But what do you expect folks who follow leaders that call being out of work "funemployment" and declare that huge swaths of the public being on food stamps and unemployment is actually better for the economy in that they "creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name"

[Mountain Man]

So, again, a simplified version of a complex reality. Seems you are satisfied with that. It actually supports Mill's statement. Thanks for being so helpful.

The simplicity is so deep that though you are talking to an agnostic you seem to try to convince yourself you are adressing all possible ways of life in your simplified description of atheism.

In my experience, agnostics are functionally atheists. They claim, "We just can't know whether or not God exists," but live their lives like they're certain he doesn't.

And, no, it's not a simplified version of atheism. As Dr. William Craig writes:

What is so special about human beings [if there is no God]? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

If atheism is true then you could live a life of virtue like Mother Theresa, or a life of corruption like Hillary Clinton, and it won't make a bit of difference as far as the universe is concerned. Unless you do something particularly notable, you'll be almost entirely forgotten within two-generations, and even the most notable people in history will be entirely wiped from memory when humanity ceases to exist, which it inevitably must in a cosmically short amount of time.

So, sure, cling to your desperate hope that being dissatisfied with your existence is somehow a virtue if it makes you feel better.

[DivineOb]

What are the plans?

Google is a thing.

[rogue06]

Is that helpful?



So two hyper-partisan opinion pieces which together provide a sum total dem count of "Bill Maher." Anybody with half a brain would know this suit isn't going to look on ya, Goober. You should find somebody like that to check ya before you head out in public.

As the late Billy Mays used to say, "But wait, there's more!"

Aside from Maher (who actually doubled down on his remarks as well as our own little jimmy defending him

In defense of Mr. Maher, the survival of democracy is more important to him than the temporary setback in an improving economy which improvement Trump had little to do with anyway.

you also have folks such as Paul Krugman, the economist for your precious New York Times, who has been pining for what he calls the "Trump Slump" among other things. This is the same clown who proclaimed that the stock market would "never" recover from its initial sell-off on news of a Trump victory and that Trump's election would immediately trigger a global recession.

And recently Rep. John Delaney (D - MD) chastised members in his own party for cheer leading for a financial collapse: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOHN DELANEY SAYS 'SOME DEMOCRATS ARE CHEERING ON A RECESSION' TO 'STICK IT TO TRUMP'


ETA: I managed to omit that a long-time staffer for the left leaning, nakedly anti-Trump Atlantic magazine thought it necessary to caution readers to not root for a recession just because one would likely hurt Trump and a writer at New York magazine pondering the question of whether a recession is worth getting rid of Trump and concluding it would be a mixed bag:

[Charles]

In my experience, agnostics are functionally atheists. They claim, "We just can't know whether or not God exists," but live their lives like they're certain he doesn't.

That says a lot more about your (simple) experience than it does about agnostics. Being one I know for certain that it is not true.

And, no, it's not a simplified version of atheism. As Dr. William Craig writes:

What is so special about human beings [if there is no God]? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

That was a second simplified version of atheism and a rather question begging approach in which we are seemingly to take for granted that value can only be described or ordained by god, that the history of life equals the value of life, that life needs to be endless in order for it to bear a meaning and the like. The fact that you don't even notice that there are numerous positions on this but need to rely on a question begging approach is rather telling. And, like I have pointed out numerous times it remains, even among Christians, a challenging question if "good" is good because God says so (and then anything could be good) or if it is good independently on what God says (and then we don't need God to establish what is good). A lot of those questions are answered in question begging ways at best.

If atheism is true then you could live a life of virtue like Mother Theresa, or a life of corruption like Hillary Clinton, and it won't make a bit of difference as far as the universe is concerned. Unless you do something particularly notable, you'll be almost entirely forgotten within two-generations, and even the most notable people in history will be entirely wiped from memory when humanity ceases to exist, which it inevitably must in a cosmically short amount of time.

So, you seem to argue that meaning only exists if it makes "a difference as far as the universe is concerned"? What do you base that on?

And you also seem to imply that value can only exist in some eternal perspective since it is a problem if I will be forgotten within two generations? Have you never felt anything had a meaning or bore a value in the given time and space for the people there? You have lost a lot if you have not tried that. And, if you have, why do you ignore that part?

Have you ever considered whethet the eternal and external perspective would take real value away? You are seemingly forced to think along the lines of: This moment is only important becuase I live forever so it has no meaning in itself... The dying, suffering child is only one I should care about because God told me to. To think he has any value in himself would be wrong. Are you actually capable of looking at your own children and tell yourself that they only have value if God created them? I very much doubt it. And it is always rather telling when you need to forget such basic experiences in order to tell "the truth".

So, sure, cling to your desperate hope that being dissatisfied with your existence is somehow a virtue if it makes you feel better.

That statement is both contradictory and biased.

[Mountain Man]

That says a lot more about your (simple) experience than it does about agnostics. Being one I know for certain that it is not true.


That was a second simplified version of atheism and a rather question begging approach in which we are seemingly to take for granted that value can only be described or ordained by god, that the history of life equals the value of life, that life needs to be endless in order for it to bear a meaning and the like. The fact that you don't even notice that there are numerous positions on this but need to rely on a question begging approach is rather telling. And, like I have pointed out numerous times it remains, even among Christians, a challenging question if "good" is good because God says so (and then anything could be good) or if it is good independently on what God says (and then we don't need God to establish what is good). A lot of those questions are answered in question begging ways at best.


So, you seem to argue that meaning only exists if it makes "a difference as far as the universe is concerned"? What do you base that on?

And you also seem to imply that value can only exist in some eternal perspective since it is a problem if I will be forgotten within two generations? Have you never felt anything had a meaning or bore a value in the given time and space for the people there? You have lost a lot if you have not tried that. And, if you have, why do you ignore that part?

Have you ever considered whethet the eternal and external perspective would take real value away? You are seemingly forced to think along the lines of: This moment is only important becuase I live forever so it has no meaning in itself... The dying, suffering child is only one I should care about because God told me to. To think he has any value in himself would be wrong. Are you actually capable of looking at your own children and tell yourself that they only have value if God created them? I very much doubt it. And it is always rather telling when you need to forget such basic experiences in order to tell "the truth".


That statement is both contradictory and biased.

To answer your supposed "paradox" about the nature of goodness, the answer is simple: "good" is simply that which aligns with the character and nature of God. To put it another way, God is the personification of goodness. It is not something he chooses to define or a standard against which he is measured. Rather, he is the standard.

You ask about "meaning", but I never mentioned it. Even if you and I could agree on a definition of such an ambiguous term, the issue is that if atheism is true then it doesn't matter. If science has gotten it right, then on a cosmic time scale, humanity has only existed for a fraction of a second and will be gone in another fraction of a second. If there is no God, then what you and I do won't make a bit of difference as far as the universe is concerned, so what rational reason is there to care about the consequences of what happens after we're gone? "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

The only counter to this is to declare that humans have some sort of inherent value that is worth protecting, but atheist/agnostics don't have that escape hatch. If all things that exist are nothing more than the end result of a cosmic accident, then you and I have no more value than the ant we crush under our feet without a second thought. This isn't a begged question, it is the logical conclusion of the atheistic/agnostic worldview.