powder

ahh, darn...

Ok omega, I'll take the bait. I like religious debates, though I am fascinated that you would choose to have one in a place like this. - You claim that your 'faith' or 'principles', I don't really understand what you mean by the word principles but you did use it, are based on a logically consistent interpretation of scripture. Is that right? - would you say that you have a more rational empirically based faith that uses correct interpretation of the bible? - I grew up with religious indoctrination and have spent many years studying the history of religion. I would say that based on your claims the vast majority of christians, both past and present, have a different interpretation and you think they have got it wrong? Is that right? - Have you studied the history of the christian movement up through to the renaissance? Did you know that up until the last of the 'christians' who did not join the church of rome were wiped out they did not have the same belief as you and other modern christians who they all lumped into the category of the 'roman cult'? In fact, what they believed was more different than modern christian belief is compared to the islamic belief system. (historically the christians called the roman church the 'babyolonian/roman cult' and the church of rome called the followers of jesus's teachings 'heretics' and gave them specific names like 'bogomils' 'cathars', 'waldensians' etc based on the writings of the leaders of the crusades) - Did you know that the king james bible, that all contemporary bibles are based on, was not the same as the scriptures used by the early followers of jesus or even the reformers? how much do you know about king james, his family and affiliations? - I would be interested to hear your response to Ray H's questions above.

You make a valid point ILO. The definition of 'state' or 'government', or 'anarchy' for that matter, all have very different meanings to the general population and in mainstream definitions. Like you say, I think it is helpful to stick to discussing the NAP and voluntarism instead for the most part.

"Coercion free government" is an oxymoron. I believe that the definition of 'government' as it is defined around here is: "a group of individuals with a monopoly on force and the legal right to initiate force (coercion) in a geographical area" So no, if services are provided voluntary and the NAP is respected, then it is no longer government.

Thanks Hannibal, that sums up my position nicely.

I was going on about 'structural violence" in another thread. It is at the core of P J's thesis, and I did not feel like it was adequately addressed in the interview he had with Stef. There are some very good responses here in this thread and as I posted in the other thread, Stef does a great job of dismantling the 'structural violence' gig in this video. It is with the second caller somewhere around 15 min in that he takes it on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzs61DEWKTE&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w

I don't know Kevin, maybe I'm missing something totally obvious. So, I don't think the definition of god as you and Stef have defined it (god(s) must be eternal/immortal, omniscient, omnipotent...) is historically or theologically adequate to encompass all those given that moniker, ie: Most of the beings worshiped, looked to for guidance, prayed and given sacrifices to etc, were not claimed to have had all those characteristics. Let me try to be more specific with my question: What would you say to a definition of god(s) that goes something like this: a non human being or entity that has some type of supernatural powers and that is perceived by its admirers (?) to have some sort of ability to control the destiny of mankind and is often prayed to, worshiped, looked to for guidance and so on. Could be Ra or Shiva or Quetzalcoatl or the Rain God, whatever.

I think I still agree with Flake here Kevin. So you are saying that the word 'god' has a specific definition, that is invariable and unchanging, like the word 'circle' for example, and anyone who uses the word 'god' to describe anything outside of that definition is just mistaken and using it wrong. Like calling a tomato a stapler. Have I got that right?

I totally get what you are saying Kevin, and the logical consistency of language and definitions is easy to follow. I did listen to the videos and Stef's definition of God. Still, there have been throughout history, and still today there are, many definitions given to 'god' or the 'gods' (Zeus perhaps) that do not fit that definition. Like what Flake said. Does a definition of god not have to have some historical relevance? I think that any being with supernatural powers (could be an ipad) that is looked up to by man as a 'superior' being that they look to for guidance of some sort has been called god and would be an apt definition for me.

I think that is an absolutely brilliant response to my query Hannibal. Thanks for indulging me, I really get it now.

looks like you and darkskyabove are the philosophy police around here. I am new to this sort of discussion as may seem obvious to you guys. Perhaps I am missing something very key to this philosophy thing. So Lians, the definition of a circle and 'god' fit into the same category of truth somehow? Since everyone can agree on what a circle is and almost no one on a definition of god, I am not sure what to think, really. and I am not being difficult, I am interested in learning.

Very well said Hannibal. Thanks for your perspective. I had missed that somewhat in your first post - esp your statement: "What I am saying is that it is irrational to believe in something without any reason to, just like the monster in the fridge." I just don't know if I am comfortable with the word "irrational", perhaps unreasonable works better for me, since there is no compelling reason or evidence to suppose god exists it is the same as the monster in the fridge. Got it.

So, viruses did not exist before we were able to detect and measure them empirically, is that how this logic works? yeah, except that I don't think you cannot have a debate without an agreed upon definition...

you got it!

Lians, by 'truth' in this context I assume you mean the laws of the known universe as we understand it at the present time. If you want to talk about 'truth' and 'reality' then you will need to define it for me. Just like I say that if you want to talk about 'god' you need to have an agreed upon definition. not that same, those things have a universally (mostly) agreed upon definition in our reality as we understand it. I'll buy that. thanks Flake.

I did not ignore that part of your post I simply don't agree with it. I don't see how there can be any imposed limitations or exceptions to my idea of accepting the possibility of existence of whatever, there are limitations to the understanding of science and the laws of the universe however. In my view, accepting the possibility of something existing is not tantamount to rejecting the reality that I live in - there is a lot about the 'reality' that we live in that we do not understand or are even aware of.

Ha! good one. I can call myself an agnostic because I only accept my own definition, that being: "I don't know and I don't care". I am certainly open to considering other more widely accepted definitions, but then I would likely not want to call myself an agnostic anymore if they didn't suit me. Sure, I agree with Stef that if you are going to talk about something or debate its validity you have to have an agreed upon definition, which is why he started out the debate by proposing one, I just didn't think there was any reason for me to accept it. I will be happy to discuss 'god' but on a case by case basis given the agreed upon definitions at hand. thanks, the avatar is a pic of one of our fluffy cats, his name is Powder and he has no interest in philosophy.

My Mother in Law just sent me this one: A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work. As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was. The girl replied, 'I'm drawing God.' The teacher paused and said, 'But no one knows what God looks like.' Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, 'They will in a minute.' I am not interested in filling any void with anything. I don't care about things I don't know about or don't affect my life, be they goblins or gods or purple spaghetti dragons. I don't accept the existence of anything I cannot verify with my own experience, I won't discount the possibility that they don't exist is all, so I don't know how your comments relate to my question. Kevin, I listened to the video debates you posted while I was painting. They were good. The whole of Stef's argument is based on a presumed and agreed upon definition of what 'god' is, and if we accept that definition, then the logical conclusion must follow. I don't accept any definitions of god, so I have no rational train of thought to adhere to. The square circles and married bachelor examples are different because I can accept a definition of those that everyone who speaks english and understands the words will readily accept. Ghosts? I don't have an acceptable definition for that and for me to argue that they do not exist I would have to get everyone to agree with my definition. does that make sense?

I am not religious, though I grew up with the RC indoctrination. I would say that I am an agnostic. below is a quote from the description of Stef's book on Aethism. I don't get it. I don't reject the possibility of fairies or goblins. how the heck should I know? history has shown that there are lots of things discovered all the time that defy what we imagine possible. I admit that for now I am only curious about the issue, not engaged enough to read a book about it but can you atheists explain to me what is irrational about not claiming to know whether something you have no way of verifying is 'real' or not. It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities. We do not accept agnosticism about unicorns, fairies, square circles, pixies on the proposition that two and two make five – why do we create a special exception in the realm of deities? Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting God's is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.

I love this quote Alan! brilliant and to the root of the problem. so many ask: "how would the NAP be implimented? would some people be able to opt out of that statist model? would it happen gradually, all at once, or by revolution?... etc" all of it missing the point.

I think you got it there. good point about the lack of tangible material to study darkskyabove - I can't imagine that a thorough written proposal with specs on how the mega computer will be programmed would get very far. but then maybe he would stick to film making, which he is really good at I think.

Of course this kind of coercion and domination happens everyday in a system founded on the myth of authority, the 'divine right of kings', the legitimacy of the state - this is an illusion that we collectively support with our belief that it is legitimate. I should have made myself clear that I am not talking about how things work in the past and present system, but with respect to the NAP.

Ster, your point about parents having control and tricking their children is not the same as adult interactions in my view - children cannot choose their situation. Adults cannot dominate, or have authority over other adults, unless it is given to them. I could be wrong but you will have to give me better and more precise example of how it happens in the adult world.

thanks kalmia, good points. you say yes it matters but you did not say how or why does it matter or how structural violence would be a factor in a volunteer society? what kind of 'structural violence' would you expect to see in a 'free' society? good question about the RBE system. how in the world would you implement it voluntarily, though that may not be the intent, and how could it possibly function if absolutely everyone, on the planet really, was not on board because the system relies on accurate assessment of available resources.