Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, beds, ventilators and even staff

[shunyadragon]

We have never voluntarily shutdown the economy so that we stop most of our businesses.

We have not neglected the pandemic. We have done more than New Zealand, since we have been shutdown for four months instead of just 1.5. We have just given in to it and given up all common sense. Young people are scared while they are not the vulnerable ones. This is senseless behavior. How long can people survive in such stupor and stupidity? Some people still wish to support this stupidity.

False, without references as ususal. Nonetheless I will enlighten your ignorance, and, as usual. not doing your own research..

Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

© Copyright Original Source

The graphs and data are very revealing.

This source describes the US government stradegy for the 2006 flu pandemic, and plan for future pandemics. Kind of government wordy. I will try and find a better source.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...nm6ahP2d-2VsOc

[Roy]

I think no one noticed New Zealand shut down, or that it reopened.

Probably because they did it quickly and efficiently to minimise the impact. Unlike certain other countries where the shutdown was implemented so ineffectively and half-heartedly that it has had much greater economic impact for almost no benefit.

[Mountain Man]

Says the intellectually dishonest coward who refuses to commit to, among other things, whether the earth is billions of years old or only a few thousand. Apply your comments about saying "I dunno" to yourself, hypocrite.

As to that, whether or not God created the universe in a literal six days a few thousands years ago, or if he used another process that took billions of years has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my worldview. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is all I really need to know. The how's and why's are interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint, but as Sherlock Holmes once said, "What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

On the other hand, the question of whether or not God exists or can be known to exist is foundational to your worldview, because if the answer to either is "yes", then your entire edifice comes crashing down, which is why intellectual cowards have come up with the "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism" canards. They think to give themselves security by disingenuously shifting the burden of proof and simply avoiding the hard questions altogether.

[Stoic]

I think no one noticed New Zealand shut down, or that it reopened.

I suspect the New Zealanders noticed.

[Mountain Man]

I think no one noticed New Zealand shut down, or that it reopened.

Island nations with small populations are easier to control. Of course when President Trump tried to take similar action by closing our borders, liberals all accused him of overreacting and that he was being racist and xenophobic.

[mikewhitney]

False, without references as ususal. Nonetheless I will enlighten your ignorance, and, as usual. not doing your own research..

Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

© Copyright Original Source

The graphs and data are very revealing.

This source describes the US government stradegy for the 2006 flu pandemic, and plan for future pandemics. Kind of government wordy. I will try and find a better source.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...nm6ahP2d-2VsOc

I'm not sure what you said is false. You brought in an article on the wrong flu.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure what you said is false. You brought in an article on the wrong flu.

No you said "We have never voluntarily shutdown the economy so that we stop most of our businesses."

I documented that in the 1917-20 flu pandemic they did successfully implement shutdowns.

[Maranatha]

Island nations with small populations are easier to control. Of course when President Trump tried to take similar action by closing our borders, liberals all accused him of overreacting and that he was being racist and xenophobic.

One can only imagine how much more Trump would be blamed.

New Zealand is so insignificant as to be unnoticeable. It is like comparing apples and mustard seeds.

No offense to new zealanders, it's just a teeny tiny place. Beating your chest over it is kind of funny.

[Stoic]

As to that, whether or not God created the universe in a literal six days a few thousands years ago, or if he used another process that took billions of years has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my worldview. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is all I really need to know. The how's and why's are interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint, but as Sherlock Holmes once said, "What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

On the other hand, the question of whether or not God exists or can be known to exist is foundational to your worldview, because if the answer to either is "yes", then your entire edifice comes crashing down, which is why intellectual cowards have come up with the "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism" canards. They think to give themselves security by disingenuously shifting the burden of proof and simply avoiding the hard questions altogether.

The question of whether or not a god exists may be foundational to your worldview, but it isn't foundational to mine. Foundational to my worldview are the impressions I get from my senses, along with actions I can take and the effect such actions have on those sense impressions, and of course my memories of all the above.

I have no doubt that a sufficiently powerful god could make himself foundational to my worldview, if he wanted to, but that hasn't happened yet.

As for intellectual honesty, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim that I know there are no gods. But as far as my behavior is concerned, there is no real difference between saying, "I know there are no gods" and saying, "I have no good reason to believe there are any gods." So it seems reasonable to group together all the people who make either statement, and call them atheists (literally, "not theists").

[oxmixmudd]

The question of whether or not a god exists may be foundational to your worldview, but it isn't foundational to mine. Foundational to my worldview are the impressions I get from my senses, along with actions I can take and the effect such actions have on those sense impressions, and of course my memories of all the above.

I have no doubt that a sufficiently powerful god could make himself foundational to my worldview, if he wanted to, but that hasn't happened yet.

As for intellectual honesty, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim that I know there are no gods. But as far as my behavior is concerned, there is no real difference between saying, "I know there are no gods" and saying, "I have no good reason to believe there are any gods." So it seems reasonable to group together all the people who make either statement, and call them atheists (literally, "not theists").

I think there is a fairly significant difference between "There are no gods" and "I have no good reason to believe their are any gods". The first states as fact that which the person can't know, and therefore becomes a statement of belief. The second expresses what is likely a true statement for them, for their experience, and thus is simply a statement of fact wrt their life experience.

[Stoic]

I think there is a fairly significant difference between "There are no gods" and "I have no good reason to believe their are any gods". The first states as fact that which the person can't know, and therefore becomes a statement of belief. The second expresses what is likely a true statement for them, for their experience, and thus is simply a statement of fact wrt their life experience.

It's a significant difference with regard to argument, but not with regard to behavior. In each case, you don't have a god telling you how to behave, nor any reason to believe someone who claims to speak for such a god.

[oxmixmudd]

It's a significant difference with regard to argument, but not with regard to behavior. In each case, you don't have a god telling you how to behave, nor any reason to believe someone who claims to speak for such a god.

Now that is an interesting statement - one that I would also disagree with. And here is why.

While it makes little difference in terms of whether they believe they are acting at the behest or direction of a God or gods, it is my experience that wrt human interaction, those the make the former (there is no God) are more likely to be hostile to those that do believe there is a God, more likely to be angered by otherwise good and well meaning people that happen to attribute who they are to their belief in God, more likely to be quite caustic when in a conversation with a person that does believe in God. Likewise, my experience is that most that are more in the latter category seem less offended by those that do in fact believe they have a reason to believe there is a God. So I would say that it does make a difference in the behavior of the person in terms of how they interact with the broader majority that does believe there is a God.

[Starlight]

I think no one noticed New Zealand shut down, or that it reopened.

Well I live in New Zealand, so I noticed.

International media does appear to have run a fair number of articles on New Zealand's world-leadingly successful elimination of Covid, so presumably informed people who are aware of the world noticed.

Also, "America is big, that's why things suck so much here" on the whole isn't the greatest sentiment. Especially if in their next breath, American posters are trying to convince the rest of us that their country is great, perhaps even the best in the world. It's either actually great, or actually sucks cos it's big. You can't really go for both ideas simultaneously.

[Mountain Man]

The question of whether or not a god exists may be foundational to your worldview, but it isn't foundational to mine. Foundational to my worldview are the impressions I get from my senses, along with actions I can take and the effect such actions have on those sense impressions, and of course my memories of all the above.

I have no doubt that a sufficiently powerful god could make himself foundational to my worldview, if he wanted to, but that hasn't happened yet.

As for intellectual honesty, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim that I know there are no gods. But as far as my behavior is concerned, there is no real difference between saying, "I know there are no gods" and saying, "I have no good reason to believe there are any gods." So it seems reasonable to group together all the people who make either statement, and call them atheists (literally, "not theists").

To summarize your worldview, "Only that which is detectable by the senses exists or can be known to exist," which is logically equivalent to saying, "A supernatural deity does not exist or can not be known to exist." If, in fact, a supernatural deity does exist or can be known to exist, then you will be forced to rethink your entire worldview from its foundation up.

You also give the typical "weak" atheist answer that if a god exists then he could make himself known to you in some fashion if he really wanted to, to which I say, what if he already has, but you've rejected it?

[Stoic]

Now that is an interesting statement - one that I would also disagree with. And here is why.

While it makes little difference in terms of whether they believe they are acting at the behest or direction of a God or gods, it is my experience that wrt human interaction, those the make the former (there is no God) are more likely to be hostile to those that do believe there is a God, more likely to be angered by otherwise good and well meaning people that happen to attribute who they are to their belief in God, more likely to be quite caustic when in a conversation with a person that does believe in God. Likewise, my experience is that most that are more in the latter category seem less offended by those that do in fact believe they have a reason to believe there is a God. So I would say that it does make a difference in the behavior of the person in terms of how they interact with the broader majority that does believe there is a God.

You are probably right that there is a correlation between such behavior, and the claim that God does not exist.

But when someone behaves that way, it's probably not because he believes there are no gods. At least, I don't see why having such a belief would make any difference compared to simply not believing.

More likely, someone who is already looking for confrontation will make the stronger "there is no god" claim, rather than the weaker "I have no good reason to believe".