haha ! thanks for that John !
That guy is way more entertaining than Nietzsche.....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
+1
Hilarious!
I am an atheist and I would never force my lack-of-belief to anyone. That being said, couple of months ago, I was fooled into going to a short movies festival, but little did I know that it was organized by a christian student organization (everystudent). After the films a girl went up on stage and started a lecture on god. Since I felt cheated into this (after that I saw the poster and noticed that the everystudent logo was written in a super tiny print on the bottom), I started to say "penis" after every sentence she spoke. It fitted nicely with the part of the story where she was rich yet empty inside and needed something more. Some people started laughing but the girl finished her lecture with a strong face. That night I gained special respect for religion. To keep it serious even though somebody was saying the word 'penis' takes a toll on a man. Such courage. That never worked for me, probably because of my wicked, wicked ways.
Not only do I not believe in god, but I'm not one either, so it doesn't really matter what I think the past would have been if there were no religions. These hypothetical situations are useless and secondly, I can't really draw a line on what defines a religion.
Otto, welcome to the forum. You can start making good posts anytime.
liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 2:37 AM: Even going to a medical doctor, approved by the latest state academics and state bureaucrats, isn't a guarantee that he will provide the best or most competent treatment for your son. It is a faith in his training, a faith in the odds, a faith in the state, a faith in science, a faith in the social norms for medical treatment, whatever rationale you need, in order to make that leap of faith and act.
liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 2:37 AM:
Even going to a medical doctor, approved by the latest state academics and state bureaucrats, isn't a guarantee that he will provide the best or most competent treatment for your son. It is a faith in his training, a faith in the odds, a faith in the state, a faith in science, a faith in the social norms for medical treatment, whatever rationale you need, in order to make that leap of faith and act.
Poppycock.
We may be perfectly rational in the Misesian sense, but we don't have access to perfect knowledge, and this is where Athesist arguments become unglued. You can't perfectly know God doesn't exist, and I am sure many would agree, you can't really prove he does. So belief or disbelief in God is an act of faith, that what you do not know isn't different than what you think.
I never claimed nor implied that humans have perfect knowledge. Also, what atheism has to do with it? It's not about knowledge. I don't need to know something doesn't exist to not believe in it. Didn't you take a course of skepticism and critical thinking?
disbelief in God is an act of faith
Oh my lord. Here we go again, really.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
@WillBlake
Anyone who believes that it is religion and religion alone that motivates war is a lunatic. A fringe lunatic.
Humans compete, humans desire to acquire status, this invariably leads to warfare - It is part of the human condition.
Leftists say we should get rid of religion, because they are fools that dream up complicated explanations for observable reality. Austro-Libertarians like us say that prosperity can conquer war. Peace through trade and so on.
"If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits."- Jared Taylor
^Where did WillBlake said that?
@MaikU
Here:
Force is a CONSEQUENCE of organized religion, the problem itself is organized religion.
In response to a post that said religion was not the originator of violence, merely a justification of it.
@Otto: Brlliant story!
Anyone who believes that it is religion and religion alone that motivates war is a lunatic. A fringe lunatic. Humans compete, humans desire to acquire status, this invariably leads to warfare - It is part of the human condition. Leftists say we should get rid of religion, because they are fools that dream up complicated explanations for observable reality. Austro-Libertarians like us say that prosperity can conquer war. Peace through trade and so on.
This post is better than sky cake. In all seriousness, I think Germanicus has hit the nail on the head. To anyone who believes religion is responsible for war or the use of force--go and study late Republican Roman history. The clash of egos between Marius and Sulla, Caesar and Pompeius, and Octavian and Antonius is a perfect example of conflicts originating from "human desire to acquire status." Religion was used as a tool by all sides, but ultimately the civil wars occurred because the each of these great men desired to be the first man in Rome, whatever the cost.
Aquila:Religion was used as a tool by all sides, but ultimately the civil wars occurred because the each of these great men desired to be the first man in Rome, whatever the cost.
A tool for producing automatons willing to delegate difficult questions to "higher, smarter authority" and ready to submit (forfeit) their individuality to the collectivist fashion of the day. It is but one reflection of the evolutionary collectivist curse of mankind.
Z.
That's a strange thing to say, Z.
Because religion also has been nothing but rebellion on many occasions as well.
Was Christ not a rebel? Was Luther not a rebel? Were Spanish monks protecting native Americans not rebels? Were Dutch in South Africa not rebels?
Hell, weren't the people who overthrew the cruel and corrupt Shah of Iran also not rebels?
Nothing strange about it, Prateek. Rebellions also take advantage of the same tool I described. Individualists are much harder herded behind a rebel-leader, or any leader for that matter, to their evolutionary detriment.
Religion prepares/pre-wires the unquestioning automaton fodder. Then it's only a matter of time for Alexander, Caesar, Jesus, Mohammed, Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Castro, Hussein, Pope, etc. to feed a cannon with the fodder and point it in the "right" direction.
Some religions venerate questioning and there are countless examples of religious folk challenging established doctrine, or the teachings of their leaders.
MaikU: liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 2:37 AM: Even going to a medical doctor, approved by the latest state academics and state bureaucrats, isn't a guarantee that he will provide the best or most competent treatment for your son. It is a faith in his training, a faith in the odds, a faith in the state, a faith in science, a faith in the social norms for medical treatment, whatever rationale you need, in order to make that leap of faith and act. Poppycock.
Why is it poppycock? Or are you just demonstrating the strength of your faith in modern medical science?
MaikU: We may be perfectly rational in the Misesian sense, but we don't have access to perfect knowledge, and this is where Athesist arguments become unglued. You can't perfectly know God doesn't exist, and I am sure many would agree, you can't really prove he does. So belief or disbelief in God is an act of faith, that what you do not know isn't different than what you think. I never claimed nor implied that humans have perfect knowledge.
I never claimed nor implied that humans have perfect knowledge.
Right, and without perfect knowledge, you have to act on faith.
MaikU:Also, what atheism has to do with it? It's not about knowledge. I don't need to know something doesn't exist to not believe in it.
But you don't know it doesn't exist. You can't. It is not possible to disprove the existence of God. That would be a negative proof. You can choose not to believe in God (because you think the story is unsound, it doesn't appeal to you, or any other aesthetic), and that is an act of faith.
MaikU:Didn't you take a course of skepticism and critical thinking?
No, I didn't take any courses. However, I would suggest you investigate epistemology and what it means. You can critical think as hard as you like, you cannot know what you do not know.
MaikU: disbelief in God is an act of faith Oh my lord. Here we go again, really.
What else can it be? You cannot disprove the existence of God, correct? So you can't make a logical argument against God. All you can do is reflect the biases you hold based on your limited understanding and the evidence you consider pertinent. But that still doesn't constitute proof. At one point, you take a leap of faith. You must. We all do, each and every day. Thousands of times per day.
What I am prosposing is not so radical, you should start with the Gerard Casey video I referred to in this thread.
nirgrahamUK:Some religions venerate questioning and there are countless examples of religious folk challenging established doctrine, or the teachings of their leaders.
To some extent, yes, but those are exceptions and not defining descriptors of it. There's a limit to the questioning a religion (or collectivist movement) can sustain without collapsing under its weight. The Communist Party welcomed(s) and encouraged(s) "constructive criticism". Unquestioning acceptance of dogma (faith) is a defining characteristic of religion as a collectivist tool.
Z, your view is very western-centric. You are missing out on ancient asian religions which do not share the same characteristics as faiths with their root in Abraham. I would argue that establishment Judaism, Islam and Christianity are statist movements, not genuine religions.
Indeed, I sometimes joke to my friends that I'm an atheist hindu and they look at me incredulously. Yet opinion doesn't refute historical fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka
I believe Mises' view of religion was heavily influenced by the fact he was almost wholly exposed to only the Judaic religions.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
I agree with liberty student.
Heathens don't believe in the middle eastern Judea-Christian God.
Bert:Heathens don't believe in the middle eastern Judea-Christian God.
Are you trying to make a joke, or are you actually referring to Asians as heathens?
I meant to write that establishment religious movements are like all other establishment movements. They are WHOLLY statist and not religion. Just as mainstream economics is wholly statist, and not economic science.
Also, if anyone was wondering, I am an agnostic leaning towards atheism. But I understand my near-atheism for what it is. I'm not under the sway of some comforting belief in the power of science and modernity.
As far as Asian philosophies go, Taoism would have too explicitly challenged the power of the state, as it urged moving along with nature and life instead of working to force change, simplicity instead of action.
I reckon that's why it was pushed aside in favour of Legalism.
Interestingly, Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity, have a little rule called Romans 13. This rule says that you obey your leaders, because they are delegated by God to protect you. If it means following the leader's immoral orders to kill or punish people, you must. The leader will be accountable to God for it, and not you. Thus, Christians in USSR had to assist in purges; Christians in the Iraqi military had to consent to killing Kurds; Christians in Nazi Germany had to serve their nation in war no matter how much they disagreed with Hitler; and so on. It's an unfortunate little rule, but I guess that's why Christianity survives while Taoism gets brushed aside.
On the other hand, Asian philosophy has contributed to a lot of ideas of amoral brutality. Kautilya's Arthashatra (literally, Statecraft) was the textbook on Hindu leadership in kingdoms of South Asia. This text argued that the king must use mild persuasion, then bribery, then intimidation, then forced imprisonment and confiscation of property to get his way with anybody he wanted. It was not only the king's right, but his duty to kill and oppress his enemies, and bring more under his power, so that he could enrichen his coffers. The idea was that as long as the king prospered and grew powerful, everything else around him is able to grow and prosper as well.
That kings in South Asia were brought up under rigid tutelage of Arthashatri thinking was reflected in the many needless wars and the resultant depopulation of many kingdoms. The reason for erotic imagery on Indian temples is that wars had brought populations so low, that the king had to encourage people to make more babies so that anything survived of his kingdom.
Prateek, I take it you haven't had much exposure to Christianity? I was raised Anglican, and Romans 13 is not an admonition to follow political leaders. There are many state establishment churches, particularly in the US, which have been co-opted by DHS (as exposed by Alex Jones btw) that preach this nonsense, but render unto Caesar clearly was Jesus explaining that state power had limits which were petty in comparison to the limitless power of God.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html
What is DHS?
Interesting how Kautilya is veneered today, as a great statesman, or something of the sort, by many indian historians. Here's what Max Weber had to say about him:
—Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (1919)
>> Machiavelli’s The Prince is harmless.
not surprising given that Machiavelli was republican
Prateek Sanjay:What is DHS?
Department of Homeland Security.
This goes to my point that people conflate religion with the work of men. Do we disavow economics because there are Keynesians who preach poor economic reasoning? No. But if priests and Popes mislead people, if politicians use religious justifications for wars or other statist ends, then atheists use that as an excuse to disavow religion.
It is possibly a non sequitur, and it is definitely intellectually lazy and dishonest to conflate the two in such a manner.
To put it another way, rationales like that are akin to "guns kill people, therefore all guns are bad".
It's generally accepted that most non-Abrahamic religions are heathen (or pagan - as such is Buddhism and Hinduism). They turned this into a negative. It's more commonly referred to the Norse religions that are heathen to seperate themselves from pagan for which most new age and neo-pagan religions come to mind. I embrace the word heathen.
Has it not occured to anyone that my avatar is a rune-binding of the ancient Norse alphabet? (Also, a Death in June album cover.)
Bert:Has it not occured to anyone that my avatar is a rune-binding of the ancient Norse alphabet? (Also, a Death in June album cover.)
I listen to Johnny Cash and Elvis.
liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 6:20 PM: Or are you just demonstrating the strength of your faith in modern medical science?
liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 6:20 PM:
Or are you just demonstrating the strength of your faith in modern medical science?
You are demonstrating a lack of apprehension of medical science and science in general, that's why you call everyone, who trusts empirical data as a person "acting on faith". You try to broaden the term "faith". I see it as poppycock.
see above.
see above. Again, you tend to equivocate word faith to mean anything.
I don't need to prove or disproof anything. What people like me usually want is evidence of your blind assertions. What I am proposing is not radical either, it's just basic rational skepticism.
liberty student:Z, your view is very western-centric. You are missing out on ancient asian religions which do not share the same characteristics as faiths with their root in Abraham. I would argue that establishment Judaism, Islam and Christianity are statist movements, not genuine religions.
LS, I'm aware. I guess it's a matter of definitions. I assumed here (on the west) we'd be using a western definition of "religion". I've found that the more acceptable a "religion" (such as the ones you mention) is, the more it can be described as a philosophy, and less as a "religion", in western sense. The collectivist and dogmatic aspects are inextricable from the western definition, afaik.
@liberty student:
I initially objected to this statement...until I realized that it is irrefutable. I would add the following caveat though: acting on faith, while unavoidable due to imperfect knowledge, is hardly a virtue to be extolled. Rather, it stems from an imperfection in knowledge that should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Time is scarce, therefore humans cannot acquire omniscience. Ignorance, it follows, is sadly unavoidable. However, it does not follow from this fact that ignorance should be embraced! To the contrary: we should fight ignorance tooth and claw with what limited resources are available to us if knowledge and understanding are our ends.
Aquila: @liberty student: Right, and without perfect knowledge, you have to act on faith. I initially objected to this statement...until I realized that it is irrefutable.
I initially objected to this statement...until I realized that it is irrefutable.
I am happy a couple people understood what I was talking about. :)
Aquila:I would add the following caveat though: acting on faith, while unavoidable due to imperfect knowledge, is hardly a virtue to be extolled. Rather, it stems from an imperfection in knowledge that should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
I agree, although I don't like to use the word virtue because what I consider virtuous is a personal preference.
Aquila:Time is scarce, therefore humans cannot acquire omniscience.
Due to the limitations of time and physical reality, it is impossible for us to be at all places, at all times, experiencing all things, in order to have the sort of perfect knowledge that any planner (which is a mortal form God) would need to solve the calculation problem.
Aquila:Ignorance, it follows, is sadly unavoidable. However, it does not follow from this fact that ignorance should be embraced! To the contrary: we should fight ignorance tooth and claw with what limited resources are available to us if knowledge and understanding are our ends.
Ignorance is necessary in order to have arbitrage, which allows the market to continually seek higher levels of efficiency and organization. The whole point of individualism and communication is that we resolve issues of ignorance by sharing every time someone achieves more knowledge. That one person having more knowledge is rewarded for pursuing more knowledge (solving ignorance) by some compensation from the consumers of knowledge (those more ignorant than him) in the market. That is his profit for seeking knowledge, outside of his own desire to perfect his own understanding which can have obvious psychological and lifestyle benefits.
liberty student:Ignorance is necessary in order to have arbitrage, which allows the market to continually seek higher levels of efficiency and organization. The whole point of individualism and communication is that we resolve issues of ignorance by sharing every time someone achieves more knowledge. That one person having more knowledge is rewarded for pursuing more knowledge (solving ignorance) by some compensation from the consumers of knowledge (those more ignorant than him) in the market. That is his profit for seeking knowledge, outside of his own desire to perfect his own understanding which can have obvious psychological and lifestyle benefits.
Very well put. Thanks for that angle. It ties perfectly into viewing the cost of every losing trade (transaction, decision, exchange) as tuition.
liberty student : To assert that all claims are fraud, would require the accused party to prove a negative (which is a logical fallacy), the negative being that they are NOT engaged in fraud. Proof is positive, not negative.
WillBlake:Any claim can be put in terms of a "negative" or a "positive". That's just word games.
Actually, it is basic logic.
WillBlake: Claim : The earth is flat - a "positive". Claim : The earth is not flat - a "negative" that can't be proven? ROFL!!
Those are both positive claims. We can prove the earth is not flat, so the second claim is true, and it falsifies the first one.
Now take this.
Claim: God exists.
Claim: God does not exist.
Now prove one.
MaikU:You are demonstrating a lack of apprehension of medical science and science in general, that's why you call everyone, who trusts empirical data as a person "acting on faith". You try to broaden the term "faith". I see it as poppycock.
Hello? Not everything can be proven empirically. That is a fundamental insight of the Austrian school.
MaikU: Right, and without perfect knowledge, you have to act on faith. see above.
Please refer to the conversation between Aquila and I.
MaikU: But you don't know it doesn't exist. You can't. It is not possible to disprove the existence of God. That would be a negative proof. You can choose not to believe in God (because you think the story is unsound, it doesn't appeal to you, or any other aesthetic), and that is an act of faith. see above. Again, you tend to equivocate word faith to mean anything.
What does faith mean to you?
MaikU: What else can it be? You cannot disprove the existence of God, correct? So you can't make a logical argument against God. All you can do is reflect the biases you hold based on your limited understanding and the evidence you consider pertinent. But that still doesn't constitute proof. At one point, you take a leap of faith. You must. We all do, each and every day. Thousands of times per day. I don't need to prove or disproof anything. What people like me usually want is evidence of your blind assertions.
I don't need to prove or disproof anything. What people like me usually want is evidence of your blind assertions.
Surely you need to prove God does not exist, if you claim to be an empiricist, otherwise what other foundation do you use for that opinion? Also, what did I assert blindly? I will evidence everything I have claimed or retract it.
MaikU:What I am proposing is not radical either, it's just basic rational skepticism.
You're skeptical of religion, but not of science. That's just another form of faith in my opinion. You don't have perfect scientific knowledge, and I am not aware of empirical evidence which disproves the existence of God. If such evidence exists, please share it with us. Help us alleviate our ignorance.
Why should I? Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Not that it matters, but I am a philosophical agnostic. The concept of god doesn't make sense - so it's pointeless to talk about it. HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with the UNPROVEN claims of different organized religions - agnosticism is yet another way to expose the fraud behind organized religion.
So back to the real topic of discussion : theocrats are liars.
But maybe they aren't? In that case, do you mind proving for instance that what jews say about their religion is true? Furthermore, do you understand that if, for instance, jews are right then catholics, and the rest of the world is wrong ?
Do you know that persons who say that their religion is the 'true one' are AWARE of the fact that other persons make similar claims, and that those claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
Those are both positive claims.
WillBlake: Now prove one. Why should I?
Why should I?
Because if you can't prove God does not exist, then what is your foundation for being an atheist? It certainly can't be proof.
WillBlake:Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Not that it matters, but I am a philosophical agnostic. The concept of god doesn't make sense - so it's pointeless to talk about it.
See, that is closer to the truth. You choose not to believe in God because it is nonsensical to you.
WillBlake: HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with the UNPROVEN claims of different organized religions - agnosticism is yet another way to expose the fraud behind organized religion.
HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with the UNPROVEN claims of different organized religions - agnosticism is yet another way to expose the fraud behind organized religion.
But aren't you also choosing not to prove your claim that God doesn't exist? Does that make you a fraud?
WillBlake:So back to the real topic of discussion : theocrats are liars.
They may well be, but that doesn't prove or disprove God.
WillBlake:But maybe they aren't? In that case, do you mind proving for instance that what jews say about their religion is true?
They believe it is true. That is the standard for fraud. Fraud is willful misrepresentation, not unknowing misrepresentation. If that was the case, then every case of someone being wrong about something would be fraudulent. Students who answer questions wrong on exams would be guilty of fraud. People who have their scientific work improved by others, frauds.
As far as proving Judaism, you have opted out of proving your case which I knew you would because it is not provable so it is somewhat silly you would demand proofs from me for positions I don't hold. I don't know what Jews say at all, let alone whether any of it is true.
WillBlake:Furthermore, do you understand that if, for instance, jews are right then catholics, and the rest of the world is wrong ?
Judaism can only falsify catholicism, or Islam, or Buddhism if it can be proven. I have already demonstrated that short of God proving his existence empirically, that is impossible. It is possible for multiple theories to all be in play until one is proven to be correct. If you don't agree with any of the religions, you are welcome to prove that God doesn't exist and make them all wrong.
WillBlake:Do you know that persons who say that their religion is the 'true one' are AWARE of the fact that other persons make similar claims, and that those claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
Sure. I think the Detroit Red Wings are the best franchise in Hockey, Montreal Canadiens fans will differ. It's nothing to start an intellectual jihad over.
You're skeptical of religion, but not of science. That's just another form of faith in my opinion.