John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

[Ivan Seeking]

Real estate's scary side: Three beds, two baths, one ghost.

But one kind of property that causes real nightmares is a house that carries a supernatural stigma. "Psychologically impacted" houses -- in which a murder, suicide, or illness took place -- are a tough sale.

The reason: fear of ghosts.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/21/pf/yourhome/househaunting/

My counter argument is that Edwards is the effect; not the cause.

Sage, in a political sense your words are most omninous. This gets tough to argue because I tend to agree.

How many other examples exist where people live well adjusted but deluded lives? Most all who have ever lived well adjusted lives; say I the skeptic of all spirituality.

 

[sage]

quote-How many other examples exist where people live well adjusted but deluded lives? Most all who have ever lived well adjusted lives; say I the skeptic of all spirituality.-end quote.

i did not understand what exactly you are saying. please clarify.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by sage
quote-How many other examples exist where people live well adjusted but deluded lives? Most all who have ever lived well adjusted lives; say I the skeptic of all spirituality.-end quote.

i did not understand what exactly you are saying. please clarify.

If I take the position of being a non-believer of anything spiritual, then I can argue that throughout history we find that most people who lived happy lives, also believed in spiritual fantasies. Only in rare instances do we find any real evidence of damage. For example, I don't think the pope has caused any trouble lately. Almost any church has a spiritual leader. It is not reasonable to make them all Hitlers. Next, need we cite the longevity and health studies done on the Mormons [LDS] and the Adventist? Here we can point to scientific evidence that these beliefs [fantasies in this context] make for a healthier and longer life.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If I take the position of being a non-believer of anything spiritual, then I can argue that throughout history we find that most people who lived happy lives, also believed in spiritual fantasies. Only in rare instances do we find any real evidence of damage.

You aren't looking hard enough then. Happy or not, religion has led to quite a bit of unhappiness, death, destruction, and hate. Some (though not me, though they have some convincing arguments) would argue that it is THE root of all political/social problems in the world thruout history.

 

[sage]

but even you ivan must agree that belief without reason can lead to bigotry which leads to hatred, war etc. religion is a different matter , because if god is a lie created by some unscrupulous fraud far back in the past, he must be a good one as the whole world believes in HIM. i don't think that god is a kind of lie that was created deliberately by some individual(s) for his own benefit, it is an illusion that is necessary for the survival of a human being in the face of adversities and was created by evolution and is a part of our psyche(taking god in his broadest sense). so a bishop may truly believe that god exists, for him and for most of us god is as real as a tree that stands in the garden. but a bishop does not claim to have miraculous powers, and hence is no fraud.

but a person like john edward claims such powers and hence is certainly a fraud. his claims are falsifiable and so he will fear that his trickery may be exposed one day. thereby hangs my argument. but then again was hitler a fraud? did he not believe in what he preached? i think he did, and that made him a dangerous lunatic. but not all his followers were mad. they were frauds and did everything to defend the lies created by hitler.(note my observations are on people like john edwards in general, because i don't know him. but such people abound in our country too and i give here the reasons why they should not be tolerated, whatever the motives.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Greed for wealth and power creates the horrors - survival!, genetics, competition - not the belief in ultimate goodness. The horrors of life come from Darwin, not Edwards. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Most dictators [edit: iron handed tyrants] that come to mind did not use religion as a vehicle; a few did - esp. in the middle ages - but many have used nationalism and patriotism, political ideology, cultural ideology, social ideology, geographical disputes, fear, genetics, as well as historical disputes whose bases are nearly lost. Any ideology can be manipulated to do evil. Why pick on Edwards? His "fantasy" leads to, or at least corresponds to a belief that we are accountable for our deeds. On the average, this probably has a more favorable impact on society than does a belief that life has no objective meaning - the latter being the truth in my eyes as an atheist [if I were an atheist].

 

[sage]

who is targeting john edwards? i am against irrational belief systems, i am against conclusions accepted as true without proof or logical reasoning. be it fanatical patriotism(my country is the greatest), racism (my race is superior), political bigotry (nothing is better than x-ism) or religious bigotry (there is only one god, mine and HIS words are inviolable).

irrational beliefs lead to fanatism. fanatism leads to suffering and war. so irrational beliefs must be uprooted. you see some people may feel extreme emotional crises when faced with darwin, but that does not mean one should deny its facts or say it is false simply because they wish it were wrong. hiding from the truth is not the best way to go about in life. and whoever said rationality does not in fact justify our belief in ultimate goodness. truth tells us where we are now but it also tells us where we can be in future. and that future is not bleak at all- far from it. and it is in this grand sphere where life and this universe as a whole is perceived from the broadest perspective yet conceived that scientific thought and religion freed from their petty falsities merge into one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by sage
i am against irrational belief systems

This is a completely subjective statement. For one, all beliefs are ultimately irrational. But even with the deeper philosophical argumemts aside, at least all religious beliefs are irrational.

Are you denouncing religion in all forms? If not, then who gets to say what is and is not OK?

Also, you completely ignore the most important point

Greed for wealth and power creates the horrors - survival!, genetics, competition - not the belief in ultimate goodness. The horrors of life come from Darwin, not Edwards. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

 

[Beren]

Greed for wealth and power creates the horrors - survival!, genetics, competition - not the belief in ultimate goodness. The horrors of life come from Darwin, not Edwards. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

I find it interesting you used the word "opiate" with a positive connotation, since it's generally used as such a negative word. ;)

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is a completely subjective statement. For one, all beliefs are ultimately irrational.

So, if I believe Mount Everest to be 29,035 feet above sea level, would that be an irrational belief? I've never been to Mount Everest. I've never measured it. Yet, I fully believe that to be the correct measurement to the nearest 5 feet.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
But even with the deeper philosophical argumemts aside, at least all religious beliefs are irrational.

Not necessarily, many religions have many, very rational, beliefs. Taboos against killing, incest...etc. I concede, however, that many of the religious beliefs of the world are quite irrational.
Are you denouncing religion in all forms? If not, then who gets to say what is and is not OK?

Originally posted by Beren
I find it interesting you used the word "opiate" with a positive connotation, since it's generally used as such a negative word. ;)

Actually, the original quote by Karl Marx was, "organized religion is the opiate of the people," but I've seen it in this modified form many times. There are many instances in which this appears to be true, but there are also times when it seems not to be.

Freud's view on religion was that Man needs a "parent" figure, which stems from the god-like characteristics that parents represent to their children (reward when actions are appropriate, punish when not). His view was interesting, but not universally applicable.

I haven't read the whole thread yet... will go back tonight or tomorrow and do so... but I have some opinions of my own about John Edwards. I don't want to restate something already covered, though.

I'll be back.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by SkinWalker
So, if I believe Mount Everest to be 29,035 feet above sea level, would that be an irrational belief? I've never been to Mount Everest. I've never measured it. Yet, I fully believe that to be the correct measurement to the nearest 5 feet.

This really gets into what we mean when we say believe. There is a slightly greater than zero chance that for some reason our measurement is wrong. Since belief in this case [and in all cases] implies faith, however little, this choice for belief is not based entirely in logic. Logically we can never have certitude so belief is never really justified by reason.

Though I meant this chance of error as extremely small, hence my allusion to the philosophical, funny enough this number has changed quite a bit over the years. Still, I did mean as an extremely remote possibility.

EVEREST FACTS: Check EverestHistory.com for much more than is listed here...

Mt. Everest 8848 meters or 29,029 ft*
*Note the National Geographic Society has determined the height as being 29,035 feet. However, this "new" height is not yet determined as official to our knowledge. As the norm with Everest, nothing is simple.

http://www.everestnews.com/everest1.htm

My 1976 Guinness book lists the peak at 29028, but this is clearly out of date. Obviously satellites make the difference.

Actually, the original quote by Karl Marx was, "organized religion is the opiate of the people," but I've seen it in this modified form many times.

Actually I knew this; hence the lack of quotes. This variation obviously works better for my evil purposes here.

 

[Semper000]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Us science types are somewhat unique you know. Anyone disagree? We are more interested fundamental truth and facts than most. As for typical folks [not meaning to overgeneralize], like the song says, most guys just "pray the dog poop's hard".

Oh shame on you. You want disagreement? Here I am. Many of "us science types" are quite banal --rather than unique-- in our narrow mentality you know. There are countless "science types" who have an equal investment in the pursuit of "fundamental truth and facts" and spirituality. And by gosh I'd bet many of them are more unique, smarter and probably more interesting than you, smarty pants.

The problem is, quite a few of them seem to have no backbone and therefore won't discuss their spirituality because they fear how "unique" they'll be to their little atheistic geeky scientific circle of peers.

So don't be such a snobbola yo

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Semper000
Oh shame on you. You want disagreement? Here I am. Many of "us science types" are quite banal --rather than unique-- in our narrow mentality you know. There are countless "science types" who have an equal investment in the pursuit of "fundamental truth and facts" and spirituality. And by gosh I'd bet many of them are more unique, smarter and probably more interesting than you, smarty pants.

The problem is, quite a few of them seem to have no backbone and therefore won't discuss their spirituality because they fear how "unique" they'll be to their little atheistic geeky scientific circle of peers.

So don't be such a snobbola yo

Why the hostility? Did I hit a nerve?

 

[Semper000]

In fact, you did hit a nerve by making a statement that sounded irritatingly close-minded and elitist to me; one I hear too often. This is a pet peeve of mine that I have difficulty tolerating in others AND in myself.

While I offer no apology for my point of view, I do admit I could have been a little less caustic toward you personally.

Hey! I definitely meant it when I said this:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Semper000
In fact, you did hit a nerve by making a statement that sounded irritatingly close-minded and elitist to me; one I hear too often. This is a pet peeve of mine that I have difficulty tolerating in others AND in myself.

While I offer no apology for my point of view, I do admit I could have been a little less caustic toward you personally.

Hey! I definitely meant it when I said this:

Well, after reading my post I can see why this might have seemed offensive. I don't mean to be elitist by any means. I only reference the hard learned lesson for me that not to many people care to discuss or think about such philosophical issues [much]. I only realized this after boring to death most of my family and family-friends for about 10 years. When I finshed college, I gave my wife a signed contract promising not to discuss physics with her more than once a year. True story!

 

[Semper000]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, after reading my post I can see why this might have seemed offensive. I don't mean to be elitist by any means. I only reference the hard learned lesson for me that not to many people care to discuss or think about such philosophical issues [much]. I only realized this after boring to death most of my family and family-friends for about 10 years. When I finshed college, I gave my wife a signed contract promising not to discuss physics with her more than once a year. True story!

I think I see what you're saying. You know, I notice that a lot --not all-- ppl in the scientific community seem to avoid philosophical issues/discussions. I find this ironic in the extreme, since most successful scientific pioneers operate/d on hunches/intuition first, on ideas not yet proven prior to applying their formulaic theories and algorithms to the world of matter.

Another piece of irony (as I see it): I think a significant LACK of exploration and research into the areas of spiritualism/ paranormality may be the reason many science types remain closed-minded to the existence of one or more spiritual realities.

Your wife has put you on a special physics diet?!

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Semper000
I think I see what you're saying. You know, I notice that a lot --not all-- ppl in the scientific community seem to avoid philosophical issues/discussions. I find this ironic in the extreme, since most successful scientific pioneers operate/d on hunches/intuition first, on ideas not yet proven prior to applying their formulaic theories and algorithms to the world of matter.

Another piece of irony (as I see it): I think a significant LACK of exploration and research into the areas of spiritualism/ paranormality may be the reason many science types remain closed-minded to the existence of one or more spiritual realities.

Your wife has put you on a special physics diet?!

Yes, but like most physicists, he is incapable of sticking to this particular diet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, in fact Tsunami demands that I never use the words "integral" or "derivative" in the house.

Sorry Integral, nothing personal.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes, in fact Tsunami demands that I never use the words "integral" or "derivative" in the house.

Sorry Integral, nothing personal.

You have to understand that, for SO LONG, I sat and listened to Ivan and his friends studying, night after night, and all I ever heard was "The integral of (blah blah blah)" and "the derivative of (yada yada yada)" that pretty soon I was thinking of them as the 'I' word or the 'D' word. It's been long enough now that it's actually OK to use them in the house again. Especially if it's in reference to YOU, Integral! (PLEASE don't abuse the privilege, Ivan, dear. I still get to enjoy the daily physics or math lessons - whether I want them or not! )