Len Budney: For example, you said, "it is only OK to kill SOME disobedient children and not all of them. Ok, thanks for clearing that up." That's an inaccurate paraphrase that was not just sarcastic; it was condescending and extremely offensive.
Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
ryanpatgray:I am not a bigot, I am not intollerant of people of faith nor do I "dispise them".
You ought to amend your manner of speech to reflect that.
I am not even the one who started this debate. I tried to avoid it
If you wanted to avoid it, you would not have participated in the debate that was in process.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: ryanpatgray:I am not a bigot, I am not intollerant of people of faith nor do I "dispise them". You ought to amend your manner of speech to reflect that.
By not pointing out flaws in reasoning?
MacFall: I am not even the one who started this debate. I tried to avoid it If you wanted to avoid it, you would not have participated in the debate that was in process.
I was initially defending Stefan Molyneux from inacurate statements made about him. That is how this all started.
jimbojr:Do you consider dancing back and forth between ad hominem to be a vialbe intellectual pursuit?In trying to decide, as you suggest, I find myself confused by your lack of consistency.Niccolo: " Alright, I've made some similar references to Stefan Molyneux - mistakenly - and I'm certain that were I to have any further discussions with Molyneux we would do very little but butt-heads, but his work isn't really cultist or even similar to the types of behaviors observed in the Charles Manson's or the Applegate's of the world." "...That being said, however, I respect Molyneux as a voice of interest, wit, intelligence, and value to the broader libertarian movement and consider serious allegations of cultism to be of little substance." "Second, Molyneux's behavior isn't actually typical of any kind of cult leader""Then again, however, the idea of "cult" is thrown around so lightly these days almost anything can be called a cult. As far as I can tell, however, under the specific guidelines qualifying a "political cult" - excessive fund raising, ends justifying means, etc. - Molyneux doesn't qualify."http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/permalink/117364/117607/ShowThread.aspx#117607Perhaps after being banned from FDR for making baseless claims and ad homs, you saw the real light and decided it was actually a cult. Or perhaps, better yet, it came by divine revelation - which is considered by you to be a vialbe method of obtaining knowledge?
Do you consider dancing back and forth between ad hominem to be a vialbe intellectual pursuit?
In trying to decide, as you suggest, I find myself confused by your lack of consistency.
Niccolo: " Alright, I've made some similar references to Stefan Molyneux - mistakenly - and I'm certain that were I to have any further discussions with Molyneux we would do very little but butt-heads, but his work isn't really cultist or even similar to the types of behaviors observed in the Charles Manson's or the Applegate's of the world."
"...That being said, however, I respect Molyneux as a voice of interest, wit, intelligence, and value to the broader libertarian movement and consider serious allegations of cultism to be of little substance."
"Second, Molyneux's behavior isn't actually typical of any kind of cult leader"
"Then again, however, the idea of "cult" is thrown around so lightly these days almost anything can be called a cult. As far as I can tell, however, under the specific guidelines qualifying a "political cult" - excessive fund raising, ends justifying means, etc. - Molyneux doesn't qualify."
http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/permalink/117364/117607/ShowThread.aspx#117607
Perhaps after being banned from FDR for making baseless claims and ad homs, you saw the real light and decided it was actually a cult. Or perhaps, better yet, it came by divine revelation - which is considered by you to be a vialbe method of obtaining knowledge?
This confirmed my first suspicion and convinced me that, whether conscious of it or not, Molyneux is indeed forming a political cult. As for divin revelation, I tend not to get into theological debates with Atheists because so few no what they're talking about it seems pitiful and wasteful of my time - simply put, no comment.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
ryanpatgray: First of all, the vow was not specifically to kill his daughter but the first thing that met him. That was his daughter. Secondly, ritual human sacrifice is not such a far fetched idea in the ancient Middle East. Besides Abraham there is the more recent example of Yashua.
First of all, the vow was not specifically to kill his daughter but the first thing that met him. That was his daughter. Secondly, ritual human sacrifice is not such a far fetched idea in the ancient Middle East. Besides Abraham there is the more recent example of Yashua.
ryanpatgray: That is the difference. Insanity without a belief in the supernatural is not as dangerous as insanity with a belief in an all powerful deity who outranks all human beings and can order a prophet to kill his son.
That is the difference. Insanity without a belief in the supernatural is not as dangerous as insanity with a belief in an all powerful deity who outranks all human beings and can order a prophet to kill his son.
You're assuming that Abraham was insane. This is common in all militant atheist analyses. Assume all religion is nuts and attack from there.You ignore the logic in the statement that if God is God and the embodiment of morality, then whatever action He makes must be, by logic, a moral action. Now, you will of course say, "BUT GOD DON'T EXIST!" fine. Along with the assumption of insanity, Atheists often assume that all Christians and other people of faith care about convincing them of the truth of God. Quite frankly, I don't care. Don't hold any faith, do, whatever you want.
By that same logic Abraham was required to disobey his order. Did he fail his test?
You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment. This is really basic stuff--I'd like to impress upon you that what you're considering to be powerful arguments are the usual trivialities that every beginner (or, for those raised in a church, young children) raise. I suspect the reason you're making such poor arguments is that you consider all believers too stupid to merit actual mental effort on your part. You're mistaken.
Not only is it trivial, by the way, but you already know it. If you have a child, you've told him not to cross the road alone. If he promises you to retrieve your frisbee, and later you find out that he crossed a road to do it, you'll punish him. Conversely, if you order him to cross the road in a particular instance, you will punish him for refusing.
If you wish to avoid non-theists that is fine.
I don't recall saying any such thing. I made the general observation that free people can dislike each other and refrain from associating. I don't have a problem with non-theists. I do have a problem with condescending jerks, but nevertheless I don't usually avoid them.
Again, I am no bigot and in any case it has been non-believers of one kind or another who have been the ones who have had to "watch their back".
That statement too is poorly founded. Practically all humans, at least since the upper Paleolithic, have believed in one religion or other. To say that religious people kill and steal is to say that humans kill and steal. The record of atheists as individuals is no better; there has never been a nation of atheists, so you can hardly gloat about the humanitarian record of atheist nations.
As for your bigot credentials, it's hard to say--there's a continuum. Your condescension, etc., suggests some level of bigotry, but nothing like the obsession shown by some atheists. I merely point out that "bigotry" as a cause of violence is well documented. That model not only subsumes religious violence--which is usually based in bigotry--but it also explains violence committed by atheist skinheads against blacks.
--Len.
Interesting! So, for example, if a seventeen-year-old gang member attempts to rape and kill your wife, you would counsel her to lie back and think about ponies? Personally, I'd want my wife to defend herself with her sidearm.
To each his own, I guess. I admit I'm shocked to learn that you think it's dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though.
Len Budney: By that same logic Abraham was required to disobey his order. Did he fail his test? You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment.
You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment.
Exactly. Direct orders such as Jesus' annulment of the OT laws.
Niccolò: The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham is a parable on the purpose and importance of faith
OK, so, in your view, what is the importance of faith?
Niccolò: ryanpatgray: That is the difference. Insanity without a belief in the supernatural is not as dangerous as insanity with a belief in an all powerful deity who outranks all human beings and can order a prophet to kill his son. You're assuming that Abraham was insane.
You're assuming that Abraham was insane.
Even assuming he was not, it could be a justification to be used either by an oportunist, an insane person, or even a sane person who is halucinating.
Niccolò: Atheists often assume that all Christians and other people of faith care about convincing them of the truth of God. Quite frankly, I don't care. Don't hold any faith, do, whatever you want.
I have never assumed that. I have never had a member of the Society of Friends try to convert me. I have never had an Amish person try to convert me (yes, I do live in an area where Amsih live.) I have never had a Jewish person try to convert me. I have never had a Unitarian-Universalist try to convert me. Not all faiths require their members do evangelizing.
Len Budney: Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable. Interesting! So, for example, if a seventeen-year-old gang member attempts to rape and kill your wife, you would counsel her to lie back and think about ponies? Personally, I'd want my wife to defend herself with her sidearm. To each his own, I guess. I admit I'm shocked to learn that you think it's dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though. --Len.
To state the obvious, this is called self-defense which is a different matter altogether.
MacFall: Len Budney: By that same logic Abraham was required to disobey his order. Did he fail his test? You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment. Exactly. Direct orders such as Jesus' annulment of the OT laws.
Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself!
ryanpatgray:Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself!
Of course He can. Assuming that God created the world and all mankind, we occupy the world under His liscence. The terms of which, being consistent with private property theory, He may change at any time.
MacFall: ryanpatgray:Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself! Of course He can. Assuming that God created the world and all mankind, we occupy the world under His liscence. The terms of which, being consistent with private property theory, He may change at any time.
That is all I needed to know.
ryanpatgray: MacFall: ryanpatgray:Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself! Of course He can. Assuming that God created the world and all mankind, we occupy the world under His liscence. The terms of which, being consistent with private property theory, He may change at any time. That is all I needed to know.
Ah, cool. Hopefully the next time we talk it will be in a thread on whose topic we agree.
MacFall: ryanpatgray: MacFall: ryanpatgray:Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself! Of course He can. Assuming that God created the world and all mankind, we occupy the world under His liscence. The terms of which, being consistent with private property theory, He may change at any time. That is all I needed to know. Ah, cool. Hopefully the next time we talk it will be in a thread on whose topic we agree.
The topic of religion is an emotional one, which is why I was hesitant to get into it from the get go. Look at some of my early posts in this thread. But as far as I am concerned this clears the whole issue up for me.
Niccolò: jimbojr:Do you consider dancing back and forth between ad hominem to be a vialbe intellectual pursuit?In trying to decide, as you suggest, I find myself confused by your lack of consistency.Niccolo: " Alright, I've made some similar references to Stefan Molyneux - mistakenly - and I'm certain that were I to have any further discussions with Molyneux we would do very little but butt-heads, but his work isn't really cultist or even similar to the types of behaviors observed in the Charles Manson's or the Applegate's of the world." "...That being said, however, I respect Molyneux as a voice of interest, wit, intelligence, and value to the broader libertarian movement and consider serious allegations of cultism to be of little substance." "Second, Molyneux's behavior isn't actually typical of any kind of cult leader""Then again, however, the idea of "cult" is thrown around so lightly these days almost anything can be called a cult. As far as I can tell, however, under the specific guidelines qualifying a "political cult" - excessive fund raising, ends justifying means, etc. - Molyneux doesn't qualify."http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/permalink/117364/117607/ShowThread.aspx#117607Perhaps after being banned from FDR for making baseless claims and ad homs, you saw the real light and decided it was actually a cult. Or perhaps, better yet, it came by divine revelation - which is considered by you to be a vialbe method of obtaining knowledge? Yes, actually. What other reason is there to ban a voice of opposition - that for the most part disrupted nothing in the boards?This is a fundamental portion of any cult. My sneaking suspicion originally was that Molyneux would ban any and all voices of opposition - he fulfills most other qualities already. Molyneux, however, had not banned me even after voicing opposition - this gave me the impression that he was open to outside claims.That, however, became incorrect when Molyneux revealed he had no knowledget that the Niccolò on his precious board was the same Niccolò that wrote those mean things about Dr. Turtle-Head. This confirmed my first suspicion and convinced me that, whether conscious of it or not, Molyneux is indeed forming a political cult. As for divin revelation, I tend not to get into theological debates with Atheists because so few no what they're talking about it seems pitiful and wasteful of my time - simply put, no comment.
MacFall: I follow a kosher diet more or less because I feel better physically when I do, but I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong if I eat pork or shrimp once in a while.
I do too, I also enjoy Halal food which is similar but not exactly the same. I think many of the religous leaders at the time these laws were written did so for health reasons. They observed people getting physically ill after eating certain foods but did not understand why (Louis Pasteur had not yet been born).
jimbojr:
Wow... What an A-S-S
ryanpatgray:OK, so, in your view, what is the importance of faith?
ryanpatgray:Even assuming he was not, it could be a justification to be used either by an oportunist, an insane person, or even a sane person who is halucinating.
If your concern is that it will be a justification, it will not - a knight of faith accepts the consequences because he knows that it is what he must do.
ryanpatgray: I have never assumed that. I have never had a member of the Society of Friends try to convert me. I have never had an Amish person try to convert me (yes, I do live in an area where Amsih live.) I have never had a Jewish person try to convert me. I have never had a Unitarian-Universalist try to convert me. Not all faiths require their members do evangelizing.
I still don't see what's wrong with sharing one's faith. Have the Christian bullies really held you down and forced bibles down your throat?
ryanpatgray: Len Budney: Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable. To each his own, I guess. I admit I'm shocked to learn that you think it's dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though. To state the obvious, this is called self-defense which is a different matter altogether.
Len Budney: Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable. To each his own, I guess. I admit I'm shocked to learn that you think it's dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though.
You said that killing "children" is "NEVER" acceptable. Now you suddenly discover an exception: self-defense. And that's OK: when you contradict yourself, it's "another matter altogether." When your disputants appear to do so (though in reality you're just confused), you see this as damning. Thanks to your double-standard, you're blissfully unaware of the point. The point is that you need to treat others courteously, and stop acting like an ass.
ryanpatgray: MacFall: Len Budney:You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment. Exactly. Direct orders such as Jesus' annulment of the OT laws. Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself!
MacFall: Len Budney:You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment. Exactly. Direct orders such as Jesus' annulment of the OT laws.
Len Budney:You don't grasp the logic yet. Jephthah's promise does not override God's commandment. God's direct order does override the standing order of his commandment.
Ryan, note that I don't agree with MacFall that the "OT laws have been annuled." However, that's another discussion unsuited to a forum of this type, since it would require educating you on the subject--which you don't want anyway. But I mention it purely as a caution that MacFall and I are not interchangeable, and answering him is not answering me.
Anyhow, you continue acting like an ass. You make this statement sarcastically, as if it's a telling blow, when yet again it's the sort of stuff one covers in a basic class for children. I point this out in hopes that you'll have a sudden epiphany, and stop acting like an ass. It's easy: all you have to do is relinquish your conviction that you're talking to idiots.
I can answer your question easily, though. Of course God can give orders that countermand earlier orders! In your question, you're defending the notion that rules never have exceptions. So when your wife is bleeding to death, you'll nevertheless obey the speed limit driving her to the hospital. When masked gunmen are chasing you, you'll stop at red lights. If a serial killer tries to murder you in a library, you'll speak in a whisper. I must comment that your slavish concept of rules could cost you dearly someday; I strongly advise you to outgrow that extremely immature conception.
Interestingly, your atheist compatriots don't have your particular blind spot: they realize that different conditions sometimes mandate violation of the stated rules. They criticise religionists because they find all those danged commandments too restrictive. If we combine their objection and yours, we conclude that if God can make exceptions to the rule, He's confused and indecisive; but if He can't, then He's short-sighted and tyrannical.
Niccolò: As existence is absurd, to rely on pure reason would be a fundamental mistake that would only result in inevitable disillusion.
Intersting, why do you believe existance is absurd?
Niccolò: To be happy as an individual, there takes a certain amount of faith that, through the virtue of the absurd, life will improve and the passion one finds so important will be delivered to him.
I am happy and I have no faith.
Niccolò: Maybe it would. This is where you're confusing man's justice with moral thought, however. A man acting on faith, transcending the ethical, acts with full knowledge that if he is successful and God's desire was indeed for him to sacrifice his son, then he will still face the consequences, but consequences be damned! It is more important to act on faith than to act in fear.
Even if the consequences go against God's will?
Niccolò: I still don't see what's wrong with sharing one's faith.
With concenting adults nothing.
Niccolò:Have the Christian bullies really held you down and forced bibles down your throat?
Not as an adult but as a child, yes, they did.
Len Budney: ryanpatgray: Len Budney: Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable. To each his own, I guess. I admit I'm shocked to learn that you think it's dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though. To state the obvious, this is called self-defense which is a different matter altogether. You said that killing "children" is "NEVER" acceptable. Now you suddenly discover an exception: self-defense. And that's OK: when you contradict yourself, it's "another matter altogether." When your disputants appear to do so (though in reality you're just confused), you see this as damning. Thanks to your double-standard, you're blissfully unaware of the point. The point is that you need to treat others courteously, and stop acting like an ass.--Len.
AH! But your example was of a 17 year old who acording to Jewish law is an adult.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 nowhere mentions children. It refers consistently to a "stubborn and rebellious son," which makes no reference to age or minority. You'd probably have spotted that right away if you checked. The only reason this oversight bites you on the butt is that you're content trusting your unverified assumptions. And the reason you're content to do that is you assume your disputants are so stupid that they don't merit your full attention.
Perhaps THIS will finally convince you to stop acting like an ass. But probably not: you'll probably proceed to raise another childish objection, and suggest that my clarification means that a father can execute his 63-year-old son if he wants to. I can answer that one as well, of course--but my concern is why you think such an obvious objection hasn't been considered and resolved ages ago. Why do you think that your off-the-cuff impressions of a subject you know nothing about will stump people who've spent years and energy on the subject?
The answer is, of course, that you think they're idiots. Stop thinking they're idiots, and you'll automatically stop acting like an ass.
ryanpatgray:Intersting, why do you believe existance is absurd?
There is no inherent value in anything - yet man works to discover it. There is no inherent value in man's existence - yet he fears death with the greatest passion. Man works his entire life to be eternal, infinite, and forever, but the only real recognizable common between all men is death.
Your existence is absurd - consider what it took, all the connections of this and that. What chances are there of me talking to you now? They are very small, yet here we are.
ryanpatgray:I am happy and I have no faith.
ryanpatgray:Even if the consequences go against God's will?
ryanpatgray:With concenting adults nothing.
ryanpatgray:Not as an adult but as a child, yes, they did.
What, did your mother make you go to Sunday school?
I've never seen a successful online conversion from religion to atheism (or vice versa), ever, and I don't expect one to occur. I'm a diehard atheist but I'm confident that attempting to convince another of one's beliefs regarding religion and irreliegion online is normally about as easy as using "stimulus packages" to revive economies.
"If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom." --Murray Rothbard
Praxeo:I've never seen a successful online conversion from religion to atheism (or vice versa), ever, and I don't expect one to occur. I'm a diehard atheist but I'm confident that attempting to convince another of one's beliefs regarding religion and irreliegion online is normally about as easy as using "stimulus packages" to revive economies.
I'm with you, brother!
That's why I never bother trying to "convert" atheists--or anyone else, for that matter. I'm pleased if someone takes an interest in my views, and doubly so if he finds them convincing, but I consider it pure sunk cost to try and convert the unwilling.
On the other hand, is courtesy too much to ask for? Your post was perfectly courteous. So apparently some people can discuss the subject amicably.
If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst. If you have evidence for your claims, present it. If not, do not expect thinking people to tip-toe around the few sacred cows you refuse to apply reason to.
jimbojr:If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst.
Wow--talk about mental masturbation! Did you climax? Was it good?
Meanwhile, I'm not asking you to change your opinion of religious people's views. I'm asking you to be polite anyway. You can think religious people the most idiotic specimens that ever hatched, and still be polite. In your opinion, my views make me blind, retarded and crazy. OK, then: do you treat the blind, mentally ill and people with down's syndrome like such an ass? If so, why did your momma raise you to be such a scumbag?
The irony is that you describe yourself as "dedicated to logic, reason and the scientific method," yet you appear incapable of realizing that you'll never achieve liberty without cooperation from retarded religious libertarians. So you'd rather continue in slavery, if freedom means showing basic civility to those you despise. Is that consistent with logic and reason? From where I sit, it's mighty stupid.
We could probably have an interesting discussion of the epistemological implications of attempting to embrace a life of "absolute rationality." We probably won't, though, because you'll reply with another self-congratulatory slur against my intelligence. For example, we could discuss why Marylin vos Savant clings to an irrational conviction that Fermat's last theorem hasn't been proven. Or why Chomsky is a socialist. Or why Newton spent so much energy on the Apocalypse. Or, closer to home, why a member of Mensa with a PhD in Math and a 99th-percentile IQ, who recognizes the truth of universal common descent and despises creationists, is nevertheless a Bible believer.
But instead, you'll probably remain content with your intellectual onanism. Hope you find it (ick!) fulfilling.
jimbojr: If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst. If you have evidence for your claims, present it. If not, do not expect thinking people to tip-toe around the few sacred cows you refuse to apply reason to.
People confident in their knowledge do not need to write page long emotional rants that put nonexistant words and insults in others mouths, but I understand if venting brings you relief. I'm going to formally recognize here that you have a PhD in case it wasn't made clear by you repeating it.
MENSA members also have a high reported belief in UFO's. Correlation? Causation? Or maybe we should be waiting for the mother-ship with Bibles in our grips?
Niccolò: jimbojr: If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst. If you have evidence for your claims, present it. If not, do not expect thinking people to tip-toe around the few sacred cows you refuse to apply reason to. I always find it so blatantly comedic when men like you speak of "reason and logic" as if they are codes to live your life by.Immanuel Kant is rolling in his grave.
Or you could say nanny-nanny-boo-boo.
People confident in their knowledge do not need to write page long emotional rants that put nonexistant words and insults in others mouths...
I have a reason for writing what I did, and I told you what it was. Namely, I want people to be polite rather than acting like pricks. Did you miss that when you read my post, or did you read it at all? Notice that I have never attempted to convince any atheist here to become a theist. Nor have I insulted any atheists, unless they also happened to be behaving like pricks--and I would as quickly chide a theist for the same behavior.
In short, you insist on making this about either me or my beliefs, when neither is the least bit relevant here. You posted some obnoxious discourtesy, and I exhorted you to be courteous instead.
MENSA members also have a high reported belief in UFO's.
I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it would be an interesting addition to the discussion topic I mentioned. I notice that you have no interest in that topic, but instead took occasion to issue another pointless assault on others' intelligence. And most interestingly of all, you did it immediately after I predicted you would. Apparently I'm working from a model that has predictive power! It's a simple model, too. It's this: people who act like jerks probably are jerks, and will continue to act like jerks in the future. Talk about elegance.
So, are you going to start being polite, or are you going to continue your obnoxious, self-gratifying behavior? If the latter, it's no skin off my back: it'll simply confirm my hypothesis that you're a jerk, and I'll start avoiding you. Liberty doesn't actually require that we get along; as long as you realize that I will defend myself with deadly force when attacked, and keep your mitts to yourself, we'll coexist just fine. Still, getting along is preferable. Especially when we live in a police state that can't be rolled back without serious cooperation.
Does someone really need to point out all of the blatant psychological projection you are displaying? You've knighted yourself the defender of politeness and all that is holy while exhibiting the juvenile behavior of posting page after page of name calling and insulting (i.e. calling people pricks, asses, etc. etc.)?? So you have a value that says being rude to people is wrong and yet you are by far the most belligerent person on this thread. No atheist that I have read, including myself, has demonstrated behavior that even comes close to your own. When an argument that does not include name calling offends your beliefs you go straight to immature name-calling. I could also come up with a model of great predictive power....you hold irrational beliefs as truth which blinds you to the blatant and demonstratable irrational and inconsistent nature of your words and actions. But if we work empirically, no such models are needed, it's just obvious.
You've knighted yourself the defender of politeness and all that is holy...
How grandiose! But no, I just asked some specific people to be polite.
So you have a value that says being rude to people is wrong and yet you are by far the most belligerent person on this thread...
Perhaps. But that's not confusing, I trust: you and I both embrace the non-aggression principle, yet also believe in self-defense. Rudely telling someone to stop being rude is analogous to defensive force: namely, the blame rests with the initial aggressor.
No atheist that I have read, including myself, has demonstrated behavior that even comes close to your own.
False. For example, the rant that started, "If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth..." was extremely offensive. That you apparently don't think it was, indicates your lack of courtesy. That you would make the above claim and in the same paragraph say, "you hold irrational beliefs as truth which blinds you... blatant and demonstratable irrational and inconsistent..." is the height of irony. Assuming you're right, which I have assumed consistently in this thread, it's an obnoxiously rude thing to say.
In short, I've asked you repeatedly to show some courtesy. If you choose not to, I'll mostly ignore you--but reserve the right to address you with merciless bluntness. If you shape up, you'll find me sweet as a little lamb. Sadly, your persistence proves you have no intention of shaping up. Is it because you're this obnoxious to everybody (i.e, because you're a jerk), or is it because you hate religious people with special intensity (i.e., because you're a bigot)? Just curious.
The relationship between religion and society is complicated and is usually more complicated that what we would think.
Eric Voegelin - who was a student of von Mises in Vienna - wrote to von Hayek:
"I read your article The Intellectuals and Socialism. Reading it I had the same impression that I had when I examined Road to Serfdom. We are approximately concerned about the same problems and we are dissatisfied by the same grievances. As I see it, we differ on the interpretative issue. You understand the difficulties of socialists intellectuals observing the economic contrasts – and maybe ethical – between socialism and liberalism. For me, this contrast does not approach the issue deeply enough. You know my prospective from our discussion and from my lectures. I think that it is impossible to deal with the contemporary problems of intellectuals without taking into consideration the religious scenario, the “Gnostik” problematic. I have the impression that you come closer to this problematic in your work Counter Revolution of Science than in your economic interpretations"
jimbojr: Does someone really need to point out all of the blatant psychological projection you are displaying? You've knighted yourself the defender of politeness and all that is holy while exhibiting the juvenile behavior of posting page after page of name calling and insulting (i.e. calling people pricks, asses, etc. etc.)?? So you have a value that says being rude to people is wrong and yet you are by far the most belligerent person on this thread. No atheist that I have read, including myself, has demonstrated behavior that even comes close to your own. When an argument that does not include name calling offends your beliefs you go straight to immature name-calling. I could also come up with a model of great predictive power....you hold irrational beliefs as truth which blinds you to the blatant and demonstratable irrational and inconsistent nature of your words and actions. But if we work empirically, no such models are needed, it's just obvious.
What is it with Randroids and psycho-analysis?Always with the psycho-analysis. No actual substance to their arguments, just petty "psychological" observations.