A Couple of Questions about Dogma for the Atheists

[Ringtone]

 

[ding]

Sometimes the Christians will ask atheists to offer an “atheistic replacement” for the Bible, and the most common answer seems to be “libraries.” I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that the order of the subjects, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, are erroneous to what would be more logical, or whatever it would be. My proof of this is that we are not inclined to memorize the general categories, and I have never heard of anybody complimenting their familiarity with the classification system(s) as enhancing their sense of knowledge - which is what a knowledge classification system should do.

The library is dependent on the classification system for people to distinguish the contents of the books; and again, when asked, many atheists will respond that the Bible should be classified as fiction. There are some very relevant issues this leads to, but I want to know why don’t we have a better knowledge classification system?

Do you believe in the Dewey, or Library of Congress classification systems??? Do you believe that they are reliable sources of information for understanding the demarcation of knowledge?

The next question is about the Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution?

It should not be that difficult to realize that the “checks and balances” do not work. If the checks and balances worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

Do you believe in the Constitution?

I believe there is no perfect system just like there are no perfect people. So the question isn't do I believe a system of checks and balances will always be perfect. Because that answer is that it won't as long as it relies on flawed human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. So the question then becomes is a system of checks and balances the best system for human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no. For those people they will eventually find that the only form of governance for them will be one of totalitarianism. But for those imperfect human beings who are willing to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, sure.

I hope this helped you make whatever end run argument you were trying to make.

 

[Lysistrata]

Fine, as far as it goes. By "men" I would take it that this means female humans as well as male humans. I would take it that these quotes apply to all persons. There are many religions. Do you have one specifically in mind?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I'm trying to figure out this thread. People who do not believe that a Supreme Being exists are not organized. Neither are those who simply don't know. Nobody knows another person's thoughts on the subject. But people all over the world do believe that there is a Supreme Being. When anyone challenges "atheists," I wonder whom they are talking to or about.

My introduction has nothing to do with that. I don't think there is anything about gods in my introduction.

The rest of this stuff about the Dewey decimal system is just too nutty to comprehend.

You cannot comprehend it because you wanted the discussion to be about belief in god, and I am asking about belief in the reliability of our social constructs that we use to organize subjects of knowledge and deliberation of issues.

You inadvertently proved that the classification of subjects matters and things can be misleading if the categorization does not contain what you expected.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Mandela refused to be photographed with President Obama because he knew that Obama was corrupt and would not deliver trust for Black people.

View attachment 476953

That is Senator Obama. notice the copyright year.

Check out all of the pictures of President Obama's family with Mandela

michelle obama mandela - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Do you believe in the Library Classification Systems?
Do you believe in the Constitution?

Do I think they are imaginary creatures like God?

No, I have seen both the Dewey Decimal System and the Constitution

You're playing a silly semantics game that you cannot maintain.

If I ask you if you believe in the Bible, are you going to go through the same runaround, not knowing what I am talking about?

 

[Gdjjr]

The justification that no constitution is perfect does not excuse the lack of pursuit for perfection. The proclamation only excuses the lack of understanding the inconvenient truth that the checks and balances do not work because the government is not properly organized.

I didn't and don't justify anything- I explained- there is a difference.
No set of rules is perfect. Period. The organization of the fed gov't is fine. The problem is the people holding office, and voters. The constitution provides and altruistic mission statement, so to speak- the office holders practice altruism which is subjective because it's seen through the prism of human personal desire vs the big picture. The big picture, to me is, quite simple- Liberty and justice for all- not just the well resourced.
The only problem I see with the constitution, is the lack of accountability for rule breakers. It's up to voters to do that- but, they are too busy, or ignorant, to do the job well and rely on liars (presstitutes) for information, which is sad, since history is available at our finger tips and provided evidence that the fed gov't is not abiding by the rules. The elected intentionally misinterpret everything which screws up everything it touches- we continue to thrive in spite of- sometimes to spite, rule breakers who write rules and don't abide by the rules written for them.
The population, as a whole, in general, is appeased because it can make rent and car payments and eat- I've asked, reasonably intelligent people, allegedly higher educated, why, the gov't borrows what it was granted authority to coin and set value on- I get a deer in the head lights look- they have no answer- that is an indication of appeased ignorance and carried out by shrugging of shoulders because rent was paid and car payments okay and they can eat when and usually what they want-

If you believe the organization is not good, how would you re-organize it? If you point out a problem and don't have a solution you're just a part of the problem- if indeed there is a problem.

 

[Gdjjr]

The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no

The spirit of, or the letter of, will work- what happens with us is, under the color of- that is why we are where we are- the law writers fail to publicly recognize the flaws in their laws- laws are supposed to punish for criminal activity. What we have are appeasements for campaign donors. Guess who gets favored?

The fed gov't has so many laws it's estimated every adult breaks at least 3 a day- so, every adult in the US is a criminal- that isn't the spirit intended- it's the color of law-

 

[$ecular#eckler]

No set of rules is perfect. Period. The organization of the fed gov't is fine. The problem is the people holding office, and voters. The constitution provides and altruistic mission statement, so to speak- the office holders practice altruism which is subjective because it's seen through the prism of human personal desire vs the big picture.

This is dogma - Constitutional dogma.

The only problem I see with the constitution, is the lack of accountability for rule breakers. It's up to voters to do that- but, they are too busy, or ignorant, to do the job well and rely on liars (presstitutes) for information, which is sad, since history is available at our finger tips and provided evidence that the fed gov't is not abiding by the rules. The elected intentionally misinterpret everything which screws up everything it touches- we continue to thrive in spite of- sometimes to spite, rule breakers who write rules and don't abide by the rules written for them.

This is because the checks and balances do not work, and you just won't allow yourself to see it, because you have been told by your third grade teacher that there are checks and balances, and you have no choice but to believe that they work, except when everybody is conspired to violate it.

The population, as a whole, in general, is appeased because it can make rent and car payments and eat- I've asked, reasonably intelligent people, allegedly higher educated, why, the gov't borrows what it was granted authority to coin and set value on- I get a deer in the head lights look- they have no answer- that is an indication of appeased ignorance and carried out by shrugging of shoulders because rent was paid and car payments okay and they can eat when and usually what they want-

And I am experiencing the same problem with you - why cant you see that the checks and balances do not work, and that it is probably because the separation of the government powers is not balanced because the separation is improperly constructed because the founders did not have all of the information necessary for a full government?

Somehow you have been lead to believe that the founders were well-informed geniuses, when there is plenty of evidence that they knew that they lacked the information needed to expand the government.

If you believe the organization is not good, how would you re-organize it? If you point out a problem and don't have a solution you're just a part of the problem- if indeed there is a problem.

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You could have just sent me a P.M.

 

[ding]

The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no

The spirit of, or the letter of, will work- what happens with us is, under the color of- that is why we are where we are- the law writers fail to publicly recognize the flaws in their laws- laws are supposed to punish for criminal activity. What we have are appeasements for campaign donors. Guess who gets favored?

The fed gov't has so many laws it's estimated every adult breaks at least 3 a day- so, every adult in the US is a criminal- that isn't the spirit intended- it's the color of law-

I always thought the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law was natural rights versus legal positivism, but what do I know, I'm just a donkey.

 

[ding]

checks and balances do not work

Checks and balances work better than no checks and balances.

 

[ding]

you have no choice but to believe that they work, except when everybody is conspired to violate it.

There's almost always a choice, but putting that aside...

I would think that not having to conspire to violate it would be an easier path than having to conspire to violate it, wouldn't you?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

you have no choice but to believe that they work, except when everybody is conspired to violate it.

There's almost always a choice, but putting that aside...

I would think that not having to conspire to violate it would be an easier path than having to conspire to violate it, wouldn't you?

I am the one who is claiming that they are following it, and that the checks and balances do not work.

You are the one suggesting that they are all conspired to not follow the rules.

 

[ding]

you have no choice but to believe that they work, except when everybody is conspired to violate it.

There's almost always a choice, but putting that aside...

I would think that not having to conspire to violate it would be an easier path than having to conspire to violate it, wouldn't you?

I am the one who is claiming that they are following it, and that the checks and balances do not work.

You are the one suggesting that they are all conspired to not follow the rules.

No. I am the one arguing that checks and balances are better than no checks and balances.

 

[Colin norris]

Sometimes the Christians will ask atheists to offer an “atheistic replacement” for the Bible, and the most common answer seems to be “libraries.” I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that the order of the subjects, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, are erroneous to what would be more logical, or whatever it would be. My proof of this is that we are not inclined to memorize the general categories, and I have never heard of anybody complimenting their familiarity with the classification system(s) as enhancing their sense of knowledge - which is what a knowledge classification system should do.

The library is dependent on the classification system for people to distinguish the contents of the books; and again, when asked, many atheists will respond that the Bible should be classified as fiction. There are some very relevant issues this leads to, but I want to know why don’t we have a better knowledge classification system?

Do you believe in the Dewey, or Library of Congress classification systems??? Do you believe that they are reliable sources of information for understanding the demarcation of knowledge?

The next question is about the Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution?

It should not be that difficult to realize that the “checks and balances” do not work. If the checks and balances worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

Do you believe in the Constitution?

You need to research the bible. Include when it was written and by whom. Then research them for their literary skills and then tell me it is true.
The only thing correct in it is the page numbers.

 

[otto105]

Sometimes the Christians will ask atheists to offer an “atheistic replacement” for the Bible, and the most common answer seems to be “libraries.” I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that the order of the subjects, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, are erroneous to what would be more logical, or whatever it would be. My proof of this is that we are not inclined to memorize the general categories, and I have never heard of anybody complimenting their familiarity with the classification system(s) as enhancing their sense of knowledge - which is what a knowledge classification system should do.

The library is dependent on the classification system for people to distinguish the contents of the books; and again, when asked, many atheists will respond that the Bible should be classified as fiction. There are some very relevant issues this leads to, but I want to know why don’t we have a better knowledge classification system?

Do you believe in the Dewey, or Library of Congress classification systems??? Do you believe that they are reliable sources of information for understanding the demarcation of knowledge?

The next question is about the Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution?

It should not be that difficult to realize that the “checks and balances” do not work. If the checks and balances worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

Do you believe in the Constitution?

I believe there is no perfect system just like there are no perfect people. So the question isn't do I believe a system of checks and balances will always be perfect. Because that answer is that it won't as long as it relies on flawed human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. So the question then becomes is a system of checks and balances the best system for human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no. For those people they will eventually find that the only form of governance for them will be one of totalitarianism. But for those imperfect human beings who are willing to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, sure.

I hope this helped you make whatever end run argument you were trying to make.

Have you tried to explain Norway's socialism to anyone yet?

 

[Colin norris]

Sometimes the Christians will ask atheists to offer an “atheistic replacement” for the Bible, and the most common answer seems to be “libraries.” I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that the order of the subjects, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, are erroneous to what would be more logical, or whatever it would be. My proof of this is that we are not inclined to memorize the general categories, and I have never heard of anybody complimenting their familiarity with the classification system(s) as enhancing their sense of knowledge - which is what a knowledge classification system should do.

The library is dependent on the classification system for people to distinguish the contents of the books; and again, when asked, many atheists will respond that the Bible should be classified as fiction. There are some very relevant issues this leads to, but I want to know why don’t we have a better knowledge classification system?

Do you believe in the Dewey, or Library of Congress classification systems??? Do you believe that they are reliable sources of information for understanding the demarcation of knowledge?

The next question is about the Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution?

It should not be that difficult to realize that the “checks and balances” do not work. If the checks and balances worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

Do you believe in the Constitution?

I believe there is no perfect system just like there are no perfect people. So the question isn't do I believe a system of checks and balances will always be perfect. Because that answer is that it won't as long as it relies on flawed human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. So the question then becomes is a system of checks and balances the best system for human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no. For those people they will eventually find that the only form of governance for them will be one of totalitarianism. But for those imperfect human beings who are willing to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, sure.

I hope this helped you make whatever end run argument you were trying to make.

Have you tried to explain Norway's socialism to anyone yet?

You've probably forgotten China is now the world's biggest economy. Coming from communist beginnings to that would reflect some positive attributes for socialism. I remind you every modern western society is build on the principle of socialism. That is, using taxpayers money to develop it.

 

[ding]

Sometimes the Christians will ask atheists to offer an “atheistic replacement” for the Bible, and the most common answer seems to be “libraries.” I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that the order of the subjects, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, are erroneous to what would be more logical, or whatever it would be. My proof of this is that we are not inclined to memorize the general categories, and I have never heard of anybody complimenting their familiarity with the classification system(s) as enhancing their sense of knowledge - which is what a knowledge classification system should do.

The library is dependent on the classification system for people to distinguish the contents of the books; and again, when asked, many atheists will respond that the Bible should be classified as fiction. There are some very relevant issues this leads to, but I want to know why don’t we have a better knowledge classification system?

Do you believe in the Dewey, or Library of Congress classification systems??? Do you believe that they are reliable sources of information for understanding the demarcation of knowledge?

The next question is about the Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution?

It should not be that difficult to realize that the “checks and balances” do not work. If the checks and balances worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

Do you believe in the Constitution?

I believe there is no perfect system just like there are no perfect people. So the question isn't do I believe a system of checks and balances will always be perfect. Because that answer is that it won't as long as it relies on flawed human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. So the question then becomes is a system of checks and balances the best system for human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no. For those people they will eventually find that the only form of governance for them will be one of totalitarianism. But for those imperfect human beings who are willing to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, sure.

I hope this helped you make whatever end run argument you were trying to make.

Have you tried to explain Norway's socialism to anyone yet?

Do you know anyone from Norway?

 

[otto105]

Sometimes the Christians will ask atheists to offer an “atheistic replacement” for the Bible, and the most common answer seems to be “libraries.” I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that the order of the subjects, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, are erroneous to what would be more logical, or whatever it would be. My proof of this is that we are not inclined to memorize the general categories, and I have never heard of anybody complimenting their familiarity with the classification system(s) as enhancing their sense of knowledge - which is what a knowledge classification system should do.

The library is dependent on the classification system for people to distinguish the contents of the books; and again, when asked, many atheists will respond that the Bible should be classified as fiction. There are some very relevant issues this leads to, but I want to know why don’t we have a better knowledge classification system?

Do you believe in the Dewey, or Library of Congress classification systems??? Do you believe that they are reliable sources of information for understanding the demarcation of knowledge?

The next question is about the Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution?

It should not be that difficult to realize that the “checks and balances” do not work. If the checks and balances worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

Do you believe in the Constitution?

I believe there is no perfect system just like there are no perfect people. So the question isn't do I believe a system of checks and balances will always be perfect. Because that answer is that it won't as long as it relies on flawed human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. So the question then becomes is a system of checks and balances the best system for human beings who are never free of imperfections of greed, pride and lust. The answer to that is it depends. If those imperfect human beings only follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law then the answer is no. For those people they will eventually find that the only form of governance for them will be one of totalitarianism. But for those imperfect human beings who are willing to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, sure.

I hope this helped you make whatever end run argument you were trying to make.

Have you tried to explain Norway's socialism to anyone yet?

Do you know anyone from Norway?

I do.