[The best speech you will EVER hear..]

I think this kid gives a really good speech about being a vegie:

 

[Why We Should Call Ourselves Voluntaryists]

I prefer the word 'voluntaryist' (volunteerist?) to anarchy because of the negative misrepresentation given to the word in the main stream.  how does anarcho-communism work?  

[Is cowardice bad?]

excellent Kevin,...  eeexxxcellent

[Child Abuse Intervention at Barnes And Noble]

Good for you Joel.  One of my regrets in life is not stepping up to intervene on behalf of my nephew when his crazy mother assaulted him in front of us.  It wasn't just a 'disciplinary reprimand' type of 'correction' slap either.  He was about 3 and she attacked him and tossed him about and struck him a few times.  I just looked on in shock and horror.  We lost touch with him for many years and when he reappeared as an adult I was able to speak to him about his childhood and apologize for not intervening on his behalf.  He no longer has a relationship with her but he really is messed up. 

[is "step in the right direction" a myth?]

I don't know if I would call it a myth but I would say that the idea is misguided at best.  

 

theft, rape, assault, are immoral, period.  acknowledging and understanding this is to end it completely and instantaneously, not gradually or incrementally.  When this is understood by a larger majority, how to curbing the violence will no longer be an issue.

 

Like dsayers says, any other reason for eliminating violence is just a lucky guess and will not be sustainable, history bears this out.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

No I don't think I was being disingenuous.  You were the one saying the derogatory things without backing them up and now you are claiming that you doing so would be too much for you to handle.  

 

nevertheless, like I said in previous posts I have been studying religion, spiritual traditions and their history for years but I will not be the one to engage you in an intellectual debate regarding the existence of god.  I have no interest in that topic.  I am interested in virtue and morality and religion fails that test, and that is easy to prove.  

 

I'll take a peak at the other thread you mention though.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

I am new to this forum and just wanted to chime in here.  I mostly wanted to respond to your response to the OPs claim of lack of respect.  I have been looking through this section of the site and have noticed the same thing that the OP states, which is a lack of respect.  Now I might mean it in a different way though.  I don't care about people calling people names or some such nonsense, but the respect of actually following the current philosophical debate around the existence of God.

 

What I have found is the atheists here don't seem to understand or even be aware of any of the current positions of religious philosophers.  Nor do they seem to know they current (or actually very old) responses to atheists points.  For example, the sort of reasoning that I see here is "God cannot create a rock so big he cannot lift it, therefore god cannot be omnipotent, therefore god does not exist."  This line of reasoning was shown to be invalid decades ago!  

 

I came to this forum because I like Stefan and found much of his logic to be sound.  I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that those who came to his site would be of a higher intellectual level.  What I have found is people championing arguments that were shown to be wrong before most of them were probably born.  Arguing against the type of reasoning of a 12 year old average church goer does not make you intelligent.  

 

I used to post on a board that was mostly atheists.  And if an atheist said something like "there is a mountain of evidence that god does not exist", a majority of the atheists there would jump down that posters throat about what an absurd statement that is to make and how he is making the rest of them look bad.  But here I see that statements like that is par for the course.  Hopefully someone can show me where I am wrong as I always enjoy a good intellectual discussion about the existence of god.

welcome to the forum jibningas.  

 

Have you read the whole thread?  If you want to argue for the existence of something you must provide evidence, and as you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

 

Also, making personal attacks about the level of intellectual discourse you observe without pointing them out and explaining why they are erroneous and saying things like "this line of reasoning was shown to be invalid...  shown to to wrong" and the like without actually showing how that is so,... well, I think you know that lacks intellectual integrity.  

 

you're off to a good start I think.   

[is fraud immoral?]

dsayers, I think Robert responded to your challenge above.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

This is for the audience, rather than the protagonists in this thread.. corbyco is cherry picking the questions he answers. He has been busy cherry picking from the low hanging fruit. This doesn't surprise me, as my (Christian) Father did very much the same.

 

I would suggest rather than wasting your time, you either hand him his ass on a plate or ignore him. Sorry to be combative, but since corbyco never responded to any of my own reasonable responses or others in this thread, he clearly has no intention in understanding 'philosophy'.

Well said, I totally agree Patrick.  I am not engaging him for his benefit.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

If we look at history there have been wars in the name of Christianity - although not following the words of Christ so it seems not fair to blame Christs teachings for those wars.  Also there have been abuses but again that is not what Christ taught - and infact the opposite of what he taught.

 

There have been far, far more deaths through communism and general statism which had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

Today there are almost no deaths even in the name of Christianity.  Its about energy and islamic extremism.

 

Do we say that anarchism cannot be right and true because of the hundreds of thousands of 'anarchists' who loot, burn and murder?

No, because we have intellectual integrity and exclude those who actually do not follow what we define as anarchism.

sorry, you are not addressing what I am saying.  No one is blaming Christ's teachings (revelation notwithstanding) but he is guilty by association and so are you.  some of us may be aware of hidden motives behind the violence in the middle east but you cannot deny that the 'Christian right' makes it possible for the military industrial complex to engage in this stuff because their support and sanction of it is based on biblical teaching - so yes we can blame Christianity.  

 

you can define Christianity any way you like and ignore all those who call themselves Christians and cheer on the mayhem in the middle east but you are still complicit by association.  and you did not answer my question about the book of revelation and Jesus' second coming.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

 

 

As regards to how it all 'describes the real world'...  it does seem evident to me that the Christian countries are the most prosperous and free. Christian countries are the ones that have progressed scientifically and ethically.  There is dreadful evil in the world.

Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?    UPB gives a test of whether something is moral but it doesnt explain why people thoughout history have done it even at their own cost.

religion, in particular Christianity in this case, has been, and still is the motivation for the murder and subjugation of millions. Like I said in an earlier post, people do evil things because they are convinced they are fighting evil, thanks to religion and the state.

"Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?" Really?  People, with the exceptions of psychopaths, are good because they naturally want to be.  Is God the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping and stealing?  

 

OK, from the bottom up then, as you say.  

 

Just because you have no explanation for an experience does not mean that it is God.  People have attributed many things to God that have since been explained by science.  In the example you give of the fairground ride we know that the massive flood of 'fight or flight' hormones released by this activity and the subsequent hormonal 'high' are the reason why we feel this way, and because we understand it, we can duplicate the response.  

 

I have had lots of moving experiences that I cannot explain, I don't automatically attribute them to a deity.  

 

You can say that the mafia does good things, 'protects' people and supports its favorite charity or whatever, and choose to ignore that they kill people and shake them down, but if you are supporting and advocating for their ways by association, then your claim of being virtuous is not to be taken seriously.  If I want to be virtuous, I must distance myself from people who are willing to use scripture (Old Testament, Revelation) to justify the horrors that are associated with it.  Otherwise I lack intellectual and moral integrity, regardless of my personal experience of God.   

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

 

 

I agree that Christianity comes with lots of other 'baggage' but as a philosopher I only really concern myself with what it says about now.  I cant prove what happened in history so what the old testament says is outside the scope of proof.  So I only test what Jesus says about what we should do now to do good in the world and prosper personally.  Much of what He says is different or the opposite to what philosophers here say and yet when I test it - it works.  So I think it worth investigating simply because it can be tested more fully and so either I will learn that its true, or not true and I will hopefully understand how it worked even though it is false.

what do you mean by 'proof' concerning the old testament?  you also claim to embrace first principles and philosophy.  why does it matter if the stories are historically provable or not? - it is simple to prove that they are morally corrupt;  by using philosophy and first principles of course.  

 

there is much of value in the new testament and the words attributed the Jesus, but much that goes against first principles, and the NAP in John, Matthew, Luke, etc.  What do you have to say about the words attributed to Jesus in Revelation?  

[Writer finds little evidence of Christ; says he was 'mythical']

Homer, Socrates, and ahem, King David all most likely never existed.  Does this mean that the message and history that was conveyed through such personifications should no longer hold any relevance to our current knowledge?

 

 

yes

[Libertarianism's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea]

wow, wish I hadn't wasted those 4 minutes reading that.  I think that would be an important critique for Stef address, it really is one of the last line of defense arguments left for the intellectual statists.  

[Writer finds little evidence of Christ; says he was 'mythical']

"He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship."

 

I would challenge this statement.  I too have studied much on the history of religion over the years and I think that it was the creation of the Roman Empire to coral the masses with a funky new mind control scheme.   It was not a new game for the oligarchs, even back then.  Joesphus worked for the Flavian Caesar's and had a lot to do with the founding of the new religion.  

[Two suggestions for a "Truth About" episode...]

First, I thought an episode on the "Truth About William Shakespeare" might prove interesting. As you can assume by the name I chose, I am convinced by the evidence that the true author was Edward De Vere. There is extensive evidence for that if anyone would care to discuss it.

 

Second, I thought an episode on the "Truth About Nicolai Tesla" would also prove very interesting. Tesla, more than any other single individual, is responsible for the existence of modern society. The story of his lifelong battle with Edison is a fascinating story in itself. His AC current, and his induction electric motor, essentially make everything from your fridge to your coffee maker function. In spite of his genius, he died relatively poor in a mid-town Manhattan hotel room, impoverished for no other reason than his sense of decency. Had he been aware that Westinghouse was indebted to the Rothschilds and Warburgs, Tesla might have been far more sagacious in his choice of business partner.

 

Just a couple of suggestions.

 

Thanks.

those are interesting topics Edward.  I like the stuff on Telsa, and you should check out Joeseph Atwill's work on Shakspeare.  He claims that Shaky was actually as Jewish woman.  

 

I know I made this comment regarding the 'truth about Gaza' video but the problem I have with focusing on all this stuff, and I have spent many hours looking at lots of it, is that it is stories, not philosophy, and stories require information and information is always subject to interpretation, revision, missing or new evidence (Shakespeare example is a good one) - virtue, the NAP, evil, are all philosophically objective and much easier to prove.  The conspiracy, alternative news media is packed full of compelling stories that give us a different perspective on people and events.  Besides, there are some major hitters like Infowars, RT, David Icke, etc that already work that angle.  

 

As soon as you tackle the 'real' or 'hidden' stories behind events like Sandy Hook, 911, the Rothchilds, etc, you get people focused on accuracy rather than truth.  

 

I think it is best to stick to first principles and use stories to illustrate them, and no one does it better than Stef.  

[faith w/o god, sience w/o faith]

Why ask priests and pastors or athiests whether or not they think God exists?  what do you think they will say?  Why does it matter?  

 

Being inquisitive is very good.  asking the right questions, also, really good.    

 

Morality matters.  Religion, 'faith', and the gods of religions, have done a poor job of curbing evil in the world.   

[Vegetarian/Vegan Questions?]

Oh I think we have a misunderstanding.

 

I am not trying apply UPB to animals in the sense of expecting them to act morally.

 

I am asking if we can make an extension to human morality to include non aggression against animals.

some of your posts show that you are not making the proper distinction between the NAP and UPB.  when making an argument you must first establish that your definitions match that of the people your are discussing them with.  Yagami is trying to explain universal principles and you keep arguing from effect and ignoring or misunderstanding the word 'universal' in UPB.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

Wow Shane, definitions indeed,... that is one big ass heap of tangled words there and I am not prepared to unpack those assertions or try to make sense of it,...  so I guess my answer would have to be, uh, no.  Uh, wait,... yes I do, I think.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

 

 

 

Christianity is widely misunderstood. Jesus is the only approved model for Christian behavior, the rest are flawed attempts at best. 

 

Most people's only exposure to Christianity is through self-righteous abusers who use the bible and religion to rationalize their violence. It would be ridiculous to accuse Jesus of violence.

 

 

I have spent a lot of time around christians, do you not agree with the commonly taught doctrine that Jesus is somehow a manifestation of God, represents or is God incarnate so to speak?  God's behavior, esp in the old testament, and his sadistic plan to send Jesus to be tortured and murdered to pay for our transgressions, meets your ethical standards does it?  how about Jesus's planned second return and the mayhem that goes with that according to modern christian doctrine, is that story to be dismissed as well?  not feelin' the love.  

 

"love your enemies"?  again, love, like forgiveness, is an involuntary response to virtue, what this prescribes is really scary indeed.  

 

I have never agreed with the quote that says, "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing".  I think it is more like:  "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to be fooled into thinking it is somehow virtuous"  religious indoctrination, which was a justification for slavery and the slaughter of millions to this day, has been very good at doing that.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

corbyco, I am not even sure what it means to 'believe' in forgiveness but I do agree with what Stef has to say about it, and yes, I think you are misrepresenting his position on forgiveness.  My understanding is that forgiveness is an involuntary response to virtue.  You can find ways to talk yourself into to feeling certain ways I am sure but that does not fit into my idea of a good way to manage relationships.  

 

I grew up with religious indoctrination and have spent many years studying and researching religion and spiritual traditions and esp the history of them.  I actually like to debate the kinds of things you propose in your last post, esp stuff like 'saved by grace' but I don't think you will get much traction with that stuff here.  

 

I have the same problem with religions like christianity that I have with the state: problems are solved with violence.  Yes, including the Jesus salvation story; I don't think the euphemism 'saved by grace' makes it any less horrifying.  His heinous 'return' scenario as proposed by modern christian doctrine is unspeakable in its violence and suffering and so I cannot in good conscience support, advocate, or be tolerant (respectful if you will) of any organization that stands behind such ideas.  

 

I am curious about your statement about being open minded and interested to see how that will play out.  I Hope it will be rewarding for you.  

[Obviously we are not all Godless here]

beliefs or faith based ideas are not due any respect, people are, if they earn it.  

[How to dismantle the most common arguments for spanking.]

Most people I've encountered on the other side of the spanking issue have a reason why spanking / corporal punishment and its applicability is different for each of the following kinds of people:

a) young children (1-2.5)

b) children (2.5-5)

c) adults, non-spouse

d) spouse

e) an elderly person

 

So I think the universality needs to be able to be proven otherwise you'll get stuck in that quagmire.

the NAP is already universal, so there is no quagmire to get stuck in, and it is not OK to hit any of the people in those different categories.  

[Verbal Abuse & The NAP]

that is an absolute bummer Phuein.  I can totally sympathize with that and I would get the heck outta there if I were in your place. Still, you can't change the definition of the NAP to suit your case.  You could start a thread to discuss your problem, how it relates to philosophy?  well,...  

[Verbal Abuse & The NAP]

josh is doing a great job of explaining this stuff and I agree with all of his assertions, seems pretty straight forward to me.  

 

labmath, we request and negotiate for compensation all the time in day to day living with family, friends, workmates and neighbors. people who do not honor these simple dispute resolution systems are just ostracized from normal beneficial social and economic interactions, this works very well and people do it all the time.  do you think you should be able to force people at gun point to make good on simple property damage claims?  what kind of relationships do you have with people in your life?  I already have a pretty good idea from previous posts about Phuein's life situation.