DataBrain

I can see why, perhaps with radical Muslim values, this could be a self-defense measure. However, according to the video that Will Torbald posted, about a third of Muslims in the world are not "radicalized" by the definitions they use of radicalization. Is it still justified to collectively ban immigration of those who don't have "radical" Muslim values, for the sake of being Muslim? Though it's probably not possible, if we had some sort of "radicalization" test which only brought in non-radicalized Muslims (this is purely hypothetical), is it still self-defense for banning their immigration? If so, why? "you don't want people to move next to you and have the ability to vote for policies that don't share your values" itself is not a valid reason. Otherwise, by this exact reasoning, we would be justified in deporting all leftists, fascists, communists, or anyone else who we happen to not share values with.

I don't understand Stefan's reason for being pro-Trump and wanting to ban Muslim immigration, as it seems to contradict with his ethical view towards Government programs. Isn't Government-controlled immigration itself the initiation of force and therefore immoral? I don't understand this idea of a country/religion being collectively bad (Which is the "War on terrorism," or the idea of wars in general, that Stefan seems to be promoting). Obviously, it is immoral for the government to spent money from taxes in order to help refugees into our country, but why is it a moral obligation (or at least not immoral) to ban immigration from Muslims (or any country, for that matter, as Donald Trump is trying to do)? Stefan is against government programs because they are the initiation of the use of force. However, immigration is a government program. Additionally, Trump is planning to make Mexico pay for a wall so that they cannot immigrate into our country. Imagine how that can possible be enforced. If you argued that a temporary ban on immigration would be for the greater good (meaning that immoral actions are excusable because they provide a huge benefit), would you not be arguing the same argument for other government programs such as Socialism? I don't understand the ethical drive for Stefan wanting to ban immigration, especially Muslim immigration.

There's obviously nothing wrong with a "Step in the right direction" as long as we don't stop at the "step" and worry about reaching the "direction." Unfortunately, too often, we take a step in the wrong direction to fix a problem caused by a government program by layering another government program on top of it. Minarchism, at least, lowers the amount of evil done by the state, but it most certainly does not make it good. I would say that we would need to first become a Minarchist state, and then transition finally into anarchism. The last step that would ever be required after the "Step in the right direction" of Minarchism would be to make taxes non-compulsory, but socially encouraged (like tipping your waiter). As long as we reach the end in the direction we are stepping in, I don't see why stepping in the right direction is a wrong thing to do. We can, in the end, reach a perfectly moral society which still has government-funded roads, courts, police, etc.

Alright then. I see your point. In an online forum, communication to the same level as face-to-face discussion is impossible, and perhaps laying out all the arguments is more effective in this case because there is no chance for a quick exchange of questions. And I can see the advantage of attacking the OP's points rather than Socratically letting them doubt when it comes to online argument. That advantage is that other people reading the thread who are religious will not be misinformed themselves with the chaos that is the internet.

I didn't mean to hide this under the rug, and I know this comment was a terrible argument and accusation, and I don't mean to say that the OP was a philosophical angel who makes perfect arguments (as you pointed out, the OP had a history of making accusations like this in his posts). The problem is, in a thread like this, the only person who agrees with the accusation is the OP himself, and pointing out the accusation by breaking down and counter-arguing the OP's post is a very bad way to start a discussion with someone who is not on the same level as you intellectually. If the atheist argument is correct and the religious argument is incorrect, you are the only one who knows why you're correct, and the religious person needs to know how to think themselves out of their own argument to understand why they're wrong. I am not saying that the method by which the OP's points were attacked was a wrong method of argument, but simply an ineffective one, one that backfires. A more effective methodology of discussion would be to ignore the attack on Stefan and get to the main questions of the thread, unless the attack becomes specifically relevant. From my perspective, most religious people are not to be taken seriously or "coodled". But attacking their arguments will only get them to want to google for more counter-apologetic answers to your argument. I would say that it is much better for the OP to understand why they're wrong, and come to that conclusion by themselves in friendly terms with you, than for you to be right, no matter how correct you are. Religious people tend to be very bad at taking criticism, which is why criticism does not work.

I'm new to this forum, but I have been lurking quite a bit to see what kind of people listen to FDR. I've been looking at quite a few threads in the "Atheism and Religion" section, and found that a lot of posts seem to be getting downvotes, mainly when the thread is started by a Christian. I myself am an atheist, and I already know the standard laundry list of "Arguments against God" but I've began to question the effectiveness and productivity of most online argument, especially when it comes to arriving at truth. The one thing I love about Freedomain Radio is that it does not post videos about structured debates, but rather open discussion where we can get to the heart of the issue. Molyneux's "Introduction to Philosophy" is what taught me how to think, and even to question many of the things I've learned from Stefan himself. To not poison the well, I won't make any argument for or against religion in this thread, or arguments for or against any users in particular or their arguments, but simply point out the mistakes made, by both atheists and theists, in the discussion of these topics and why they can be very ineffective. To do this, I will begin by analyzing two of the top threads of this subforum, with a religious OP, and the approaches made at discussing these topics in both threads. 1) Can't we just get along? The OP, a Christian starts with an honest question regarding whether religion can be a good foundation for a free society, or if atheism is necessarily required. This post has three downvotes. Now, the tone by which the question was asked does have a bit of arrogance, but the question, nonetheless is the main focus of the thread. "Yes. No." And so we begin with a non-argument. The next post has a better argument on why religion can clash with the values of a stateless society. 2 upvotes. The next post points out a sort-of strawmanned claim by the OP about Stefan, 4 upvotes. Then is dsayers' post. He points out why the strawmanned claim was made, and says: Three upvotes Next post: The OP then defends himself (I'm not saying this was an unjust defense or not), and then points out the escalation, including him being called a bigot. He brings his counterargument and returns to the main question of "Why can't we focus on convincing the masses of the importance of freedom, self-determination, intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, free markets, competition, and societal evolution? Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion, where the small amount of divergence that exists is almost completely irrelevant to the construction of a free society?" Finally, one more post from dsayers, and it escalates into a full-on debate. I'm not arguing whether dsayers' arguments were right or wrong, but showing that they provoked and escalated the argument further. In the end, dsayers et al. got the upvotes, and the OP got quite a few downvotes. The OP gave up on the discussion. "It was worth a shot, I guess." Four downvotes. 2) can atheists be moral The OP has gone under the downvote threshold here. He posts a video that brought him to want to discuss this subject. The OP has obviously not read UPB, and he gets bombarded with the following reply. Though I do agree with the arguments being made, every possible argument for secular morality and against religious morality is thrown right at the OP, and the OP receives all of the downvotes the more he tries to argue from the last apologetic assertion of circular reasoning. And, of course, there are way too many downvotes, and perhaps rightfully so. Yet still, the OP wants to debate more, and the atheists are doing just that. What I've concluded from threads like these is this: We assume that the OP has the same level of intellectual understanding for the discussion, and so we use arguments against religion, or against the OP's claims, whether they are valid arguments or not. Posts like this are not too common, as the forum is mainly secular, and online, pithy metaphors like these are made against religion. Online (from an atheist perspective), atheism VS religion is usually treated like a chess game, where the atheist knows the correct strategy, and the religious apologist knows knocks down the chess pieces and asserts that they've won. This is a very bad way to look at the debate, and almost always, as see in the two threads mentioned, leads to a backfire effect. I think there is a much better way to go about this. Instead of treating it like a "Chess game" where the more knowledgeable or experienced player will win, it should be treated like a team mud run, where you go the pace of the slowest runner. In both threads, there were downvotes, attacks, counterarguments (or really arguments in the first place) that created an "Us VS them" environment which started from simple curiosity where the religious person themselves asked the question. The threads on this subforum don't help those who are religious to understad why they could be wrong about their beliefs and why they should think more for themselves and be interested in the facts you are presenting. This video is by Anthony Mangabosco, who makes an amazing YouTube videos called "Street epistemology" where he spends five minutes with strangers, then afterwards gets them to think critically about their beliefs. In five minutes, he does not give the arguments against religion, converting them to the "truth of atheism" but simply gets them to think, which is the most important thing a philosopher can do. He creates a friendly environment where the religious person themself is willing to come back to think more and discuss more honestly, with no contempt whatsoever, all in five minutes.