95% of Humans are Spiritual

[PostmodernProphet]

No, of course I didnt think it travelled at a different speed. I was content not to know.
One difference between believers of religion and those for whom it has no significance in their own lives, is that the latter are quite content not to know and content to continue to ask, whereas those who carry with them the arrogance of believing they are somehow special are not content not to know and so invent a comfort faith. It has been thus since the beginning of man. I have no problem with that. I choose not to be sucked into that particular falsity.
I didnt phrase that as well as I might have done but its getting late.

except that in the case of atheists, they aren't content not to know.....they insist that it "isn't"......

 

[apple0154]

Excuse me, you are misrepresenting my beliefs. It is not okay in Buddhism to "do what feels good" even if you really really want it to be so. Forcing others to do "good" through government is not necessarily a moral path either, think "keep marriage sanctified" type of government forcing people to be "not sinful" and you may get the idea.

That somebody doesn't agree that government largesse is the best way to handle a medical cost issue doesn't make them more or less moral than somebody who thinks that the government should be used to make people do what is "holy" by helping others. And that person who thinks that others can be forced to do the "right thing" through government programs is no better than the person who thinks that the government should be used to keep their marriage sanctified.

All this ignores the fact that corrupt government creates corrupt institutions, and we can be sure that one place we don't need more corruption is in health care, yet it will be the inevitable result.

It has little to do with government. There are people who feel it is not their concern if one has proper medical coverage or not. They are not happy about assisting those less fortunate, be it voluntary or through government coercion. They are doing what they want, what feels good to them.

"But when you know for yourselves – these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise,..."

They have "wise" men telling them they should not spend their money. They have leaders, people in powerful positions telling them they have no moral obligation to help others. They definitely don't lack followers or people who believe the same.

This is not an attack on your belief. This is an interpretation of what was posted. People can believe many things and find others who agree with them and live their life happily ever after.

As for corrupt governments running corrupt institutions we come back to the fact dozens of countries have government medical plans which the majority of all citizens support. I think it's reasonable to conclude government corruption, if any, is preferable to individual corruption.

 

[apple0154]

I think you are also misrepresenting why people oppose universal healthcare. I agree that there are some who can't think higher than 'I gotta pay for it', but there are a lot more variables to this equation than just money. I personally will not support our government to take on any new roles until they have learned to clean up the corruption inside our government. It is easily identifiable that our government has lost the 'for the people' idea long ago. You put more power into their hands where their decisions on how things are run, and it's just one more aspect of your life that gets controlled by what the rich decide is best for themselves. Once we have universal healthcare, I guarantee you the big drug corps and medical lobbyists will control the final outcome of the bill. They are not going to lobby for the best interest of us, they are going to lobby for the best interest of themselves. Politicians will not allow a bill to go through without the backing of these people, they provide funding for their campaigns. This is why I will oppose the idea of universal healthcare, because our government can't clean up its act.

Considering no country with a government run plan has ever reverted to the old system it appears you feel the US government is more corrupt than any of the governments previously or currently running such plans.

 

[Damocles]

It has little to do with government. There are people who feel it is not their concern if one has proper medical coverage or not. They are not happy about assisting those less fortunate, be it voluntary or through government coercion. They are doing what they want, what feels good to them.

And they are not Buddhists and still I would say forcing them to "not sin" through government is not the answer. If this is why you think we should have government health care then you do it for a bad reason. You cannot force people to follow your religion through laws and then call them "holy".

"But when you know for yourselves – these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise,..."

They have "wise" men telling them they should not spend their money. They have leaders, people in powerful positions telling them they have no moral obligation to help others. They definitely don't lack followers or people who believe the same.

You are making rubbish up again because you almost completely lack understanding of the philosophy. You found one sentence you thought said, "Do as you will!" and decided it was cool to pretend you knew something. When you are shown to be wrong you attempt to spin the religion of billions into foolishness.

Please quit it.

This is not an attack on your belief. This is an interpretation of what was posted. People can believe many things and find others who agree with them and live their life happily ever after.

And it is a poor interpretation indeed. The support of political beliefs through religion is a mess, thankfully Buddhism tells us to keep them apart.

As for corrupt governments running corrupt institutions we come back to the fact dozens of countries have government medical plans which the majority of all citizens support. I think it's reasonable to conclude government corruption, if any, is preferable to individual corruption.

I don't believe so, we've been over and over your generalization and it was found lacking. Repeating it doesn't make it any more right.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think all moral systems are based, to some degree, on some sort of natural feeling our body gives us. This isn't the most precise system in the world, but it does largely hold true.

When the Romans killed gladiators, they felt it was OK because they weren't part of their "in" group. When the Jews wrote "thou shalt not kill", they meant thou shalt not kill JEWS. In the modern world we mostly get over this (and in doing so get rid of arbitrary war and the death penalty) by considering all humans at least somewhat part of our in-group.

Hitler got as evil as he was by reverting back to a sense of in-group morality that hadn't been seen since the middle ages. He wasn't the most evil person in history, I just think he had modern technology on his side. God knows what the psychopathic lunatic Genghis Khan would have done with modern technology.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Communists, who were supposed to be a united brotherhood of man, became evil by arbitrarily labeling people "enemies of the proletariat", and after that point anything was fair game.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I think all moral systems are based, to some degree, on some sort of natural feeling our body gives us.

i.e. empathy. We are self aware and thus are able to also sense the suffering and feelings of others. If a child cries, we get sad too. If someone is happy, we become happy. We are social animals and extremely aware of our environment and thus this results in us all playing off each other in a way that no other creature does.

 

[DigitalDave]

Considering no country with a government run plan has ever reverted to the old system it appears you feel the US government is more corrupt than any of the governments previously or currently running such plans.

I would say some are on par, but just because they have it under a corrupt system doesn't mean I should have to agree with it.

Just imagine how far along we would be if the dollar held it's value over time. How much of our savings is wiped out over the course of our lives to the Consumer Price Index. How valuable will your retirement savings be when every dollar you put in isn't even worth 50% of what it was when you put it aside. You can thank corruption of our monetary system for that with the creation of a central bank by the richest of our country. The corruption is still apparent today with this latest recession. Of course, government entities and specific bankers are the saviours, while dumbasses who can't pay their mortgages and other bankers take the blame. It is the homeowner and the smaller banks who bacame victim to a much larger bank, holding $80-$90 Trillion in derivatives. Of course, our central bank couldn't let the bank that was key in creating it, go under. Let's save them by giving them Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Washington Mutual. They had to create a global recession to do it, but they succeeded, and your dollar is worth a lot less now for it. Want to talk corruption? Wish healthcare costs stayed stable? Now you know they can't be, nor will ever be, with a corrupt government.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Considering no country with a government run plan has ever reverted to the old system it appears you feel the US government is more corrupt than any of the governments previously or currently running such plans.

Or it may just have to do with the FACT that most people won't give anything back, that was FREE.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

damo shut up about buddhism, nobody cares

 

[DigitalDave]

damo shut up about buddhism, nobody cares

Seems like all I had to do was say I had a respect for Buddhism and had many interested readers. So you fail!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Science is true. It is a word. I can see it, you can see it, I can reproduce it as can you. Of course it is true. The workings of science, which I assume you meant, start by questioning what might be the truth. It is that questioning which has given you everything you value. Your freedom, your government, your cars, your planes, yes... even your guns. god has never, as far as I am aware, invented anything. Belief in a god, whether it be yours of Ali Baba's has never done anything positive to progress man from Ardi (or Lucy if you wish) to Hawking.
Dixie, don't try to be too smart. It doesn't suit you.

Aww.. too bad, I am already smart... don't know how to go back to dumb again, maybe I could become a democrat liberal?

Science (the workings) is neither true or false. Science does not make determination, science does not draw conclusions, science doesn't even establish things as factual. Science suggests probabilities pertaining to the physical world. It is MAN who makes determinations, draws conclusions, and established things as fact based on science.

You have concluded that God has never done anything positive to progress man, but this is because you assume God didn't create science! You have no proof or evidence to support that assumption, it is solely based on your faith. Oh yes, you do have faith! Surprise!!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Aww.. too bad, I am already smart... don't know how to go back to dumb again, maybe I could become a democrat liberal?

Science (the workings) is neither true or false. Science does not make determination, science does not draw conclusions, science doesn't even establish things as factual. Science suggests probabilities pertaining to the physical world. It is MAN who makes determinations, draws conclusions, and established things as fact based on science.

You have concluded that God has never done anything positive to progress man, but this is because you assume God didn't create science! You have no proof or evidence to support that assumption, it is solely based on your faith. Oh yes, you do have faith! Surprise!!

Don't sell yourself short ditzie....

"So we can assume the value of 1 in base 10, is actually 1.2 in base 12. Now, 1.2 can be divided evenly by 3."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If 95% believe in some sort of spirituality, it is because the overwhelming majority of human beings use spirituality to defend against death and death anxiety.

I am a Deist and an existentialist. Truth is pragmatic and there is no inherent meaning in the world, in the sense that each person should ultimately discover the same truth/meaning as a universal syllogism.

That said, each person throughout their entire life, is working to construct meaning and order of the sensory information they encounter, ie their experiences. I think that it is fair to say that most human beings incorporate some sort of spiritual ethos into their worldview, into their construction of meaning. This is primarily in response to the human capacity of futurity - the ability to understand that we all know we will one day cease to exist.

In this sense, I would tend to agree with Dixie, that humans are innately spiritual beings. We are spiritual beings because we are all aware of our own death, and simultaneously desire to reduce the anxiety that this knowledge brings. The self-denial quality Dixie speaks of is actually inextricably linked to why so many include spirituality or religiosity in their worldview - not just for those who reject spirituality. Even the non-believers defend against death, too. They just use different conceptualizations and anxiety defenses against death than do the spirtualists. In effect, both views are similar.

I have heard others make a similar point before, that human spirituality is merely man's way of dealing with the unknown and death. The idea makes sense to me, I understand where someone may arrive at this conclusion, but we must examine it further because some things remain unexplained. When we really begin to examine man's faith, we see that faith is much more than a pacifier, it is often the source of immeasurable strength, both of character and sometimes even physical. How many times have you seen a human achieve some feat of greatness, only to give all the credit to God? There seems to be no doubt in their mind, it would have been impossible without God. So, aside from spirituality being some form of anxiety pacifier, it is also the source of amazing personal strength.

Then there are the miracles. I know many simply attribute miracles to coincidence, but I have personally witnessed one firsthand. A 52-year-old man was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, it had metastasized to the point his doctors didn't even recommend chemotherapy. They gave him 9 months to live at best. His church congregation began a prayer vigil, hundreds if not thousands of people were praying constantly... a year later, the doctors were stunned to find no traces of cancer in his body! That was 20 years ago, the man just celebrated his 72nd birthday. Science can offer no explanation for this, by all accounts, the man should have been dead. Now what is really amazing is, this is not the only time something like this has happened, there are literally thousands of these 'miracles' documented, they happen all the time.

Finally, there is one glaring point that seems to escape everyone on the other side of this debate. From the beginning, man has had a profound spiritual connection, a unique characteristic among living creatures, nothing else has spiritual belief except man. One other thing that humans possess, which isn't found in any other species of life, humanity. Is it coincidence that humans are the only animals that are spiritual, and also the only animals capable of humanity? Could there be a profound connection between mankind's unique spirituality and humanitarianism? Could it be, that human spirituality is what enables us to be humanitarian? Certainly the fact that both of these unique attributes exist in man alone, is worth consideration.

 

[apple0154]

Just imagine how far along we would be if the dollar held it's value over time.

Just imagine how unjust our world would be if that was the case. Once a person made a certain amount of money they would never work again. Prices would never rise. Wages would stay the same. Older people wouldn't be available to train younger people.

Then we have interest rates to consider. If people were not compelled to invest their money, "to spread it around", our society would stagnate.

Where would the credit come from? One family that acquired riches would simply pass it along to their children while no doubt voting against succession taxes. The American Dream would be an American Nightmare. That is how the Feudal systems operated.

I agree the banks shouldn't have been bailed out. Actually, there shouldn't be a Federal Reserve. The government should have full control of the money.

You wrote, "Want to talk corruption? Wish healthcare costs stayed stable? Now you know they can't be, nor will ever be, with a corrupt government."

Again, we come back to the fact that almost every country with a government health care plan spends less per capita than the US. Are we to assume the US government is the most corrupt of all those countries?

I would say some are on par, but just because they have it under a corrupt system doesn't mean I should have to agree with it.

Just imagine how far along we would be if the dollar held it's value over time. How much of our savings is wiped out over the course of our lives to the Consumer Price Index. How valuable will your retirement savings be when every dollar you put in isn't even worth 50% of what it was when you put it aside. You can thank corruption of our monetary system for that with the creation of a central bank by the richest of our country. The corruption is still apparent today with this latest recession. Of course, government entities and specific bankers are the saviours, while dumbasses who can't pay their mortgages and other bankers take the blame. It is the homeowner and the smaller banks who bacame victim to a much larger bank, holding $80-$90 Trillion in derivatives. Of course, our central bank couldn't let the bank that was key in creating it, go under. Let's save them by giving them Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Washington Mutual. They had to create a global recession to do it, but they succeeded, and your dollar is worth a lot less now for it. Want to talk corruption? Wish healthcare costs stayed stable? Now you know they can't be, nor will ever be, with a corrupt government.

 

[apple0154]

Apple0154 wrote, "As for corrupt governments running corrupt institutions we come back to the fact dozens of countries have government medical plans which the majority of all citizens support. I think it's reasonable to conclude government corruption, if any, is preferable to individual corruption." to which Damocles responded:

I don't believe so, we've been over and over your generalization and it was found lacking. Repeating it doesn't make it any more right.

Then show one country that reverted to the old system? It is you and others who throws out generalizations. Everything from governments having some devious plan to the population not being able to change their current universal system.

The fact is the populations of those countries do not want their system dismantled. There is not a political movement in any of those countries to dismantle their plan. Not one country.

There is nothing in the world to support the views of people who are against a national system. Absolutely nothing. Be it rich or poor countries, capitalist or communist or socialist, large or small.....every country on the face of the earth that switched to a government run system has never switched back and while they have made adjustments not one country is even considering switching back to a "pay or suffer" system.

Those are not generalizations. Those are the facts. There is nothing to support opponent's arguments to the contrary except outright greed or ignorance.

The only people who say the US government can not implement and run a universal plan are those who do not want one. There are no statistics anywhere in the world to support such a view. Nowhere in the entire world.

To hear people say how great America is and how special Americans are while at the same time spouting "Oh, we can't do that. That will never work" is sheer lunacy.

It works. It has worked everywhere it has been implemented. That's a fact. There is absolutely nothing to back up opponent's arguments.

As for the rest of your post there's little point in discussing religion when you argue against something as obvious as government medical which has been proven world-wide.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And they are not Buddhists and still I would say forcing them to "not sin" through government is not the answer. If this is why you think we should have government health care then you do it for a bad reason. You cannot force people to follow your religion through laws and then call them "holy".



You are making rubbish up again because you almost completely lack understanding of the philosophy. You found one sentence you thought said, "Do as you will!" and decided it was cool to pretend you knew something. When you are shown to be wrong you attempt to spin the religion of billions into foolishness.

Please quit it.



And it is a poor interpretation indeed. The support of political beliefs through religion is a mess, thankfully Buddhism tells us to keep them apart.


I don't believe so, we've been over and over your generalization and it was found lacking. Repeating it doesn't make it any more right.

 

[Lowaicue]

except that in the case of atheists, they aren't content not to know.....they insist that it "isn't"......

some might say that atheism is simply a substitute for religion. Indeed, I once joined a humanist group and found the same.

 

[Damocles]

Apple0154 wrote, "As for corrupt governments running corrupt institutions we come back to the fact dozens of countries have government medical plans which the majority of all citizens support. I think it's reasonable to conclude government corruption, if any, is preferable to individual corruption." to which Damocles responded:



Then show one country that reverted to the old system? It is you and others who throws out generalizations. Everything from governments having some devious plan to the population not being able to change their current universal system.

The fact is the populations of those countries do not want their system dismantled. There is not a political movement in any of those countries to dismantle their plan. Not one country.

There is nothing in the world to support the views of people who are against a national system. Absolutely nothing. Be it rich or poor countries, capitalist or communist or socialist, large or small.....every country on the face of the earth that switched to a government run system has never switched back and while they have made adjustments not one country is even considering switching back to a "pay or suffer" system.

Those are not generalizations. Those are the facts. There is nothing to support opponent's arguments to the contrary except outright greed or ignorance.

The only people who say the US government can not implement and run a universal plan are those who do not want one. There are no statistics anywhere in the world to support such a view. Nowhere in the entire world.

To hear people say how great America is and how special Americans are while at the same time spouting "Oh, we can't do that. That will never work" is sheer lunacy.

It works. It has worked everywhere it has been implemented. That's a fact. There is absolutely nothing to back up opponent's arguments.

As for the rest of your post there's little point in discussing religion when you argue against something as obvious as government medical which has been proven world-wide.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The straw man fallacy is your forte.

That is the silly generalization that I was talking about. The very foundation of your question assumes something that is false.

You assume incorrectly that people are against doing something about the problem at all and then continues to assume incorrectly from there.

Why do so many of those systems begin to fail and then return to private health care (even in places where such private practice is actually illegal like Canada)?

 

[apple0154]

The straw man fallacy is your forte.

That is the silly generalization that I was talking about. The very foundation of your question assumes something that is false.

You assume incorrectly that people are against doing something about the problem at all and then continues to assume incorrectly from there.

The problem, in a nutshell, is the politicians are in the pockets of the medical profession and drug companies. They "can't" vote for a universal plan so their only option is to bad-mouth it hoping people will believe that's why they're not voting for it.

So, as the country tries to move towards such a universal plan while navigating an obstacle course the opponents attack the convoluted path which is a direct result of the obstacles they set up.

Every country has faced a problem with a "pay or suffer" system. The universal solution was a universal plan with slight adjustments. For example, France has doctors making house calls while in Canada one has to go to the doctor. Because Canada is 16 times the land size of France with half the population it's not feasible for doctors to make house calls. Both countries simply adjusted their plans.

Why do so many of those systems begin to fail and then return to private health care (even in places where such private practice is actually illegal like Canada)?

The system does not fail. Part of the problem is people's expectations change. It's the same as a public highway. There is going to be traffic but people can travel for free. Then a conglomerate decides to build a highway with toll stations because people are generally wealthier and can support such a highway. However, there are still people who can not afford to pay tolls.

Some people are wealthier so they can afford private doctors/clinics in Canada. They are slowly being given a choice as long as they don't start trying to dismantle the free system by crying about paying taxes and then having to pay for a doctor. They don't have to pay. If they want to, fine, but that does not relieve them of their social responsibility to contribute to government medical. That's the problem with initiating private practices.

The average blood workup is about $125.00 in a private clinic. 15 minutes, in and out. The cost at a government clinic is zero. Probably one hour plus, in and out. Considering the tax rate one would have to earn close to $175.00/hr to break even assuming they'd lose an hours pay by going to a government clinic. Are we supposed to have understanding for someone who willingly pays $125.00 because they can't/won't wait an hour and then complains about paying taxes towards ensuring others can get a blood test?

Canadian universal medical has been in force since 1966. That's 43 years. That's a long time for something to be falling apart. If one does a little research they'll see provincial governments cut back funding during the 90s. The plan operates by the Federal Government giving the provinces money while the provinces allocate the funds to what they deem necessary while ensuring a basic standard.

The problem is the money given for medical is coupled with other monies from the Federal Government so the exact amount to be spent on medical is not specified. If a province receives one dollar towards providing a service and can offer that service for 75 cents the province can spend the remaining 25 cents on something else. Guess what happens.

When people complain the province blames the Feds for not sending enough money. When the Feds demand an accounting the province tells them medical is provincially run and they do not have the right to interfere. When it reaches a certain point the Feds stop the money. Then the province adjusts their services to Federal standards and the money resumes.

So, the short of it is the provincial governments can squeeze the consumer and blame the Feds. It's a manufactured crisis which has been going on for 42.999999 years.

It's trick accounting. It's like giving someone $10.00 for food but not specifying exactly what they should buy. After purchasing a couple of beer and a bag of potato chips they say they didn't have enough to buy a loaf of bread.

There is no reason a country can not look after it's ill. Canada has been doing it for 43 years. There have been no major epidemics or food shortages or other situations to precipitate a run on health care. Where is the "crisis"?

A few stats.
"Government and public health and public policy analysts often make a comparison of the Canadian and American health care systems because the two countries at one time had very similar health care systems until the Canadians began reforming their system in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714."
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems[/ame]

The US spends 80% more per capita. Imagine if Canada increased it's government run medical dollars by 80%! There would be a time paradox. People would be admitted to hospitals before they even arrived! HAHAHAHAHA

Check out the article. It's long. I didn't read it all. I'm sure you'll find some grist for your mill.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The straw man fallacy is your forte.

That is the silly generalization that I was talking about. The very foundation of your question assumes something that is false.

You assume incorrectly that people are against doing something about the problem at all and then continues to assume incorrectly from there.

Why do so many of those systems begin to fail and then return to private health care (even in places where such private practice is actually illegal like Canada)?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just exactly how did we get into another healthcare debate in the middle of a thread about spirituality? Do you pinheads not understand the concept of a SUBJECT? We have numerous threads on the board about health care, and most of the points now being made here, are also being made and addressed in the other threads, why must you turn this thread into another repeat of the others? I don't understand that.