Botched thread. Either delete or let fade away
Botched thread. Either delete or let fade away
Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.
It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.
The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.
It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.
The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today
The title of this thread is there aren't successful laissez faire countries
The title of this thread is there aren't successful laissez faire countries
Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.
It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.
The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.
It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.
The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today.
Conservatives always say there's no successful socialist states. Actually, there's no successful purely capitalist states. Its not like every other country than the usa is unsuccessful... there's lots of them that are. Every major country has varying degrees of social safety nit's, not so much either or socialist or not socialist. In fact, most other countries have more socialism than we do but there's plenty who are successful. The usa is an outlier in how prosperous we are but that just as much to do with our resources and our laws and fortune during wwii. In fact, looking at tax burden the usa spends about the same as other countries if you count our defense and private Healthcare spending that every other country spends through taxes. And moreso if you count things like childcare and other social welfare that our private sector spends that elsewhere is taxes, we spend way more than others overall. Thats why its so expensive here in the usa. The bottomline is that we might have a biggest military but we still spend way more and there's other countries who are successful and there's no capitalist laissez faire who are successful. We also have a huge debt meaning we borrowed hugely from the future to create much of what we have
Coursiv is a month long affordable course online that gives an overview of all the Ai bots out there that are noteworthy
Chatgpt is good at style and is a good jack of all trades
Claude is good at pure logic
Gemini is good at logic to a lesser degree and is good at everything else than Ai chat other ai features especially given its connected to Google
Good one
So i say its raining outside and I tell you there's someone with a PhD who teaches logic and critical thinking (like the guy who wrote the book i showed you) who also says its raining outside, your response is to say its not your responsibility to look outside? and you will only accept peer reviewed scientific evidence that its raining outside and I have the burden to show this evidence?
I mean you are capable enough to know why id call your position as humans being elaborate flesh robots who Hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories. Free will and the plain evidence of ndes and nde science. So its fair of me to expect a reply right? Maybe im just not capable, but i dont know else to characterize it, other than to say you'd think its too simplistic and hurts the feelings of skeptics, even though what im saying is essentially true
In your case, thats fair. I dont see you out here making ridiculous claims about believers then tearing into it. I think a lot of your ideas are weak, but that dont mean you in particular are strawmanning opposition, and its not like people can't have different world views
So you claim.
If im wrong show me im wrong. I probably wouldn't accept a couple anecdotes but apparently you can't even provide that. I know I can't recall ever seeing Mohamed or Buddha ndes. And the couple Indian ones were open to interpretation or didn't look credible. Just take my advice and look into it with your own eyes, tell me what you conclude, and then tell me why you insist on adhering to your worldview despite the evidence and what your own eyes can see
On a side note, do you seriously take the position that humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die?
I would question and/or disagree with that characterization
Why? This is a debate site, not a place to make arm chair conclusory statements
Sure there are people with childish conceptions of god and jesus so what do atheists do? They hold god up to those childish conceptions. instead of the mature approach of asking if god is or could be real what would he be like? Basically they strawman god instead of steelmaning god
That's a good point. Sure there are people with childish conceptions of god so what do atheists do? They hold god up to those childish conceptions. instead of the mature approach of asking if god is or could be real what would he be like? Basically they strawman god instead of steelmaning god
What if all these studies are correct? You would have a point that not knowing much about Jesus isn't going to suddenly make someone see him in an nde. But they do see a being of light. And those that do know him or even skeptics who are just more familiar do see him and Christian content at a significant rate such that it's a core component of ndes. Doesn't happen quantitatively or qualitatively the same with other religions. Again this is based on that formal study but also just looking into these things with your own eyes in an impartial way.
On a side note, do you seriously take the position that humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die? Isnt that what atheism or skepticism or materialism is reduced to these days? Plain evidence staring us in the face, but y'all wanna ignore it, like an ostrich with his head in the sand
Maybe I should have called the thread 'philosophical evidence for god not existing shouldn't count as real evidence'
I thought id tickle the atheists with this one. Recently ive gone from saying philosophical evidence for god counts as evidence to saying it doesnt count. My reasoning is that only loosely should philosophy alone count as evidence... in concrete terms scientifically and legally and even philosophically evidence needs to be empirical to count as evidence. But that goes the other way too... philosophy alone doesnt count as evidence that god doesn't exist. To be sure, there are scientific principles that could go either way on the god question, but interpreting the concepts is philosophical in nature mostly.
Plus science says we can't prove a negative, we say we can't disprove god. Its kinda weak to say we have evidence for something that can't be disproven
Trump says he won't sign it unless his crooked voter id system is implemented. I knew this bill was too good to true and that trump is too corrupt to do something decent. He'd rather hold the American people hostage
Actually some insightful wisdom hunter be spitting (if its really from him)
I'm not running for office. But if I were, these are some of the lessons I'd take away from what happened in NY yesterday. 1. Authenticity is measurable. Voters can smell a focus group from a mile away. 2. Endorsements from the current Democratic leadership now read like warnings. The establishment wing of the party is no longer a sword. It's a question mark. 3. Conviction beats caution. The candidates who said hard things about rent, about who pays for what, about Gaza, they won. The triangulators lost. 4. Cost of living is everything. Everything else is wallpaper. 5. The middle is not a strategy. It's an empty room. Voters reached past the establishment to grab someone who actually believes something. 6. Don't fear the base. Court it. The Democrats who ran from their own voters lost. The ones who ran toward them won. 7. If you want to lead a party you have to be willing to fight inside it. Mamdani didn't ask permission. He took the field. The lesson under the lessons: the country is tired of being managed. People want to be led.
He's not completely terrible and I do abide by some conservative principles
and to be fair trump and the Republicans are acting uncharacteristically here. Regulating the housing market is a dem tactic. But sometimes some policies are too good of ideas that'd make any politician look bad to vote against
Didn't you tear me a new one, when I made this proposal not long ago? That's now being passed by a large bipartisan majority
https://nypost.com/2026/06/23/us-news/house-passes-bill-barring-investors-from-buying-up-single-family-homes-trump-expected-to-sign-it-at-the-capitol/
As i said, All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different.
https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Compatible-Deathbed-Near-Death-Experiences-ebook/dp/B0CFYCWKHB
linate wrote:
There was a study done. Christian elements and jesus are a core phenomenon of ndes, they happen at a much greater frequency than nonchristian ndes, not just hsppening more but at a higher rate. Ndes of other faith are so rare and unreliable qualitatively and open to interpretation that we can't draw too many conclusions about them. All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different. And as I said most atheists come back believing in God. If ndes are more objective than conventional wisdom says, then perhaps we can draw fairly conclusions about their content.
As a skeptic how do you view this science? Do you deny science simply because it contradicts your worldview?
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/poll-us-boomers-support-tax-100500119.html
It's interesting that boomers overwhelmingly would want to increase taxes on the younger generation to fund their social security, but it might be even more interesting that the article chose to frame it as boomers v the young to catch headlines and maybe sour the public on saving social security instead framing it as what the best options might be. like eliminating the cap on taxable income. The article should have talked about how boomers rank the various options to fix the program
I ran your response through ai and in a nutshell this is what it said "If anything, the more psychologically grounded version is closer to cognitive dissonance + motivated reasoning + identity alignment, not a shared understanding that “it’s all a show.”
Thoughts?
If you like like vomit tacos the least and you choose neither, you basically end up eating vomit tacos, the ones you like the least.
You are trying to sound high minded and principled but you actually end up sounding short sighted and silly
Step 1: Remove filters in Reflecting Pool because Obama put them in.
Step 2: Give your criminal neighbor who runs "Greenwater Services" a $20 million no-bid contract to paint the pool.
Step 3: Fill the pool with water from the Potomac River, the phosphates from which cause algae blooms.
Step 4: Freshly sealed pool and extreme heat result in a super scum event
Step 5: Direct National Park Service to dump hydrogen peroxide into the pool which causes the paint to peel.
Step 6: Deploy US National Guard to stop people from taking photos of the swamp as a perfect metaphor for the administration.
Step 7: Blame someone else.
What if uncertainty about god was necessary to fully engage with him? What if we as beings can only ever encounter love at its fullest, or whatever other value and meaning and purpose you have, by combining faith and free will to will your self into a voluntary self willed creation?
I posted about the purpose of life even without religion and god
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/pa/even-without-religion-and-purely-from-a-skeptical-point-of-view-how-we-live-might-matter-if-consciousness-continues-after-death
But the elements god and perhaps christianity add are that love is the greatest good. Certainly a person can find meaning and purpose outside of religion and god but if the person wanted to go deepest into what actually is the greatest meaning and purpose, god and perhaps Christianity are the next step.
I have another essay on embracing life with the purpose of faith and god and religion but I suspect you wouldn't even accept the above logic in the link so I won't bother looking up the link
What if engaging with uncertainty is the path to the next life or highest good? What if faith is putting meat on the bones of engaging god and uncertainty?
My point ultimately is maybe there's a reason god has been historically ambiguous but that shouldn't imply he don't exist, as you claim
See above