FreeThought150

If you can't see how claiming that people aren't interested in philosophy and truth is symmetrical to a dismissal of a person's position, I clearly can't help you.

I didn't change positions, I simply worded the sentence differently. It came across as a thinly veiled attempt at saying that "people that are interested in philosophy and truth don't believe in God." That may not be how you meant it, but that is definitely what came across in writing. I didn't necessarily say that you *must* accept Bill into the community, especially if he is doing the indoctrination bit. I think it wouldn't be constructive just to reject him based on the fact that he believes in Hell, especially if he is not doing any indoctrination (as described above). Since we have determined Bill is indoctrinating as put forth by the original theoretical, rejection is acceptable but not based on our/your/whoever lack of spiritual anarchy, but because he is coercive. It is perhaps a matter of semantics, but sometimes semantics are important. Spiritual anarchy doesn't have to be an applicable issue when what we are really concerned about is Bill's coercion. Basically the point is, have a different concern than just "this person believes in God." Coercion is an acceptable reason, to me, for exercising free association. I respect a person's right for free association, but sometimes exercising the right can be more destructive than constructive. It's important to truly understand the person's beliefs and how these things are put into practice. Personally we repeal the law not because it causes crime (and I probably should have said this before, but I was distracted) but rather on the basis of property rights. The idea that certain property should be illegal is silly. I didn't argue for people accepting Bill who is guilty of coercion. I am arguing for acceptance of an unnamed person (Sally?) who may believe in God, but does not commit coercion. If that wasn't clear, I apologize for the confusion, it was probably my fault.

"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." This is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss other people's positions. I have made this same argument with indoctrinated organized religion folk. Some of them reject it, and others agree and feel that they will teach their children what their personal beliefs are, and also present other options and even atheism, allowing their children to pick for themselves. Atheism can be just as coercive as organized religion depending on how it is presented, especially if there are no other options presented. If you have a problem with Bill's child later in life, that's between you and the child. This idea that you can blame the parents for everything is pure nonsense. It is an externalization of an individual's faults. Parents can have an effect, but ultimately people make choices in life. That person, and that person alone, should be held responsible for the consequences of their activities. A person's duty to protect is dependent on the immediacy of the issue. You don't have the duty, or even the right, to march into the home of an abused woman just so you can sit around and "protect" her. If something is actively occurring, or she requests your presence, that is a different matter, but even then it depends where the event occurs. I obviously don't advocate for laws on drugs whatsoever, but you are affected by the laws directly (violent crime) so a position of repealing the laws is in your best interest. People have the right to discriminate against whomever they please in the natural order, the market will sort them out; people have the right of free association. The concept of defense of third parties is highly dependent on the immediacy of the issue. If you break into somebody's home to protect an abused woman or child, there is a good chance you are going to be charged with a crime. In a Stateless society, there's a good chance you are going to get taken to dispute, and the case would be valid. It's not a person's responsibility to run around and play Superman, saving the innocents, there isn't even a right to do it. However, if you are in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and are witness to violence, it is definitely an immediate threat that can be dealt with if you so please but only in a manner commeasurate and symmetrical to the pre-existing level of violence. You are not morally responsible to do so, however, it isn't an obligation. In the context of the above, you do have the right to report abuse to either the State authorities or the liable party (in a Stateless society). You don't, however, have the right to violenty intercede because it makes you feel like a hero.

Your first argument is a thinly veiled attempt at saying that all theists are disinterested in truth and philosophy. Not only is it false, it is condescending. Just because people don't fall in line with your particular philosophy or belief system doesn't mean they aren't interested in truth. I am already beginning to see a pattern of groupthink around here: "if you don't agree with me then you are wrong, and I'm going to do everything I can to silence you." Passive aggression is still aggression. I am saying that bickering can damage a movement, but I never pinned it only only atheism. There are many other things people bicker about, and those are equally problematic. The reason I brought up atheism in this thread is because as a whole, this particular community is generally atheist. I would argue the same to a militant Christian. Generally speaking though, Christian and even Muslim anarchists are more spiritually anarchistic than atheists. Why would Bill's treatment of his children have "great importance to everyone?" If you aren't affected by it, it's none of your business. Just as with all interactions, it is between the two people involved. It has nothing to do with you.

One year is considered the sweet spot for looking for new options. Companies don't want to assume the risk and cost of taking on a new employee, spending money to train them, and then having them leave for greener pastures. If you develop a pattern of doing this, your resume will look suspect to many HR Managers worth their salt. That being said, if you're incredibly unhappy then you should try to find new work. It's essentially a cost/risk/benefit calculation with many subjective factors. You have to decide for yourself what is most important.

The government essentially IS a corporation. The only thing that separates the government from "private" corporations is the following: - a monopoly of the use of violent force - revenue is generated through violent force instead of the sale of products or services, or through the assumption of debt levels that no organization would ever be allowed to take on if they could not make their own rules and ignore them - "customers" do not have a choice what services they wish to "purchase" - collusion and other unethical business practice is not illegal for the government There might be more but that's the brief, short version.

Perhaps it wasn't incredibly clear in the OP, and I appreciate the feedback/critique and your request for expounding upon the idea. What I really meant was that people can and should have healthy debates about what is true, whether it is faith, atheism, spirituality, etc. I clearly didn't say that well enough in the OP, and for that I apologize (I blame my girlfriend). What I disagree with is the idea, that I have seen in some anarchist communities, that conformity to atheism is necessary for participation. Free association is fine, but I think that it does the movement a disservice to ostracize people based on beliefs that are, in the end, irrelevant. So long as the person isn't attempting to threaten or coerce others with their religious beliefs, I don't feel they need be ostracized, but rather engaged through healthy debate. With that in mind, I would engage this person (let's call him Bill) in a healthy debate to understand why he believes that hell exists, and more importantly why he feels it is necessary to threaten a child. I would explain to him my position, and whether he accepts it or not I don't really care. The fundanmental problem I am trying to address is this feeling of personal offense that people take only because others have a different position than they do, resulting in problematic bickering which damages the cause. If Bill is an anarchist, then I do not support ostracizing him unless he begins attempting to coerce others within the community. What he tells his children is none of my business. If the goal is to improve society, I will take a political anarchist in my corner even if I don't agree with every thought in his head. I won't take somebody that misrepresents the position to the public, however. I determine whether I shall associate with him based on how his behavior affects me and/or the community, not based on whether he believes in a fanciful lake of fire. Your first sentence is interesting, and it could be accurate. However, then we are back to what I said in the OP: it's all a matter of opinion. You think spacetime itself does not require causality to exist, and I think that it does. Right now we don't have evidence in favor of either position as far as I know. The argument on this topic is called "The Cosmological Argument." Aristotle addressed the Cosmological Argument with the following premise: "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." The abstract concept of "god" is this First Cause, to many. Many atheists dismiss this idea by saying that something that merely created the universe and did nothing more hardly deserves the label "god." This comes from falling prey to propaganda by organized religion that a god must be more involved with its creation. Just because a person can't shake the organized religion ideals, even in their atheism, doesn't mean that a position that posits a deistic god is invalid. Also, this first cause not not have a creator because it is instead transcendant, and has no beginning and no end. While I accept that such an idea is abhorrent to atheists, the idea that the first cause exists at least partially outside the universe means that it need not obey the laws inherent to the universe. Why does a creator require consciousness? I'm not saying I believe either way, I'm just asking you why you say this. Of course I can create a causal chain with a creator without an infinite regression. I just did it a few posts ago (with accomodation for the point you made in your first paragraph, of course). Just because you disagree with me doesn't make it invalid, it just means you disagree, which is fine with me. Does it truly bother you that I believe otherwise? If so, why? I wasn't specifically accusing Magenta of an Argument from Authority, I just said that it "reeked" of it, and that I am wary of it. An argument from authority need not be explicit. That being said, I am about to invoke commentary from Richard Dawkins (irony!). I would certainly hope that you can understand that I'm not saying he's right because he's Richard Dawkins, one of the more militant atheists. In its most base form, my position of panentheism is also one of deism. I do not believe that a magical "it" intercedes in the universe, reveals itself through humans, or even cares at all about what I think or how I behave. Think of it as the cosmic clockmaker. Dawkins has said that a deist has a compelling, logical case for their position, however he disagrees with the conclusions. In typical Dawkins form, he also likes to bash the position as "watered down theism," but that's just how he speaks. The purpose of the above paragraph is not to say that I am correct because Dawkins thinks I have a case. It's just food for thought, a bit of a challenge to people disagreeing with me to step outside their comfort zone of empiricism. There yet remains more to be learned by human beings. I am not so attached to my beliefs that I would not reject them were there not compelling, proven, scientific evidence that they are false. My evidence that they are true can be summed up in one simple statement: the universe exists. The word "god," for me at least, is simple a word which labels the first cause. It need not have any other consequences.

No, the creator need not have a creator because it exists at least partially outside the universe in which we live. The concept of causality does not therefore need to apply, which I previously said, and outlined in the syllogisms that follow the one you quoted. I am incredibly wary of people linking Stefan's work at every turn. I have listened to his case and I disagree with it. No offense intended, but it reeks of an argument from authority, although I am sure that you didn't intend it that way. Saying something "exists to us" is a form of subjectivism, it necessitates that something must be able to be perceived in order to exist. I explained why this is not valid due to scientific conclusions that are accepted by modern physics. Again, we are incredibly off topic here. Can we please stick to the topic of the OP and leave whether a deity exists or not behind? It isn't relevant.

I don't have a negative opinion of atheists. I may not agree with them on certain details, but since those details are superfluous to my moral philosophy, it doesn't matter. That's what was intended to be the message of the OP. Belief in a deity is superfluous, all that matters are people's actions.

This is true as a general rule but not for all people. I arrived at my beliefs by wiping the slate clean, studying physics, and applying logic. What of people that have spiritual tendencies but do not practice an organized religion? What of people that have no scripture to pass to their children? What of people that keep beliefs to themselves and do not force them upon others (including children)? You are painting a broad picture of people based on their beliefs, essentially stereotyping people negatively. Honestly, the same thing could be said of militant atheists that treat their atheism like an organized religion.

Please provide a little more information, because I feel like there are a lot of thoughts in this statement that are missing. The reason I request more information is because my first reaction to this statement is : "You can't coerce logic, empiricism, or the NAP, they aren't people."

I don't agree with everything you said, specifically "all other universes are the same as non-existence to us" and "given that this is the only universe that exists." However, I am pretty sure that I know where you are going with this. Your argument is that conclusions about reality must be drawn from empiricism and reason. This is fair and accurate when discussing the universe in which we live. The logic likely occurs as follows (sorry if I am getting it wrong, or missing something, I'm just trying to move things along, feel free to critique); premises in no particular order: P1 - A deity cannot be observed or sensed through empirical means. P2 - In order for something to exist, it must be able to be sensed through empirical means or induced through logic. P3 - A deity violates the unversal principle of causality. C- Therefore, a deity cannot exist in reality However, I would argue something different. P1 - The universe (spacetime) exists. P2 - Existence in spacetime requires causality. C - Therefore, the universe (spacetime) must have a cause (creator). P1 - The universe (spacetime) must have a cause. P2 - Cause occurs before effect. C - The creator of spacetime must have existed before spacetime existed. P1 - The creator of spacetime must have existed before spacetime. P2 - Before spacetime existed, the laws of spacetime did not exist. C - The creator of spacetime was not subject to the laws of spacetime. P1 - Causality is a law of spacetime. P2 - The creator of spacetime was not subject to its laws. C - Therefore the creator of spacetime is not necessarily subject to the laws of spacetime, and therefore does not require causality for existence outside of spacetime. The problem with most atheistic logic is that is postulates that that which is not empirical is not real, and that the empirical universe consists of all that is. Such a position requires proof, and must develop a causal reason for the existence of the universe. If this ever happens, I will happily reject my current position. However, based on concepts such as the Observer Effect, which dictates that a system changes when it is being observed or measured, I don't believe that humans will ever be able to concretely say that all of reality (not just our universe) is empirical, but if I am proven wrong then great. In order to do so, the Observer Effect, which is accepted by scientists, must be eliminated through technology. Scientists may disagree on its effects, but without piercing it there is no way to claim that all of reality is empirical. Edit/Addition: It is important to note that, pursuant to my above statements regarding the morality of hold beliefs, whether or not a "god" exists is fundamentally irrelevant. Believing one way or another doesn't change anything. It just means that one person or another is wrong, but whom is wrong doesn't matter because it has no effect on or within reality itself. As long as people can just accept that others are different, it does not matter what they believe so long as they are not applying those beliefs in a way that results in violence or coercion.

I know what would happen if a person attacked me, but not what would happen if a person attacked you. If a person attacked me, they would be shot.

It occurred to me that this basically was just not an argument that I expected to encounter, so I'd like to apologize to Magenta and Kevin for my misunderstanding and misinterpretations. I guess that's what happens when you read and post while distracted by a cute new baby (I'm an uncle!). I'll try not to do that. We don't live in those theoretical universes. We live in one where positive rights are not allowed, so therefore in this reality beliefs do not have moral value. It is important to note that rules only apply when they apply, and do not apply when they do not. This isn't an argument for subjectivism, although it may come across that way. It is more an argument that universal rules are dictated by the reality in which we find ourselves, and may be subject to change if said reality is left behind. Also, the fact (if it is one, anyway) that a different universe has different rules than another doesn't invalidate the rules of either. Rules are valid across a reality as dictated by logic and empiricism, and do not have any affect on conclusions drawn in other realities. This is much like the varying laws found in different countries.

Regarding the first paragraph, I never said otherwise. Regarding the second paragraph, it all depends on the nature of what we are calling "god." There are many physicists that believe that there are different universes with different fundamental rules. Just because logical contradictions are not allowed in this universe doesn't mean they can't exist in another, and it also doesn't mean that there can't be realms of reality that are not subject to rules at all. This is a bit off topic. I wasn't planning on justifying whether there is or is not a god. I never placed an argument that there is a god, I just simply said that I believe in it. I'd vastly prefer we stay on topic rather than explore an issue that is tangential to the topic (and one that has probably been beaten to death around here, at that). Well, it's a good thing that I never told anybody that "everything" is mere opinion. What I said was that statements of theological nature are subjective statements (opinions) about an objective reality. The reason I said it isn't a constructive discussion is because it is completely tangential and unrelated to the topic. I didn't make an argument for the existence of god at any time in either the OP or my initial response to Magenta. As stated above, I would prefer we stay on topic rather than turn this into an argument between theism and atheism.