General

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Niccolò — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:30:50 GMT

jimbojr:

Does someone really need to point out all of the blatant psychological projection you are displaying? You've knighted yourself the defender of politeness and all that is holy while exhibiting the juvenile behavior of posting page after page of name calling and insulting (i.e. calling people pricks, asses, etc. etc.)?? So you have a value that says being rude to people is wrong and yet you are by far the most belligerent person on this thread. No atheist that I have read, including myself, has demonstrated behavior that even comes close to your own. When an argument that does not include name calling offends your beliefs you go straight to immature name-calling. I could also come up with a model of great predictive power....you hold irrational beliefs as truth which blinds you to the blatant and demonstratable irrational and inconsistent nature of your words and actions. But if we work empirically, no such models are needed, it's just obvious.

What is it with Randroids and psycho-analysis?

Always with the psycho-analysis. No actual substance to their arguments, just petty "psychological" observations.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Miklos Hollender — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:07:24 GMT

The relationship between religion and society is complicated and is usually more complicated that what we would think.

Eric Voegelin - who was a student of von Mises in Vienna - wrote to von Hayek:

"I read your article The Intellectuals and Socialism. Reading it I had the same impression that I had when I examined Road to Serfdom. We are approximately concerned about the same problems and we are dissatisfied by the same grievances. As I see it, we differ on the interpretative issue. You understand the difficulties of socialists intellectuals observing the economic contrasts – and maybe ethical – between socialism and liberalism. For me, this contrast does not approach the issue deeply enough. You know my prospective from our discussion and from my lectures. I think that it is impossible to deal with the contemporary problems of intellectuals without taking into consideration the religious scenario, the “Gnostik” problematic. I have the impression that you come closer to this problematic in your work Counter Revolution of Science than in your economic interpretations"

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Len Budney — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:32:40 GMT

You've knighted yourself the defender of politeness and all that is holy...

How grandiose! But no, I just asked some specific people to be polite.

So you have a value that says being rude to people is wrong and yet you are by far the most belligerent person on this thread...

Perhaps. But that's not confusing, I trust: you and I both embrace the non-aggression principle, yet also believe in self-defense. Rudely telling someone to stop being rude is analogous to defensive force: namely, the blame rests with the initial aggressor.

No atheist that I have read, including myself, has demonstrated behavior that even comes close to your own.

False. For example, the rant that started, "If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth..." was extremely offensive. That you apparently don't think it was, indicates your lack of courtesy. That you would make the above claim and in the same paragraph say, "you hold irrational beliefs as truth which blinds you... blatant and demonstratable irrational and inconsistent..." is the height of irony. Assuming you're right, which I have assumed consistently in this thread, it's an obnoxiously rude thing to say.

In short, I've asked you repeatedly to show some courtesy. If you choose not to, I'll mostly ignore you--but reserve the right to address you with merciless bluntness. If you shape up, you'll find me sweet as a little lamb. Sadly, your persistence proves you have no intention of shaping up. Is it because you're this obnoxious to everybody (i.e, because you're a jerk), or is it because you hate religious people with special intensity (i.e., because you're a bigot)? Just curious.

--Len.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

jimbojr — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:23:21 GMT

Does someone really need to point out all of the blatant psychological projection you are displaying? You've knighted yourself the defender of politeness and all that is holy while exhibiting the juvenile behavior of posting page after page of name calling and insulting (i.e. calling people pricks, asses, etc. etc.)?? So you have a value that says being rude to people is wrong and yet you are by far the most belligerent person on this thread. No atheist that I have read, including myself, has demonstrated behavior that even comes close to your own. When an argument that does not include name calling offends your beliefs you go straight to immature name-calling. I could also come up with a model of great predictive power....you hold irrational beliefs as truth which blinds you to the blatant and demonstratable irrational and inconsistent nature of your words and actions. But if we work empirically, no such models are needed, it's just obvious.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Len Budney — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:02:18 GMT

People confident in their knowledge do not need to write page long emotional rants that put nonexistant words and insults in others mouths...

I have a reason for writing what I did, and I told you what it was. Namely, I want people to be polite rather than acting like pricks. Did you miss that when you read my post, or did you read it at all? Notice that I have never attempted to convince any atheist here to become a theist. Nor have I insulted any atheists, unless they also happened to be behaving like pricks--and I would as quickly chide a theist for the same behavior.

In short, you insist on making this about either me or my beliefs, when neither is the least bit relevant here. You posted some obnoxious discourtesy, and I exhorted you to be courteous instead.

MENSA members also have a high reported belief in UFO's.

I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it would be an interesting addition to the discussion topic I mentioned. I notice that you have no interest in that topic, but instead took occasion to issue another pointless assault on others' intelligence. And most interestingly of all, you did it immediately after I predicted you would. Apparently I'm working from a model that has predictive power! It's a simple model, too. It's this: people who act like jerks probably are jerks, and will continue to act like jerks in the future. Talk about elegance.

So, are you going to start being polite, or are you going to continue your obnoxious, self-gratifying behavior? If the latter, it's no skin off my back: it'll simply confirm my hypothesis that you're a jerk, and I'll start avoiding you. Liberty doesn't actually require that we get along; as long as you realize that I will defend myself with deadly force when attacked, and keep your mitts to yourself, we'll coexist just fine. Still, getting along is preferable. Especially when we live in a police state that can't be rolled back without serious cooperation.

--Len.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

jimbojr — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:50:57 GMT

Niccolò:
jimbojr:

If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst. If you have evidence for your claims, present it. If not, do not expect thinking people to tip-toe around the few sacred cows you refuse to apply reason to.

I always find it so blatantly comedic when men like you speak of "reason and logic" as if they are codes to live your life by.

Immanuel Kant is rolling in his grave.

Or you could say nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

jimbojr — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:49:13 GMT

People confident in their knowledge do not need to write page long emotional rants that put nonexistant words and insults in others mouths, but I understand if venting brings you relief. I'm going to formally recognize here that you have a PhD in case it wasn't made clear by you repeating it.

MENSA members also have a high reported belief in UFO's. Correlation? Causation? Or maybe we should be waiting for the mother-ship with Bibles in our grips?

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Niccolò — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:30:01 GMT

jimbojr:

If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst. If you have evidence for your claims, present it. If not, do not expect thinking people to tip-toe around the few sacred cows you refuse to apply reason to.

I always find it so blatantly comedic when men like you speak of "reason and logic" as if they are codes to live your life by.

Immanuel Kant is rolling in his grave.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Len Budney — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:32:43 GMT

jimbojr:
If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst.

Wow--talk about mental masturbation! Did you climax? Was it good?

Meanwhile, I'm not asking you to change your opinion of religious people's views. I'm asking you to be polite anyway. You can think religious people the most idiotic specimens that ever hatched, and still be polite. In your opinion, my views make me blind, retarded and crazy. OK, then: do you treat the blind, mentally ill and people with down's syndrome like such an ass? If so, why did your momma raise you to be such a scumbag?

The irony is that you describe yourself as "dedicated to logic, reason and the scientific method," yet you appear incapable of realizing that you'll never achieve liberty without cooperation from retarded religious libertarians. So you'd rather continue in slavery, if freedom means showing basic civility to those you despise. Is that consistent with logic and reason? From where I sit, it's mighty stupid.

We could probably have an interesting discussion of the epistemological implications of attempting to embrace a life of "absolute rationality." We probably won't, though, because you'll reply with another self-congratulatory slur against my intelligence. For example, we could discuss why Marylin vos Savant clings to an irrational conviction that Fermat's last theorem hasn't been proven. Or why Chomsky is a socialist. Or why Newton spent so much energy on the Apocalypse. Or, closer to home, why a member of Mensa with a PhD in Math and a 99th-percentile IQ, who recognizes the truth of universal common descent and despises creationists, is nevertheless a Bible believer.

But instead, you'll probably remain content with your intellectual onanism. Hope you find it (ick!) fulfilling.

--Len.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

jimbojr — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:30:55 GMT

If someone takes the position that a book of compiled myths of long dead Near East nomadic herders is the truth, they should expect some level of brow-raising when mentioning such opinions in rational discourse. Asking people dedicated to logic, reason, and the scientific method to be "tolerant" of proclamations and assertions about inherently contradictory, unknowable, non-sensual, and invisible beings is naive at best, and absurd at worst. If you have evidence for your claims, present it. If not, do not expect thinking people to tip-toe around the few sacred cows you refuse to apply reason to.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Len Budney — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:53:38 GMT

Praxeo:
I've never seen a successful online conversion from religion to atheism (or vice versa), ever, and I don't expect one to occur. I'm a diehard atheist but I'm confident that attempting to convince another of one's beliefs regarding religion and irreliegion online is normally about as easy as using "stimulus packages" to revive economies.

I'm with you, brother!

That's why I never bother trying to "convert" atheists--or anyone else, for that matter. I'm pleased if someone takes an interest in my views, and doubly so if he finds them convincing, but I consider it pure sunk cost to try and convert the unwilling.

On the other hand, is courtesy too much to ask for? Your post was perfectly courteous. So apparently some people can discuss the subject amicably.

--Len.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Praxeo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:41:06 GMT

I've never seen a successful online conversion from religion to atheism (or vice versa), ever, and I don't expect one to occur. I'm a diehard atheist but I'm confident that attempting to convince another of one's beliefs regarding religion and irreliegion online is normally about as easy as using "stimulus packages" to revive economies.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Niccolò — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:51 GMT

ryanpatgray:
Intersting, why do you believe existance is absurd?

There is no inherent value in anything - yet man works to discover it. There is no inherent value in man's existence - yet he fears death with the greatest passion. Man works his entire life to be eternal, infinite, and forever, but the only real recognizable common between all men is death.

Your existence is absurd - consider what it took, all the connections of this and that. What chances are there of me talking to you now? They are very small, yet here we are.

ryanpatgray:
I am happy and I have no faith.

For now.

ryanpatgray:
Even if the consequences go against God's will?

God takes the consequences into account.

ryanpatgray:
With concenting adults nothing.

What is an adult?

ryanpatgray:
Not as an adult but as a child, yes, they did.

What, did your mother make you go to Sunday school?

Re: Stefan Molyneux

Len Budney — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:00:36 GMT

AH! But your example was of a 17 year old who acording to Jewish law is an adult.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 nowhere mentions children. It refers consistently to a "stubborn and rebellious son," which makes no reference to age or minority. You'd probably have spotted that right away if you checked. The only reason this oversight bites you on the butt is that you're content trusting your unverified assumptions. And the reason you're content to do that is you assume your disputants are so stupid that they don't merit your full attention.

Perhaps THIS will finally convince you to stop acting like an ass. But probably not: you'll probably proceed to raise another childish objection, and suggest that my clarification means that a father can execute his 63-year-old son if he wants to. I can answer that one as well, of course--but my concern is why you think such an obvious objection hasn't been considered and resolved ages ago. Why do you think that your off-the-cuff impressions of a subject you know nothing about will stump people who've spent years and energy on the subject?

The answer is, of course, that you think they're idiots. Stop thinking they're idiots, and you'll automatically stop acting like an ass.

--Len.

Re: Stefan Molyneux

ryanpatgray — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:51:25 GMT

Len Budney:
ryanpatgray:
Len Budney:

Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable.

To each his own, I guess. I admit I'm shocked to learn that you think it's dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though.

To state the obvious, this is called self-defense which is a different matter altogether.

You said that killing "children" is "NEVER" acceptable. Now you suddenly discover an exception: self-defense. And that's OK: when you contradict yourself, it's "another matter altogether." When your disputants appear to do so (though in reality you're just confused), you see this as damning. Thanks to your double-standard, you're blissfully unaware of the point. The point is that you need to treat others courteously, and stop acting like an ass.
--Len.

AH! But your example was of a 17 year old who acording to Jewish law is an adult.