Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

My Concept Of Anarchy

This post has 195 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Thu, May 8 2008 10:38 PM

Just a follow-up in case anyone's interested in the result of my experiment, mentioned above:

I spent several hours more or less actively doubting that the God of Abraham (and Niccolò) would turn my piece of bread into a lump of meat.  And sure enough, He didn't.  I next spent some time doubting that Zeus would perform the miracle.  Again, no results.  I thought about a few other purported gods (among which, Odin, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, and Ra; I even tried Xenu and Ilúvatar), and serially doubted that each of them would do it; which, again, they didn't.  I next took my life in my hands and began doubting that any god at all would do it - realising that if the bread should turn into meat during that period I would be in no better position that I was to start with, having no idea which of the infinity of possible (or impossible) gods might have done it - I also figured that if whatever gods might be capable of the act were so reluctant to identify themselves, that this would have been the time to do it, and therefore the most likely time to expect that my bread would, in fact, change into meat.  I, however, manfully maintained my doubt!  Fortunately for my mental health, it is still, at the time of this writing, bread.  Somewhat stale bread at this point.  I'm calling an end the experiment now, and considering it one further item among the abundant evidence of spectacular existence failure among any and all gods.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Thu, May 8 2008 10:41 PM

Perhaps you should try spaghetti instead?

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Thu, May 8 2008 11:13 PM

You're right!  For some reason I didn't even think to try either the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who, presumably, would have changed it into a delicious meat sauce rather than human heart...come to think of it, the idea that Catholics seriously believe they're chowing down on human heart and blood worries me more than a little...) or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator

Et tu, sarcasm?

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,879
Points 29,735
Bostwick replied on Thu, May 8 2008 11:49 PM

Brainpolice:
Noone has the legitimate authority to impose their prefered form of organization onto anyone else. Everyone has the right to effectively secede as an individual from any form of organization. If you do not recognize the right of the individual to secede from your commune, secede from your union, secede from your buisiness, then you are not an anarchist. Someone who coerces or forces others into a given organization is a ruler by definition.

The idea of secession is not a universally accepted truth. In modern terms(I know you prefer the classical use) secession is a right-wing ideal, while the left-wing ideal is "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

You're right in saying anyone who doesn't accept secession is not an anarchist, and I'd say there are a lot of false anarchists out there.

As recently as Lincoln, or even Theodore R, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere" was a right-wing mindset, but in today's terms it is decidedly leftist. And thats how they self describe, so I'm inclined to follow suit.

Ultimately, socialism is not about personal betterment, it is a crusade.

 

Peace

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future", seems more relevant after seeing this entire debate over the use of currently mutated anit-concepts & mis-uses of past words, vs. the use of the concepts original meanings & uses. 

"Study the past if you would define the future" also seems to lend credence in not abandoning the original concepts & meanings, and cutting through anti-concepts & mis-used labels. 


Just a thought.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,879
Points 29,735
Bostwick replied on Fri, May 9 2008 12:08 AM

banned:

Niccolò:

Ego:

I'd rather have rampant warfare over rampant welfare.

 

Statements like these make me thankful that there is a God who does judge the hearts and minds of men.

 

Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of god, since to sin is, at root, to actively deny gods authority? So the theivery of the state would most probably be judged the same as the genocide it perpetuates?

 

What denomination believes that? Catholicism doesn't.

 

Peace

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,879
Points 29,735
Bostwick replied on Fri, May 9 2008 12:12 AM

Nitroadict:

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future", seems more relevant after seeing this entire debate over the use of currently mutated anit-concepts & mis-uses of past words, vs. the use of the concepts original meanings & uses. 

"Study the past if you would define the future" also seems to lend credence in not abandoning the original concepts & meanings, and cutting through anti-concepts & mis-used labels. 


Just a thought.

I should have added:

It was socialists who caused the shift anyways by labeling all their enemies as "right-wing." A middle of the road movement has forced both the real left and real right onto the same side, and thus we get the chimera that is modern conservatism.

Peace

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Fri, May 9 2008 12:54 AM
Paul:
I spent several hours more or less actively doubting that the God of Abraham (and Niccolò) would turn my piece of bread into a lump of meat. And sure enough, He didn't. I next spent some time doubting that Zeus would perform the miracle.
I think you're wrong there. Why do you think Zeus would turn bread into human flesh ? Maybe his job is to turn bread into swans ? Also, I don't see why only catholics should be ridiculed ? Protestants think the bible has divine origin ? The earth is 6000 years old ? Do I need to add anything else ?

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Fri, May 9 2008 1:19 AM

Juan:
I think you're wrong there. Why do you think Zeus would turn bread into human flesh ?

I didn't think he would - I doubted he would...correctly, as it turns out! Smile  (Of course the reason I doubted it would turn into human flesh, specifically, rather than swans or anything, is that Niccolò claimed (at least I assume that was his point) that some bread in Lanciano turned into human flesh, not swans, when the monk doubted.  FWIW, I may not have mentioned it, but I was simuldoubting (simultaneously doubting) that it would turn into anything else, either...maybe that was my error?)

Juan:

Also, I don't see why only catholics should be ridiculed ?

Neither do I

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

Paul:

Just a follow-up in case anyone's interested in the result of my experiment, mentioned above:

I spent several hours more or less actively doubting that the God of Abraham (and Niccolò) would turn my piece of bread into a lump of meat.  And sure enough, He didn't.  I next spent some time doubting that Zeus would perform the miracle.  Again, no results.  I thought about a few other purported gods (among which, Odin, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, and Ra; I even tried Xenu and Ilúvatar), and serially doubted that each of them would do it; which, again, they didn't.  I next took my life in my hands and began doubting that any god at all would do it - realising that if the bread should turn into meat during that period I would be in no better position that I was to start with, having no idea which of the infinity of possible (or impossible) gods might have done it - I also figured that if whatever gods might be capable of the act were so reluctant to identify themselves, that this would have been the time to do it, and therefore the most likely time to expect that my bread would, in fact, change into meat.  I, however, manfully maintained my doubt!  Fortunately for my mental health, it is still, at the time of this writing, bread.  Somewhat stale bread at this point.  I'm calling an end the experiment now, and considering it one further item among the abundant evidence of spectacular existence failure among any and all gods.

 

God doesn't need to prove Himself to you. If you are not willing to take the dozens of miracles in Europe that could not be disproven by scientists and professors, then that's just too bad.

 

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Fri, May 9 2008 1:35 AM

Nic, if God didn't exist, would you still call yourself libertarian?

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

Ego:

Nic, if God didn't exist, would you still call yourself libertarian?

 

I honestly do not know. I cannot tell what my life would be like if I had a different set of beliefs about religion. Maybe it would be better, maybe it would be worse, but I honestly can't give a good enough answer in dialect.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Fri, May 9 2008 1:49 AM

Do you think God cares whether humans worship Him?

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

Ego:

Do you think God cares whether humans worship Him?

 

The word "care" only seems to apply to human entities. I don't know the emotions of God. I know He desires to be respected and worshipped, but to call it "care," I don'tk now.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Fri, May 9 2008 2:45 AM

Do you have any theories as to why an all-powerful all-knowing God would create legions of flawed creatures and desire to be worshipped by them? Or is that mischaracterizing the Christian position?

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator

What is "God"?  How do you define, "God"?  If "God" is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'God' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Well, I couldn't resist since we're well off-topic.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Some anarchists who do not subscribe to "anarchism without adjectives" oppose toleration of anarcho-capitalism by "anarchists without adjectives." For example, the author(s) of An Anarchist FAQ who identify themselves as social anarchists, argues that the tolerance associated with "anarchism without adjectives" should not extend to anarcho-capitalism.Music Conversely, the web site Anarchism.net aims at promoting tolerance and partnership between various strains of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism. [9] Market anarchist anarchist Roderick T. Long has argued that the difference between mutualists, which An Anarchist FAQ accepts as legitimate anarchists, and anarcho-capitalists is so small as to yield "no defensible grounds for accepting any dichotomy between" them.

Fascists masquerading as anarchists, tsk tsk.

-Jon

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Fri, May 9 2008 5:06 AM

Niccolò:

God doesn't need to prove Himself to you. If you are not willing to take the dozens of miracles in Europe that could not be disproven by scientists and professors, then that's just too bad.

"Could not be disproven" is an entirely different thing than "has been proven".  You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot, etc.  Take your piece of heart tissue for example: assuming you believe the scientist they claim examined it is who they say he is, did an honest job, and found what they say he found, etc., and it really is a piece of human heart muscle and some blood, how do you know it's the same piece of material that's been there since 700?  Even if it is the same, how do you know that it was previously a piece of bread?  By far the most likely explanation is that the monk pulled a little sleight-of-hand to impress whomever was watching.  But, of course, it's impossible to prove it wasn't a piece of bread, too - for the same reason you can't disprove the teapot hypothesis.  To believe something unless it's "disproven" is really absurd (and the religious mind tends to continue to believe things for a considerable period of time even if they have been solidly disproven!)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Fri, May 9 2008 5:18 AM

Nitroadict:

What is "God"?  How do you define, "God"?  If "God" is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'God' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Well, I couldn't resist since we're well off-topic.

Indeed.  I've just finished rereading Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - a very interesting book in which he posits that up until approximately 3000 years ago humans were not conscious and acted on orders from hallucinated voices generated by the areas in the right hemisphere of the brain that parallel the speech centers (Broca's and Wernicke's areas) in the left hemisphere, and that these voices (and visual hallucinations, too) were what they knew as "gods".

(In fact, it would be interesting to examine the impact of this hypothesis on praxeology, theories of the formation of the state, etc., if humans weren't conscious and capable of acting in the Misesian sense - like animals, they presumably didn't have rights, and the state would have arisen out of the hallucinated gods rather than bandits settling in to sustained robbery, or whatever theory of initial state formation...and what does that mean for modern man?)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

Ego:

Do you have any theories as to why an all-powerful all-knowing God would create legions of flawed creatures and desire to be worshipped by them? Or is that mischaracterizing the Christian position?

 

What's a flawed creature? A wanting one? Well, I don't believe this is the definition of a "flawed" creature. In any case, you're assuming that a very deterministic God who controls every facet of existence; He doesn't. He only controls that which He wishes to control - usually very little.


As far as the "Christian position," there are many of those. Which are you referring to? I consider myself more Kierkegaardian in thought.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

Nitroadict:

What is "God"?  How do you define, "God"?  If "God" is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'God' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Well, I couldn't resist since we're well off-topic.

 

First, great, now we use the Matrix for theology too.

Second, no. The telelogical sense is much higher than the aesthetic sense. Indeed, it's higher   than the ethical.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

Paul:

Niccolò:

God doesn't need to prove Himself to you. If you are not willing to take the dozens of miracles in Europe that could not be disproven by scientists and professors, then that's just too bad.

"Could not be disproven" is an entirely different thing than "has been proven".  You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot, etc.  Take your piece of heart tissue for example: assuming you believe the scientist they claim examined it is who they say he is, did an honest job, and found what they say he found, etc., and it really is a piece of human heart muscle and some blood, how do you know it's the same piece of material that's been there since 700?  Even if it is the same, how do you know that it was previously a piece of bread?  By far the most likely explanation is that the monk pulled a little sleight-of-hand to impress whomever was watching.  But, of course, it's impossible to prove it wasn't a piece of bread, too - for the same reason you can't disprove the teapot hypothesis.  To believe something unless it's "disproven" is really absurd (and the religious mind tends to continue to believe things for a considerable period of time even if they have been solidly disproven!)

I am not using the Miracle at Lanciano as a proof.

 

I'm using it as evidence of supernatural phenomenon that coincides with the existence of God.

 

As far as your objections go,

1. The story goes that the Priest only turned around for a moment - as traditional Mass usually facilitates - and so the idea that he could just, voila, get a heart and a pint of blood from thin air without divine presence is a little difficult to work with.

2. To actually cut a perfectly full heart out of a human being takes quite a great deal of skill and precision that would have been unheard of in those days.

3. Even today, the heart and the blood have not disintegrated. Why? Well, you could suggest that there are preservatives, but those were tested for. You could also suggest that the Church just switches out the hearts every day, but that too seems unlikely.

 

Again, I will proclaim this as evidence, not proof, that God does exist - or at least a supernatural being exists - and that He does wish to reveal Himself to us.

 

 

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Fri, May 9 2008 6:00 AM

Niccolò:

I'm using it as evidence of supernatural phenomenon that coincides with the existence of God.

But it's not evidence of anything.  Not unless you can prove it's real.

Niccolò:

As far as your objections go,

1. The story goes that the Priest only turned around for a moment - as traditional Mass usually facilitates - and so the idea that he could just, voila, get a heart and a pint of blood from thin air without divine presence is a little difficult to work with.

You've never seen a stage magician?

Niccolò:

2. To actually cut a perfectly full heart out of a human being takes quite a great deal of skill and precision that would have been unheard of in those days.

It doesn't take any skill to cut a heart out of person; and it's not a full heart anyway, just a little piece (assuming it's heart at all).

Niccolò:

3. Even today, the heart and the blood have not disintegrated. Why? Well, you could suggest that there are preservatives, but those were tested for. You could also suggest that the Church just switches out the hearts every day, but that too seems unlikely.

 

Doesn't seem terribly unlikely to me.  Far more likely than that it used to be a piece of bread!  But there are other examples of tissues not decaying, etc.; I don't know what conditions are required.

Niccolò:

Again, I will proclaim this as evidence, not proof, that God does exist - or at least a supernatural being exists - and that He does wish to reveal Himself to us.

Well, I gave him the chance!! (seriously, I really did get a piece of bread, etc.).  You're saying he wishes to reveal himself to that monk in 700, but not to me?  Or to anyone else who does the experiment.  Seems a tad unfair...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 494
Points 8,970

I spent several hours more or less actively doubting that the God of Abraham (and Niccolò) would turn my piece of bread into a lump of meat.  And sure enough, He didn't.

Ever since you wrote your post, I've consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn't. I conclude that you don't exist.

--Len

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 564
Points 8,455
Paul replied on Fri, May 9 2008 10:49 AM

Len Budney:

Ever since you wrote your post, I've consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn't. I conclude that you don't exist.

Nobody ever suggested that I go around sending $100 to people, but Niccolò did suggest that God goes around turning bread into meat (in fact, that this happens on a regular and predictable basis...just not usually when anyone can see it...)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 494
Points 8,970

Paul:
Len Budney:
Ever since you wrote your post, I've consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn't. I conclude that you don't exist.

Nobody ever suggested that I go around sending $100 to people, but Niccolò did suggest that God goes around turning bread into meat..

To be clear, I'm not knocking your post as a theist. Were I an atheist, I'd still knock your frivolous "experiment." Niccolò didn't state the conditions under which God supposedly does this, so your experiment is invalid anyway. Had Niccolò suggested that God always turns bread into meat whenever anyone wishes for it, your experiment would have proven that Niccolò's assertion is incorrect. Which you could prove more easily by spectometry of a communion wafer received from a priest at mass, which would prove it to be bread, which would provoke Niccolò to claim that it's "chemically" bread but "mystically" meat, or some such nonsense. By the same direct approach, you could poke holes in all manner of silly Catholic superstitions.

I merely point out that none of that is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of non-human, non-terrestrial sentience, including anything from ETs to gods to the God of Abraham. (Also note: calling Him "the God of Ahraham and Niccolò" begs the question whether Abraham and Niccolò worshiped the same God. Abraham might take offense at that implication, were he here to do so.)

--Len.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

As a general request, I would like for you all to remain respectful toward one another, lest I have to start moderating this thread. Personal attacks are superfluous and in no way contribute to the discussion.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 258
Points 4,595

hahaha sectarian religious debates are funny. In my opinion, Niccolo is in the lead by virtue of reading Kierkegaard.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Fri, May 9 2008 6:29 PM

Niccolò:

Ego:

Do you have any theories as to why an all-powerful all-knowing God would create legions of flawed creatures and desire to be worshipped by them? Or is that mischaracterizing the Christian position?

 

What's a flawed creature? A wanting one? Well, I don't believe this is the definition of a "flawed" creature. In any case, you're assuming that a very deterministic God who controls every facet of existence; He doesn't. He only controls that which He wishes to control - usually very little.


As far as the "Christian position," there are many of those. Which are you referring to? I consider myself more Kierkegaardian in thought.

Ignored the word "flawed", then. Why would God create beings and want their worship?

You said God doesn't "care" about things because it's a human emotion; how is "caring" or "minding" any more human than "desiring"?

 

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 494
Points 8,970

Why would God create beings and want to their worship?

You're asking for a logical explanation of a particular being's subjective values. As well ask why I like curry, or why my son likes baseball. Sentient creatures have subjective preferences, and they can't be reduced to a syllogism.

You said God doesn't "care" about things because it's a human emotion; how is "caring" or "minding" any more human than "desiring"?

I can't speak for Nick, but it is fair to observe that an alien being may or may not see things as we do. From the alien's perspective, we might be potential friends, or potential food, or insignificant as a bug, or an interesting specimen, or an infestation harming the whale population that the alien really cares about. So asking whether the alien "cares" about us may not even be meaningful outside our own frame of reference.

--Len

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Sat, May 10 2008 12:31 AM

Brainpolice, if you don't acknowledge that a system in which the majority of individuals can vote themselves "free" money, paid for by a minority of individuals is more self-perpetuating than a system in which the majority of individuals can vote to send their brothers, husbands, and friends to die in foreign wars, paid for by every individual roughly evenly, there isn't much more to say.

I will comment about the NAP and how it applies to wars: this discussion was played it in the Trolley thread, but I harming human shields doesn't mean you're violating the NAP; it means the people using the human shields are violating it.

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700
Niccolò replied on Sat, May 10 2008 1:28 AM

Paul:

But it's not evidence of anything.  Not unless you can prove it's real.

 

Except it has been proven to be real...

You've never seen a stage magician?

Wow.. Grasping on straws are we?

It doesn't take any skill to cut a heart out of person; and it's not a full heart anyway, just a little piece (assuming it's heart at all).



Oh no, it is a full heart and it certainly is a heart as the testing showed in 1971 and in 1973 by the WHO.

Actually, it takes a great deal of skill to cut out a heart without accidentally tearing it.

Doesn't seem terribly unlikely to me.  Far more likely than that it used to be a piece of bread!  But there are other examples of tissues not decaying, etc.; I don't know what conditions are required.

 

The heart and blood were left out in the atmosphere with no special preservations for over half a millenium.

 

Well, I gave him the chance!! (seriously, I really did get a piece of bread, etc.).  You're saying he wishes to reveal himself to that monk in 700, but not to me?  Or to anyone else who does the experiment.  Seems a tad unfair...

 

His revelation to the monk was a revelation to you. You simply reject it.

In any case, again, it doesn't seem important for God to reveal Himself to those that already reject Him. He's not a magician to do tricks for all to see. He's the Holy Lord Our God.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700
Niccolò replied on Sat, May 10 2008 1:32 AM

Ego:

 

Ignored the word "flawed", then. Why would God create beings and want to their worship?

You said God doesn't "care" about things because it's a human emotion; how is "caring" or "minding" any more human than "desiring"?

 

 

I said I don't know if "care" is the correct word. I wouldn't apply words of humanity to a being that is separate from them. I believe "care" is a weak way to refer to God's ambitions and emotions.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 849
Points 17,125
Ego replied on Sat, May 10 2008 1:49 AM

I'm atheist, but I do hope God exists. My only point was that regardless of whether He exists, I see absolutely no reason to worshipping Him; the desire for others' attention seems to be a very human thing.

Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.

However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.

Question their motives.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator

:the ignostic sits back and eats popcorn:

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 5 of 5 (196 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | RSS