haha ! thanks for that John !
That guy is way more entertaining than Nietzsche…
+1
Hilarious!
I am an atheist and I would never force my lack-of-belief to anyone. That being said, couple of months ago, I was fooled into going to a short movies festival, but little did I know that it was organized by a christian student organization (everystudent). After the films a girl went up on stage and started a lecture on god. Since I felt cheated into this (after that I saw the poster and noticed that the everystudent logo was written in a super tiny print on the bottom), I started to say “penis” after every sentence she spoke. It fitted nicely with the part of the story where she was rich yet empty inside and needed something more. Some people started laughing but the girl finished her lecture with a strong face. That night I gained special respect for religion. To keep it serious even though somebody was saying the word ‘penis’ takes a toll on a man. Such courage. That never worked for me, probably because of my wicked, wicked ways.
Not only do I not believe in god, but I’m not one either, so it doesn’t really matter what I think the past would have been if there were no religions. These hypothetical situations are useless and secondly, I can’t really draw a line on what defines a religion.
Otto, welcome to the forum. You can start making good posts anytime.
liberty student wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 4 2010 2:37 AM:
Even going to a medical doctor, approved by the latest state academics and state bureaucrats, isn’t a guarantee that he will provide the best or most competent treatment for your son. It is a faith in his training, a faith in the odds, a faith in the state, a faith in science, a faith in the social norms for medical treatment, whatever rationale you need, in order to make that leap of faith and act.
Poppycock.
We may be perfectly rational in the Misesian sense, but we don’t have access to perfect knowledge, and this is where Athesist arguments become unglued. You can’t perfectly know God doesn’t exist, and I am sure many would agree, you can’t really prove he does. So belief or disbelief in God is an act of faith, that what you do not know isn’t different than what you think.
I never claimed nor implied that humans have perfect knowledge. Also, what atheism has to do with it? It’s not about knowledge. I don’t need to know something doesn’t exist to not believe in it. Didn’t you take a course of skepticism and critical thinking?
disbelief in God is an act of faith
Oh my lord. Here we go again, really.
Anyone who believes that it is religion and religion alone that motivates war is a lunatic. A fringe lunatic.
Humans compete, humans desire to acquire status, this invariably leads to warfare - It is part of the human condition.
Leftists say we should get rid of religion, because they are fools that dream up complicated explanations for observable reality. Austro-Libertarians like us say that prosperity can conquer war. Peace through trade and so on.
^Where did WillBlake said that?
Here:
In response to a post that said religion was not the originator of violence, merely a justification of it.
@Otto: Brlliant story!
This post is better than sky cake. In all seriousness, I think Germanicus has hit the nail on the head. To anyone who believes religion is responsible for war or the use of force–go and study late Republican Roman history. The clash of egos between Marius and Sulla, Caesar and Pompeius, and Octavian and Antonius is a perfect example of conflicts originating from “human desire to acquire status.” Religion was used as a tool by all sides, but ultimately the civil wars occurred because the each of these great men desired to be the first man in Rome, whatever the cost.
A tool for producing automatons willing to delegate difficult questions to “higher, smarter authority” and ready to submit (forfeit) their individuality to the collectivist fashion of the day. It is but one reflection of the evolutionary collectivist curse of mankind.
Z.
That’s a strange thing to say, Z.
Because religion also has been nothing but rebellion on many occasions as well.
Was Christ not a rebel? Was Luther not a rebel? Were Spanish monks protecting native Americans not rebels? Were Dutch in South Africa not rebels?
Hell, weren’t the people who overthrew the cruel and corrupt Shah of Iran also not rebels?
Nothing strange about it, Prateek. Rebellions also take advantage of the same tool I described. Individualists are much harder herded behind a rebel-leader, or any leader for that matter, to their evolutionary detriment.
Religion prepares/pre-wires the unquestioning automaton fodder. Then it’s only a matter of time for Alexander, Caesar, Jesus, Mohammed, Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Castro, Hussein, Pope, etc. to feed a cannon with the fodder and point it in the “right” direction.
Z.
Some religions venerate questioning and there are countless examples of religious folk challenging established doctrine, or the teachings of their leaders.
Why is it poppycock? Or are you just demonstrating the strength of your faith in modern medical science?
Right, and without perfect knowledge, you have to act on faith.
But you don’t know it doesn’t exist. You can’t. It is not possible to disprove the existence of God. That would be a negative proof. You can choose not to believe in God (because you think the story is unsound, it doesn’t appeal to you, or any other aesthetic), and that is an act of faith.
No, I didn’t take any courses. However, I would suggest you investigate epistemology and what it means. You can critical think as hard as you like, you cannot know what you do not know.
What else can it be? You cannot disprove the existence of God, correct? So you can’t make a logical argument against God. All you can do is reflect the biases you hold based on your limited understanding and the evidence you consider pertinent. But that still doesn’t constitute proof. At one point, you take a leap of faith. You must. We all do, each and every day. Thousands of times per day.
What I am prosposing is not so radical, you should start with the Gerard Casey video I referred to in this thread.
To some extent, yes, but those are exceptions and not defining descriptors of it. There’s a limit to the questioning a religion (or collectivist movement) can sustain without collapsing under its weight. The Communist Party welcomed(s) and encouraged(s) “constructive criticism”. Unquestioning acceptance of dogma (faith) is a defining characteristic of religion as a collectivist tool.
Z, your view is very western-centric. You are missing out on ancient asian religions which do not share the same characteristics as faiths with their root in Abraham. I would argue that establishment Judaism, Islam and Christianity are statist movements, not genuine religions.
Some religions venerate questioning and there are countless examples of religious folk challenging established doctrine, or the teachings of their leaders.
Indeed, I sometimes joke to my friends that I’m an atheist hindu and they look at me incredulously. Yet opinion doesn’t refute historical fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka
I believe Mises’ view of religion was heavily influenced by the fact he was almost wholly exposed to only the Judaic religions.
I agree with liberty student.
Heathens don’t believe in the middle eastern Judea-Christian God.
Are you trying to make a joke, or are you actually referring to Asians as heathens?
I meant to write that establishment religious movements are like all other establishment movements. They are WHOLLY statist and not religion. Just as mainstream economics is wholly statist, and not economic science.
Also, if anyone was wondering, I am an agnostic leaning towards atheism. But I understand my near-atheism for what it is. I’m not under the sway of some comforting belief in the power of science and modernity.