Demitri

Hey Joseito, Thanks for the questions! To stay clear concerning which part I am addressing, I'll address each question one at a time. "What makes you think that other people do not adhere - or think they adhere - to your core belief?" Generally I tend to assume people do share my core belief; at least to some degree. If I didn't think that, then I would not have discussions or debates with anyone. However, with that said, more often than not I have encountered those who have proven themselves not to hold this belief as any sort of reality in their lives. I do not pretend to know the minds of others and assign what they believe; but I do watch for patterns, and I listen to what they say. As soon as someone makes it clear they are clinging to a belief out of a sense of loyalty, or honor, or duty, or any other emotion in spite of opposing empirical evidence, then that is their admission of not sharing my core belief. Also, I was not intending to make assumptions about what others believe; my intent was to make clear what I believe. The reason for this is to make sure others can be "on the same page" as I am when discussing and debating things with me. "I don't think they are calling you a liar. Calling you a liar would mean that they think you are aware of the reasons they are "right", but choose not to acknowledge them; I'd say that they are just calling you ignorant or crazy, as is usually the case. Don't you think?" Many times people have tried to claim that I was holding onto a belief out of some emotion-based reason (loyalty, duty, fear, love, wishful desires... whatever) and not listening to them; when the fact is there was a critical flaw in their logic they fail to acknowledge or recognize. For them to claim I am holding onto a belief out of emotion, when they are made fully aware of my core belief, is to call me a liar. Generally if someone thinks I am ignorant or crazy (which people do from time to time) they actually use the words "ignorant" or "crazy". Tho occasionally they use more pop culture-ish words like "conspiracy theorist" (if they think I am crazy) or "inciter" (if they think I'm trying to start an argument out of ignorance). "A corollary of this would be that they are the ones who are ignorant, crazy, unconscious, defensive... so how do you justify your irritation as a rational response?" Irritation is an emotional response, and as such does not have to be rational; tho it should be reasonable. Since I have emotions, it should not come as a surprise to learn that I get irritated when called a liar (when I am not lying; if I am lying I generally don't get irritated when called on it). It is my opinion that things which are reasonable (defined as: having good reason to occur) do not require justification. If you see a child fall, skin her knee, and then begin to cry, do the tears need justification? I don't believe they do, since it is perfectly reasonable for her to cry and shed tears in that circumstance. Likewise, if I say "I do not cling to a belief out of a sense of loyalty to it" and you claim that I do, then that is calling me a liar and it is reasonable for me to be irritated; thus, it does not need further justification. "What brought you to FDR?" While looking for leads to further my research on economic collapses thruout history, I happened across . I liked what Stefan had to say and looked up more of his videos on You Tube; then watched/ listened to them - all (over 1200 now! Rock-on Stefan!) Admittedly, it took some time, and there may be some I have missed. While I do not agree with everything Stefan has to say, I do agree with the vast majority of it. After reading/ listening to his books, I decided that I may find persons willing to have intelligent discussions and debates here. So I applied to join, and now I'm here looking forward to some great discussions. Thanks for the great questions! I certainly hope more people here are as willing to comment and ask questions as you are. Hopefully you wont mind a couple questions of my own: What kind of background do you have? What brought you to FDR? If you had one wish, and knew it would be granted in as twisted a way as it could be (while still being granted), would you still make a wish? If so, what would that wish be? Thanks again, and I hope you have an awesome day!

Hi Tommy! Welcome. I'm new to the FDR forums, but thought I'd chime in on my thoughts about engaging family in discusssions of anarchism and atheism; especially a religious family. I have taken a very long and slow approach to engaging my family. Instead of outright challenging them, I prefer to insert lots of small doubt-creating lines of logic into my conversations attached to key prashes like, "... don'tcha think?" or "Do you ever wonder why ..." or "Doesn't it seem odd to you..." These key phrases are generally non-confrontational phrases that are meant to go directly to their subconscious and allow them to ponder whatever else you have attached to them. When it comes to religion, there's plenty of contradictions to use as the "meat" of these. Any answer they give is fine; I simply nod and say something noncomittal. Then I drop it. After I've done that for a long while, they rather get used to this stuff from me, and their mind has had some time to ponder those things. When I'm ready to approach them about being an atheist, I preface the chat by talking with them about how "stuff in the world just doesn't make sense", and begin with statist stuff (no shortage of nonsensical stuff there). Then I'll lead into religion as if it had just come to mind as one of the examples that doesn't make sense. I have found that it helps to elicit their help in "not becoming an atheist". If I make it clear that I simply can't accept anything that doesn't make rational and logical sense, or that doesn't have empirical evidence, and blame that outlook on the lies around us everyday, then they understand where I am coming from in that. Next I direct the scrutiny to the question of "how am I supposed to believe the people who wrote the bible?"; followed by all the immoral things in the bible (such as what Stefan links to HERE and HERE). This opens the discussion in a way that naturally leads them in search of answers (presumably to help you), instead of giving them arguments to refute. The idea is to elicit their help instead of giving anything to fight against. This approach can take a very long time, and is a process of growth. However, it does allow you to be open about your doubts concerning their religion (as an example). If your family would be appalled at the label of "atheist" or "anarchist", then don't use those labels until they have expressed the thoughts and ideas of those things themselves. If they do, then simply point it out at that time as tho you have just discovered the "real definition" of those words, and are sharing with them. Hope you can use some of this. Cheers!

[Edit added: I have no idea what the block of html stuff is at the top or how to get rid of it. It sure is annoying tho.] Hello FDR forums! I figured my first post should be an introduction, so here goes. I'm a 30-something polymath with multiple degrees and certifications in various fields (see my profile for the "short list"). I was unschooled in my teens, and have been a philosopher (one who seeks universal truths thru logic, reasoning, and empirical evidence) for as long as I can remember. I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but left them at age 16 to study every other religion I could; including but not limited to: Catholicism, various branches of Christianity, Buddhism, Latter Day Saints, Judaism, the main branches of Islam, Hindu, and Wicca. For about 13 years I actively sought the answer to the question, "Why do people believe the things they do?" After arriving at the answer of, "People believe what they are taught to believe, what they want to believe, or what they fear might be true." I discontinued my search, and focused on other areas of life. I would like to share my definition of a "stupid person" (aka: sheeple): An otherwise intelligent person who, when presented with evidence (defined as: empirical evidence and/or sound, rational logic) that is contrary to their current belief(s), chooses to be willfully ignorant and dismisses or denies the evidence instead of presenting counter evidence of their own which supports their belief(s). I enjoy debate, but will not debate with someone who opts to fit the criteria of a "stupid person"; it is pointless to do so. My core belief is the foundational belief upon which all my other beliefs are based; in turn, it is based on a universal truth (defined as: non-subjective truth which anyone and everyone must agree unless they are mentally deficient, and thereby unable to do so.) Here is how these are for me: Universal Truth: No-one knows everything, therefore it is impossible for me to know everything. A ludicrous argument against this universal truth has sometimes been said to me: "God knows everything." My reply to this ludicrous argument has always been, "Perhaps your God knows everything; but as I am not your God, I can still conclude that it is impossible for me to know everything." My Core Belief: Everything I know, understand, experience, and believe to be true is subject to being updated (thru change, addition, or discarding) upon encountering new and clarifying evidence presented in a logical and rational manner. Because my core belief does not assume that I know the totality of anything which I think I know, I do not cling to beliefs and ideas due to emotion, or loyalty, or anything of the sort (as I have noticed most religious people I have encountered have a penchant to do). This brings me to two things which irritate me, and deserve to be mentioned as part of my introduction. I bring these up because it isn't my intention to irritate someone I discuss and debate with; and I assume it is not their intention either: My first irritation: Occasionally, people seem to think that being older than I am automatically means they know or have experienced more in life than I have. Upon challenging this assumption (when I have encountered it and challenged it) I have proven time and again the falsity of this idea. Chronological time does not impart more knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of life or anything in it. The exception to this is if one is constantly subjected to new knowledge, makes an effort to comprehend it, and allows themselves to understand, change, and grow from it. People who believe in the "I know more because I am older" credo think these things happen by some sort of default. They do not (if anyone would like to hear my reasons on this, I welcome the discussion). I enjoy discussing various topics with those know more than I do; in fact it's one of my favorite ways to learn new things. However, chronological age alone is not valid evidence to assume superior knowledge, comprehension, or understanding; but chronological time spent learning and doing a particular trade or thing might. My second irritation: Occasionally, people seem to think that if I do not change an unshared opinion to agree with theirs, it is because I am emotionally married to my belief, or because I lack understanding or comprehension of the topic. Much of the time, this cannot be further from the truth. My core belief is outlined above, which is contrary to emotional or loyalty-based attachment to my beliefs. So to claim that I am emotionally bonded to any belief is to call me a liar concerning my core belief. As far as comprehension, I could talk about my IQ or give many examples to support my abilities to comprehend what I am presented with. Somehow, others who tread on this irritation either don't believe me or they get upset when I prove that I comprehend everything they present but still haven't changed my opinions to reflect theirs. As far as understanding goes, there are many, many things I do not understand. When confronted with a lack of understanding, my default is to ask questions and seek logical and rational answers that can help clarify my understanding. This is not always welcome when my clarification-seeking questions end up questioning circular logic which displays a lack of reasoning; and is then usually answered with some form of "you just need to have faith", meaning I am expected to believe something purely because someone said to believe it (many times in direct opposition to available evidence). So for an introduction, I hope it was an easy read. I look forward to any and all comments, questions, and true criticisms. Cheers! ~Demitri