Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Well Danny, the problem with the govt bailing out companies, is that once the govt helps financially, big bro now has some control over said company. Which in turn gets closer to socialism or govt controlled business, and further away from private business. The argument against govt bailouts, is letting the market dictate which companies fail or succeed. The companies that are fiscally responsible, and can adapt to the changing times, are the ones that come out of a down economy stronger than ever. They don't need to be rewarded by the govt for making bad business decisions. For example, our beloved pres Obama, said if the govt didn't bail out GM & Dodge, the country would collapse. In many peoples eyes, those companies drove themselves into bankrupcy because of irresponsible business decisions.

Rick, what's the gag? I’m a capitalist, I agree with everything you are saying

I’m talking about private charitable organisations

I’m not advocating government bail out a failed company in the market place

A failed company in the competing market has no right to be in the market

A Christian organisation, which is non competitive and non profit, yet shows that it is not a burden but rather very positive for the economy must not be allowed to wither away

Ditto secular charitable non profit organisations

Ditto other-religious charitable non profit organisations

It just makes good economic sense, no?

What's the downside to this?

RickD wrote:

A proper Conservative government would never interfere with a private company, even special cases that it, and I understand we have a paradox here, supports financially (and temporarily I might add) for the long run of the economy.

we don't have a proper fiscally conservative government

That’s a shame.

I’m not sure we do yet. When I say “proper Conservative government” I really do mean proper. And Conservatives over here long ago ceased to be Conservatives.

There isn't a consensus that says that temporarily or otherwise bailing out a company, will actually help the economy in the long term. There is an opinion of more than a few fiscally conservatives, that says a free market economy will weed itself, so to speak, of the bad companies, on its own. That's what the free market is about.

One hundred percent agree! Conservatism, over time, leads to proper capitalism, or ’successful’ capitalism. And successful capitalism spreads wealth to the less well off.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:

Well Danny, the problem with the govt bailing out companies, is that once the govt helps financially, big bro now has some control over said company. Which in turn gets closer to socialism or govt controlled business, and further away from private business. The argument against govt bailouts, is letting the market dictate which companies fail or succeed. The companies that are fiscally responsible, and can adapt to the changing times, are the ones that come out of a down economy stronger than ever. They don't need to be rewarded by the govt for making bad business decisions. For example, our beloved pres Obama, said if the govt didn't bail out GM & Dodge, the country would collapse. In many peoples eyes, those companies drove themselves into bankrupcy because of irresponsible business decisions.

Rick, what's the gag? I’m a capitalist, I agree with everything you are saying

I’m talking about private charitable organisations

I’m not advocating government bail out a failed company in the market place

A failed company in the competing market has no right to be in the market

A Christian organisation, which is non competitive and non profit, yet shows that it is not a burden but rather very positive for the economy must not be allowed to wither away

Ditto secular charitable non profit organisations

Ditto other-religious charitable non profit organisations

It just makes good economic sense, no?

What's the downside to this?

I understand how you feel about capitalism. I guess I just want to tell you why what you say can't work here specifically. It may be different on that side of the pond.
I guess I'm not explaining myself as well as I should.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying. If a profitable and/or beneficial charity is having a hard time bringing in funds to do their charitable work, then why wouldn't it be ok for the govt to give a little funding to that organization, to help get them back on their feet?

Well, the govt does that all the time here. But, the biggest problem I see with that here in the U.S.(it may be different in England), is that if the govt funds an organization, whether it's a private business or charity, the govt usually has some conditions attached to their funding. The govt here seems to want to get their hand in everything. It seems to be that they want control of whatever they can. I just like the idea of keeping charities privately funded, so the govt won't have as many rules and conditions attached to what the charities can do with their donations.

We had an issue here with Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities had a program that set up and funded adoptions for children, to parents that the organization deemed fit to raise kids. It's their money, and their charity, so they felt they had the right to decide who can raise the kids. Well, with all the new laws that recognize same-sex "marriage" as equal to male/female marriage, in the eyes of the law, Catholic Charities stopped setting up adoptions altogether because they didn't agree that same-sex parents are in the best interests of a child up for adoption.

I guess it's the same as anything else where people or groups(govt) give money to something. The more money given, the more say the giver wants in how the money is used. It's just human nature.

One hundred percent agree! Conservatism, over time, leads to proper capitalism, or ’successful’ capitalism. And successful capitalism spreads wealth to the less well off.

Danny, I agree with this. But, I wouldn't say successful capitalism spreads wealth to the less off, as much as successful capitalism creates and promotes more opportunities for anyone willing to put in some hard work, to gain more wealth. There are probably always going to be those that you call layabouts, that don't want to do any work, and live off other peoples' hard work. I believe proper capitalism promotes "if you don't work, you don't eat". While what we are seeing more and more of here promotes"we can eat, because someone else worked hard for his money".

The best way I explained the way our govt spreads the wealth, was how I explained it to my son: My son gets honor roll grades because he works hard and does his homework. Now, the school is going to spread the wealth like our govt does. Johnny Lazy gets D's and F's, because he doesn't want to put in the hard work to get better grades. Son, we are going to take some of your A's, and give them to Johnny. So, now the kids are rewarded for laziness. And, what do you think my son said? Dad, that's not fair. I'm not going to try anymore.

That, IMO is the same response that a lot of hard working people give when they see their hard-earned money go to people that don't work.

Rick

But, the biggest problem I see with that here in the U.S.(it may be different in England), is that if the govt funds an organization, whether it's a private business or charity, the govt usually has some conditions attached to their funding. The govt here seems to want to get their hand in everything. It seems to be that they want control of whatever they can. I just like the idea of keeping charities privately funded, so the govt won't have as many rules and conditions attached to what the charities can do with their donations

And that’s what government mustn’t do.

I guess it's the same as anything else where people or groups(govt) give money to something. The more money given, the more say the giver wants in how the money is used. It's just human nature

And hence proper Conservatism entailing small government. I know what you mean about human nature and all that, but the ideal doesn’t have a nature. Sure the politicians come in to government and corrupt the ideal. I’m not saying in this day and age it can or will be possible to achieve proper Conservatism. (I speak for over here.)

But, I wouldn't say successful capitalism spreads wealth to the less off

Absolutely successful capitalism spreads wealth to the less well off. The fast growth that low taxes encourage *should* also promote faster redistribution of income and wealth.

The best way I explained the way our govt spreads the wealth, was how I explained it to my son: My son gets honor roll grades because he works hard and does his homework. Now, the school is going to spread the wealth like our govt does. Johnny Lazy gets D's and F's, because he doesn't want to put in the hard work to get better grades. Son, we are going to take some of your A's, and give them to Johnny. So, now the kids are rewarded for laziness. And, what do you think my son said? Dad, that's not fair. I'm not going to try anymore

But this gerrymandered ‘spreading of the wealth’ is not capitalism. It is Leftist and totally destructive. In capitalism the successful economy redistributes the wealth.

That, IMO is the same response that a lot of hard working people give when they see their hard-earned money go to people that don't work

Absolutely, and let’s not forget that the welfare system is there to help the infirm, and it surely still remains a pillar of a society in spite of how it has been corrupted. And in spite of the impact this corruption has had on the economy.

Danny, I think we're actually on the same page on this for a change .

Absolutely successful capitalism spreads wealth to the less well off. The fast growth that low taxes encourage *should* also promote faster redistribution of income and wealth.

I see what you're saying, and agree. I guess I'm just so used to Obama's idea of redistribution of wealth, that when I see the term, I associate it with his ideas. I agree with what you're saying that proper capitalism distributes the wealth by more spending because of lower taxes.

Unfortunately, the tax-and-spend liberals we have here don't want it done that way. They are trying to spend our way out of debt.

What is this world coming to, when Danny and Rick actually agree?!?

The end must be nigh!

RickD wrote:Unfortunately, the tax-and-spend liberals we have here don't want it done that way. They are trying to spend our way out of debt

Sounds like historical Labour in Britain.

What is this world coming to, when Danny and Rick actually agree?!?

The end must be nigh!

Ha-ha we got there in the end mate

We are achristian nation founded on christian values, seperation of church and state is not in the constutition; Only non-endorsment or state-sponsored religon as in Iran. The founding fathers did not want our country to be godless, otherwise they would have actually put seperation of church and state in the constutition.

Murray wrote:We are achristian nation founded on christian values, seperation of church and state is not in the constutition; Only non-endorsment or state-sponsored religon as in Iran. The founding fathers did not want our country to be godless, otherwise they would have actually put seperation of church and state in the constutition.

Murray, before you say that "We are achristian nation", please edumacate yourself by reading this dialogue we had a while back about this very subject:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 30&t=34142

Sorry rick I did not read the link yet, but I will lin a bit however, this coffee has me in doing and not thinking mood at the moment

But When I say christian nation, I say this because 75% of americans are christian, thus making us predominantly christian. I am however very firm in my belief that government should not be godless, but also firm that the government should not become christian.

But the main point in this article you miss is the government spent money building a worship center for a super minority; Now im sure you would agree if they did that for a church they would have protest of people yelling screaming and rioting about seperation of church and state.

Let me leave you wth this question, do you think our government should have some christian moral, because after all it was founded by all christians and free masons, and while GW did say we are not a christian nation in the sence of christianity not being state sponsored, Im sure the founding fathers firmly believe that we should always have a trace of god in our goverment, and If they dindn't, they probably would have actually put seperation of church and state in the constitution.

(sorry for spelling errors, no spell check today and im to high on caffine to care)

But When I say christian nation, I say this because 75% of americans are christian, thus making us predominantly christian. I am however very firm in my belief that government should not be godless, but also firm that the government should not become christian.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from now.

But the main point in this article you miss is the government spent money building a worship center for a super minority; Now im sure you would agree if they did that for a church they would have protest of people yelling screaming and rioting about seperation of church and state.

I understand what you're saying, but I work at a govt funded naval base with a chapel. I haven't heard any complaints about that.

Let me leave you wth this question, do you think our government should have some christian moral, because after all it was founded by all christians and free masons, and while GW did say we are not a christian nation in the sence of christianity not being state sponsored, Im sure the founding fathers firmly believe that we should always have a trace of god in our goverment, and If they dindn't, they probably would have actually put seperation of church and state in the constitution.

First, I disagree that our country was founded by "all christians and free masons". Many of our nation's founders were probably more like deists than what you or I would consider Christian. There's no doubt in my mind however that the bible did influence our nation's founding.
As far as an answer to your question of if I think our government should have some christian moral, I'm not sure I can answer that. As I've said before, I believe many of our Founding Fathers believed in a God, I'm just not sure He was specifically the Christian God. I believe any laws based on morality have to come from God, because He alone is absolute, and absolute moral laws can't come from anywhere else. I hope I answered your question without evading the way you worded it.

You are right, some were not practicing christians like franklin but they were free masons, and to be a free mason you must believe in a god, so I assume, and in my opinion I suppose, that the fathers did not wish for a godless state.

Murray wrote:You are right, some were not practicing christians like franklin but they were free masons, and to be a free mason you must believe in a god, so I assume, and in my opinion I suppose, that the fathers did not wish for a godless state.

I think many ASSUMED God existed. So, to say they did not wish for a godless state, I guess was mostly assumed as well.

They declared belief when they joined the masons, so yes, I suppose I assume that they did not wish for it

RickD wrote:I think many ASSUMED God existed. So, to say they did not wish for a godless state, I guess was mostly assumed as well.

glad to see you're coming round to my way of thinking, Rick