About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…if you are referencing a book [any religious book] that was written, compiled, altered and poorly translated by humans, then you have no evidence at all, have you?
[/quote]

You are quite mistaken, even if there would be errors, it would just mean less proof, not none at all.

Now, prove that these errors occur. I will require that you do so using the Hebrew text of the bible so that we don’t have a little back and forth about errors in the King James that I agree with you are problematic.

Also, please provide the same proof of errors in the Koran, the Vedas, etc.

A history book is assumed to be accurate until someone can prove it is erroneous. So go for it, disprove the history books. In the process, ask yourself some questions, starting with-

“If people were making this stuff up left and right why would the average person follow all of the complex and expensive laws contained within? If the people didn’t see the prophecies why would they risk doing no agricultural labor every seventh year? Wouldn’t the entire population die out in the ensuing famine that there was no God to prevent?”

Not to mention giving up consumption of pork and extensive tithes (more than 1/4 of any harvest, 1/10 of cattle, etc).

So at worst we have a lot of circumstantial evidence, which you may call weak. The arguments against though, have no basis whatsoever.[/quote]

…you’re using circular logic to prove a point, and i’m supposed to refute your circular logic? No thanks. Do you believe the bible is the true word of God?
[/quote]

Where is the circular reasoning? I am using historical data from books as evidence that something happened. It is on you to disprove these accounts, not on me to prove them. I am merely enjoying being the side of an argument who has some (however limited one may think it is) evidence on my side.[/quote]

…but it’s just the one book, isn’t it? Because the book refers to places that exist[ed] does not mean that the events in the book actually happened. Any fictional story that has actual cities in 'm isn’t true because of that. You do realise that, don’t you?

[quote]The bible is irrelevant to this discussion beyond being a historical source of some veracity. This is about theism and atheism, not specific religions.

A summary of this debate is that

  1. Your definition of morality has yet to show any substance. You argued at first that a person can be moral without God and provided no way of showing how a person would arrive at said morality or how such things would be gauged without a supra-human component.[/quote]

…how about common sense and conscience?

…well, i don’t think stealing is a nice thing to do because i don’t like having my things stolen from me. I don’t do the things i don’t want done to me. How is that for a non divine source of morality?

…evidence for atheism? Are you for real? Provide real proof of the existence of your god, and then we’ll talk further…

[quote]I think that about covers it.

As for my own beliefs, it is largely irrelevant. In terms of the source of morality, the same case I made could be made by a Billy Graham, the Pope, or Nietzsche (an amoralist, for our purposes), and I am a follower of none of them. As far as recognizing truth in the bible, my argument only requires minimal belief in it, as any one account of prophecy or divine experience being true is more than one can prove for atheism. So again, I could be a bible thumper, an archeologist, or an agnostic and it would all be equally valid.

Trying to get into minutiae of which parts of specific religions seem to make sense or not is a way that atheists muddy the waters and distract the dumb rednecks they argue with. I see it as unnecessary as the argument isn’t over religions, it is over 1) whether or not it makes sense that there be a God, and 2) where morality comes from.[/quote]

…is this supposed to be an answer to what you think absolute morality is?

362

Look, from an economic perspective the National Socialists of Germany were absolutely no further left than the American economy is today; quite probably less so. It’s corporatism in both cases, except that NS Germany was far less corrupt than America is today.

From a social perspective the Nazi’s were pretty far right, obviously.

That makes them decidely conservative, overall.

Sorry paleocons/libertarians, I know that everything “bad” in your worldview is supposed to equate to liberalism, but it’s just not the case here.

363

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…if you are referencing a book [any religious book] that was written, compiled, altered and poorly translated by humans, then you have no evidence at all, have you?
[/quote]

You are quite mistaken, even if there would be errors, it would just mean less proof, not none at all.

Now, prove that these errors occur. I will require that you do so using the Hebrew text of the bible so that we don’t have a little back and forth about errors in the King James that I agree with you are problematic.

Also, please provide the same proof of errors in the Koran, the Vedas, etc.

A history book is assumed to be accurate until someone can prove it is erroneous. So go for it, disprove the history books. In the process, ask yourself some questions, starting with-

“If people were making this stuff up left and right why would the average person follow all of the complex and expensive laws contained within? If the people didn’t see the prophecies why would they risk doing no agricultural labor every seventh year? Wouldn’t the entire population die out in the ensuing famine that there was no God to prevent?”

Not to mention giving up consumption of pork and extensive tithes (more than 1/4 of any harvest, 1/10 of cattle, etc).

So at worst we have a lot of circumstantial evidence, which you may call weak. The arguments against though, have no basis whatsoever.[/quote]

…you’re using circular logic to prove a point, and i’m supposed to refute your circular logic? No thanks. Do you believe the bible is the true word of God?
[/quote]

Where is the circular reasoning? I am using historical data from books as evidence that something happened. It is on you to disprove these accounts, not on me to prove them. I am merely enjoying being the side of an argument who has some (however limited one may think it is) evidence on my side.[/quote]

…but it’s just the one book, isn’t it? Because the book refers to places that exist[ed] does not mean that the events in the book actually happened. Any fictional story that has actual cities in 'm isn’t true because of that. You do realise that, don’t you? [/quote]

So say the same for any historical account. World War 1 did not begin because of Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination but because of a polo match between the Tsar and the Kaiser. There was no American Civil War, George Washington was really a woman, China colonized Africa, and Muhammad spoke French.

If you start throwing out historical accounting at random them there are no bases to discuss anything that every happened. If you wish to cast doubt or disprove the bible as an historical source, be my guest.

[quote][quote]The bible is irrelevant to this discussion beyond being a historical source of some veracity. This is about theism and atheism, not specific religions.

A summary of this debate is that

  1. Your definition of morality has yet to show any substance. You argued at first that a person can be moral without God and provided no way of showing how a person would arrive at said morality or how such things would be gauged without a supra-human component.[/quote]

…how about common sense and conscience? [/quote]

Where do these things come from? Maybe your definitions are different from someone else’s? Who implants human beings with conscience? If anything feelings of guilt over past wrong doings are an anathema to evolution as they serve only destructive purposes of slowing individuals down. Whoever determined what common sense is that you believe all people possess it and imbued said people with a conscience may as well be called God.

…well, i don’t think stealing is a nice thing to do because i don’t like having my things stolen from me. I don’t do the things i don’t want done to me. How is that for a non divine source of morality?[/quote]

What if you are not social equals? Maybe he says he has a right to take from you because you are his inferior? Who established that all people are equal with equal property rights?

Also this sounds a lot like the “Golden Rule” no?

…evidence for atheism? Are you for real? Provide real proof of the existence of your god, and then we’ll talk further…[/quote]

Once again, the fact that there is no evidence for atheism is your problem, not mine. You are the one who thinks he has proven a negative. Don’t hold flaws in your belief system against me.

If you don’t like biblical accounts as history (which you have no reason not to, but whatever) then use Aristotle’s argument. Existence required a ‘first mover’ to get things started. So yes, I am for real.

[quote][quote]I think that about covers it.

As for my own beliefs, it is largely irrelevant. In terms of the source of morality, the same case I made could be made by a Billy Graham, the Pope, or Nietzsche (an amoralist, for our purposes), and I am a follower of none of them. As far as recognizing truth in the bible, my argument only requires minimal belief in it, as any one account of prophecy or divine experience being true is more than one can prove for atheism. So again, I could be a bible thumper, an archeologist, or an agnostic and it would all be equally valid.

Trying to get into minutiae of which parts of specific religions seem to make sense or not is a way that atheists muddy the waters and distract the dumb rednecks they argue with. I see it as unnecessary as the argument isn’t over religions, it is over 1) whether or not it makes sense that there be a God, and 2) where morality comes from.[/quote]

…is this supposed to be an answer to what you think absolute morality is?[/quote]

No it was addressing when you asked me if I believe the bible is the complete word of God. I said it’s irrelevant.

Absolute morality means that the same things are moral or immoral throughout history and that values and society are subject to said morality, not the other way around.

364

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
No, they were socialists.

Not quite the same.[/quote]

Socialists don’t believe in private property.

They were fascists, not socialists.

Right wing, not left wing.

Economically they were moderate right. [/quote]

That is a superficial distinction.

Fasbists believe in telling you what to do and that includes you property, socialists control your property and therefore you.

Both believe that the individual must bow to the collective and as time goes by the differences disappear.

365

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
How religous morality changed:

[/quote]

These are attacks on Christianity (and one on Islam), not on the existence of God or religious morality which doesn’t change.

Besides, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Mao, Pol Pot, and other people who make the crusades look tame were all atheists. So there goes the “religion starts all wars”…[/quote]

No, they were socialists.

Not quite the same.

[/quote]

So are hippies and flower children. Obviously socialism does not necessarily lead to wars and neither does atheism, but it does sometimes. Or at least as an ideology so mystify the common people into backing wars and fighting them, the same way religion is sometimes used.[/quote]

Hippies and flower children are a good example.

They are to socialism what Jesus was to religion.

They believed in whatever they believed but id not spread their beliefs with the sword.

366

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
No, they were socialists.

Not quite the same.[/quote]

Socialists don’t believe in private property.

They were fascists, not socialists.

Right wing, not left wing.

Economically they were moderate right. [/quote]

That is a superficial distinction.

Fasbists believe in telling you what to do and that includes you property, socialists control your property and therefore you.

Both believe that the individual must bow to the collective and as time goes by the differences disappear.

[/quote]

As you go far enough to the left, or far enough to the right, the eventually meet on the other side?

Everyone knows the Nazis were “right” as opposed to “left”- they were reactionaries not progressives, to use 20th century terms. What I don’t think most people (on this forum) realize is that “libertarians” are not “pure right wing” they are a hybrid of right and left wing values.

367

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…if you are referencing a book [any religious book] that was written, compiled, altered and poorly translated by humans, then you have no evidence at all, have you?
[/quote]

You are quite mistaken, even if there would be errors, it would just mean less proof, not none at all.

Now, prove that these errors occur. I will require that you do so using the Hebrew text of the bible so that we don’t have a little back and forth about errors in the King James that I agree with you are problematic.

Also, please provide the same proof of errors in the Koran, the Vedas, etc.

A history book is assumed to be accurate until someone can prove it is erroneous. So go for it, disprove the history books. In the process, ask yourself some questions, starting with-

“If people were making this stuff up left and right why would the average person follow all of the complex and expensive laws contained within? If the people didn’t see the prophecies why would they risk doing no agricultural labor every seventh year? Wouldn’t the entire population die out in the ensuing famine that there was no God to prevent?”

Not to mention giving up consumption of pork and extensive tithes (more than 1/4 of any harvest, 1/10 of cattle, etc).

So at worst we have a lot of circumstantial evidence, which you may call weak. The arguments against though, have no basis whatsoever.[/quote]

…you’re using circular logic to prove a point, and i’m supposed to refute your circular logic? No thanks. Do you believe the bible is the true word of God?
[/quote]

Where is the circular reasoning? I am using historical data from books as evidence that something happened. It is on you to disprove these accounts, not on me to prove them. I am merely enjoying being the side of an argument who has some (however limited one may think it is) evidence on my side.[/quote]

…but it’s just the one book, isn’t it? Because the book refers to places that exist[ed] does not mean that the events in the book actually happened. Any fictional story that has actual cities in 'm isn’t true because of that. You do realise that, don’t you? [/quote]

So say the same for any historical account. World War 1 did not begin because of Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination but because of a polo match between the Tsar and the Kaiser. There was no American Civil War, George Washington was really a woman, China colonized Africa, and Muhammad spoke French.

If you start throwing out historical accounting at random them there are no bases to discuss anything that every happened. If you wish to cast doubt or disprove the bible as an historical source, be my guest.[/quote]

…now you’re just being silly. If you can provide contempary third party confirmation of the events depicted in the bible, then we’ll talk. Otherwise you’re being facetious on purpose…

[quote][quote]The bible is irrelevant to this discussion beyond being a historical source of some veracity. This is about theism and atheism, not specific religions.

A summary of this debate is that

  1. Your definition of morality has yet to show any substance. You argued at first that a person can be moral without God and provided no way of showing how a person would arrive at said morality or how such things would be gauged without a supra-human component.[/quote]

…how about common sense and conscience? [/quote]

…why?

…well, i don’t think stealing is a nice thing to do because i don’t like having my things stolen from me. I don’t do the things i don’t want done to me. How is that for a non divine source of morality?[/quote]

What if you are not social equals? Maybe he says he has a right to take from you because you are his inferior? Who established that all people are equal with equal property rights?[/quote]

…common law?

[quote]Also this sounds a lot like the “Golden Rule” no?

…evidence for atheism? Are you for real? Provide real proof of the existence of your god, and then we’ll talk further…[/quote]

Once again, the fact that there is no evidence for atheism is your problem, not mine. You are the one who thinks he has proven a negative. Don’t hold flaws in your belief system against me.[/quote]

…atheism is a term that denotes the absence of belief in a deity, that’s all. Why you are asking for evidence for that term is beyond me. Look in a dictionary?

…you assume existence required a first mover, nothing more…

[quote][quote]I think that about covers it.

As for my own beliefs, it is largely irrelevant. In terms of the source of morality, the same case I made could be made by a Billy Graham, the Pope, or Nietzsche (an amoralist, for our purposes), and I am a follower of none of them. As far as recognizing truth in the bible, my argument only requires minimal belief in it, as any one account of prophecy or divine experience being true is more than one can prove for atheism. So again, I could be a bible thumper, an archeologist, or an agnostic and it would all be equally valid.

Trying to get into minutiae of which parts of specific religions seem to make sense or not is a way that atheists muddy the waters and distract the dumb rednecks they argue with. I see it as unnecessary as the argument isn’t over religions, it is over 1) whether or not it makes sense that there be a God, and 2) where morality comes from.[/quote]

…is this supposed to be an answer to what you think absolute morality is?[/quote]

[quote]No it was addressing when you asked me if I believe the bible is the complete word of God. I said it’s irrelevant.

Absolute morality means that the same things are moral or immoral throughout history and that values and society are subject to said morality, not the other way around.[/quote]

…if that is absolute morality how can it be that the Christian god has no problems with slavery, and yet it was abolished based on changed morality. Do you think slavery is a good thing?

368

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
No, they were socialists.

Not quite the same.[/quote]

Socialists don’t believe in private property.

They were fascists, not socialists.

Right wing, not left wing.

Economically they were moderate right. [/quote]

That is a superficial distinction.

Fasbists believe in telling you what to do and that includes you property, socialists control your property and therefore you.

Both believe that the individual must bow to the collective and as time goes by the differences disappear.

[/quote]

As you go far enough to the left, or far enough to the right, the eventually meet on the other side?

Everyone knows the Nazis were “right” as opposed to “left”- they were reactionaries not progressives, to use 20th century terms. What I don’t think most people (on this forum) realize is that “libertarians” are not “pure right wing” they are a hybrid of right and left wing values.[/quote]

Cant be, because we came first.

I think the problem is not along the left-right axis, but along the totalitarian-libertarian axis.

The problem is though that I cannot imagine a "progressive " agenda that could work without the threat of violence.

369

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…if you are referencing a book [any religious book] that was written, compiled, altered and poorly translated by humans, then you have no evidence at all, have you?
[/quote]

You are quite mistaken, even if there would be errors, it would just mean less proof, not none at all.

Now, prove that these errors occur. I will require that you do so using the Hebrew text of the bible so that we don’t have a little back and forth about errors in the King James that I agree with you are problematic.

Also, please provide the same proof of errors in the Koran, the Vedas, etc.

A history book is assumed to be accurate until someone can prove it is erroneous. So go for it, disprove the history books. In the process, ask yourself some questions, starting with-

“If people were making this stuff up left and right why would the average person follow all of the complex and expensive laws contained within? If the people didn’t see the prophecies why would they risk doing no agricultural labor every seventh year? Wouldn’t the entire population die out in the ensuing famine that there was no God to prevent?”

Not to mention giving up consumption of pork and extensive tithes (more than 1/4 of any harvest, 1/10 of cattle, etc).

So at worst we have a lot of circumstantial evidence, which you may call weak. The arguments against though, have no basis whatsoever.[/quote]

…you’re using circular logic to prove a point, and i’m supposed to refute your circular logic? No thanks. Do you believe the bible is the true word of God?
[/quote]

Where is the circular reasoning? I am using historical data from books as evidence that something happened. It is on you to disprove these accounts, not on me to prove them. I am merely enjoying being the side of an argument who has some (however limited one may think it is) evidence on my side.[/quote]

…but it’s just the one book, isn’t it? Because the book refers to places that exist[ed] does not mean that the events in the book actually happened. Any fictional story that has actual cities in 'm isn’t true because of that. You do realise that, don’t you? [/quote]

So say the same for any historical account. World War 1 did not begin because of Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination but because of a polo match between the Tsar and the Kaiser. There was no American Civil War, George Washington was really a woman, China colonized Africa, and Muhammad spoke French.

If you start throwing out historical accounting at random them there are no bases to discuss anything that every happened. If you wish to cast doubt or disprove the bible as an historical source, be my guest.[/quote]

…now you’re just being silly. If you can provide contempary third party confirmation of the events depicted in the bible, then we’ll talk. Otherwise you’re being facetious on purpose…[/quote]

First of all, third party confirmation is a stricture applied only to the bible. We don’t question other accounts this way. Nevertheless, I can play your game.

Sancherev’s (Assyrian emperor) records, as found in archeologically excavated documents on display in the British Museum report that the biblical story of his armies laying siege to Jerusalem and his entire army dying in their sleep (except for a few people who ran away).

Documents have been found in Egypt about great troubles (at the time the Israelites were supposed to be there) including the river turning to blood.

So even though I endured greater scrutiny than is normal when discussing historical events, my position is upheld.

[quote][quote][quote]The bible is irrelevant to this discussion beyond being a historical source of some veracity. This is about theism and atheism, not specific religions.

A summary of this debate is that

  1. Your definition of morality has yet to show any substance. You argued at first that a person can be moral without God and provided no way of showing how a person would arrive at said morality or how such things would be gauged without a supra-human component.[/quote]

…how about common sense and conscience? [/quote]

…why?[/quote]

How else do you explain it? What is the natural or logical basis? Dogs don’t feel guilt, only fear of pain. Again, this alone is not a proof merely more small evidence. Because the notion that there is no God has no basis whatsoever, answers no philosophical questions, and only leaves many, many more unanswered and unanswerable, all that I have to do is show that theism is a somewhat plausible alternative and I have made my point that only an irrational person would be an atheist when they could be agnostic.

…well, i don’t think stealing is a nice thing to do because i don’t like having my things stolen from me. I don’t do the things i don’t want done to me. How is that for a non divine source of morality?[/quote]

What if you are not social equals? Maybe he says he has a right to take from you because you are his inferior? Who established that all people are equal with equal property rights?[/quote]

…common law?[/quote]

On what basis should all people be equal? Common law is based on early christian law, so this is merely a supposition on your part with no evidence that it would be possible without a God telling us that we are equal and valuable.

[quote][quote]Also this sounds a lot like the “Golden Rule” no?

…evidence for atheism? Are you for real? Provide real proof of the existence of your god, and then we’ll talk further…[/quote]

Once again, the fact that there is no evidence for atheism is your problem, not mine. You are the one who thinks he has proven a negative. Don’t hold flaws in your belief system against me.[/quote]

…atheism is a term that denotes the absence of belief in a deity, that’s all. Why you are asking for evidence for that term is beyond me. Look in a dictionary?[/quote]

I never asked you for evidence of a term, I asked you to show how it is a rational belief given that there is no concrete reason to be atheist, and there are so many concrete reasons not to be.

…you assume existence required a first mover, nothing more…[/quote]

So do most scientists and philosophers. Care to explain the alternative?

[quote][quote][quote][quote]I think that about covers it.

As for my own beliefs, it is largely irrelevant. In terms of the source of morality, the same case I made could be made by a Billy Graham, the Pope, or Nietzsche (an amoralist, for our purposes), and I am a follower of none of them. As far as recognizing truth in the bible, my argument only requires minimal belief in it, as any one account of prophecy or divine experience being true is more than one can prove for atheism. So again, I could be a bible thumper, an archeologist, or an agnostic and it would all be equally valid.

Trying to get into minutiae of which parts of specific religions seem to make sense or not is a way that atheists muddy the waters and distract the dumb rednecks they argue with. I see it as unnecessary as the argument isn’t over religions, it is over 1) whether or not it makes sense that there be a God, and 2) where morality comes from.[/quote]

…is this supposed to be an answer to what you think absolute morality is?[/quote]

No it was addressing when you asked me if I believe the bible is the complete word of God. I said it’s irrelevant.

Absolute morality means that the same things are moral or immoral throughout history and that values and society are subject to said morality, not the other way around.[/quote]

…if that is absolute morality how can it be that the Christian god has no problems with slavery, and yet it was abolished based on changed morality. Do you think slavery is a good thing?
[/quote]

370

[quote]First of all, third party confirmation is a stricture applied only to the bible. We don’t question other accounts this way. Nevertheless, I can play your game.

Sancherev’s (Assyrian emperor) records, as found in archeologically excavated documents on display in the British Museum report that the biblical story of his armies laying siege to Jerusalem and his entire army dying in their sleep (except for a few people who ran away).

Documents have been found in Egypt about great troubles (at the time the Israelites were supposed to be there) including the river turning to blood.

So even though I endured greater scrutiny than is normal when discussing historical events, my position is upheld.[/quote]

…got any links for me to peruse?

…maintaining a coherent and succesful tribe requires certain rules and regulations. Morality evolved from necessaty, because we started to live together in increasing numbers. Our ability for abstract thought increased, and with it our ability for empathy. Morality is an evolutionary construct in order to provide the tribe a means of dealing with eachother in a civil way. That is one explanation, aside from the divine one…

…because if i am the lesser of you, i’m not happy. And since i don’t want you to be unhappy, i’m not your superior. We’re human after all…

…and i explained numerous times that atheism isn’t a beliefsystem. Why is that so hard to understand?

…the alternative to God being the prime mover? First of all, God does not explain the universe, because you can’t explain God in any rational terms. Second, i don’t have an alternative for you: i don’t know how the universe came to be…

…now i had to do this post like this because the layout became confusing to me, and it appears that you didn’t answer this bit at the end: …if that is absolute morality how can it be that the Christian god has no problems with slavery, and yet it was abolished based on changed morality. Do you think slavery is a good thing?

371

Two Question Theological Quiz http://moonkin.com/tqtq/

…my result, not unsurprisingly:

You are an antitheist.

You find it unreasonable to believe there is a god, or gods, without sufficient evidence. You feel it is just as likely for the universe to have been created by teal titanium tortoises as any other proposition. Furthermore, it is this very belief, this delusion, that is really tearing humanity apart and ruining people’s lives. It is perfectly possible to be ethical without God. Further, it is entirely possible to live a happy, successful life by giving your life its own meaning and making your own purpose in life. You do not pass up the opportunity to challenge people’s supersticious beliefs. You are a strong proponent of reason, for you believe it is the only tool man has to solve life’s problems.

372

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Everyone knows the Nazis were “right” as opposed to “left”- they were reactionaries not progressives, to use 20th century terms. What I don’t think most people (on this forum) realize is that “libertarians” are not “pure right wing” they are a hybrid of right and left wing values.[/quote]
Yeah, economically right and socially left, to state it simply.

Although, the academic ones will object to that along the following lines:

Conservatives and liberals are inconsistent because they support statist intervention in some areas and not others, while only libertarians are fully consistent in opposing statist intervention in all areas.

[quote]orion wrote:
That is a superficial distinction.

Fasbists believe in telling you what to do and that includes you property, socialists control your property and therefore you.

Both believe that the individual must bow to the collective and as time goes by the differences disappear.[/quote]
The problem with libertarians is that they sabotage their own incredibly well constructed theory of human action by constructing a false dichotomy between “state” and “market” forces. In reality, every so-called state action takes place within the broader market, which is simply the sum of all human interactions, and states themselves arise as a direct result of market forces.

For a “state” can simply be considered a business entity within the market that has come to establish a natural monopoly in the use of force within a particular territory.

In order for libertarians to reconcile their hatred of statism with their economic doctrine, one of two things are necessary, both of which create internal contradictions in libertarian theory:

  1. Recognize that so-called “market failures” are possible and have occurred throughout history in every part of the world to the extent that the market has hitherto proven incapable of preventing the establishment of monopolist state entities through natural competition from other agents-of-force. Neither mainstream libertarian ideology nor radical iterations such as anarcho-capitalism can explain this phenomenon. Purist libertarian dogma holds that “monopolies cannot arise without government intervention,” which begs the question as to how the most prominent monopoly in any inhabited territory comes into existence - that is, the local government.

or

  1. A possible “solution” to the above dilemna which nevertheless creates deep schisms in the libertarian worldview is the implicit recognition that, since all market trends ultimately express the will of the market (an economic axiom of libertarianism), the existence of statist entities with monopolies must be viewed as a direct consequence of the “invisible hand” of the market at work and thus statism is to be considered a “market trend” no different from a market preference for one type of automobile over another.

The latter is the more academically and internally consistent view which libertarians would do well to adopt if they were more concerned about being correct than about being relevant.

You must recognize that the establishment of state entities with a de facto monopoly over violence does, in fact, represent the “will” or “invisible hand” of the market at work and you must therefore drop your academic objections to statism.

This thought process is similar to a dilemna often posed to advocates of democracy. Namely, what if the masses use their democratic vote to install a dictatorship which then promptly strips them of it?

Under strict interpretations of political ideology, such bizarre outliers must be “allowed” if the theory is to remain internally consistent.

In summary, libertarians need to abandon their artificial divide between “statist and free market” forces.

Another thought experiment will be useful:
Examine the internal structure of any capitalist organization, and what do you see? Laissez faire and the self interest principle at work? No. Collectivism and central planning on a grand scale.

The take home lesson is that the world operates on collectivism because that’s exactly where the “invisible hand of the market” has guided it.

Stop thinking of states as separate entities existing in some arbitrary no-man’s-land “outside” the market and start thinking of them as corporations within the market and suddenly every utopian ideal of libertarianism evaporates and you shall gain an immense understanding of how the world really operates.

States are and always have been a product of market forces. The day that states end is the day that the market wills them to end by establishing an alternative through natural competition. This could be done at any given time. The only possible explanation for why it hasn’t been done that is consistent with libertarian ideology is that it does not represent the will of the market. Thus, by advocating for less statism, you are actually contradicting the expressed will of the market. How’s that for a mind bender? Now you know why I’m no longer a libertarian - too many internal contradictions and utopian nonsense.

The moment you stop analyzing what “is” and start spouting off about what “should” be, you’ve crossed over the threshhold of science and gone into religious territory.

Other dichotomies that form an integral part of libertarian theory include:

Individualism vs Collectivism Benefit - This is a legitimate dichotomy

Initiation of Force vs Non-Aggression Principle - Fundamentally contradictory (thereby non-axiomatic) since even the most stringent libertarians must concede that force must be initiated on certain occasions (such as to stop a murder, for instance).

Libertarianism’s inherent strength lies in its economic axioms but there is a gray area, there cannot be any axioms. Consequently, the “non-aggression principle” is one of the weaker tenets of libertarian theory.

373

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Not at all fallacious and he’s working on it.

374

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Not at all fallacious and he’s working on it.[/quote]

…i’ll wait for said proof with bated breath…

375

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing[/quote]

…how can you disprove something that exists nowhere else but in beliefs? And that which exists in beliefs only needs no proof, otherwise if someone, at one point somewhere, had found a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that [a] God exists, you’d no longer need faith and beliefs to sustain your religion, and atheism would no longer exist…[/quote]

Is your IQ higher than those in Mensa? Ah, never mind.

376

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing[/quote]

…how can you disprove something that exists nowhere else but in beliefs? And that which exists in beliefs only needs no proof, otherwise if someone, at one point somewhere, had found a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that [a] God exists, you’d no longer need faith and beliefs to sustain your religion, and atheism would no longer exist…[/quote]

Is your IQ higher than those in Mensa? Ah, never mind.[/quote]

377

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve been involved in these types of threads in the past and I know how the atheists value intelligence over faith. Many further claim that those who believe in God are not unintelligent. I usually don’t get involved with these types of threads any longer but I couldn’t help but post the following quote from Chris Langan the smartest man in the world who has an IQ of between 195-210:

"you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you’re willing to admit that it’s both physical and mental in nature"12 and that his CTMU explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase.15 He calls his proposal a true ‘Theory of Everything’, a cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s ‘Participatory Universe’ and Stephen Hawking’s ‘Imaginary Time’ theory of cosmology."9 In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that “you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

It’s also interesting to note that memebrs of Mensa (organization for those with high IQ’s) are mostly made up of those who believe in God. In fact only 3.6% are atheists.

“49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.”

Metropolitan Washington Mensa

[/quote]

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Not at all fallacious and he’s working on it.[/quote]

…i’ll wait for said proof with bated breath…
[/quote]

In the meantime you might want to join the overwhelming majority of the most intelligent people in the world and believe that there is a God. No?

378

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
As you go far enough to the left, or far enough to the right, the eventually meet on the other side?[/quote]
Definitely not in theory.

In practice, maybe, but I don’t like to argue about how something was “in practice” because it’s extremely messy and impossible to prove anything.

For instance:

Marxist purists will tell you that communism has never truly been implemented in any nation, that the SU and its satellites weren’t the real deal and they can come up with laundry list of academic points taken from The Communist Manifesto to “prove” this claim.

Austrian economists and similar free market advocates like to claim that there never has been a truly “laissez faire” economy anywhere in the world and they can also give you a laundry list of reasons to back up that claim, citing their own academic treatises on capitalism.

Libertarians often claim that their ideology has never been faithfully implemented in the world. They, too, can cite their own references.

Liberals pretend that the entire world is pitted against them, even when they’re in power, and conservatives do exactly the same thing. For instance, anyone who espouses remotely conservative principles in Europe is given the label “far right” and is typically stereotyped as a neo-fascist. See Geert Wilders, Jörg Haider and Nick Griffin.

In Europe, Bill Clinton would be a “conservative” and someone to the left of Mao Zedong would be considered a “liberal”. They actually have parties over there called the “Liberal Conservatives” and such. Completely skewed political spectrum and a perfect example of what you get when one side dominates. “Vast right wing conspiracy”.

On the other hand, conservatives also have their own mass hysteria and scare tactics which generally revolve around highly implausible conspiracy theories. Look at how many people on this board keep starting new threads on the same topics, even though they know that what the response is going to be since nearly everyone here is conservative. Why do we need more Obamacare, Iraq, and Capitalism threads? How come HH starts a new Ayn Rand thread every month? See “Liberal media”.

The point is, when you bring historical anecdotes to the table the argument never ends because everyone has their own ideas of history. Also, politics is emotional, not rational. Most people can barely think straight.

When you argue over theory, it is actually possible to reduce complex ideologies to their fundamental axioms and then prove them right or wrong with logic.

Arguing over theory trumps arguing over the real world application of that theory.

Let real world issues be addressed in the real world and leave theoretical topics for academic arguments.

379

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing[/quote]

…how can you disprove something that exists nowhere else but in beliefs? And that which exists in beliefs only needs no proof, otherwise if someone, at one point somewhere, had found a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that [a] God exists, you’d no longer need faith and beliefs to sustain your religion, and atheism would no longer exist…[/quote]

Is your IQ higher than those in Mensa? Ah, never mind.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/quote]

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that I think my recommendation is infallible, I do not. I just thought you might want to give it another look based upon the fact that those with much higher IQ’s than you think that there is a God.

380

I’d like to add to my previous post that a strong legal case can be made that governments can do whatever they choose within their own territory since everything they control is effectively their property.

This is completely analogous with a corporation rigidly enforcing a system of rules on its own property; the company can dictate to its employees how they must act and whether they can stay. If an employee becomes unruly or refuses to perform a task, he can be forcibly removed from the company’s premises.

To wit, everything that a government does within its own jurisdiction can be deemed “enforcement of [implied or actual] contract”. If you don’t like it, you can (usually) leave and “do business elsewhere”, which is the same “freedom” afforded by large corporations to individuals within their market.

If you disagree with how “your government” is acting then you have two practical options:

  1. Get into the system, work your way up and try to affect change from within.
    or
  2. Simply quit, leave the country and if possible, start your own company/colony/habitat/civilization.

Either strategy requires the expenditure of copious amounts of time and resources. Those are the things that “social reformers” should be seeking. It’s easy make things happen for a king, extremely difficult for a peasant. So why would anyone remain a peasant if they could help it? The trouble is, most people can’t. The masses need to be ruled by their betters, as certainly today as in ancient Babylon.

Reality check: The United States is a for-profit corporation operated for the benefit of its literal or figurative shareholders, whose identities probably aren’t known to the general public.

And as corporations go, it’s a damn good one. More generous than most.

A citizen without a position in the ruling class of America Corp. has absolutely no cause to have an opinion on what his country “should” or “should not” be doing. It is really quite disgusting when the proles attempt to voice their uneducated opinions and shape national policy.

A representative system of government, democracy, checks and balances, liberty, what have you - all such high minded ideals are simply tools of deception designed to keep the masses in obedience. Every society from ancient Egypt through the present day has been ruled from the top down. This isn’t going to change anytime soon.

The world’s largest and most successful so-called “capitalist” corporations employ top-down management, central planning, and quite reliably operate according to the famous socialist tenet, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” There is absolutely nothing capitalistic about the way a Fortune 500 company is run. It is a microcosm of a socialist utopia, the central planner’s dream. And does it work for this purpose? You bet.

Libertarians cannot have it both ways: Either government represents a truly epic case of market failure or else it is the embodiment of the very will of the free market in action.

In any case, since “monopolies can’t exist in the free market” and government arises from the market, the perceived governmental monopoly on the use of force surely cannot be immune from the forces of competition.

Or can it? Assemble your own militia and put your economic theory to the test.