Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

My Post # 110: "Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position" (Dilip's # 106, # 109 & # 112); not answered; position just repeated by Dilip.

Pargat has weighed in on this debate about Trump; any other CT'ers have a position?

Bob A (Theist Community)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

I am a theist.

I have many friends who are atheist.

None of them have ever indicated to me public prejudice by being quite open about their atheism, when someone has inquired. And my friends have been open like this. Neither has it affected any of their careers.

There is more tolerance in society generally, across the world, concerning whether someone is Theist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish, agnostic or atheist (Though unfortunately, such prejudice does exist, and more strongly in some localities than others.)

If this is true, then I find it hard to believe that "politicians" (Such as Donald Trump) are an "exception" to the general rule that there is tolerance.

I do not believe that in this day, a politician must "hide" their atheism behind a false facade of "Christianity" (As you agree that Trump is in fact doing) in order to be a successful politician. Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position.

Bob A (Theist Community - I personally have not suffered in any way by being open about the fact that I moved from Christianity to Theism)

Hi Bob,
In the USA, there is separation of State from Religion, and a general understanding that a person's religion should have no bearing on his functioning as a Statesman; and yet, you know very well that Trump will get totally, unfairly dumped if he ever declares that he is an atheist. So despite you trying to defend it, your conclusion is just not true, and you should know it...

[Pargat Perrer]

The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.

Do you Dilip have a $ figure for the damages owed to humanity by all the burning of fossil fuels since industrialization? And who exactly owes these damages?

It really seems that Libertarianism, if it ever came to power in Canada or USA, must necessarily (by its Natural Law edicts) hunt down and prosecute all fossil fuel producers as well as all companies who have benefitted by burning of fossil fuels. The logistics of that process stagger the imagination.

But of course none of this will ever happen. Libertarianism coming to power? LOL LOL LOL

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I am a theist.

I have many friends who are atheist.

None of them have ever indicated to me public prejudice by being quite open about their atheism, when someone has inquired. And my friends have been open like this. Neither has it affected any of their careers.

There is more tolerance in society generally, across the world, concerning whether someone is Theist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish, agnostic or atheist (Though unfortunately, such prejudice does exist, and more strongly in some localities than others.)

If this is true, then I find it hard to believe that "politicians" (Such as Donald Trump) are an "exception" to the general rule that there is tolerance.

I do not believe that in this day, a politician must "hide" their atheism behind a false facade of "Christianity" (As you agree that Trump is in fact doing) in order to be a successful politician. Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position.

Bob A (Theist Community - I personally have not suffered in any way by being open about the fact that I moved from Christianity to Theism)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Anyone expressing his or her opinion is NOT deplorable. That you would say it is deplorable hints at your true nature, i.e. no opinions should be allowed in the police state of Libertarianism.

This is perfectly in keeping with your track record, calling anyone who isn't "hard-working" elite is good for nothing.

Calling it deplorable is not the same as preventing Bob A from expressing his deplorable opinion, as he does in post # 108. Libertarianism never forcibly prevents anyone from expressing their opinion. In our society, just like LGBTQ persons have had to hide their true nature, not for evil purposes, but to avoid illegitimate harm to themselves by people out to wipe out what they consider, without any justification, as harmful to society, so have atheist politicians had to do the same.

[Bob Armstrong]

One should not, for evil purposes, hide one's atheism behind a "Christian" front.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

In Libertarianism, individuals/groups would be free to practice spirituality or a religion of their choice, of course... in keeping with individual liberty...
On the other hand, when Bob A implies that Trump is bad because he is atheist or because he hides that he is atheist, it is as deplorable as someone saying that an LGBTQ person is bad because he/she is so or because he/she is hiding that he/she is so...

Anyone expressing his or her opinion is NOT deplorable. That you would say it is deplorable hints at your true nature, i.e. no opinions should be allowed in the police state of Libertarianism.

This is perfectly in keeping with your track record, calling anyone who isn't "hard-working" elite is good for nothing.

[Dilip Panjwani]

This denies the key aspect of every human soul ... the need for spiritual sustenance. Even in places like China and Russia, you see underground spiritual related activities, probably going on far more than reported.

In Libertarianism, individuals/groups would be free to practice spirituality or a religion of their choice, of course... in keeping with individual liberty...
On the other hand, when Bob A implies that Trump is bad because he is atheist or because he hides that he is atheist, it is as deplorable as someone saying that an LGBTQ person is bad because he/she is so or because he/she is hiding that he/she is so...

[Dilip Panjwani]

By definition ... we have already proven that Libertarianism's Natural Law must be against all burning of fossil fuels, because the definition of "fair" has been provided in this very thread by Dilip as not using any means to cause harm to others .... fossil fuels cause harm to others, there is no debate about that. Therefore Libertarianism must legislate against use of fossil fuels.

The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

What Dilip fails to understand is that taxes are NOT theft if you get something back. Such as infrastructure, good mental health for all citizens, housing support ... these are all things that even entrepreneurs want to see, because it keeps the consumer willing to buy the entrepreneur's goods and services. Such fundamental thinking escapes Dilip, so that Dilip cannot explain why the richest billionaires want to be TAXED MORE!

Almost all of the taxation is a form of legal theft; even when politicians use it for infrastructure, etc., it costs the taxpayers enormously more than it would, had it been left to competing entrepreneurs and the 'circles within circles' system of Libertarianism, and wherein those who use the infrastructure more would end up paying for it more also . The recent ArriveCAN fiasco is just one example of such theft...
The falsehood of some billionaires wanting to be taxed more (while actually ending up paying less taxes), was previously explained in this video I had posted on chesstalk:
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/mone...9R?t=7#details

[Pargat Perrer]

Despite realizing that 'Society must remain moral/ethical or it is doomed to chaos', Bob A is a die-hard fan of Marxism, which is neither moral nor ethical (as it glorifies legal theft and suppresses individual liberty),

What Dilip fails to understand is that taxes are NOT theft if you get something back. Such as infrastructure, good mental health for all citizens, housing support ... these are all things that even entrepreneurs want to see, because it keeps the consumer willing to buy the entrepreneur's goods and services. Such fundamental thinking escapes Dilip, so that Dilip cannot explain why the richest billionaires want to be TAXED MORE!

and he is no fan of the Natural Law & Libertarianism, which, by definition, are the most moral and ethical law and system one can have!!

By definition ... we have already proven that Libertarianism's Natural Law must be against all burning of fossil fuels, because the definition of "fair" has been provided in this very thread by Dilip as not using any means to cause harm to others .... fossil fuels cause harm to others, there is no debate about that. Therefore Libertarianism must legislate against use of fossil fuels.

He also fails to understand that the underpinning of atheism is faith in morality, ethics and science as being enough to lead to a well-functioning society...

This denies the key aspect of every human soul ... the need for spiritual sustenance. Even in places like China and Russia, you see underground spiritual related activities, probably going on far more than reported.

A 100% atheistic society, devoid of any spiritual activity, would be a machine. Everyone in the machine would be a mechanical part, with no feeling, no morality, no ethics. And the very teaching of these values ... in only science, only technology, only enterprise, in man as lone ruler of the Universe ... is a form of religion, in effect a cult, with man as the Godhead. There will always be those who believe in this ... and their souls are empty, devoid of any humanity.

This is why Dilip can talk down his nose that those who are needing support of the government to live because of circumstances beyond their control. They are lumped into one parcel by Dilip and his kind: characterized as lazy, good-for-nothing, couch potatoes, useless eaters.

The quest of the man-led machine? Immortality, even if it takes the form of your "soul" being digitally downloaded into a non-organic robot. Somehow they think this would be a means to "live forever" in this universe.

EDIT: I think Star Trek The Next Generation covered this with their conception of The Borg. ??? "You will be assimilated!"

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob A (Society must remain moral/ethical or it is doomed to chaos)

Despite realizing that 'Society must remain moral/ethical or it is doomed to chaos', Bob A is a die-hard fan of Marxism, which is neither moral nor ethical (as it glorifies legal theft and suppresses individual liberty), and he is no fan of the Natural Law & Libertarianism, which, by definition, are the most moral and ethical law and system one can have!! He also fails to understand that the underpinning of atheism is faith in morality, ethics and science as being enough to lead to a well-functioning society...

[Bob Armstrong]

It is in my view a societal contribution to post that someone who is running for President of the USA is immoral (Since he CLAIMS to be a Christian). In my view, he USES religion, and is an atheist (Thus he is both amoral and unethical).



Nonetheless, USA without a moral/ethical compass may well elect their Charlatan President (Which also seems to be your wish that they do).

I find Libertarianism without a moral/ethical compass too, if its vaunted "Natural Law" sees no ethical/moral problem here, despite 4 very different criminal cases, and 2 civil court cases (One of which has already found that he has committed the tort of defamation and ordered that he pay a woman a large damages judgment.

Bob A (Society must remain moral/ethical or it is doomed to chaos)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Life & Priorities



Here are my 5 "Life Priorities" :


1. God/Spirituality
2. Family
3. Friends
4. Societal Contribution (In addition to through the above)
5. Hobbies, Entertainment, Private Time


Bob A (Theist Community)

To which of these categories do your posts on Trump belong? Your tone in those posts is too serious, and only repetitive of widely known news, to fall under 'Entertainment'...
I wonder why does it thrill you so much when a guy is fined half a billion dollars for simply showing his bankers that he is a crazily self-glorifying businessman (which would be their obvious conclusion upon due diligence, which he also recommended them to do), and even if his bankers would have not done done their obvious job of checking out the facts as they defined them, his actions could only have benefitted the bankers, himself and the New York economy, while harming no one?
Just makes one wonder whether there is another high-ranking 'life priority' of yours, which you have not listed above!

[Bob Armstrong]

Life & Priorities


We all have to put some order into our lives.


Here are my 5 "Life Priorities" :


1. God/Spirituality
2. Family
3. Friends
4. Societal Contribution (In addition to through the above)
5. Hobbies, Entertainment, Private Time


How does this look to you?
Would you need to revise this list for your life? If so, what does it look like?
Any other comments from the CT'er crowd?

Bob A (Theist Community)

P.S. The conversation on the human brain, artificial intelligence, and consciousness has been most enlightening. The apparent consequences of "Determinism", and the jettisoning of "Free Will", are, of course, very problematic for theists of any kind.