Christian. Not imposing, though. That would be anti-libertarian from what I can tell. 
I’m a Christian.
I don’t really see why it would be anti-libertarian, as long as you are just trying to convince someone of your beliefs without force, just like mises.org tries to do with libertarianism.
And to the OP, I’m atheist.
I’m a deist. Most people are shocked when they find this out.
Why are you a deist?
Because I find the conjunction of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Anthropic Principle, and the Modal Ontological Proofs (the updated Gödel-like ones) slightly more persuasive than the conjunction of the atheist arguments that I have encountered. I am not a theist, because I have epistemological and ethical problems with the various “holy books”.
I find it interesting that these forums are largely atheist and culturally moderate to liberal while the writers of this website are largely Catholic cultural conservatives.
I think its more ‘historical accident’ than anything else. ymmv
The former, the latter, or both?
i had more firmly in mind the latter, but for conversations sake I think I could sustain both [:P]
I object to this statement on a number of levels.
First, you are seriously misrepresenting the meaning of anarchy. Etymologically, the word “Anarchy” means “without rulers;” it does not mean “without laws.” This is an important distinction to make. The anarchist does not reject law as such; rather, he rejects arbitrary, coercive and authoritarian rules made by individuals with no legitimate authority. But how can the anarchist conclude that such rules are arbitrary or that such authority is illegitimate? Only, of course, by comparing them to a universal standard of justice! If anything, the anarchist argues that the state’s rules constitute a perversion of the law, and are authored and enforced by a predatory elite bent on extorting its hapless victims. In fact, it is often the anarchists’ radical devotion to (natural) law, and their insistence that state officials be bound by the same requirements of justice as ordinary citizens, which causes them to become anarchists and rebel against the state in the first place. See, e.g., Lysander Spooner.
The notion that anarchists favor lawlessness and chaos is nothing more than a vulgar cultural cliche and has virtually no basis in any anarchist thinker past or present. While a case could be made that certain thinkers, such as Max Stirner, did indeed reject the law altogether, such thinkers represent a tiny minority of anarchist philosophers, and, further, it is debatable whether they even qualify as anarchists at all. By far, most anarchists recognize that law is essential to a just society and envision a voluntary and polycentric legal order eventually emerging out of the state. See, e.g., Randy Barnett, Bruce Benson.
Thus, your insinuation that anarchism has an alleged affinity with “Satanic religion,” due to its exaltation of lawlessness and categorical “disobedience to any existing law,” is entirely unfounded.
Second, you are guilty of erroneously conflating libertine amoralism with theistic satanism, and then conflating both of those things with anarchy, when neither one has any connection with the others. The phrase “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” comes from Alleister Crowley, who, whatever he might have been, was neither an anarchist nor a theistic satanist. Indeed, far from being anarchistic, Crowley’s thelemic law of libertinism is antithetical to anarchism precisely because it permits what anarchists insist should be forbidden–the arbitrary rule of men by men. To someone like Crowley, there is no problem with a king oppressing his subjects mercilessly according to his will. Only someone who has never read a line of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, Molinari, Rothbard, etc. would ever think of implying that this is even remotely consistent with anarchism.
I would also point out that your presupposition that Satan “rebelled against our creator,” apart from being an absurd statement fraught with countless logical (and theological) difficulties, is not even inherent to theism. Judaism, for example, certainly believes no such thing–in Judaism, Satan is perceived as an obedient servant of God who serves an important role in the divine plan. Therefore, it is not even clear that there is any difficulty here at all, even if one is a theist, and even if all of your incorrect assumptions about anarchy, satanism, libertinism, and law, etc. were valid.
Finally, as someone who is familiar with both anarchist philosophies and who is not a total stranger to what might be termed “the occult,” I am unaware of any empirical evidence supporting the contention that the traditional symbol of anarchy is in any way connected to or originates from the “occult.” I would be more than willing to revise my views if you are able to cite any such evidence to the contrary.
EDIT:
Laughing Man, I apologize for misunderstanding.
I initially thought that you were presenting your own thoughts, but I just realized that you were actually quoting from a website. Sorry!
Laughing Man, I must apologize for misunderstanding your post.
I initially thought that you were presenting your own thoughts, but I just realized that you were actually quoting from a website.
My response still stands, but is directed more to the anonymous author of the passage, not to yourself.
I think you may have simultaneously shot the messenger and preached to the converted [:P] welcome! welcome!
Edit: my welcome still stands.
I don’t believe in anything.
I don’t believe you
One true religion = philosophy.
I am Jewish by birth and (many) practices. In belief, I’m either Jewish or atheist, depending on how you define God and what you think Jewish thought says about God. When I’m asked in person, I usually say “God is a word that is not usually well defined.”
Catholic, though its more of a cultural thing than religious thing in so far as I’m concerned. What can I say really? The traditions are simply too fun. Well some of them. The whole inquisition tradition being not so much.
My guess is it’s a generational difference. Just a guess.
Yeah I find that the culture of the forums has very little to do with the main page of mises.org… I wonder what they think of us?
Probably just a bunch of crazy hooligan anarchists 