That process invented by the media and our government and latched onto by its audience,
where the glorified defects are being portrayed ad nauseum are (seemingly by
default) regarded as the norm.
From there, the fear mongering
leads the gullible masses around like a lobotomized dog on a short
leash... To sleep in their own piss, eat whatever they are fed and fear the larger the larger than life defects they have been told to be scared of.
Basing a standard upon a defect is unhealthy. |
 |
Princeton, 3. 1. 1954
Dear Mr Gutkind,
Inspired by Brouwer’s repeated suggestion, I read a great deal in your book, and thank you very much for lending it to me ... With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common. Your personal ideal with its striving for freedom from ego-oriented desires, for making life beautiful and noble, with an emphasis on the purely human element ... unites us as having an “American Attitude.”
Still, without Brouwer’s suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision...
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e. in our evaluation of human behavior ... I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours,
A. Einstein
... Das Wort Gott ist für mich nichts als Ausdruck und Produkt menschlicher Schwächen, die Bibel eine Sammlung ehrwürdiger, aber doch reichlich primitiver Legenden. Keine noch so feinsinnige Auslegung kann (für mich) etwas daran ändern. Diese verfeinerten Auslegungen sind naturgemäß höchst mannigfaltig und haben so gut wie nichts mit dem Urtext zu schaffen. Für mich ist die unverfälschte jüdische Religion, wie alle anderen Religionen, eine Inkarnation des primitiven Aberglaubens. Und das jüdische Volk, zu dem ich gern gehöre und mit dessen Mentalität ich tief verwachsen bin, hat für mich doch keine andersartige Qualität als alle anderen Völker. So weit meine Erfahrung reicht, ist es auch um nichts besser als andere menschliche Gruppierungen, wenn es auch durch Mangel an Macht gegen die schlimmsten Auswüchse gesichert ist. Ansonsten kann ich nichts "Auserwähltes" an ihm wahrnehmen.
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expressionand product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish [German: primitiven] superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
Phrases by Stambaugh that do not appear in the German text are highlighted.
| Please critique this proposal... The ONLY way to change what happens in DC is to, on a state level put into State Law - Criteria that the elected officials the State sends to DC must continue to meet or else face immediate recall. Only 18 states have laws that allow recall of what they send to DC... There is no way to correct DC by attempting to address DC directly. | ||
| Criteria like these are just starters / suggestions: |
 | |
Upon failing to meet these requirements the office holder will be: Removed from office, and permanently bar the individual from running for, or holding any public office in that state, to work in any capacity that would effect directly any public office in that state, or its election process. If the person (no longer an elected official, having been removed from office) fails to abide by this law:
As I see it... This would need to be a nationwide agenda to get it on as many (each) states ballot... Because this type of accountability is only going to be effective if it is in place for greater than half of the states in the union. Such a measure in place for a minority of members, runs the risk of placing the state (through its representation) essentially flaccid and easily dismissed. If greater than half are serving under an accountability requirement, these members have a vested interest in leveling the playing field against any members who are NOT held to accountability. Please critique this proposal... Changing what we send to DC is the ONLY way to fix the damage that is being exacted in DC. Currently these state representatives are in no way held accountable and are only left to pander and misdirect a public that is not informed. This article subject to updates. changes and enhancements... I hope. Some comments on this so far: I still say total eliminate congress and thus the Republic and you've solved the problem. Let people introduce bills. Let the states introduce bills. Let the people, not monarchs vote on these bills. Special interests will no longer have control of anything. And that's what we need. Your system lays pretense that there is a fix for congress, which we all know there isn't. Who knows if it will fix anything... But to begin by putting limits in place with penalties that would remove the infringer from office and prevent them from interacting with state politics ever again... It is a start. The ONLY people who can effect what is already in place in DC is congress... ONLY Congress could eliminate congress... Congress would have to vote on such a concept... They wont... So that road is blocked. Same goes for revamping the process that puts in to law any initiative... ONLY congress can make that change... They wont allow power to slip from their grasp. They wont... So that road is blocked. Everything we as citizens want done in DC has to filter through congress... Congress has NO accountability. That's not to say that you are not on the right track or that I disagree... But before any such movement can be considered... The groundwork must be in place. The concepts that you point to are at best secondary or tertiary in the order of implementation. They are not diminished, they are just not possible without other things being in place. Thus, the concept of states enacting 'Accountability' laws that directly effect and control what the state sends to DC MUST be the first steps. Each State is responsible for, and in complete control of what it sends to DC. This concept seems so foreign! Why? The media seems inclined to make sure angst is aimed directly at DC... Because it has no effect, and status quo is easily maintained. The weed must be attacked at its roots There is no other way to regain control other than on an individual state-by-state basis. | ||
| The label 'Atheist' is one that its antithesis (Theism) depends on being misrepresented in order to help prevent such a simple concept (as 'Atheism) from making any sense in 'Theistic' circles, and so they can formulate some form of attack against atheists that will fit within their narrative. Responses to those mischaracterizations / lies (by atheists,) that work to correct the lie (such as pointing out the fact that they must lie for their reality to work for them), will ultimately have to pull the theist outside of their narrative... Attempting to pull the theist out side of that narrative almost always invokes ad hominem from the theist. Pointing out the ad hominem and the inherent hypocrisy and cruelty the theist has left themselves relying on, usually sends them scurrying... . |
|
The atheist rejects the claim that there is a supernatural entity or force that interacts with existence. Atheism makes no claims whatsoever. Atheism asserts nothing. That rejection is based on a lack of substantiation related to the claim. There is nothing that gives merit to the claim that there is a supernatural entity or force that interacts with existence. |
 |
Among other methods, theists NEED to insist that Atheists claim there is no god. In addition to adding confusion to the topic, these are attempts by Theists to put Atheists on the defensive. Another method employed by Theists is them insisting one is Atheist because the atheist "feels angry about religion" This is yet another typical tactic that is attempting to mischaracterize Atheism as an emotional response. Another concept to keep in mind when confronted by those who intend to mischaracterize the concept of 'Atheism': Atheism makes no claims and does not involve any belief whatsoever. It is not an argument per se, so it is not a philosophy... It is the non-acknowledgment / dismissal of a baseless presumption. That dismissal is based on a lack of substantiation related to the claim. There is nothing that gives merit to the claim that there is a supernatural entity or force that interacts with existence. One cannot DO 'Atheist'.. An Atheist is anyone who dismisses the claim made by theists that there is / are 'Supernatural Entity' etc.... 'Atheist' is not an action or a 'method'. It is a passive decision. Just as is deciding to not drink a glass of Habanero juice... (No, thank you) One IS an Atheist as the default setting upon dismissing a claim. One is A-Habanero as the default setting upon dismissing the beverage being offered. There is no belief as a criteria for this concept. That is not the same as anti-theistic methodologies or efforts... Many (but not all) Atheists are anti-theistic. ( see also: http://rich-laduca.blogspot.com/2015/01/7-seven.html ) Rather than (as an atheist) finding yourself being victimized by the agendas that must mischaracterize and spread ignorance as its main defense... I encourage you to (whenever possible) correct such misinformation, by reminding others what Atheism actually means.   |
|
