Believing in religion [today] and being an advocate of a stateless society...

[Esuric]

@Conza88

The point I’m making, and that you’re missing - is that just because atheism has increased(?) in no way does it mean that the source is marxist.

Of course not. I’m saying that religion as the “opiate of the masses” is an extremely effective and influential concept, along with conflict theory, class interests, exploitation, alienation, materialism, the superstructure and others (all of which dominate the American intellectual scene).

@Conza88

That’s right, but it addresses the principle - far more important, since your question was basically a red herring.

So your far more “important” point is that Marx cannot be responsible for today’s anti-religious sentiments because atheism predates Marx?

@Conza88

Furthermore; it’s the classical liberals we have to thank… not the marxists.

"The object of the classical liberals was to bring about individual liberty in all of its interrelated aspects. In the economy, taxes were to be drastically reduced, controls and regulations eliminated, and human energy, enterprise, and markets set free to create and produce in exchanges that would benefit everyone and the mass of consumers. Entrepreneurs were to be free at last to compete, to develop, to create. The shackles of control were to be lifted from land, labor, and capital alike. Personal freedom and civil liberty were to be guaranteed against the depredations and tyranny of the king or his minions. Religion, the source of bloody wars for centuries when sects were battling for control of the State, was to be set free from State imposition or interference, so that all religions — or nonreligions — could coexist in peace. Peace, too, was the foreign policy credo of the new classical liberals; the age-old regime of imperial and State aggrandizement for power and pelf was to be replaced by a foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations. And since war was seen as engendered by standing armies and navies, by military power always seeking expansion, these military establishments were to be replaced by voluntary local militia, by citizen-civilians who would only wish to fight in defense of their own particular homes and neighborhoods.

Thus, the well-known theme of “separation of Church and State” was but one of many interrelated motifs that could be summed up as “separation of the economy from the State,” “separation of speech and press from the State,” “separation of land from the State,” “separation of war and military affairs from the State,” indeed, the separation of the State from virtually everything."

A few problems with this analysis: (1) The United States is the most religious western industrialized nation; (2) Anglo-American classical liberalism deduced their natural law philosophy from the belief in some kind of universal creator, and the vast vast majority of them were theists (some were deists); (3) The desire to separate the church from the state is an attack on theocracy more than anything else. It really has nothing to do with theism or atheism. I have no problem with the desire to separate the church from the state; I don’t support either of them in their current form (a common theistic/classical liberal position).

@Conza88

Not ridiculous at all. Individuals with power, attempt to increase it - in all areas of life, they are parasites and want a bigger piece of the pie. What is a natural scenario - the growth of government everywhere, you attribute all to Marx? HAHAH…!! Get a grip.

Non sequitur. I’m not talking about the growth of government; I’m talking about the wide-spread dominance of Marxian philosophy and political economy amongst intellectual circles which permeates amongst the rest of society. Marx gave them a philosophical, sociological and “scientific” economic doctrine as a means towards their desired ends. The fact that Marxian thought dominates economic, sociological and political theory makes him what? Obscure?

Who are the three most influential economists in your opinion?

@Conza88

There are other sources… and as correctly pointed out by Neilso - marxism is a religion in of itself, so your point is erroneous.

It’s not a religion, but it resembles religion in some ways (as do most philosophical doctrines). Either way, this wouldn’t make my point erroneous; religions can destroy religions, and frequently do (Buddhism replaced Shintoism in Japan). There’s no need for knee-jerk reactions; I’m not saying that you’re a Marxist because you’re an atheist. I’m saying that ideas matter; they permeate amongst the lay people who are effected by them without even knowing it.

[wilderness]

@Jesse

I’m not convinced. The Israelites demanded a king, and God (through Samuel) warned them about the evil that would follow. Israel had no state prior to this. More interestingly, God recognized this demand for a State as a rejection of him. (Is this not reason enough to demonstrate that anarchism is the Christian position?)

Way before I was introduced to Austrian economics or even ever heard of anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, anarchy, etc… Anyways… I always found that passage in the Bible to be an outstanding attempt of describing what naturally had to be a historical event in which humankind gave up their free-thinking and allowed another man to rule over them and think for them. I totally agreed with it. I still do. The Israelities at that time rejected God as being where their guidance would come from. At that point on they demanded that a son of man and not a son of god be how their life is guided. It was no longer wandering as a sheep herder type of life in which realizations about life and universe naturally come about as a free-thinker in a Thoreau Walden Pond mannerism, but they demanded another man tell them what to do and institute humankind in a self-created prison. Kinda reminds me of Shawshank Redemption.

Glad to see somebody else has read that same instance in the Bible. Even if that passage is pure poetry and not historical in nature, I think it drives the point home.

[Malthus]

@Nielsio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-Vr_r36Fg

A cogent video featuring a deeply flawed man.

Nonetheless, there’s still hope:

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/06/19/walter-block-wrong-on-religion.aspx

@Bert

I’m sure the beliefs of the Church of Satan are widely libertarian in nature.

I think the same of Gary North’s writings.

[CrazyCoot]

@Andius

@CrazyCoot

I’ve heard some convincing arguments to be made for the notion that the Render unto Caesar passage was a lot more radical in terms of anti-statism than most folks think .

Truth be told, the expression “Render unto Caesar what belong’s to Caesars and to God what belongs to God” was hardly an anti-statist expression (That’s the modernist reader inserting values that did not exist in that time period). The expression is declaring, to put it in our terms, “Because this coin has the face of the Caesar, lets get rid of this coin and be rid of it’s image amongst us!” An answer that cleverly satisfied Judaic separatist notions, yet at the same time, did not incur the wrath of Rome either, and in effect, leaving his questioners who challenged him with the question looking like idiots.

There was no such thing as Separation of Church and State in that era, or to put it in their terms (I hate anachronisms), no Separation of a religious system and a domain of a lord.

@CrazyCoot

I don’t know; part of me believes that religious institutions can provide alternative institutions to the state and they can give people some moral fiber while resisting the state.

Some people do that.

@CrazyCoot

But another part does acknowledge that their record of supporting the state, equating opposition to the regime with opposition to God, living off taxpayers’ dollars, and for the most part preaching the notion (as Hitchens put it) of a deity who has a lot in common with Kim Jong-Il.

Many do so so, your point? Pfftt, that comparison that Hitchens pulls off be nothing more than a Strawman of God, typical of Fundamentalist Atheists like Hitchens.

@CrazyCoot

The part of the New Testament that strikes me as the most pro-anarchist is the one where the Devil promises Jesus reign over all the kingdoms of the Earth. Perhaps he was lying and did not have the power to give away the crowns. But what if he were telling Jesus the truth?

There is nothing pro-anarchist regarding Jesus’ rejection of lordship of the world, that’s you reading your own modernistic values and understanding in a text where no such values existed in it’s time period. Satan was not lying when he offered every kingdom on Earth, but what Satan did was the equivalent of offering a dime to a person that already owned billions and billions of dollars (It in effect, portrays Satan as a fool.). It’s a Shame and Riposte challenge, one that Satan lost miserably in the narrative. There is nothing anarchist about it (Jesus, as King, is going to retake the world either way by establishing his kingdom on Earth, making Satan’s offer all the more silly).

Well then it’s implied that Satan does have control over the Earthly kingdoms?

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

[charliehorse]

@CrazyCoot

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

God is the creator of the universe; it is his private property. He can do whatever he wants with it. This includes instituting, and enforcing laws for those who live on his property. This is not Kim Jong-Il-style totalitarianism. It is the exercise of property rights.

[cpacia]

Well for one I am a Christian and an anarcho-captialist. I guess I am the rare breed you all talk about. But as libertarians aren’t we all a rare breed? Anyway, I spent a number of years as a conservative, or Christian conservative is guess you could say, but was converted to libertarianism by studying economics and political thoery. So yes, I would certainly say Christains can be pursuaded to libertarianism by making either the moral (voluntary) case or the utilitarian economic case.

I personally get really ticked at all the so-called Christains that claim we need massive socialism to “help the poor” or something like that. As if they are tyring to alude that Christ would approve of it. I wanna say, “O really? Christ would’ve approve of swat teams kicking down peoples doors and sticking assult rifles in the face of people who refuse to give to charity?!?!?” True charity comes from the heart, not from the point of a gun. I find it sad that most Christians don’t get that basic concept.

As far as why would I read the king james version of the bible? As a Christian I believe the bible is the word of God. It doesn’t matter so much to me how it came into existance, I believe God has inspired it.

[Giant_Joe]

Chris, check out my sig.

[Nielsio]

@Jesse

@CrazyCoot

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

God is the creator of the universe; it is his private property. He can do whatever he wants with it. This includes instituting, and enforcing laws for those who live on his property. This is not Kim Jong-Il-style totalitarianism. It is the exercise of property rights.

So you hold the belief that when parents create their children and feed them, they are their property for the rest of their life?

[charliehorse]

@Nielsio

@Jesse

@CrazyCoot

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

God is the creator of the universe; it is his private property. He can do whatever he wants with it. This includes instituting, and enforcing laws for those who live on his property. This is not Kim Jong-Il-style totalitarianism. It is the exercise of property rights.

So you hold the belief that when parents create their children and feed them, they are their property for the rest of their life?

Nope. This isn’t what the bible teaches. We are bound by God’s laws; God is bound by no laws.

[Nielsio]

@Jesse

@CrazyCoot

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

God is the creator of the universe; it is his private property. He can do whatever he wants with it. This includes instituting, and enforcing laws for those who live on his property. This is not Kim Jong-Il-style totalitarianism. It is the exercise of property rights.

So if God wants to kill everybody, that’s cool?

Bonus-question: if God told you to kill peaceful people, would you do it?

[wilderness]

@Nielsio

@Jesse

@CrazyCoot

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

God is the creator of the universe; it is his private property. He can do whatever he wants with it. This includes instituting, and enforcing laws for those who live on his property. This is not Kim Jong-Il-style totalitarianism. It is the exercise of property rights.

So if God wants to kill everybody, that’s cool?Bonus-question: if God told you to kill peaceful people, would you do it?

Use your atheist reasoning skills.[:P] He’s a libertarian. I thereby assume he knows of the NAP. What do you think?

[charliehorse]

@Nielsio

So if God wants to kill everybody, that’s cool?

Sure. We’re his property.

@Nielsio

if God told you to kill peaceful people, would you do it?

Yes. But he doesn’t. So I won’t. Moreover, he specifically commanded against doing this.

[Orthogonal]

@Jesse

@Nielsio

So if God wants to kill everybody, that’s cool?

Sure. We’re his property.

@Nielsio

if God told you to kill peaceful people, would you do it?

Yes. But he doesn’t. So I won’t. Moreover, he specifically commanded against doing this.

Have you ever read the old testament? There are numerous examples of the wanton slaughter of innocent people.

[charliehorse]

@Orthogonal

@Jesse

@Nielsio

So if God wants to kill everybody, that’s cool?

Sure. We’re his property.

@Nielsio

if God told you to kill peaceful people, would you do it?

Yes. But he doesn’t. So I won’t. Moreover, he specifically commanded against doing this.

Have you ever read the old testament? There are numerous examples of the wanton slaughter of innocent people.

We’re not living in the old testament.

[Conza]

@Esuric

@Conza88

The point I’m making, and that you’re missing - is that just because atheism has increased(?) in no way does it mean that the source is marxist.

Of course not. I’m saying that religion as the “opiate of the masses” is an extremely effective and influential concept, along with conflict theory, class interests, exploitation, alienation, materialism, the superstructure and others (all of which dominate the American intellectual scene).

Alright good. The reason “opiate of the masses” is effective(?), is because there is a kernel of truth to it.

"Consent is also actively encouraged and engineered by the rulers; and this is another major reason for the persistence of civil obedience. Various devices are used by rulers to induce such consent. One method is by providing the masses with circuses, with entertaining diversions:

Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.[34]

Another method of inducing consent is purely ideological: duping the masses into believing that the tyrannical ruler is wise, just, and benevolent. Thus, La Boétie points out, the Roman emperors assumed the ancient title of Tribune of the People because the concept had gained favor among the public as representing a guardian of their liberties. Hence, the assumption of despotism under the cloak of the old liberal form.

In modern times, La Boétie adds, rulers present a more sophisticated version of such propaganda, for “they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good.”[35] Reinforcing ideological propaganda is deliberate mystification: “The kings of the Assyrians and … the Medes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds of the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man.”

Back in the day, it was divine right.

“(all of which dominate the American intellectual scene).” - Alright, great I’m not American though and it hardly permeates throughout society where I live. There is statism, but there is rejection of marxism.

@Esuric

@Conza88

Not ridiculous at all. Individuals with power, attempt to increase it - in all areas of life, they are parasites and want a bigger piece of the pie. What is a natural scenario - the growth of government everywhere, you attribute all to Marx? HAHAH…!! Get a grip.

Non sequitur. I’m not talking about the growth of government; I’m talking about the wide-spread dominance of Marxian philosophy and political economy amongst intellectual circles which permeates amongst the rest of society. Marx gave them a philosophical, sociological and “scientific” economic doctrine as a means towards their desired ends.

No, it follows. Yeah, he provided the cloak of ideology for the state. Just as Keynes did. There are different ideologies used at different times to achieve the same end.

@Esuric

Who are the three most influential economists in your opinion?

Adam Smith, Keynes, Alfred Marshall.

@Esuric

@Conza88

There are other sources… and as correctly pointed out by Neilso - marxism is a religion in of itself, so your point is erroneous.

It’s not a religion, but it resembles religion in some ways (as do most philosophical doctrines). Either way, this wouldn’t make my point erroneous; religions can destroy religions, and frequently do (Buddhism replaced Shintoism in Japan). There’s no need for knee-jerk reactions; I’m not saying that you’re a Marxist because you’re an atheist. I’m saying that ideas matter; they permeate amongst the lay people who are effected by them without even knowing it.

And why is it not a religion?

[Caley_McKibbin]

The close substition goods explanation is a good one. Because I believe in neither I would not have thought of it myself.

[Orthogonal]

@Jesse

We’re not living in the old testament.

Nice side step. The commandment “Do not kill” was given to Moses during Old Testament times. Why is it enforced now, but not so much then.

[charliehorse]

@Orthogonal

Nice side step. The commandment “Do not kill” was given to Moses during Old Testament times. Why is it enforced now, but not so much then.

Because it was a moral commandment. All moral commandments still apply. God’s direction to kill certain people were not moral commands.

[Esuric]

@CrazyCoot

Hitchen’s point is valid; the God as we know it is a totalitarian dictator. That idea doesn’t sit well with some people; call it a strawman or whatever. But what else do you call an omnipotent force that determines where you spend eternity.

In fact, it’s not valid in anyway whatever. It’s a ridiculous non sequitur uttered by someone who either (a) has never heard the theistic arguments for God, or (b) chooses to ignore them for his own self-serving reasons. Once upon a time you could actually debate the existence of God (cosmological arguments, problem of evil, ect) in a rational way. Today, you have demagogues repeating ridiculous one liners and attacking straw men. Here’s a real debate.

You determine where you spend eternity. You are responsible for your own actions, as you control yourself. You live in the real world armed with only reason.

[wilderness]

@Esuric

Here’s a real debate.

I can’t do two things at once with that debate. That is a real debate. A lot of intellectual strength put forth there. The terminology and thus the knowledge was extremely sharp.

I’ll have to bookmark that just to hear to people talk with such intellectual vigor for the heck of it.

Thanks.