Wiltin

I've explained my position very clearly, you are not free. The coercion is the threat of hell. The gun is God's power. The initiation of force is in the use of that power against people. I haven't argued against your world view. God may be evil and still exist. You've played around with a lot of theology in order to avoid the obvious conclusion. I didn't ask if Adam and Eve were free, it is irrelevant. I asked if YOU were free. If no one can be exempt from God's will, then no one is free. It is right there in the definition of freedom, and it isn't a 'great mystery'.

free·dom [free-duhm] noun 1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won hisfreedom after a retrial. 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. Are you exempt from the external control, interference, regulation, etc. of God?

The woman in the video above would be an example, my parents would be another. If you were to tell her that spanking doesn't work, you'd lose credibility with her. She knows it works and she describes how it works for her in the video. You can make a moral argument, you can talk about long term harm, you can provide evidence from various fields of research on spanking, but you can't say it doesn't work whatsoever. o·bey [oh-bey] verb (used with object) 1.to comply with or follow the commands, restrictions, wishes, or instructions of Spanking can be used to make a child comply with or follow the commands, restrictions, wishes or instructions of a parent. Coercion or not, it works, obedience is precisely the right word. "Finally, nothing could be described as easily controlled if it first requires violence and second requires increasing amounts of violence." What is easier than violence? What does history teach us? How do social animals resolve their disputes? Violence requires no wit, no conversation, no patience, no virtue, its the easiest method BAR NONE. There is an unpleasant reality about violence that I think a lot of you are ignoring, and you're down-voting me for pointing it out. I'm not endorsing spanking, I'm not suggesting it has any benefit to the victim. Spanking wouldn't be so heavily ingrained in culture if it didn't provide some benefit to those practicing it. Please stop demonizing me.

Ok, hot topic, I get it. There is a reason taskmasters used whips and sticks, not negotiation, to get slaves working. Violence causes people to do what you want. This is all I'm saying. Try to be a little more objective? I said, "If your only objective is to have an obedient, well mannered and easily controlled child, physical discipline is a viable option." All other considerations aside, do you disagree? If a man just wants the pussy, then rape is a viable option. All other considerations aside, do you disagree?

Just speaking from my own experience, spanking worked for my parents. I have 3 brothers all close in age, we were spanked. The method my parents used was to provide a warning first, if the 'bad behaviour' continued I would be told how many belts I was getting and sent to my room. After 5 minutes one of my parents would come in and dish out the pain, I was allowed out once I had stopped crying. The 5 minute delay was for psychological torment and also to ensure the belting wasn't done in anger.This method 'worked' in that we were very obedient children. I recall my parents always getting compliments on how well behaved we were. There was never any physical conflict between me and my brothers which I've since learned is extraordinary for a family if 4 boys.I think spanking is stone evil, don't get me wrong, it killed any potential bond I could have had with my parents and crushed my spirit as a child. It did work though. Ignoring the fact that it can work if done in a consistent and controlled manner I think damages your credibility when arguing the point with spankers.

The problem with any kind of argument against spanking, is that spanking works. If your only objective is to have an obedient, well mannered and easily controlled child, physical discipline is a viable option. It has empirical results that people can see right away. That, along with the religious element in this case, makes it an impossible argument.

All those other considerations you listed; stupidity, short-sightedness, religion, television, primal urge for motherhood, would be irrelevant without the financial support of the state. The state enables bad patents.

Maybe I'm being pedantic but if "exist" is always limited to things consisting of matter and energy, what word should replace exist in the statement "concepts exist in the mind"? If the dictionary.com definition of "idea" is truly flawed as you say, they should be informed.

I agree with your position that concepts don't exist in the real world. The fact that you had to add "in the real world", rather than just saying "To exist is to have matter and energy", means that the definition of the word "exist", as it is commonly used, isn't always confined to the real world. The word "exist" isn't precise enough on it's own.

ex·ist [ig-zist] verb (used without object) 1.to have actual being; be: con·cept [kon-sept] Show IPA noun 1.a general notion or idea; no·tion [noh-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1.a general understanding; vague or imperfect conception or idea of something: i·de·a [ahy-dee-uh, ahy-deeuh] Show IPA noun 1.any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity. Purely based on definitions I would say concepts exist in the mind. What more explanation is needed? You could waste a lifetime caught up on these kinds of questions.

None of your examples are properly analogous to the Christian world view, and I wonder if that is on purpose.I can't leave the room, the bottle is labelled 'eternal damnation' and I was forced to drink it before I was even born, you're not in the room, you're outside of it pretending like you don't exist. You have another bottle of ancient Jew blood that is the cure but you're holding it to ransom for my eternal servitude.Duress is putting it mildly.I'll leave the conversation to Wesley, I've done the dogma dance enough times to know when progress can't be made.

I think it is very clear that in the scenario that you present, humans are not free. It seems like you're ignoring the gun in the room. Do you think that freedom is defined by the existence of more than one choice?The fact that god is imposing his will on you at all, regardless of the number of cages he offers you, means that you are not free.Anyway, I think we've both made ourselves clear on this, and again, it isn't an argument against your position directly. I think the Christian god is evil in principle, and it has taken some serious mental gymnastics for you to reconcile Christianity and anarchism.You said earlier that the book of job was instrumental in your conversion, which I find perplexing. The book of job paints a picture of humans as nothing but play things in gods grand fantasy. Job's life is ruined because god makes a petty bet with the devil. His family, including many children are killed along with all his livestock, as if they are just another possession. It is a dehumanizing and immoral story. When god finally intervenes on job's behalf, he squashes job under the thumb, scolding him for even wanting an explanation. As a human being, how are you not outraged?

Hello Avocadogreta, thanks for sharing, I'm new here myself. I think it is awesome that you and your husband are both interested in philosophy and are able to share the learning experience together. It sure beats doing something like yoga or tennis together in terms of it's benefits for your lives and your child. Welcome to the forum.

Alright, I think I understand your position well enough now. I'm working within the paradigm here for the sake of exposing what I see as a contradiction that tries to avoid the obvious conclusion. The contradiction: God created the game and put me in it, I have two options, 1. "submit to my will and be united with me" or 2. "I'll send you to eternal torment." I can choose my fate, but it cannot be said that I am free, and neither option results in freedom. Any choice I make in this situation is under duress. Submitting to the will of God is to give up my own will, and my freedom. Analogy: A police officer holds a gun to your face and gives you two options, 1. "submit to my will and accompany me to the police station" or 2. "I'll shoot you." You can choose your fate, but it cannot be said that you are free. Any choice you make in that situation is under duress. God is not a part of myself or an aspect of my condition, he is a separate thinking being with a will that is imposing his will on me. It can't be said that biology is a separate being that is imposing it's will on me, biology is an aspect of my self. If God owns my existence then I am not free. It makes no sense to say I have freedom if my existence is owned by someone else. If freedom is not the end goal, then the end goal requires that you give up freedom. Freedom's only "good" use is to give up freedom. The conclusion: You've given lots of well thought out justification and provided lots of caveats but you haven't been direct about what your conclusion actually is. I don't blame you since this is a very difficult pill to swallow. I think on some level you know that it is an unpleasant picture. Philosophy is about working with basic principles and cutting through the fluff. You are not free.

This is one way to look at life, all based on indisputable fact: You are a winner. Of the millions of sperm produced by your father and the hundreds of thousands of eggs in your mother, you are a successful combination. Winning is written into your genes. Nobody in your direct line of descent has ever failed to reproduce. None died before they were able to pass on their genes to you. None succumbed to disease, none were killed in war, none were eaten by wild beasts. All of them survived their childhood, found a mate, and bore a child. You are the product of resourceful, clever, and resilient people. You are at the cutting edge of human evolution. You are the product of all the hard work of every person who came before you. They all lived and worked, so that you might live in a better world than they did. You live in the best time in human history, life expectancy and quality of life has never been higher. There are plenty of positive things you can take from this, it's just a matter of finding the right perspective. My personal take is along the lines of: Enjoy life and contribute to the human story by leaving a better world for your children.

Hi Jer, you're in a tough situation. Life is scary when you have been raised a Christian and then lose your faith. All religions provide answers to some of our deepest fears: Fear of death, fear of the unknown, fear of isolation, fear of injustice, and so on. So when you say to your wife "God is not real", what you are really saying is, "You and everyone you care about is going to die, you don't know the origin of the universe, you are alone, there is no justice." Try to have empathy and build a positive Atheist world view rather than just tearing down your wife's one. Not just for her, but for yourself as well.

Anytime someone says "everything will be okay," they are avoiding something that is most certainly NOT okay in the present moment. An opposite equivalence would be if when something great happens (your child is born, you get a promotion etc), and your father said "everything will turn to shit."

I appreciate the detail you went into and I'd like to revisit some of at some point. In an attempt to keep this discussion concise I'll just focus on one aspect, hopefully you don't mind. I am mortified by the idea that someone, no matter what qualities they possess, has absolute ownership and authority over my personality, my future, and my existence itself. It runs very deep within me my desire for self-determination and ultimate freedom. Given that this is something I think is innate, I can't reconcile why God would create me with that characteristic. This isn't an argument against your position, I'm just looking for clarification. Do you think I am being too prideful/sinful if I'm not able, in the depth of myself, to accept a subservient fate?

Thanks for the encouragement Marius. I reread this thread and realised I brought a lot of prejudice into the conversation. I built a profile of dsayers in my mind based on his age, information in his own introduction post, and unwillingness to discuss his own adult life. So in my mind I was conversing with a middle-aged, under employed, single, isolated man with a chip on his shoulder. This was not fair of me, so for what it is worth I'm sorry for that. It is an unfortunate problem with communicating on a web forum, I should have engaged his posts directly without prejudice. I've learned something valuable here already.

My widowed grandmother on my father's side bought the house next door to us when I was a child, I think that was great for me and my siblings, being able to play in two yards and spend time with another adult relative. It worked out great for my grandmother too, it gave her company at a time when she wasn't able to get out much. However, It was a bit of an everybody loves Raymond situation at times with the relationship between my mother and grandmother. We ended up moving to another area of town, and I suspect it had something to do with my mother feeling the need to get away from her. My grandmother is very religious and judgemental, her sighs of disapproval still echo in my mind when I think of her. She is now in a folks home, almost completely lost her eyesight, and last time I visited she seemed quite depressed. In a perfect scenario grandparents being around is fantastic, you'd have to be careful to judge the situation correctly. This is why I don't think it is something you can really plan for.

I see a vain and isolated sociopath in his last youtube video. He fits a particular stereotype in my mind of an obsessive, jealous and abusive boyfriend. I'm interested to see if Stefan puts up a video about this incident. I think it would be worth exploring his background as a case study. My first guess is absent parents, very little human interaction at preschool age, isolation as a teenager made worse by no sympathy from his peers due to material affluence.

Thanks for the honest reply, now I'm really intrigued! This is the statement I'm most interested in: "since only God has His own existence; since He is the only un-created entity, and everything else, that exists, owes it's existence to Him, then we don't have grounds for challenging Him for our existence; it's not, in fact, "ours", but His." I would argue against the premise, but in this case I want to understand it's implications a little better. Do you think that God gave humans the desire for independence, self-determination, and a strong instinct for freedom and fairness? Or, do you think that these characteristics are an aspect of our fallen and imperfect nature stemming from Adam's fall from grace?

I'm interested in your opinion on something: When I was about 8 years old, I have a memory of sitting in the back seat of our family car and asking my father a question. This is quite a vivid memory, I remember the layout of the car, I had my brothers next to me on my right, I remember the street and place where we were travelling. I asked my dad "does a person who commits suicide go to heaven or hell?" His reply was, "most likely hell." At this point I had a lump in my throat and I gulped, which is something I can't remember doing any other time in my life. There is no way out, no matter what I do. I didn't choose to be born and I cannot choose to be free from this life, there is no escape, I must obey God, love God, fear God, and there is nothing I can do to avoid his judgement, killing myself would only hasten my trip to hell. That was my fear of God, which I would now say was delusional. Do you think I was delusional?

Thanks for the video, I've seen it before. I have no argument with peaceful parenting. My issue is with my interrogator's method of inquiry, fault seeking, and apparent lack of empathy for my position having disclosed private information on a public forum. He also continued to ask pretentious questions after I made it clear I wasn't going to engage. The word expert is used subjectively and experts rarely agree on all issues. We are not 'committed' to any particular expert view is what I'm saying, and 'peaceful parenting' really is just a vacuous, subjective sound bite, which I find irritating. I think Alfie Kohn's work is helpful.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm listening to the podcast now Kevin, thanks. Yea, pascal's wager is awful, it is one of these occasional off the top of the head brain farts that a Christian might have if they haven't given it any real thought. Thanks for explaining, the variety of approaches and flavors all calling themself Christian never ceases to amaze me. Honestly I'll tell you though, I was raised in a Christian home and rebelled because of my parents' divorce and a crush I had on a girl at school, I became a Jehovah's Witness in my late teens. I didn't meet any Christians or JWs that I would describe as nasty people, so that isn't at all what turned me away. I had the relatively unique perspective of having been deeply involved with two religions with opposing doctrine and separated communities. Nice people here, nice people there, all trying to do the right thing, all thoroughly convinced that they were right while the others were wrong. Religious doctrine divides people like nothing else can, the absurdity of the situation became clearer to me as time went on. I also had my own doubts about the validity of the bible and the 'hidden God' concept, and it all came together in my mind a few months after I was baptized as a JW at 19. I thought perhaps being baptized would give me some divine guidance, I got nothing. I just had to get out, I needed space to figure things out on my own. At first I continued to pray for guidance by the holy spirit, but everywhere I looked all I saw was contradiction and absurdity. Depression followed soon after, and a period of unpacking all my assumptions and the indoctrination of my childhood. It was a very long process to atheism for me. Now I genuinely find all forms of Christianity unthinkably absurd, there really is nothing redeeming about it in my mind. I'll just ask, and I'd respect your decision not to answer, do you fear God?