I was just wondering how someone could be religious after learning about (and becoming a supporter of) anarcho-capitalism. Much of anarchism is based on weeding out the magical mumbo-jumbo that keynesian economics has come up with over the years. Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that, once weeded out, leaves the individual an atheist or an agnostic (atheist without balls).
It seems to means that being a religious anarcho-capitlast is a hypocritical misuse of one's rational capacity to sort truth from falsehood.
What do you guys think?
The entire thing is irrelevant. Religion shouldn't equate with political theory. It's more of a personal and cultural persuasian. Saying that religion is "mumbo-jumbo" like Keynesian economics is extremely arrogant, and are nowhere near the same thing. I don't even see how this is a serious topic.
I don't even know what you are saying.
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, religion is unrelated and anarchism doesn't really have anything to do with Kenesian Economics. How did you determine that religion was a bunch of "mumbo-jumbo" exactly?
I'm an anarcho-libertarian. Logically is governments always take growing amounts of freedom away from me, then a condition of no-government is preferable.
I'm a follower of Austrain economics because is is logical. Keynsian (and other schools) who use bad math and impossible models are not logical.
I'm a gnostic because it explains logically the condition of the world I find around me. http://gnosis.org Augistine said God is all-powerful,God is all-good,Terrible things happen in our world,You can believe in any 2 of these, but not all 3.
Is this directed at me?
cryptocode:God is all-powerful,God is all-good,Terrible things happen in our world,You can believe in any 2 of these, but not all 3.
I really don't see how this disproves god (if that was your intention) nor why all 3 cannot be believed. One could easily believe that god simply has a "hands off" role in human affairs thereby maintaining his "all-good" status but rectifying it with the "terrible" world we live in. Or one could just have a different idea of what constitutes "all-good" and "terrible."
I am anarcho-capitalist and non-theist. Even so, I find the OP rather non sequitor.
Religion is something taken on faith, not on reason. Politics and economics, on the other hand, is entirely a function of reason. If you choose to accept religion on faith, that does not interfere with your ability to accept anarcho-capitalism by reason. The only interfering factor would be if your accepted religion required some sort of government, something that Christianity and Judism do not require. Not sure of Islam and the rest.
OntologicalQuandary:Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo
A statement like this coupled with at least a page of arguments might be considered bold. Completely unsupported as it is here, it just comes off as petty.
Faith is a meaningless human construct. Reason applies to both political and cultural "beliefs" and thus the two are very much related. If someone possesses the rational capacity to see the logical sense of libertarianism then they should equally be able to see the logical sense of atheism or agnosticism.
J. Grayson Lilburne: OntologicalQuandary:Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo A statement like this coupled with at least a page of arguments might be considered bold. Completely unsupported as it is here, it just comes off as petty.
I do not have the time to educate others as well. Since the point of this thread has nothing to do with proving or disproving religion I fail to see why a page of arguments is necessary.
This is going to be such a delightful thread. I though about posting only to get e-mail notifications of the flame-war that will ensue. Have fun!
OntologicalQuandary: Faith is a meaningless human construct. Reason applies to both political and cultural "beliefs" and thus the two are very much related. If someone possesses the rational capacity to see the logical sense of libertarianism then they should equally be able to see the logical sense of atheism or agnosticism.
You are equating faith with religion and/or spirituality. You also assume that atheism (or agnosticism) is the logical sense. Proof?
Merlin: This is going to be such a delightful thread. I though about posting only to get e-mail notifications of the flame-war that will ensue. Have fun!
We should play falme war bingo, Example: Godwin's law would be B1.
OQ, the only way you can demonstrate that a religious anarchist is a half-reasoning hypocrite is by demonstrating that religion is indeed a misuse of reason. If you're going to take that as given from the outset, then you've already supplied the only possible answer to your "question".
J. Grayson Lilburne: OQ, the only way you can demonstrate that a religious anarchist is a half-reasoning hypocrite is by demonstrating that religion is indeed a misuse of reason. If you're going to take that as given from the outset, then you've already supplied the only possible answer to your "question".
Whatever you say grayson :)
You can start by reading Dawkins' God Delusion. Anyhow, the number of logical fallacies that show up in religion should excite those of you who like to throw around phrases like "non sequitur" and "ad hominem".
Find out the answer for yourself. Its a wonderful journey.
OntologicalQuandary: J. Grayson Lilburne: OQ, the only way you can demonstrate that a religious anarchist is a half-reasoning hypocrite is by demonstrating that religion is indeed a misuse of reason. If you're going to take that as given from the outset, then you've already supplied the only possible answer to your "question". Whatever you say grayson :) You can start by reading Dawkins' God Delusion. Anyhow, the number of logical fallacies that show up in religion should excite those of you who like to throw around phrases like "non sequitur" and "ad hominem". Find out the answer for yourself. Its a wonderful journey.
You assume too much, OQ. :)
I've read the God Delusion. Richard Dawkins is one of my heroes.
OntologicalQuandary: You can start by reading Dawkins' God Delusion. Anyhow, the number of logical fallacies that show up in religion should excite those of you who like to throw around phrases like "non sequitur" and "ad hominem". Find out the answer for yourself. Its a wonderful journey.
I have not read that book, but is it specifically referring to the Judea-Christian God, or what?
Also, since you have brought this subject to topic, I'd like to think you are well read in the situation, and since you are blasting all types of religion and spirituality, because they are based on "faith" and not "reason" that you would at least have an understanding of other types of beliefs/religions outside of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
I'd hope you would have an understanding in the differences in Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path beliefs. Maybe you even have an understanding on the philosophy from Left-Hand Path belief systems such as Satanism (more specifically Anton LaVey's) and Setianism which promotes individuality.
Maybe you are well read in ancient Egyptian and Greco-Roman paganism and Hermeticism. Maybe even Old Norse Heathenry and the usage of Runes.
Also, you being an athiest, do you believe that man should be balanced spiritually, or that it doesn't matter and it's "mumbo-jumbo"?
Bert: The entire thing is irrelevant. Religion shouldn't equate with political theory. It's more of a personal and cultural persuasian. Saying that religion is "mumbo-jumbo" like Keynesian economics is extremely arrogant, and are nowhere near the same thing. I don't even see how this is a serious topic.
Seconded.
OntologicalQuandary: Faith is a meaningless human construct.
Faith is a meaningless human construct.
Sounds like a judgment call. i.e. a valuation of something.
Although proving causality is a whole other matter, I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant correlation between AnCaps and Atheists/Agnostics/non religious.
>Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumboIt's also a memetic infection.
>Religion is something taken on faithThat's cool. I have faith in Keynesianism. Therefore it must be true. As one of my axioms it proves Austrian Economics cannot be true.
>agnostic (atheist without balls)Oh, you have a proof that God doesn't exist do you? Sounds like hubris. There may be 0, 1, 500, or any other number of Gods. Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn. I have no idea.
I consider simulationism (the belief that the universe is a simulation) plausible. The simulation might be operated by a God. Keeping concious beings unwittingly trapped in a virtual reality (a bottleworld) is something I consider immoral. But how would I know if this is happening or not? In any case, it doesn't have any impact on my life AFAIK. That makes me "ignostic", I think.
>How did you determine that religion was a bunch of "mumbo-jumbo" exactly?Because it involves invisible things that can't be reproducibly measured (if at all). Like orgone theory, ESP, the tooth fairy, and vampires.
OntologicalQuandary: I was just wondering how someone could be religious after learning about (and becoming a supporter of) anarcho-capitalism. Much of anarchism is based on weeding out the magical mumbo-jumbo that keynesian economics has come up with over the years. Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that, once weeded out, leaves the individual an atheist or an agnostic (atheist without balls). It seems to means that being a religious anarcho-capitlast is a hypocritical misuse of one's rational capacity to sort truth from falsehood. What do you guys think?
Religion is just another form of human action. Some people like to go to the beach to get tan. Some people like to go to mass. The ways in which humans act are merely the result of biological "accident", that is, they are ways of acting which are compatible with (or, even, contributory to) our evolutionary history.
I find it ironic when atheists place religion in a special category apart from all other human actions ... it's like a Freudian slip that there actually is a residual belief in the atheist's mind. Why else should religion receive any more focus than, say, shuffle-board? Religion may be mumbo-jumbo, but so are all human actions... religion is not especially mumbo-jumbo, it's just one among the infinite varieties of mumbo-jumbo we can engage in.
Clayton -
ClaytonB: OntologicalQuandary: I was just wondering how someone could be religious after learning about (and becoming a supporter of) anarcho-capitalism. Much of anarchism is based on weeding out the magical mumbo-jumbo that keynesian economics has come up with over the years. Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that, once weeded out, leaves the individual an atheist or an agnostic (atheist without balls). It seems to means that being a religious anarcho-capitlast is a hypocritical misuse of one's rational capacity to sort truth from falsehood. What do you guys think? Religion is just another form of human action. Some people like to go to the beach to get tan. Some people like to go to mass. The ways in which humans act are merely the result of biological "accident", that is, they are ways of acting which are compatible with (or, even, contributory to) our evolutionary history. I find it ironic when atheists place religion in a special category apart from all other human actions ... it's like a Freudian slip that there actually is a residual belief in the atheist's mind. Why else should religion receive any more focus than, say, shuffle-board? Religion may be mumbo-jumbo, but so are all human actions... religion is not especially mumbo-jumbo, it's just one among the infinite varieties of mumbo-jumbo we can engage in. Clayton -
Seconded. I am an atheist but I've never been too interested in focusing on religion as the problem. I think the "militant" atheists would be spending their time in a much better fashion if they focused on fighting statism.
free paradigm blog ::: free paradigm on youtube
Question: You cannot be absolutely certain that anything besides you exists. Yet, you are not a solipsist. Why?
Answer: Because you have faith that the outside world exists.
P.S. I'm an atheist.
Political Atheists Blog
I expected the poster of this thread to reiterate the classic recogniton, that to realize that to "create" the marvelous complexity of society does not require a central planner seems to suggest that, perhaps, just perhaps, to "create" the marvelous complexity of nature also does not require a central planner.
But, instead, I was greeted by some sort of bizarre non-sequitor.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
OntologicalQuandary: Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that, once weeded out, leaves the individual an atheist or an agnostic (atheist without balls).
Religion is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, that, once weeded out, leaves the individual an atheist or an agnostic (atheist without balls).
It doesn't necessarily follow that taking religion out of the equation means that there is no god. Proofs for the existence of god don't work anymore than proofs against it, and vice versa. Since logic hasn't de facto proven either side, it would be naive to think that libertarians (as followers of reason) have some need to believe one over the other based on anything besides faith, values, choice, etc.
There are plenty of rational arguments I could make against drug use, but that does not mean that libertarians who drink or smoke or shoot heroin are hypocrites.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
What about the failings and fallacies of anarchism?
mikachusetts: It doesn't necessarily follow that taking religion out of the equation means that there is no god. Proofs for the existence of god don't work anymore than proofs against it, and vice versa. Since logic hasn't de facto proven either side, it would be naive to think that libertarians (as followers of reason) have some need to believe one over the other based on anything besides faith, values, choice, etc. There are plenty of rational arguments I could make against drug use, but that does not mean that libertarians who drink or smoke or shoot heroin are hypocrites.
The word "atheist" usually means "de facto atheist". Most atheists, I am sure, do not believe that to "prove a negative" is possible. Instead, I think that many of them use it in much of the same way as many proponents of "austrian economics" use the the word "anarchist", to be sensational.
"Why else should religion receive any more focus than, say, shuffle-board?"
1. People do not generally detonate their rectums because of a shuffleboard game.
2. People don't get burnt at the stake or put in a gas chamber after losing shuffleboard.
3. Shuffleboard admits the possibility that the Earth is slightly older than 6000 years.
Suppose I had complete faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that will reward me with eternal bliss for murdering his opponents. Would you consider that an acceptable matter of faith?
Or is it a form of ignorance that should be combatted?
baxter: "Why else should religion receive any more focus than, say, shuffle-board?" 1. People do not generally detonate their rectums because of a shuffleboard game. 2. People don't get burnt at the stake or put in a gas chamber after losing shuffleboard. 3. Shuffleboard admits the possibility that the Earth is slightly older than 6000 years. Suppose I had complete faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that will reward me with eternal bliss for murdering his opponents. Would you consider that an acceptable matter of faith? Or is it a form of ignorance that should be combatted?
Just because the things you've stated are have happened in the name of religion, does not mean that they are inherent to the idea of religion. If the question was "is suicide bombing and genocide as religious doctrine compatible with libertarianism?" We would all say of course not.
mikachusetts:Just because the things you've stated are have happened in the name of religion, does not mean that they are inherent to the idea of religion.
They are. I’ve never seen a tolerant religion. Please do correct me if you know of any counterexamples.
IMO "atheism" requires a similar "leap of faith" as religion requires since it's no more provable. Either way it's just a personal guess. When you get into specifics of organized religion yeah it's harder to buy into, but as far as simply the existence of a grand creator, that's just as defensible (most would say more defensible, based on statistics) of an opinion.
> If the question was "is suicide bombing and genocide as religious doctrine compatible with libertarianism?" We would all say of course not.
So even though my god is omniscient and omnipotent, you're saying I shouldn't follow its instructions to murder others?
"but as far as simply the existence of a grand creator, that's just as defensible [as atheism]"
Is the belief that green-haired superintelligent cats live on Saturn as equally defensible as the belief that green-haired superintelligent cats do NOT live on Saturn? Is there a 50-50 chance?
I am a theist. My biggest blow to theism while learning AE was when Mises described what is and how something can be omniscient. The conclusion I came to is that if God does exist, he cannot be perfect, otherwise he would have no reason to act.
baxter: > If the question was "is suicide bombing and genocide as religious doctrine compatible with libertarianism?" We would all say of course not. So even though my god is omniscient and omnipotent, you're saying I shouldn't follow its instructions to murder others? "but as far as simply the existence of a grand creator, that's just as defensible [as atheism]" Is the belief that green-haired superintelligent cats live on Saturn as equally defensible as the belief that green-haired superintelligent cats do NOT live on Saturn? Is there a 50-50 chance?
If you are trying to get me to recant my belief in god, you are too late. I wasn't trying to defend the tenets of every religion ever. I just wanted to show that there is nothing incompatible between religion per se, and libertarianism.
Ansury: IMO "atheism" requires a similar "leap of faith" as religion requires since it's no more provable. Either way it's just a personal guess. When you get into specifics of organized religion yeah it's harder to buy into, but as far as simply the existence of a grand creator, that's just as defensible (most would say more defensible, based on statistics) of an opinion.
I cannot count how many times that I have answered that criticism. I usually just direct the person to this video, from around 7:30 to 9:32.
Plus, anyway, in this very thread, I already answered the criticism:
I. Ryan: mikachusetts: It doesn't necessarily follow that taking religion out of the equation means that there is no god. Proofs for the existence of god don't work anymore than proofs against it, and vice versa. Since logic hasn't de facto proven either side, it would be naive to think that libertarians (as followers of reason) have some need to believe one over the other based on anything besides faith, values, choice, etc. There are plenty of rational arguments I could make against drug use, but that does not mean that libertarians who drink or smoke or shoot heroin are hypocrites. The word "atheist" usually means "de facto atheist". Most atheists, I am sure, do not believe that to "prove a negative" is possible. Instead, I think that many of them use it in much of the same way as many proponents of "austrian economics" use the the word "anarchist", to be sensational.
>Most atheists, I am sure, do not believe that to "prove a negative" is possible.
My understanding is:
Atheist = no belief in god
Antitheist = belief in no god
Quite the opposite. St. Augistine, an 11th century Catholic, is still today considered the greatest theologian and logician of the Catholic Church. I had assumed you knew who he was. This was his reply to the illogical beliefs of that religion. He agreed that logic was the best refutation to their beliefs. And he proceeded to provide numerous apologies (combating arguments).
I used his quote to show that most Christian religions can be based only on pure faith. However, there are many other religions that state they are not based on faith, are logical, and further include and demonstrate verifiable experience and proofs of the existance transcedental reality.
For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them. There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
You could, of course, define the word religion to mean only beliefs based on faith. But then you need to provide another word for the remaining religions.
krazy kaju:Question: You cannot be absolutely certain that anything besides you exists. Yet, you are not a solipsist. Why? Answer: Because you have faith that the outside world exists.
Reason and the senses are our only tools for the comprehension of reality. My senses tell me that there's a world external to myself, and my reason integrates perceptions of it. I don't need faith to effectively utilize this information. In fact, it's pretty irrelevant whether the outside world actually exists, because I perceive that it does—therefore, I will act as if it does.
It's similar to this Mises quote: "It is vain to object that life and reality are not logical. Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both."
baxter:My understanding is: Atheist = no belief in god Antitheist = belief in no god
"Atheist" and "antitheist" are synonyms. "No belief in god" would more accurately be described as agnosticism.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
cryptocode:For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them. There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc.
These do me absolutely no good as they are immanent, second-hand accounts of transcendental experience. An account of a transcendental experience is not itself a transcendental experience.
P.S. I am a rare bird called an "agnostic theist"