Kawlinz

I understand putting conditions on the use of your property, like a car park. I don't understand putting conditions on what I can do with my property, simply because it resembles your property (cds or mp3s).

Do you mean this hypothetically or now?

if I had to choose one, and only one, I'd choose the later, as it includes the former.

I'd say it's more precise to say that the block of would doesn't have the ability to believe in anything, rather than to say it doesn't believe in evolution.

Glad we agree on something.

"Your first argument is a thinly veiled attempt at saying that all theists are disinterested in truth and philosophy." has a different meaning then "[Your first argument] is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss other people's positions." ​It's not wording a sentence differently, it has a different meaning all together.

I'm just stating that some communities don't accept theism as logically valid. Is that not factual? wasn't that a part of the premise of your original post, that some anarchist communities say that atheism is a must? Originally, you said I was being condescending by saying that all theists are disinterested in truth/philosophy. Now, you're saying that I'm dismissing positions. What's with the change? I know atheism can be just as indoctrinating if it's presented as "there's no god and that's that, no one's practicing religion in my house" No, my issue isn't with Bill's child later in life. my problem is with bill and how he's treating his children NOW. The child can't defend themselves, they are dependent on the parent. Am I going to use violence? No. Am I going to accept bill, who doesn't support spiritual anarchy, into my community for the sake of spiritual anarchy? no, it wouldn't make any sense to do so. So, drug laws cause violent crime. Do we wait until the criminals are about to act violently before we intervene or do we repeal the drug law that causes that crime? You seem to be advocating both in different instances. You want to repeal the drug law, but you also want people to accept Bill who intimidates his son with threats of hell if he disobeys "the word of God"... which really means Bill.

No, no it's not. at all. Show me where I say anything close to "theists are not interested in truth or philosophy." If christians and muslims are more spiritually anarchistic than atheists, most don't practice that with their children, where it is most important. Saying I'm not affected by Bill's threatening his children, might be true, but it's only for the moment it's happening. I may be affected by Bill or his child in the future, and how Bill treats his children may have a direct impact on me. Saying it has nothing to do with me so I should mind my business doesn't make sense to me. If there are laws against pot smoking and I'm not a pot smoker, should I also mind my business because that law will never affect me? If people discriminate against gays and i'm not gay, should i mind my own business? If someone threatens and beats their wife... well, I'm not a woman, I'll never be affected by it, so I should but out. you get the idea. We are allowed to defend third parties who are in trouble and can or won't defend themselves. some people call that "putting your nose where it doesn't belong". What do you think of defending third parties?

The wedding dress scenario could be resolved with a question at the beginning... "are you getting married?" Then it's up to the woman coming to try the dress on to lie or just tell the truth. I think you can release software with a pricetag, people would just pay upfront instead of after you've made it. Just like if i come to your house and build you a deck without us arranging it prior. I can't call you a bad guy for not wanting to pay, even if you really like the deck, even if you have kick ass BBQs on the deck afterwards.

I think that *some* anarchist communities are based on truth and philosophy, and in these communities, they don't accept theism as a logically valid conclusion. If that means excluding people from their conversations, like you said, they can do so. if you feel it's a disservice, there are other communities that will accept theists. If you feel you'd like to debate them, that's cool too. I don't debate theism anymore since it's not worth my time, I haven't come across an argument that I haven't already seen in the last, I don't know... 10 years? I don't see how you can say bickering will damage a movement, and pin it on some atheistic anarchist communities. people are going to disagree when they aren't using the same processes for understanding truth. Try telling these Christian Anarchists that there's no moral value in believing in God. I agree with the statement. I also think that what bill tells his children is of great importance to everyone. If he's telling his children that they're going to hell if they don't obey God's word, he's absolutely violating the NAP. What's the kid do, say "I don't believe you, this sounds like a bunch of gobbledy gook - what facts and evidence do you have to prove that?" Maybe 3 christian parents will say it's okay, he doesn't have to believe, doesn't have to go to Sunday school, doesn't have to read the Bible. I'd be willing to guess that the vast majority of parents aren't like that. Someone who raises their child using threats, intimidation, coercion or violence is no anarchist I want in my community.

I think you run into a problem when you say people are entitled to their beliefs. Agreed. But when you contrast that with " we shouldn't tell people what they can and can't believe".... well, I think you might see the error. If not, let's give it a spin. I believe that you can tell people what they should and shouldn't believe. i think that belief in falsehood is - well, incorrect. How would you convince me of your belief, without contradicting your belief? If spiritual anarchy says that we can't threaten people with the horrors of hell, then spiritual anarchy requires that we tell people what they can and and believe. If you don't mind a (hopefully) quick experiment.... "Of course hell exists and of course I'm going to teach my son Zach about it. I'm a God fearing man and I'll be damned if someone tells me it's just an opinion" what's your reply? how would you advocate for spiritual anarchy without contradicting the ideas of spiritual anarchy to do so?

I'd agree with the comments following your question. When you call something non-tangible property, that's just another way of saying "not property". If I said I had a non-tangible pen, I wouldn't have a pen

I don't see anything immoral about "playing the game". You aren't initiating force against anyone. I think it may be a (forgive me) taxing experience to go thru, emotionally draining maybe. If you can set up a clear goal of what you want out of the experience (to help people) it may get you thru those times.

because image issues don't always initially come from what you think of your own self.

What would it have been like if you gave your mother this article when you were 5?

I addressed that

I already said that if contradictions can exist or happen, then yeah, I'd be open to the idea that god could exist. But if that were the case, then belief and non belief might be the same thing, and we'd have no disagreement. Then again, disagreement could be the same as agreement, and we wouldn't be having the conversation. Then again, having a conversation and not having a conversation could be the same thing and.... I think you get the idea.

I already gave you the reasons, 10 of them. I listed them numerically in this very thread. Which one do you have an issue with?

wait... are these criminals currently in captivity, so to speak? because without being in captivity, they're in control of the switch.

Supernatural proof is a contradiction, just like God. If contradictions could exist, then god has a chance, as does supernatural proof. Without contradictions, neither of them have a chance.

Imagine someone a mugger puts a gun to SuzyQ and says "hey, I need money for food" and SuzyQ says "hey, if you need money I'm more than willing to give it to you, just put the gun down - please". the mugger says "no, the gun stays". When people say they pay taxes voluntarily, it's easy to test. All they have to do is ask the tax collector to put the gun down - take away the threat of violence and imprisonment. See how far they get.

didn't realize there were so many freedomain rappers! props on following your dream man

This would disqualify scenarios where a consistent universal principal cannot be extrapolated. This wouldn't mean there might not be an answer in regard to the situation, but that if the answer could not be generalized to other scenarios, it would not be apart of the same class as ethics. Does that sound right? Could yuo expand on what you mean? like do you have an example in mind?

I think I've solved it... there are no exceptions. If you put forward a theory of how humans should behave, it has to be consistant and universal. You can't make the theory consistant or universal if you include the initiation force.

wtf? If governement is neccessary to keep capitalists from poisoning our foods, then government is also neccessary to keep capitalists from fooding our poisons, so to speak. Therefore, just eat the poisons that evil capitalists produce. If they can't make healthy food, then they also can't make effective poisons.