The Pope thinks he speaks for god. Trump thinks he is god. Sane people recognize a delusion when they see one.
Hitler was a nut case, but he told many people what they wanted to hear, so they voted him in... Donald is a nut case and is telling many people what they want to hear, so they might vote him in... Be afraid, be very afraid. I'm not saying Donald and Hitler are the same or equally dangerous, or even equally unpleasant. I am saying that you could easily end up with a nutter with his finger on the button.
As an agnostic I'd quite like there to be a God. Not for the good of my immortal soul necessarily (if I've got one) but because you can't beat a bit schadenfreude. :Smug:
This is probably a tangent, possibly orthogonal, but there are mostly anti-religious views on this thread and that got me thinking about belief and non-belief and here's what I've come up with. Belief in a god seems a very understandable thing to me because of the human need to believe in something that makes apparent sense out of the meaninglessness of existence. I don't have that belief. Throwing scientific argument at religion doesn't make a lot of sense to me because religion is a belief system, i.e. based on belief, not empirical data. If you think about it, not believing in the existence of god is also a belief system. In fact pretty much everything we think that we know is belief. That needs some explanation so here goes. Assuming that you believe you can prove the existence of anything, and if you read a little on phenomenology and existentialism then one of the first things that gets called into question is your own existence so you're on a shaky peg, but let's ignore that. So, if something exists but remains undiscovered then you can only know for sure it exists when it is discovered. Prior to its discovery some people may have believed in its existence and others not. Until it is discovered those that believe in its non-existence can argue lack of proof. Let's say it is never discovered but does exist. Does that make the believers or non-believers right? Well, it doesn't matter because it will never be discovered but there are two belief systems at work that are at odds with each other and both equally valid and will remain so up until the point of discovery which, in this case, never comes. Now, consider this - while you can sometimes discover things that exist and therefore prove their existence, you can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything because it may just not have been discovered yet and therefore proving it doesn't exist would take infinite time. So, not only is non-belief just another belief system, it is arguably less tenable than belief because it can never be proven. Throw quantum mechanics into the mix and the whole idea of empirical data goes out the window and suddenly all there is is belief. That's if you believe in quantum mechanics, of course. Sorry, just thought I'd throw that in. I need a lie down now.
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. So you lose. Apparently several media references comparing Trump to Hitler have already been cited by Mike Godwin himself.
"... there are two belief systems at work that are at odds with each other and both equally valid." Not so. Anyone can put forward a hypothetical or fictional postulate based on no evidence; anyone can put forward a thousand made-up postulates, as indeed many folk have done. Disbelieving in fictions or lies is not in any way equivalent to believing in them. They are not equally valid. As Chris Hitchens said, anything which can be advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Absolutely. Sadly I think it's also a good reason to delay the EU referendum - if Trump becomes president I would like to see us move closer to Europe and distance ourselves significantly from the USA (especially when ISIS inevitably turn their attention to there). If Bernie Sanders wins, leaving the EU (whilst not my choice) holds a little less fear as we would be able to hold a closer relationship with America. Trump is not just a danger to the USA, but a threat to the security of the entire world.
I was making a point about believe and what is actually known. To use your words, everything is a fiction until it's existence is proven. I'd also add that if the existence of something is not proven then saying it exists is not a lie. It's just an unproven statement. To make it a lie you'd have to prove it doesn't exist and, according to me at least, that is impossible. I don't think what I wrote is at odds with Hitchens and I don't see what Hitchens wrote has to do with what I wrote.
My monies on Hilary. There just aren't enough mad Americans to vote Trump in (fingers crossed). They are also bound to ban guns and adopt a sensible health service that's free at the point of delivery........ I've got to say that Obama is such a wise, cool headed man and makes the most brilliant speeches. The switch to Trump would be a very strange twist. Like Cameron to Corbyn.
i was expecting this, but there isn't any point to history unless you learn something from it. Voting nutters into power is not a wise thing to do, and Trump definitely falls into the nutter category. It's all very well making provocative statements to hog the headlines, but the guy clearly believes what he is postulating. You only have to look at what he is advocating to see that he is completely out to lunch - an egotistical maniac, possibly a psychopath in the sense of The Psychopath Test (cf Jon Ronson).
Well obviously, but being a psychopath is no disqualification from seeking political office. It's almost a prerequisite ...
An unproven statement is a hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with advancing any hypothesis you want, without evidence or reason. But if you claim that your unproven, unevidenced, unreasonable hypothesis is "true" - well, that is a lie. The essence of lying is to purport that something is true when it is not. Novelists create fictions, but do not claim that they are true. Scientists advance hypothetical ideas which await proof or disproof in due course. Religionists assert matters which are actually wholly fictional, but pretend they are true. And atheists distinguish between proven facts, creative fictions, and absurd lies.
I don't think that Obama is a psychopath, or Carter, or Roosevelt. Or Bush, come to that (although Cheney might well be). Or even Reagan. Trump is a different kettle of fish entirely. He's not just stupid; he's bonkers.
So all those bonkers voters, of whom there are plenty, want someone to represent them and seem to have found one. That's democracy.
is this a good or bad thing? i dont think i like this godwin;s law seems like a brush of to me, sooner or later any good discussion comes round to what we dont like or agree on. comparing someone to Hitler seems pretty valid to me, we all know what hid did. bit nobody can 100% sure why. you guys seem pretty keen on talking politics (where did all the craic go?) and i am to. but i will tell it from my point of view. you wont shut me up because i have put the comma in the wrong place or i have mentioned Scotland again. its where i live and ride ffs. like it, lump it, ignore it or ban it. your choice. i believe people can believe what they like, but what right do we have to take away someones comfort during there last moments? lets talk about boobies for a while. now will i have a cup of tea and think before i post? nah, feck it.
Well it is, but that doesn't mean that you just have to roll over. If 100% of the voters got their arses down to the polling booth and voted for the fucker, fair enough. But they won't. The apathetic will just saddle the world with an arsehole on the levers of power and we'll all have to suck it up. It's also interesting to speculate just why there are so many bonkers people in the US of A. Were there always, or has it been getting worse? And if it has been getting worse, why has it been getting worse? I'm quite intrigued about the answer to these questions.
Like the colourful mixed metaphors. In the USA, a significant part of the population are not citizens and have no vote. Of those who are citizens, a large proportion are not registered voters (since voter registration is not obligatory, unlike UK). Of registered voters, a large proportion do not turn out on election day. Of those who do actually vote, a percentage are fanatics, bigots, and/or bonkers. And even if a majority of votes nationwide are cast for candidate X (let's call him "Gore"), the declared result might go the other way. Again, this is democracy, or what passes for democracy in America.
