I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 14472

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

MCT: You wrote, "Fire fighters are fire fighters for their own sake, not mine. And I only owe them the cost of their services."

Joan:  Do you have any idea how much it would cost you if you were billed for a fire at your home or business?  Could you pay for the fire trucks, fighters, water if it has to be hauled?

Firefighters work out of enlightened self-interest.  

Many countries have socialist principles for the basics: housing, health care, education, eldercare; then free enterprise or laissez-faire enterprise for consumer goods.   

It would certainly be cost effective to pay someone to stop all of your possessions from burning to the ground. And if it wouldn't be, you should let it burn. Enlightened self-interest could nothing more than rational self-interest. There is no logistic problem we need government for, other than protection of our rights.

why couldn't a private enterprise protect our rights as well?

Well, it can't be private, because everyone will be subject to its law.

I think a government can be financed through multiple peaceful means.

What incentive would private enterprise have to protect, let alone respect, anybody's rights, unless compelled to do so by enforcement of law?

Jason, I like your statement.  Business runs on incentives; compassion has no place, it seems, in enterprise. The answer, seems to me, is as you suggest, enforcement of law. 

People born with some kind of mental or physical handicap may not be able to be self-responsible.  Who is to take care of that person?  Do tax payers have an obligation to assist with care and treatment?  I think so.  Enlightened self interest says we can't turn our handicapped out on the streets.  

OH!  We've done that already.

You do have one of the worst medical systems in the world at the moment in relation to equality not individual outcomes ( I recognise individual outcomes are quit good
), As you have indie knowledge could you possibly suggest how that  would change without socialising medicine. This an actual question not a political statement  as from your background ou may have some insight.

I still think that good people will do good things no matter what the system.....

"Every single individual would have the same rights under a libertarian society. The person with 150 acres in southern California has the same rights as a person renting a shack in the ghetto."

Which, of course, completely ignores the disparity in economic power which would inevitably lead the person in the ghetto to have to swear fealty to the local feudal overlord or starve. And you don't think this is coercion? That's what your proposal would inevitably come down to, MCT. You don't like government coercion so you ignore the very real and historically well-established threat of private coercion. I don't know if you've noticed, but libertarians are trying awfully hard to eliminate government, not shrink it. Since Reagan, they've been doing a bang-up job of it. I guess it just comes down to whether you fear the power of government or the power of plutocrats more. At least we have some say in how our government operates. Not so much with plutocrats.

And personal autonomy is never total. All of us depend, at all times, on the kindness of strangers. You can choose to ignore this as well, but you are living in a fantasy world.

I am not concerned about disparity of economic power. I am concerned about the morality of institutionalized violence. Equality is not something I value. Fairness is. 

We do not depend on the kindness of strangers. People avoid hurting other people, generally, because of their own rational self-interest, even when that includes opening a door for someone else. We do not purchase goods out of the sweet kindness of our hearts, we buy for our rational self-interest. Our moral code is based on rational self-interest and so should our government. The person living in the ghetto does not need to swear anything to anybody. He can buy a sandwich from any producer of sandwiches, which he will pay for with the money he earns and can afford because prices will be low because their will be separation of state and economics, not separation of state and law, the government would not allow a company to coerce any wage or price and nor could they. You are still using metaphors. Swearing allegiance? Stop it. A proper government would defend him, not from thinking he needs more than he can get, but from coercion. Private coercion, as well as public coercion, is illegal in a libertarian, not anarchy, not socialistic, not feudal, not communist, not monarchy, not oligarchy, not theocracy, but libertarian government.

Autonomy is always singular. Only a single consciousness can make a decision. That's why rights concern the individual.

I am not concerned about disparity of economic power. I am concerned about the morality of institutionalized violence. Equality is not something I value. Fairness is

What are your views on how to sustainably and equitably feed the masses?


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service