It could be possible that "Nature", "God", "Gods", "Aliens" or Previous, future or similar "us" were libertarians and therefore the Natural Law with the clear commandments of not killing, stealing and so on.
Carl: -------Within that wiggle room there's space for anarchists like myself.------- Y"es Len a christian can advocate anarchy. A christian can also advocate rape and murder. None of which is good or moral." Not without contradiction. But the bible says:- Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!- Acts 5:29 To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God (1 Samuel 8). Honest people are too busy making an honest living to accept political power, so only the corruptible will accept political power (Judges 9:7-15 The Parable of the Trees The Bible is a broadly anarchist text.Jesus and others resisted the empire and were oppressed by it. " In order to support freedom and private property first learn that God has given the government authority to punish criminals." And god gave them the authority to steal(taxes), fight wars(kill) and try to replace God(1st commandment)? I doubt it. "Crimes are immorals acts. " Absurd. It's immoral for me to lie but why should I be arrested for it? "Theft is a crime and an immoral act." True but theft is not a crime because it's immoral.It's a crime because it's aggression. "And the government has sole authority to dispense justice." Why? Monopoly on law results in tyranny.If God installed tyranny then he is not being worthy of worship.Fortunately there is no proof of this. "So protect freedom and private property" ..Oppose the leviathan state which the bible says came from satan. "stand for righteousness and resist evil" Oppose the leviathan state. "quit advocating anarchy" Quit advocating theocratic statism. carl
-------Within that wiggle room there's space for anarchists like myself.-------
Y"es Len a christian can advocate anarchy. A christian can also advocate rape and murder. None of which is good or moral."
Not without contradiction.
But the bible says:-
The Bible is a broadly anarchist text.Jesus and others resisted the empire and were oppressed by it.
" In order to support freedom and private property first learn that God has given the government authority to punish criminals."
And god gave them the authority to steal(taxes), fight wars(kill) and try to replace God(1st commandment)?
I doubt it.
"Crimes are immorals acts. "
Absurd. It's immoral for me to lie but why should I be arrested for it?
"Theft is a crime and an immoral act."
True but theft is not a crime because it's immoral.It's a crime because it's aggression.
"And the government has sole authority to dispense justice."
Why?
Monopoly on law results in tyranny.If God installed tyranny then he is not being worthy of worship.Fortunately there is no proof of this.
"So protect freedom and private property"
..Oppose the leviathan state which the bible says came from satan.
"stand for righteousness and resist evil"
Oppose the leviathan state.
"quit advocating anarchy"
Quit advocating theocratic statism.
carl
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
The god of Abraham has always been a metaphor for anarchy. Authority has always been rooted in superstition, monotheism was an attack on nation-states.
"I am the Lord thy God. I am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other God's before me. My law is absolute. There is no authority save what God provides."
How is Yawheh a metaphor for anarchy? He is like the epitome of absolute authority. He contains the monopoly on death and punishement. God is much more a metaphor for statism, imo.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
He who has been a ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection, until the justice (by which he ruled) loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction.
Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another. You are brothers.
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Let there be no compulsion in religion.
You don't need to be atheist to be an anarchist, nor do you need to be religious.There are principles of non-aggression in every religion. Not to start a debate , but it sounds religious and libertarian to me. And of course my signature. There's many more. I'm sure some evangelist is going to jump at the idea to present me out of context quotes, or ask me to explain blah blah blah. The day that atheists show me legitimate atheist afterlife (not just non existance) & moral code is the day, I will lose my religion. I rather die having some type of moral system and that I'm going to a party afterwards, then that I will join nothingness and that everything is irrelevant. I rather believe Hitler exists somewhere, and justice is occuring. I could care less about such objectivity which I could not ultimately determine. Besides, my ego cannot even conceptualize the idea that it could be non existent. That's my "challenge" to atheists.
Those are my two cents (leaves thread).
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Can you cite these? I've not heard them.
I have a feeling those pertain more to people trying to rule rather than God, as opposed to people being ruled over in general.
The day that atheists show me legitimate atheist afterlife (not just non existance) & moral code is the day, I will lose my religion. I rather die having some type of moral system and that I'm going to a party afterwards, then that I will join nothingness and that everything is irrelevant. I rather believe Hitler exists somewhere, and justice is occuring. I could care less about such objectivity which I could not ultimately determine. That's my "challenge" to atheists.
It's an impossible challenge. You are asking non-believers to give you something to believe in. Atheism is inherently rooted in not believing in things with no evidence, there is no evidence of any after-life or objective morality. So, what could be an "atheist afterlife and moral code?"
The only atheist code is that "thou shalt not believe in things with no evidence."
Morality does not require a belief, nor a lack of belief in God. It is a personal choice by individuals, tempered by the past and present choices of other individuals. Any description further than that is speculation at best.
I think an important question on atheism is this: Is atheism not believing in a God or not believing in ANYTHING spiritual?
That's my point, I find no spiritual or moral utility in atheism. It just proves that life is irrelevant. I agree with most Islamic values and views irregardless of a belief in God. I rather die being wrong and happy then being right and disappointed. I cannot comprehend non existence, from my ego's perspective, it feels impossible.
As for the quotes, google them. I've typed them as I remember them. They are mostly from Hadith, let there be no compulsion is from the Quran.
How does it prove irrelevance? If anything it shifts relevance back the the physical world where it belongs. I would agree with any positive ethcis, regardless of beliefs.
It proves non existence at the end of life. To me that makes a belief in atheism irrelevant, because any belief becomes irrelevant when your faced with non existence. Call it whatever you want, but at that point, objectivity becomes pointless to me in my life.
Imagine the feeling of non existence, can you imagine a perspective? No.
I can imagine nothing. It's not hard. As I said, if you ask me, I think belief is more irrelevant, especially the christian notion of salvation (do whatever just believe in God and ask forgiveness).\
Atheism takes relevance away from the supernatural and puts right back in the physical world where it belongs. Your decisions now have real relevance, rather than some possible relevance in an afterlife.
I'm simply saying the idea bothers me. A lot. I'm not comfortable with it. That's why I say if there is no objectivity in afterlife, then my belief or disbelief of an afterlife doesn't matter anymore.
I see relevance in both ends. I find certain values to be important to me here and now as well as in later. If it doesn't have relevance to both, I don't find the belief to be important. I'm just simply saying, if I'm just going to die, and that's it, what point is there for me following or not following a religion?
Objectivity does not matter as much to me as much as ethics and utility.
I don't think all atheists would take such a positivist perspective on the afterlife. One of my friend's believes there is always a possibility of an after life, though I haven't really asked in depth what he means outside of that(I mean theoretically whatever energy that is used by our body will always exist, so we'll be part of something). Plus there are Buddhist atheists, and they believe in reincarnation, but not the soul.
The Islamic belief of salvation is different. God is merciful, but you will also be judged by those who you have done wrongs to. What you do now is just important for here and after death.There's no idea of original sin. Also belief in Islam does not equal savior, actions are more important on the judgment scale.
And that's your right as a sentient creature. I just feel it leads to a belief in being good because you fear punishment, rather than for goodness sake alone.
One of my friend's believes there is always a possibility of an after life, though I haven't really asked in depth what he means outside of that(I mean theoretically whatever energy that is used by our body will always exist, so we'll be part of something). Plus there are Buddhist atheists, and they believe in reincarnation, but not the soul.
I hold open the possiblility as well, I just don't find it likely. But no, not all atheists are naturalists.
I don't fear punishment from a merciful God, rather I fear my actions hurting other people. I mean if you were to get personal about my own beliefs, I believe in heteredox Islamic views. For example, I reject both Shia and Sunni stances, I take much of hadith lightly, etc.
I make a personal choice to believe in religion, it doesn't make any more or less anarchist.
Nielsio,
Because if that is the case then I think we have a problem on our hands, because the purpose of knowledge is to understand, describe, explain and predict reality, which religious speak - as facts - do not do.
I don't mean any hostility here, I am not defensive. I have tremendous respect for you and what you've done on your website.
Why is it a problem? Why is it a problem on your hands?
What is the purpose of this post? To demonstrate that people of faith who are also anarchist are inconsistent? Why is that important?
Must they be purged or ignored by other anarchists because of their inconsistency? Must they either reject their faith and accept anarchy, or vice versa? Otherwise, they commit the only sin a rational mind and commit; they are inconsistent.
I am Christian, of the evangelical persuasion. I do not support government involvement in moral issues, ie, the church "lobby" using legislation like any other special interest group.
Is a human being a spiritual being? The person of faith says yes. Others say no.
The only answer I can provide, and it will not be satisfactory to you, is that it is a "spirit thing."
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
Why is knowledge's purpose to predict reality and not to simply provide consistent propositions about the real world?
That being said, religions do try to predict future events and the end of the world is a rather unequivocal prediction -if knowledge really was essentially about predicting, then one still has to wait for this to happen or not, before one could totally refute religion as knowledge.
chloe732 wrote: Why is it a problem? Why is it a problem on your hands?
I was speaking figuratively. I was pointing out what I observed as a problem and was looking to either get people thinking about the problem of factual versus non-literal metaphors, or otherwise to see how people would respond.
btw, I made this thread 3 years ago.
fakename wrote: Why is knowledge's purpose to predict reality and not to simply provide consistent propositions about the real world?
Ultimately it is about prediction, because it informs our actions. If we cannot know what our actions will do, then we cannot act rationally.
Similarly, with the study of economics we can predict that aggression against the market will cause destruction and make us poorer. Or that if I heat my food it will become safer and tastier to eat.
So I ask you: what is the use of religious concepts? -> the concepts that remain undefined and are not connected to our rational knowledge.
Libertyandlife: "He who has been a ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection, until the justice (by which he ruled) loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction. Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another. You are brothers. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. Let there be no compulsion in religion." thanks for the quotes I've seen some of them before. "You don't need to be atheist to be an anarchist, nor do you need to be religious.There are principles of non-aggression in every religion. Not to start a debate , but it sounds religious and libertarian to me." I agree with everything there.
"He who has been a ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection, until the justice (by which he ruled) loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction.
Let there be no compulsion in religion."
thanks for the quotes I've seen some of them before.
"You don't need to be atheist to be an anarchist, nor do you need to be religious.There are principles of non-aggression in every religion. Not to start a debate , but it sounds religious and libertarian to me."
I agree with everything there.
On a side note I'm agnostic so I reject the theism/atheism debate altogether. I listen to theists talk of god to evaluate it for possible truth or see if they have proof of god.
I tend to think it would be better to be pantheist or pandeist or at least deist.
I'm also something of a scientific 'pantheist' .
@McFall
"I don't have time to go into the theology of it now, but I am convinced of this as surely as I am of the gospel itself: the state is a false god, and the only business a Christian has at its altar is in tearing it down."
I agree. good post.
The above belief is illogical to a lot of you, but if there are Christians out there with this mindset, why focus on insignificant disagreements that are irrelevant in our common goal of spreading the philosophy of liberty? I don't have a problem with atheists as long as they don't use their beliefs to justify violence. Why focus on the Christians who don't use their beliefs to justify the initiation of violence? I think there are a lot of Christians who would be open to learning about voluntaryism and eventually converting to voluntaryism but might feel initially alienated and uninterested if there they get the message that there is a strong emphasis on atheism.
The first time I was exposed to Stefan Molyneux it was a video on atheism. I didn't avoid the rest of his GREAT material because he was an atheist, I just assumed that all of his videos were on atheism! I am sure it was due to the fact that I was already a voluntaryist that eventually lead me back to his other material, but if I wasn't already a voluntaryist it would have been a missed opportunity to convert a non-voluntaryist Christian who was open to the idea.
I believe that most Christians are already voluntaryists and just do not realize it. They just have not made the connection that taxation is theft, war is murder, etc. Once this connection is made, it can have a great impact. Believe it or not, most Christians are well intended. I think using their own religion against them, even if you disagree with them, could be a very strong tool.
They already strongly believe that theft and murder is wrong. Even if you believe the Bible is all nonsense and contradicts itself or advocates the very things it preaches against, the fact remains that the vast majority of Christians strongly oppose murder and theft. They just fail to recognized that taxation is theft which if defended against results in murder. Using their religion against them could be very effective.
This is a shortened version of a conversion I have had with family members which I felt I used their Christian beliefs against them effectively. I was driving on the highway with my grandpa who is what you would consider a good Christian, gives a lot of money to charity, does volunteer work,etc. He is a really genuinely good guy. He is also a pretty strong welfare supporting democrat. So I was reading "Anarchy and the Law" and ....
Grandpa: What are you reading?
Me: *shows him the cover*
Grandpa: Anarchy huh. That only works in AA (alcoholics anonymous)!
Me: Well heres a 700 page book that disagrees.
Grandpa: It just couldn't work.
Me: I think you are an anarchist.
Grandpa: *puzzled look*
Me: Well, as a Christian, do you believe initiating violence is immoral?
Grandpa: Yes.
Me: Do you think it is immoral even if its a group of people initiating violence on a smaller group of people? Or a small group of people initiating violence on a larger group of people?
Me: I know you donate a lot of money to charity, I also know you support to welfare state.
Grandpa: Yes...
Me: But as you know, Jesus wants us to help people out of the kindness of our heart, because it is the right thing to do, not because someone put a gun to our head and made us. He would be no more proud for us if we were forced to do it then if we didn't do it at all. If there was a dying man in the street, do you think Jesus would put a gun to anyones head and force them to help him? Do you think he would ever condone someone using violence in this situation?
We went back and forth for a long time and talked about how anarchy could work in practice but I told him if he believes the state is morally legitimate then he wont really be open to learning about the true practicality of a stateless society.
It resulted in him seeing the violent nature of the state and its inconsistencies with his Christian beliefs. The conversation had a very big impact on him. I don't think I would have succeeded in getting through to him if it wasn't for pointing out that the state by its nature is against his already held beliefs.
Use it as a tool. This approach has worked in actually converting my parents and a couple other family members to voluntaryism.
Good articles imo:
Jesus is an Anarchist: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html - If you are unconvinced that Jesus was an anarchist, I hope you would at least agree that the people who do believe this are obvious assets.
Religion and Libertarianism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html
^I've done similar things, many of my immediate family members are voluntaryists now. It's a really simple argument.
I suppose that you mean that Hell and God and such are undefined concepts (I base this a little on what you said above and the Joseph Cambell quote).
btw, I made this thread 3 years ago. - Nielsio
Opps. Saw the recent replies and went from there, didn't notice the original date...
pop Atheist threads trying to provoke religous people on the 1st page of the forum...3
Religous people threads trying to provoke atheists on the 1st page of the forum...0
If nothing else the religous people seem to be initially less like obnoxious left wing busy bodies, much more important than any other fact if you ask me. If this was an actual dichotomy, I may consider some form of worship.