Is there another category?

[NotDarkYet]

Don't forget we also need unique labels for people who don't believe in:

 

1. Aardvark-ghosts

2. Bat-ghosts

3. Cat-ghosts

4. Dog-ghosts

5. Elephant-ghosts

6....

7.

8.

....

 

To infinity!!!

 

 

How about just saying " I believe in reason and evidence".

[jimmo100]

Don't forget we also need unique labels for people who don't believe in:

 

1. Aardvark-ghosts

2. Bat-ghosts

3. Cat-ghosts

4. Dog-ghosts

5. Elephant-ghosts

6....

7.

8.

....

 

To infinity!!!

 

 

How about just saying " I believe in reason and evidence".

NotDarkYet,

 

Saying "I believe in reason and evidence. " is totally fine with me. I have no problem with saying that. In fact I regularly do.

 

I think you misunderstood what my original post title is about.

 

'Another category' would encompass any claim for which no evidence was readily to hand. So that would be exactly 1, not [all the things people don't believe in] 'to infinity'.

[shirgall]

Assuming someone is free, legally, to make extraordinary claims about the existence of a god, there is no burden of proof.

 

A burden of proof is only ever required in the case of a violation or alleged violation of the NAP.

 

Making claims as to the existence of a god or gods does not violate the NAP, therefore there is no burden of proof on the person making the claim.

 

If they want to convince anyone else to share their belief, there sure is a burden of proof. If they want to use their belief to justify actions that affect others, there sure is a burden of proof. If they wish to infect their children and set them loose in the world to interact with others, there sure is a burden of proof.

 

Believe what you want in isolation. When you start affecting others, you will need to garner some decorum and rigor.

 

The NAP is a great start, but it's not the only principle of social interaction.

[jimmo100]

If they want to convince anyone else to share their belief, there sure is a burden of proof. If they want to use their belief to justify actions that affect others, there sure is a burden of proof. If they wish to infect their children and set them loose in the world to interact with others, there sure is a burden of proof.

 

Believe what you want in isolation. When you start affecting others, you will need to garner some decorum and rigor.

 

The NAP is a great start, but it's not the only principle of social interaction.

"If they want to convince anyone else to share their belief, there sure is a burden of proof."

 

Why do you care if they fail to convince you?

 

"If they want to use their belief to justify actions that affect others, there sure is a burden of proof."

 

Can you give an example of such an action?

 

"If they wish to infect their children and set them loose in the world to interact with others, there sure is a burden of proof."

 

Wow... aren't you taking that disease metaphor a little too far? Or are you referring to literal infection?

 

I'm willing to talk about exceptions. But I'd say most problems involving the raising of children stem from preceding coercion.

 

"Believe what you want in isolation. When you start affecting others, you will need to garner some decorum and rigor."

 

Whenever you say one will need to do x, y or z, I feel as though you complete your sentences prematurely.

 

It sounds vaguely threatening. As though the person had no choice and that if he didn't garner, he would be met with force.

 

If, for example, someone did something which affected you yet failed to garner any decorum or rigor, what would happen?

 

"The NAP is a great start, but it's not the only principle of social interaction."

 

Agreed. But all other principles of social interaction would be based upon voluntary interaction. If you don't want to interact with someone, they wouldn't be able to force you to do so, legally.

[dsayers]

Can you give an example of such an action?

"If they wish to infect their children and set them loose in the world to interact with others, there sure is a burden of proof."

 

Wow... aren't you taking that disease metaphor a little too far? Or are you referring to literal infection?

 

I'm willing to talk about exceptions. But I'd say most problems involving the raising of children stem from preceding coercion.

Threatening children with eternal hellfire IS coercion (and an action). Most importantly, it is inflicting anti-rationality, which violates the parents' voluntarily created obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they can do so without their parents.

[Des]

What I mean by persuasion is having an increased knowingness and with that a high level of certainty.

You can't have any level of certainty if there is an omnipotent being, able to change anything from what you were certain of, to it's opposite.

[jimmo100]

You can't have any level of certainty if there is an omnipotent being, able to change anything from what you were certain of, to it's opposite.

Des, you are correct but, may I ask, have you heard of the historical series of events known as the 'separation of church and state'?

 

Around the time of the French Revolution, it was decided, in the West, after humanity had suffered horrendous atrocities in the name of religion, that religion - although it had been and still was for many people a very useful thing - ought not to be at the state's disposal.

 

It meant in principle and in practice that no state official had the means with which to coerce or threaten to coerce individuals on account of what they thought about the world(at least not until something was found to fill the void that this separation created).

 

It became known as 'freedom of conscience'. Essentially the freedom to think for oneself.

 

This essentially established a precedent - the longevity of which we can discuss - which said your god or gods could be whoever you deemed them to be but not even *they* were above the law which protected individuals from others who violated what we refer to today as the non-aggression principle, which has everything to do with self-ownership, with the notion of private property. With individuals owning or being responsible for their bodies and their actions, as opposed to some higher power who told them to do it. I refer to the work of the late Thomas Szasz, in this regard, a self-proclaimed atheist, himself.

 

So, to sum up, yes, your level of certainty is severely curtailed if you externalize your adult responsibility for knowing and being aware. But it should be clear, a priori, that it is the individual who first undertook this externalization. And under the rule of law which protects against theft and violence you are unable to externalize any serious effects of being poorly informed.

[Des]

Des, you are correct but, may I ask, have you heard of the historical series of events known as the 'separation of church and state'?

 

Around the time of the French Revolution, it was decided, in the West, after humanity had suffered horrendous atrocities in the name of religion, that religion - although it had been and still was for many people a very useful thing - ought not to be disposed to the power of the state.

 

It meant in principle and in practice that no state official had the means with which to coerce or threaten to coerce individuals on account of what they thought about the world(at least not until something was found to fill the void that this separation created).

 

It became known as 'freedom of conscience'. Essentially the freedom to think for oneself.

 

This essentially established a precedent - the longevity of which we can discuss - which said your god or gods could be whoever you deemed them to be but not even *they* were above the law which protected individuals from others who violated what we refer to today as the non-aggression principle, which has everything to do with self-ownership, with the notion of private property. With individuals owning or being responsible for their bodies and their actions, as opposed to some higher power who told them to do it. I refer to the work of the late Thomas Szasz, in this regard, a self-proclaimed atheist, himself.

Importantly, you can say: let us allow for the possibility that there is an omnipotent being, and now let us examine a historical series of events...

I am going to suggest we do one or the other.

Either, we start a discussion in which we allow for the possibility that there is an omnipotent being, and thereafter I will state that we now do not know anything, and I will bring all points raised, back to that absence of knowledge (e.g. we don't know that any events happened, perhaps god just made it seem to you and I, that the events happened, when they did not).

Or alternatively, we start a discussion in which we mutually agree to disregard the possibility of an omnipotent being, on the grounds that if this were true, there would be nothing of value to discuss.

To do both - allow for omnipotence and refer to agreed past events - I would be insane (yes, more than half the planet's people are insane. I'm sorry, I did not place the order for that).

[jimmo100]

Threatening children with eternal hellfire IS coercion (and an action). Most importantly, it is inflicting anti-rationality, which violates the parents' voluntarily created obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they can do so without their parents.

I said I'd be willing to talk about exceptions. Children should be treated slightly differently to adults in so far as rights and responsibilities are concerned.

 

First, individual liberty and individual responsibility should be recognized as inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. This has been recognized by most if not all moral philosophers going back 160 years. The legal distinction between children and adults is generally accepted as being a necessity. People were not coerced into making this distinction. In fact the opposite is true. People have been coerced *out* of parenting (from what you said, you seem to recognize this as undesirable).

 

If you want parents to treat their children better, my view is that you have to break the cycle by restoring individual responsibility to adults. That is where you start. Most bad behaviour arises on account of being poorly informed. The well-being of children depends on adults being well-informed. This to me is the primary responsibility of each and every adult in society. If he is badly informed, no-one should be obliged to bail him out. If a parent chooses a bad child-minder, he is creating problems not only for the child but for himself. Generally parents who are unable to relinquish the responsibility of child-rearing pay much closer attention to what works. They, to some extent at least, will have to live with the results... possibly for several years if not longer.

 

Adults still bear the scars of gross human atrocities committed - in the name of religion - by the state. That affects adults today. And if it affects adults, it's going to affect their children.

 

As far as the rearing of children is concerned, we are not without lessons from history or logic. It appears there are only two options: a) each parent decides how to bring up their children, b) responsibility for child rearing is relinquished to the state. There is no question who has by far the worse track record.

 

Children are far worse off when adults are themselves living as quasi-children of the state.

[jimmo100]

Importantly, you can say: let us allow for the possibility that there is an omnipotent being, and now let us examine a historical series of events...

I am going to suggest we do one or the other.

Either, we start a discussion in which we allow for the possibility that there is an omnipotent being, and thereafter I will state that we now do not know anything, and I will bring all points raised, back to that absence of knowledge (e.g. we don't know that any events happened, perhaps god just made it seem to you and I, that the events happened, when they did not).

Or alternatively, we start a discussion in which we mutually agree to disregard the possibility of an omnipotent being, on the grounds that if this were true, there would be nothing of value to discuss.

To do both - allow for omnipotence and refer to agreed past events - I would be insane (yes, more than half the planet's people are insane. I'm sorry, I did not place the order for that).

My starting point is that I have some control and influence over my life and how the world develops, even if to a miniscule degree. This is the case regardless of whether I believe it. If I don't believe it, the world is also changed minisculey probably nudging it in the opposite direction.

 

So given that as my starting consideration, and that there are not-unassailable barriers to increasing my control and influence of my own affairs, I can then turn my attention the barriers - actual or potential. One of them could be the assertion that some higher power - an omnipotent being - determines my future, rather than me. I would treat that as a claim. An unsubstantiated claim which, which on further evidence could turn out to be true. But I am not there yet. There is evidence to suggest people do go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate others into doing x, y or z. But the extent to which nothing can be done about that is very much up for debate.

 

So I'm saying I don't know to what extent some higher power has influence over me, but so far have pretty high level of certainty that I have some freedom to improve my well-being and those who voluntarily interact with me. I proceed from there and push back against oppressive influence as and when I'm willing and able to do so. What else should I do? As to how far that will take me, is a matter of debate. Depends on one's viewpoint. For any student of history, it should be clear that adopting this approach has yielded a significant improvement in the standard of living for millions of people.

 

That I know. I can observe some things at least.

 

One thing I have observed is that those who help me to reclaim responsibility, to the extent I'm able to do so at the time, are very much worth interacting with. Those who pity me and point to external factors only as the source of my woes, rendering me at the mercy of the the external world, I don't have an awful lot of time for. To me that is the gospel of the one-sided coin - that individual liberty and individual responsibility are *not* inextricably linked - and those preaching it fall on both sides of the theist/atheist debate. Generally they are found undermining individual responsibility whilst passing themselves off as noble, selfless friends of humanity. That is their hallmark.

 

It feels quite good to be able to tell friends from enemies, I have to say. And I don't mean enemies in the eternal sense. I consider all men to be basically good. But nevertheless, good men can be led astray by one means or another if they are not constantly vigilant, and inadvertently throw a series of spanners into the works.

 

They - these enemies or misguided friends - once occupied the ranks of the Roman Catholic church but since the separation of church and state, without the legal power to dictate what people believe, these individuals have moved on to similarly, if not worse, state incarnations of that church-state alliance(i.e. the state-medical alliance in the form of Mental Health law). Ireland is the only theocratic state remaining in the West, as far as I know. I'd have to check, but for the most part there was a clear-cut separation creating a gaping hole within the power of the state to coerce individuals.

 

If individuals are alerted to this, a stop can be put to far greater damage which is currently being inflicted on humanity. I'm not saying that is a little if. I'm just highlighting what I deem is within the average individual's reach.

[shirgall]

Des, you are correct but, may I ask, have you heard of the historical series of events known as the 'separation of church and state'?

 

Around the time of the French Revolution, it was decided, in the West, after humanity had suffered horrendous atrocities in the name of religion, that religion - although it had been and still was for many people a very useful thing - ought not to be at the state's disposal.

 

It meant in principle and in practice that no state official had the means with which to coerce or threaten to coerce individuals on account of what they thought about the world(at least not until something was found to fill the void that this separation created).

 

It became known as 'freedom of conscience'. Essentially the freedom to think for oneself.

 

This essentially established a precedent - the longevity of which we can discuss - which said your god or gods could be whoever you deemed them to be but not even *they* were above the law which protected individuals from others who violated what we refer to today as the non-aggression principle, which has everything to do with self-ownership, with the notion of private property. With individuals owning or being responsible for their bodies and their actions, as opposed to some higher power who told them to do it. I refer to the work of the late Thomas Szasz, in this regard, a self-proclaimed atheist, himself.

 

So, to sum up, yes, your level of certainty is severely curtailed if you externalize your adult responsibility for knowing and being aware. But it should be clear, a priori, that it is the individual who first undertook this externalization. And under the rule of law which protects against theft and violence you are unable to externalize any serious effects of being poorly informed.

 

You just recounted the Death of Socrates. People apparently need to re-learn this lesson for thousands of years, ever since Yahweh was changed from merely being the God of Mount Sinai (the 'Adonai' were the gods of the other mountains) to the one and only God, therefore give priests gold and eggs.

[jimmo100]

You just recounted the Death of Socrates. People apparently need to re-learn this lesson for thousands of years, ever since Yahweh was changed from merely being the God of Mount Sinai (the 'Adonai' were the gods of the other mountains) to the one and only God, therefore give priests gold and eggs.

 

Thanks, shirgall, I had no idea about that.

 

Do you perhaps have a recommended source for me on that? So I can read up on it.

 

p.s. I know of the transition from polytheism to monotheism, which to me is intriguing, so hit me up with some links if you have any. That would be good.

[shirgall]

Thanks, shirgall, I had no idea about that.

 

Do you perhaps have a recommended source for me on that? So I can read up on it.

 

p.s. I know of the transition from polytheism to monotheism, which to me is intriguing, so hit me up with some links if you have any. That would be good.

 

It's been a while, and I read it in a book probably twenty years ago. I'll have to go find it.

[AccuTron]

"Why do you care if they fail to convince you?"

 

 

 

Because, if you live in the Bible Belt, you'd better...

 

A--live in a larger urban area, or

B--do a pretty good job of faking being convinced, or

C--your Christmas morning gift from the God fearing, utterly righteous (they probably are right-eous, not liberals; I guess that's a sort of balance) will be broken car windows.

[shirgall]

I'm still waiting to hear the feedback I'm going to get from last night. Carolers in my neighborhood came by (I recognized my next-door neighbors) and caught the family playing D&D in Star Trek pajamas on Christmas Eve.

[Thomasio]

Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with belief of any kind, an atheist may still believe in many things, an atheist may still believe in the existence of an over natural entity or not, that's all entirely unrelated to atheism.

 

An atheist is someone who finds the claims of theists not believable PERIOD

 

An atheist doesn't make ANY claims, therefore an atheist doesn't have anything to prove.

An atheist says, it's extremely unlikely that a god could exist, that's all.

The claim of theists saying atheists cannot prove them wrong, therefore theism must be right is utter nonsense, because the fact that you cannot prove the non existence of a tea pot in orbit of Jupiter doesn't make that tea pot believable.

 

Why I care if they fail to convince me?

Because their continuous attempts to convince other people bother me personally more than my recognition of equal rights permits to other people.

The church bells that wake me up every Sunday morning are NOT acceptable, because I'm not allowed to play my favorite music in the center of the city at that volume either.

 

Why I care if they fail to convince me?

Because they misguide their own children, who without religious indoctrination might become stem cell researchers and might save countless lives one day, maybe including my own life.

So accepting religion might cause my own premature death and THAT I believe is against my human rights.

[Donnadogsoth]

Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with belief of any kind, an atheist may still believe in many things, an atheist may still believe in the existence of an over natural entity or not, that's all entirely unrelated to atheism.

 

An atheist is someone who finds the claims of theists not believable PERIOD

 

An atheist doesn't make ANY claims, therefore an atheist doesn't have anything to prove.

An atheist says, it's extremely unlikely that a god could exist, that's all.

The claim of theists saying atheists cannot prove them wrong, therefore theism must be right is utter nonsense, because the fact that you cannot prove the non existence of a tea pot in orbit of Jupiter doesn't make that tea pot believable.

 

Why I care if they fail to convince me?

Because their continuous attempts to convince other people bother me personally more than my recognition of equal rights permits to other people.

The church bells that wake me up every Sunday morning are NOT acceptable, because I'm not allowed to play my favorite music in the center of the city at that volume either.

 

Why I care if they fail to convince me?

Because they misguide their own children, who without religious indoctrination might become stem cell researchers and might save countless lives one day, maybe including my own life.

So accepting religion might cause my own premature death and THAT I believe is against my human rights.

 

You are aware that there is a lengthy, broad, profound, and in certain respect unique, tradition of Christians involved in science?

 

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

[Thomasio]

Oh ..... hmmmmmm ..... no I'm not.

I'm aware the pope preaches condoms are worse than Aids.

I'm aware stem cell research is generally seen as some kind of murder, meaning christians have blocked and slowed down any progress on that matter for decades already and I wouldn't dare guessing for how much longer they will do anything in their power to prevent progress and how many innocent people will die because the cure for their deseases come too late.

I'm aware the catholic church alone has accumulated enough wealth to feed the worlds population for 5 years.

I'm aware of countless science projects that have been terminated due to a lack of funding, but I've NEVER heard of ANY religious institution running out of funds for building a new church.

 

I don't doubt religious institution do some scientific research, but the fact that ISIS does charity among poor people doesn't make them a force for something good.

Compared to what would be possible without religion, just look at the nobel prizes given.

The difference between 12 nobel prizes among 1.5 billion Muslims since 1901, or 1 nobel prize for each 125 million people, vs 423 nobel prizes among 2 billion Christians, or 1 nobel prize for each 4.7 million people, vs 193 nobel prizes among 16 million Jews since 1901, or 1 nobel prize for each 83,000 people, makes absolutely obvious that the stronger religious beliefs are, the less they do science.

Couldn't find the numbers for atheists, but I'm sure it will fit into this picture.

[Donnadogsoth]

Oh ..... hmmmmmm ..... no I'm not.

I'm aware the pope preaches condoms are worse than Aids.

I'm aware stem cell research is generally seen as some kind of murder, meaning christians have blocked and slowed down any progress on that matter for decades already and I wouldn't dare guessing for how much longer they will do anything in their power to prevent progress and how many innocent people will die because the cure for their deseases come too late.

I'm aware the catholic church alone has accumulated enough wealth to feed the worlds population for 5 years.

I'm aware of countless science projects that have been terminated due to a lack of funding, but I've NEVER heard of ANY religious institution running out of funds for building a new church.

 

I don't doubt religious institution do some scientific research, but the fact that ISIS does charity among poor people doesn't make them a force for something good.

Compared to what would be possible without religion, just look at the nobel prizes given.

The difference between 12 nobel prizes among 1.5 billion Muslims since 1901, or 1 nobel prize for each 125 million people, vs 423 nobel prizes among 2 billion Christians, or 1 nobel prize for each 4.7 million people, vs 193 nobel prizes among 16 million Jews since 1901, or 1 nobel prize for each 83,000 people, makes absolutely obvious that the stronger religious beliefs are, the less they do science.

Couldn't find the numbers for atheists, but I'm sure it will fit into this picture.

 

(1) They die anyway, Thomasin.  What stake do you have in it, if you don't care about immortality or the invisible Origin?  Why worry about it?

 

(2) Shouldn't we all become Jews if we want to promote science?  But even if we don't, it wasn't atheists who got the scientific ball rolling, it was dyed-in-the-wool theists.

 

(3) Are Jews closer to being atheists than Christians are?

[Thomasio]

I've had a Jewish girlfriend for a while, so I can tell, they follow nearly NONE of their religious commands (at least my girlfriend and all of her friends didn't).

Except of some fundamentalists (as they exist in any religion) Jews don't give a shit about their religion.

They stick together under the cover of their religion to protect their group from outside threads, but that's about it.

They have some jokes, saying things like: "When will god return to earth?" - "The day all Jews follow all commands."

So yes, I'd say Jews are way closer to atheists than Christians.

 

Either way, that's not the point.

It's quite logic that in old times the earliest forms of science came from religious believers, how could it not, back then 99.9% of civilized society was religious.

It just turns out that the scientists who turned away from religion the furthest became the best discoveres, today you won't find many religious scientists, at least not among the international successful ones, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss and many, many more, they all have as some kind of hobby aside of their science combatting religion.

Therefore it's quite safe to assume that a society completly without any religion would do FAR better than even the Jews do today, simply because scientists wouldn't have to waste part of their valuable time with utter nonsense.

[jimmo100]

Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with belief of any kind, an atheist may still believe in many things, an atheist may still believe in the existence of an over natural entity or not, that's all entirely unrelated to atheism.

 

An atheist is someone who finds the claims of theists not believable PERIOD

 

An atheist doesn't make ANY claims, therefore an atheist doesn't have anything to prove.

An atheist says, it's extremely unlikely that a god could exist, that's all.

The claim of theists saying atheists cannot prove them wrong, therefore theism must be right is utter nonsense, because the fact that you cannot prove the non existence of a tea pot in orbit of Jupiter doesn't make that tea pot believable.

 

Why I care if they fail to convince me?

Because their continuous attempts to convince other people bother me personally more than my recognition of equal rights permits to other people.

The church bells that wake me up every Sunday morning are NOT acceptable, because I'm not allowed to play my favorite music in the center of the city at that volume either.

 

Why I care if they fail to convince me?

Because they misguide their own children, who without religious indoctrination might become stem cell researchers and might save countless lives one day, maybe including my own life.

So accepting religion might cause my own premature death and THAT I believe is against my human rights.

Thomasio, you said some interesting things. Your definition of atheism is the one I relate to better, as I mentioned previously. Because it clearly doesn't seek to deprive another of a set of beliefs which appear(if only to the holder) to be serving him.

 

So far, it seems to me that back of the other definition of atheism - the more prescriptive one - is an unsaid. To know what is unsaid, one has to examine the view-holder's position on the NAP. Where do they draw their lines? To me theft, including fraud, is theft and an unprovoked attack is nothing less. Is it accurate to describe this more prescriptive atheist view as logically compatible with the NAP? I wonder.

 

My views on children and the NAP are the only exception I make. But the exception is made with respect both to freedom and to responsibility.... not just freedom, which is the only part some like to focus on. To me, the two are inseparable. Children do not have complete freedom in a free society but nor do they have complete responsibility. This is no doubt age-dependent and where one draws the line of course forms part of the entire discussion on children and the NAP. But make no mistake the survival of the human race itself would be threatened, without what is known as the age of consent. This is not a new discussion. That's what Romeo and Juliet was about... where such lines are drawn.

 

One thing is clear looking at history - recent and distant - and of course the present, is that the state has always been jealous of the paternalistic role assigned to adults. We know, too, that as a society begins to assume the characteristics of Socialism, so does the line between adults and children begin to blur. Already, public education screams this at us. We know the state contains within it the incentive to undermine individual responsibility. And we are seeing the results. Public education undermines the responsibility adults have to their children. That should be clear.

 

So, when I talk about a free society and free markets, I'm talking primarily about adults, not children.

 

Moving on, I like what you said: "An atheist is someone who finds the claims of theists not believable PERIOD" and, "An atheist doesn't make ANY claims, therefore an atheist doesn't have anything to prove."

 

But then, in the next breath, you made a contradictory minor exception: "An atheist says, it's extremely unlikely that a god could exist, that's all."

 

Now, I don't think this needs to play a part in it i.e. the definition. After all we are talking about something which makes atheism unique. The utility of these terms is in their ability to describe or refer to or label something which is mostly unique. The more they are able to achieve that the greater their value, in my view.

 

Having the view that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely is certainly not unique to those who call themselves atheists. And it is also a claim, which is something you said atheists don't make at all. But, anyway, if that is your definition, then at least I know more or less where you stand.

 

 

"The claim of theists saying atheists cannot prove them wrong, therefore theism must be right is utter nonsense, because the fact that you cannot prove the non existence of a tea pot in orbit of Jupiter doesn't make that tea pot believable."

 

I'd say you are correct but I must admit I've never heard of a theist claiming an atheist's lack of proof to be evidence validating the theist's beliefs. Doesn't mean none have ever done so, but I've never heard one do it.

 

 

"Why I care if they fail to convince me? Because their continuous attempts to convince other people bother me personally more than my recognition of equal rights permits to other people. The church bells that wake me up every Sunday morning are NOT acceptable, because I'm not allowed to play my favorite music in the center of the city at that volume either."

 

Don't both of these statements, above, pertain primarily to the injustice of public property? The resolution, I would say goes back to private property and private contracts.

 

"Why I care if they fail to convince me? Because they misguide their own children, who without religious indoctrination might become stem cell researchers and might save countless lives one day, maybe including my own life. So accepting religion might cause my own premature death and THAT I believe is against my human rights."

 

In a free society good guidance is subjective. So, it is true, you would be unable to impose your version of it on others, through the use of force.

 

The only claim (rights) you have on the behavior of others, in a free society, is as it pertains to the NAP.

[Thomasio]

Not sure why you think there is a contradiction in between "not believing someones claims" and "finding someones claims extremely unlikely to be true", I think that's twice the same thing, as in "I don't believe what theists say, because it's extremely unlikely to be true", makes perfect sense to me.

Doesn't means it's impossible, doesn't mean I would exclude it completely, just means it's unlikely enough so I don't believe it.

 

The big difference is, atheists are willing to change their mind, atheists always keep an open mind, look for evidence and if any evidence comes up, atheists will change their mind.

If you push a theists far enough, you will hear statements like: "Even if it were proven false, I would still believe it to be true."

 

Either way, this has nothing to do with free society and even less with public property.

Churches, Mosques, etc., are private property of the respective religious organisation, so if you want to abolish any public property, but leave private property in the hand of it's owner, in a free society religions will be thriving more than before.

Imagine not just in the US, but worldwide there were no governments, imagine what would happen in Israel.

The holy places like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem would see the most violent battles between the followers of different religions.

 

Think it one step further and you will realize, without government, religions will take over the ruling, as it was long ago.

Crusades would reappear, worldwide Jihad would bring terrorism all over the world and there wouldn't be any laws, let alone law enforcement, to stop them.

[Donnadogsoth]

I've had a Jewish girlfriend for a while, so I can tell, they follow nearly NONE of their religious commands (at least my girlfriend and all of her friends didn't).

Except of some fundamentalists (as they exist in any religion) Jews don't give a shit about their religion.

They stick together under the cover of their religion to protect their group from outside threads, but that's about it.

They have some jokes, saying things like: "When will god return to earth?" - "The day all Jews follow all commands."

So yes, I'd say Jews are way closer to atheists than Christians.

 

Either way, that's not the point.

It's quite logic that in old times the earliest forms of science came from religious believers, how could it not, back then 99.9% of civilized society was religious.

It just turns out that the scientists who turned away from religion the furthest became the best discoveres, today you won't find many religious scientists, at least not among the international successful ones, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss and many, many more, they all have as some kind of hobby aside of their science combatting religion.

Therefore it's quite safe to assume that a society completly without any religion would do FAR better than even the Jews do today, simply because scientists wouldn't have to waste part of their valuable time with utter nonsense.

 

Or, they would be better scientists if they spent their time in the company of the artistic giants who themselves were influenced in the highest degree by the highest that Christianity has to offer, e.g., Bach &c..  Perhaps scientists have fallen away from that level of appreciation, that level of rigor, so that their "best discoveries" are second-rate compared to what rigorous thinkers like Riemann were working out 150 years ago.

 

What I mean to say is, where did the quality of passion towards truthfulness, in artistic and in particular scientific truthfulness, come from, if not the most influential cultural force of the past 2,000 years in Europe and globally extended European civilisation?  Asia, Africa, South America didn't go to the Moon, but globally extended European civilisation did.  Don't tell me it was because we looted the world, we enslaved the world, because we were a second rate power in that regard in history.  Islam looted and enslaved to its heart's content and they went nowhere.  Why did Christendom achieve the Moon Shot and no other civilisation did?

 

EDIT:  Jewish success in science might also have something to do with their +15 IQ point average, and a culture that prods them in the direction of the professions and other high-scale jobs.

[Thomasio]

Jewish success including their higher IQ might have something to do with them sending their kids to science school, while Christian kids waste their time in faith school.

[Donnadogsoth]

Jewish success including their higher IQ might have something to do with them sending their kids to science school, while Christian kids waste their time in faith school.

 

Now you're just being silly.  I've lived my entire life not being exposed to nor hearing any clear instance of there being a "faith school" to which I or any other Christian child have or might be sent.

 

Jewish higher IQ is due to them running a breeding program that selects for high IQ.

[shirgall]

Now you're just being silly.  I've lived my entire life not being exposed to nor hearing any clear instance of there being a "faith school" to which I or any other Christian child have or might be sent.

 

There are definitely Christian private schools who require religious classes for graduation.

[Donnadogsoth]

There are definitely Christian private schools who require religious classes for graduation.

 

Undoubtedly, but (1) they are rare, and (2) taking "religious classes" has nothing to do with being disinclined towards science, as I have already shown abundantly.

[jimmo100]

Not sure why you think there is a contradiction in between "not believing someones claims" and "finding someones claims extremely unlikely to be true", I think that's twice the same thing, as in "I don't believe what theists say, because it's extremely unlikely to be true", makes perfect sense to me.

Doesn't means it's impossible, doesn't mean I would exclude it completely, just means it's unlikely enough so I don't believe it.

 

The big difference is, atheists are willing to change their mind, atheists always keep an open mind, look for evidence and if any evidence comes up, atheists will change their mind.

If you push a theists far enough, you will hear statements like: "Even if it were proven false, I would still believe it to be true."

 

Either way, this has nothing to do with free society and even less with public property.

Churches, Mosques, etc., are private property of the respective religious organisation, so if you want to abolish any public property, but leave private property in the hand of it's owner, in a free society religions will be thriving more than before.

Imagine not just in the US, but worldwide there were no governments, imagine what would happen in Israel.

The holy places like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem would see the most violent battles between the followers of different religions.

 

Think it one step further and you will realize, without government, religions will take over the ruling, as it was long ago.

Crusades would reappear, worldwide Jihad would bring terrorism all over the world and there wouldn't be any laws, let alone law enforcement, to stop them.

"Not sure why you think there is a contradiction in between "not believing someones claims" and "finding someones claims extremely unlikely to be true", I think that's twice the same thing, as in "I don't believe what theists say, because it's extremely unlikely to be true", makes perfect sense to me. Doesn't means it's impossible, doesn't mean I would exclude it completely, just means it's unlikely enough so I don't believe it."

 

I never said there was a contradiction in "not believing someones claims" and "finding someones claims extremely unlikely to be true". So you have misquoted me or misrepresented my argument.

 

The contradiction lies in defining atheists as making no claims at all and then saying atheists make a claim as to the likelihood of X. The reason I'm drawing attention to such a seemingly insignificant detail is this: to the degree you blur the distinct meaning of words, is the degree to which you become vulnerable to inequality under the law. You lay yourself open to arbitrary rule. That is a dangerous condition for humanity to spend any length of time in. If you look at countries or cultures in which the least dignity was afforded to members who had the most to contribute to their communities, you find at its heart poorly or vaguely defined terms. The most intelligent, most capable of highlighting the inconsistent use of language were the most persecuted. Because they were the most capable of pointing out faulty logic. If you look, for example, at Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, the most targeted of civilians were the intellectuals, sometimes identified crudely, rounding up those who wore glasses. The most intelligent of the group are done away with first. The same can be said of Nazi-ism and most if not all other forms of Collectivism.

 

You can say atheists don't believe in theists' central claim. That is fine on its own but you shouldn't need to justify it. This is in the light of the separation of church and state. Do you see what I'm trying to get at? I realise you are offering 'likelihood' only as the *justification* for abstaining from making theist claims, but I'm making the point that in a free society you don't *need* i.e. by law, to justify your beliefs to anyone.

 

If you steal in a free society, you can claim that God told you to do it all you like but you would nevertheless still be punished - the same as an atheist who had committed the theft and was to be prosecuted under the same law. If you murder someone because of a strange belief, in a free society, the 'reason' you give won't matter. You will be treated the same under the law. Even if that 'reason' is that the victim had a strange belief, which you found disturbing.

 

This is a vital step forward for humanity. Because without the freedom to think, to speculate, to explore ideas, to postulate.... to make claims(substantiated or not), we will stagnate and quite probably go extinct for not advancing our ability to defend against threats to the survival of the species. Such pro-action would be illegal because it made certain individuals uncomfortable. Scientific advance proceeds from the freedom to think without the threat of coercion. Not to mention a return to persecution at the whim of anyone who can't tolerate criticism (borrowing from Shirgall's footer) or the sudden appearance of a competing idea.

 

If atheists insist laws be passed against certain beliefs, then that is, ironically, reverting to an alliance between church and state, which we all agree was what caused so much trouble in the West(Where ever there still exists theocratic states in the world today is where the same troubles persist). I mean, the very aspect of life in Theocracies we speak out against, is the idea of having religious police. People who's job it is to make sure you don't think certain thoughts. This is the nightmare Orwell penned in the form of Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

 

'The big difference is, atheists are willing to change their mind, atheists always keep an open mind, look for evidence and if any evidence comes up, atheists will change their mind. If you push a theists far enough, you will hear statements like: "Even if it were proven false, I would still believe it to be true."'

 

Generalizations aside for the sake of the argument, the only reason I can see that atheists would be so concerned about religious beliefs is if the wayward believers were not accountable for actions in violation of the NAP. Otherwise what is the problem? I have addressed the issue of children and the NAP. So insofar as adults are concerned, in the West - where there are already laws against coercion(with one notable exception) - what is the problem with people having strange beliefs and doing so stubbornly?

 

What hardship lies in wait for you because someone, who respects laws against theft and violence, refuses to acknowledge what you acknowledge?

 

"Either way, this has nothing to do with free society and even less with public property. Churches, Mosques, etc., are private property of the respective religious organization, so if you want to abolish any public property, but leave private property in the hand of it's owner, in a free society religions will be thriving more than before. Imagine not just in the US, but worldwide there were no governments, imagine what would happen in Israel. The holy places like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem would see the most violent battles between the followers of different religions."

 

In a free society organizations wouldn't own property, only individuals would. Because only individuals can be held to account for individual actions. If an individual - or group of them - broke the private contract which was agreed to on acquiring the piece of property it pertained to, there would be legal recourse available to the counter-party. If you didn't agree to an absence or measurable level of a particular noise, then sure.... you would have a problem. This points to the primacy of individual responsibility. If you don't take it, in this yet-to-be-implemented free society, you are vulnerable to that extent. Do you see that this would create an incentive where one is lacking in state-interventionist societies? The incentive would be to pay attention to who you interact with and what the terms are. In free markets, consumers would be free to choose suppliers, not free to externalize the cost of their own bad decision-making onto others.

 

In current societies, theocratic or interventionist, you need to get permission from the state to do something with your property. That makes it public, not private. That is how churches and mosques can belt out their beats.... they have secured permission to do so from the state.

 

You are correct. Free societies would permit anyone to thrive, no matter what their beliefs, provided their actions do not entail violence or theft. Any additional power granted, over and above the power to enforce laws against these two basic categories of crime, to the state... to interfere in individuals' freedom to associate - would be turned against the consumer. This is called regulatory capture. Whatever the protection called for is converted into protection from competition. As Hayek said in The Road to Serfdom, "Central planners always plan *against* competition never *for* it". The consumer only has the opportunity to thrive, and even survive, in the presence of free competition. Exploitation, of the Marxist kind, exists only in the absence of free competition. The way to curtail free competition is to get the consumer to relinquish responsibility - for knowing which suppliers are worthy of his support - to the state.

 

So it has everything to do with public vs private property. Everything. In private markets there is a very strong incentive to mitigate against potential downside risk. In interventionist systems, in which public property and arbirtray law which presides over it, nobody really owns anything. And where you don't own it, you don't take care of it. Nor is there much incentive to pay any attention to terms. Whoever is in with the right crowd(the state and its cronies) will win any argument over the proper boundaries/use of property.

 

I get that it is hard to divorce one's thinking from the current system/s. To envision a free society. I see only too clearly that free markets(private) are conflated with interventionist(public) systems. It creates confusion. If one is to rise above the flaws of the current system one needs to recognize the difference between public and private.

 

"Think it one step further and you will realize, without government, religions will take over the ruling, as it was long ago. Crusades would reappear, worldwide Jihad would bring terrorism all over the world and there wouldn't be any laws, let alone law enforcement, to stop them."

 

Wow! Sounds like crony-media narrative to me. Without making this into something personal, their goal is to put the ordinary unsuspecting person in fear. Otherwise the ordinary person is likely to think critically, to see through their self-fulfilling prophecies and take some responsibility for what determines their own actions. Ignore me if you must, but think about who decides what information you process. Who are the stake-holders of 90% of the world's media companies? Who are the advertisers? When you know who they are, you will have found the people who decide what is published and how it is spun. It's overarching effect is fear-inducement and it works terribly well on most unsuspecting people, rendering them incapable of recognizing an enemy... and so they are regularly found calling for - or at least quietly capitulating to - an ever expanding, rather than a decreasing state scope.

 

Government and the state are not the same thing, Thomasio. Nowhere in my narrative will you find me advocating a lawless society, so please don't put words in my mouth. I will pay you the same respect.

[Thomasio]

Well, I really must have misunderstood a whole lot of things, from what you said as well as from what a free society is.

So let me ask, just to clearify that for me:

 

In a free society what will happen to buildings like the Cologne Dome, St. Peters Basilica in Vatikan City, and all the 1000s of religious buildings?

They must be abandoned? Cannot be maintained anymore?

If they can be maintained, who is to pay for the maintenance?

If religious organizations hold their mess in there, who is going to forbid that, or is it perfectly ok if a group of people makes use of a property that nobody owns?

What if some other organization, maybe the Red Cross wants to use a church as a hospital for the poor?

Who would judge, who can use a church and who cannot, and if some judge has made a decision who would enforce it?

 

The last question goes along with:

If a free society still has a law, who will pay for the justice system, the law enforcement and how is that any different from paying taxes to a state that keeps law and order up?

Are you saying for you a in free society laws remain as they are, only there won't be a state to enforce it anymore, but some other organization will take care of that? Wouldn't that be a "police state"? Or is a police state what you imagine as a free society?

 

Last but not least, in a free society that still has a law, who gets to make the laws? Who gets to say what's right and what's wrong? Democratic decisions? Or dictated by some kind of regime?

[shirgall]

In a free society what will happen to buildings like the Cologne Dome, St. Peters Basilica in Vatikan City, and all the 1000s of religious buildings?

 

In a free society, the Sierra Club would buy a park instead of lobbying. I'm sure there's plenty of people that might be interested in operating, or at least visiting, a museum.

[Thomasio]

Well, I can't discuss two opinions contradicting one another.

Jimmo100 says in a free society only individuals can own a property, shirgall says, a club will buy a public property ...... now what?

Could you two clear that up, before quoting me with your comments?

 

Furthermore ...... in a free society, who will receive the money from a club "buying" a property, that upon start of the free society, as soon as the state doesn't exist anymore, belongs to nobody?

First come first serve? Whoever can put a lock on the gate first becomes the owner for free?

[shirgall]

Well, I can't discuss two opinions contradicting one another.

Jimmo100 says in a free society only individuals can own a property, shirgall says, a club will buy a public property ...... now what?

Could you two clear that up, before quoting me with your comments?

 

Furthermore ...... in a free society, who will receive the money from a club "buying" a property, that upon start of the free society, as soon as the state doesn't exist anymore, belongs to nobody?

First come first serve? Whoever can put a lock on the gate first becomes the owner for free?

 

The state should pay off its debts, many of those debts are owed to private citizens, or corporations in which private citizens own a share.

 

I was giving an example of a way for religious buildings to be maintained without a public trust, not reincorporating society.

[Thomasio]

And just HOW should the state pay off its debt?

Should the US print 19 trillion dollars, or tax 350 million Americans for $55,000 each?

Should the state sell off state property to the highest bidder, privatizing absolutely everything? Army included? Making todays richest people literally the owners of the country including owning the forces to protect their absurd wealth?

What if the money raised that way isn't enough to reach 19 trillion? Who will pay the rest?

What if the money raised exceeds 19 trillion? Who will get the rest?

 

Either way it doesn't explain which one is correct now.

Do only individuals have the right to own property, or do organizations have that right as well?

 

Either way, whether a religious organization can own a property or they put a strawman in front, who is going to prevent a religion from taking over the country? Who will prevent Sharia law from beheading anyone who doesn't join them?

Will there be a law that still prevents religions from gaining power over a society and if so, who will make those laws, who will enforce those laws and who will pay for the enforcement?

[Donnadogsoth]

And just HOW should the state pay off its debt?

Should the US print 19 trillion dollars, or tax 350 million Americans for $55,000 each?

Should the state sell off state property to the highest bidder, privatizing absolutely everything? Army included? Making todays richest people literally the owners of the country including owning the forces to protect their absurd wealth?

What if the money raised that way isn't enough to reach 19 trillion? Who will pay the rest?

What if the money raised exceeds 19 trillion? Who will get the rest?

 

Either way it doesn't explain which one is correct now.

Do only individuals have the right to own property, or do organizations have that right as well?

 

Either way, whether a religious organization can own a property or they put a strawman in front, who is going to prevent a religion from taking over the country? Who will prevent Sharia law from beheading anyone who doesn't join them?

Will there be a law that still prevents religions from gaining power over a society and if so, who will make those laws, who will enforce those laws and who will pay for the enforcement?

 

Good questions Thomasio.  I'm interested in hearing straight answers to them, too.  Good luck!

[shirgall]

Private parks in action: https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/28/creating-a-private-yellowstone-environme