Do Not Occupy Wall Street; Occupy Church Instead!

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Oct 2011, 11:14 am

91 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
It owes to my good sense and respect for facts.

Facts are "god".

ruveyn


On your view you basically have to accept relativism or fiat; it seems from your post you have chosen fiat. The statement that you have made falls into the atheistic euthyphro dilemma. If you accept relativism; you put forward a position that does not apply to me. If fiat, then your views are arbitrary. It would be interesting to hear what 'fact' is capable of traversing the great distance from is to ought without falling into a Naturalistic Fallacy.


In the last analysis, the views which govern our lives are arbitrary. But Facts are Facts.

Fact = the actual condition of the world.

Everything is what it is and not something else.

ruveyn



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Oct 2011, 12:43 pm

^^^^^

Saying that facts are facts does not become you. For someone acquainted with Karl Popper you know that putting forward something like that does not get you anything like truth. Popper's position, something you know. Is that we cannot establish a truth, it simply remains unfalsified because he offers no solution to the problem of induction. I perfer the whitehead thesis..


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Oct 2011, 1:42 pm

91 wrote:
^^^^^

Saying that facts are facts does not become you. For someone acquainted with Karl Popper you know that putting forward something like that does not get you anything like truth. Popper's position, something you know. Is that we cannot establish a truth, it simply remains unfalsified because he offers no solution to the problem of induction. I perfer the whitehead thesis..


A fact is what the world IS. It statement (i.e. propositions) that are claimed to assert facts that we can argue about. The world IS what is IS at any given instant of time. Reality is real. Truth is a predicate that applies to propositions and judgments (all of which live in our heads), not facts. A proposition can be true or false. A fact just IS.

ruveyn



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Oct 2011, 2:20 pm

ruveyn wrote:
A fact is what the world IS.


You are presupposing an objective world. Once again you are resting your position on an unjustified predicate. Kierkegaard and Williams have kind of annihliated the Cogito ergo sum line of argument; except in your case you are not presupposing that 'whatever has the property of thinking, exists' rather you are presupposing that 'whatever has the property of a fact, exists'.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Oct 2011, 2:38 pm

ruveyn wrote:
91 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Not for Christianity, if that's what you mean. If only some of those "Occupy Wall Street" people hated religion as much as I do...


Yeah, the world definitely needs more hate.


No the world does not. But religion should be disesteemed because it has brought division, upset, war, violence and death to the world.

Nowadays many terrorist acts are committed by very religious people.

Allah hu akbar! The death cry of the terrorist.

ruveyn


ruveyn you do realize that Stalin was an atheist.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

16 Oct 2011, 2:56 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
91 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Not for Christianity, if that's what you mean. If only some of those "Occupy Wall Street" people hated religion as much as I do...


Yeah, the world definitely needs more hate.


No the world does not. But religion should be disesteemed because it has brought division, upset, war, violence and death to the world.

Nowadays many terrorist acts are committed by very religious people.

Allah hu akbar! The death cry of the terrorist.

ruveyn


ruveyn you do realize that Stalin was an atheist.

Aye, a very religiously communist atheist, who essentially tried to replace God with himself. However Stalin didn't commit his crimes for atheism. He did them because he was a lying, cheating, anti-democratic, pseudocommunist arseface. He was also educated in a religious seminary. But are you saying that islamic terrorists don't commit their crimes for being muslims?



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

16 Oct 2011, 3:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
It seems to me that this whole "Occupy Wall Street" effort (and its various me-too spinoffs) is stuck in neutral.

I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.

But the Occupiers are missing something.

What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?

Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"

Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"

It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.

Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.

The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.

(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)


Really, really bad idea.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

16 Oct 2011, 4:56 pm

shrox wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It seems to me that this whole "Occupy Wall Street" effort (and its various me-too spinoffs) is stuck in neutral.

I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.

But the Occupiers are missing something.

What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?

Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"

Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"

It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.

Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.

The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.

(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)


Really, really bad idea.

Why?

Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?

Would it really hurt so much for religious institutions to be shamed into doing what they have promised to do?

Would the extra publicity be any worse for homeless and unemployed people than it is already?

Or do you simply hold churches as such "sacred" institutions that you believe they should be allowed to practice fraud, theft, and usury on a weekly basis?


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Oct 2011, 5:26 pm

Wall Street and Church don't go together Lad :wink:



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

16 Oct 2011, 7:09 pm

Fnord wrote:
shrox wrote:
Really, really bad idea.

Why?



Or do you simply hold churches as such "sacred" institutions that you believe they should be allowed to practice fraud, theft, and usury on a weekly basis?


Because when you speak like that, you lump me in with those you perceive to be bad, even though I don't practice fraud, theft, and usury on any basis.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Oct 2011, 7:18 pm

Joker wrote:
Wall Street and Church don't go together Lad :wink:


Agreed, unless we're talking about a Church worshipping the Ferengi and the Rules of Acquisition (sp?).



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 Oct 2011, 7:57 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Wall Street and Church don't go together Lad :wink:


Agreed, unless we're talking about a Church worshipping the Ferengi and the Rules of Acquisition (sp?).


Baptists?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Oct 2011, 9:32 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Joker wrote:
Wall Street and Church don't go together Lad :wink:


Agreed, unless we're talking about a Church worshipping the Ferengi and the Rules of Acquisition (sp?).


Baptists?


I am not a Baptist I am a Methodist how ever Scientology goes well with wall street :lol:



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

16 Oct 2011, 11:05 pm

Fnord wrote:
It seems to me that this whole "Occupy Wall Street" effort (and its various me-too spinoffs) is stuck in neutral.

I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.

But the Occupiers are missing something.

What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?

Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"

Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"

It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.

Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.

The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.

(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)


Most millionaires and billionaires worship money, not God, so they don't go to church. More politicians claim a denomination than actually go to church. You also need to consider that most churches are not the grand cathedrals of the middle ages, but are simple and often not worth what they paid for it. Churches with a mortgage are usually upside down right now and the bank would get first pick if any claim was made against them. My church occasionally makes a public announcement about where the money is going so I don't worry about that. I wish more churches were that open about their budget.

Fnord wrote:
Why?

Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?


For most of them no, and every church has unemployed people in it these days, so no on that point as well.

Fnord wrote:
Would it really hurt so much for religious institutions to be shamed into doing what they have promised to do?


Depends if you can find any promise in writing.

Fnord wrote:
Would the extra publicity be any worse for homeless and unemployed people than it is already?


Unemployment is either on or not far from most people's minds these days, and my experience with the large homeless population around here is that they are not interested in non-monetary aid. I gave up on it because all they care about is anything that can be converted into smokes, a drink, or a fix.

Fnord wrote:
Or do you simply hold churches as such "sacred" institutions that you believe they should be allowed to practice fraud, theft, and usury on a weekly basis?


Are you assuming that that idiot TV preacher from the '80s that wanted you to send him $1000 is representative of Christianity? There is no usury in mainline Christian churches, and there is no fraud or theft unless someone on the payroll has their hand in the cookie jar.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

16 Oct 2011, 11:09 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It seems to me that this whole "Occupy Wall Street" effort (and its various me-too spinoffs) is stuck in neutral.

I mean, there is not one, single billionaire that has given his or her money to the poor, yet the movement seems to be spreading to places where the wealthy live and work.

But the Occupiers are missing something.

What about those places where the wealthy go to worship?

Think about it: look at all of those glass and steel monuments to human greed and gullibility, and ask yourself, "How much did that cost?"

Then ask yourself, "Why didn't they spend the money on the poor instead?"

It is my opinion, that any religion that spends money on prime real-estate and builds anything* that is not for housing the homeless is - in reality - stealing land, housing, and money from the very people that need it the most.

Thus, I urge all of those who feel that withholding wealth from the poor is unfair, unethical, and immoral to go down to the nearest religious facility and occupy it as soon as it opens its doors. Stay there until the religious leaders start forking over some of the wealth that they should have given to you already - money that they've stolen from their believers and kept from you under the guise of Worship.

The wealthy may be inaccessible, but their Sabbath-Day Country Clubs* are not.

(*Churches, mosques, temples or other religion-based facilities that are considered tax-free)


Most millionaires and billionaires worship money, not God, so they don't go to church. More politicians claim a denomination than actually go to church. You also need to consider that most churches are not the grand cathedrals of the middle ages, but are simple and often not worth what they paid for it. Churches with a mortgage are usually upside down right now and the bank would get first pick if any claim was made against them. My church occasionally makes a public announcement about where the money is going so I don't worry about that. I wish more churches were that open about their budget.

Fnord wrote:
Why?

Would regular church-goers have heart attacks from being under the same roof as homeless and unemployed people?


For most of them no, and every church has unemployed people in it these days, so no on that point as well.

Fnord wrote:
Would it really hurt so much for religious institutions to be shamed into doing what they have promised to do?


Depends if you can find any promise in writing.

Fnord wrote:
Would the extra publicity be any worse for homeless and unemployed people than it is already?


Unemployment is either on or not far from most people's minds these days, and my experience with the large homeless population around here is that they are not interested in non-monetary aid. I gave up on it because all they care about is anything that can be converted into smokes, a drink, or a fix.

Fnord wrote:
Or do you simply hold churches as such "sacred" institutions that you believe they should be allowed to practice fraud, theft, and usury on a weekly basis?


Are you assuming that that idiot TV preacher from the '80s that wanted you to send him $1000 is representative of Christianity? There is no usury in mainline Christian churches, and there is no fraud or theft unless someone on the payroll has their hand in the cookie
jar.


I support this message.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Oct 2011, 12:07 am

91 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
A fact is what the world IS.


You are presupposing an objective world. Once again you are resting your position on an unjustified predicate. Kierkegaard and Williams have kind of annihliated the Cogito ergo sum line of argument; except in your case you are not presupposing that 'whatever has the property of thinking, exists' rather you are presupposing that 'whatever has the property of a fact, exists'.
And here I thought theists hated post-modern relativism.
Ruveyn will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's pointing out that the universe exists completely independently of human perception and thought. To posit otherwise might be fun, but basically amounts to intellectual masturbation.



Last edited by LKL on 17 Oct 2011, 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.