Post your unpopular opinions

[Dodo25]

I have studied the rise of the soviet union extensively and the french revolution, if you did to, you would see the huge irony in all of what you said.

I only know the basics of the French Revolution, but I'm very familiar with the rise of the Soviet Uniton. I don't see any irony at all.

There was indeed this Volonté générale notion of democracy which is similar to what I am advocating to consider. The huge difference is that in the system I suggested, there would be transparency and open discussion.

Was there discussion among experts in the Soviet Union? The menschewiki won a vote and then seized power, after that, Lenin set up a dictatorship. And all the small transparency and open dialogue was destroyed and turned into the opposite in Stalinism, which, with it's dogmas and persona cult is almost religion-like, the very opposite of what I was proposing.

But as it seems that you are steadfast in your opinions (which is the greatest philosophical and political sin) let us just agree to disagree.

I disagree indeed.There are different kinds of being 'steadfast in opinion'. If one has a coherent, well-supported argument and is thus convinced of one's case, that's not a bad thing. It only becomes bad if one refuses to take other views into consideration, if one dogmatically rejects evidence of better views and opinions. I am willing to change my mind, I'm open for being persuaded by arguments and evidence.

[The Atheist]

does this mean that I should be grateful for all the adult pornography that is currently out there because it is a preventative measure against men raping women?

Yes.

I've pointed out on several occasions that the decrease in sex crimes equivalent to the increase in porn and internet availability is nowadays compelling evidence that watching porn decreases the likelihood of sex crime, rather than what some people would like us to think.

The problem with religion is that it can motivate good people to do evil.

I don't agree. People who can be motivated to do evil in the name of religion are equally likely to do so in the name of something else, or as more frequently happens, in the name of nothing at all.

There must be an inherent defect in the person first, genetic or learned.

The problem is that those people are likely to be idealistic dreamers who are far from what is needed to administer the complex issues that face a national leader.

I agree.

Oddly, early indications are that our current PM is the unique member of that group.

A thread for unpopular ideas. I love it! So here's mine. I don't think men who choose not to parent their children should be forced to pay child support. You see, I believe in equal rights. Any woman may choose not to mother her child (she may give it for adoption) with no further responsibility, financial or otherwise. Men, however, do not have this same right. No one would dream of saying to a woman,"Sure you can give the child up, but you are still financially responsible until it's 18 weather you want it or not. " But this is exactly what happens if you are a man. I think equal rights should mean equal rights FOR ALL. In case it matters, I am a single mother. My son's father is ordered to pay child support. I tried to waive the support,this of course was not allowed

Bravo!

Unfortunately, you're about 1 millennium ahead of the majority of humankind.

I think your being pessimistic. To be honest, I am fairly convinced that humanity won't survive the next 200 years.

I'd take that bet. It'll take more than 200 years to rid the planet of us.

I only have one unpopular opinion, and it is this: Being Autistic is nothing to be proud of, it is simply a fact of who I am, like the fact that I'm a human being.

I don't quite get why that's unpopular - can you explain? I can't say I've seen anyone seeming to be proud of it.

[Dodo25]

I don't agree. People who can be motivated to do evil in the name of religion are equally likely to do so in the name of something else, or as more frequently happens, in the name of nothing at all.

There must be an inherent defect in the person first, genetic or learned.

Isn't the 'learned' aspect done by religion in the cases we're talking about? Take the Catholic priests who preach the sinfulness of condom use as an example. Apart from all the sick pedophiles, I'm sure there are some 'good' Catholic priests who do bad things.

Even terrorists are often 'moral' and kind people.

[The Atheist]

Isn't the 'learned' aspect done by religion in the cases we're talking about?

Sure, but my point was that someone who was born or conditioned to be a fanatic is equally likely to become fanatical about something else, if religion doesn't catch him.

Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh needed no religion.

Take the Catholic priests who preach the sinfulness of condom use as an example. Apart from all the sick pedophiles, I'm sure there are some 'good' Catholic priests who do bad things.

Priests who preach condoms being evil are just misguided rather than evil. In one way, they're quite right - abstinence, marriage and fidelity are almost 100% foolproof ways of avoiding HIV, but it isn't realistic, because humans don't work like that.

I think that the anti-condom plans and paedophilia are both more the result of the idiotic "celibacy" rules for the priesthood.

Even terrorists are often 'moral' and kind people.

Well, the meaning of "terrorist" is politically charged for starters. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist under any meaning of the word, but he's internationally respected as a freedom fighter.

One man's meat...

[Alexander III]

"but I'm very familiar with the rise of the Soviet Uniton. I don't see any irony at all."

I was hoping you wouldn't say this. {edit}

[Dodo25]

Priests who preach condoms being evil are just misguided rather than evil.

To me, the motivation is irrelevant when judging the moral value of an action. I don't believe in 'evil' motivations, so it was probably the wrong word to use.

[stlukesguild]

SLG- Self interest tends to become more powerful when the money you are talking about was earned by your own labor... at a job that you quite often find less than ideal... and especially if you have a family whose immediate needs and wants concern you far more than something that appears but an abstraction. Should "we" give more? What country donates any where near what the US contributes to half of the developing nations of the world?

Dodo- Pretty much any industrialized country. The US gives away less than 1% of its budget. Furthermore, just as an example, the crazy subventions for the US cotton industry used to lower prizes for cotton and lead to third world countries not being able to sell their stuff. I'm not sure if that's still the case, it might very well be.

The US is by far the largest contributer in foreign aid in actual dollars although this may amount to a smaller percentage of the over-all US budget than some other countries. Of course this doesn't take into consideration the dollar amount of foreign aid that is donated by private citizens in the US which is more than twice the federal aid and by far the largest in the world. Nor does it take into consideration that almost all aid from any Western nation has political ties. A huge donation by Bill Gates to India is impressive... but certainly helps Microsoft's future in the growing Indian economy. Financial aid goes far less to desperately poor nations than it does to nations which are strategically important to the donor nation (Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc...) What is also ignored is the cost of military spending incurred in policing all the hot spots of the world. The United States, Britain, and several other nations incur this cost which whether we like it or not is a necessity for maintaining the freedoms afforded in the West.

SLG- "Self-interest is a strong drive..." or so you stated above. What is in it for the individual? Compassion? A sense of duty? Priviledge? How many individuals do you imagine would put forth the effort and the expense of medical school and residency if a doctor were paid the same as a school teacher or an office clerk? You are suggesting a ruler... a leader of a nation... with all that entails... the stress, the long hours, the time spent away from the family, the lack of privacy... and for little or no personal reward. The reality is that those willing to do the job under such conditions probably aren't the best qualified, and the best qualified aren't likely to be willing to do the job under those conditions. Of course Plato's solution was to essentially "draft" the philosopher kings... force them into doing the job as a great noble sacrifice due to society. What a noble idea. The poor philosopher suffering for the sake of humanity.

Dodo-I disagree. I think the pursuit of knowledge and challenging yet fruitful tasks is one of the best ways to be satisfied in life. If the education offered includes, obviously, a scholarship for a program better (and harder) than Harvard, I'm sure the right people would even volunteer. Think of Kant, Mill, Singer, I'm sure they would. I really don't think motivation would be the problem.

You disagree... based upon what? Your own personal feeling? How many employers attempt to entice employees by promising long hours, lots of stress, lots of time away from the family, constant public scrutiny and criticism with little chance of personal gain? What you are ignoring is that the private sector offers many opportunities which include a challenging pursuit of knowledge... properly compensatory. Kant and Mill would jump at the chance? Of course. But do you really imagine that they were the best qualified to lead a nation?

SLG- Yes... a statement of fact... which you cannot substantiate with proof.

Dodo- "There most certainly are no unicorns". Do I have to provide proof for this statement? As long as there's no positive evidence for a thing's existance, there really is no reason whatsoever to think that it is likely to exist.

A statement of fact demands proof. The suggestion that you have yet to see proof of an event is not proof. Personally, I am of an agnostic persuasion... because I don't think the questions of the origin of the universe, creation, God, spirituality, or what occurs after death have been answered one way or another.

Furthermore, God is extremely improbable. Creationists like to say things like how crazily improbable amino acid sequences are. Think of whole human beings, they are orders of magnitudes more complex. If they just came out of nowhere, that wouldn't make any sense! Evolution of course explains that, it explains how SIMPLE beginnings over time GRADUALLY lead to complexity.

No... evolution does not explain that. It does not explain just how probable it is that something as improbable as life began... or something as improbably complex as humanity evolved. What is the probability of life in other solar systems? What is the probability that any given planet will be blessed with the temperatures, the atmosphere, and all else that is necessary to sustain life? In a universe bordering on infinity... what is the probability that that there would not be life?

Something as complex as God (or intelligence, consciousness, all that fancy stuff) just existing is absurd to the highest degree.

Just as life... human beings... the universe just existing by luck... seems equally absurd.

I've had countless discussions about this, I've heard virtually all the arguments there are. I've read the Bible and parts of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. I've studied evolutionary biology in my free time and read books on philosophy and theism. The answer to the question of God's existance is very obvious, so much speaks against it, nothing for.

And yet as obvious at it seems to you... so many far greater minds than your have taken a different view... or simply suggested that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

DD- Faith is irrational and dangerous.

SLG- So is love.

Indeed. There are even more parallels. Faith can be a 'good thing' in certain situations, even though it is always wrong, it can give hope and stuff. Still, I'm convinced that we have other, more justified, more worthy values we can tie or hopes to. I think the disadvantages of faith outweigh its benefits.

So the dangers of love also outweigh the benefits?

Dodo-At least love is the best feeling ever, so that kinda justifies it. And while many crimes do have to do with love, major wars don't (at least at this stage of history).

There are many who would argue that faith might bring an equal if not greater "feeling"... that the two are inherently intertwined. As for the consequences of faith, it is not faith but religion that lies at the cause of the wars of which you speak... and again... religion is but an excuse for prejudice and hatred. If it were not for religion, those in power would find another justification for war. Ultimately, war is about prejudice, envy, avarice, and all the range of human hatreds that will not be eliminated with the elimination of religion and the establishment of some great secular world.

Education is actually very much the key here, there's a strong correlation between atheism and education.

Is there? So you imagine that you are more educated than Thomas Aquinas or Pope John Paul II or Robert Alter, or Abdullah Yusuf Ali? There is a separation of church and state in most Western nations so that religion is not part of public education. This in no way correlates to the notion that atheists are more likely to be educated.

Dodo- Faith (is) a stupid thing:

Is it? We all engage in acts of faith each an every day. How many things do you take for granted without ever having proven them? The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776... Was it? How do you know? Were you there? Or are you merely taking the word of others for fact? Faith is stupid? Again it would seem no stupider than love for those in love will often trust one another... without the need of empirical proof. faith is stupid? Yet amazingly there are so many brilliant individuals... far more brilliant than you are I... who had faith.

I don't base my life on acts of faith. In fact, I DO NOT HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING.

And that is your loss.

"Where you there?" What kind of question is that? You say you're good at history, why would you study anything about it if you don't have a time machine? We know about historical 'facts' (never 100% proveable, yet still supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt) because of evidence. That's not faith, it is well-supported belief.

One might ask how you define "well supported"? What one might call "well supported" another might call blind faith. History, by the way, is far from being beyond doubt. Certain events and interpretations face continual revision.

Dodo-And the argument about brilliant individuals is flawed too. For one thing, there were/are also many 'brilliant individuals' that agree with me. Moreover, some which you may have in mind lived before 1859, and that doesn't really count for the question. Also, I hope you don't mean Einstein or Hawking, because they certainly weren't/aren't religious.

"Some" brilliant individuals agree with you... so that makes you right beyond all doubt? There are any number of artists, writers, poets, theologians, composers, educators, philosophers, etc... who take an opposing view... or admit to doubt (Agnosticism). One can always pick and choose who to quote based upon who supports one's views.

Dodo- I'm starting to regret having brought (multiple universes) up. As I said, there is some evidence for it, but among expert circles, it is a minority view. I have my own argument for the existance of multiverses, I think it is sound.

That would sound a lot like "faith" to me.

Dodo- Whether that also justifies the explanation for dark mater is a different question. Either way, I guess I can see how you consider this 'faith', note however that I in no way base my life, or for that matter, any important decisions on this 'belief'. Moreover, I don't state 'I know it for sure', I was very careful to emphasize how weak my belief is in this case. And finally, at least there is SOME evidence for it, however small.

You don't know for sure about God or the creation of the universe... but you are prepared to make a statement of fact.

SLG- You seemingly place a great deal of "faith" in science... considering some of the achievements of science in the last 100 years during two world wars and elsewhere, some might suggest that your "faith" is a belief contrary to evidence

'Belief contrary to evidence', that's a good phrase! That's fundamentalism, faith taken to the extreme. I hav no idea how this applies to me though. Science has made a tremendous progress in the last 100 years. The track record is considerable. So many things once believed because of religion are now explained and attributed to different, natural causes - all due to science. Science isn't perfect, in fact, that's a strength. When mistakes are made, scientists discard the wrong hypotheses and come up with new, improved concepts. Science changes and grows, dogmatic religion doesn't, it's stuck in the barbaric bronze age!

One might point out that your concept of religion is rather primitive or barbaric. Yes... there are illiterate fundamentalists... but serious religious scholars... be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc... do not take such a primitive view of the world. Most admit that there is a clear separation between science and what science can know and religion. The problem is when the line is crossed... when scientists presume to know the answers that pertain to religion... or when religious leaders presume to challenge scientific fact.

You speak of science' willingness to abandon a hypothesis when it is proven wrong. There are more than a few instances of scientists holding on to certain hypotheses as "fact" contrary to other "facts". You glory in science's conquering much that was once unknown... but with every advance, scientists discover that what they do not know also increases. As brilliant as our scientist may be they have not been able to conquer cancer... or even something as simple as the common cold... and yet you would have us presume that these same scientists have the ultimate understanding of human nature, the universe, creation... the possibility of God?

DoDo- The problem with religion is that it can motivate good people to do evil. Few other things can do that. If one sincerely believes that i.e. the Qu'ran is divinely inspired, there's a logical pathay leading over an airplane right into the twin towers.

SLG- Nationalism, Racism, prejudice, envy, fear, lust, love, any number of things may motivate the individual into doing evil. Even striving toward ideals. The French, Soviet, and Russian Revolutions all devolved into atrocity and horror in spite of the noblest intentions. Of course, "the road to hell... "

Dodo- Yeah sure, but the 'logical pathway' is often lacking, while in religion, it is all too obvious. Also, while the bad aspects of most of the things you mentioned are generally condemned, this is not the case about religion.

So you imagine there was no logic behind the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Mao's Cultural Revolution? If anything, the exact opposite was true. These events were rooted is cold, calculated reason and rationale that placed abstract ideals above human individuals... with horrific results.

[stlukesguild]

breathtest- I think a better solution to overpopulation is restricting the amount of children one family is allowed to have. We cannot ignore the amount of suffering going on in the world. I think people who are currently alive and suffering because of lack of food and water and shelter deserve our attention. Reducing the amount of children two people have together will reduce the population down to a better size, but ignoring suffering on the scale that you have suggested i think would be pretty heartless. I think overpopulation needs to be addressed quickly, but there are more humane and empathetic ways.

How do you address this issue in a way that is not prejudiced... if not outright racist? The reality is that most Western nations have greatly controlled their populations since the Black Death of the Middle Ages. There was a recognition that one cannot stretch the population beyond the ability of the nation to meet the needs of that population. Most of the problem with population exists in poorer nations or the third-world... or within the poorer populations of the Western nations. In part this is due to a lack of education and a lack of access to contraceptives... but it is also due to the misguided belief in the need for larger families... multiple children... both to support the parents when they age... and as a means of countering the high infant and child mortality rates in these cultures. It isn't France or Germany or the US that needs to curtail its growth and we cannot expect families there to stop having children so that India, China, and the nations of Africa and South America can continue to add to the population.

[Propter W.]

As brilliant as our scientist may be they have not been able to conquer cancer... or even something as simple as the common cold... and yet you would have us presume that these same scientists have the ultimate understanding of human nature, the universe, creation... the possibility of God?

There are many cancers that can be successfully treated already. The common cold is not one virus, but hundreds of different ones so it's certainly not "simple." Scientists, however, have decoded the genomes of a big sample of these viruses. This information could lead to the production of an efficient medicine. The question is whether it's really necessary to find a "cure" for something that lasts, on average, a week and is typically considered to be a minor nuisance. The costs of developing any drug are extremely high, it's unlikey that many people would buy this drug. So even if they do find a "cure" drug manufacturers will probably not invest in it.

As for that last part of your post... When I read Dodo's post I don't see where he says scientists have the ultimate understand of anything. On the contrary, he says science is not perfect at all.

Personally, I think science does not need to tackle the god issue. It's a waste of time and it's impossible to prove a negative. God does not exist. If you think he does, fine, show me. There is nothing that indicates the existence of a god. If there is, I'll gladly accept it.

[Propter W.]

How do you address this issue in a way that is not prejudiced... if not outright racist? The reality is that most Western nations have greatly controlled their populations since the Black Death of the Middle Ages. There was a recognition that one cannot stretch the population beyond the ability of the nation to meet the needs of that population. Most of the problem with population exists in poorer nations or the third-world... or within the poorer populations of the Western nations. In part this is due to a lack of education and a lack of access to contraceptives... but it is also due to the misguided belief in the need for larger families... multiple children... both to support the parents when they age... and as a means of countering the high infant and child mortality rates in these cultures. It isn't France or Germany or the US that needs to curtail its growth and we cannot expect families there to stop having children so that India, China, and the nations of Africa and South America can continue to add to the population.

It's not about prejudice or racism.

That "recognition that one cannot stretch the population beyond the ability of the nation to meet the needs of that population" never happened. Can the US quench its thrist for oil without going abroad? How many mouths in the US are fed with imported food? Are dressed by imported clothes?

It's the entire world that needs to curtail its growth. If we fail to do that, we will ultimately face the consequences of our irresponsibility.

[The Atheist]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;950287]No... evolution does not explain that.[QUOTE]

Well, it does actually - read on!

It does not explain just how probable it is that something as improbable as life began... or something as improbably complex as humanity evolved.

It certainly does, because the probability is clearly 1.

Life, including complex ones exist, ergo the probability cannot be less.

There are clearly only two choices - either the universe and life were created by a god or they were not.

[breathtest]

How do you address this issue in a way that is not prejudiced... if not outright racist? The reality is that most Western nations have greatly controlled their populations since the Black Death of the Middle Ages. There was a recognition that one cannot stretch the population beyond the ability of the nation to meet the needs of that population. Most of the problem with population exists in poorer nations or the third-world... or within the poorer populations of the Western nations. In part this is due to a lack of education and a lack of access to contraceptives... but it is also due to the misguided belief in the need for larger families... multiple children... both to support the parents when they age... and as a means of countering the high infant and child mortality rates in these cultures. It isn't France or Germany or the US that needs to curtail its growth and we cannot expect families there to stop having children so that India, China, and the nations of Africa and South America can continue to add to the population.

When i talk about reducing the amount of children a couple can have, i am not just referring to western cultures. I am talking about all cultures, and that is how we can make it fair and not at all racist. This probably isn't likely to happen, but i think it would be a better solution than trying to pretend that third-world countries are not suffering

[Alexander III]

[QUOTE=The Atheist;950335][QUOTE=stlukesguild;950287]No... evolution does not explain that.

Well, it does actually - read on!



It certainly does, because the probability is clearly 1.

Life, including complex ones exist, ergo the probability cannot be less.

There are clearly only two choices - either the universe and life were created by a god or they were not.

There are two choices that we know of...who knows how many that we dont know of, yet

[Dodo25]

@ SLG, dang it!! I wrote the whole response to your post and then accidentally deleted it.

I don't feel like writing it all again now, I'll do so later, tomorrow or in a couple of days.

[stlukesguild]

There are many cancers that can be successfully treated already. The common cold is not one virus, but hundreds of different ones so it's certainly not "simple." Scientists, however, have decoded the genomes of a big sample of these viruses. This information could lead to the production of an efficient medicine. The question is whether it's really necessary to find a "cure" for something that lasts, on average, a week and is typically considered to be a minor nuisance. The costs of developing any drug are extremely high, it's unlikey that many people would buy this drug. So even if they do find a "cure" drug manufacturers will probably not invest in it.

Can be successfully treated how... and with what degree of success and at what cost physically to the patient... and after how many years and how many billions of dollars invested in research. And the common cold? Perhaps of little consequence... except when it leads to something worse in the young, the elderly, the diabetic, etc... not to speak of the ever-looming potential for the mutation and epidemic spread of a deadly virus. Yet just the simply common cold surely costs billion of dollars in lost productivity alone... yet science has give erections to octogenarians and grow hair on a bowling ball so it seems we know where the focus lies.

As for that last part of your post... When I read Dodo's post I don't see where he says scientists have the ultimate understand of anything. On the contrary, he says science is not perfect at all.

He makes repeated statements of fact with regard to evolution, creation, and God. Theories regarding evolution and creation are being continually revised... while any question of God would seem to be unknowable... unless one simply employs a simplistic, literal concept of God as some old man with a flowing white beard who lives in the sky.

Personally, I think science does not need to tackle the god issue. It's a waste of time and it's impossible to prove a negative. God does not exist. If you think he does, fine, show me. There is nothing that indicates the existence of a god. If there is, I'll gladly accept it.

No one needs to show you the existence of God. That seems to be an issue best left to the individual. Again I state this from the position of an agnostic... someone who freely admits that he has no irrefutable proof one way or the other.