Andrew Rogers

Cool

Greetings friend, I have wrote a short essay on the question of God. If you have interest, I would be glad to hear any criticisms. Do I believe in God? To answer this question we will have to dissect both words 'believe' and 'God'. Usually by 'believe' we understand 'acting as if a given proposition is true, without it being scientifically proven or even with it being proven false or being unprovable at all'. A skeptic might argue - why should anybody act as if something is true, knowing that it has no facts to back it up? Here I would point him to the concept of a 'social construct' - a phenomena, when in order to better their lives, people act in such a way. One example - paper money. The piece of paper itself is worthless, but still people will gladly trade it for their goods and services, because they know, that other will do it, too. People might not believe in Santa Claus, yet they are happy to celebrate the New Year, gather around a freshly cut fir-tree and exchange presents. Or when a former British colony suddenly accepted the social construct of seeing themselves as a new, independent nation and fought hard to persuade the Brits also to see them as such. By the above I wanted to prove that often pretending that something is true, while it is not, might be beneficial. Next we should dissect 'God'. Is it Yahweh, the God of the Bible? Maybe it is Allah or any of the Hindu Gods? Or maybe just a vague notion that 'there is something above you' ? If there are numerous tribes slaughtering each other, it might be beneficial for someone to raise up and say - we are Christians, we don't act in such a way, we have to act with love and compassion. Of course, some rulers will take it a step further by adding - and Yahweh will send you for an eternity to hell if don't do as I tell you! Same with Allah, notion of which unites Muslims and gives them a sense of purpose, which, unfortunately, often it lays in slaughtering members of other social constructs. Moreover, I would argue that believing in God is, in general, no different, then believing in one's country - they both are social constructs, created to benefit their members. We could also look at people who do not believe in anything - cynics and nihilists. People usually find happiness in pursuing something they see as meaningful, be it patriotism, religion or secular humanism. A cynic does not see meaning in such things, therefor he does not pursue them and, when life's sufferings hit him, he quickly becomes bitter and resentful. As Nietzsche had put it - "if you have a why, you can bear almost any how" Therefor it seems that the most beneficial social construct might be the one that will give its members a shared sense of identity and meaning in life. As for me personally - I love to grapple with ideas, I love to look at them from different angles - therefor Christianity or any other dogmatic religion most certainly do not suit me. Yet philosophical movements might strike a cord in my sole. Stoicism with its concept of "amor fati" ( believing in your destiny ) , for example.

Does this map predict any future things unfolding or does it explain things that already have been unfolded?

So some guy 1500 years ago said that everything is predetermined and now you see it as some kinds of a great revelation?

Could you be a bit more specific on that? What knowledge and how did Muhammad give you?

If you read reports on reddit and other places, you might find a different picture, i.e. people becoming free of their fears after a trip.

No. It can expand my view on the world and myself in it. Yet it is hard to describe in words and certainly is beyond this topic.

You mean traveling, i.e. tripping?

Maybe you could be a bit more specific? What would traveling provide in this case? I.e. seeing that different cultures have very different 'Gods' shows that they are 'social constructs' ( in a good & useful way ), like languages, flags, currencies, etc. I know will write part 2 of the essay shortly, covering this topic.

Could you be more specific on that? Sounds like a leftist propaganda. Trump has brought back lots of jobs from overseas ( well, at the expense of raising the price of goods, but that's another story ).

Possible? I think it is inevitable. Democrats have driven themselves into a death-spiral, i.e. they make fools of themselves by proposing stupid policies, their rating drops, so they make even more stupid policies to attract voters, rating drop again and so it goes until they will have no viable voter base left. In 2016 lots of people really believed that Trump was a monster, that he will start new war or something, they now they realize, that they have been had by the democrats ( which makes them angry at the dems ) and they see that Trump is a reasonable guy - so they will vote for him this time.

Doesn't make sense. Be more specific.

And how do you think it happens then?

And where do you think it is getting the money for different subsidies? There are scientific theories, like evolution, which is based on reality and, therefor, is falsifiable ( for example, if human fossils would be found together with dinosaur fossils ). In your case - the 'sd theory' is just some arbitrary bullshit some guy came up with to prove his own preexisting believes in socialism. It certainly is not falsifiable, because for every argument you can reply with "you are just too ignorant and don't want to let go of your notions". I see it as either you are a strong healthy-individualist, who is able to take responsibility for his life and others around him, leading them by example. Or you are a wimpy liberal, who blames everybody else for all your problems. If you teach a 15 yo kid from the hood to take responsibility and to be strong - he will have a chance to make something out of himself. Take David Goggins for example. He came from a very, very bad background, but by taking responsibility he achieved greatness. On the other hand, if you teach that kid to be passive, to blame other people for his shortcomings, and explain his own failures with lack of some mysterious privilege - he would grow up to be a very bitter, resentful and impotent individual.

Sounds like a neo-Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Does it mean if someone has achieved something, then its because of his "privilege" and he can not give advice to other people??? wtf. such attitude leads to resentment and anger, rather then productive life. Usually in reality it is the other way around - one is overthinking his problems and can not see a solution. While a person who has already achieved the desired goal, can help by telling what one should do.

No you don't. Try to openly use psychedelics and see what happens. The criminal code is a pretty good measure. Murder, assault , rape, theft, robbery, larceny, arson, etc. is harm. All those "oh, I feel offended" is bullshit. Its kinda of a con-game - government creates hidden taxes to take money from the people unnoticeably, then gives part of it back flamboyantly.

But you understand that to play around with all those things, the government takes money from the people. And it is not know, maybe people would be able to fix their issues on their own with that money. Yet anyway, Netherlands certainly has the best government in the world, that's for sure. Not for the things it does, but for not sticking its nose into people lives. You know that I mean.

I don't see how it might correspond with reality. What is the need for government to engage in some sort of massively complex management systems? Are our needs more complex then in, say, Roman empire? I don't think so, plus we have modern technologies, which replace most of the bureaucrat.

That's because people created it. dollar notes are just representation of their creation.

Lol, if wealth is not created, where does it come from them? That's California over a 100 years ago - no wealth. How did the current wealth appear?

Yes, money can buy politicians, but in the same time politicians will attempt to buy votes by offering free ( i.e. stolen ) stuff to their voters. So it sucks both ways. A better solution - a limited government, where politicians can not bribe voters with stuff, nor they have any power to give privileges to corporations, so corporations won't have a need to buy them. It does seem like a linguistical manipulation. You are using the word 'redistribution' as if it is something arbitrary, like a CEO would suddenly decide to take all the profits to himself. Also wealth is not distributed - it is created. For example, a cook sells his time to the restaurant, which then sell a steak to a customer, who eats, paying with money that he got for doing something productive. So it is creation and exchange, not arbitrary distribution.

Well, being a clueless 15 yo kid in a bad hood, with opiate-injecting mother certainly does suck. No doubts about that. By the same token, giving a drug addict money usually leads to counterproductive results. Look at cities ran by socialists/democrats, like Chicago, Baltimore, San-Francisco, those are the ones with such rat-infested neighborhoods and hobos shitting on the street. While if such kid would live in rural Alabama, he might work as a farmhand or at a 7-11, listen to Jordan Peterson, clean his room, study, work out, get into college and build a reasonable career. I would assume the problem is in the culture, not money. If a poor kid is told that his poverty is someone else' fault and he can not do anything about it - he will stay aimless, poor and angry. If the culture tells his that his poverty is his own responsibility, that he has to pull himself by the bootstraps, well, at least he will have an aim to strive for.

No, this is more of a bullshit excuse just to take someone's money. Like a mugger would think that since his victim would part with the the content of his wallet anyway by buying something, then how is it worst if the mugger takes it? how so? It is not distribution - it is engaging is wealth creation and it is fair, because both parties voluntarily agree on the conditions.

I don't think that taking other people stuff is a good idea. even if you kinda 'legalize' it. better remove the minimal wage limitations and have the unemployed work.

Could you be more specific? If one is a part of a certain community, for example, the unemployed, he will vote to redistribute money to his community, i.e. to himself.