Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

List of communist countries: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam.

https://www.thoughtco.com/communist-...erview-1435178

Russia is not on the list. I suspect it's considered a socialist, not communist, country. (Communism and socialism is not the same thing.) The former U.S.S.R. would probably have made the list.

Socialist countries are quite numerous and include the U.K. and Sweden. The vast majority of socialist countries are democracies. Some people consider the United States to be socialist based on the fact that we have had Social Security since the F.D.R. administration of the 1930s.

I wonder, then, what all the dimwit flap has been about these last several years over Trump-Russia collusion? I mean...even if this were true, Russia must be considered a bulwark of freedom under the flag of political socialism-democracy, right?

[boxcar]

Mr. Actor, sir, you have piqued my curiosity about something you have said recently and in the past. Recently, you have lumped governments and religions together, saying they are different sides to the same coin in that both institutions ultimately seek to control people. And several years ago, I recall you expressing disdain for the criminal justice system -- itself an organ of government. Therefore, I'm curious to know: Do you have a social alternative to outright anarchy that would promote the peace, harmony, welfare and good of the people? Or should man be governed by the natural law of the jungle as beasts are, that is to say every man be for himself, that we do what is right in our own eyes and may the fittest of us survive? Just what is your social utopia ideal, if any?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Actor, sir, you have piqued my curiosity about something you have said recently and in the past. Recently, you have lumped governments and religions together, saying they are different sides to the same coin in that both institutions ultimately seek to control people.

In that context they are.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And several years ago, I recall you expressing disdain for the criminal justice system -- itself an organ of government.

I don't recall that, but I won't deny it. Could you tell me which thread and post #?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Therefore, I'm curious to know: Do you have a social alternative to outright anarchy that would promote the peace, harmony, welfare and good of the people? Or should man be governed by the natural law of the jungle as beasts are, that is to say every man be for himself, that we do what is right in our own eyes and may the fittest of us survive? Just what is your social utopia ideal, if any?

I'll paraphrase Winston Churchill. "Ours is a terrible form of government, but the others are much worse."

My utopia ideal is a benevolent dictator, namely me. But I don't want the job. Paraphrasing William T. Sherman, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I shall flee to Mexico and fight extradition."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, presidents should only meet with godless secularists?

That would be nice. Unfortunately godless secularists are not a majority in this country, therefore presidential candidates seek the religious vote.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I wonder, then, what all the dimwit flap has been about these last several years over Trump-Russia collusion?

I can't say. I'm not familiar with any "Trump-Russia collusion."

I mean...even if this were true, Russia must be considered a bulwark of freedom under the flag of political socialism-democracy, right?

Maybe. Again I don't have enough information to decide.

Over the last year or so I've come to the realization that it's pointless to get all bent out of shape over stuff I can't possibly do anything about. It's some consolation to realize the the "other side" can't do anything about it either. Like it or not blind chance is what controls the universe.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I can't say. I'm not familiar with any "Trump-Russia collusion."

You should try getting out from under your rock more often. This is virtually all we heard about from the dimwits during his 4-year presidency.

Maybe. Again I don't have enough information to decide.

You must be quite the interesting guy at social gatherings. Instead of pleading the 5th, you just plead ignorance.

Over the last year or so I've come to the realization that it's pointless to get all bent out of shape over stuff I can't possibly do anything about. It's some consolation to realize the the "other side" can't do anything about it either. Like it or not blind chance is what controls the universe.

On the other hand, your beloved "uncertainty principle" says we can't be sure of that either.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In that context they are.
I don't recall that, but I won't deny it. Could you tell me which thread and post #?
I'll paraphrase Winston Churchill. "Ours is a terrible form of government, but the others are much worse."

My utopia ideal is a benevolent dictator, namely me. But I don't want the job. Paraphrasing William T. Sherman, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I shall flee to Mexico and fight extradition."

But would such a dictator be able to change the nature of the human race? What makes you think the world would respond in kind to such a dictator?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You must be quite the interesting guy at social gatherings.

I don't go to social gatherings. If I did then there are certain topics which I would avoid, religion and politics among them.

Originally Posted by boxcar

On the other hand, your beloved "uncertainty principle" says we can't be sure of that either.

So the universe is a paradox. What else is new?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What makes you think the world would respond in kind to such a dictator?

Did I say the world would respond in kind?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Did I say the world would respond in kind?

No, but what good would a "benevolent dictator" be if has no power to change human nature?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't go to social gatherings.

I can understand why.

If I did then there are certain topics which I would avoid, religion and politics among them.

What a bore.

So the universe is a paradox. What else is new?

Actually, no. A contradiction. Why have an utopian ideal when the universe is already governed by the natural forces of blind chance? Who would be powerful enough to overcome those forces, no doubt powered by "natural selection"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, but what good would a "benevolent dictator" be if has no power to change human nature?

Damned if I know. It's one of the reasons I don't want the job.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I can understand why.

I doubt it. My reasons are personal and I will not disclose them here.

Originally Posted by boxcar

What a bore.

There are plenty of subjects other than religion and politics that are fascinating. The Poetics of Aristotle for example. Or horse race handicapping.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why have an utopian ideal when the universe is already governed by the natural forces of blind chance?

What part of "it's pointless to get all bent out of shape over stuff I can't possibly do anything about" do you not understand?

What part of "I don't want the job" do you not get?

[TJDave]

This thread is a broken record.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Damned if I know. It's one of the reasons I don't want the job.

So, basically the "benevolent dictator" idea is a non-starter for two reasons: No one can change human nature, and no one can change the powerful forces of nature that are blind and random.

At the end of the day, in your universe, all that is wrong with the human race in this world is no fault of our own; for "natural selection" made us do it. We cannot get out from under the all-controlling power of "natural selection". Human behavior is as natural as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. We have about as much chance of changing our human nature as a leopard does changing its spots or an Ethiopian the color of his skin.

All this proves that the philosophy of Naturalism logically terminates in despair, as do all other worldly philosophies. Naturalism is no different than saying that "the devil made us do it"; for in this philosophy the devil is none other than "natural selection".