Is it More Annoying to Debate Religious People or Statists?

[Wesley]

Just a quick poll I made. Feel free to look at the results and/or vote.

 

Feel free to add you own comments or justifications below.

 

http://strawpoll.me/1781053

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

Haha. I can't decide!

 

I don't know. And that's probably because the only difference is trivial. The state is just a new god.

[Magnus]

I would say statists, because they are convinced that they're rational, whereas the religious will tell you up-front that their whole belief system defies reason.

[Wuzzums]

Yes.

[Wesley]

Well, at the absolute worst, it is interesting to look at the poll as far as what other people think.

 

I picked religious people, because at least I am not battling ghosts when I debate with statists.

[Freedomain]

Religious people.

[BlackHeron]

Statism is a religion, but people won't admit this to themselves even.  At least a regular religious person knows it is a religion deep down, while a statist doesn't even know they have been brainwashed -which is what all religions basically are:  brainwashing.  

 

Religion and statism both are just a microcosm or a projection of traumatic childhoods being reprocessed and re-lived.  These people grew up brainwashed and have spent a lifetime normalizing aggression, violence, and force in the form of authority.  It's classic conditioning and Stockholm syndrome. 

 

None of them are going to be an easy nut to crack.  They have a massive buy-in that no simple logical discussion is going to make a dent in. Until we can get people to stop hitting their children and break the cycle of violence/force kids are going to grow up morally/ethically challenged and without sufficient empathy to grasp UPB and the NAP.

 

So debating with a statist or a religionist is like trying to get into a foot-race with the kid born without legs.  It's just not a very satisfying endeavor when the legless guy is not ever going to be able to run, and the irrational brainwashed person is never going to learn how to really think.  What is the point?  

[LovePrevails]

definitely statists because they think they are so clever and know shit

[dsayers]

I picked religious people, because at least I am not battling ghosts when I debate with statists.

 

This was my initial take as well. However, countries do not exist. Commandments backed by threats of violence are not laws. So by this logic, I would say statists since they are within arm's reach of testing for the ghosts they pray to.

[cynicist]

I would say statists, because they are convinced that they're rational, whereas the religious will tell you up-front that their whole belief system defies reason.

 

That's funny, I had the same reasoning but the opposite choice.

[Aaron727]

I don't know a single religious person somehow I forget that problem hasn't been solved :s  I would have to pick statists their disease seems more rampant. 

[...]

.

[Lians]

Religious people. The delusions of statists are closer to reality.

[ProfessorChaos]

I find it more annoying to try and argue with religious people than with statists. In my experience, when you challenge a religious person's view, it is a challenge to their entire identity (how they got here, why they're here, how they ought to think and behave, etc.). But, the statist's whole identity isn't necessarily challenged when you propose viable alternatives for the functions of the state (DROs, privately built roads, etc.).

[shirgall]

I find it more annoying to try and argue with religious people than with statists. In my experience, when you challenge a religious person's view, it is a challenge to their entire identity (how they got here, why they're here, how they ought to think and behave, etc.). But, the statist's whole identity isn't necessarily challenged when you propose viable alternatives for the functions of the state (DROs, privately built roads, etc.).

 

This is why telling someone you are not religious is considered "rejection", and in my experience females deal with rejection far more poorly than males.

[RyanT]

My gut reaction would be religious people, mostly because of the 'god of the gaps' thing,

Whereby the proposition is we have to prove the theory of evolution etc's 100% correct,

before they'll even entertain the idea that it wasn't all the work of their fantasy.

 

'Where science isn't, god definitly is'

 

It's a bit like me in the UK being accused of a murder last Friday night in Texas,

So I say, 'how could I have possibly been in Texas when I was at work all night'

So they say, 'maybe you hired a hitman, therefore you were still involved in it'

I ask where I'd get the money, they say 'maybe you found it in a bag in the park,

therefore the jury is still out, and besides maybe it wasn't a hitman at all,

but just a friend you talk into doing it...'

 

How can you debate against that?

[prolix]

I vote statists. Because, although religious people are almost always statists and statism is a religion, at least western theistic religion is mostly relegated to the realm of non-violence. Like, at most religious people are going to give me sour looks and pray for me. Statists, in contrast, want to throw me in a cage for a number of reasons and are coercive in a number of ways. So, it really comes down to the actions. Pudding, proof and all that.

 

Also religious people are usually aware of your diverging ideas, most statists will not even be able to comprehend the anarchist position and will try to insist that you too are indeed a statists despite yourself. Wretched. Furthermore, participation in religious institutions is voluntary. But participation in the state is mandatory. Like imagine a christian could actually send you to hell and could just take the lords 10% directly from your paycheck. Statists can do just that with jail and taxation respectively. Statists threats are very real and produce real harm compared to religion. And again, statism is a religion, but for ease of distinction I will just call theistic religions "religion" and statist religions "statism".

 

Like Stefan said, "if only Social security had the integrity of a ponzi scheme, that would be a big improvement". Well, likewise, "If only Statism had the restraint and self-knowledge of Christianity that would be a big improvement"...

[Frosty]

The religious.

 

Most of the time statists just haven't thought things through, have been convinced by propaganda and false information or bad/bias studies, or merely adopted the same political opinion as their family or peers.

 

However very often the religious are just blindly religious, some of them believe purely on faith, they believe that faith is a virtue and some even believe that it would be a bad thing to find evidence of god because believing or knowing because of evidence removes their chance to show their blind faith. You cannot fight that, there is no logical argument and nothing you can do to move someone from that position, in fact any attempt to just reaffirms their belief that god is needed, I genuinely believe that it's about as broken as a person/mind can get, once you've truly abandoned logical and critical thinking and belief faith is a virtue you're beyond any help.

 

Statists believe in a lot of stupid nonsense but most of them don't have faith in their political ideology, they have basic ability to think and process logic they just apply it badly, at least they have the tools necessary for you to reason with them.

[greekredemption]

I would say statists, because they are convinced that they're rational, whereas the religious will tell you up-front that their whole belief system defies reason.

Therefore you are more likely to convince a statist.

[Anuojat]

Religious people.

 

Having been one myself, its so frustrating to SEE almost like actual physical lego blocks in people heads that bar reason. Just as ProfessorChaos pointed out, any threat against the "religion" or critism or pointing out how absurd and logicall incoherent it is, now threathens THEM. Since theyve staked themselves to it so much.

 

A relative who is religous once told me: "You cant take my faith away from me. It is deep in me and somethign which i cant explain but is so wonderful and strong and beutiful."

 

In other words... dont you dare call my delusions what they are, cause i might get upset! (And pretend/feel that youre attacking ME. AND i will emotionally blakcmail you to stop if that reliafs me the pain to admit that my faith is delusional)

[Magnus]

Therefore you are more likely to convince a statist.

I meant to say that statists are MISTAKENLY convinced they're rational. That intellectual vanity gives them an extra layer of cognitive bias -- a persistent error that conceals itself. It makes them even more impervious to reason and evidence than admitted mystics, in my experience.

[BlackHeron]

What about religious anarchists?  -The ones who don't want rulers on earth but have pledged themselves to be slaves to some sky fairy in the supposed next life?

[corpus mentium]

My gut reaction would be religious people, mostly because of the 'god of the gaps' thing,Whereby the proposition is we have to prove the theory of evolution etc's 100% correct,before they'll even entertain the idea that it wasn't all the work of their fantasy.'Where science isn't, god definitly is'It's a bit like me in the UK being accused of a murder last Friday night in Texas,So I say, 'how could I have possibly been in Texas when I was at work all night'So they say, 'maybe you hired a hitman, therefore you were still involved in it'I ask where I'd get the money, they say 'maybe you found it in a bag in the park,therefore the jury is still out, and besides maybe it wasn't a hitman at all,but just a friend you talk into doing it...'How can you debate against that?

 

In my experience the conspiracy theory crowd seems to dabble a bit in this way of thinking as well. 

 

 

 

I vote statists. Because, although religious people are almost always statists and statism is a religion, at least western theistic religion is mostly relegated to the realm of non-violence. Like, at most religious people are going to give me sour looks and pray for me. Statists, in contrast, want to throw me in a cage for a number of reasons and are coercive in a number of ways. So, it really comes down to the actions. Pudding, proof and all that.

 

...

 

Furthermore, participation in religious institutions is voluntary. But participation in the state is mandatory. Like imagine a christian could actually send you to hell and could just take the lords 10% directly from your paycheck. Statists can do just that with jail and taxation respectively. Statists threats are very real and produce real harm compared to religion. And again, statism is a religion, but for ease of distinction I will just call theistic religions "religion" and statist religions "statism".

 

While this is true for now, I fear that the US is little more than a hair's breadth away from religion reasserting itself and exerting the power of a state. In some respects it practically already has if you consider that politicians have to declare their "Christianity" in order to get elected.

[RyanT]

In my experience the conspiracy theory crowd seems to dabble a bit in this way of thinking as well.

 

Defiantly mate....

 

I can almost guarantee, the minute the Elliot Rogers case hit the news loads of them got to the part where it said his dad was a famous movie director with all those Hollywood connections and thought,

 

'Right so obviously this kid Rogers was a MKUltra mind control slave,

groomed from near birth for such tasks by his CIA, N.W.O handlers'

 

I should know....I used to be one (a conspiracy theorist that is lol)

 

Of course the sad irony is that he was pretty much 'groomed from near birth for such tasks' (albeit unintentionally)

by a toxic combination of parental abuse and a culture that didn't even notice let alone care about it's effects.... 

 

Which to me cuts right to the heart of why conspiracy theorists are the way they are.

[shirgall]

It is pointless to debate someone not willing to change their mind, imho, and you find that ilk lurking in any ideology.

 

The most telling point of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate was the question, "What would change your mind?" from the audience, and Bill Nye said, "any evidence that disproves the theory" and Ken Ham said, "nothing".

[...]

.

[Erik_T]

Is there a difference?

[Frosty]

It is pointless to debate someone not willing to change their mind, imho, and you find that ilk lurking in any ideology.

 

The most telling point of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate was the question, "What would change your mind?" from the audience, and Bill Nye said, "any evidence that disproves the theory" and Ken Ham said, "nothing".

 

Depends on the audience. Most smart people do not debate idiots in order to convince them out of their ridiculous position, it's sort of a given that logic doesn't work on a lot of these people. You debate for the audience to convince the people on the fence into your camp, or even sometimes people from the opposing camp if you're good.

[shirgall]

Depends on the audience. Most smart people do not debate idiots in order to convince them out of their ridiculous position, it's sort of a given that logic doesn't work on a lot of these people. You debate for the audience to convince the people on the fence into your camp, or even sometimes people from the opposing camp if you're good.

 

Indeed, Bill was there to plead with the watchers to make better decisions for Kentucky education, not to change Ken's mind.

[corpus mentium]

I have this same view when it comes to posting comments on sites like YouTube re pro-spanking videos, etc. I usually don't have high hopes for the poster, but perhaps some of the audience could be persuaded.

[Rejon Munchausen]

I would have to go with Statists, as a fledgling anarchist I don't have the mental muscle memory to argue nearly as effectively as I can the religious folks. I was born to a atheist family and raised on a hearty diet of nature documentaries as well as studying archaeology and religious history, so it is almost second nature to shoot down religious arguments. (Stefan's counter to agnosticism has been a useful addition to my quiver, they are usually too slimy to pin down)

 

Statists for the most part in my arty muso community are a much tougher opponent, they all tend to be of the 'well meaning hippie' style...wrong, but always with a caring spin on it that makes it tough to argue when surrounded by them...especially when you are still mastering the basics. Luckily there are resources like this to toughen up my thinking so I can at least plant a few seeds of anarchy in their thinking while I hone my knowledge for the final KO  

[nathanm]

I don't ever bother responding to religious people, so they're not annoying to me as the statist is. It's the difference between make-believe and real evil.

[Jeff W.]

Hard to tell. They're very similar, but probably religious people. Statists at least twist real things, where as the religious dangle the impossible over you.

[Gavitor]

They're usually mutually inclusive. Religion and the state go hand and hand and whats more funny is that there's separation of church and state yet you can't be president if you're an atheist lol. I find arguing with either to be a chore. At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether statist or religious, what matters is whether or not they can think. If they can't think you'll probably accomplish more by smashing your face into a brick wall repeatedly.

[coldix]

The language of religion is "Belief" and "Faith" in authority.

eg: I believe in climate change.

or without income tax there would not be any roads.

Statism, Environmentalism are religions in practice if not in name.

I like the question what would it take to change your mind? Faith does not require evidence, in fact if you have evidence you dont need faith anymore.