Maybe because the theo-cons have stated as such that they want the heathen muslims killed. You know, it might just be FACTS like that, Giles.
IOW: stop being so butthurt about your silly little death-cult being picked on. People who believe silly things shouldn’t get upset when the silly thing is made fun of. And you might want to kill your strawmen and projections about atheists and “attributing god” to cells and whatnot. That just makes you look so far beyond ignorant that you’re up there in Kent Hovind land. Because while you do have the right to your opinion, of course, the fallacious garbage in your opinions will not help you in any discussion. Just a gold nugget’s worth of free advice, Giles. And you should heed it.
Was this supposed to make sense or maybe I’m being thick-headed, which I admittedly can be. So a theocracy can kill millions of people as long as they don’t appeal to God while doing it?
ok and? They killed more than they did? If you don’t advocate theocracy, then why did you advocate theocracy? as follows:
I could barely have asked for a apt demonstration of my previous point: you’ll not believe anything a politician says except when they’re using religion to further their own goals.
No, there is a genuine interest in furthering scienticism. I read that second hand and I’m not sure of the exact wording, nonetheless, I wouldn’t expect any different from somebody as dogmatic as Dawkins.
No, debating religion is tiresome. I was on the other side of this debate 2 years ago calling theists all sorts of names, I know how boring it is.
Pat Robertson isn’t a politician, Giles. Nor are the rest of that bunch. Nor was the US Army General who said that “Our god is bigger than their god”. You REALLY need to not be butthurt.
yawn
Kid, grow up. Being butthurt because people don’t like your belief system and because you LIE about what others believe just makes you look immature.
Gradual process, from atheism through agnosticism and “I believe in something, I just don’t know what” to Christianity. For most of my life I’d only ever really heard the atheist side of the debate, then I began looking elsewhere.
Yes, I am. Now either do the research about the topic or be silent. Your lack of knowledge here is not my problem, nor anyone else’s except yours. Get used to it.
Except not. I simply annihilated your strawman. Now learn to not create them, ok?
I would if it came up in conversation–and especially if he had the chip that Giles clearly does. You see: I don’t believe that all beliefs are worthy of respect.
Hm…Oh. You were an agnostic ? How can an agnostic who really understands an epistemological position such as agnosticism become a theist ? That’s like an economist who understands subjective value but then becomes a marxist who believes the LTV is right…
No, you wouldn’t. Nor would you to the likes of Feser or Plantinga, fact is you feel quite confident here (a forum with little to no knowledge of the subject) with a moderator team of social leftists and atheists to back you up.
Good on you, Giles. So you admit that you spoke out of ignorance. S’ok.
Yeah Giles, I would. And I would with Feser and Plantinga (whose idiotic “all possible worlds” nonsense makes me laugh. As if, somehow, he can magically wave away the problem that all ontological arguments have of treating existence as a predicate, just as Kant pointed out).
Anyway, did you happen to read the Smith essay I linked to several pages back?
It’s important to remember the audience I’m going after here: minarchists. These are people who already accept that competition is more efficient than monopoly, aggression is wrong, socialism doesn’t work, etc. They just need to be shown the logical conclusion of their arguments. (For that matter, anarchism is the logical conclusion of even a presumption in favor of self-determination.)
I’m aiming this at people who already have some exposure to political philosophy. If the audience was total beginners, then I would definitely go with a simpler and more dumbed-down approach.
Moreover, I think people need to realize that political philosophy is not easy; it’s actually a lot of hard work. This list is ~250 pages, but it’s only an introduction to market anarchism. If someone is unfamiliar with these or similar writings, it’s irresponsible for them to be holding strong opinions. Minarchists who claim that “anarchy is chaos” but haven’t read anything are just wasting everyone’s time.
True that. The list isn’t set in stone; it could always be changed to be more effective.
And Sage, thanks for the list. I accept that aggression is wrong, and I know that, followed to it’s logical end, it means the government violates this. For some reason though, I still have this idea in my mind of a very small government committed to only protecting it’s citizens from violence. Hopefully this will help.