The same way you dismiss religion is the same way leftists dismiss capitalism–its dismissal is taken for granted by the majority of academics. Instead of wizards, magicians, etc., the leftist would term it radical, fire-breathing, survival of the fittest-cum-radical randian individualism, which of course is the root of evil.
I also never would have thought that chronological snobbery was the proper way to make an inference.
The same way you dismiss religion is the same way leftists dismiss capitalism–its dismissal is taken for granted by the majority of academics. Instead of wizards, magicians, etc., the leftist would term it radical, fire-breathing, survival of the fittest-cum-radical randian individualism, which of course is the root of evil.
True, but left wingers little ghostsand tropes are culturally entrenched at the moment, more classical religous ones are not. And any association with a classical religous sentiment that I have no attachment to already puts me at a disadvantage when addressing a leftist Secular Humanist. There in lies the major difference.
I don’t think religion is the ‘root of all evil’, I just think it’s a ridiculous cultural trope that makes absolutely no sense and deserves no serious treatment except as a cultural or historical phenomenon. I know religious folks get into a tizzy about it, but I really don’t care as it flies in the face of the laws of logic and appeasing the offended sentiments of religious people is not interesting to me in the least.
I actually like the Bible, it’s the people who take it seriously that I can not.
I see absolutely no evidence of this in regards to religion, although it is perhaps something you personally would like to see happen
No STATE religion is libertarian.
In fact, one of the easiest way to expalin ancap to an atheist liberal is to make the analogy to freedom of religion: You don’t need a state religion to be religious, and you don’t need state programs to be social, have justice, …
That kind of dismisses the fact that it’s the number one (or close to it) philosophical discussion of all time. Whether or not there is a God. I’ve heard good arguments and I’ve heard bad arguments for the existence and inexistence of God, but I’ve never been able to understand that there is some sort of proof against the supernatural or that believing in it is somehow ridiculous. The Simulation Argument is the most plausible one in my opinion and I guess that’s technically a religion.
That kind of dismisses the fact that it’s the number one (or close to it) philosophical discussion of all time.
And it is so obviously wrong. Like most ‘philosophical’ debates that go on so hotly, it’s just a bunch of gibberish and misapplied language. That’s the only reason it’s so ‘mysterious’. The real world exists, it’s mechanical-logical, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. All this Kantian wonkery and Platonic nonsense are utterly worthless and incoherent.
‘God’ is not even a word that means anything. ‘Omnipotence’, along with every other attribute, contradicts itself, contradicts the other attributes, and contrdicts agency and identity. It’s such a clusterfack of stupidities; I’d rather argue with a Marxist. ‘Supernatural’ is more crankery.
I wish I could dismiss my opponents that easily. So far nearly every one of your posts in this thread has been filled with sweeping assertions and hasty generalizations and generally a snobby attitude. For instance:
"Arguing with people like you just gives you credibility. That’s why you uneducated, irrational fanatical bigots need to be shouted down by reasonable, open-minded, well-read, tolerant people like me. Science is BS, and you know it. It’s just so obvious. So why don’t you go back to eating your tasty flavored quarks and tying your vibrating 11-dimensional shoestrings over at your Uncle Monkey’s house, OK?"
Now just replace the scientific and technical terms with religious connotations, and this is basically the summation of your contributions to this thread thus far.
Just for the record: If you were to debate contemporary philosophers of religion on the subject, you would unquestioningly lose; you wouldn’t stand a chance. It’s a lot more indepth than you make it out to be, which to me is just a sign that you really don’t understand what you’re talking about, and in fact are satisfied in erecting crude caricatures.
Well, the point is I’m not arguing. I’m not claiming to have made any in depth arguments. I’m just telling you why I won’t bother. Not every proposition is worthy of refutation. Read George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God if you want to see my general view on religion on the supernatural, and any of the books on Christianity by Robert M. Price to get why I especially can’t take Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions seriously.
I certainly don’t fit into the Dawkins and Dennet ‘neo-atheist’ crowd because they generally use spurious arguments (the problem of evil) or a positivist approach which misses the point (nothing would count as ‘evidence’ for or against ‘God’, it is a purely logical proposition).
Non-supernatural deities, like Zeus, are logical possibilities - they aren’t supernatural beings so much as superheroes. The reasons I don’t believe in Zeus do have to do with evidence like historical criticism and the lack of any godly palace on Mt. Olympus; it is really a different problem than omnipotent monotheistic religions.
Smith debates a theologian here on Youtube.
*Correction - should read: “So far nearly every one of your posts, anywhere, ever.”
Ricky James,
you preach about atheism like a church preaches about christianity… its quite funny
No really, I don’t care if people believe in Vishnu or Batman. Most atheists are basically just Ultracalvinism minus the God part, so it’s not like they’ve made a lot of progress. Religion is BS, but it’s hardly the biggest problem on humanity’s plate; and as I am not interested in saving the world I really don’t consider it an important topic.
I have been an atheist for a long time now, but true illumination came when I stopped believing in the state. I also find it easier to attract people to libertarianism that are alredy irreligious, don’t know why.
All of my close friends were libertarians or something like it before I actually ever talked to them about it. I guess I really only associate with openly self-centered intellectual types.
I agree completely, so why would you make a thread about it?
Not to argue with the Christoids, obviously. There are non-Christians who argue that Islam/Daoism/Christianity, blah blah blah, are libertarian; it was them I was talking about.
Not to belabor the point (and invite some red herrings/ad hominems) but here’s my thoughts.
If you’re talking economic/politcal libertarianism, then religions would be moot on the subject or at least compatible or indirectly supporting it. It’s silly to lump all religions because religions have different doctrines. It sounds rather simple-minded to point this out, but the “all religions are the same” charge is only partially true – of course religions are similar; which is why they call fall under the rubric of “religions” and not tabletops or Ford sedans. It wouldn’t be wise to pass over the intricacies of such a large sociological phenomenon like that.
But if you’re talking about spiritual libertarianism (for lack of a better term), then most religions, I don’t think, are libertarian, since most of them are totalitarian dicatorships by nature.
There are non-Christians who argue that Islam/Daoism/Christianity, blah blah blah, are libertarian; it was them I was talking about.
Are you talking about Constant, Tocqueville, and Acton from Ralph Raico’s “The Place of Religion in the Liberal Philosophy of Constant, Tocqueville, and Lord Acton”?
http://mises.org/books/place_of_religion_raico.pdf
I am enjoying the read.Eeventhough I don’t understand the French, I get the basic idea of what Constant is saying.
If you were to debate contemporary philosophers of religion on the subject, you would unquestioningly lose; you wouldn’t stand a chance. It’s a lot more indepth than you make it out to be
If you get subsidized to do nothing but intellectually masturbate about nonsense for 40 plus hours a week, surrounding yourself with others doing the same, there is no possible way you can compete with that man’s language. I would probably lose a debate to a dedicated alchemist, you can not compete with prepared sophistry, particularly if it’s subsidized. They make a career off of being coy, as it pays the bills and affirms one’s comparative advantage. It is the same with subsidized musicians and music theory and the languages they create.
Of course if it does get “really in depth”, that only adds to the comedy and kind of defeats the purpose of anything worth caring about.
Ten points for the person who finds the fallacy in this post.