Counting Blue Cars

   In a few of my posts I have spoken about how religious I tend to be.  At this moment I would wish to refine what I have meant by such statements.   I do not believe in organized religion, it leaves nothing to the individual.  I also do not believe in atheism, it ignores certain evidence, and for the most part asserts as fact something which it may never know.

  Organized religion tells people how to think based on what god they follow, and what the church higherarchy decrees.  To me, this is absence of thought.  To believe what another tells you simply because they claim a closer relationship with God means you abandon your own thought.   I bow to no man, and no man shall tell me fables which ignore the facts of this world and tell me they give him power over.

   Atheists (the majority anyway)  protest to know the unknowable, that there is no God.  To know something means one must have concrete undisputed evidence that it is true.  Of course, in the case of God, you cannot prove something unprovalbe, and neither can you disprove something unprovable.   Iy they were to say, they think or believe there is no God, I could maybe agree.

  I, myself am a Deist Catholic (Catholic in a cultural sense not spiritual).  I look at the world through the lens of logic.  I believe the big bang, and most all other theories.  The big bang; there was a cosmic egg of all of existence existing in a singularity.  But what created that egg, surely, the laws of nature tells us something cannot come from nothing.  And for all that mess to end up creating humans, a life form capable to concieve os such things, the chances are far against it.  The universe acts in predictable, describable means.   My logic tells me that there is a god of some sort, I don't think it interacts with humans through prophecy.

  I don't care what you believe; just don't try and say it is fact.  Facts are backed up by real world experimenst.  There are no such experiments for God.  In practicality, you believe or you don't, you don't know or or know it is not.

Back to the title- Counting Blue Cars by Dishwalla.

Self Interest V Selfishness

   It seems this is a distinction which needs to be made.  Self interest is not the same as selfishness.  It is out of selfishness a man demotes those under him to the idea of lesser beings.  It is out of self interest a man treats each as his equal.  

   It seems that the so called "liberals" in america (lower cased for purpose) can not distinguish between the two.   To them, the man who cheats his employees out of selfishness is the same as the man who treats his employees well out of self interest.   To them; both are in need of compulsitory compliance.  

   There is a difference.  The man who acts in selfishness does not worry about future consequences.  The man who acts in self interest does.

   If one were to steal a loaf of bread out of selfishness, they would only be worrying about survival.  If one were to steal a loaf of bread out of self interest they would consider everything, if they were in the position of the bread seller woud they wish to have thier bread stolen?

   Self interest is based on the ideal "do unto others as you would have done to you"  Selfishness is based onto the ideal "what is good for me is good for me."

   A man working on selfishness would steal from another to aquire as much material wealth as possible.

   A man working on self interest would aquire goods as he wished them to aquired from him.

   In short, a man working out of selfishness is a danger to society.  A man working out of self interest is a benefit to society.  A man working for an ideal is a parasite.  A man working for himself is reality.