belief

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe that is because you don't know of any truly communist countries.
.

How do you know about the extent of my knowledge of communist countries or states?
Now look who is mind-reading?
Does T stand for Telepathic?... Telepathic Whitehead?

Originally posted by shahenshah
How do you know about the extent of my knowledge of communist countries or states?
Now look who is mind-reading?
Does T stand for Telepathic?... Telepathic Whitehead?

No mind reading required. There aren't any truly communist countries, so you couldn't know any.

Originally posted by RJHinds
China has become more capitalist than communist now. I don't see how you can say Cuba is successful and the Soviet Union is no longer in existence.

even if the soviet union was truly communist, it would have been doomed to failure from competition because communism in its truest form doesn't generate unlimited resources out of the thin air like capitalism. communism is a responsible allocation of the resources that are available.

so, given a communist and capitalist state with equal resources, the capitalist state will be able to out spend the communist state in the short term, but that short term is long enough to economically destroy the communist state. in the end however, even the capitalist state will fall, after there is a massive 'correction' of the wealth that isn't there.

the problem is, some economies grow "too big to fail." ahh the dilemma.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I recently opened two threads asking theists and atheists what it would take to change their belief. I must say I am disappointed with the debates so far! Problem is I don't know what it would take to convince me!

This is a true story:

I was awoken in the middle of the night by my partner returning from (I surmised) a visit to the loo. She entered t ...[text shortened]... uld deter theists from their belief. I find this curious and unsettling if true.

Comments?

I once talked with a guy on these forums who said he witnessed a woman talk in an unearthly voice and levitate off the floor. He was an atheist and I think still is....but not so sure now I suppose.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
so, given a communist and capitalist state with equal resources, the capitalist state will be able to out spend the communist state in the short term, but that short term is long enough to economically destroy the communist state.

But a genuinely communist state would not be goaded into spending in competition. There wouldn't be a 'space race' or 'arms race' while the people are still poor.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But a genuinely communist state would not be goaded into spending in competition. There wouldn't be a 'space race' or 'arms race' while the people are still poor.

true, but unless the communist state can produce everything it needs, it will have to compete in the international market, and to do so, it may have to expand its sphere of influence in the face of a hostile competing economy.

for the soviet union, the space race was a matter of wasteful pride, but the rest of the cold war was about market influence.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
for the soviet union, the space race was a matter of wasteful pride, but the rest of the cold war was about market influence.

I am not convinced that a fight over market influence would cause a well run communist country to collapse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced that a fight over market influence would cause a well run communist country to collapse.

I remember when a chain food store opened one of there stores in the
city I lived in which already had six or seven stores from another chain.
A price war began between the two chain stores. This was good news
for the consumers at that time for I remember buying a gallon of milk
for a penny. Within a few months the new food store belonged to the
chain that already had the six or seven stores in the city and the prices
went back to normal. My aunt who worked in another city for the failed
food store chain told me that the word she got from her management
was the reason they closed up that store in my city and sold out was
because they could not make any money in my city. That is the way
capitalist competition works sometimes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced that a fight over market influence would cause a well run communist country to collapse.

the point i made was about two countries of roughly equal resources. the communist country cannot spend above the limit of its resources. the capitalist country can spend vastly above the limit of its resources. it is inevitable for the communist country to lose the battle for markets.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't know to whom you are speaking as you are not responding to any particular post, or mention anyone by name.

However, I would state that the burden of proof is definitely on the theists shoulders as they make a positive claim that god exists.

No believer makes a claim to outright knowledge. There's no room for faith if one knows something for a fact.

What the (excluding liberal progressives) believer claims is, they believe God exists and have faith in the truth of the bible and the promises made by God and Christ in the bible.

There is zero onus upon a person making this claim to prove anything to you.

We believers may be concerned for your soul and want you to believe, but, beyond that we honestly don't much care if you believe or not. Apart from obsessive zealots, believers feel no compelling need to force our beliefs upon you. Our only mission is to inform you of what we believe to be true and we would be selfish, cold-blooded creatures indeed, if we believed we knew something that would save your soul and kept it to ourselves rather than at least try to make you aware of it.

Lets say you knew of a cure for a deadly disease. You walk into a town full of people with the disease and you already know for a fact that most if not all of them will not believe you when you tell them you know of this cure -- and some of them may even react aggressively toward you if you try to convince them.

Would you withhold the information from them, or, would you feel compelled to tell them all anyway,with the hope that at least some of them would benefit from the information? Which action on your part is more courageous? Which action more compassionate?

Originally posted by sumydid
No believer makes a claim to outright knowledge. There's no room for faith if one knows something for a fact.

What the (excluding liberal progressives) believer claims is, they believe God exists and have faith in the truth of the bible and the promises made by God and Christ in the bible.

There is zero onus upon a person making this claim to prove an ...[text shortened]... information? Which action on your part is more courageous? Which action more compassionate?

your analogy falls flat, though it's a little more constructive than the running towards the cliff analogy.

to expand on the failure of your analogy, if you go into a town preaching a non-existent disease and claiming to have a cure for it, you'll sound like a snake-oil salesman, which describes just about everyone selling their religion brand.

the sad part is, many well-meaning people will fall for such shysters. if the seller is especially charismatic, people will actually believe the farce that they have a disease and they'll actually believe the fake medicine will cure it. without such fools, religion can't exist.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your analogy falls flat, though it's a little more constructive than the running towards the cliff analogy.

to expand on the failure of your analogy, if you go into a town preaching a non-existent disease and claiming to have a cure for it, you'll sound like a snake-oil salesman, which describes just about everyone selling their religion brand.

the ...[text shortened]... actually believe the fake medicine will cure it. without such fools, religion can't exist.

Oh I absolutely agree. We believers should expect to be aligned with the likes of snake oil salesmen when we try to inform. But again, if we truly believe like we say we do, then we would be cold-hearted and selfish to keep it to ourselves. Agreed?

Originally posted by sumydid
Oh I absolutely agree. We believers should expect to be aligned with the likes of snake oil salesmen when we try to inform. But again, if we truly believe like we say we do, then we would be cold-hearted and selfish to keep it to ourselves. Agreed?

negative. belief is not a foundational structure on which to build knowledge. to have any credibility, knowledge must be built upon reasoned arguments supported by observation, evidence, experimentation and experience, which brings the onus of proof on the believer.

to share something you truly 'believe' as a matter of 'faith' is dishonest and irresponsible, unless it's a result of some mental illness, in which case it's pitiful.

Originally posted by sumydid
No believer makes a claim to outright knowledge. There's no room for faith if one knows something for a fact.

What the (excluding liberal progressives) believer claims is, they believe God exists and have faith in the truth of the bible and the promises made by God and Christ in the bible.

There is zero onus upon a person making this claim to prove an information? Which action on your part is more courageous? Which action more compassionate?

Typically, when I believe a proposition, I also believe that I know that proposition (call that proposition 'P', whatever P may be). It's hard for me to imagine a case where I have the belief that P and the belief that I don't know P. Presumably, if I believe that I don't know P, then I believe I have insufficient evidence to justify the belief that P. But if I have insufficient evidence, then I would not believe P in the first place (on pain of apparent irrationality). Perhaps, though, by 'outright knowledge' you mean something like epistemic certainty. You may be claiming that believers believe P despite also believing that it is possible their belief that P is false. If so, then faith is whatever "takes up the slack" between belief that P and certainty that P. But I'm not sure you want to say that, since it renders all of our beliefs (or, for the rationalists, all of our non-deductive beliefs) at least partially faith-based. I believe that my keys are on the nightstand (and I believe I know this), but it is possible that they are actually on the kitchen table. So, it's possible I am wrong. So, I can't be epistemically certain that they are on the nightstand. So, I don't have outright knowledge. So, I have faith. But then what is so special about faith? Why is it so important to the believer if it's just some common feature of our epistemic circumstances, applying both to beliefs about God and beliefs about the location of one's keys?

Originally posted by sumydid
No believer makes a claim to outright knowledge. There's no room for faith if one knows something for a fact.

What the (excluding liberal progressives) believer claims is, they believe God exists and have faith in the truth of the bible and the promises made by God and Christ in the bible.

There is zero onus upon a person making this claim to prove an information? Which action on your part is more courageous? Which action more compassionate?

No believer makes a claim to outright knowledge. There's no room for faith if one knows something for a fact.

Faith, conceptualized in the Bible, isn't "blind" faith, in any regard. The apostles, for instance, claimed to have witnessed Jesus Christ, in person, after he was crucified and his corpse was enclosed in a tomb. Did Peter, James, etc., have outright knowledge of the risen Christ? And if so, would that knowledge result in an incapacity for faith? I'd say, definitely not.

Likewise with the modern day Christian who believes the apostles' testimony. Belief in the truth of that testimony constitutes knowledge.